Hansard -- Volume 19, Number 25 -- Wednesday, May 31, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 25

[ Page 16003 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

C. Hansen: We're very honoured today to have an exciting group of young grade 5 students from Crofton House School in the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. They're accompanied by their teacher Ms. Harris and accompanying chaperons. I hope the House will make them very welcome today.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, as many will have read in the paper, fresh from the success of getting imitation cheese on the Ontario market -- which is good for all the lactose-intolerant -- and looking at the imitation Liberals opposite, I'm delighted to have two genuine articles with us on the floor today: Mr. Allan Warnke and Mr. Bob Chisholm. They are here -- the genuine

article as Liberals. They are accompanied by their wives Geraldine Warnke and Janet Chisholm.

I would also like the House, please, to make welcome a guest who is in the galleries, Ms. Lynn Primeau-Charman, who is the president of Primeau Communications, Victoria. Would the House please make all of these welcome, and certainly our colleagues from the past.

[1410]

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to extend my and our welcome to our former colleagues sitting on the other side of the House. There are now three of my former colleagues on the other side of the House. Two have gone the way that this one will eventually, but we welcome them to come back at some time in the future and sit on that side of the House, when there's a different government perhaps.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the precincts today are grade 11 students from Enver Creek Secondary School, a new secondary school in my constituency. These are honour students who are here with their social studies teacher. They've been studying governance and political ideology and classical

definitions of politics and parties, and so on. They're accompanied by their social studies teacher Mr. Nahli and another of their teachers, Mr. Bill Piket, who is a friend and colleague of many people in this Legislature. I would ask people to please make them welcome.

L. Reid: Members of this House will know that some months back I raised the issue of the Child Services Equality Act. Members will know that it's day 7 of a 90-day petitioning period for signatures to be collected so that children in the province will not sit on wait-lists. The proponents of this initiative are in the gallery today: Mr. Jim McDermott and Ms. Penny Kellett. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Joining us today are some visitors representing the B.C. Cycling Coalition. They are John Luton and Megan Klassen of the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition; Jim Alix, past-president of the Nanaimo Cycling Coalition; Alan Dunlop, the Nanaimo Bike Week 2000 coordinator; Kari Hewett of Better Environmentally Sound Transportation in Vancouver; Allan Callandar, provincial biking coordinator; Francis Van Loon, president of the B.C. Cycling Coalition; and Colin Brander, B.C. Cycling Coalition, Vancouver area. These good folks are here today to help us celebrate the importance of cycling in B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of these good folks.

J. Wilson: Today I have the pleasure of introducing 13 students from the McLeese Lake Elementary School in my riding. They're accompanied by their principal Michael Franklin, a teacher, Kristy Davis, and two parents, Marie Beck and Kim Atchison. McLeese Lake Elementary School is one of the elementary schools that is facing closure in my riding. It is an important part of the community there, and Marie and Kim have worked tirelessly to persuade the minister to keep the school open. They're here again today to try and have the minister address any possible inequities in the funding formula for school district 27. I ask that the House make them welcome.

T. Stevenson: First I'd like to thank the member for Peace River South for the prayers for the man of the cloth from Coquitlam-Maillardville. I understand there were excommunication procedures beginning in the United Church, and I think these prayers will be very helpful for him.

I would also like to introduce a large number of young people from the Wellington Elementary School in Woodinville, Washington. They are accompanied by their teachers and a parent, Mrs. Krivanek. They're here, of course, to watch some of the procedures in the House today. I hope all members will make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce to the House a lady who now lives in Fort St. John and used to live on Vancouver Island. She is Lisa Hofmeister, who works part-time with me in my constituency office.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have the honour to introduce three special guests today. They're representatives of Power-Pets of B.C. Residents. They are Julian Benedict, Pavlik Stooshnoff and Poroersca Kirchner. They were here earlier, at around noon, in front of the Legislature presenting a petition calling for changing the Residential Tenancy Act to eliminate discrimination against pets in rental accommodations. Would the House please welcome them.

[1415]

G. Farrell-Collins: About two years ago a young gentleman came and worked in our research department in the Liberal opposition as a researcher responsible for the finance area and a few others as well. His name is Michael Goehring. He is absolutely a top-notch researcher and individual. He has been a huge asset to us and has done a great deal of service to the people of British Columbia. But he's leaving us today; today is his last day after two years. He's off to Vancouver. The reason he's going to Vancouver is because he is getting married. He will be moving to be closer to his spouse, something that all of us, I think, could relate to.

The reason why that's relevant is that I had the pleasure of having dinner with him and his fiancée and my fiancée -- the four of us -- in Amsterdam last September. Little did we know at the time that he was embarking on his way to Morocco to get engaged, and I was embarking on my way to France to get engaged. Neither of us knew that.

That's relevant, too, because today in the gallery with him is his future father-in-law, Pat McGuire. I just want Mr.

[ Page 16004 ]

McGuire to know that he's lucking in here. He's going to have a wonderful son-in-law, someone who he can always be proud of and who has done good service to the province of British Columbia, and we hope he will continue to do that in the future. Would you please make them welcome.

B. Penner: I too would like to acknowledge the presence of my predecessor the former MLA for Chilliwack, Bob Chisholm, as well as the former member for Richmond-Steveston, Mr. Warnke. Perhaps they're sitting on the government side of the House because the government needs all the support it can possibly get.

Also, I'd like to extend a warm welcome to a number of people who are in the precincts today: Mayor Sylvia Pranger from Agassiz and four other members of the district of Kent council who are here meeting with a variety of government officials. I had the pleasure of spending some time with them this morning. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

D. Streifel: It's not often that folks from the Agassiz-Kent area of my constituency come down. I would like to join the member for Chilliwack in welcoming the councillors from the district of Kent and, in particular, Councillor Ted Westlin, who's a longtime friend of mine. I bid them all welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

Hon. J. Doyle presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.

Hon. J. Doyle: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Doyle: As this government promised in the throne speech a couple of months back, we are working to reduce costs for industry and government while we at the same time ensure sustainable use of our forests in British Columbia.

Bill 11 contains a number of modest amendments to the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the Range Act to accomplish this goal. Some of those are measures to enhance sustainable forest management, and those will be modest and beneficial to the environment. Other amendments are part of our cost-driver streamlining project that was started in other years by the previous minister. Those will produce cost savings for the forest industry and for government.

As with all of the cost-driver measures, we insist that the natural environment of British Columbia's forests and the integrity of the Forest Practices Code continue to be maintained. The changes in this bill build on this government's commitment to reduce costs and maintain a healthy environment. I move that Bill 11 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1420]

Bill 11 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.

PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. J. Sawicki presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Sawicki: It does give me great pleasure to introduce this bill today, one that confirms yet again British Columbia's international leadership in the establishment of protected areas. This new legislation, entitled the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, begins the process of building a statute that reflects our commitment to preserving and managing protected areas in our province.

The bill does several things. First, it establishes 29 new class A parks and six new ecological reserves. As well, it makes additions to 13 existing class A parks. Together these new areas encompass more than 264,000 hectares or about 1,000 square miles. The creation of these new areas is the result of the dedicated effort of many British Columbians from all walks of life who participated in land use planning tables. For the information of members, the office of the Clerk and each caucus will be provided with the copies of maps, for their review, that depict the boundaries of the new areas.

Secondly, this bill provides a very important step in the preservation of protected areas by consolidating existing parks and ecological reserves under this one act. Bill 17 transfers 169 existing class A parks and 136 ecological reserves previously established by orders-in-council to schedules in the new act. This transfer will provide permanent legislative protection to these areas. The consolidation of these areas into one act is the first step towards a new legislative framework for the protected areas of British Columbia.

British Columbians have made their voices heard. They want parks and protected areas and ecological reserves to forever preserve outstanding ecosystems that represent this province's exceptional diversity of wildlife, fish, vegetation communities, geographical wonder and recreational opportunities. This government has listened. We've worked hard to ensure the protection of some of the most ecologically significant and breathtakingly beautiful parts of our province. Hon. Speaker, I'm very proud to present this bill to the House today. I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17 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.

Speaker's Statement

The Speaker: Members, it appears that the time of year has arrived when the Chair feels compelled to bring to the members' attention certain guidelines relating to oral question period. Members on both sides of the House continue to be disorderly during oral question period, to the point where it's difficult to hear the question asked or the answer being given.

As has been the practice in the past, the Speaker is reluctant to continually intervene, bearing in mind the short dura-

[ Page 16005 ]

tion of our question period. But unless members on both sides of the House exhibit some self-discipline, the Chair will have no option but to intervene.

There has been an increasing tendency to interfere with the Chair's conduct of question period by both sides of the House, in that the government interjects with a call for "Question, question" while a question is being posed by the opposition, and the opposition interjects with "Time, Mr. Speaker. Time, Mr. Speaker" while the question is being answered.

I'm certain that both sides of the House in so interjecting are simply exhibiting a conscientious concern for application of the rules, but I would ask all members to accept the assurance of the Chair that such interjections are counterproductive and tend to exacerbate disorder in the House. I am therefore asking members on both sides of the House to refrain from such interjections. The Chair will be the judge of whether a question is too long or an answer is too long.

In that regard, members may be interested in knowing that questions and answers are timed on a daily basis, and the tally varies from day to day and week to week. If members are interested, these tallies are available in my office or the Clerk's office.

[1425]

The Chair has also examined the Blues from yesterday's question period, which demonstrate a classic example of the abuse of question period guidelines when an hon. member persisted in questioning on a matter which had been taken on notice, despite the fact that the member had characterized his supplementaries as a new question.

The Chair can do little to improve on the statement delivered in this House on April 8, 1999, relating to the conduct of question period. For the assistance of members who wish to refresh their memories on these guidelines, I've had a copy of that decision placed on the members' desks.

It's hoped that the members themselves take these suggestions seriously and improve the quality of question period, but the Chair proposes to intervene if the guidelines are being consistently ignored.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Oral Questions

SECHELT BAND AND

TREATY NEGOTIATING PROCESS

M. de Jong: Today we've learned that the Sechelt band have made a decision to abandon negotiations in favour of referring their claim to the courts. I think it's disappointing and it's regrettable.

But I'm also troubled by statements I've read attributed to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, where he says that the government is still prepared to consider improvements to the AIP that was signed last year. We've seen these deal sweeteners in the past, and they've ended up costing millions and millions of dollars. In fact, in the last few months we've seen the government already agree to pay millions more money and increase the land quantum that was originally set out in the AIP.

The question for the minister is: will he assure this House and British Columbians that the government won't continue to succumb to these kinds of negotiating pressure tactics and will hold firm to the agreement that was signed, presumably in good faith, last year?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a supplemental question?

M. de Jong: The difficulty I have with the answer is that it doesn't equate with what I've seen happen over the past several months, where the amount of money is increased and the amount of land is increased. And it doesn't equate with the comments the minister has made in the press. Remember, the opposition lent its support to this AIP last month. But people want some assurance that the government won't succumb to these negotiation pressure tactics.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm pleased that the member obviously demonstrated some self-knowledge in the beginning of question period, but sadly, it is true that a little learning is a dangerous thing. If he had attended the press conference this morning, he would have heard the very clear explanation I gave at that time -- namely, with regard to the Sechelt band.

I will quote the release: " . . . any negotiated final agreement must be based on the provisions of the Sechelt agreement-in-principle and the proposed treaty." We have said -- and I said this morning and other times as well -- that there is not going to be more money put on the table, nor will there be more land. This is as good as it gets. I have made that point very clearly. I can't think of a more emphatic or clear way I could put it than I just have.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a further supplemental question.

M. de Jong: There has been precious little to celebrate from a substantive point of view with respect to the Treaty Commission process. If this development today -- this very sad development -- is, as many people are suggesting, a signal that the Treaty Commission process is coming unravelled, then the question that I think begs asking of the minister and the government is: what's plan B? What's the contingency, if increasingly these claims are going to be referred to the courts? If the process isn't working, what's plan B?

[1430]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I'm placed in an awkward position, I think. The question is indeed hypothetical, so I have to be a little careful in terms of how I answer, because the process is not dead. There is no question, however -- and I am the first to acknowledge -- that what happened today is indeed very significant and, to use the member's words, regrettable and unfortunate.

Our intention is to continue our discussion with Sechelt, if we can. The chief of Sechelt today said that as far as he was concerned, the window or the door was still a little bit open, and we have said the same. However, within the parameters I already sketched out -- namely, the provisions of the existing agreement -- we can tweak it; we can fine-tune it. But the basic substance of the agreement is there. That's the first part of the question.

[ Page 16006 ]

The second, in terms of plan B -- where we go from here -- I am meeting today with the task group from the First Nations Summit. The First Nations Summit is, of course, the group involved in the treaty process on behalf of aboriginal people in B.C. We're going to obviously talk about these matters. Nobody else has left the treaty process at this point, albeit the other first nations are all further back in the process than was Sechelt.

I'm not giving up on the process, because the alternative to negotiating treaties is, quite frankly, unthinkable -- either litigation or confrontation. I hope the members opposite will join us in that conclusion.

J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on the same topic. It seems to me that Sechelt being the only agreement negotiated under the Treaty Commission process, the first treaty in the southern mainland and a treaty which doesn't involve the Nisga'a self-government model, all make it particularly critical. If indeed the minister is going to stick by the agreement-in-principle, can he tell me, then, what action he plans to take to get this treaty back on track? I don't think watching the band walk away and simply saying, "Well, they'd be the first to go," is good enough.

A few days ago we passed the McLeod Lake agreement, where the province did in fact incur significant legal expenses, as did the band, before talks were restarted.

Perhaps the minister can tell us what plans he has to get these talks with the Sechelt back on track. And if you can't get a deal with the Sechelt, what hope is there anywhere in British Columbia of getting a deal?

Hon. D. Lovick: I know that my colleague from Peace River has some experience with negotiation, and he will understand that the two steps forward and one back, or the reverse thereof, is pretty standard practice, quite frankly.

I would remind him that this is not the first time the Sechelt have done this. We've had two different sessions of going the litigation route to be reconsidered.

Sechelt, I would remind the member -- and all members of the House, for that matter -- is the first out of the gate. This is the first modern treaty following the B.C. Treaty Commission process. Sechelt is accordingly under huge pressure from other first nations, especially those who perhaps are not enamoured of or committed to the B.C. treaty process.

I'm sorry that the Sechelt band has decided to take the action they have. I don't think it's necessarily the final action in this particular drama. I think we may well discover that we have an opportunity to go back to the table. I have said to the first nation, as well as to the public, that in my opinion our door is still open to meet with them. I gather they have also given us a signal that they may also see that door as still open.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River South has a supplemental question.

PROVINCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO

TREATY SETTLEMENT OFFERS

J. Weisgerber: My supplemental is to the Premier. The Finance minister is reported as saying that there is going to be more money for land claims settlements, resulting in "refreshed offers for existing negotiations." British Columbians have been led to believe that cash for land claims negotiations comes from Ottawa, and British Columbia provides the land. If indeed British Columbia is now providing both land and cash, we should tell British Columbians about that. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that rather than throwing more money at this problem, perhaps it's time for the province to stop negotiations, step back and rethink this whole process.

[1435]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I had a brief consultation with the Premier and my colleague the Minister of Finance. We all have some part of this, but we have agreed that I will answer the question. We have been working very hard for some time now -- and I think it's no secret to anybody -- to do what we can to accelerate and improve the treaty process.

One of the conclusions that I have presented to my cabinet colleagues, and indeed to my caucus colleagues, is that first nations perceive that the provincial government's contribution to final offers or to settlement offers is significantly less than is our federal counterpart's. And they are correct; they are correct in drawing that conclusion. They can do the math as well as anybody else.

What we have said is still bound by the existing Treasury Board and Planning Board guidelines of this government. We are going to do whatever we can to see if we can perhaps find some more resources to make certain that those negotiations work better.

It's not about Sechelt, by the way, because that's beyond that; that's in the AIP stage. We're talking about stage 3 and 4 of negotiations, rather. And the member, I think, knows that we've tabled -- what? -- four or five different offers in the last two months, all of which have been peremptorily rejected and indeed have been dismissed as insulting, essentially.

Now, I don't agree with that conclusion. But I do know that if we want treaties in the province, we will have to look at ways to improve our offer somewhat -- however, still within our own budgetary guidelines.

NURSING SHORTAGE IN PROVINCE

C. Hansen: At the start of last year the NDP government promised that there would be 400 new nurses hired in 1999. Well, the numbers are in, and statistics from the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia show that during last year there were only an additional 104 new nurses employed in this province. When the NDP do not live up to their promises, real people get hurt, like the people of Quesnel who are facing a closure of their ICU at G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital this week. Will the minister admit that his failure to deliver on the promise of 400 new nurses is compromising patient care all over British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, hon. member, what I'd like to say is that we are working very hard to address the nursing shortage in this province, as we are right across the country. It's a situation not unique to British Columbia. We have hired

[ Page 16007 ]

nurses last year -- clearly not as many as I would like, but towards the end of this year and coming into the next quarter . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And I'm expecting that in the next update you will see a considerable increase in the number of nurses that have been hired. We are also working with nurses and HEABC to identify ways of attracting more nurses back into the profession to meet some of the immediate challenges. That's why in this year's allocation of 400 nursing spaces, hon. Speaker, 75 percent of those spaces are allocated for refresher courses to bring nurses into the system. That will result in a throughput of about 150 new nurses, on that particular part of the allocation alone, entering the system in the province of British Columbia this year.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena with a supplemental question.

C. Hansen: The minister is missing the point. They made a promise last year in the budget speech that there would 400 new nurses hired. They failed to deliver. They only delivered 104, which is nowhere near close. And now they've got the gall, in this year's budget, to promise that there's going to be an additional 600 nurses hired. Why should the people of British Columbia believe one word from the Minister of Health when they failed to deliver on the commitments that they made over a year ago?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The money and the commitment to hire new nurses in this province are in this year's budget. We recognized the challenges that we faced last year, and we made a concerted effort to go out and hire new nurses. As I've said, is it enough? No. But do we have a strategy in place? Absolutely.

1. Aggressive recruitment practices are currently underway in terms of hiring new nurses to meet the needs and challenges right now.

2. Do we have money in the budget for the training of new nurses, which is what nurses have been asking for? Absolutely. Those spaces will be in place September 1 of this year.

3. Are we recognizing the challenges facing nurses who want to come back into the system, in terms of getting new training so that they can come back into the profession, because we're finding an increased desire to do that? Yes, that's in place -- 75 seats, as I just said a moment ago, which will result in another 150 new nurses coming in.

4. Are there changes that need to be made? Those are in place and are being worked on with the nurses' association and HEABC.

[1440]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena with a further supplemental.

C. Hansen: What the minister is trying to take credit for are actions that this government should have taken four years ago when they first knew that this nursing shortage was looming. Not only does this nursing shortage negatively impact on the ability of people to get access to the patient care they need, but it is costing hundreds of millions of dollars in extra overtime costs around this province. In every hospital in this province we are facing overtime costs because of the fact that this government did not deliver on their promises.

Will the minister confirm that their failure to deliver on last year's promise is costing many, many millions of dollars in overtime costs, which are eating up the very extra dollars that the minister was talking about?

The Speaker: Members, the time for question period has expired. I'll ask the minister to give a very brief answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's amazing that this opposition, after four years, has all the answers. They must be brilliant. Just imagine how many answers they'll have and how brilliant they'll be after another four years in opposition.

The Speaker: Question period has ended. I recognize the hon. Minister of Health.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to answer a question that I took on notice yesterday.

The Speaker: Proceed, minister.

GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF

LUBRICANTS AND CONDOMS

AT NEEDLE EXCHANGE CENTRES

Hon. M. Farnworth: The question was raised about the appropriateness of a government contract around lubricant and the requirement for that and what the purpose was. The member for Matsqui asked two questions, and I'd like to respond to them, because I now have the information that he requires.

In my hand I have a condom and a packet of lubrication. It cost 15 cents. It's used to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV infection in this province. Fifteen cents of prevention, which is what that contract is about, results in someone not being infected, someone's life not being devastated and savings to the health care system of $145,000 for treating that individual if they're infected. That's what the contract is about.

I have in my hand the same thing from the province of Ontario: 15 cents to save someone's life and save the health care system the cost of $145,000. It doesn't matter whether it's an NDP government in British Columbia or a Conservative government in Ontario. We both recognize that often the most effective means of prevention regarding health matters and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is 15 cents of prevention to save $150,000 worth of extra costs in the health care system, but more importantly, to save someone's life.

Ministerial Statements

BIKE MONTH

Hon. H. Lali: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

The Speaker: Proceed, minister.

Hon. H. Lali: It gives me great pleasure to announce that the Hon. Garde Gardom, the Lieutenant-Governor of British

[ Page 16008 ]

Columbia, has proclaimed June as Bike Month in this province. As Minister of Transportation and Highways and minister responsible for the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, I support this proclamation.

Cycling is a low-cost, environmentally sound method of transportation. It's an activity that people of all ages and backgrounds in all regions of our province can enjoy. By setting aside June as Bike Month, we help cyclists celebrate the many benefits of their transportation choice.

Since an interim cycling policy was introduced in 1992, the province has been working with municipalities and non-profit groups to improve cycling conditions. The results are reflected in a number of major projects, like the various cycling-related improvements in the lower mainland, the lower mainland's Pitt River Bridge counterflow project and the Vancouver Island Highway project.

In February of this year the ministry's new cycling policy was implemented. As a result of extensive consultation with cycling groups, the ministry has established a process to ensure that cycling needs are considered when planning and upgrading highway projects is done. In recent years the ministry has ensured that wherever possible, road-paving projects include improvements to road shoulders, which help accommodate cyclists and other users.

Since 1995 the BCTFA cycling network program has shared the costs of cycling projects 50-50 with local governments. In that time we have invested almost $11 million creating over 500-lane kilometres of cycling routes in 52 communities throughout B.C. Past projects under this program include the Selkirk trestle, which is a major link in Victoria's Galloping Goose Trail, the Green Timbers bike route in Surrey, bike lanes on Garden City Road in Richmond . . .

[1445]

Interjections.

Hon. H. Lali: That's members' opposite. Go ahead, clap for yourselves.

. . . the Burnaby Mountain Urban Trail in Burnaby, the Lakelse Lake Drive bike path in the Kitimat-Stikine area and, of course, the Thompson River Pathway in Kamloops. And there are many others, too many to mention here today.

This year the cycling network program is investing more than $1.7 million for 44 cycling projects in 27 communities throughout British Columbia. A list of those projects would include phase 2 of Enderby's bike route, the eastern extension of the Portside Bikeway in Vancouver, the Cotton Road-North Boulevard Bikeway in North Vancouver, shoulder bikeways along Kalamalka Lake, Kalamalka Road in Coldstream, and bike lanes along Military Row in Comox on Vancouver Island.

These projects and many others like them are making cycling a more viable transportation option in this province. Bike Month will give people throughout British Columbia an added incentive to try out the cycling facilities. By participating, we can all help make Bike Month a success and encourage other British Columbians to consider using this healthy, non-polluting transportation choice.

The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for a copy of his statement earlier in the day. And being one who bikes a bit himself -- and my family and a son who's actually biked all the way to Calgary and back, and I'm amazed at my son, but he does these things -- I can certainly appreciate the fact that we are really addressing the issue. I give the government full credit for looking at the issue of cycling on the roads and particularly in communities where they're helping the communities put in cycle paths. We have the one in Richmond and another one in the works, I believe.

It's important, besides putting in the paths that people can use and the road allowances to remove them from the traffic, that we also consider -- and maybe at this time in Bike Month -- cycle safety from the viewpoint of the automobiles and the bikes sharing the roadway. All too often, I think, drivers don't give cyclists the due and the right that they have to be on the road. All too often, cars just move slightly aside and go quite close to cyclists as they pass them.

I don't think that most drivers in the province of British Columbia realize and, I suspect, people in this House do not realize that, as far as the law goes, when a cyclist is in a lane, that cyclist has the right to the whole lane, not just the little portion you might leave them when you go past them. Too often, in going past cyclists, people go too close to them.

So I think one of the important things we might remember during Bike Month is that the roads are there for everybody who uses them, automobiles and cyclists as well. Let us all take more care of each other on the road as we share the roads in British Columbia. I think Bike Month is a good way of heightening people's awareness to the fact that there are cyclists on the road. They're there legitimately and should be considered, taken care of and watched carefully, so that we don't have any accidents.

[1450]

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to rise today to make a ministerial statement. In doing so, I'd like to thank my critic for acknowledging very short notice and a bit of a breach of protocol. We have an agreement in this House that we will work together and let each other know about ministerial statements and provide the information in advance, and I was unable to do that.

My ministerial statement today has everything to do with an

article that is on the front pages of the newspapers this morning. I have to say, in first looking at that article, that I felt a physical reaction, a true sinking feeling. I felt sick. I think that a lot of women in this province felt the same way. As the story goes, hon. Speaker, a woman, Karen Miller, was last seen on May 21. While I'm sure we all hope that Ms. Miller is found in good health, I believe the community and the women of this province are fearful that she may be another statistic.

The statistics show that between 1977 and 1996 there were 2,038 victims of spousal assault; 75 percent of that total were women; 67 women were killed in 1998 alone by a current or ex-boyfriend or spouse, an average of one to two women every single week. I've been in this post for three months. At the rate that I have just quoted, 17 women will have died while I have been in this office.

Violence against women -- whether stalking, wife assault, or murder -- is a constant before us. It's obvious that as a society we have yet to come to grips with this horrendous issue of violence against women in relationships. Women are dying in a pattern that is too outrageous for us to ignore.

[ Page 16009 ]

Women feel frustrated that society does not seem to realize the implications of this situation. Women are looking for more of a reaction. We need change. We need to save the lives of women that are yet hanging in the balance. And we need to make sure that women who have died simply do not fade into history.

When a child disappears or is found murdered, society and the media focus appropriately on the tragedy, and we're outraged by that loss. Action is often mobilized to change the system in order to increase protection for other children, and that is altogether appropriate. Years later we still see posters of children who are still missing. These posters help us remember these children, to find them if they are still alive and to remind us of the vigilance that is needed to protect our children from a similar fate; and that is appropriate.

We need to do the same kinds of things for violence against women. Women wonder where the outrage is that more than 20 women have disappeared from the downtown east side since 1978. Women look for the anger for all women who have been systematically hunted down and brutally beaten and murdered by ex-husbands and boyfriends. Women are waiting for a significant reaction from society for all the victims of relationship violence.

Why is it seemingly so impossible to protect women, even those who have taken all the appropriate steps they can to protect themselves? What other group in society can we name with such statistics as victims of violence?

The B.C. government is an acknowledged leader in bringing about change in preventing violence against women. Recently the provincial government called on the federal government to increase the maximum sentence for criminal harassment from five to ten years. This will allow dangerous-offender status to be applied in cases where it is evident that that is required. We're pleased that federal Minister of Justice Anne McLellan is proceeding with this change; it will no doubt save lives.

[1455]

However, given the persistence and severity of this issue, I believe that we must take national action and see this as a national priority. We will be calling on the federal Minister of Justice to establish an advisory group on violence against women in relationships that will report to that minister. This advisory group would spotlight best practices across the country, with a focus on prevention, policing and prosecutorial approaches.

We in B.C. will continue to show leadership, but because this issue of violence against women in relationships is of national importance, the federal government must also provide leadership. We want the federal government to declare its concerns and initiate action on these issues. We will ask my partners at the upcoming meeting of the federal-provincial-territorial status-of-women ministers to join me in putting violence against women in relationships higher on the national agenda.

We also want to explore avenues for input from women's groups and advocates into thorough training of all parties in the justice system, and we want them to fully understand the nature and dynamics of violence against women in relationships. I ask the members of this House to participate in asking for and supporting this measure. Women can live violence-free, raise their children in safety and go about their daily lives without fear. If we act together, I believe that we as a society can truly make a difference in bringing about women's equality.

The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Langley.

L. Stephens: I do want to thank the minister for the notice, even though it was short. I do appreciate receiving a copy of her statement. I am also pleased to join with the minister in bringing to the attention of the House the disappearance of another woman in British Columbia. I want to assure the House that the official opposition is committed to using whatever means possible to stop this violence against women that we are experiencing on a very regular basis.

Now, the federal government is acting, particularly on the issue of criminal harassment, but more can and should be done. And the provincial government must take a leadership role by putting in place those best practices the ministry talks about, because they are well known. Much has been written about what needs to be accomplished in this province and certainly across the rest of Canada, and that's something I encourage the minister to move forward on.

There are also many provinces that have domestic violence legislation, and this province does not. So I would also encourage the minister to take the appropriate legislative action for British Columbia. That would be appropriate for us, and it would be a good place for us to start -- for her government to demonstrate to all of British Columbia that her government is indeed committed to stopping the violence against women.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Hammell: I am pleased to submit the annual report of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission for the period of April 1, '98, to March 31, '99.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to present the Property Assessment Appeal Board's annual report for 1999.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply, estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. And in this chamber, Committee B, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Northern Development.

[1500]

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY

AND MINES AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE

FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 27: ministry operations, $37,969,000 (continued).

R. Neufeld: Yesterday we left off at the question about the Beaver River gas pool, and I'm just wondering if the minister has any of that . . . . He said he would get that information for me and give it to me. Or should we just wait a few minutes for staff to arrive? Would that be better?

[ Page 16010 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I haven't actually asked the question of my staff. They may have it, so let's see what happens when they come in. If they don't, we'll see if we can get that today. If not, you will get it.

R. Neufeld: I'll just put the questions back on the paper and leave it at that, and they can get the information back to me. It's the three-year royalty exemption for the Beaver River gas pool that the province joined in with Wascana Energy and Beaver River Resources. I read the background papers that said: "The pilot project could produce up to 400 million cubic metres of gas without being considered commercially successful.

If the project is successful, the amount of royalty exempted would become payable in subsequent years." I want to know if the 400 million is the target -- 400 million cubic metres over three years -- that's going to be exempted. If it's under that, the province just writes off the royalties it would have received. If it is over that, if that is the benchmark, then over what period of time will that be payable back to the province? I'll leave that with the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that we don't have the detailed information. But just very briefly, I'd like to put some context on the question. There are two areas, really, where we dealt with Wascana. One was the Beaver River area. In that situation, while there were considerable gas reserves identified, they were ones that were very difficult to extract commercially because of a lot of water.

The simple premise we looked at was: if we institute a royalty holiday in order to encourage Wascana to make their best efforts to extract that gas, the upside for the province -- and obviously for Wascana -- was that if that inducement worked, it would see that amount of gas put into production. So I'll try to get the answer on that.

[1505]

The other was in the heavy oil sector where we made changes to the heavy oil royalty, because we simply had not addressed that question for many, many years. Again, we think that will assist in the development of a significant heavy oil find on the B.C. side of the B.C.-Alberta border.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response. I'll wait till the minister gets the information.

The second part of the question is dealing with Canadian Occidental and Wascana with the Hay River and the heavy oil. Can the minister tell me whether the work that has gone on to produce that heavy oil is serviced out of British Columbia or Alberta? I mean the service work, like the people that work on the jobs, the equipment it takes to do the jobs and those kind of things. Is all that work originating out of Alberta, or is some of it originating out of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I'll certainly attempt to get that information. You'll appreciate, though, that it's not normally the kind of data that my ministry would collect. We're in the business of trying to ensure that there is more activity in the oil and gas sector in B.C. We've worked very hard through the commission, etc. But I don't believe we do track issues or details like where precisely all the workers come from or where precisely all the service people come from. That would be a statistical job that I don't think we ought to be engaged in that much.

We do have a more broadly based approach in northeastern British Columbia, which seeks to maximize the benefits in British Columbia to provide more opportunities for British Columbia-based firms. In that respect, the member referred to the competitiveness study that we have done in the region. All of that, of course, is an attempt to ensure that when you're working in British Columbia, it's competitive with the competing or neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta.

R. Neufeld: Well, I'm a bit disturbed at that response. I thought the ministry would be concerned about whether that work is actually originating out of British Columbia or Alberta. If we're looking at Beaver River, which . . . . I know where it's at; it's in a totally different part of the province than the Hay River, which borders on Alberta. In the minister's own strategic plan for year 2000-2001, there's a performance plan page on trying to get more work, or more companies out of British Columbia being able to access the work that's going on in British Columbia, in the oil and gas industry.

I have a pretty good feeling that the Hay project is actually serviced out of Alberta. We're in there as a province giving a royalty holiday to that company. The government wants to do that; I guess they can do what they want with that issue. But I would think that part of the issue is that if you're going to give a royalty holiday, you would at least ask them to use as much British Columbia expertise -- meaning people, equipment . . . . That's what the people in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson and British Columbia expertise, that meaning people, equipment . . . . That's what the people and businesses in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson make their living at. That's how they do it.

I know that the report that's been done on the competitiveness study is actually no new news; we knew that a long time ago. We've been saying that. The pools in British Columbia are bigger. It costs more to drill in British Columbia for the drilling companies, those being the Essos and PetroCans and Shells and all those. They get a bigger return, and there's more volume coming back, so that's competitive.

What I'm talking about is the people, the men and women, that actually go out there and do the work. That's where you get your personal income tax from; that's where you get the revenue from. That's where we get the stability in the province and in northeastern British Columbia and the communities that I've lived in, both Fort Nelson and Fort St. John. That's the issue that I'm trying to bring forward. That's why I asked. Is the Hay project being serviced out of Alberta or British Columbia?

[1510]

Hon. D. Miller: I did indicate that we do view the issue of retention of work and opportunities for work by British Columbia firms as an important question, and to that extent we've undertaken significant work. I reference the competitiveness study, which I think is an important piece of work, actually. It's one that I'm really proud of. I'm proud of the technical expertise of the people in my ministry who put that project together. It's interesting that its baseline data is now being used by the CAPP people as well. I think it was very quality work.

The member talked about what we are doing to try to enhance opportunities. I don't know that we need to quarrel about this. I was in the member's constituency last Friday. I did announce the first phase of a $103 million expenditure on northern roads. I could reference the

article of May 26 in the Alaska Highway News that reported that announcement. I

[ Page 16011 ]

could reference the fact that the $103 million in road improvements ought to result in an additional $440 million in added oil and gas revenue. That's just revenue to government. That doesn't even talk about the opportunities in the region for British Columbia companies, which I think are quite capable of being competitive with Alberta companies for this kind of work.

The proposed road network for the Fort St. John area will serve 54 oil and gas fields in the area. Improvements this year will include paving the last seven kilometres of the Milligan Creek-Peejay Road, replacing the Peterson crossing bridge northeast of the city, paving the gravel sections of the 101 Road to Prespatou. In addition, Buick Creek Road and Beatton River Airport Road will be prepared for paving, and paving will be completed on the Beatton Park Road east of Charlie Lake.

By the fifth year of the improvement program, paving will be completed on the entire Milligan Creek-Peejay Road, the 101 Road, the Beatton River Airport Road, the Anderson Road, the Montney Highway and the Buick Creek Road.

I could go on and on and on. All of these, as the member well knows, are efforts aimed at improving opportunities for people who live and work in northeastern B.C. There will be more coming. There's more good news for the Peace River. Just wait -- wait until next week.

So I don't think we need to get into this kind of exchange. I don't think the member needs to chastise me or the ministry for not looking at the situation and not paying attention to it and not trying to create opportunities for people who live and work in northeastern B.C.

Beyond that, I'll give you my own philosophy in terms of how I approach these questions. I don't attempt, as a minister of the Crown, to dictate to private sector companies how they run their business. The member may want to do that; I don't. I think they're the experts; they know their business. We try to create the conditions. That's the philosophy of my ministry -- to create the conditions where the opportunity exists not only for these companies but for all of the contractors.

I talked to Bob Fedderly, who is the head of the oilfield contractors in Fort St. John, last week. In fact, he interviewed me for the cable network. He is quoted in one of these articles saying: "B.C. contractors are going to be hard-pressed to keep up with the amount of work available." That's his direct quote. So don't try to lecture me about opportunities for people who live and work in the region. It seems to me they're doing quite well.

Here's the editorial in brief from the Alaska Highway News :

"Fort St. John in Brief: Drilling expected to double this year. Oil and gas well drilling in B.C. is expected to double this year to more than 1,300 wells, according to figures from the Petroleum Services Association of Canada. The association is forecasting 15,000 wells to be drilled across Canada this year.

" 'That's going to put a lot of pressure on the service providers,' said Bob Fedderly, president of the Northern Society of Oilfield Contractors and Service Firms. 'As far as manpower, we currently have an oversupply, but that could disappear if drilling goes ahead as forecasted after the road bans come off.' "

So I think we're doing well up there, and let's acknowledge that we're doing well. I know that member has, and I thank him for that in the

article in the . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: That's not a bad suggestion. Okay, so we know what we're talking about here. I think we've resolved that question.

[1515]

R. Neufeld: Actually, we haven't resolved it. I mean, you never did answer the question, and that's typical of this minister. The question was whether the Hay River field, where you gave a complete royalty discharge to the company, is serviced out of British Columbia or Alberta. You still haven't answered that question.

Now, I know that we've talked about the money in highways in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. I stood in this House yesterday and commended the minister. I commended the minister for spending that money and for finally, after all these years of being in government, realizing that there's something up in northeastern B.C. and that it does provide revenue to the province of British Columbia. Like I say, it's unfortunate that it took you eight or nine years to figure that out. But you finally did, and we're happy about it.

So we can spar back and forth as much as you want. I'd like to get through this process, and I'm just asking some fairly straightforward simple questions. We can either deal with it that way, or we can stand here and banter at one another all day.

I don't intend to dictate to private enterprise. If there's a group in this House that likes to dictate to private enterprise, it happens to be that side of the House. What I'm trying to ask the minister and what I'm trying to do is in fact go along with your performance plan. This is your plan. We're not supposed to use props, but this is your plan. And part of it is to enhance the development and utilization of British Columbia-based service companies providing benefits to the local economy. That's what I'm talking about.

Now, when you talk about CAPP -- and the minister knows he's splitting hairs on this one when he talks about CAPP -- yes, the competitive study does prove that whether CAPP being the people that drill for the gas and oil . . . . Whether they're drilling in northern Alberta or B.C., it's almost the same thing. What I'm talking about here and what we're getting around to is the people who actually do the work.

Mr. Minister, I live in Fort St. John, and I lived in Fort Nelson pretty well all my life. I worked in the oil and gas industry all my life, in one form or another. I talk to lots of these companies and to these people. Yes, there is a lot of work going on. But maybe what the minister should do is talk to some of these individual companies who didn't really get busy until February and finish work at the end of March, because there were so many Alberta companies in northeastern British Columbia. I have some documentation right here in my notes that shows where the 7 percent sales tax . . . .

People from Dawson Creek went out and looked to assess what was going on in the northeast in the oilfields. They found vehicles from Saskatchewan, people from Saskatchewan and all over Alberta who were working in the northeast in the oil and gas industry and not paying their share of taxes.

Now, I can't imagine why that should be so difficult for the minister to respond to. Maybe the minister is a little bit touchy on this, because there are some impediments to operating in British Columbia for these smaller companies. There

[ Page 16012 ]

are, and you have to realize it. I know we'll never level the playing field totally; I don't think anybody is asking for that. I think what people are asking for is a little better playing field, so that they can actually compete better with their Alberta counterparts who have headquarters in Hythe, Beaverlodge and Grande Prairie and operate out of there on a constant basis. The minister is aware of that, I'm sure he is. If he isn't, I'd be surprised. I think those same people that tell him that, yes, it is busy . . . . Yes, it is.

There are more wells going to be drilled, and there's more money to government, and there's more money for roads in the northeast. But there are companies who have . . . . I'll give you the name of one: Swanberg Bros. contracting, a company that has been in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek since the war. It still operates, but guess where its head office went to a year ago? Grande Prairie. Grande Prairie, that's one -- a huge operation. This family runs a big trucking operation; they left their trucks in Fort St. John, and a dispatch unit, and moved their whole head office to Grande Prairie.

That's what we're talking about: level playing fields. I give the minister all the credit in the world for the Fair Share program, which was lobbied hard for by the northeast. I give him all the credit in the world for the $100-and-some million that he just announced; that's great and that's good. It will help; there is no doubt about it. It will help with what we have to do. I'm not trying to pick apart what the minister is trying to do; I have given him credit. I have given the government credit where credit is due.

[1520]

But what I am asking about now -- because the minister, I guess, will get me the response about the Hay River field -- is how we level the playing field a little bit more, so companies that actually operate out of Fort St. John and Fort Nelson will continue to stay there, continue to grow, expand, employ more people full-time, year-round, pay taxes into the province of British Columbia, and all the things that go along with it, and raise their families. Those are the things that I think we want to touch on now.

So if the minister is willing to stand up and talk a little bit about how we're going to go about doing that -- because it is in the strategic plan and I'd like to discuss it a little bit -- we can get on with the estimates.

The Chair: Thank you, member. Just an interruption to make an introduction: there are again a number of students here, grade 6 students from Wellington Elementary School in Woodinville, Washington. They've come to view the proceedings today. Would all members make them welcome, please.

Thank you. Minister, please proceed.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. If I appear touchy, I'll back off and try to be a little calmer here.

But really, as the member is well aware -- and we've talked about that and canvassed the issue -- we've put in place now two major initiatives for the oil and gas sector. I cited the increases. It's interesting to see, in terms of direct revenue to government in the 1998-99 fiscal year, that the revenue to government was $362 million. In the subsequent year, '99-2000, the revenue to government was $660 million. That's a pretty simple statistic that tells you that the level of activity in British Columbia has increased in a staggering way. We're looking, just in terms of the drilling applications, at a 62 percent increase over the previous year.

While I well appreciate that there are still and probably always will be differences between British Columbia and Alberta -- northern B.C. and northern Alberta -- as there are differences, no doubt, between northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan and on and on, we have created the conditions and are continuing to work to create the conditions to induce investment into British Columbia.

We have a well-established service sector in British Columbia; I've spoken to them. They know their business. I don't tell them what their business is; they know what their business is. When I said we don't . . . . And it's not, quite frankly, the ministry's job or the commission's job to go out on every jobsite and say: "Where are the workers from? Are they from Saskatchewan, or are they from Alberta?" I don't want them to do that. I want them to work on the substantive issues and process applications and make sure that we implement on the ground all the things I talk about here and in other places; that's their job. We're going to continue.

The member knows, and I spoke about it again in Fort St. John, about the potential for an MOU with the Northwest Territories. I've just received a letter -- in fact, I think I've got it in here -- from one of the major companies, thanking me personally for our support. It's from Paramount Resources, May 8: "Dear Minister: I wish to personally thank you for your efforts and support on both the Paramount drilling program and the . . . pipeline."

That's the kind of atmosphere we're trying to develop in this province, so that these companies feel there's a welcome environment in terms of making investments. They've got a ministry that understands the business, that they can work with. And I've every confidence in the world -- every confidence -- that British Columbia companies, regardless of their size, are quite capable of competing and beating competitors. I don't care if they're from Alberta, Saskatchewan . . . . I don't care; I know we have the expertise, and those people can do it.

It's not my job to babysit every truck that comes across the border and check its licence plate; there are tax people who look at these kinds of questions. That's not my job. My job, and the ministry's job, is to create the condition in your constituency that will bring more investment, more jobs and more opportunity, and that's what we're doing.

[1525]

I hope the member appreciates the position I've tried to outline here. I want British Columbia companies and British Columbians to get those employment opportunities, but I'm not going to hold their hand. They're quite capable of doing it themselves. We'll do our best to make sure that we are as competitive in B.C. as any other jurisdiction in this country -- and I think we can be. We're going to continue that kind of stance.

I've said to the industry: "I'll do oil and gas 3." If we can identify a range of initiatives that will even further enhance opportunities in this province, then I'm quite prepared to go ahead and try to put those together under oil and gas 3 -- and 4 and 5 and 6, for that matter. That's the position we take, and I think it's going to create opportunities for your constituents.

Again, I would repeat, in talking to the minister federally last week . . . . He didn't raise the issue with me. Maybe he didn't have time. People up there know they can talk to me anytime they want. As to what we've done up there . . . . Again, I guess politicians tend to get into bragging, right? So I'll try not to do that, but you know, truth be truth, when I

[ Page 16013 ]

talked to some of the mayors and council members last week in Fort St. John, they said to me directly -- and I won't quote any individual . . . . They said to me directly: "Your government has done more for this area in two years than has been done in the last 20 years." That's a direct quote from people, quite frankly, who are not New Democrats, who will never, ever vote New Democrat. That's what they said to me.

The only reason I'm pleased is that we're getting more investment dollars into this province, and it's paying off. That additional $300 million in revenue, quite frankly, is needed; it's needed to support health care and education, social programs, construction of roads, schools, hospitals -- all of those things. We're increasing the revenue; we're increasing the size of the economy in B.C. I think we're on a very good road to do that.

I'm quite happy to say to the member that anytime you've got some ideas how we can do an even better job, how we can provide more opportunities for British Columbians, I'm quite interested in sitting down with you, or with anybody else from the region, to explore those opportunities. But I'm not going to be the kind of minister . . . . I'm not having my ministry check licence plates.

R. Neufeld: Obviously. I don't really know what you're driving at this afternoon, Mr. Minister. But if I was a mayor in northeast B.C. -- and I have been -- I would be saying the same darn thing to you. I would be saying: "Yes, you have done something; yes, the activity has increased; yes, in the 1980s there were about 100 rigs drilling and now there about 130, so you have increased it."

I think, if you look back a little bit further, there have been some things that have happened in the past also that weren't that bad. I haven't stood here and bantered with you about what you've done. I am standing here and asking you about things we can do to work . . . in your strategic plan -- your own plan, put out by your own ministry, put out by you, signed by you. And you're asking me for some ideas about how we could make it better, so that we can retain the Swanberg Bros. Trucking companies in the northeast, in Fort St. John -- companies that have been there since the war, that have moved their head office to Grande Prairie because it is a bit cheaper there?

I'm not saying that we should even match Alberta. What I've been saying is that we should be trying to make the playing field a little bit more level, so that those companies can stay there -- disregarding CAPP. I know the difference. I'm quite well aware of it. I know the issues too. I'm quite well aware of the competitiveness study; I'm happy with the competitiveness study. I don't have any problem with it because of what it shows. What I am talking about is trying to -- and I use the words directly out of your strategic plan -- "enhance the development and utilization of British Columbia-based service companies providing benefits to the local economies."

Now, I know that when we increase the economy, when the number of wells goes up . . . . And apparently there's going to be more wells drilled this year than last year, which is good for British Columbia, which helps all of British Columbia. Maybe I'm a big hoggish, but I would like to see the companies that actually have their head offices in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson get their fair share of that work.

Now, that doesn't mean that I ask the minister to stand at the border with his people and count trucks, but somebody ought to be able to look at it. Maybe what I should do is read into the record a little bit so that the minister understands the severity of it and the tax implications about people going out to Helmet on a two-day trip from Finance.

[1530]

I know the minister is not responsible for Finance, but maybe we should start looking at working together with Finance. Maybe your ministry ought to work together with Finance instead of just giving them money. Let's look at the other areas where you can actually enhance local people to invest in British Columbia and keep their head offices in British Columbia.

I think this gentleman made one trip into the Helmet area from the tax department in Dawson Creek. And I'm going to read just the last sentence: "He would guess that this visit would generate somewhere around $200,000 of revenue but will give us a more accurate figure later on." This is just a couple-days trip. That's not counting licence plates. That's trying to level the playing field a little bit, Mr. Minister.

It's about saying: if you want to come from Saskatchewan or from Alberta with your equipment and work in British Columbia, you're quite welcome to do that. I agree that we have the expertise, we have the knowledge and we have people. We have people with the ability, the tenacity to be able to compete out there in that world. But when you have one group up here and the other group way down below in their input costs, there's going to be some casualties.

Maybe we should just read into the record a couple more casualties that there could be. Let's take, for instance, WCB rates. I know, again, that this is not the minister's responsibility, but it has an effect on the service companies that can work in British Columbia. It's for, again, a Fort St. John company that moved their office, or moved part of their office, to Grande Prairie. It's called Brandl construction -- and I'm sure the minister has talked to Vic Brandl on many occasions. He's been a businessman in Fort St. John for a long time. He's got a 93 percent claim rate, so he doesn't have very many accidents -- very good.

In British Columbia the rate is $4.34. In Alberta it's $2.08 -- less than half. Those are the figures. That's for service companies. Now, in the drilling industry it's a little bit different, because it's about the same, and that's where the competitiveness study comes in. But when you come to the service companies, those are in fact figures given to me by that company. I have no reason to disbelieve them. It's one issue around WCB. There are a number of others.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Those are the issues that I would like to be able to have the minister recognize to a certain degree and start dealing with. Or the 7 percent sales tax . . . . I guess we've always had a sales tax. We'll never get rid of that. How about the 7 percent tax on labour, so people take their equipment to Alberta to get it fixed, because they don't have to pay the tax on the labour? How about the corporate tax? How about the insurance costs for vehicles? How about the fuel taxes, personal income taxes? Or if somebody wants to come into British Columbia on WCB in the oil and gas industry and work . . . .

I'm just going to read this briefly: "Companies or individuals from other provinces can come and work in B.C. without paying WCB if they work for less than 15 days." They can work 14 days, go home and come back and work 14 more days. That's consistent. That's what's done.

[ Page 16014 ]

Now, I don't know if there's an easy answer to dealing with these issues, but that's where part of the unlevel playing field comes from. And when it's twice as much for the same kind of work in British Columbia as it is for Alberta, there is a marked difference in competitiveness.

Maybe the minister can tell me about some of those things or the labour standards. Now, I know there was an adjustment made to the labour standards. That's another question. Where did the labour standards adjustments apply to? In fact, Mr. Fedderly just told me about that. Talking about Mr. Fedderly, he said it is so difficult to try and figure out the labour standards for some of these companies. It's almost impossible, because there's no one to administer them. There's no one to look after them. But when they do, they pick on a British Columbia company instead of someone from Alberta or Saskatchewan.

So a grader, for instance, that Mr. Fedderly told me about was out working on a new road and had to grade the road on an existing road out there. The labour standards board went out and caught him. This is a British Columbia company. So the labour standards -- the stringent ones -- apply on the old road; the oil-and-gas adjusted ones apply on the new road. I mean those kind of things.

[1535]

Those are issues that I'm talking about, not about the competitiveness of the Amocos, the PetroCans, the people that represent CAPP -- the big drillers, the rangers, all those companies. Somehow we have to be able to get to a more level playing field for those people, so we can continue to have them build in British Columbia. I'm sure the minister would love to have them in British Columbia. I would, and I'd love to be able to retain the ones that we have.

So those are a few areas. Maybe the minister would like to comment on how we can go about, collectively, between the two of us, dealing with the Ministry of Labour, dealing with the ministry that handles WCB, the 7 percent tax . . . . How about the sales tax on service vehicles that happens to go up when it goes over $30,000? That's a standard vehicle in the north. Maybe there's some way we can deal with that. Those are the issues that I'm talking about.

Maybe the minister would like to comment on those and see if there is some way that we could work together collectively for the betterment not only of the province but of the people that live in northeastern British Columbia, so that they can have a little better playing field to work on. They don't expect that it's ever going to be totally level; I want the minister to know that. I'm not saying that they want it totally level. They want it a little bit closer. We're not talking about the drilling industry; we're talking about the service industry that the minister's talking about in the strategic plan.

Hon. D. Miller: I've tried to outline the efforts we're making. It appears to me from the statistical evidence that they're paying off. You're right; we're never going to get rid of every single difference between us and Alberta. But you know what? I just don't get too worried about it. When you're trying to make some changes and produce a result, you've got to kind of focus on what you're doing. You know, you can always identify some area -- maybe there's a marginal difference in WCB -- but on balance, there's not a heck of a lot of difference. On balance, there's not a heck of a lot of difference -- right?

So there's got to be some level of confidence that British Columbia companies have that's not always based on looking at somebody else in some other province and saying: "Oh, it's better over there; it's better over there." Where's the confidence in themselves as a British Columbia company, to state, notwithstanding a marginal difference on a WCB rate or some other area: "I'm here, I know my business, and I can compete"?

Why is it that government . . . ? You know, I'm constantly, constantly, as a New Democrat, attacked by people who say the New Democratic Party always wants to intrude. They're too interventionist. I don't think it's my job to try to fix every tiny, tiny problem that some individual has. We create the conditions -- and have created the conditions by the member's own admission, by the statistics -- for real opportunity in the Peace River country. And when I say there's more coming, hold onto your hat. Wait till next week. There'll be even more jobs and more opportunity in northeastern British Columbia.

In relative terms, it's one of the most successful initiatives that this government has undertaken. It's paying off handsomely. You can't scoff at $300 million additional revenue. Particularly, you can't scoff at taking some of that revenue and pouring it back into the northeast in terms of a significant road project.

I think we're on the same wavelength. Occasionally we seem to clash over issues we agree on -- maybe that's just a personality issue -- but surely we've canvassed this issue enough.

[1540]

R. Neufeld: I agree; we have canvassed enough. I can see that the minister is not willing to really look at the issues in the strategic plan that he put forward for some real input and some valuable help that's being offered by the opposition to be able to enhance competitiveness in the province of British Columbia. In fact, I guess the minister doesn't think that some of the things that I outlined -- and those were just a few of them -- are any problem in the province of British Columbia.

Again, the province says: "We're drilling more wells, and the government treasury is getting hundreds of millions more dollars; the rest of it doesn't matter." If that's where we want to leave it, that's quite fine with me. I'll take that back and give it to the construction firms in Fort St. John and let them know what the position of this government is on those issues.

With that I'll move on to the MOUs with the Treaty 8 bands. I would like to ask the minister . . . . In the briefing we talked briefly about it, and I know that by May 28 -- or I was told by May 28 -- they may be cancelled. I'd like to know what's taken place and what process there is in place to deal with it if they have been cancelled.

Hon. D. Miller: The MOUs are in place. There has been, over the last year or so, lots of correspondence. Sometimes there's a level of unhappiness about them, and sometimes they seem to be okay, but they are in place. Under the agreements we are flowing revenue to the first nations, trying to assist them in developing capacity and trying to really say that there's a future for them in the oil and gas sector. We have flowed considerable money, well over $5 million, to the first nations that have signed MOUs. We're open to completing the MOUs with a couple that haven't. I said as much in the speech I made in Fort St. John last Friday.

[ Page 16015 ]

We think we actually have the right approach here. It's one that recognizes their position and tries to assist them in developing capacity. There are issues that we still need to try to resolve. The issue of traplines particularly has been an issue that we have yet to come to a conclusion on. To some degree I think the model is one that is an interesting one and might have applicability beyond the Peace River country. We've also agreed with them that we're prepared to take our place with the federal government if there are unresolved treaty issues that need to be negotiated. So we've tried to maintain that kind of position. I'm not sure; the member may have some more specific questions.

R. Neufeld: None of the MOUs, then, have been cancelled. Is that what the minister's saying? It was anticipated they would be cancelled or would end on May 28. So none have been cancelled? They're all still in place -- right?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct. The member may be aware -- I'm not certain what kind of correspondence has been made public -- that there have been some ups and downs with respect to the relationship. But they are still in place, yes.

R. Neufeld: The other issue that the minister briefly touched on -- and it's in a letter from the deputy minister to Chief Carylin Greatbanks of West Moberly first nation -- is in regard to the trapping issue. I know that there's an ongoing process in dealing with trapping issues. Maybe the minister could just bring me up to date on where we are in that process, what's taken place and when we anticipate to try and have some of these issues settled around the trapping issues. That seems to be one of the hotter issues in the northeast in the drilling industry.

Hon. D. Miller: As indicated, the trapping issue is one. We do have a working committee on the issue. We're trying to develop some solutions to the concerns that have been identified. We'll continue to work on that and, hopefully, develop those solutions.

[1545]

R. Neufeld: I'd like to go on and just touch briefly on the Oil and Gas Commission. Before I start with the Oil and Gas Commission, I'd just like to say to the minister, so we can get this out on the table before we start, that I am quite happy with how the Oil and Gas Commission works. I think it works well. I meet on a regular basis with Mr. McManus and discuss issues. He keeps me informed on what's going on with the Oil and Gas Commission. So we don't have to go through a long process about the Oil and Gas Commission. But there are just a few questions I have about it.

One is about the annual report. I have the first annual report from October 23, 1998, to March 31, 1999. I don't know; maybe there hasn't been one delivered yet. Or is it soon to be delivered?

Hon. D. Miller: We do have a draft, but we're awaiting completion of the audit. I think that should happen fairly quickly.

R. Neufeld: The other issue, I guess, with the Oil and Gas Commission -- and Mr. McManus says that they're working on it -- is the length of time to process, on average, well authorities and permits. It's a little bit longer, and it takes a few more days than he had hoped. I think the target was to try to get down to about ten days for the average ones, understanding that some of them are going to take a lot longer because of the areas that they happen to be in. Everybody understands that that gets to be a little more difficult.

Maybe the minister could tell me whether he anticipates that the commission will be able to meet the ten-day turnaround by the end of this year.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's comments with respect to the commission. I think they have done remarkably well. It was the area that I had particular concerns about when we developed the commission, because often, with the best of intentions, you don't get the desired result.

They have made a fairly dramatic difference. They used to be in the 30-to-40-day range. They're now down to a 14-to-15-day range. They've promised to try to get to 12. Given what I think is, again, a remarkable success story, I have a fair amount confidence that they will. I guess the only thing you should point out is that sometimes you can be a victim of your own success. In other words, as a result of both the oil and gas initiatives, the level of activity is up dramatically. Of course, that always strains the resources you have. So that's their target -- to try to get it to 12.

R. Neufeld: I realize that it does strain . . . . But as I understand, the industry funds the Oil and Gas Commission, so there's obviously a bit more money coming in if there are more wells being drilled -- and be able to facilitate movement of some of those well authorities more quickly. I'm pleased to hear -- or did I hear the minister say? -- that by the end of the year, they hope to be down to 12 days from the 15 days. I think that, at least in my discussions with industry, they'll be quite happy with that.

At the present time, are all the positions in Fort St. John filled -- the transfer of positions from Victoria to Fort St. John? Are they in fact filled? And has everyone been transferred there or moved there or been hired and filled those positions?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I understand that there may be two or three that are yet to be filled. Just for the member's information on the well application process, I'll go back to October. This is in the '99-2000 period. They were looking at about 22 days. This is just on well applications. In fact, by March they had reduced that to just below ten. Then we saw a slight bump up in April, and obviously that's due to more activity. So I think they're on top of the turnaround time.

[1550]

R. Neufeld: The other issue is -- speaking again of a familiar voice; we've talked about Bob Fedderly -- the alternative dispute resolution process. Where is that at? Are the guidelines there? They have some issues that they have to deal with, and we're wondering whether that's completed.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I understand that the advisory committee has been doing its work and that there are regulations being drafted with respect to the alternative dispute resolution process.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister provide to me when he believes the regulations will be drafted? As I understand,

[ Page 16016 ]

there are some issues that they're trying to deal with. But with no regulations, they're obviously having some difficulties. I'm certainly not trying to advocate that we should hurry something along and make mistakes, but I'm just wondering if there's some time frame that they can get those regulations so they can deal with these issues.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, as I indicated, they have been drafted. There is a period of consultation taking place now -- we think maybe in the 30-day range. Once that's been completed and the issue's been finalized, they'll be brought to government for finalization.

R. Neufeld: So in 30 days they'll be drafted. Then they're brought to government for your approval. What kind of a time frame are we looking at after that?

Hon. D. Miller: I've done remarkably well in my short political career by never being boxed in by a date. [Laughter.] We always try to do our best as quickly as possible. Clearly I think I've given the member a general sense of the time frame. There are always things that happen in government that throw you off that time frame. So as quickly as we can do it, we'll get it done.

R. Neufeld: Okay. Well, I'll take that back to Mr. Fedderly. I guess probably the last issue . . . . There are some other issues with the Oil and Gas Commission, but saving some time, I'll deal with those with Mr. McManus.

This is no reflection on the deputy commissioner -- none whatsoever -- but the travel that the deputy commissioner incurs . . . . I guess he lives in the south and travels to the north on a regular basis to do the job. I have just heard from some people that they wonder about the cost of that and whether there is an idea within government of locating that job permanently in Fort St. John or trying to find someone that can do the job who lives in the northeast.

Hon. D. Miller: Any travel expenses have to conform to various rules and regulations we have about that, and I'm sure they do.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to drag this out. But I just wonder if there's . . . . Is there some . . . ? I know that they have to fall within the guidelines. I mean, my goodness. I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, but I think all travel has to fall within a guideline. I want to know -- or I think people want to know: is this going to continue? Is it planned within the ministry? Does the minister intend to continue having the deputy commissioner live in Vancouver or Victoria and travel to the northeast on a regular basis to do the job?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, Madam Chair, any travel is for business purposes, we think. And I appreciate the member's comments earlier that he thinks, as well, that the commission is performing reasonably well. Any travel is travel that's required in order to ensure that the commission is functioning properly.

As the member well knows, we've had issues raised in this House in other areas or sectors. It is often difficult to recruit. Just in talking to the private sector, firms in some parts of northern B.C. find some difficulty in recruitment. But I think all the expenditures are justified. They're public at the end of the day and are required only for the functioning of the commission.

[1555]

R. Neufeld: Maybe I'll talk a bit about some other issues around that with the minister privately, rather than do it in the Legislature. That's basically all the questions I have with the Oil and Gas Commission. If you have people here dealing with that, they're free to go. I want to move on to the offshore oil and gas.

I know some of the studies that are taking place and the present one that's taking place. There were two, unless I'm mistaken. One was completed, and we're on the second one now, through the northern commissioner's office. Maybe the minister could brief the House on where we're at with the second study on offshore oil and gas. Because he's so bullish on what's happening in northwestern British Columbia . . . . He's talking about all the oil and gas that's there, and knowing that there's a tremendous amount right off the coast where the member lives out at Prince Rupert. There are some tremendous opportunities for the northwest to benefit and for the province to benefit.

We talked about the amount of revenue that the northeast has brought to the province through oil and gas royalties and such. Probably the revenues that could come out of offshore oil and gas would be huge. Maybe the minister could just brief me on where we're at with that issue and how he's personally feeling about drilling for oil and gas offshore.

Hon. D. Miller: There is, as the member indicated, a second contract in place that ends at the end of June. There's been extensive consultation on this question. Interestingly enough, I spoke to the Coastal Community Network conference. I think your colleague the member for Saanich . . . . Your Environment critic was in attendance, so no doubt he may have reported on my remarks.

The initial opinion I'm forming about the topic is that there is some significant interest, and at the same time some significant caution, about the potential for offshore drilling off the coast of British Columbia. I don't know if the member had an opportunity to view comments made by the Opposition House Leader on "Voice of the Province." I've circulated that video to Mr. McGuigan in Prince Rupert, who is a very active promoter of the concept. The Opposition House Leader took a very, very . . . . In fact, he was even more careful than I usually am.

It may be an issue that, like ourselves, the opposition party really hasn't formulated a substantive concrete policy on. I appreciate it if that is the case, because this is an important question.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I have stated my own personal opinion on the issue. I've tried to say it this way, and I'll repeat it for the member. If we can demonstrate to British Columbians with a degree of confidence that it's safe to drill for oil and gas off the coast, if we can assure British Columbians that there would not be any adverse impact on the marine environment, etc. -- those kinds of questions . . . . If we could ensure -- particularly for people who live in the region -- that the opportunities for them would be there, and if we can discuss these issues with first nations and have, again, a level of confidence about both

[ Page 16017 ]

the protection of the marine environment and economic opportunities, then I think it may happen. In my view, we're a long way from it happening. There needs to be, even if we were to take a decision to say that in principle we wanted to move forward . . . .

[1600]

I think, really, what people up on the North Coast are telling us is: "Don't proceed to lift the moratorium. If we're going to look at it, then we want to be involved in evaluating all the questions that would flow from that: what kind of oversight? What kind of regulatory regime? There needs to be a federal-provincial agreement." So there are a host of questions. But at the end of the day, given the volumes that exist, according to the Canadian geological survey branch, particularly in the Hecate basin, particularly gas . . . . That's actually kind of an interesting issue.

I think the experience of the Exxon Valdez, which is still being felt in Alaska, has made people, quite frankly, shy away from oil.

Yet my sense is that the real opportunity offshore is in gas. Gas doesn't have the same environmental problems associated with oil. My own view is that if we were to move ahead at some future date and develop those reserves, the potential for piping that gas ashore and then looking at using that both to fuel new industries and as a potential export commodity is very, very significant.

Finally, you'll appreciate that while in your particular constituency there's a bit of a boom going on, quite frankly, in the coastal communities in the northwestern part of British Columbia, I think they've been the most economically depressed and hit hardest by the fundamental change that's taken place in some parts of our industrial sectors. The forest sector on the coast is hurting badly. Shipments of coal and grain . . . . Coal, now, with the closure of Quintette, has significantly affected the port of Prince Rupert. Grain shipments -- it's a long story that I won't get into -- are down dramatically, notwithstanding the fact that we have an outstanding terminal.

So people are looking to develop an economic base, and they're looking at new opportunities. By the way, that also extends to the aboriginal communities who also, historically, had very good economies based primarily on the fishing sector and the forestry sector and are now seeing those evaporate and are wondering how they're going to sustain their communities and provide opportunities for employment for their young people. So there's a level of interest there. People are pretty cautious about it, but there is, I think, a good level of interest.

There was a significant conference at Simon Fraser University two weekends ago. I couldn't attend, but I understand it was well attended. We had representatives from my ministry give factual presentations on the resource itself. There were a number of speakers both from eastern Canada and from other areas who spoke about their experience in developing the offshore resources.

All of that, of course, is really intended to try to inform people and to have an intelligent discussion and debate around these questions. My personal hope is that that will lead, at some future point, to the lifting of a moratorium and the development of these resources in a way that benefits the people who live in the region and the rest of British Columbia.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the response that the minister gave in regards to the benefit it would be to the people who live in the region. I totally agree with . . . . I have visited the Prince Rupert region a number of times, the northwest, and I know that there are some difficulties with development and jobs and those kind of things. It's unfortunate, really, because it's a great part of the province.

So I would like to see some activity take place there, and it was refreshing to hear the minister say that he would like to see a lot of that activity stay in the northwest. I'm assuming that he means jobs and contractors and those kind of things -- the same issues that I was arguing about just a little bit ago about the northeast and trying to retain that kind of economic development in the northeast. So I'm appreciative of that.

Maybe we could just dig a little bit of deeper into where we're at. In fact, I've been on record as saying that where I come from, I know the oil and gas industry fairly well and that we can do this work offshore in a good environmental fashion. But there has to be -- and I think the official opposition has been very careful to say -- a good buy-in from everyone. That means the aboriginal community, and that means the people who live in the northwest -- before you would facilitate any of that work.

So I appreciate that, and in fact, I appreciate that the northern development commissioner has kept me informed to a certain degree on what's been taking place with those studies as they've progressed. And I appreciate the minister's response -- that he's in favour of doing offshore oil and gas too, as long as it's done in a way that meets with the desires and wants of the people who live in the region and that there is agreement.

[1605]

On the second study, can the minister tell me when we intend or when the ministry intends to have that study finished and will be putting it out for the public to have a look at? Or maybe it's already gone to the public, and I'm not aware of it.

Hon. D. Miller: The group will report to Mr. Backhouse at the end of June, and he will report to me. Of course, we'll make that public as well. I know the member is strongly interested in, and he speaks with some passion . . . . In fact, that led to a bit of conflict some moments ago between us with respect to job opportunities for people who live in his constituency, and I want to say that I bring the same attitude to mine.

I was pleased, on another unrelated topic, to see a release put out today by the Skeena Cellulose company. Of course, that's been highly controversial with, I would say, severe criticism coming to the government from the opposition benches saying, in effect, that we should not have intervened to save that company. These are always difficult questions, but I'm pleased to report -- if the members have not already seen the release put out by that company -- that there has been a bit of a turnaround. In releasing their first quarter results today, the company indicated that in the first quarter of this year they have in fact made a net profit of $15.8 million.

I know the member will appreciate what I'm saying, coming from a small community and having faced in the past some pretty severe downturns in the region. I recall the issues up in the northeast in the eighties, etc. I'm very, very happy and very pleased that it appears the decision to intervene to assist Skeena Cellulose in staying alive, notwithstanding the call from your leader to shut the pulp mill down, has resulted

[ Page 16018 ]

in a company that has now reported a profit of almost $16 million for the first quarter of this year and has secured, in a much better way, 6,700 direct and indirect jobs in the forest industry from Smithers through to Prince Rupert.

We keep trying, as I indicated the other day in the House, to look at new industries. But let's not forget the existing industries and where government can play a productive role and assist to try to get companies stabilized and, in this case, now reporting a profit. Perhaps the member . . . . Well, he may or may not wish to comment on that, but I don't want to put him on the spot. I know that over the years he's expressed strong feelings about jobs in northern British Columbia and perhaps would agree with me that, in hindsight, the decision to make that investment to protect these jobs appears to have been a prudent one, given the results we're seeing today.

R. Neufeld: I'm appreciative of the minister bringing forward issues that I think should be dealt with in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I believe Skeena Cellulose falls in that area. It's always interesting to listen to the minister respond to some of the questions and . . . . He gets a little carried away and starts talking about other issues and other ministers' responsibilities. But when we ask him questions that have to do with other ministers, he's not so willing to respond to those.

So maybe I'll ask one question about Skeena Cellulose: did the government live up to their commitment to put all the money into Skeena Cellulose that they promised, to bring it up to a standard that they demand of the rest of the pulp mills in the province of British Columbia? Have you put in the millions of dollars that you promised quite a number of years ago to bring it up to a standard?

[1610]

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes. The work isn't finished yet, so it's not all out the door. I think there's another $30-odd million yet to go with respect to the cap-ex program. Significant boiler work is going to be done in June or July, and that will result in even more efficiencies and a better mill all round. As I say, all and all I'm quite pleased standing here today, having taken a fair amount of criticism both from members opposite and from others. I wear it as a badge of honour in Prince Rupert, but I know that people outside of Prince Rupert and the northwest, who are not sort of directly impacted, may have been quite critical.

When I look at my colleague from Bulkley Valley-Stikine, and with all due respect to my colleague from Skeena who is undergoing his own significant trials and tribulations right now . . . . I know we're all very, very pleased with the stability that this investment has created, seeing people work in Carnaby and Hazelton and Terrace and Prince Rupert and in the woodlands.

Not that all the problems have been solved, by the way. There are significant areas and problems with respect to the forest sector up there. The economics of forestry in a very tough area with overmature timber . . . . There are lots of issues, lots of problems to solve. But taking that dramatic step, making that investment despite the criticism . . . . I think it's important that all British Columbians know that this company, which was criticized so much, has recorded almost a $16 million profit for the first quarter of this year and that 6,700 direct and indirect jobs have been retained.

I must say this, Mr. Chairman; I have to say this. I'm compelled to say it, if for no other reason, to remind people -- because I think a sense of history is always important -- that it was the Leader of the Opposition who said in this House and outside of this House as well . . . . "We shouldn't have done it; we should have shut the pulp mill down," were his exact words, quoted everywhere. I have them in print. In fact, I tend to forget about that, but every time I go home my constituents remind me.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I know the member for Peace River North will join me, if only in saying that he's pleased that those employees who are working today still have a job, as opposed to being unemployed if we'd followed your leader's advice.

B. Goodacre: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today to observe the estimates the Ministry of Northern Development is a group of school children from Chandler Park Middle School, Smithers, and some parents and teachers. I would like the House to please welcome them to this session of the Legislature.

R. Neufeld: I just would like to remind the minister that he did make a promise to Skeena Cellulose to bring it up to a standard that's environmentally acceptable in the province of British Columbia -- I guess he's not willing to make that admission -- but he hasn't done that yet.

Getting back to offshore oil and gas, I've seen in some notes from the Ferry Corp that there were some discussions about some of the activity that maybe the Ferry Corp -- CFI or something like that -- could work and find some work in the offshore . . . if something happens in the offshore. In fact, Mr. Rob Clarke, the VP of finance and corporate services, in a meeting in early March asked some questions about what effect allowing offshore oil and gas exploration off the coast of British Columbia would have on the shipbuilding industry.

It's interesting that even the Ferry Corp is looking at what benefits could accrue to the province through CFI, if something did go ahead. It's just a matter of interest that I put forward to the minister. I don't imagine, not being responsible for B.C. Ferries anymore, that he's probably read the minutes. But it's an interesting comment from the B.C. Ferry Corp, which is good.

I will pose to the minister, though, a question about offshore oil and gas and ask him how he will deal with this issue, if everyone agrees that we should be going ahead with offshore oil and gas, and if there is a willingness to go ahead and an agreement. The present Premier, during the leadership campaign, put on his web site some interesting issues, one of them being offshore oil and gas.

I'll just read into the record -- and this, again, is coming from the now Premier, when he was running as Premier . . . . Of course, you were the Premier at the time; you were the interim Premier, Mr. Minister. But I quote: "We must take strong action on climate change and endangered species and maintain the moratorium on offshore oil exploration."

It's an interesting comment, and that seems to me to be what we talked about just a while ago. In fact, we had quite a

[ Page 16019 ]

heated argument about consultation, when the minister talked about the Leader of the Official Opposition not consulting before going out and making statements. I remember that clearly from yesterday and in fact a little bit today, when the minister chastised me to a certain degree.

I'm not going to chastise the minister, but I'm going to ask him how he is going to deal with this, because we have an ongoing process taken on by the northern development commissioner -- I think an excellent process. I think it's working. I think it's the way we should be doing it to make sure we get buy-in from everyone before we go ahead. Yet the Premier of the province just arbitrarily says no, without even saying . . . . He puts it on a web site.

I can see the Premier being scrummed out behind the door here and not being able to respond to it correctly. But to put in a web site something that is absolutely opposite to what the Minister of Energy and Mines is trying to do -- and, I think, trying to do right . . . . And here we have the Premier just arbitrarily saying, without even listening to the people of the northwest, without listening to the aboriginal people: "No, we have to make sure that they maintain the moratorium on offshore oil and gas." So I ask the minister for his comments on that.

[1615]

Hon. D. Miller: Again, it's fortuitous. It's nice to see a group of youngsters down from northern B.C., and no doubt some of their parents may even be employed by Skeena Cellulose. The member might take this opportunity to apologize for the position that the opposition took on that particular topic.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh yes, here is a guy who knows all about the private sector -- and the pulp industry too. Thanks.

I referred just a few moments ago to comments made by the Opposition House Leader on the "Voice of the Province" program. And if the member didn't watch that particular program, I can get a copy of that video and send it to him because his comments appear to me to be directly at odds with what he's been saying publicly on the topic of offshore.

So I did say, when I referred to that -- and I also said that I offered a personal opinion -- that I don't think your party has grappled with the issue and formulated a position. I think that's fair to say. I don't think that you have, and as a result of that . . . . I know you've made certain statements, and I know that other members of your caucus have certain statements. Quite frankly, they contradict each other, because we're still in the position of Mr. Backhouse, who is the northern commissioner, responding to a request from northerners that he use his office to investigate a certain issue. He's doing it and -- I was pleased to hear the member say -- doing it in the right way.

Ultimately -- and my caution is this -- it's easy to play politics with this issue, but we might all be better off if you didn't. You want to try and stick in comments made by the current Premier; I can throw back comments made by the Opposition House Leader. My view is that it doesn't add one whit to the debate, because it all appears to me like a couple of politicians trying get one up on each other. I think the public are fed up with that. This is a serious issue, and I think people can look at it.

[1620]

It's interesting to see that there's even been a change of heart at the Vancouver Sun . The Vancouver Sun wrote an editorial last year saying: "Don't you dare." I phoned Judy Lindsay and said: "Judy, you're a business editor. How come we can't even look at it?" I understand they've changed their minds recently, and they wrote an editorial saying we ought to take a look at it. So I think you've got to get that kind of debate on this topic in British Columbia. I think it's an important and serious question and one, ultimately, that I believe this Legislature is going to have to come to grips with. No doubt in looking at that, there will be a variety of opinions, yea or nay, on the topic.

What we're doing right now is trying to get the view of people who actually live in the region, the people who presumably have to deal with the negative consequences, if there are negative consequences, or who may be interested in developing a regime that allows them to maximize their opportunities. We can all play the political game, but the important thing is that we look at this resource in an intelligent way, in a careful and thoughtful way, and hopefully bring it to the point where we can then debate that both publicly and in this Legislature and make the right decision -- because the benefits, in my view, are significant for the province.

R. Neufeld: Actually, you know, the minister should know that it was he who put forward remarks made by the Opposition House Leader when we started talking about offshore oil and gas. I didn't bring forward anything about the Premier until the minister wanted to start that little argument again. I'm not too sure if we shouldn't take a five-minute break, and you can go have your cigarette. But in any event, it was the minister that brought forward the Opposition House Leader's position and talked about Skeena Cellulose. It wasn't me that baited him into that and, to be quite frank, I wasn't going to make an issue out of it.

You give me no other choice than to bring forward a demand or a position by your Premier which totally eliminates what you've been trying to do. He flatly states that he wants to maintain the moratorium on offshore oil and gas. I guess the question I have for the minister -- and I don't want to go on for long, because we do want to finish these estimates tonight -- is: did the Premier consult with you -- not with the people of the northwest, but with you -- before he put this on his web site?

Hon. D. Miller: To be rhetorical, did the Opposition House Leader consult with you -- you're the critic, but I don't think so -- before he went on "The Voice of the Province" and said what he had to say? So, you know, we could keep it up, my friend. You might recall that yesterday I issued a bit of a caution about the political dynamics in British Columbia. I think it's fair to say that increasingly . . . . I'll use one example to make my point. The president of the Liberal party in Prince Rupert -- that constituency . . . . He's a decent guy; I've known him a long time -- Garry Rabel.

I don't know if he's still the president or not, but he was. He's a decent guy. He works in the local hardware store. I've known him for years; he was on council. He said: "I went to the Liberal meetings in Vancouver, and I pleaded with the Leader of the Opposition to stop saying: 'Shut down Skeena Cellulose.' " I think he was almost on his knees pleading for some understanding, and he didn't get it.

[ Page 16020 ]

Often you'll find that people in the north have different opinions, different ideas. That member had better watch it, because who knows what changes may come? And who knows what battles that member might have to get people to recognize that things may be a little bit different in the Peace River, as I do sometimes in saying things are a little bit different in Prince Rupert.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I guess we'll wait for that day, and the people of the province of British Columbia will decide when the government of the day finally gets enough nerve to call the election. We'll go out to the people with all of our different positions on different issues, as I said yesterday, and be questioned about them.

[1625]

So that's future policy, I guess, on both sides of the House, but I look forward to that day. In fact, I really look forward to that day. I'm quite excited about an election. I always get really pumped and excited for an election. I can hardly wait to go out there and talk about some of the other things, actually, that have been done by your government to the province of British Columbia.

Just a few questions around the northern development commissioner's office. Again, I received the business plan just recently from the commissioner, and it's pretty self-explanatory. But I want to go to the legislation. As I understand, there's supposed to be an annual report provided by the commissioner's office. I believe the commissioner was appointed July 17, 1998. Unless, again, it hasn't hit my mailbox, I haven't seen anything. I would almost think there should be two by now. But maybe the minister can . . . .

Maybe you're combining right from July 1998 until March 31, until the fiscal year end, in one annual report. If that's so, I guess that's pretty straightforward, and I can imagine it'll be out within a couple of days. If we end our debate tonight, we'll have the report probably by next week. Would that be correct to say?

Hon. D. Miller: It's at the printer's. It will be a combined report for the entire period, and I think it will be very, very soon.

R. Neufeld: That's great, and I guess we're waiting for some pulp from Skeena Cellulose.

Also in the legislation . . . . Like I say, I'm not going to go into a lot of the things the commissioner has been doing. He has quite a few issues that he deals with in the development plan, and he's quite available to me -- or has made himself available to me -- to talk about those issues. But there are some parts in the legislation where the minister can request reports from the commissioner on different issues. I just wonder if the minister's office has made any of those requests of the northern development commissioner.

Hon. D. Miller: No. I think it's safe to say that the commissioner and I meet on a monthly basis. He brings a list of issues to me, and we discuss those on a monthly basis. So I have not requested reports from the commissioner. I think it works a lot better to sit down face to face once a month and run through the issues.

R. Neufeld: Again, as I understand in the legislation, the minister would request the commissioner's office to take on some work and then get a report back from the commissioner and take it to cabinet for approval. Have any of those things happened? I guess what I'm asking is: has anything that the commissioner has worked on . . . ? This is not a reflection on the commissioner, but anything that the commission has taken on -- have they actually finished it? Has it been finished?

Is there a report, somewhere in your office or in the commissioner's office, that would show the public that yes, this in fact has been started and finished, remembering that the commissioner was appointed in July 1998?

Hon. D. Miller: I think the report -- which is really to the end of 1999, by the way -- will illustrate the issues that the commissioner has been working on. Certainly, as I say, we discuss those issues. Just to illustrate the point, recently he was successful in bringing together interests in the Houston area who are desirous of developing a cogeneration plant. That had been kicking around for a long time, and as a result of Mr. Backhouse's intervention, he has finally got the parties and B.C. Hydro together. That's typical of the kind of work he does.

The work in the Nass TSA and other studies that are now being undertaken with respect to the potential for a road from the Kemess mine site out to Highway 97. So there's a range of those, and I think the report will outline those for the member.

[1630]

R. Neufeld: Just a couple of other quick questions on the northern development commissioner's office -- three things, I guess. Tumbler Ridge -- what's taking place in Tumbler Ridge with Quintette's closure. Another one is Pacific Iron and Steel with the pig iron plant that was proposed for the minister's hometown, which would, again, add some jobs to the northwest. Maybe he could just brief me briefly on those two.

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to Tumbler Ridge, the issue is under the purview of the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. As the member is aware, I went to Tumbler Ridge with the member for Peace River South. We have instituted a process through the Ministry of Community Development under the leadership of Mr. Hal Gerein, the deputy minister. I met, just by accident, with Clay Iles, the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, in Fort St. John last Friday. He has been very positive. He's thanked me again for the support that we're giving him. There is a process in place, and it is continuing.

It's not as though the northern commissioner . . . . In fact, the northern commissioner was there. But we have not seen, or I've not seen, that as something the commissioner should deal with directly; rather, that's a line ministry function.

With respect to the pig iron proposal, I want to say that I was a bit dismayed. I've met on a number of occasions with the proponents -- in fact, as far back as two or three years ago, when it was being proposed by an agent for a company at that time called Tondu, out of Texas. I recall, when I was the Minister of Employment and Investment, meeting with that individual. I recall taking the time, when I was in Taiwan, to visit a Mr. Ho of a major steel company in Taiwan, along with representatives of Cleveland-Cliffs, which is a large American firm in the steel and iron business.

The issue is this: the proponents are saying that they want government to fund a feasibility study. They want government to give them the money to do a feasibility study on

[ Page 16021 ]

whether or not this project is something that could be achieved. I've explained directly to them, as has the minister responsible, that government does not provide that kind of funding. They've said to me that they have the greatest project in the world. I said: "Well, if you've got the greatest project in the world, then it ought not to be real stretch to go out to the money markets and pick up two or three or four million dollars to conduct a feasibility study. But we are not going to fund that kind of feasibility study."

I hope the member would agree with that approach, because if we were to do that, then how could we possibly say no to any other company or individual that came forward? "I've got a great idea. Would you give me the money to see if I can prove it?" We can't -- government can't -- be in the business of providing that kind of financing. We have indicated that if they can get this project moving, we as a government would participate in the infrastructure development and would be prepared to participate in terms of a power-for-jobs deal. There are significant advantages, we think, that can be brought using that approach. But we will not fund feasibility studies.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's response. Actually, I wasn't aware that they had made that request to the minister. I can only say that I concur with that kind of approach to those issues. I mean, if it can fly and it's viable, go out and get the money in the private market. That's what's going to make it fly. If you're after government, it's going to fail. Usually when government subsidizes some industries, it sometimes . . . . And I'm not going to mention any names; I don't want to say anything like that.

But when government gets too involved in some of those issues, they sometimes backfire and don't work that well. I'm glad to see that the minister is starting to understand that that free market system has to be where they go out to get the money.

I guess another question I have is the rural Internet services in rural B.C. It's something that was promised by this government as far back as 1993 under the then Premier Harcourt, and I think we're still working on it. I believe that the northern development commissioner is doing some work on it. Maybe you could just tell me briefly where we're at and when we think we'll complete this program that we started seven years ago.

[1635]

Hon. D. Miller: I do apologize, Mr. Chairman. I don't have extensive information, but I'm prepared right now to say that we'll give you a briefing. I'll ask Mr. Backhouse to prepare a briefing. I was intrigued by this, because I had met . . . . The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine had been very, very instrumental in trying to put together a proposal with the private sector company owners. The name escapes me for the moment. I ran into the gentleman up in Canyon City -- Gitwinksihlkw -- during the signing ceremo