1998 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 8, Number 25

[ Page 7139 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. L. Boone: Unlike some members of this House, this is in fact the first time that I've had an opportunity to introduce somebody in this Legislature who is actually from my riding. I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce somebody who is not only from my riding -- Prince George -- but who also works within my ministry: Margaret Doyle, a 25-year recipient, and her husband Robin Ebert. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It is also my pleasure today to introduce some people from my riding. Down here today from Ladysmith are Gillian and John Ames. Accompanying them, I believe, is Mrs. Ames's sister from Fort Nelson, Gerry Young. I would ask the House to please make these three people welcome.

C. Clark: Joining us today in the members' gallery is the executive of the SFU Young Liberal Club. Rick Sousa is the president. He's joined by the rest of his executive: John Panago, Dean Pogas, Mike Easton, Kim Haakstad, Sophia Wong and Afiya Khan. I hope the House will make them welcome.

G. Abbott: It's my pleasure today to introduce a very special constituent from the Shuswap, my mother Irene Abbott, who is here for the first time to see me participate in this assembly. She's here, among other things, to visit my aunt, Lily Spencer, from Victoria. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have the pleasure to welcome special guests from Japan, who are here today to inspect the site of the upcoming Dohyo Iri ceremony near the Legislature on June 5. That event will launch the Sumo Basho in Vancouver on June 6 and 7, at the Pacific Coliseum. The hon. members will recall seeing a Dohyo Iri ceremony at the opening of the Olympic Games in Nagano earlier this year. Will the hon. members please welcome Mr. Yamada, the master Edagawa from the Japan Sumo Association; Mr. Okabe, from TV Asahi; and Mr. Mitsueda, from Japan Travel Corporation. Arigato , hon. Speaker. I ask the members to welcome our friends from Japan.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are Ms. Hendricks and Ms. Leslie Petrie. Along with them are ten members of the Vancouver Island Head Injury Society, a very worthwhile group in our community. I ask that the House make them very welcome.

C. Hansen: My colleague from Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has introduced the executive of the SFU Liberal Club. I have to go back 16 years to a time when I was president of the UVic Liberal Club. In that vein, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the current president of the UBC student Liberal Club, Alex Johnson. Will the members please make him welcome.

W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have 32 young visitors, grades 7 and 8, with several adults and their teacher Mr. B. Hughitt and his colleague Mr. Burkhart -- and some other teachers, I believe -- from Petersburg Middle School, of The Dalles, Oregon. Please welcome them.

T. Stevenson: With us today are two friends of mine who are seniors who used to live in Vancouver-Burrard. Max and Clara Halber were very active in my election campaign. Unfortunately for me, they have moved to Victoria-Hillside, where they are sure to be active in that campaign when it comes. I would ask the House to make Clara and Max Halber welcome.

G. Wilson: In the House today is Mr. Garner Stone. Mr. Stone is the president of the Parksville-Qualicum riding association for the Progressive Democratic Alliance. Would the House please make Mr. Stone welcome.

J. Doyle: Today I'm pleased to have three guests in the galleries. First of all, there's Wayne Peppard from the Plumbing and Pipefitting Union. Wayne was also my campaign manager in the last election. With Wayne is Lee Loftus, from the Heat and Frost Insulators Union. Last but not least, a very regular visitor to this House is Tom Sigurdson, the executive director of the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council. Please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: Sitting in the members' gallery today is Marcus Hollander of Hollander Analytical Services here in Victoria. Mr. Hollander provided my staff with valuable advice on evaluation processes for studying the proposed rural health care travel points initiative. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: I recognize in the House today somebody who is very special to me, and I suspect all members will be able to relate to that when I introduce Susan Baker, who is my executive assistant and who was formerly my constituency assistant for about ten years. I haven't introduced Susan in this chamber for about ten years, and I do so now because (

a) she is here and (

b) I would like to be able to provide her with a copy of Hansard that she can show to her grandchildren, who didn't exist when she was here last time to be introduced. Colleagues, please join me in welcoming my dear friend Susan Baker.

Introduction of Bills

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT

L. Stephens presented a bill intituled Domestic Violence Protection Act.

L. Stephens: I move that a bill intituled Domestic Violence Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Domestic violence often goes unreported. However, when women do reach out for help, particularly from the criminal justice system, they frequently find that the system fails to offer the help they need. Current laws and policies concerning domestic violence are too lenient, creating the illusion that domestic violence is not a serious offence.

This bill is modelled on the Saskatchewan legislation, which has been very successful, and will allow victims of domestic violence greater access to the protection of the justice system through the use of a justice of the peace. The removal of the offender from the home, the use of emergency intervention orders, a victim assistance order and provisions for the respondent to be restrained, removed and/or to attend counselling or therapy are also included in this bill.

[ Page 7140 ]

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

Bill M204 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 10, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. This bill amends a number of statutes: Correction Act, Infants Act, Milk Industry Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Municipal Act, Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, Parole Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and Provincial Court Act. Of course, I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

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

Bill 10 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.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. I. Waddell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I move that this bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

[2:15]

I'm proud to present to the House Bill 11, the Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act. This new legislation follows an independent review, which surveyed more than 400 small businesses, investment professionals, industry representatives and legal and accounting experts. Business told us that we're on the right track with this method of raising capital for small businesses. Since the program's inception in 1985, approximately 300 businesses have used this method of raising capital. That translates into 29,400 person-years of employment.

These amendments will mean that more small businesses will have access to the program so that they in turn can create more jobs for British Columbians.

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

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.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, which amends the Mortgage Brokers Act, the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act. The primary purpose of this bill is to enhance investor protection. The amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act provide stronger regulatory tools in response to the growth and increased complexity in the mortgage market in recent years. The Mortgage Brokers Act amendments add new mandatory disclosure to investors of information that is material to the investment decision of investors, clarify existing disclosure requirements for borrowers, and require disclosure of conflicts of interest to both borrowers and investors.

The amendments also strengthen and modernize the Mortgage Brokers Act to make it more consistent with other acts regulating the financial sector by providing more precise regulations and enforcement tools, such as increased penalties for offences and a broader array of regulatory sanctions, including administrative penalties.

The bill also provides for improved investor protection under the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act. The Real Estate Act is amended to create a real estate special compensation fund to provide protection from wrongful conversion of trust moneys held by real estate licensees. The real estate compensation fund complements the existing industry-run real estate errors-and-omissions insurance for negligent acts of licensees, and it replaces the bonding requirement for agents under the current act.

The Securities Act amendments are intended to protect investors by providing uniform regulation with other jurisdictions. The Securities Act is amended to make the reporting period for insider trading and the rules respecting takeover bids uniform with other jurisdictions, and to ensure that investors in insurance products and segregated funds are protected by the Securities Act in the same manner as mutual fund investors.

Hon. Speaker, these amendments represent a significant improvement in investor protection under the Mortgage Brokers Act, the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9 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.

Point of Privilege

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I rise to respond to a point of privilege raised in this House by the member for Matsqui, involving the conduct of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. We reserved the right to respond, earlier today.

It is important to note that the single allegation, the sole thrust of the written point of privilege, is that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks did mislead this assembly -- not deliberately misled, but simply misled the House. The member opposite, being not only an MLA but also a lawyer, will certainly appreciate that the most telling oversight in his submission is the lack of any argument that the minister deliberately misled the House.

It would be important in your deliberations on this matter, hon. Speaker, to consider that any deliberate misleading

[ Page 7141 ]

during question period yesterday most likely came not from this side of the House but from the opposition benches, if from anywhere at all.

Central to the allegations made by the opposition during question period, the evidence around which the member for Matsqui, the Leader of the Official Opposition and finally the member for Richmond-Steveston carefully staged their performance, was the memo dated September 23, 1996. Only during the sixth question was the date of the memo, that vital piece of evidence, brought to light. That evidence was key, because it is a date prior to when the minister was first appointed.

All of the questions preceding were asked of the minister in her capacity as minister, as question period is the only available opportunity to ask questions of a minister, and they were answered by the minister in her capacity as minister.

For example, the Leader of the Opposition asked: "My question is to the Minister of Environment as well. Will the minister confirm that she wrote to the Premier?" Indeed, the entire contrivance was premised with a lengthy reading of the annual report of the conflict-of-interest commissioner regarding the conduct becoming ministers.

Once the opposition completed their grandiose, melodramatic rollout of the punch line, once the minister . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat. I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I am mindful, hon. Speaker, of the accurate instructions provided to this side of the House about argumentative submissions with respect to either a point of privilege or a response to a point of privilege. I know that the Government House Leader would not want to run afoul of those instructions.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

I would caution the minister that argument and debating are not generally part of these kinds of statements.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In response to his comment, I asked my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs what "tautology" is. It is to prove your point by demonstrating it. The hon. member opposite just did that.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, your colleague may be accurate on that point, but the member for Matsqui is accurate on the points he made. So I thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Once the minister was aware that the question was with regard to her conduct as a private member -- indeed, conduct prior to her appointment as minister -- she responded honestly and clearly, stating: "In my capacity as MLA for the area, I did contact my cabinet colleagues and lobby them heavily on the matter of Six Mile Ranch." Hon. Speaker, if there was any effort yesterday to mislead the House, either intentionally or perhaps in an unconscious state, as is sometimes the case on the opposite side of the House, the blame rests squarely . . .

The Speaker: Argumentative.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . with whomever orchestrates and manipulates the opposition question period. They deserve the credit for doing such a manipulation, but it was not, in any way, a matter of privilege.

Oral Questions

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

M. de Jong: My question is for the Minister of Environment. Since becoming minister and prior to February 6, 1998, has any member of the minister's staff contacted the Agricultural Land Commission in order to discuss its decision on the Six Mile project?

Hon. C. McGregor: Not to my knowledge.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui for a supplementary.

M. de Jong: To the same minister: has the minister ever participated in any cabinet meeting or cabinet committee meeting where the Six Mile project proposal was discussed, either directly or indirectly?

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. members. The minister and the member may be well aware that members are not required -- and ministers particularly -- to respond about events and activities within cabinet meetings.

The member for Matsqui for a second supplementary.

M. de Jong: To the same minister: has the minister ever formally absented herself from any cabinet meeting or cabinet committee meeting, being mindful . . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will wait until the question has been completed.

M. de Jong: Has she absented herself from any cabinet or cabinet committee meeting that dealt with the Six Mile proposal, recognizing the statutory obligation to disclose such absences?

The Speaker: My understanding, hon. member, is that that, too, is an inappropriate question.

C. Clark: My question is also for the Minister of Environment. Has the Minister of Environment ever formally filed a conflict-of-interest disclosure exempting her ability to discuss the Six Mile Ranch proposal, as required under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act?

Hon. C. McGregor: There would be no basis for me to make such an application.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for her first supplementary.

[ Page 7142 ]

C. Clark: Also to the Minister of Environment: why did the minister wait until February 6, 1998, to exempt herself from any direct role in decisions regarding the fate of Six Mile Ranch?

Hon. C. McGregor: Around the date that the member notes, I did direct my deputy minister to take on direct responsibilities related to Six Mile Ranch decisions related to my capacity as Minister of Lands. I did that with an abundance of precaution, because I believed there may have been a perception of a conflict of interest. I believe, in retrospect, that I probably acted prematurely. I didn't receive any advice from anyone before I made that decision, but I did discuss it with my deputy minister. I did ask her to take on delegated decision-making, and I did ask her to report those matters to my colleague the Minister of Education.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for a second supplementary.

C. Clark: If it is a matter of perception, why didn't the minister declare her conflict on the first day that she was appointed to cabinet, particularly in view of the memo that she sent to the Premier asking him to intervene politically on her behalf?

Hon. C. McGregor: As a new minister, I believe I erred on the side of caution in this matter.

The Speaker: I would like to observe . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

I'd like to observe that parts of this debate and these questions and answers are the subject of the privilege point that was made earlier, so I would hope that you would leave some of that for the Speaker to reply on.

[2:30]

G. Plant: My question is also for the Minister of Environment, and it relates to her duties while she has been the Minister of Environment. This is my question: during her tenure as minister, has she ever initiated or responded to any correspondence with cabinet or any person in her ministry or her government on the Six Mile Ranch proposal?

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. During her time as minister, has she ever directly contacted her regional staff in Kamloops with regard to the Six Mile Ranch proposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: From time to time I meet with my regional director, and the matter of the Six Mile Ranch has been discussed.

The Speaker: I'm going to move now to the member for Peace River South.

NORTHERN B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Health. Families and workers in remote communities scattered across northern British Columbia do not have satisfactory access to medical air evacuations. The fact of the matter is that the aircraft used by the B.C. Ambulance Service are simply too large for these airstrips, so if conditions aren't perfect, the aircraft don't land.

When an emergency occurs in Tumbler Ridge, nine times out of ten the ambulance fails to land or is not even dispatched -- to an airport that was constructed less than ten years ago for the specific purpose of air evacuations because the community did not have and does not have a hospital. Will the minister commit today to acquiring aircraft that are suitable to land in small, remote communities where existing airstrips are typically too short and Airvac pilots refuse to land?

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I will commit to review that and get back to him as quickly as I can. People do deserve to have access to emergency service.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, if the province of British Columbia were to enter into an agreement with Alberta to service communities in the northeast, including Tumbler Ridge, Fort Ware and the Tsay Keh, they could in fact do that more cheaply than by providing their own air services. The province of Alberta maintains appropriate aircraft in Grande Prairie and the town of Peace River. Will the minister commit today to investigate that option, which would dramatically improve air ambulance service for workers and families in small, remote communities? Will the minister at least make the commitment today to examine the possibility of contracting this work to the province of Alberta?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I will. I will make a commitment to look at anything that makes access by ambulance, including air ambulance, easier for people in the north.

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

M. de Jong: With respect to the discussions with regional staff that the Minister of Environment alluded to a moment ago, will she confirm whether any of those discussions took place prior to February 6, 1998?

Hon. C. McGregor: The matter of Six Mile Ranch was something that I was interested in well before February 6, 1998, and there are likely to be many conversations that I had with many people in the community on that matter, including members of my regional staff.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui for a supplementary.

M. de Jong: The minister also alluded only a moment ago to her decision -- "out of an abundance of caution" I think were the words she used -- to step aside from this file because of a perception of a conflict. What was that conflict?

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, there is no conflict. I do agree that . . . . I believe I erred on the side of caution. I was a new minister. I was trying to be particularly cautious about an issue that had become highly political, and I wanted to be able

[ Page 7143 ]

to assure my constituents and anyone who was paying attention to the matter that I was indeed acting in a way appropriate to my role as a minister of the Crown as well as to my role as MLA for Kamloops.

G. Plant: Since the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! We've got to hear the question.

G. Plant: . . . is apparently of the view that there was no conflict or apparent conflict on February 6, 1998, or before then, is she saying that she is now discharging and has since then discharged duties as minister that have involved the Six Mile Ranch proposal?

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, it's a bit painful listening to this fishing expedition and this mudslinging from the members opposite. As the Premier said yesterday, MLAs advocate for issues in their constituency, and they ought to be proud of writing letters -- and, in fact, signing their own names. Isn't it curious that when the MLA for Prince George North works for his constituents and works to save 150 jobs, the mudslingers over there attack him? When the MLA for Kamloops works for her constituents, the mudslingers over there attack her.

Do those members over there work on behalf of their constituents, I wonder? What have they got against jobs in rural parts of this province? They should get off this phony line of questioning.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston for a first supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Plant: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. I think I'll try it again. Since the minister is of the view that there was no conflict, notwithstanding her original public statement that there was, has she discharged her duties as minister since February 6, 1998, in respect of the Six Mile Ranch proposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I've answered the member's questions.

C. Clark: This is also to the Minister of Environment -- and I should remind members of the government that working on behalf of a constituent as a backbench MLA is entirely different from representing an issue when you are a minister of the Crown. I will ask the minister: during her tenure as minister, has she ever discussed the Six Mile project with Pagebrook or any of its employees or representatives?

Hon. D. Miller: Let's remember what we're discussing. The Liberals agreed with the Six Mile development. We are talking about trying to develop the economy and jobs in rural parts of our province. We haven't made a decision. We've gone through a certain process. That will be done in a timely way.

Why do the opposition insist on this political mudslinging? Why do they insist on taking this line, which -- who knows? -- may potentially jeopardize, in the future, these kinds of projects in rural B.C. I think they should think about their line of attack. The previous questioner hit on the point. As an MLA, the member advocated on behalf of her constituents. If she's guilty of doing something, then she ought to be darn proud of doing that. I'm sure the people of Kamloops are darn proud of their member. They ought to be equally proud . . . .

I hope they stand up, because having done that, she is now faced with this vicious mudslinging in this House from the opposition. I think it is absolutely despicable.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If there was some order here, then perhaps we could have a question asked -- all right?

C. Clark: Lastly, to the Minister of Environment: can she tell us of the most recent contact she has had with the company called Pagebrook?

Hon. C. McGregor: You know, hon. Speaker, I've tried very hard to treat this line of questioning very seriously, because I don't want anyone to believe that I am in a conflict in any way, shape or form. But I am getting really tired of the kind of questions that are coming from the other side of this House. You bet I've talked to Pagebrook; you bet I've talked to constituents in Kamloops; you bet I've talked to the mayor; you bet I've talked to a hundred people in Kamloops -- thousands perhaps -- on this matter.

I have talked on it repeatedly because of the importance it has to my community for job creation and investment. It is part of our plan in Kamloops to diversify our economy, and when the opportunity comes for this government to make a decision on it, I continue to hope that it will be approved.

Ministerial Statements

AGREEMENT WITH BCTF AND EDUCATION FUNDING

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am pleased to rise today to inform the House about the recent agreement with the British Columbia Teachers Federation and its enhancement of other recent accomplishments in our education system. Over recent weeks our government has announced three initiatives that collectively mark one of the most significant steps forward in education for British Columbia in the past 20 years.

Last month the Premier and I announced a major increase in education operating funds. This $105 million increase to core education funding in 1998 and '99 will allow for the hiring of 400 new classroom teachers plus nearly 300 teaching aides and other non-enrolling professional staff, such as counsellors and librarians, over the next year. This brings per-pupil operating funding to $5,849 a year, an average increase of $93 over last year and the highest level of all Canadian provinces.

Hon. Speaker, last week the Premier and I made two more important announcements to build further on our educational commitment. First, we announced funding for new schools, new classrooms and fewer portables -- funding of $338 million to be invested in '98-99 to create 17,200 new spaces for students in British Columbia, nine new schools, 64 school expansions and two major renovations that will go ahead this year. As projects started this year and last are

[ Page 7144 ]

completed, 1,048 portables will be removed. Over the next five years, the number of portables in British Columbia will be cut in half.

Last Friday, hon. Speaker, the Premier and I joined with the president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation to announce an unprecedented three-year agreement with British Columbia's teachers. Through this agreement, teachers have accepted no salary increase for the next two years in exchange for significant new investments in our schools. When it is ratified, the agreement will lead to the hiring of more than 1,200 additional teachers -- that's on top of the new teachers hired as a result of the operating funding increase.

The agreement will also establish, for the first time, provincial standards for lower kindergarten-to-grade-3 class sizes and will result in the investment of $150 million of new funding directly into British Columbia's classrooms. This innovative agreement will make a noticeable difference to our schools and to the educational experience of our children. It marks a renewed partnership that will benefit every child in British Columbia's school system.

[2:45]

There are those who have criticized the initiatives that this government is taking. Some critics are under the mistaken impression that per-student funding has been cut over the past six years; the reality is that it has gone up by more than $400 per student. Some critics seem to think that we can get rid of portables without making real long-term investments in school facilities. Some critics think the student-to-educator ratio has gone up in recent years, when in fact it is lower today than it was ten years ago.

Some critics don't have their facts straight. The reality is that, in total, these three announcements are a dramatic step forward for education in our province: 1,900 additional teachers, smaller class sizes, 75 major school capital projects, new spaces for 17,200 students, replacement of 1,500 portable classrooms over five years, a three-year agreement with teachers that provides for no salary increase for two years in exchange for major reinvestments in our system.

This is a bold response to the challenges facing our education system. It's a clear demonstration of this government's commitment to education. It's important for members of this Legislature to know that these important steps have been taken, that this government is acting decisively to follow through on the priorities of British Columbians. I urge all members to support these innovative measures, to support our commitment to education for our young people, to stand with parents and teachers and, most importantly, with the young people whose future depends on our education system.

The Speaker: A response from the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: I stand in this chamber today as a past teacher. I can tell you that I, frankly, find the remarks of the minister opposite unbelievable. No one in their right mind would see this minister as a person of credibility who has stood for education over the past seven years. I have critiqued this minister over a number of years, and I will respond to the political comment he has put in his remarks today.

This is not a government that continues to fund education in the province of British Columbia. This is a government that misleads the public on their budget, that misleads the public on their estimates, that misleads the public on announcement after announcement. Judge people by what they do, not by what they say. This minister has not delivered; I'm not convinced this minister will deliver. When he talks about an increase in funding for students in British Columbia, he knows that's not true. It wasn't true in the riding of Richmond East last year.

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

L. Reid: A $72 reduction . . . . He will tell you that that . . .

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

L. Reid: . . . is simply not true. I do not accept . . . .

The Speaker: Richmond East, take your seat. When the Chair requests a member to take his or her seat, that is what the member is to do.

Now I am asking the hon. member to pay very close attention to some comments that she made that were, in my view, unparliamentary and not appropriate in a response to a ministerial statement or in this House. I request that you withdraw a couple of those last remarks that you made.

L. Reid: Would the Speaker indicate which remarks she's referring to?

The Speaker: There were some suggestions about the minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I heard the member opposite clearly allege that I was speaking a falsehood. I think that is contrary to parliamentary procedure in this House, and I ask that those remarks be withdrawn.

The Speaker: The hon. minister is correct that those were the words, and that's what I ask that she withdraw.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, the Premier in this House has said that education funding has been reduced.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not a withdrawal.

L. Reid: If the minister does not accept . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, take your seat, please. The point has been made that it was a particular statement that you made that we are asking you to withdraw. You must do that.

L. Reid: I withdraw it, hon. Speaker, and I will continue.

The Speaker: Thank you.

L. Reid: And again, I will repeat for the benefit of this minister that the Premier has stood in this province and in this chamber and indicated that education funding has been reduced. That is a fact. For this minister to suggest otherwise is unparliamentary.

I do not believe that education is a priority for this government. We do know that there will be additional students coming into this province, perhaps as many as 8,000 this coming year. That is a significant increase, and frankly that will eat up most of the dollars that this minister has men-

[ Page 7145 ]

tioned are coming to education. This minister operates on a destroy-and-then-attempt-to-renew platform. There have been reductions to education funding in this province. In the last seven years they have cut education funding. The per-pupil amount dropped by almost $400 between 1991 and 1997. I would simply ask the members to refer to the budget documents for this province. The facts are there, and the facts speak for themselves.

We are entering a time when education will be operating bare-bones. The minister will tell you that this is about a teacher-student ratio, and he is including every single educator in the system. When we talk about classroom ratios in the province of British Columbia, we talk about the number of students that interact with a single teacher during a classroom day, not the entire system. So again, the minister is attempting to compare apples and oranges -- not prudent, not decent and, frankly, not forthright for the taxpayers of this province.

I too want to see a better education system for individuals in this province, but I'm not prepared to accept that this minister has any credibility on these questions, hon. Speaker.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I am frankly astounded that this minister would come into this House and would make reference to what is, at best, an interim agreement on a collective bargaining process that has not been ratified by the two sides at the table. We have not seen in this province, in all the years I've been observing politics, such a gross intervention in free collective bargaining as we have witnessed in this particular round of negotiations.

This government, when it sat in opposition, vehemently opposed the move towards centralized, provincewide collective bargaining, because they recognized how difficult it would be for there to ever be an agreement such as the one outlined in this ministerial statement.

What we have seen is that after millions of dollars of expenditure in that experiment, they failed to . . . . At the request of BCPSEA, asking for this government to provide assistance, the Premier's Office directly intervened and got into direct negotiations, as the minister correctly points out in this document, with the BCTF. Nowhere in here does it talk about the B.C. school trustees or parents. Nowhere in here does it talk about the other side sitting at that bargaining table. Nowhere does it talk about local boards which are now going to be faced with having to implement this agreement.

The reason it doesn't is because this agreement has not been fully explained, nor has it been ratified by the other parties to the negotiations.

This is a shameful, shameful intervention in free collective bargaining, notwithstanding what the documents may say in terms of its numbers. I think there can be a dispute made in future discussions as to whether or not this is a good deal or a bad deal. This government is supposed to be in favour of free collective bargaining -- unfettered and without the intervention of government. What we have seen here today is a most horrendous intervention in the free collective bargaining process.

I would hope, in reference to this minister's statement today, that what the government will acknowledge is that provincewide collective bargaining is decisively dead and that they will move back to bargaining at the local school board level.

VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I think this is a far less contentious statement. This week, April 19 to 25, is Volunteer Recognition Week in British Columbia and across this country. I was very pleased, therefore -- and I think it was very fitting -- that the Premier appointed me this week to be British Columbia's first-ever minister responsible for volunteerism in the community sector.

This week has been set aside across this country . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sorry to hear the members opposite mocking my appointment as minister responsible for volunteerism. There are thousands of volunteers in our community. That was indeed unfortunate.

This week has been set aside across this country to honour the thousands of women and men of all ages and in every community who donate their time and energy to making their communities a better place to live. Indeed, I think you can argue that the strength and prosperity of our communities depends upon volunteers. Services such as libraries, museums, service groups, arts, culture and recreation benefit from the work and dedication of volunteers. We see things from seniors' peer counselling, where seniors counsel seniors, to youth working with youth. In every instance, volunteers make a difference in the lives of British Columbians.

I want to give an example of volunteerism in partnership with government. In my ministry, the Ministry of Human Resources, over 5,000 volunteers based in 120 communities around British Columbia take

part in the emergency social services program. These people assist communities and individuals when they face emergencies, including everything from a house fire to some sort of natural disaster. Volunteers also add to the quality of life for our youth -- our future in our communities. Thousands of children in this province are involved in sports activities that help them develop their skills and self-confidence.

These activities simply wouldn't take place without the dedication of thousands of volunteers, who set up the sports fields on Saturday morning or who turn up after a hard day at work to practise with the kids. Volunteers create much of what makes our communities the wonderful places they are to live, and they are essential to the fabric of our society.

Volunteerism is also an engine that fuels the economic prosperity of our communities. For many people, volunteerism can be a valuable first step in gaining the skills that lead to a job. Business is attracted to communities where people work together, where opportunities exist for our children and for our youth. Active citizen involvement in community life makes for strong communities, and that is key to strengthening our investment climate and economy.

As we celebrate national volunteer week this week in every one of our communities, let's recognize, celebrate and, above all, thank the thousands of volunteers who donate their time, their skills and their expertise to making our province an even better place to live.

The Speaker: I recognize, in reply, the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: Sorry, hon. Speaker, not in reply. I stand to raise a matter of privilege.

The Speaker: Oh, all right. Proceed, please.

[ Page 7146 ]

Point of Privilege

B. Penner: I stand to raise a point of privilege which arises from today's question period. During questioning by the member for Matsqui, the member for Vancouver-Burrard took

part in some heckling. In my view, he made a very inappropriate comment, comparing the abilities of the member for Matsqui to those of a one-legged skier. I am deeply offended by that comment on behalf of all people with physical disabilities. As a member of this Legislature, I think that type of conduct is inappropriate. I think it reflects poorly on all of us in this House, and more importantly, I think it indicates contempt for people with physical disabilities. I am seeking an unequivocal apology from the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I recognize the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: Sadly, the member for Vancouver-Burrard isn't here and may well wish, then, to reserve his right to respond. I would just point out, however, that the literature on privilege is very clear indeed: matters that are not stated on the floor of the House -- i.e., that are not Hansard able -- are not matters of privilege. Comments made sotto voce behind the benches are not part of the parliamentary record.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, may I ask if you are playing the role of Government House Leader?

Hon. D. Lovick: I was, hon. Speaker. I'm sorry I neglected to say so.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack on another matter. The other matter has been . . . . I've heard the degree to which arguments have come forward and points have been made. A right has been reserved. I will hear that and then will make a response. But at this point, no further debate is allowed.

B. Penner: It's not debate; it's a point of clarification. I will send you, Madam Speaker, a copy of the tape.

The Speaker: All right. That's materials as required.

I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock.

[3:00]

VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK

(continued)

G. Hogg: This side of the House also supports, recognizes and appreciates the many contributions which volunteers make to the quality of life in this province. Indeed, the volunteers who participate in the democratic process which brings each of us to this House -- and I'm sure some days they wonder whether or not they're contributing to the quality of life in this province -- provide us with a sense of commitment, a sense of belonging and a sense of caring which touches every community in this province.

While I support the spirit of and the words in the minister's statements, I am concerned by the many stories which I have heard from many volunteers all across this province -- stories about the disbanding of volunteer hospital boards, stories about the disbanding or the risk of disbanding so many volunteer boards in so many of the non-profit sectors, and concerns with respect to the seizing of their assets. Volunteers really are the fabric of our communities, the people who bring our communities together and make it happen.

So many of these boards and societies have been generated out of personal commitment and out of personal need. They have been initiated to provide services which are now being rolled in and taken away from these people and from the commitments that they have put forward.

I'm pleased to hear that the minister is planning on making it a priority to consult with the people in the communities on ways to promote citizen involvement and wants to give the community-services sector a stronger voice in the policies and programs that affect voluntary action in this province. I truly believe that we must take further action within that area. The reflection of the quality of life in a community is based on the strength and the involvement of its volunteers, from Girl Guides through Little League and on to a myriad of other services and activities.

We must encourage these programs, we must encourage the volunteers, and we must ensure that they are recognized, that they are appreciated and, indeed, that they are supported. I trust that we will this day and throughout the year reflect upon their valuable contributions and ensure that we do the best we can to provide policies and practices which will support and enhance their involvement, rather than reducing or diminishing them.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to respond.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, volunteerism is important in our province and in our society. I think all of us here, at least prior to coming here, have been actively involved with volunteer organizations. Most of our families and some of us are still involved with volunteer work. We recognize how much volunteerism adds to the quality of life in British Columbia.

I want to start by joining with the minister in recognition of the contribution made by them. I must say, however, that coming from this government, one has to wonder whether or not this is a sincere outreach to the volunteer sector or whether it is simply some damage control because of the great number of volunteers who are moving away from that activity in our province. Hospital boards, which traditionally were vigorously involved in fundraising activities and enhancing the quality of health care in the community, find themselves disbanded and their property seized. That's a tribute to volunteerism?

Let them work for 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 years to accumulate properties -- hospitals, homes -- and then seize them from them. That's the way to recognize them? That's the way to give them some profile in the community?

When we look at the charities sector with respect to gaming, one of the things that charities were very much involved in was volunteers going down and running bingos and casinos and other kinds of activities. What do we see? New legislation that cuts volunteers out entirely, turns it over to professional casino workers. That's a tribute to volunteerism? That's support for volunteerism? Madam Speaker, it rings hollow coming from this government; it lacks sincerity.

I want to say again that I think most people recognize the contribution, but it is a bit of a bitter pill coming from this government and this minister. I think of the number of times in the last six or seven years that volunteers have come forward and offered to provide services that would cut the cost of government. What happens if one job is threatened as a

[ Page 7147 ]

result of those offers by volunteers? Those offers are rejected, simply thrown out, because they are seen to be a threat to government by way of volunteerism. What used to keep the cost of government reasonable in this province were the services that were provided by volunteers. More and more often we see them cut out. So while I acknowledge and, again, don't want to diminish in any way the contribution made by volunteers in this province, I find it difficult to accept the sincerity of the ministerial statement we heard today.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, as I was not in the House this morning at the time the member raised his motion of privilege, I'd like to take the time to review his remarks in Hansard . I would like at this time to reserve my right to respond to the point of privilege at a future date.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That's permitted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Miller: In this House, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of Energy and Mines. In Committee A we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES

On vote 31: minister's office, $380,000.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I have a small novel I could read here, but I won't attempt to put in too much detail on the front end. I'm sure members have a number of questions, and it's in those question and answers that we can explore some of the issues relative to the ministry. I would rather just briefly say that the government, obviously, has made some significant moves with respect to the Energy and Mines portfolio. The first -- and, to some degree, symbolically very important -- was the re-creation of a stand-alone ministry responsible for energy and mines.

Because of the smaller size of cabinet last year as we dealt with some very tough issues, we had to roll a number of portfolios together. I have actually held the portfolio for Energy and Mines since the re-election of the government, and I'm delighted that it's now once again a stand-alone ministry.

Members will be aware that we announced some significant initiatives both in this chamber and outside this chamber this week: namely, the agreement with the mining industry on a variety of initiatives, which we think will serve in good stead in terms of trying to stimulate more exploration, particularly in mining in British Columbia, and a variety of incentives with respect to tax and regulation, which was very well received by the mining sector. I was delighted to listen to some of their comments and to see the reporting that took place.

I think all members would agree that it's very important that British Columbia position itself as a jurisdiction that is friendly to the mining sector and that is interested in having exploration dollars and development dollars spent in our province. It's not just my opinion, but it seems clear from the response of industry that they were also very pleased with the initiatives that we've worked on together. I look forward to working with that sector and, hopefully, to seeing more projects come on stream in our province.

There has been some fairly good mining activity over the past number of years, with two new mines opening last year. It's no secret that those two new mines -- one owned by Princeton, the Huckleberry project south of Smithers, and one owned by Imperial Metals, the Mount Polley project east of Williams Lake -- were welcome additions to the mining industry and welcome additions to the employment base of communities like Williams Lake and Smithers. Both of those mines are experiencing difficulty. In fact, the two companies have merged.

That's finally been agreed to by the boards of directors and the shareholders, I believe. It will create a stronger entity, and in terms of global competition these days, I think that is a good thing. Both of them are very good companies. I look forward to continuing to work with them. They have proceeded to the Job Protection Commission to see whether or not we can work together to try to reduce costs in this current very difficult operating environment. If we can do that successfully, then both of those projects will continue to operate.

If we cannot, for whatever reason -- if the market deteriorates even further . . . . It has, actually, and I'll speak in a moment about that. If we can't close the gap between their current prices and prices in the current world economic forecast, then there may be a period where they'll have to close for some period of time.

The copper and gold markets have both been very volatile; both have seen dramatic reductions. Copper, which enjoyed a price in excess of $1 throughout the last couple of years -- it varies -- took a pretty significant drop to the mid-70-cent range and is now starting to move back up. It has sort of bounced around from 83 cents to 85 cents, even as high as in the 86-cent range. The long-range forecast, or at least to the end of the decade, is for no significant improvement on that price. In fact, it is in the 80-cent range, I guess, to the end of the decade.

Forecasters have been proven wrong, whether it's on the upside or the downside. So with any luck on the market side, we'll continue to see those projects . . . . They're also impacted by the price of gold. Again, I think one of the projects was predicated on a forecast price of about $3.98 or $3.89 -- something in that range. With gold now at $3.10 or thereabouts, you can see that the anticipated return to service debt is very, very challenging. We'll see what may develop with respect to those two operations in particular.

Similarly, the Kemess project, a very significant project in northern B.C., has also experienced difficulty, particularly with respect to the capital costs. I must say that I give absolute credit to Ms. Witte of Royal Oak for her tenacity with respect to trying to keep going on the project and to raise additional funds. She's been able to do that, and I certainly wish her all the best with respect to completing that and having that mine open as well -- again, opening in the face of some very, very difficult market conditions.

[3:15]

We also recently approved two new projects. The Tulsequah Chief, the Redfern proposal up in northwestern British Columbia, has been the subject of some controversy -- all of it, quite frankly, misplaced. Perhaps that issue may arise during the course of these discussions, and I'll be pleased to try to answer any questions on that. We've also approved the Willow Creek coal project near Chetwynd. It has the potential to create about 70 jobs in that community, with some good coal and other industrial projects, if things go well, that might be tied into that.

[ Page 7148 ]

We've been able to come to agreement with Teck on rail and port rates for the northeast coal operations. Obviously, reduced tonnage has had a very unfortunate impact in the community of Tumbler Ridge, with a considerable number of people receiving layoff notices as a result. They're going to struggle. As you know, anybody who's doing business in Asia is struggling these days, but hopefully that can hang together.

On the oil and gas side, we have been working not only with CAPP, the petroleum producers, but with the municipal and regional governments in northeastern B.C. in an attempt to get an agreement to satisfy issues that they've identified -- the so-called Fair Share. We've signed a memorandum of understanding with the Treaty 8 bands in northeastern B.C., again with the intention of trying to develop better processes in terms of the applications that are received for oil and gas drilling.

Oil and gas has been a bright spot in the province, with a considerable increase in the level of activity -- some $1.7 billion invested in British Columbia last year. All the forecasters suggest, particularly with the Alliance Pipeline moving forward . . . . There was some good news again today. I think a major project for a gas pipeline in the U.S. has now been shelved. It seems to me that that boosts the potential for the prospect of Alliance succeeding. They're in the National Energy Board process, and so we await that with anticipation.

Clearly the potential with Alliance Pipeline means that there can be significant new activity in the northeast. That line has to be filled, and I understand that net-backs to producers, etc., will improve over time.

So we can see that in both the mining and the oil and gas sectors, there is lots of potential. It's not bad to do this, particularly on the mining side: at the bottom of the cycle, take advantage of hopefully, a rising tide in the future.

We have also brought in other initiatives. Last year, it was Power for Jobs, which, we are attempting to use to lever investments into the province to create even more employment, whether that be in aluminum smelting or in other types of projects.

I also have responsibility for -- and as a northern MLA, I was delighted to have the Premier ask me to take this on -- the Northern Development portfolio. It's not a portfolio that has staff. We will be working with northerners.

Members, be aware that following the Premier's summit in Prince George in October last year . . . . There was general agreement, first of all, that the summit was a very good exercise. I think northerners were pleased to be consulted. They made it clear that they want to be listened to. They don't want Victoria to tell them what to do, but rather they want to be listened to, and they want to have the resources to look at issues that they might drive.

The advisory committee that I put together, not only to put the conference in place but to follow-up, was asked to go on the road to consult with northerners on the form of an agency that might suit the needs of northerners. They've reported back; they've recommended a commissioner model. I've committed to following up on that, and I anticipate that we may be debating that issue in the form of a bill, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

That will provide an agency, a very small one, listening to what northerners say -- not a big bureaucracy, but a small agency with some capacity to focus on the needs of the north and to drive the agenda that's developed in northern B.C.

There is a fair amount of excitement on that question. Whether I talk to university presidents -- as I did this morning, to Charles Jago from the University of Northern B.C. -- or to others in the business sector and aboriginal sector, there is a fair amount of excitement. As a result of the kind of focus we're putting on northern B.C., particularly this year, we are able to allocate . . . . I really want to thank my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways. A significant allocation of the Highways budget was made to northern B.C. this year. Again, northerners seem to be responding in a very positive way to those announcements.

There are all kinds of other things I can talk about with respect to the north and ideas that northerners and I have in terms of how we can pursue objectives to expand the northern economy. We're working on transportation initiatives. We signed an agreement last October between B.C. Rail and CN Rail. Finally, after two decades, we've solved the interchange problem in Prince George between those two railways. We are working on a further initiative where they intersect in other parts of northern B.C.

We think that there is huge potential on the agricultural side for the further development of the agricultural sector in northeastern British Columbia and further potential to see significantly more product moved through the northern rail transportation system and out through the port of Prince Rupert. That port, as members may be aware, is some 600 kilometres closer to the Asian markets. That's a full day's sailing time. In terms of time, it's a significant saving. It's an outstanding, unimpeded corridor, and it's a very efficient port, capable of handling a diverse cargo: grain, coal, lumber and other products.

For the first time, this year they actually have some reasonably significant inbound cargo: some steel for the very significant pipeline work that's being done in Canada. We're going to continue to work, as we are now with the government of Alberta, on a joint task force to look at ways in which we can enhance the throughput on the rail line and out through the port of Prince Rupert. So there's some exciting ventures that we will be collaborating on with northerners.

To the degree that it's possible, we want to take these made-in-the-north ideas, to work with northerners and, as I said, to try to expand the economic opportunities.

We've had some very controversial issues in northern B.C., not the least of which was this government's very serious attempt to try to assist in saving the economy of northwestern B.C. I know that's been opposed by members opposite, and while it's not technically under my ministry . . . . Well, maybe they don't want to bring it up, but just to kind of illustrate the kind of efforts we're prepared to make, particularly in the rural parts of our province, where the economy is still very much commodity-based, resource-based, there are diversification strategies.

But it's important to maintain that core industry, that fundamental core of your economy, and to maintain employment, and we're going to work very, very hard with northerners to see if we can not only maintain but expand opportunities.

I think I've talked longer than I actually planned, but not quite as long as the speech might have led me to do. So with that, I'll take my place and try to answer some questions.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I recognize the hon. minister for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Thank you for calling me a minister, but I'm already . . . .

The Chair: I apologize, member.

Hon. D. Miller: It might be as close as you get.

[ Page 7149 ]

R. Neufeld: You never know; one never knows.

Just in response to the minister's opening remarks and to put on the record how we hope to deal with these issues that are in your portfolio, the critic for the Mines portion is the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who is sitting beside me. He will be leading the estimates debate on the mining industry. I will take the energy industry first, as we're going to do it right now. I will also bring forward questions on the Northern Development part of your portfolio. The two Crown corporations . . . . I will be dealing with B.C. Rail issues, and the member for Richmond Centre will be dealing with the Ferries debates when we finally get to them.

Just as a bit of a response to the minister's introductory remarks, I want to say, having lived and worked in the north pretty well all my life, both in Fort Nelson and in Fort St. John, that I really appreciate living in the north. I think I understand some of the difficulties that northerners face and have faced over time, over years.

The minister talked about making some significant moves. We're going to talk a little bit about some of those moves that he feels are significant. When we talk about the mining industry, and the minister talks about new mines -- Mount Polley, Huckleberry, Willow Creek . . . . That's all fine and well to say. But all those mines are experiencing . . . . Willow Creek is just being developed, so it's probably unfair to include that one, but the other ones are all having some tremendous difficulties operating in this environment.

Now, I will concede that part of the equation is the price for their concentrate; there's no two ways about that. But one of the huge parts of the equation is the regulatory burden that has been imposed on the mining and oil and gas industries -- and the taxation problems that have been imposed on these industries. It's really taxation and regulation that have been brought forward just recently -- in fact, as recently as since the NDP became government.

If we look back prior to that, there were some discussions about regulatory burdens and some taxation problems, but nothing like we've witnessed since this government came to power.

I say with all respect to the minister, a person who has lived and worked in the north most of his life, that all of a sudden, I guess after winning the second term, then realized that there is a northern British Columbia and that northern British Columbia deserves something. It's unfortunate that it took almost five years for this administration to actually start responding to some of the needs of the people in the north.

I could go on and on and list all the things that have taken place, but one that will always remain with me from my constituency is the state of our rural roads. You know, it's fine to stand up in the seventh year of the administration and talk about how you're going to put $11 million into the constituency of Peace River North, which has 6,000 kilometres of gravel road, and say: "We're really looking after things." Unfortunately, those roads went to ruin in the earlier years of your administration.

Not once did you listen, not once did the Minister of Transportation and Highways listen, and neither did the Premier. I guess it was directed at looking after the southern part of the province -- and how much revenue you could get out of those industries. That's exactly what took place. That's just a few years ago.

The other thing that the minister talked about, and the bright spot, is the oil and gas industry. He's been the minister responsible for oil and gas for two years, I think, and now he starts talking about an investment of $1.7 billion a year. That's actually been going on for a while. But to get some recognition for the ministry was pretty tough. In fact, this government even eliminated it -- absolutely rolled the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources into another ministry. That's how much, I guess, this government thought about that industry in 1996.

My first question for the minister, after having said that, is that . . . . When you eliminated or amalgamated that ministry with another one in 1996, you sent out a huge negative message not only to the mining industry, of course, but to the oil and gas industry. That, coupled with ministers of the Crown coming to the North Peace and saying that the oil and gas industry was just a cash cow for the government of the day, didn't leave too good a taste in the mouths of people from the north. Ignoring it, using it, not investing back in it were very negative.

Now this government is trying to go out and say how much they really care about the mining industry. I'll give them credit: they brought in a bill that the mining industry is quite happy with. But you had to bring the mining industry almost to its knees, and then you responded with some positive stuff. That's the problem.

So maybe the minister could tell me, for my constituents, the reasoning behind the reinventing of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Northern Development, as it's called now, from what it was two years ago.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Miller: I was remarking that it's sort of like a lover's quarrel: you've got to rehash all the bad things that happened before you can make up -- at least, so I've been told.

With all due respect, I really think the member is right. Quite frankly, I want to go back further than two years ago. Let's go back 20 years and ask ourselves why, over 20 or even 30 years -- my party was not in power for most of that time -- those kinds of issues were neglected badly. Perhaps really all I'm saying is that the past is the past, and all of us can look at the past and take our own particular slant on why things weren't done.

I prefer to be prospective. I would only point out . . . . And I'm not standing here claiming credit on the government's behalf for the activity of last year. But we were in power; we were the government. If we and if things were so bad, then why was there a 25 percent increase in wells drilled in northeastern B.C. in 1997 over 1996? Most governments would stand up and have the trumpets blare and say: "We've done a great job." I'm not doing that; I'm just citing the statistics. The highest number of wells drilled in a year in the province's history -- 583 wells -- were drilled in 1997, an all-time high with respect to the sale of oil and gas rights.

The best-kept secret in B.C. is that the unemployment rate in the North Peace regional district is 3 percent or thereabouts -- 3.1 or 3.3 percent. The industries up there are having a heck of a time recruiting and hiring people to work in the industry. I venture to say that most other regions of the province would be quite envious of having that same condition.

But the member is absolutely right; there are serious problems. And we are moving. I suspect that we will see an announcement very, very soon of even further initiatives of the government. Half of the Highways budget this year was allocated to northern B.C. The comments from elected municipal and regional officials in northeastern B.C. were very, very positive, and I'm pleased about that. In fact, I talked to a number of them this morning on the phone and had a very good conversation.

The reason why the Premier had to take drastic action in the first year of the mandate was to show symbolically that

[ Page 7150 ]

the government had to tighten its belt. We reduced cabinet in this province to the smallest cabinet that's even been in modern history. Individual ministers had to carry big loads, and it was a challenge, quite frankly. I had, at various times, about three portfolios mixed together.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says: "Too much." I agree. Notwithstanding that, you take those challenges and you do the best you can.

Now, as we come into the second year -- as we look at specific sectors and we look at our job-creation initiatives -- we are moving to follow up on the commitments that the Premier made to try to stimulate the economy and create more jobs in British Columbia. That's why moving to a stand-alone ministry with an added responsibility for northern development makes all kinds of sense for northerners, for the mining sector, for the oil and gas sector. We intend to work very hard. As I said to that member when I was at a reception in Fort St. John, I would prefer to work on a bipartisan basis.

I know that all northern MLAs really have something in common. They all want to work along the lines that I've talked about, and I'm quite prepared to work on a bipartisan basis. I'm also quite prepared to be partisan, although I prefer the former.

So that's the reason behind it, and I think we're making some progress.

R. Neufeld: Probably the reason you started finally recognizing that northern B.C. is there and that you really desperately need it, is because it's the only part of the province that is making any money for the government of the day. They've brought the rest of industry to its knees around the rest of the province -- specifically the forest industry -- so I guess that bright spot shone bright enough that it's a pot of gold for this government to go to. That worries me to a certain degree. They might be wanting too big a part of the gold.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we'll get on with a few more questions around the ministry. Will the ministry have the same responsibilities given to it that it had prior to its elimination in 1996?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Have any departments at all been eliminated or downsized? If so, which ones?

Hon. D. Miller: Along with other ministries, with the exception of Education, Health and Children and Families, this ministry has taken a budget reduction. This is the second year in a row of budget reductions. Perhaps my staff can give me a percentage in a moment, but it has been reduced, and we have challenged people in the ministry to do more with less. I think that's generally a theme that meets public expectations. I think the public wants us to try to do more.

We're looking at about a $1.7 million reduction, plus a further $1 million, for a total of a $2.7 million reduction over last year.

R. Neufeld: Thank you for giving me the dollar figure. But have any departments of your ministry been eliminated or downsized? If so, which ones?

Hon. D. Miller: The significant reduction on the employment side in the ministry took place last year, so this year I don't think there's any impact on the employment side. It's zero on the employment side. But I do think it's a challenge. It's a challenge in all ministries that have had these kinds of reductions to continue to perform their functions. Everybody has to work a little harder and be a little more creative. I can tell you, just from a corporate point of view, that the people in the ministry are delighted to be back in a stand-alone ministry.

There are some very enthusiastic, very talented people in the Ministry of Energy and Mines. My sense right now, in this early stage of the stand-alone ministry, of some of the initiatives that we are doing is that the staff are very, very excited. I know I've talked to people in the field and people here at headquarters, and there's a renewed enthusiasm and a renewed sense of confidence in the ministry to get out there and do the job.

R. Neufeld: I agree with the minister. There are some tremendously talented people who work for the Ministry of Energy and Mines -- no doubt about it. I'm happy to see that it's back again as a stand-alone ministry and that we can start dealing with this industry, important to British Columbia, in a stand-alone ministry.

The number of FTEs in your ministry has increased, I think, by 25. You say that last year there were major cutbacks, and this year you've added 25. Can you tell me where those individuals will be utilized?

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, roughly 25 people. It's a bit misleading, and I'll put it to you this way. While I was the Minister of Employment and Investment, at various times I also had under that umbrella . . . . I was also the Minister of Municipal Affairs, briefly. A memorable term, actually . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, in more ways than one. You can appreciate that while I, as Minister of Employment and Investment, had an office with a certain number of staff, with the creation of additional ministries, I still have that office with those staff, so that ends up being counted as additional FTEs. Do you appreciate the argument I'm making?

R. Neufeld: Yeah.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah. So we've identified 25. Seven of those are notionally allocated to the Northern Development portfolio. They've not come on board yet. The additional ones end up representing my office -- the argument I just gave you -- the deputy minister's office, the ADM's office and the office of the director of communications. Part of it is bookkeeping, if I can use that term.

R. Neufeld: If I can, I'll just go back a little bit and ask the minister about the issue around enhancing accountability and performance in the British Columbia public sector. We've both talked about appreciating them very much and that there are great people who work for the ministry, but this is an initiative taken on by your government. I just wonder where you're at with that. Was it in place before, when it was under your other ministry, or is there a plan in place now?

Hon. D. Miller: We did have plans under the old ministry. Obviously, with the new stand-alone ministry and its initiatives, that's part of our economic planning. Yeah, we'll be working on business plans.

[ Page 7151 ]

R. Neufeld: The minister says that they'll have a business plan in the future. Can the minister tell me, as Minister of Employment and Investment -- who was responsible for the Energy and Mines portfolio -- did you have a business plan at that time, and accountability?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Could I have a copy of that, please?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll advise my staff now in the House that any particular papers, plans, etc., that can be shared with the member, we'll make available to you.

R. Neufeld: I guess this is getting on to a bit of the policy. Maybe on the Energy side of your ministry specifically, could you tell me what your policy is? What is the policy of this government? What is your mission statement? How does it relate to oil and gas?

Hon. D. Miller: Our objective -- and I spoke briefly of it in my opening remarks -- is to increase the level of activity in the oil and gas sector in British Columbia. We're going to achieve that through a variety of mechanisms. The most significant will be an agreement that we will reach with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. We're working, as well, on agreements with the Treaty 8 first nations and with the municipal and regional governments on Fair Share. As a result of that, as I say, we hope to increase that level of activity -- not just in and of itself . . . .

Quite frankly, economic development has to have a purpose; it has to suit the needs of the public. Clearly, in the case of northeastern B.C., addressing the infrastructure problems that the member outlined in his remarks is the key component of any strategy to ensure that we develop the economy of the province in the best interests of the people of the province.

That's my version of it. I'm not really wanting to recite bureaucratic language around these questions. I like to approach things in a pretty straightforward manner. Let's all go to work and see if we can increase the level of activity and get more jobs and more benefits for people of the province.

[3:45]

R. Neufeld: When they get around to getting their business plan in place, maybe some of this will be laid out there -- about the objectives and strategic plans. Maybe we can just enlarge that a little bit. When you talk about oil and gas and infrastructure in the north, are you talking about the mining industry providing some moneys for infrastructure in the north? How does it relate to B.C. Hydro and its activities in the northeast with Site C or the generation of electricity via natural gas? Is there a vision?

Or did I read something between the lines: that the minister said that we're going to look a little more seriously at maybe sharing a bit more of that revenue so that some of it can stay in the north and so we can actually look, not just in the northeast but across the whole northwest . . . ? One of the worst roads in B.C. traverses through the Bulkley Valley-Stikine area, a riding held by one of your members. I'm just wondering if some of that money is actually going to start to be invested back into the land base so that we can start providing more money for the province of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In fact, the member might look at -- and probably has looked at -- the results of the Premier's summit. The summit was developed, and the process that was gone through was to break people into sectoral working groups to talk about various sectors -- what the problems were what solutions there were to try to overcome impediments to growth.

Transportation infrastructure was identified as a key issue in northern B.C. While to some degree the basics, particularly the major east-west corridor, are in reasonably good shape on both the rail and the road side, the member is absolutely correct: significant deterioration on the road side is in the northeast -- without identifying particular roads -- and the Highway 37 corridor. There's no question that they need serious attention. Part of that will be dealt with initially by the allocation of one-half of the Highways budget for northern B.C. this year.

There will be some additional announcements with respect to money available for road development in northeastern B.C. So stay tuned; I won't give it away here.

Generally, my thought is this: as we look at opportunities to develop the economy of northern B.C., increasingly we have to look at ways in which that increased or expanded economic pie can make a contribution to the infrastructure issues that the member has talked about. There is no set formula on that, quite frankly. As we move forward, I think the oil and gas initiative would be one approach. I'm not certain that there an actual single approach to that question, but in the province generally, unless we can expand the economy, we have a problem with respect to the amount of capital that's available for the projects you identify.

It's a very intriguing question, and I've made speeches outside this House on that point. I've actually advanced a certain premise that I think is logical and that I think would, in an objective way, be supported by economists. In fact, I gained some of the information from articles that I had read, specifically a major

article in the Globe and Mail last year, that talked not just from a B.C. perspective but really from a Canadian perspective, about the issue of debt and the ability to invest in infrastructure.

As I say, it is a very challenging question, because B.C. has been challenged more than any other province. Arguably, other provinces have vast geographies, but ours is pretty unique, because we've got a lot of communities around northern B.C. On the prairie provinces, for example, you won't find nearly the population base that you have in northern B.C., at least along the Highway 16 corridor and up into the northeast. We have a very large and tough geography. Your part of the country is one of the most difficult. Soil stability and those kinds of things are huge problems in terms of road and rail construction.

B.C. Rail had huge problems last year with sections of their track being taken out of commission and significant dollars that they had to put in.

We've had 500,000 people move to British Columbia over the last six years. That has put tremendous pressure on the government's ability to finance capital projects: schools, hospitals, transportation corridors, roads and those kinds of things. Yet all of us agree that those investments need to be made if we are to realize the economic opportunity that exists; and that's particularly apropos in northern B.C.

Our government had developed a capital program of investing in British Columbia -- investing in new schools, investing in roads, investing in hospitals. We had determined that it was appropriate that the ratio between our gross domestic product, which is really the size of our economy . . . . This is a crude analogy, but nonetheless it's one that I think people understand: if you want to relate that to an individual, it would be the size of an individual's income, or what they earn on an annual basis, and the ratio of that income, that

[ Page 7152 ]

gross domestic product, to the amount of money they can spend to service debt. In the homeowner's case, you would argue that the mortgage is the debt. There has to be a relationship between your income and your expenditures to service your debt. In British Columbia the ratio between the gross domestic product -- in other words, the size of our income -- and our debt is 20 percent. It's interesting, because along with Alberta, this is the lowest ratio in Canada. In other words, along with Alberta, we spend the least amount of money servicing that debt -- which I like to refer to as an investment -- of any Canadian province.

In a theoretical sense . . . . Economists argue, quite frankly, although there is no magic number, that 25 to 30 percent is a reasonable ratio. To illustrate the magnitude of the difference that exists across our country, if we look at the federal government, for example, the ratio at the federal level is 70 percent. Other provinces vary in the 40 to 50 percent range and even higher; I think Quebec may be fairly high. So we can see that we have a distinct advantage in B.C. in that our debt on a per-capita basis or as ratio of GDP is actually the lowest in the country.

There is a reasonable argument, quite frankly -- it meets with fierce opposition from both the opposition party and, I suspect, from the public -- that if we really want to stimulate the economy of B.C. and of northern B.C., we would lift that ratio up. Now, the Minister of Finance this year, as you may be aware, developed a sliding scale. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it's between 19 and 21 percent. I think it's somewhere in there. One could argue that if we really want to forge ahead and build the economy, we have to make investments in basic infrastructure. In northern B.C., it's the highways you talked about; I think they're critical for development.

But you know, there are some other very, very important areas where there are also serious gaps in the highway. To my mind, the information highway, the electronic highway, is equally important in northern B.C. if we're going to be able to take advantage of the new economy and the electronic linkages. These are vital in terms of expanding the economy, which clearly in southern B.C. has led to significant growth in the high-tech industry.

Some elements of that high-tech sector are growing at 20 percent annually. They have a huge problem trying to recruit people with the right skills. I see some young people in the galleries. It's interesting to note that the biggest problem in information technology and the high-tech sector in British Columbia is that there's a shortage of people with the sophisticated technical skills that that industry needs to grow and prosper. We're working with them. My colleague -- and again, the change in ministries . . . .

Combining post-secondary education and the high-tech industry together in a ministry was, I think, a marvellous idea of the Premier's. The synergies between those two are significant.

But they do access the information highway; they're part of it.

In northern B.C. I would dearly love to have a huge fund of money so that we could complete those electronic linkages, so that northerners in small communities could also be linked in to that information highway, which is, in many respects in terms of the developing economy, as important as blacktop is on a road. But there are limits on the capital side, so we look for creative ways in which -- for example, stay tuned on the oil and gas initiative -- we can, as a result of new developments and expanding the economy, try to ensure that some of the revenue and some of the economic benefits kept in the region are more and more to address those kinds of issues -- and others.

I'm committing a cardinal sin, here, because I'm eating the clock in my own estimates. My colleagues are going to get me for this. But it's a very, very interesting topic.

R. Neufeld: I don't mind if you prolong your estimates a bit. If you wish to do that, that's entirely your purview.

Some of the issues that the minister brings forward when he talks about debt-to-GDP ratio and those kinds of things . . . . That's fine if you have a debt repayment plan in place that actually works, that you actually live up to. That's how business plans are put together. Your government seems to bring in a budget every year, and you've got a brand new plan on the repayment of the debt. I can remember, going back a number of years, when you talked about in 20 years getting back to where we were when you took office in 1991. You've left that one alone; you went on to others. We've got sliding scales like you wouldn't believe.

I have said in the past that debt . . . . I'm not going to say that all debt is bad. But the difficulty I've always had -- up until we in the northeast finally have the only shining part of the economy in the province of British Columbia -- is that very little of it was spent in the north. And that's the problem.

If you want to talk about the electronic highway, I agree. I don't mind talking about those things. That was something that was announced by the previous Premier, Mr. Harcourt. How many years ago did he talk about the electronic highway? I can tell you that in my constituency, there are all kinds of people who would love to be upgraded to where they would be off the party-line system -- they could use computerization and their farms could actually access the Internet -- and not have six or eight people on one line.

If you want to talk about problems in the north with communications and those kinds of things, just north of Fort St. John -- the largest city north of Prince George -- we have switch gear that's 40 years old. That's absolutely unacceptable. How can we get anywhere in building the north?

We will get into technical skills later on. I hope the Minister of Education stays and listens a bit to how we can maybe work on that.

I want to go back a bit to revenue. Over the last number of years -- the minister is correct -- there have been record numbers of wells being drilled. There is a need, a huge market, for natural gas across the province. Any bit of oil that we can find in the north just complements what we have to import now. We don't produce much oil in British Columbia, but we produce some. So there's a huge market out there, along with the Alliance pipeline and use in the south. On Vancouver Island use is increasing all the time. That oil originates from northeastern British Columbia.

[4:00]

Every year, what we see in the estimates . . . . I'm just going to go back to '97-98. The estimate for revenue was $351 million from the oil and gas portion of your ministry only, yet the actual was more like $447 million. So $96 million more -- a substantial amount -- came in as revenue than you had budgeted for. I see that in 1998-99 your estimate is $393 million, so you've kind of estimated it in the middle. When I see plus $96 million in excess revenue that you didn't expect -- and that's happened for a number of years -- I want to see a little bit of that expended back into the area that I live in to complement the things that the minister talked about -- the

[ Page 7153 ]

electronic highway that your government actually announced in 1993 and those kinds of things. Hard infrastructure assets . . . . Up until now I never have been successful in getting much of that money back there. Could you tell me how much, if any, of that money from last year was actually invested back into the industry?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite sure of the member's question. Is he asking how much was spent by the ministry?

R. Neufeld: I'll clarify that a little bit more. A substantial amount of money came into government coffers from the Energy part of your ministry -- some $447 million. How much of that was actually invested back into the industry or into the area that we have just talked about -- all the infrastructure, all the needs -- to be able to keep generating that kind of money? How much money from that ministry was reinvested? Or was all of it brought down here to Victoria and expended out of general revenue?

Hon. D. Miller: The system that's always been in place in the province is for revenue to flow into consolidated revenue and to go out in the form of budget allocations under various ministries. For example, I don't have a tabulation across the ministry of the dollars that might have been spent both on the operating and on the capital side in northeastern B.C., nor do I necessarily think it's worth paying someone to try to get that number. Governments receive revenue from a variety of sources: taxation, natural resource revenue and those kinds of things.

And you're right: we did increase the revenue as a result of the private sector's decision to be more active in purchasing oil and gas rights. At the same time, we suffered declines in revenue from some traditional sources -- forestry, most significantly. All of that has to be balanced out against the budgetary allocations under each ministry. There's been an increase in spending in education. Has that benefited the north? I think it has. There's been an increase in spending in health care. Has that benefited the north? I think it has.

If you were to add up all of the expenditures that were made in northern B.C. versus all of the revenue that may be obtained from a variety of sources in northern B.C., I don't know what you'd get. But is it an academic exercise that we're interested in, or are we interested in seeing how we can work in a cooperative way with industry, business and others to grow the economic pie and, at the same time, see that more resources are retained or are available in the north to address the problems that have been identified? That's exactly our strategy. The member is aware of that, and we'll be proceeding with, hopefully, some significant announcements along those lines.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to get into an academic accounting of dollars and cents either, or whether money from the industry benefited Peace River North or not. What I'm trying to get at and what I'm asking the minister . . . . I think he gave me the answer in a fashion, but when you talk about enlarging the economic pie . . . . You talked earlier about how the economic pie has actually been enlarged in the northeast over the last number of years when you talked about the record well-drilling and the record amount of revenue to government.

We've enlarged the economic pie, but the other side of the equation hasn't increased with us. That's where I'm trying to get to. How are we going to go about reinvesting into the north?

It's just like a business. You can't just continually pull out of that business all of the money that you absolutely can and not reinvest something into the hard assets of that business so that it can continue to provide revenue for you. Those are some of the things that I'm talking about. Obviously the minister quite understands, because he talks about growing the economic pie. I'm afraid that if we use what I see has happened in the past, with the economic pie growing but with no investment back into the industry and into the ability to produce that much money or more . . . .

If we increase the economic pie over the next two years, are we going to be faced with the same thing? Are we still going to be asking the same questions and looking at the same infrastructure and the same services that northerners have now become accustomed to receiving? Is that where we're going to be, even if we do continue to enlarge the economic pie?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, we are working on some initiatives, and I guess it's appropriate to say: "Well, why didn't you do it yesterday instead of today?" That's fair enough, but that's not really the subject of debate. That's not to say that there have not been any attempts to deal with issues in northeastern British Columbia or in northern British Columbia generally.

The member talked about the issues around the municipal and regional government. Why is it that this is the only administration in the history of this province that brought in a Fair Share program, which provided $4 million to northeastern B.C.? That had never happened before. It never happened under any previous Social Credit regime that I'm aware of. It happened for the first time under this administration. Why was there never a university built in northern B.C. in the past? It happened for the first time under the NDP in the previous term.

It's significant -- a $150 million investment in a new university in northern B.C. I met with the president this morning, and we talked about some very exiting work and ideas that Dr. Charles Jago has with respect to northern B.C. Some of the programs are actually working, in a very creative way, to deliver training in ways that northerners never had the opportunity to have before.

The new college building in Fort St. John -- how old is that? It's not that old, I don't think. It's a magnificent building. I had the opportunity to sit in on a discussion with a number of stakeholders who were working on the development of a training program for oil and gas workers. The new courthouse in Prince George . . . . The new jail is a capital project in Prince George -- a new medium-security facility. There have been some significant initiatives in northern B.C. and in northeastern B.C. My own view is that we need to do more, but it's not to suggest that there has not been any activity at all. In fact, there has been quite a bit, and we're moving in a very cooperative way.

This morning I had just a great conversation with people from Fair Share: the mayor of Fort St. John, Mr. Thorlakson; the mayor of Dawson Creek; the former head of the regional district, Joe Judge; and Karen Goodings. We had an outstanding conversation on some of these issues. We're seeing eye to eye. There's a new spirit of cooperation as we look to the future. So I'll leave it at that.

R. Neufeld: We'll get into the Fair Share issue a little bit later on, and maybe I'll read some of the letters into the record. We'll see if there has been a real change in heart; if so, I'm grateful for it. But up until just recently, I think it was a little bit different.

I don't want to leave things on the record without being corrected. I guess the minister is not aware of some other Fair Share proposals that have taken place in the province. Maybe just to give a little history on it so that he understand it, in Fort

[ Page 7154 ]

Nelson, long before this government came along, I happened to have the pleasure of working with a gentleman called Colin Griffith. He was our administrator, and he put together a fair share program for that community. I know that the minister doesn't like to hear the name, but a fellow by the name of Vander Zalm happened to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time. That was under a previous administration called Social Credit.

There is a program in Fort Nelson that actually goes 130 or 140 miles out of Fort Nelson and taxes the oil and gas industry for services in that community. It's a good program; it works well. That program was in place long before this government came along. I can only say that had it not been for that same gentleman deciding to make a career move from Fort Nelson to Fort St. John and putting forward the same proposal, that wouldn't have taken place either.

So in all fairness, I'm going to give some credit to a very good person who works for the municipal government in Fort St. John, for working hard and actually being the architect of these things. They came along long before you folks got to sit on that side of the House. It has happened before; in fact, it's taking place. It's just that we're having a little bit of trouble in the northeast convincing the minister and the government that it actually is a good deal and that it would work much better if the proper funding were given in Fort St. John.

UNBC -- exactly. I don't have any problem with what the minister said about UNBC. It may have finished construction under the NDP administration, if you want to take credit for it in that sense. We have UNBC because of foresight from some others long before you became government.

I want to go on a little bit. What we're talking about here are roads. Before I get to the estimates, I want to take the minister back to a previous life in the Ministry of Forests, when he was the minister of that portfolio.

Hon. D. Miller: And a darned good one at that.

R. Neufeld: And he says: "A darned good one at that."

In the Ministry of Forests there are allowances given to forest companies for putting main-line roads into where their forest licences are. I think it's a system that works very well; I think it's the way we should be doing some of these things. I've asked other ministers before, and they've always beat around the bush and told me all kinds of reasons they couldn't do it. But it works well in the Ministry of Forests. Now most of the funding for rehabilitating and building those roads has been shuffled off to FRBC, as I understand it. In fact, I'm not sure where it comes from, but it's still out of the Ministry of Forests, and it's reflected in their stumpage rate.

Could there not be much the same kind of system put into the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Northern Development to look not just at the oil and gas industry on its own but possibly the mining industry and how we can deal with some of those issues? There would be a reduction in their royalties or their lease payments -- whatever would make the best accounting process. I think it would alleviate a whole bunch of the problems with roads that we have in the northeast. Maybe the minister could just respond to that, please.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Miller: I also know that Mr. Griffith, whom the member referred to, has had a career move. Mr. Vander Zalm has had a career move as well.

I think that member was in attendance when I visited Fort Nelson in my capacity as Minister of Forests in September of 1993 or 1994 -- somewhere in there -- and might recall the speech I gave at a luncheon that the community put on. The mayor at that time, whose name escapes me at the moment . . . . I said: "Mr. Mayor, there will be a significant investment in a forest manufacturing facility in your community. You've got my word on it." And it wasn't too long before Mr.

Barber of Slocan, one of the leading entrepreneurs in British Columbia, followed up and in fact built a $100 million oriented strand board plant in Fort Nelson. I was very, very pleased that that happened. Obviously employment in that kind of manufacturing and industrial base is very important to those communities.

The member really talked in a general way about a tax principle which is essentially forgone revenue, and it's not one that I'm averse to at all. If you can work with the private sector so they will make investments that will lead to permanent jobs, and as part of your ability to work with the private sector you develop a mechanism where there are cost allowances, then I don't see anything wrong with it. Essentially you're dealing with forgone revenue. The argument very simply is: if you did not have that kind of program, would the expenditure be made by the private sector?

Now, you've got to watch this broad application of that tax policy, but as a principle I don't object to it at all. I think you have to be careful how you design it. In the past we've seen those kinds of cost-allowance programs: the huge failure on the federal side with research and development tax credits -- badly misused. I've seen them misused in the housing field and the . . . . Oh, what was the program the feds had that failed miserably? It created a whole bunch of holes in the ground and not much else. Essentially, it was a tax-driven program.

So you have to be careful that you get the desired result, but on principle I'm not opposed to it. We announced our mining initiative last week. Clearly part of that was the exploration part of that, and we did announce that we are going to work with the industry over the next couple of months to finalize an agreement on a cost allowance for exploration. If that has an application in other ways, whether that be in the oil and gas sector or indeed other sectors, then I'm very interested in looking at that.

R. Neufeld: Yes, I remember clearly the day you were in Fort Nelson. I was happy that there was a guy by the name of Ike Barber in the private sector, who came up with a hundred million bucks and built a plant there which employs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 people. That's great stuff; that's private enterprise working at its best. I really like that.

In fact, the minister talked about the private sector investing their share and creating permanent jobs for individuals in the northeast. When I talked about a credit being given to . . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I don't know if there is something really funny that I'm saying here . . . between the minister and his staff? I'm just a little bit distracted. Is it joke time or what?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I sincerely apologize. I was talking about something completely different. If I've not been paying attention, I do apologize. So, Mr. Chairman, ask the member to continue.

R. Neufeld: I was talking about the private sector investment part of it and the jobs that go along with it. If we look seriously at giving an allowance to the oil and gas industry or

[ Page 7155 ]

the mining industry to build some of the infrastructure that's needed, which is good roads . . . . One of the main items is access. That will actually create good, well-paying jobs, and I just don't mean in the construction part of it but in the long term.

If we go to the forest industry . . . . I'll just use it as an example, because it happens much the same way in the oil and gas industry. I'll use the community of Fort Nelson. Mr. Barber has two plants there. He's got the OSB plant, and he's also got a plywood factory. When they go out to log in the wintertime -- they can only do it in the wintertime -- they have essentially three to four months to do that work.

What happens to the community of Fort Nelson during that time is that the population almost doubles, as truckers and logging contractors, rig movers and people that build the leases for the oil and gas industry and their camps move into town. What happens is that for about four months out of the year, those people work absolutely ungodly hours. In that short period of time, the number of hours that they have to work is really quite unfair to those people.

After spring breakup, somewhere around the first part of April, most of those people leave and go back to other parts of British Columbia, and Fort Nelson again comes down to its population of about 5,000 to 7,000. Everybody stays at home for a couple of months.

So you can see the kind of social atmosphere that that brings into the whole mix of things. It's not good for families, because men and women are away from home for 16 hours to 18 hours every day, seven days a week, for four months straight, trying to do that work because of the small window of opportunity in winter. That's when the ground is frozen hard enough so that the equipment can get out there to either haul the logs to town or move the rigs out so they can drill the wells. Workers end up working when it's 40 and 50 degrees below zero, because there is a time factor.

It affects safety; it affects the home life. It affects children; it affects what happens in the community. If we were to look seriously at the social side of what takes place with that kind of mentality around the industry and think that we can continue that way, I think it's wrong.

I grew up in the oil and gas industry; that's where I started working. I did the same thing. I lived in Fort St. John. Just before Christmas, because I was single, I was sent to Fort Nelson along with many others. I lived in a camp and worked untold hours until springtime came. Then we came back home again. That didn't do anything for building Fort Nelson's infrastructure or the things that they should have in their community to attract people who want to stay.

If you have roads that you can access the resources with -- not totally year-round, because that's impossible, but at least eight to nine months out of the year; you might squeeze in ten sometimes -- you attract private entrepreneurs that want to come to those communities. They want to start businesses, and they want to employ people. You and I both know that if people can have steady employment year-round, they're much happier. It's much better for the system, and it's much better for all of us.

In that way, if we use the system I'm talking about -- I know it's forgone revenue -- at the end of the day, when you take all the costs associated with employment and the social side of people being away from home so much and being able to have them in their communities, it would make not just good economic sense to this member but good social sense too.

Maybe the minister can tell me what he thinks of how that would work, if we were to institute that kind of program in the Energy and Mines ministry, much the same as Forests, and start getting some of those permanent full-time jobs in those communities, rather than just having a migratory system up there in the fall, and then they leave again in the spring.

I want to add just one more part to that, which is also on the social side. What seems to happen is that drugs -- something that we all try to fight -- seem to become part of the psyche then. They're used for whatever reason. Alcohol is consumed more. There's nothing wrong with alcohol on its own, used wisely. But it does bring that element into those communities, and that doesn't do anything for policing. Fort Nelson doesn't even have a probation officer. People that are on probation go down to the courthouse and sign on the dotted line that they were there. Maybe we could look at helping those troubled people that are having difficulties. Maybe we can help to try to relieve the drugs.

The other part where the drugs come into my communities -- Fort St. John too -- on a big scale is because of the high wages. There's lots of employment, and there's bucks around. Those people that happen to peddle that kind of thing know where that takes place. I'd like to see it evened out a little bit more. I'm not just asking for a big pot of money. I'm asking for a program that we can start putting into place to look realistically at some of these things, that will benefit and will build the whole economic pie for the province.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly the member is very passionate about the issues. I won't seriously attempt to address the issues around the social side. It's not under my purview. I'm familiar with the issues of seasonal work. Certainly in my own constituency, historically -- in the development of the fishing sector -- people came from all the surrounding communities and, in the early days, lived in some pretty terrible conditions. It's interesting that there are some very fond memories of those histories, living in the bunkhouses in Inverness, and the canneries and all the rest. We still have a seasonal industry.

Some things you can't completely alter. You know, 100 years ago you could never eat tomatoes in December in British Columbia, but you can now. So things are changing, and we ought to look at that.

We are trying, in a creative way, to deal with . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, really we're trying to deal in a creative way with some of the infrastructure issues. The member is aware that we did announce, on the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road, a fairly unique and creative approach, I thought, which is to take the road under the TFA to do the capital work necessary to bring it up to a certain standard. We are making a contribution of $300,000 this year. Then, when that is done, turn it back in and look at user fees. That's a pretty good way, I think, to deal with an issue.

In fact, I was delighted that the ministry got a letter this March from someone with Mighty Peace Oil Services of Fort St. John. To quote: " . . . I found the high grade road in very good condition, the best I have ever seen it, as I travel up in that area three or four times every winter. I am writing this letter to say thank-you, as the condition of the road will save us and many more companies in maintenance costs on our vehicles and keep them safe while on the road." Now, there are probably as many letters saying it's not very good. But it tells me a little thing: we've tried a creative way; we're making some progress.

[4:30]

[ Page 7156 ]

I think the member raised some good issues with respect to trying to deal with the seasonality of the industry. Obviously you can't completely overcome that; it's the nature of the beast -- and I say that with the utmost of respect. But I do think that we should not simply accept that certain conditions prevail and that you can never change them. I think you've got to work hard.

In terms of the social questions, as I contemplate more and more those kinds of issues and watch what is happening around the province and around the world, I am becoming increasingly convinced, particularly in small communities, that the partial solutions lie with the ability of communities -- and that's a pretty broad definition -- to deal with those kinds of questions. I think it's clear, when we look at the situations that some children find themselves in in this province, that the state simply cannot take the place of individual responsibility and collective responsibility at the community level.

It's a challenge. I don't think we have really wrapped our minds around that at the provincial or municipal or other levels of government. It is my strong belief that that's the only way we will resolve some of the social issues and problems that exist in our society. But I'm ill-equipped to deal with that; I'm the Minister of Energy and Mines.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I agree; we don't have a big enough pot of money to look after all the social ills that there are, but we have to look at other ways that we can maybe combat those things. That's just one part of what I've witnessed where I live and in the years that I've lived there. I think there are ways that we can collectively work together to try to alleviate some of those problems.

The minister talked briefly about the Sierra-Desan road, and I do want to touch on the Sierra-Desan road. I also noticed in the estimates manual that you have . . . . I'm going to read out of it: "Grants are provided for resource studies and projects and resource roads. Costs are partially recovered from industry for administration of resource roads." Is that specifically the Desan Road, or are there other roads within your ministry that are industrial roads, much the same as that one?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes.

R. Neufeld: I'd be interested in receiving a copy of the letter that the minister received from Mighty Peace Oil in regards to the quality of the Sierra-Desan road. It was last winter that I spent a considerable time trying to convince some of those same operators not to roadblock the whole road and stop all traffic on that piece of road. In fact, it was quite surprising. They were phoning me on a Friday afternoon. They were going to roadblock it. They were going to dig it up unless something happened to it.

So you're right. I mean, you get a little bit of this and a little bit of that. But having lived in Fort Nelson for as long as I have, I drove the Sierra-Desan road long before it became a high-grade road, and afterwards I had lots of equipment travel it.

To be fair, that person might have written that. I don't know if the minister has ever taken the time to drive the road, but I did drive the road part of the way with a person from the TFA who the minister should speak to and get a different viewpoint of what kind of shape that road's in. It's actually quite unsafe. It's a road that I think your ministry, Energy, should be paying a little bit more attention to in funding.

I appreciate that what's probably going to happen is that we're going to increase the maintenance. I know the minister talked about the $300,000. That's appreciated, because there was about $150,000 prior to that. So that's actually doubling it.

When we talk about the TFA taking over the Sierra-Desan road, we should tell the whole story. What they are is a tax collector. They will actually put a tax on the industry, and it's agreed to with industry -- a fee per well, per seismic job, and so on and so forth -- to come up with about $5 million over a period of time to invest back into this road. This road stretches some 130 miles north and east of Fort Nelson.

When the minister talks about private-public partnerships, as he did earlier, I am wondering if on that road you would be quite willing to kick in your share -- that being another $5 million. I see the same process being used in other parts of the province by your government. A $10 million rebuild to that road would make a lot more sense than $5 million. There's no doubt about it; $5 million is going to help. But you're talking about 130 miles of road that is in absolutely terrible condition at the best of times.

I tell you, people go out there in the summertime. I've had one fellow who had to live in his truck for three days before he could get back to town, because there was a rainstorm. The condition is not good, and it's not safe. I don't say that just so I can get some more money; I mean it. It's a damn mess. It's a disgrace, when you think about the amount of dollars, not just under your administration but under previous administrations, that have come out of that area in oil and gas revenue and taxation revenue.

I want to go on a little bit more about it, but maybe the minister could comment a bit on the private-public partnership and maybe on putting a bigger part of their share -- more than the $300,000 -- into the maintenance end of it.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I've learned not to make decisions on my feet, particularly with respect to major expenditures, so I won't do that.

G. Wilson: When did you learn that?

Hon. D. Miller: When did I learn that, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast asks.

I think it is a good . . . . The member may be exactly right. Certainly I think I qualified my remarks. I did read an excerpt from the letter. I talked about creative ways . . . . With this particular road, what is happening is that the Transportation Financing Authority is taking the road. They are going to spend, I think, $5 million. So they're capitalizing the cost. They're going to bring it up to a certain standard, and then it's going to be turned over back to the users. The money will be recovered through user fees, and we're contributing $300,000.

In fact, it's interesting, because when I look at fiscal year '97-98, we had budgeted $200,000, and we spent half a million. Now, I run a great risk by revealing that here in the House, because I might be criticized for overspending the budget and being reckless with the taxpayers' money -- that has happened in this House.

An Hon. Member: What, that you've been reckless? It'll probably happen again.

Hon. D. Miller: And it'll probably happen again. It's interesting that there appears to be some selectivity with respect to when you want to make the argument and when you want to flip the argument on its ear and make the counterargument. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

[ Page 7157 ]

The fundamental concept is an interesting one as well. I talked a moment ago about debt, and I think I received for my candour a bit of a lecture on paying it back and things like that. But the fundamental premise of the TFA is that we're capitalizing road construction, and the debt --principal and interest -- is serviced through a revenue stream that's allocated to the TFA. I think there's a $5 car rental fee or something; I can't remember exactly what they are. But the point is this: there's a revenue stream to service the debt, and that means that the debt is not something you have to book as a liability.

That issue, interestingly enough, is being challenged. I didn't take the time to wade through the major piece in today's and yesterday's Times Colonist , but I believe the gentleman, Mr. Scott, who is much more knowledgable than I on these questions, is attempting to make the argument that we ought to book that debt. I believe your party is making the argument that we ought to book that debt. If we were to follow your advice . . . . Let's say it were possible, in a practical sense, to double the level of expenditure from $5 million to $10 million. Using the logic that your party uses in arguing on these questions, we would be obliged to increase the debt of the province by $5 million.

I don't know. I think there are some practical ways . . . . We've tried to do it in this road. It remains to be seen whether the $5 million will do the job or not, but hopefully it will. We seriously want to work on those infrastructure problems in northeastern B.C. a