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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 10, Number 9

[ Page 8297 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It is my pleasure today to introduce a group of visiting Chinese-language media people. I'd like to introduce to the House Tammy Yueng, with the Ming Pao newspaper; Peggy Cheng, with the Sing Tao newspaper; Timothy Tsim, Karen So, Mabel Wong and Luke Yue from Fairchild TV; Eric Ou-Yang from TalentVision TV; Mary Lo from Fairchild Radio; and John Leung from Mainstream Broadcasting. I'd ask all members to make these members of the media welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: In the Speaker's gallery today we are honoured to have as our guests 20 distinguished members of the People's Republic of China State Development Planning Commission. These government officials are led by Secretary General Bai Hejin and Vice-Minister Lu Shiche, and are here to participate in a macroeconomics and management workshop at the University of Victoria faculty of business. Accompanying them are Prof. Kenneth Keng and executive program coordinator Shari Baker. Would all members of the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. I. Waddell: Today is my mother Isobel's eighty-fifth birthday. I think she's in the gallery, although she told me that she was going to the hairdresser's, so I'm not quite sure. Anyway, many members of the House know her. Would they join me in wishing my mother Isobel a happy eighty-fifth birthday.

I. Chong: On behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to welcome all members of the Chinese media, some of whom I have met over the last two years. I wish them a good day here and I hope to be able to visit with them again very soon in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: In the gallery today we have ten young visitors and their teacher, Ms. Taylor, from Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington, and a few adults. Would the members please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: Touring the precincts today are 40 grade 7 students from Hatzic Elementary School in my riding. They are accompanied by Mr. J. Mills and a few adults. I bid the House make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

OIL AND GAS COMMISSION ACT

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Oil and Gas Commission Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Miller: Bill 32 is one of the key instruments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the province's regulation of the oil and gas industry. Passage of the bill is needed to establish a new single-window agency, the Oil and Gas Commission, to regulate the oil and gas industry from exploration through to reclamation. The new B.C. Oil and Gas Commission will be headquartered in Fort St. John and will be headed by a commissioner who will be delegated decision-making authority for all key permits required to undertake upstream oil- and gas-related activities.

This single-window agency will provide the focus for more coordinated, responsive decision-making that is informed by a range of pertinent interests, including environmental, first nations and local residents' concerns, as well as those of the oil and gas industry and other resource sectors. The costs of the agency will be fully financed by the oil and gas industry through user fees.

Hon. Speaker, 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 32 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.

Oral Questions

NORTHERN DOCTOR SERVICES

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, over the last five years, nine of the ten provinces in Canada implemented payment for on-call services for rural physicians. Three years ago this government had a Northern and Rural Health Task Force, which recommended "appropriate remuneration for on-call work and opportunities for relief from call." Can the Premier tell the people of British Columbia why the government ignored the recommendations of the Northern and Rural Health Task Force and put people in northern communities of British Columbia at risk for the last number of months?

Hon. G. Clark: This question would be better directed, of course, to the minister, who is not here at the moment. But I want to say for the record that the task force made many recommendations, the bulk of which have been implemented. I want to remind all members of the House that we have the northern and rural doctors' isolation allowance, which is the only place in Canada -- by far the largest allocation . . . . We have the highest-paid doctors in Canada as a result of working on these questions.

While we've implemented many of the recommendations, some of those fly in the face of some of the cost considerations that we have, particularly when we've already put more money into northern doctors than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

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

[ Page 8298 ]

G. Campbell: The fact of the matter is that the Northern and Rural Health Task Force recommended fees for on-call services, and they recommended relief from on-call service. This government ignored those recommendations and created a crisis for the people in the north of the province.

Ms. Dobbin's report is also very clear. The crisis that people in northern communities have faced over the last number of months is a direct result of this government's inaction. It's a direct result of this government's dismissal of the doctors' concerns. I'll quote from her report, because obviously some of the members opposite have not had a chance to read it: "With lack of response to their concerns" -- the doctors' concerns -- "the eventual withdrawal of services should not have come as a surprise to anyone."

My question, again to the Premier, is: did this government choose to let rural patients suffer? Why would this government choose to let rural patients suffer when they are now simply going to look at recommendations which are equivalent to recommendations that were made three years ago?

Hon. G. Clark: I already mentioned that we have the highest-paid doctors in Canada, that we are the only place in Canada with a northern isolation allowance, which is significant. With the highest northern allowance in Canada . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, excuse me. Hon. members, the question was listened to with some silence. I expect the same for the reply.

Hon. G. Clark: It's certainly unfair to characterize us as not being cognizant of the concerns of northern doctors, when we already have the highest-paid northern doctors in Canada.

Secondly, we tried on numerous occasions to work with the doctors to resolve this question. It was a surprise to me -- and I'll confess to this to the House right now -- that the legal contract that we negotiated with doctors in this province was broken. If a trade union had acted in that fashion, the members opposite would be howling with indignation about violating a legal contract. But acting in that fashion -- breaking a legal contract, essentially going on strike and breaking a legal contract, including the northern allowance . . . . In spite of that, we still tried to negotiate and work with that. We appointed Lucy Dobbin, and I'm hopeful we'll have a resolution today.

[2:15]

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

G. Campbell: I think the Premier has shown why there is so much difficulty in solving this problem: he doesn't understand it to begin with. The Premier's facts are wrong. You don't have to listen to the opposition; simply read the report, Mr. Premier.

The fact of the matter is that the doctors in the communities in the north were right and this government was wrong. Because this government would not pay attention to people in the north, people in the north were in jeopardy for some time.

My question to the Premier is simply this: will you apologize to the patients and the families in the north who you put at risk? Will the Premier apologize to the young pregnant woman who had to come down to Victoria to tell the Premier and the government about the problems she had or to the gentleman who had to go to Prince George and pay $6,000 so he could be at his wife's side in her dying days? Will the Premier apologize to the people of the north for the problems and the suffering that he and his government caused?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the question should be: will the doctors apologize for breaking legal contracts and putting their patients at risk?

We established for the north, as well, a family practice clinic in Prince George to train northern doctors. We established a provincial locum service just in the last few years, to try to deal with doctors in the north. A doctor recruitment program by HEABC was started, again to deal with recruitment problems.

What I want to know from the leader opposite is whether he supports the Dobbin report or whether he supports Granger Avery from the B.C. Medical Association, who is recommending rejection of the Dobbin report?

S. Hawkins: The fact is that there are 86 fewer doctors in rural B.C. today than there were four years ago, and the fact is that this government ignored the concerns of rural doctors. The fact is that this government ignored the solution they had in their report, in their hands, three years ago, which recommended on-call pay. Three years ago, the Ontario government implemented -- as did four other provinces -- on-call pay.

My question is to the Premier: why did the NDP have to commission yet another report, when they had two reports with the same solutions and they could have kept hospitals open and patients safe in the last few months if they had done that? Why did they have to commission another report?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I want to know why the Liberal Party is a captive of the B.C. Medical Association. Do they support . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . Granger Avery, or do they support the Dobbin report, which this government has accepted? We have taken significant steps to deal with recruitment in the north. I have talked about them in the previous answers; I will not repeat them again. We are making progress in this file. The Dobbin report is a good step forward, which we have adopted. I want to know whether the Liberal Party agrees with that or whether once again they're going to side with the highest-paid doctor in an association in Canada, Granger Avery. I want to know what their position is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

SKYTRAIN TECHNOLOGY AND LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT

G. Plant: My question is also to the Premier, but on another subject. This morning the chairman of the greater Vancouver regional district, George Puil, went ballistic when he discovered that the Premier was in Montreal . . .

[ Page 8299 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members.

G. Plant: . . . negotiating for a SkyTrain extension. Can the Premier tell us why the GVRD wasn't consulted before the Premier went off, in the words of Mr. Puil, "half-cocked" to Montreal to negotiate a deal with Bombardier?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm very much looking forward to this debate. I want to know what side the Liberal Party takes: whether they want to build this and get on with it and improve service for the people of the lower mainland, or whether they want to play politics with it and consult year in and year out. We have been very transparent with the GVRD in working to get a new arrangement for transit. I strongly support that approach. It said that the principal responsibility for the rapid transit route would lie with the provincial government, which is paying the bulk of the cost. A cost-sharing formula is yet to be negotiated.

Clearly we have been discussing it with the GVRD. The LRT project committee has discussed, as recently as a few days ago . . . . Mr. Puil was on television on the weekend talking about revisiting SkyTrain. This is no surprise. We have not made a commitment to SkyTrain; we have not make a commitment to Bombardier. All we have done is say that given the cost increase for conventional LRT and the fact that SkyTrain is now competitive, we are prepared to reconsider this technology -- but only if there's a significant commitment to jobs in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: That's the message I communicated to Bombardier.

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Premier. For his first supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Well, the spectacle of this Premier standing up and accusing other people of playing politics would be laughable if it weren't such a disgrace.

According to the transit agreement that's apparently in place between the GVRD and the province, there will be an LRT line, and the cost will be split 60-40. I want to know why the Premier wouldn't even bother to consult with the GVRD before going off and making a deal which may increase the cost of the Broadway line by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hon. G. Clark: We have not negotiated a contact; we are in discussions to bring jobs to British Columbia with SkyTrain technology. I want to know whether the members opposite support SkyTrain or not. Secondly, it is clear from the current estimates that it is not necessarily more expensive to produce SkyTrain technology. Finally, hon. Speaker, we intend to honour all commitments in the regional transit authority. But I want to be clear to members of this House and to the public: we are going to expedite rapid transit in the lower mainland with or without the Liberals' support.

D. Symons: The Premier may remember -- since he was the one responsible for Transit for a number of years and in the debates that I was having with him -- some of his responses to questions I was asking on SkyTrain. For instance, on June 9, 1992, he said: "I guess as a politician one has the temptation to build something today that someone doesn't have to pay for for three or four years, on the assumption that I might not be there and whoever's there can deal with it . . . . "

Interjections.

D. Symons: Those are the Premier's words. In spite of the fact that this NDP government doesn't have a very good track record at budget projections, let us see how much money the SkyTrain extension will cost. Will the Premier table today the SkyTrain cost-benefit analysis?

Hon. G. Clark: This Liberal opposition doesn't have a good thing to say about anything. They are negative, negative, negative. They'll blame me for everything. Next thing you know, they'll blame me for Geri leaving the Spice Girls. Actually, maybe the Leader of the Opposition could be invited to join. I even have a name for him: Old Spice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm sorry. I digress.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, all members.

Hon. G. Clark: That member is a very knowledgable critic on the question of transit. I have a great deal of respect for him. He knows the debates that have gone on, and I know -- notwithstanding what the rest of the Liberals say -- that that member will support the decision to build SkyTrain technology to improve service on the lower mainland, particularly when it goes to Richmond. It will mean jobs in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon members, come to order. There's another question.

SPECIAL OFFER TO B.C. HYDRO'S PREFERRED CUSTOMERS

M. de Jong: I, regrettably, am not a B.C. Hydro preferred customer. I confess that. But if you're a preferred customer, hon. Speaker, fasten your seatbelt. Tomorrow, June 4, 1998, at the Mission motor raceway, the Power Smart corporation is going to put you, free of charge, into the seat of an Indy racecar. You'll get to race, free of charge, with the likes of Ross Bentley and other motorsport notables. In the absence of the minister for motorsport, my question to the Premier is: would he please explain why B.C. Hydro is spending ratepayers' money teaching people how to drive high-performance racecars?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'd be delighted to do research and get that information back to the member. But I'm

[ Page 8300 ]

also delighted to rise to support B.C. Hydro and its work: amongst the lowest electricity rates in the world; amongst the highest profit for the taxpayers of British Columbia. We know that you would sell your soul, and you'd sell the birthright of British Columbia, by privatizing B.C. Hydro. But we on this side won't. It's an engine of growth.

The Speaker: Hon. Premier . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 27.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ACT

(second reading continued)

R. Neufeld: I rise to finish my remarks in regards to Bill 27. When I left off yesterday, I'd talked about some of the impediments that British Columbia faces in trying to attract investment into the province. The issue about having a northern development agency to try and encourage development is, I think, offset a great deal by some of the issues that surround British Columbia and that are quite well known across Canada and, in fact, across North America, where we try to get investors to come to this province to invest and create jobs. Anything that we're going to create in the north will very likely be projects that are going to require a fair amount of money.

[2:30]

It's obvious, hon. Speaker, as I briefly alluded to yesterday, that overtaxation in the province of British Columbia has certainly hindered development, not only in the north but in the province as a whole. In fact, if we look at Vancouver and witness Finning Tractor moving almost all their operations from British Columbia to Calgary, it's obvious that something's wrong. When businesses move out of the northeast or something like that to Alberta, the government doesn't have too much concern. But obviously, when they start moving out of Vancouver . . . .

In fact, many of them have moved not only to Alberta but to Washington and Oregon because of a friendlier climate to business and less taxation.

If we look at the overregulation in British Columbia -- something again that a commissioner . . . . I'm trying to deal with the commissioner. A commissioner cannot deal with that. A commissioner can go out and try and sell to everyone: "Come to northern British Columbia. There are some opportunities." But when those industries or individuals look at the overregulation, when they look at the 1,000 pages of the Forest Practices Code, when we see actual mills shut down, when we see a government that just went in and bought a mill in Prince Rupert for almost $300 million -- put the taxpayers of British Columbia on the hook for it . . . . It shut down too; it's doing absolutely nothing.

People are idle in the northwest. As you drive from Prince Rupert right on through the northwest, all the logging equipment is sitting there, totally idle. No one's working. Stores are closing in communities. It's all because of the overtaxation and overregulation of this socialist government.

To create a northern commissioner, to try and go out and encourage someone else to come in, is folly. It's the same as the Premier running all over North America trying to encourage aluminum smelters into the province. He probably thinks he's got six or seven of them on the hook now. Maybe one of them is going to come here. He talks about smelters; it's constant, almost every day. But, you know, the result is zero; the result today is absolutely zero. If we go and talk to people that, in fact, just made a report about the forest industry, actual job loss in the forest industry recently is 12,000 jobs.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No it isn't.

R. Neufeld: The Minister of Forests says: "No it isn't." Well, he disputed the RCMP report on theft of logs in the province. Now he's disputing his own person, who says there's a job loss of 12,000 people. Actually, it's deplorable. You'd think that minister would be out there trying to encourage people to come to British Columbia, instead of closing plant after plant after plant after plant. It doesn't matter what part of the province you go to; you experience exactly the same thing.

Until we get a government that doesn't consider profit to be a dirty word and that actually wants to encourage investment and jobs in this province, the northern commissioner isn't going to be able to do too much.

We talked about the need to cut red tape. This government talks about cutting red tape, but actually, when you ask the minister responsible, regardless of which ministry it is that has all the red tape, you can't get them to commit to what they're really going to cut. You can't get them to commit to what they're really going to take out. In fact, they'll tell you that they're not going to change any of the regulations and that they're just going to make it easier. I don't know -- it's some other kind of socialist magic that I'm not sure about, and I think most British Columbians and most investors aren't very sure about it either.

I think it would be incumbent on all members from the government side to take a trip through the northwest to get the feeling and the flavour of the people that work in the forest industry and that absolutely have no jobs. So far, this government hasn't lived up to any commitment they've made in the northwest to get those people back to work. They haven't made any commitment to those people to get them back to work.

Actually, hon. Speaker, I alluded yesterday to the fact that we have three ministers of government from the north: two from the Prince George region -- Prince George North and Prince George-Mount Robson -- and one from North Coast. We have a member for Skeena and a member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, both on the government side. Some of those folks were elected in 1986, and some have been cabinet ministers since 1991. They were elected in 1986 and have been cabinet ministers since 1991, and in June of 1998 they're starting to talk about looking at northern development. What a legacy!

The whole northwest is totally shut down, and in 1998, seven years after they became government, they say: "My goodness! We better do something."

The member for Skeena was elected in 1991. I wonder where he has been. How come he hasn't been talking about getting some kind of a commissioner or something going to try and create some investment in the north?

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: No, they haven't. They waited until the economy of the north was as flat as this table. Then they

[ Page 8301 ]

decide: "My goodness! Maybe we'd better do something." I think it's a terrible indictment for a government to stand here and tell us today that they really care about jobs and employment in the province of British Columbia.

Other jurisdictions across Canada have ministries responsible for northern development, as I alluded to earlier. Long ago Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan looked to the northern part of their province and at how they could deal with those issues. I guess I should be thankful that in 1998 this group finally decided that they had better do something.

One of the concerns I heard raised many times about a northern commissioner is the fact that it's another political appointment. It's another appointment made by government for the convenience of government. It's another appointment to get someone a job who is politically aligned with the government.

I read a statement from the Prince Rupert Daily News by the member for Skeena: "There was a general agreement on such an agency, and even cynics were in favour of a commissioner to address northern concerns directly" -- that's not what the member said yesterday --"if the commissioner had adequate powers and was not purely a political appointment."

Well, I agree with that statement. It had better not be a political appointment. That's some of the difficulty we have. I'm afraid that when I go through the northwest and the northeast and listen to some of the names that are brought forward, it will be political. I'm sure they're dropped on a meaningful basis by members of the NDP, about who will be appointed. I'm not trying to say that the person maybe doesn't have the abilities. I don't know, because there are no criteria set up as to what this commissioner should do or should be responsible for. How do we know if the person will have the ability to do the job? So we have some concern there.

We also talked about the fact that the minister's office should be responsible for this. I commended the government for appointing a strong minister within cabinet to be Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development. I said that yesterday. I think that that's as far as we have to go. We on this side of the House don't think that you have to create a commission. You have to have a deputy minister that's responsible for northern affairs, and they deal directly with the minister's office on those issues. And it will work.

The reason why I say it will work is because we've witnessed some positive moves in the last few months from this government. Now, that was without a commissioner; there was no commissioner in place. Yet they made some moves in the north. If they actually mean what they say and they actually do something, it will be positive. So what would make one think, then, that you have to create another bureaucracy to look after Northern Development? It just doesn't seem to ring true.

In fact, I'm going to read right from the government's own information: "April 21, 1998: The B.C. government announced a new initiative designed to support and encourage growth in the mining industry, one of the key contributors to the northern economy." They didn't need a commissioner to do that. It magically came out of the office of the Minister of Northern Development. They could do it. They don't even have a deputy minister responsible for northern development, yet they were able to do that. In fact, the mining industry said it was one small step but that it was a step in the right direction.

"May 12, 1998: A grain bridging agreement signed by B.C. Rail and Canadian National Railways made it more efficient and cost-effective for farmers in the Peace River area to transport grain to the port of Prince Rupert for export." Well, that's a good move. If it works, it's great. We did it through the office of the Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development. There was no deputy minister responsible for northern development, no commissioner. But it was accomplished. I give the . . . .

I see the red lights, hon. Speaker. I am the designated speaker on Energy and Mines. I'll take a few more minutes. It won't be long and I'll be done.

The Speaker: Proceed, member.

R. Neufeld: So when we look at that and see that those things have been accomplished without a commissioner, it makes us on this side of the House wonder why we need more bureaucracy, which people will actually have to go to and convince first before that person will go and try and convince the government. Some of that just doesn't make sense to me. It just slows down the whole process, but maybe that's what this government is trying to put into place. Maybe what they're trying to do is give us the illusion that they really care about northern development and that this is just the place to kind of put the stuff and file it on a shelf at some point in time.

Another one was announced. It's amazing how these things happen without a northern commissioner. But on May 15 the minister announced that B.C. Rail will host a fall conference on northern tourism to explore opportunities for circle tours and other innovative tourism packages. That came out of the minister's office; it's a good move that I think is well accepted. So why do you need a commissioner to find out whether you need that and then to come back and convince the minister's office that it should happen?

On May 19 the government announced a plan to double B.C.'s oil and gas production capability by the year 2008. The oil and gas industry is a major employer in the northeastern part of the province. All this happened without even having a commissioner in place.

I would suggest, and the opposition would suggest, that we don't think there's a need for another bureaucracy to be set up anywhere in the province to talk about northern development and to try and promote northern development. We think the office of the minister responsible ought to be able to do those things. We on this side of the House think that maybe it shouldn't just be the minister from Prince Rupert who is working hard on these things. Maybe it should be some other ministers in cabinet who have been fairly silent and who really haven't spoken too much about northern development.

In fact, I don't think they've really cared that much about northern development. Maybe some of those members of cabinet have to also get a little stronger. Maybe they have to start talking a little tougher in cabinet, and maybe the member for Skeena and the member for Bulkley Valley - Stikine have to hone their skills to somehow convince the minister responsible that northern development will actually be a good idea.

First they have to convince this government and convince themselves that they do have a problem in relation to overtaxation, in relation to overregulation, in relation to choking private enterprise, choking people who really want to get ahead and make a dollar in this province. Maybe that's the biggest impediment.

[2:45]

[ Page 8302 ]

I know there will be some other speakers on this bill. I hope that I've sparked some conversation, for some members on the government side to get up and defend what they've done to try and encourage northern development since they were first elected in 1986, or in 1991. How many times has any one of them in government stood in this House and talked about northern development?

When they had their opportunity to talk, such as during the throne speech debate, how many times did they get up and say: "We have to look seriously at what we're doing to create northern opportunities and northern development which would result in revenue for the province of British Columbia, so we can continue to enjoy the things that we enjoy today"?

I always relate that to health care, and I guess we also have not had much health care in the northwest in the last while. It is a sad thing: what we've witnessed, what we've seen this government do to this great province of ours in the seven short years that they've been in office. As I said from the start, it's a damning indictment of the government and of members of the NDP who were elected in 1986 or 1991 and just today, seven years later in 1998, have decided that they need to actually promote northern development for the betterment of the people that live in those areas.

With those few remarks, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the bill and look forward to the committee stage.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am very proud to be able to rise in debate today representing a northern British Columbia riding and to speak in favour of the Northern Development Act and the appointment of a northern development commissioner.

I was listening to the comments of the member for Peace River North earlier, and for a while there I thought he was beginning to understand the commitment that this government has to northern development -- to both the preservation and enhancement of economic opportunity in the north. He was talking about efforts to use the jobs and power accord to attract new aluminum smelting to this province. He was talking about our initiatives to support the mining industry, which my colleague the Deputy Premier announced back in April. He was talking about the grain bridging agreement between B.C.

Rail and Canadian National. He was talking about the fall conference on northern tourism. He was talking about the oil and gas industry initiative announced in May to double B.C.'s oil and gas production capability by the year 2008. He might even have talked about -- I didn't hear him talk about it -- last week's announcement about a stumpage reduction for the forest industry not only in the north but also across the province.

It was a reduction that, of course, went on top of the relief in costs given to industry by the code simplification, and on top of our commitment to sustainable forestry in the north and throughout British Columbia through a $517 million investment this year by Forest Renewal B.C.

It was good to hear him talking about all this, because it helps put this act and the appointment of a northern development commissioner in context. This government is looking at northern development, and looking at it in a systematic way -- sector by sector by sector -- whether it's mining or forestry or oil and gas or tourism. We have initiatives that we are moving forward on. But I was a little dismayed to hear the member opposite then go from that account of the context in which this act comes before this Legislature to a rejection of

an act and a concept -- a northern development commissioner -- which is widely endorsed by industries and communities across the north as a way of getting sustained attention, at a staff level, to issues of economic development that they feel are important.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hear the member opposite saying that I'm ill informed. Well, I do understand that my colleague the member for Skeena -- one of the chairs of the northern economic development summit that toured the north and listened to communities -- heard their views on how we move forward developing an agency for the north, heard very clearly in community after community that there was a desire for a northern agency, an on-the-ground presence centred in the north, centred in my community of Prince George, but with clear responsibilities for the entire northern half of the province. They wanted this.

As I read it, the only area where there wasn't support for this was when this member opposite opposed it in his home community.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I think the hon. member had a chance to make his presentation and his comments. I would suggest . . . . Cool it just a wee bit.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that sometimes our views on a particular initiative may vary, depending on our political stripe or which side of the House we sit on. But surely I would expect that this bill and the appointment of a northern commissioner would have received the support it deserves from all sides of the House, because this is an idea that grew out of the Premier's Summit on Northern Jobs and Development last fall.

It grew out of an initiative where we brought together the representatives of communities, of industries, of first nations people, of workers and of governments across the north to consider, sector by sector, what needed to be done in those sectors to stimulate economic development and, more importantly, what permanent mechanisms government should put in place to ensure that northern economic development issues got the attention that they deserve.

That summit clearly said to government: "We need a northern agency that pays that sort of sustained, long-term attention." That's what this act is all about. That's where the appointment of a northern commissioner and the establishment of an office in Prince George to look after economic development in the north will come in.

As we look at this, let's be clear what this person -- this office, this initiative -- will do. This act will establish a well-thought-out program of making sure that we reach out across the north.

I guess what I'm a little concerned about is that this member opposite, who has now risen to speak against this act -- I think he spoke against the act; it'll be interesting to see when it comes to a vote . . . . He knows full well, as he has repeatedly stood in this chamber during estimates, during debate on northern economic development issues, and said: "There needs to be more focused attention on economic development initiatives in the north . . . . " I have stood in this chamber and in other committees and said precisely the same thing.

Now we have an opportunity to move forward on it in a way that goes beyond the representation of riding and constituency, which all members of this chamber will continue to do, month in and month out. Whether they sit on that side or this side of the chamber, they do that: they work hard for economic development initiatives in their riding; they attempt to make sure they get the attention that they deserve. It goes beyond the line work of ministries, which will continue;

[ Page 8303 ]

whether it's forestry or mining, oil and gas, transportation or tourism, that ongoing policy work within those ministries will continue.

What we have is an opportunity, which all sides of this House should endorse, to look at coordinated economic development in the north and to establish an office that is charged with reaching out to communities and to other economic development agencies -- be they federal, municipal or first nations -- and bringing those together: a commissioner and an office that reports to a minister and through that minister to cabinet and to this Legislature. Those reporting relationships are not optional; they are specified in this legislation.

I don't want to take a lot of time here. I recognize where this act comes from. I applaud the initiative of my colleague the Deputy Premier in taking the results of the northern economic summit and making them real. This is one of the prime recommendations.

I would hope -- and I offer the invitation -- that all MLAs put aside some of the rhetoric that we've heard in this chamber around this act and join in this initiative. Successful economic development doesn't know political boundaries. The commissioner will need the support of all MLAs in northern British Columbia working together in a constructive manner, and I hope we will see that spirit as this act is passed and the office of a northern economic commissioner is established.

J. Weisgerber: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to this legislation -- the Northern Development Act -- as well. I come at this from the perspective of an independent member -- one who wants to see the commission and the commissioner succeed; one who wants to see economic development, economic activity, flourish in northern British Columbia. I come at this, in all modesty, with some experience. I come at this issue as someone who has served as a regional economic development commissioner for more than one-third of the region covered by this legislation.

I come as a former minister of state responsible for development in the Northeast and Nechako regions, which cover more than two-thirds of the area over which this act intends to take jurisdiction. So I believe I come at this not only objectively but with some experience in the specific area of regional economic development in northern British Columbia. I come at this from the perspective, as I've said, of wanting to see something put in place that will work.

I believe that the commission and the commissioner can succeed if there is a strong Minister Responsible for Northern Development. I'll say now that, as the Deputy Premier, as the member for North Coast, one has to believe that the current minister fits that criterion. Other than the Premier, who would have more influence in cabinet than the current minister? Tragically, for him and others, these things tend to be fluid in our business -- minister one day, backbencher tomorrow; Minister Responsible for Northern Development today, Minister for Children and Families the next. Who knows where we'll be?

Who knows where the personalities will be? So one can't simply assume that now that we have that part of the equation in place, we have no need for concern in that area.

I want to say that I believe that it's important that the minister be a minister of influence. I believe the minister is, and I don't wish him any of the bad, bad things that I suggested might happen to him. But he's been around for a while. He knows how the ball bounces.

[3:00]

Secondly, we need to have a commissioner who has the authority, who has the ability, to present herself or himself in a way that is appropriate, because this job will be fraught with difficulty; it will be fraught with resistance. And the biggest resistance and the most constant resistance will come from the line ministries, will come from the mid-level bureaucracies within this government. It won't be the opposition. It won't be the mayors and the municipal governments. It won't be the regional governments that will tend to confound the commission; it will be turf wars within government.

And I say that, again, from the experience of being a regional economic development commissioner and with the experience of being the minister responsible for development in the Northeast and Nechako regions, where we had three regional development officers -- three people in three development regions who had responsibilities very much in line with what this commissioner will have. They found themselves frustrated at every turn by staff within Finance, Environment, Forests, Energy and Mines -- across the board, these folks were fighting an internal bureaucratic battle.

The next thing we need -- aside from a minister who, hopefully, won't put up with a lot of that guff -- is somebody who has the presence and the experience and the ability to cut through that kind of bureaucratic interference that will, without a doubt, plague this commissioner.

I want to talk a little bit about the office and the establishment of the office. The Minister of Education, understandably, took great satisfaction in the office being established in Prince George. Those people in the northeast and, I believe, the northwest have expressed some reservations about that, understandably so. I have said that I think the office should be in Prince George, and I've pretty much taken the line of the minister in saying that I don't see a bureaucracy developing there . . . . I would like to see a bureaucracy developing that would have satellite offices that might be there to serve political purposes of some kind.

Having said that, it becomes imperative that we don't simply put a Prince George person in a Prince George office to consolidate this perception that this is a Prince George operation -- and I see a little smile on the face of the member for Skeena, because he knows precisely of what I speak. He knows precisely the dangers that are inherent here. He knows that he co-chaired, along with an individual who might be seen as the successor, the logical appointment, to this . . . . He chaired with that individual, who fought valiantly on behalf of the Minister of Education in his recall fight.

But for the sake of good government and good business, let's not cloud the obligations that this government might have to some individuals with the need to select an individual most capable of performing a job, an individual who is not only able to represent the entire north of British Columbia but who is seen to represent more than Prince George. There is a great danger, given the location of the office -- which I think is logical -- that if the appointment confirms this notion that we are simply establishing a northern office, then it will not succeed.

Again, I believe it can. I look at the role and the experience that this government and the previous government has had with the Job Protection Commission. Here is a position that has consistently worked to the benefit of British Columbians, to the benefit of communities, to working British Columbians and to the businesses that employ them. If this commission has the ability to go and deal with issues, to cut through red tape, to make recommendations that aren't blocked by bureaucrats at every turn, then we can have some real opportunities.

[ Page 8304 ]

The minister hasn't said anything and I haven't read anything that suggests that government sees a role for the community and regional economic development officers to work in conjunction with this commission. There may well be. In his closing remarks or in committee stage the minister may give me some clarification. But there are folks who have worked hard and long on these issues, and their input and cooperation is going to be important.

I wonder -- and I'll follow it up in more detail at committee stage -- about the wisdom of a five-year appointment. I wonder about the need, in this particular position, for someone to have tenure. There are jobs where political interference is a consideration and where guaranteed tenure is important to the work done: the conflict-of-interest commissioner, the freedom-of-information commissioner, the auditor general and other officers who serve this House. But for a commissioner -- someone working at the level of a deputy minister, someone who should have some incentives to perform -- to be given a five-year guaranteed term in office . . . .

We get elected for three or four or five years, but there are no guarantees that go with it. Our ability to perform and our performance are judged daily by those people who elect us. People who work in government are regularly assessed on their performance. Deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers are appointed. Deputies are tossed; deputies are paid out. Deputies who are seen not to perform don't wait five years before they are replaced.

It's conceivable that the appointment of this commissioner, the first time around, may not be ideal. Anybody who has taken

part in a job interview, anybody who has been part of a hiring process, knows that you do your damnedest, you do your very best, you consider all of the applications and you make a decision. But if it goes sour, are northerners to wait five years until this can be corrected? I don't see the pressures that would require this individual to have this kind of immunity from government influence. I see this person working closely with and for the minister. The minister's staff sure don't have five-year tenure. The minister's staff know that they're there to deliver -- or at least one assumes that they are, and I think most of them are. So I have a great deal of trouble with this notion.

Were I an applicant for the job -- some suggested that might happen, and it won't -- then perhaps the five years would be rather sweet. One would say yes, indeed, five years and a good salary, a possibility of one or two reappointments, and it's off to the races. But it's not for the commissioner; it's for the community. It's who and what will best serve the community. So I'm looking forward to some discussions. The minister may well have a sound rationale for that particular decision, but at this point I can't see it.

The other question in my mind is . . . . I think my friend and colleague from Peace River North made the arguments very eloquently that many of the things that needed to be done have been done by the minister. So one has to ask oneself: is this commissioner one who develops a vision? Does he work with the community to develop some grand vision for development in the north? Or does he become someone who perhaps a bit like our Premier tends to be running to see Bombardier one day and down to see an aluminum company the next day and flitting off to Brazil to see an ethanol developer the next day?

Is he a chaser of investment? Is that the role of this commissioner? Is he there to try and identify a particular company or a particular industry you might bring in? Is that how we're going to gauge this individual? Or is it in developing a broader economic vision for northern British Columbia? Is that the responsibility?

Again, in deference to my friend from Peace River North, I think the question, then, has to be: is that kind of broad vision best developed by elected people or by someone who is on a five-year tenure by the appointment of the minister? I tend to think that the former is probably the case. One then has to believe that this individual's responsibilities will be a briefcase full of incentives, a briefcase filled with arguments -- many of them absolutely legitimate -- around the grand opportunities that exist within British Columbia. We will then judge that individual on his ability to deliver.

I don't know. I've been there; I know how tough it is. As I watch the Premier in his casts about the globe for investors, I know that one casts many times before you get a nibble, that you get many nibbles before you get a bite and that you don't always reel them in even after they've bitten. So I don't know what we're going to expect from this individual.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, no, I guess the difference would be in the analogy: you've got to put them in the live tank, sprinkle a little fish food on them, and hope they swim and grow. But, hon. members, I find myself becoming sidetracked here.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to close with these thoughts. I want to see this succeed. I believe that the minister has already developed and demonstrated not only his interest but his ability to deliver on issues of northern development. I think that the minister has done a good job since his appointment to that position. I want to see this commission as something that enhances and strengthens his ability to deliver. I don't want to see this commission office and this commissioner become another hurdle that developers have to jump over in order to get to the people who make the decisions.

Believe me, there are ample experiences and instances across Canada. This idea of northern development and northern development commissions . . . . Alberta has the Northern Alberta Development Council; Manitoba has a Minister of Northern Affairs -- or they did have. Saskatchewan has a Minister of Northern Affairs.

[3:15]

The key is that these jobs have to have the ability to facilitate investment; they can't become a hurdle over which people have to jump. I'm going to work as hard as I can to try and make this a facilitative operation, not a hurdle over which people can jump. I'm going to support the legislation, but I'll tell you that I'll be up and critical without hesitation if this thing falls into the traps that I've identified. They are very real traps that exist, regardless of who the minister is and who the commissioner that's appointed is.

So with that, I look forward to committee stage and the ability to pursue some of these issues a little bit further.

H. Giesbrecht: I might say, in response to the previous speaker, that that's a challenge that I think is worthy of acceptance. Certainly none of us on this side of the House want to see this bogged down in some level of bureaucracy or not be successful. So that's a challenge that I think we should be willing to accept. I certainly appreciate his comments and his commitment to trying to make this work.

I would certainly concur with many of the comments he made around the challenges that we will face. Many of those challenges were identified by the committee when they looked at the various options that were available in the coun-

[ Page 8305 ]

try and the various options that the province had tried from one year to another, and also when they considered the kind of narrowing of those options that the two co-chairs were supposed to take out to the various communities when we did our consultation. So I even find agreement on some of the specifics that he mentioned in terms of what difficulties we are likely to encounter.

The idea of an agency or an entity to promote and encourage job creation and economic development is not terribly new. It was revived out of the Premier's summit in Prince George. Prior to this, we had tried some options in B.C. -- to be fair, I guess -- with very limited success. The previous speaker mentioned the ministers of state. I was involved with that for a while. There were a lot of studies done, but when it came down to getting some sort of general vision for the specific region, there was always conflict in terms of the interests of the individual communities and so on. It was really hard to coordinate any efforts or any vision for the long-term future.

Prior to that, I had the good fortune of being involved in a northern development council at the municipal or regional district level. It was the same kind of problem. A great area of the north was represented in a small room, trying to focus in on issues that were of equal concern to that broad region. Aside from making the occasional lobby to ministers in the government, not too much happened. It died, and we are here again looking at some other option.

Some provinces have had ministers of northern development. Of course, you can hardly expect them to be critical of that particular option, so we had some difficulty in getting very good feedback in terms of the success rate of the options.

The member for Peace River North spoke very negatively about this bill, and I'd like to respond to some of those comments. First, he talked about the north and his vision for the north. He sometimes conveniently distorts the reality of the north. I'm a northerner by choice; I've been there for the past 30 years. The policies that the province adopted were always general policies for the entire province. That meant that they focused more on the economic activity in the southern urban area.

If you were up in the north someplace, you might derive some kind of spinoff benefit from economic activity, but there really weren't any policies geared directly to creating a more sustainable economy for the north. It was kind of like a record player, where you put something on the edge, and if you turn the speed up high enough, something will eventually fling off, and there will be some benefit to the extremities of the province.

In the Kitimat Valley, for example, in the sixties the valley was logged very quickly. Most of the logs were barged south down the coast. The timber was high-graded, and they took all the stuff that was easily accessible and the good grade of timber. Today we are currently dealing with the challenges in the forest industry based on that. When one looks at the history of the province in terms of the economic policies that were there, they weren't exactly perfect for the north. I would suggest that for decades, there has been a lack of focus on the regions outside of the heavily settled urban areas in the south. In the past if anything happened up there, it was simply by accident.

As long as there's lots of money floating around to spread around, you don't notice the inequalities and the unfairness. Certainly for years, during those years when the province was in a boom, nobody in the north ever really thought they were getting a raw deal. Looking back on it now, in the Peace River, for example, where for 20 years they were trying to get a Fair Share deal, which has suddenly occurred . . . . One wonders why prior to 1991, for 13 years, the previous administration did nothing. No government is perfect in that respect.

Certainly one can't simply start the world at 1991 and expect that the government is going to be held totally accountable for the decades of neglect for the north. You must also remember that . . . . It would have been nice if, in 1991, when the New Democratic government took over, it had been a nice, clean slate -- the books had been balanced, and everything had proceeded as before. But it wasn't. I won't go into that. There was a $2.4 billion deficit that had to be dealt with, and so on. So constraints have been felt in various parts of the province over the years.

Suddenly there isn't as much money to throw around; suddenly the unfairness really sets in, in terms of what's available to the north; and suddenly the political world, for the member for Peace River North, began in 1991.

We got the usual negative, partisan rhetoric for a while, which is fair game. But rather than look at the opportunity for a non-partisan agency, a northern development commissioner, to coordinate and work with northerners to develop calm and a vision and to get some action on that, we, for some reason, have to continue that partisan rhetoric here, which I don't think provides us with much in the way of a solution.

We were accused of having our minds made up in terms of the model that we were going to propose. I would submit that the member for Peace River North had his mind made up about this particular venture long before the legislation was tabled here. When the minister went up north to announce Fair Share . . . . That was something northerners had wanted for 20 years -- not just for the last seven but for 20 years. So it's rather difficult sometimes to accept some of those words as being too serious.

I co-chaired the advisory committee to the Premier's summit, and the committee was asked at some point to make a recommendation to the Premier as to what shape the northern agency might take -- this particular entity that would champion causes of economic development in the north. There was information sent out to all of the various community groups and so on -- a large mailing list. We got feedback. The committee then considered all the options and consulted with the delegates to the Premier's summit.

At one point it was decided that rather than send the two co-chairs out there into the communities, we should at least narrow the field a little -- give some thought to the various models that were there -- and then we would go out and at least focus on a particular model.

So we did that. But, again, it was done with the advisory committee, which was representative of all of the communities in the north. Every riding had somebody in there represented. We went out to 11 different communities, from the Queen Charlottes all the way up to Dawson Creek and Fort. St. John. Strangely enough, out of the 11 communities, the vast majority of the people there said that they favoured the commissioner model.

It was explained a number of times that the reason the word "commissioner" was chosen is because most people were familiar with the Job Protection Commission, which was one of those lean, aggressive, active organizations that went out there and did the job. That's why the word came up.

While the job protection commissioner was always reacting to a particular crisis, this one would have to be a little bit different, in that you want the agency to be proactive. But they didn't want a bureaucracy. It was said over and over again; it was in our report. I don't think that anybody who claims that this is going to be bureaucratic is really on track; they're

[ Page 8306 ]

missing the point. There is absolutely no advantage to the government or to anybody on this side of the House to have a bureaucracy there that adds to the paperwork. I didn't advocate that in my role as co-chair, and the committee didn't advocate that. They didn't recommend that. So I think that's kind of a red herring. We were asked to consult, and we did that.

I might add here that there were only two of the 11 communities where we got any sort of difference of opinion or mixed opinion in terms of the model. Like I say, one was in Terrace. I could give you some of the reasons, probably, but it would be a guess. The other one was Fort St. John, the hometown for the member for Peace River North. For whatever reason, it might be interesting to note that he was also the only MLA that participated in any of these consultation meetings that we had in the communities, outside of myself -- and I was there in my capacity as co-chair.

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: It just turns out, of course, that we were there to listen to average citizens. Fair enough -- everybody is entitled to an opinion; nobody was excluded. We took input from all of them, but it isn't fair to say that because you attend one meeting out of 11, you somehow have the pulse of all of these people that made presentations. The vast majority of people favoured the commissioner model. Yes, there were a few that didn't. There were even some specific groups that had objections about a commissioner model because they prefer to work government to government.

But the fact of the matter is that anybody who says that the commissioner model was not the most favoured model is just not accurate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, one person has the floor right now, and that's the member for Skeena.

The member for Peace River North rises on what matter?

R. Neufeld: Point of order, hon. Speaker.

I would like the Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development to stand up and just say what he said to me across the floor. Stand up and say it into the microphone. It wasn't very nice; in fact, it was terrible. Stand up and have the -- what do you call it? -- guts to stand up and say . . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: That is a point of order.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret that it is not a point of order. I would caution all members to be careful about comments made across the floor. It doesn't necessarily help debate.

H. Giesbrecht: Unfortunately, that brings me to my next point, which is that yesterday, when I was listening to the member for Peace River North, he made the comment that when I was up in Fort St. John I had somehow implied or stated that the folks in the Peace River North area -- or at least in the Fort St. John area -- were out of touch. I was somewhat distressed by that. Hon. Speaker, I want it stated for the record quite clearly that that's completely false, that no such inference or statement or anything even remotely resembling that was made.

If a reporter asked me the question as to how opinions had changed, going from one community to the other, I made a point of trying to explain the differences of opinion that we had heard, coming from the Queen Charlottes and going across the north, and that maybe opinions in Fort St. John were different. I would absolutely never have said that they were out of touch. Far be it from me to say that. In fact, I have some good friends in Fort St. John, some of whom were at the meeting, so I would hardly do that.

[3:30]

The hon. member also read a letter from a person who was opposed to the commissioner model. Yes, we did get some letters, but I say again that they were in a minority position. There were a few. In fact, some people had some objections to the commissioner model, but they were always qualified. They were like: "We object to it on this basis." Then we would turn around and say: "Yes, but if we could ensure that that didn't happen, would you agree that it is a good model?" And they sometimes would agree.

So there are challenges in terms of the commissioner model -- no doubt about it. The proof, of course, will be in the pudding. The fact is that there was no predetermination that this was the model that was going to be chosen. Had we heard contrary opinions, we would be more than happy to make a recommendation to the Premier that no, we shouldn't go this route; we should go some other route. But it didn't happen, and I think that anyone on the committee and certainly anyone that attended those meetings in any of the 11 communities would be more than prepared to confirm that.

So, if anybody had their mind made up on this, it certainly wasn't us, and certainly there wasn't any indication or any sort of suggestion that we had somebody in mind. In fact, as the member for Peace River South has suggested, maybe his name was touted a few times as a possible candidate. But I don't know whether that's a job we would want to inflict on him. He's a very decent person. I say again that you can't form an opinion on what the general public in the communities advocated by going to one out of 11 consultation sessions; you just can't do it.

Let me again just briefly give some of the reasons why the commissioner model was favoured over the other models, in particular the minister-of-northern-development model, and so on. It was stated by the minister, when he made his opening remarks, that we modelled this . . . . The vision that people focused on was that of the Job Protection Commission, a lean operation that does the job when it has to, that has direct contact with whatever the seat of power is -- or a direct link to get action. That's the way it was modelled. It was supposed to be consultative. It was supposed to be non-partisan.

Clearly there's absolutely no advantage in putting people in this role who have, as a first obstacle, to work on their credibility.

Job creation and economic development was to be the orientation, and clearly, if the challenge is anything, it will be to try to find somebody of the calibre of the late job protection commissioner who has the ability to do that kind of promotion work within the sector that we want development from. That is the challenge. I recognize that, and we recognize that, but that shouldn't deter us from the vision that's there. This has the possibility of actually achieving something.

Also, the idea was to make sure that the office was accessible to all, not that somebody would look at your political stripe. So I think there's an advantage in going the non-partisan-commissioner route. I think that was also considered . . . . All of those things were discussed at the consulta-

[ Page 8307 ]

tion sessions. All of those things were what people wanted. Yes, there was a lot of concern that we maybe wouldn't be able to meet the challenges. There was even some cynicism. But Bill 27 provides for this opportunity.

We can exchange useless rhetoric in this room. We can do that until the cows come home. But it isn't going to get us what we want in the north, which is job creation and economic development that is sustainable and that doesn't give us these cycles all the time, like the forest industry has had in the past several decades -- the many decades that I'm aware of. We want that to happen. Again, we can enjoy the discussion here, but here's a chance to act.

There are some risks. The vision for the north . . . . You know, we could go into detail in terms of what has happened recently. I'm one of the people in the north who, for example, has received the benefit of the kind of renewed focus on northern interests in terms of a negotiated settlement between Alcan and the province. I dealt with the Kemano completion project and the fallout from that; I had to go through a re-election for that. We had a genuine focus or interest in trying to solve that problem. I also had to deal with the Skeena Cellulose issue, which, of course, some people are still attacking.

We have -- at least in the past little while -- received a renewed interest. Yeah, maybe it's 20 or 30 years too late, in terms of the north, but it's certainly better that it happened now than much later.

I'm prepared to give Bill 27 a chance. The only other option, of course, is to go back to trickle-down economics -- or, if you like the other version, trickle-north economics -- where we feed the economy of the south and hope that something happens up north that will create some stability. I'm really not prepared to do that. I would rather do something . . . . Even the most cynical, partisan Liberal from the north can see that this has some possibilities -- more so than the previous decades of simply letting the marketplace determine what happens in the north and what doesn't.

I support Bill 27. I applaud the minister, first of all, for seeing the vision for a Premier's summit. When I went around and advanced this idea to people -- because I had heard it from him -- people said: "Yeah, that's a good idea." Lots of people went; some people were unhappy with the result. I had a lot of people tell me that it was a good exercise, and they came away quite pleased. If, out of that, we get an entity that focuses on job creation and northern development, I'll be quite happy to support it.

G. Wilson: One of the benefits of going later in the debate is that you have heard from people who have made contributions, and you are then able to not repeat some of those points that have already been made. I'm not going to repeat the points that have been made, and, hopefully, I can introduce something that has not yet been raised.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Before I do, I want to point out that the comments from the member for Peace River South really do need to be heeded in terms of the regionalization of this commissioner and the perception that may be developed with respect to where the office is, where the appointments are and so on. We've seen in the past where people who have come in, in a commissioner's role -- albeit with fully good intention and a desire to try and be fair in their application -- get branded, often unjustly but sometimes justly, as being a person whose first and primary consideration and priority is for one region at the expense of others.

I'm not from the north. It's interesting to note, in listening to speakers who have lined up to speak on this, that most of them are MLAs from the north. I want to offer two observations that the minister might take, by way of comment in second reading. The first is that I think there is a suspicion -- certainly from those who have talked to me about this bill -- that we are creating yet one more level of bureaucracy that will further compound or make more complex the opportunities for economic growth and development. I think the member for Peace River South alluded to that and did so effectively enough.

I would say, in reading the job description of this new commissioner, that this, in many ways, is the job description of an MLA. It strikes me that much of what we're asking this new commissioner to do -- with respect to promotion of job creation or looking at ways of cutting red tape and making sure that those who have money they wish to invest have access to the appropriate levels of government -- is the role of an MLA.

What we have to do is ask ourselves why, in 1998, we need the Northern Development Act. When we start to recognize and understand the wealth generated from the north feeds the economies of the south and that much of that wealth is never returned to those who actually generate it . . . .

One of the considerations that we need to put on the table -- and I would put it on the table, because we are, concurrently with this bill, looking at electoral reform and the redistribution of electoral boundaries and the opportunity for us to be able to readjust representation within this chamber -- is that we need to necessarily recognize that MLAs have a job and duty to look after their constituencies.

One of the problems that we face with our electoral process is that we tend to have representation by population, which, by the very nature of the distribution of B.C. population, skews the representation in this chamber to the urban areas in the south and often leaves the voices in the north less well represented. It's not that we don't hear from them, but simply that their priorities become shunted to the back of the list. I think that's one thing that needs to be considered, and I'm not sure that the appointment of a commissioner is going to solve that problem.

The second concern I have . . . . I hope that the minister will take my remarks in the manner they're intended. They're intended to be constructive on this point. It may well be a good idea to set up a commissioner; I don't know. Time will tell whether this is a good idea or not. I certainly hope that it's effective, because it's my hope -- as it is, I'm sure, of most, if not all of us in this chamber -- that we are going to have solid economic development.

But I have to say that the nut that needs to be cracked in this whole question of northern development, the issue that we really need to address and that this commissioner, I think, will not have powers or abilities to even entertain discussion over, is a resolution to the northern land claims issue, the aboriginal land question. That is at the heart of what I think needs to be addressed.

It seems to me that as we start to look at the commissioner's role . . . . It does say in one

section that the commissioner will have to coordinate and work with a variety of different economic development officers and those who are engaged in other activities, including aboriginal people and economic development organizations.

We cannot escape the fact that as a Legislative Assembly, as citizens of British Columbia, we must now address the question of aboriginal land claims with a view to having resolution, with certainty and fairness, to those claims. That needs to be a high priority -- as high a priority as trying to establish a northern jobs commissioner, which, effectively, we're doing through this bill. No northern jobs commissioner,

[ Page 8308 ]

no goodwill among all of the municipal governments, no goodwill among all of the MLAs and all of the parties, even if we were to shed our partisan jackets in an unusual display of harmony in terms of trying to advance the issues and concerns of the north, is going to be able to advance economic growth and development until this question has been resolved.

I think it's important for us to hear and to understand the concerns now expressed by people who live in north, especially in light of the Supreme Court ruling on Delgamuukw. We need to hear from this government and get direction on this issue. No northern jobs commissioner is going to solve the economic uncertainty investors will see in place until we recognize that what that ruling has done, in effect -- what I hope this government will start to recognize and what we need to start to debate -- is talk now about a new process for Crown land application and administration which will occur through some level of joint tenancy. This is an issue that I think we have to deal with.

I'm saddened to a degree in that often we in this chamber come in with a lot of good ideas and a lot of good intentions which really are only band-aids over the real concern. They are essentially a fast track, an easy route or often what becomes window dressing in terms of action that doesn't really address the heart of the real problem.

So when we get to this issue of northern development, and when we talk about the concept and principles with respect to the growth of the north, it is absolutely critical that we do not do that in the absence of a recognition that we now must start to readjust our thinking with respect to the northern lands.

When we do that, notwithstanding a northern jobs commissioner or anything else that we do, we must include the people of the north, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, in the development of the solutions that will provide security, provide certainty, provide opportunity for expanded investment and development and growth.

I put those comments on the table in second reading because I think that we must not lose sight of them when we are talking about the long-term economic viability of the northern parts of this province. I single it out now -- notwithstanding the fact that there are land claims that affect all of this province -- because in the settlement and in the solution of the northern land claims, the land component is far greater in its complexities and its importance than the land component will be in the settled urban areas to the south, where the matter of the financial component of compensation will become a more prominent part of the discussion.

With that, I make my contribution to Bill 27. Do I think it's going to work? I don't know. Do I think it is likely to be another level of bureaucracy? Potentially it will be. All of the concerns that were raised by the member for Peace River South need to be heeded and heeded carefully. Like the member for Peace River South, there will be no more vociferous a critic if we find out that what we have done has been simply employ another individual to set up another level of bureaucracy to put in all kinds of barriers to economic growth because those barriers meet the needs, the desires and the philosophy and direction of the government of the day.

That's my contribution to second reading of Bill 27, and I look forward to the discussion in committee.

[3:45]

D. Jarvis: I wasn't going to speak to this bill, Bill 27, the Northern Development Act. But after hearing a few of the remarks, I decided to make a few notes, and to get up and give some of my opinions. Up to this point, it's been sort of a love-in with all the people from the north. Here I am, the southerner, and I hope you can understand my accent. Most of the people here have been agreeable to most things, although the minister did say a couple of things that were socially unattractive. Nevertheless, it has been somewhat of a love-in.

The purpose of this bill, as we are all probably all aware, is to promote and encourage job creation and economic development in the north. One of the main questions from this side of the House has been: is it necessary to have this position? Why can't the line ministries do the same job? There are two -- the Employment and Investment ministry and the Northern Development ministry -- and surely they should be able to handle this job.

Well, there's a lot of discussion as to that point -- whether an individual like a northern commissioner should be appointed. Then again, that brings up another question as to who's going to appoint this northern commissioner. Of course, that is the minister himself. It's always questionable whether whoever he picks as a commissioner . . . . Will he or she be an unknown individual that has a lot of talent that has not yet been found? Has the minister looked around, or will the government appoint someone not too unknown to themselves?

It's not unlike this government to choose card-carrying members to represent them in many of the positions that they've appointed them to. For example, it could be a mayor of a northern town who's very familiar with the NDP -- has even worked on a minister's recall campaign.

This role has not been defined yet. Will he follow the government's suggestions, or will he come up with his own ideas on things? How will he jump from one point to the other without making a decision or creating a bureaucracy that will naturally follow when you proceed to appoint these little commissions or offices around here?

There was always a question of development: why doesn't this government proceed with the development? Let's face it, they've been more intent, up to this point, on closing off development in the north than creating development -- there's no question. They've closed off ostensibly 4.3 million hectares up in the Muskwa-Kechika area which could be developed. Now they have to appoint a specific person to do the job of the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Northern Development ministry.

I have noted that those are some of the questions that have come across, that have been mentioned today. I understand the minister has said that they will take no responsibility from the individual line ministries, with respect to their spending allocations. We wonder, then, what the two existing ministries will do up in the north, if part of their mandate is to develop the north. There are questions that will be coming forward.

The commissioner, as I said, is going to be appointed by the minister. That is a big question. I believe that probably it should be an appointment by either a group of people or even a group of the northern MLAs -- but who knows? He himself said that he doesn't think we will end up with an individual who is probably the best from a chosen field. The minister has not defined how he's going to pick a commissioner, other than it may be just one of his apparatchik friends that is out there. Who knows . . . ?

Interjection.

[ Page 8309 ]

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, we hear comments from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the member for interruption, who always comes into the room and talks; as long as the Premier isn't in the room, he seems to find his voice.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. Member, the rules of the House don't allow for you to discuss how members conduct themselves in the House. Please just stay to the topic. The member for Peace River North rises . . . ?

R. Neufeld: On a point of order. This member has every right to stand here and discuss issues surrounding what people talk about in this House. I mean, every one of us do. We just heard members across the way do that. That's a normal course of events in this House.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the rules of the House are that we be relevant in debate, and comments that are made by members from their seats when they do not have the floor are not the same as comments made by members when they have the floor.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will pick up from where I was interrupted by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. We were talking at that time about the commissioner and how he is being appointed.

Also, there is nothing in the bill to indicate -- to me, anyway, but maybe the minister can clarify it -- the accountability of this commissioner and who he would be reporting to.

Another point is that one of the members of the House, during his discussion -- I believe it was the minister from Prince George -- stated that we on this side of the House didn't seem to be that concerned with northern development and what an important thing northern development is. He said that his government had been holding conferences and summits around the province -- a northern summit and an interior summit -- and that there was a broad cross-section of people. It so happens that I wanted to go to these summits, yet the government refused to allow me to go. I wanted to go and sit at the mining table; I was refused.

When the government side of the House stands -- especially the Minister of Education . . . . When he was discussing this same topic we are now discussing, he said that this government had a broad philosophy of opening up for discussion. That is not so, because, as I said, I was refused admission to the various summits that the Premier has called. In that same vein, then, I wonder if we are now going to have summits all over this province and if we're now going to start to divide the province up into the north, the central and all the rest of it.

Instead of having a homogeneous government and province -- so that when development is discussed, it would mean the whole province and not just special sections of it -- there would be a difference in treatment as to the way we develop this province as a whole.

Going back to the same topic, I think the member for Skeena said that we had not been up there to the northern development . . . or the interior one. Well, again, most of us hadn't been up there because we weren't allowed by this government to come.

I don't think anyone in this House is against northern development, and most of us are in favour of this bill. There were some comments made about my colleague the member for Peace River North, criticizing his attitude as to why he was questioning this bill. Well, part of our job is to question this bill. No bill presented by this government has been perfect yet, except for one that I voted for yesterday. I can't see how anyone could say that the member for Peace River North isn't in favour of northern development.

Over the years, if anyone gets on your nerves standing up in this House -- more so than any of the backbenchers on the other side, any of them from the resource areas . . . . They never stand up and talk about development and how this government has been excluding development in their areas -- except the member for Peace River North. He is probably the number one or two advocate for development in northern B.C. No one can question that.

I was really surprised when I heard, a short while ago, that the northeast and northwest produce about 10 percent of all the production in British Columbia and that 37 percent of British Columbia's gross provincial product is produced in northern B.C. I wasn't even aware of that. I've worked in the north myself. I worked in the north prior to most of these people being born -- except probably the minister, because he's a grandfather and fairly old. He probably worked in the north prior to when I first worked there, about 42 years ago. Anyway, I was surprised to learn that.

We can anticipate in the future -- if this government will get off their philosophy of non-development and get on with the development they keep talking about and never doing -- great growth and benefits coming to the north through oil and gas, mining, fisheries and tourism.

As I said, I'm not from the north, but I've worked in the north. I don't think there's any one of us that doesn't agree that development in the north is essential for growth in this province. I can only hope that the minister will pursue it to the nth degree, rather than just holding people off and keeping the dogs off the back end. Everyone in this province needs development to go on in this province, because we dearly need the revenue and jobs. So far, this government has not been able to produce them. They've talked about producing them, but they haven't produced them.

We can only assume that Bill 27, the Northern Development Act, will create positive jobs -- for a change -- that it won't just be this government talking about jobs that they're going to create and never do produce.

On that premise, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

G. Janssen: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today from Seattle Country Day School in Medina, Washington, are 50 grade 7 and 8 students. They're here visiting us to study comparative government and local history. They are accompanied by several adults and Ms. M. Lavinger, their teacher. I ask the House to make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: The chance to rise to support Bill 27, the Northern Development Act, is very much a pleasure for me. In the minutes that I have ahead of me, I'd like to address three points in particular: the geography of our area, the communities of our area and the first nations of the north.

[4:00]

The geography of northern British Columbia has 7 percent of the population inhabiting close to 55 percent of the land mass of British Columbia. So I really applaud the government for taking into consideration a very special characteristic

[ Page 8310 ]

of the north, in that the north has a very small number of people spread around in an area whose size is larger than most countries in the world. The idea that we would make special efforts to make it possible for the people living in this area to have more access to government is something that is long overdue and is something that we should all be very, very proud to be part of.

As well as having only 7 percent of the population, it is also notable that of that 7 percent of people, almost 90 percent are spread along Highways 16 and 97. So we've got, in reality, a dual economy in the north as well as in the greater part of this province, inasmuch as we have a large number of very small rural communities that are quite isolated from the larger populations. Something that most people don't realize is that those communities have very little opportunity to be heard by the great powers that be in the lower part of the province.

This will give us the opportunity that we're looking for, to give these communities a little bit more of an opportunity to work with the rest of the province in the development of their futures.

Now, the communities of the north are quite diverse. In my riding in particular, which is the largest, of the eight northern ridings . . . .

Interjection.

B. Goodacre: No, no, I wouldn't go that far. The federal ridings, of course, are much larger. But it is a good-sized riding, and I certainly enjoy representing that riding.

In my riding we have communities like Atlin, whose only access to British Columbia is through a trip into the Yukon that lasts close to four hours before you just get back to the border of British Columbia. From Atlin to the nearest community, which is Good Hope Lake, it's a trip of close to eight hours. Good Hope Lake has about 90 people living in it. And that's the nature of the communities along Highway 37 and further into the reaches of the north.

In the riding of North Peace, we run into similar considerations with communities the size of Good Hope Lake and Atlin that are accessible only by plane and by dirt roads. These kinds of communities have incredible challenges. Most of these communities are first nations communities, and the economic challenges faced in these communities are large. This is one of the things that I'm certainly hoping we can look for in the work of the commissioner.

I notice in the bill itself that we've got the commissioner's role, which specifically instructs the commissioner to coordinate with the northern economic development activities of other economic development organizations, including aboriginal peoples' economic development organizations.

To me that is a very signal part of this legislation, one that indicates to me that there is a tremendous interest on the part of this government in having the commissioner pay special attention to an issue raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and that is the relationship that this government and this development is going to have with the aboriginal people, considering the land claims cases before us and considering the very needs these communities have in terms of sharing in the prosperity of this country and especially of this province.

Another part of the bill that addresses these kinds of situations is

section 8, where they deal with considerations . . . . Again, the commissioner is instructed to take into consideration "the need to balance the interests of all parties in a fair and equitable manner through an understanding of the impact of any proposed recommendations" and also to consider "aboriginal people and communities." To me, that again points to a commitment on our part to include first nations in the development of the north, to include first nations in the job that this commissioner is faced with.

I look forward to working with the commissioner -- when the commissioner is appointed -- in terms of the work they do with the first nations in my riding, because I have a tremendous number of first nations communities in my riding in which unemployment is a serious problem and something we all need to be a bit more concerned about.

Last night we had a visit from the chairs and presidents of some small colleges. These are the colleges that represent . . . . We have three colleges in the northern area that we're dealing with here: the College of New Caledonia, Northern Lights College and Northwest Community College, which is in my area, along with Northern Lights in the northern part of my riding. Actually, CNC is in the other part of my riding. Gosh, that's a big riding.

At any rate, the colleges brought to our attention that they're faced with a very serious challenge, much the same kind of challenge that we're asking the commissioner to address. That is the challenge of coordinating activity over a huge geographic area where you have very few people and also limited resources to work with.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we're dealing with relatively small communities, very small communities by southern standards. I live in the largest community in my riding. That's the town of Smithers, with a population of 5,600 as we speak. With communities that small, the resources that citizens themselves can generate through volunteer activity, voluntary contributions and property taxes is limited. So the need to access the revenue stream coming out of our resources becomes very important.

Up to now, the way that's been dealt with, of course, has been through accessing the provincial and federal governments that collect those taxes. The main avenue that's been available to us is through our MPs and MLAs. Now, I agree that our MLAs and MPs do a wonderful job in redirecting resources back to the areas that they come from.

But I think we all agree that for MLAs and MPs spread over such a wide area, the possibility of having an office like a northern commission where we can coordinate our activities and develop a more coordinated approach to redirecting moneys to the various needs that our communities have is something that we will benefit a great deal from.

I'm really happy to hear the members opposite indicate to us, despite the criticisms they bring forward, that they are supporting this bill. It would be very useful for those of us on this side to hear a little more enthusiasm from them in terms of supporting it. On that note, I would again like to thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. I urge its speedy passage and look forward to the appointment of this commissioner, so that he can get on the with job he is being hired for.

G. Plant: I think it's not inappropriate, as someone who represents a constituency in southern British Columbia, to rise just for a minute or two to speak about this bill. As a British Columbian, I've spent lots of time in my life travelling through northern British Columbia, and since my election I've had the opportunity to travel as an elected official through northern British Columbia. Last fall I spent a week travelling through the communities within the constituency of Bulkley Valley-Stikine, the member for which has just spoken.

I've tried to make a point, when I've had the opportunity to do this, of listening to northerners talk about their concerns, and they do have many concerns. Northerners feel alienated from government; they feel alienated from the institutions of government.

[ Page 8311 ]

Actually, when I was a member of the Unity Panel, we met with the Prince George Chamber of Commerce. I was expecting the Prince George Chamber of Commerce to speak to us about the issues that were raised in the Calgary declaration. In fact, we heard the members of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce tell us pretty passionately about the sense of alienation they felt from political institutions of the province. Oddly enough, they felt more isolated and more alienated from the provincial government than they did from the federal government, which I found a bit odd.

I suppose it may be that they think that Ottawa is so far from Prince George that it can't hurt them and that Victoria is just close enough that it can -- and it does. I think we need to do a better job in terms of responding to that sense of alienation.

Northerners also observe and know a lot about the disparity between what they see as their contribution to the economy of British Columbia and what is returned to them in services of government. That's another theme I've heard, whether I've been in Prince Rupert or Smithers or Burns Lake or Prince George or other towns in northern British Columbia. There's always the sense that they see the resources driving by and through their communities on trucks and trains, and they don't get a sense that they are receiving back from government their fair share of the services of government.

Clearly northerners also feel the pain of the current downturn in the economy -- loss of forest jobs, loss of jobs across resource sectors and loss of jobs across a whole range of aspects of the economy. I remember hearing in Prince Rupert concerns around the fact that the government was not taking steps to ensure that the ferry system came into Prince Rupert often enough in the tourist season to maximize the tourist potential that exists across the Yellowhead Highway. I know that this is an issue of concern to the Minister Responsible for Northern Development, who comes from that community.

Clearly, even in the current economic climate, there are some opportunities for development and economic growth in northern British Columbia, and we need to do a better job of exploiting them.

When I think for a moment or two about why it is that northerners feel this sense of alienation; why they feel the sense of disparity between their contribution to our economy and what they receive back from it; and why northerners are concerned about the current economic downturn, the lack of economic opportunities in British Columbia, I ask myself: is the reason for all of that the fact that we have not had a northern development commissioner in British Columbia? I don't think that's the reason why all these problems exist.

Frankly, I think the reasons these problems exist are in large measure due to seven years of NDP economic policy, seven years of NDP economic mismanagement and seven years of the NDP not paying close enough attention to the concerns of northern British Columbians. That applies, I think, to northern British Columbians who live in aboriginal communities as well as the non-aboriginal communities of northern British Columbia.

I know that first nations communities in northern British Columbia feel even more acutely the sense of alienation, the sense of disparity and the lack of connectedness to our economy that I have talked about already. So I think the commissioner appointed under this act will have a challenge, because I don't think it's going to be enough for this commissioner to find a few new ideas and to write reports about them and to develop marketing strategies.

[4:15]

Frankly, I think this commissioner is going to have a heck of a job persuading this government to change some of its fundamental economic policies, some of the ways in which it does business and some of the ways in which it organizes itself, which are kind of central to this government's approach to the economy. I think those are the things that have to change, frankly, before we're going to maximize prosperity anywhere in British Columbia -- including, and especially the north. So the person who is going to have this job of northern development commissioner is going to have a tough job. I look forward to hearing what this commissioner does to discharge that very serious and onerous mandate.

I have to admit that back in February, I think it was, when the government reorganized itself and there was an announcement that the government was appointing a new Minister Responsible for Northern Development, my first reaction was: "Well, I guess the government has decided around the cabinet table, in the deliberations of government, that we need -- as an emissary, if you will -- a cabinet minister responsible for northern issues." I suppose I could have put my normal skepticism aside for a moment and said, "Well, there's a good step.

I mean, there's the government saying: 'Let's pay special attention to northern issues. Let's have a cabinet minister who will be responsible for northern issues.' "

You know, you might have thought that the cabinet minister who is responsible for northern development would have had the responsibility of promoting and encouraging job creation and economic development in northern British Columbia. That would be a legitimate expectation for most people to have if they heard that the government had reorganized itself and created a new portfolio of a Minister Responsible for Northern Development.

You might have thought that that minister would be someone who would consult with northern residents as needed, who would give advice to the government on job creation and economic development in the north, who might promote private sector investments in northern British Columbia and who might act as an advocate for northern economic development. Those would all be things that I think most British Columbians would see as the role of a Minister -- I'm sure I've got this right -- Responsible for Northern Development.

Perhaps there is something important in this bill. Perhaps the government, by bringing this bill forward, has realized that the minister or the ministry is not capable of advancing the interests of northern British Columbians. We need to have somebody else. We need to have a commissioner. I can only agree. I mean, when I look at the progress that's been made by the minister in advancing northern development over the last few months, I certainly don't see much in the way of development.

I still apprehend the sense of alienation, the sense of disparity and the sense of loss of opportunity, so I have to -- and it's hard for me to do it -- congratulate the government for recognizing that this problem exists and for deciding to resolve the problem by appointing a new official. Maybe that person, when he or she has the job, will do the job of advancing the interests of northern British Columbians and encouraging job creation and economic development in northern British Columbia, because I don't see much evidence of it happening now.

We're actually at the point, I think, where almost any step in the right direction is a step worth, if not applauding, at least allowing to happen.

Interjection.

G. Plant: I hear the Minister for Children and Families wanting desperately to participate in the debate. I'm sure that

[ Page 8312 ]

if she has something constructive to say about the issue, she'll get up and participate in the debate, and I look forward to her contribution on this issue.

I look forward to hearing from the government about why we need a northern development commissioner when taxpayers already have the privilege of having a Minister Responsible for Northern Development. So for these reasons, I think there's a problem that needs to be addressed. It is currently not being addressed in the way that it ought to be. This legislation does at least create another opportunity for this problem to be addressed, and on that basis I'm happy to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in indicating that we'll support this legislation.

K. Krueger: I'm intrigued by this act and this decision on the part of the government. I'm an MLA who now represents a southern interior constituency, but I've spent a great deal of time in the north. I grew up on a homestead north of Fort St. John. I lived for six years in Fort St. John, seven in Dawson Creek, four in Smithers and three years in Prince George twice -- a total of six years. So I'm well acquainted with the north and still visit it frequently, including two weeks ago when I travelled to the minister's home constituency for the Yellowhead Highway Association conference at which he spoke.

Everyone there, I think, was disappointed that the Minister of Transportation and Highways didn't come out. There were ministers from the prairie provinces there, but not British Columbia's minister. People from the north view that failure to attend as a disappointment, because they have felt neglected for so long. Indeed, it was curious to hear the member for Skeena refer to previous Social Credit administrations as having been essentially guilty of the same sins as the NDP government in the last seven years -- of failing to address the needs of the north and failing to be aware of the issues of the north.

Over those years that I grew up in the north and the many years of my adult life that I lived there, it was a booming area of British Columbia. It's incredibly rich in resources, as I think we all know, and they were being very well developed. When my father wasn't working on his farm in the summer -- when he was shut out of that by winter -- he would go and work in the oil and gas exploration industries. He went and worked as a carpenter on the development of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam.

The Socreds built dams and highways and encouraged mining exploration and development, and in general the entire north of this province was regarded as a land of opportunity.

My colleagues and I have been travelling throughout the constituencies of the minister, the member for Skeena and the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine in successive caucus tours over the last couple of years, and we hear from those constituents throughout the area that same message: people located there, believing it was a land of opportunity -- knowing it was -- with the huge hydroelectric potential being developed, the way industry was taking hold and the tremendous interest by resource companies . . . . They're just flabbergasted and aghast at this state of affairs today.

I think that it's a mistake for the government to spread the blame around, even in its own mind -- let alone publicly -- because the Social Credit administrations had a lot going in the north, and things have really ground to a halt over the last seven years. Northern development was just fine when I left the north in the eighties. It's a very different story now. Nobody would call them boom times anymore.

An issue that's been addressed by a number of previous speakers is the issue of why it's necessary to have a northern development commissioner when we have a Ministry of Energy and Mines and Northern Development. Indeed, we used to refer to the incumbent minister as the minister responsible for everything, because he had so many responsibilities within his portfolio. I haven't heard anyone on the government side question his credentials or ability to get the job done. It's not that anyone minds a very direct focus on northern development. That's great.

That's obviously needed, because the economy's really in the doldrums throughout most of the north except for the blessing of oil and gas endowments. But there's a concern about redundancy, for one thing. We now have two very senior-level positions essentially dealing with the same job. And worse than redundancy, there's the concern about one impeding the other and, potentially, nothing getting done as a result. Those are cautions that we want to put before the minister in a respectful way.

If we're going to create this position, as we obviously are -- we do intend to support the bill, and I certainly intend to support it -- then let's let the commissioner do the job, and let's not interfere with it.

There's a concern, of course, that this position will be just another bureaucracy, and that can easily happen. We see

section 12 empowering the commissioner to hire other employees, specialists, consultants and so on. There is a lot of reference to writing reports and making recommendations. Of course, all of our file cabinets in this Legislature are stuffed with people's reports, and many of them don't seem to draw much subsequent action from the government -- even ones that deal with tremendously serious matters, such as those for which the Ministry for Children and Families is responsible.

So we have a minister, with all his trappings of power -- his deputy minister, his ministerial aides, his staff and tremendous resources. Now we'll have a commissioner, and he or she may be tempted to build a little empire as well. We certainly see in government that Crown corporations, agencies and ministries tend to want to grow upon themselves. There's a great temptation for management types to write reports to one another and justify more management types. Frequently they become so bound up in bureaucracy that very little gets done.

Will this government listen to the commissioner? That's a legitimate concern of northerners and a legitimate concern of ours. This government -- this minister -- didn't listen to British Columbians on the issue of gambling expansion, for example. It's gone ahead, and we're already hearing very alarming things from throughout the interior about the effect on small business and on families and individuals -- things that were predicted by the research we'd done prior to the gambling expansion. Indeed, the minister himself had spoken against gambling expansion when the Socreds were in power.

But he didn't listen to his own voice, let alone the voices of others, once he was the minister making that decision.

As we travelled through the constituencies I mentioned earlier -- Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Hazelton, Carnaby, Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake, Fort St. James -- it was sad to see it so depressed. When I lived there, the world was people's oyster. They had many opportunities, and they knew it. They knew their children could look forward to a lifetime of gainful employment and family-supporting jobs when they graduated from high school -- or even if they didn't, frankly. It was a robust area. It was a tremendously booming economy with all kinds of opportunity. It's not there now.

So if this is what it takes to start turning things around, then I'm all in favour of it, because things definitely need to turn around there. They are pretty sad right now.

This government has essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Even tourism, which is one of the last holdout

[ Page 8313 ]

industries that have maintained some vitality in the area, has suffered because of the Alaska ferry blockade and the tremendous ill will that was demonstrated towards American citizens there and a Premier who appeared to abet and encourage those activities.

That's what people are telling us as we travel through the area: bookings are down, and people are offended by that and angry. It's no way for a government to behave when it wants to encourage tourism to an area of the interior of British Columbia. It's a very serious concern. One of my colleagues mentioned the issue of a second Prince Rupert ferry. Again, that's what people in the area tell us. They have been requesting and advocating that for years. Every second day the motels, hotels and restaurants up and down Highway 16 are vacant because they are built to accommodate traffic, of course, and tourism.

They get it when the ferry unloads, as the traffic makes its way to them, but every second day it's not there. Why is it so difficult to deliver a service like that -- one that is booked so tremendously and that people look forward so much to using? Why haven't we got a second Prince Rupert ferry scheduled? Well, maybe we will. Maybe the commissioner will make that one of his first recommendations. I hope so; I'd like to see it happen.

T. Stevenson: Spend, spend, spend.

K. Krueger: We hear the member for Vancouver-Burrard saying: "Spend, spend, spend." There we go; we have these Vancouver people presuming to interfere even when we're talking about the potential tasks this commissioner will turn his mind to. So it's no wonder that people are a little apprehensive about his prospects for success when we have that sort of rude behaviour from somebody . . .

[4:30]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: . . . who, as my colleague says, has probably never been out of the West End of Vancouver. He'd be better to lay his hand upon his mouth and listen for a change, and just allow people from the interior to talk about the interior and try and turn around some of the problems that this government has created in the interior.

Our critic for Health . . . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, looking at the rude behaviour of that member, I'll sit down for a moment if you'd like to correct him.

Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The member for Okanagan West spoke earlier today of the fact that there are 86 fewer doctors in the north than there were four years ago. Again, that's a result of neglect by this NDP government, and it's surely something that the commissioner might also want to turn his mind to.

We've heard the Forests minister speak with pride recently of what he considers to be the reduction in regulation with regard to changes to the Forest Practices Code. But we have to ask him: who wrote that Forest Practices Code? Who was it that came out with those thousands of pages of code, which he talked about having to take a chainsaw to? He still hasn't reduced it to anywhere near a manageable level. It was this government. So it's kind of a paper tiger when the government says that it's making progress and it's only partially reducing some of the machinery it built itself, which has been attacking the economy of northern B.C.

It's the same issue on stumpage. The stumpage system is too inflexible. It takes too long to follow the market. People are charged too much in stumpage, and that has had a terrible effect on our forest industry. The forest industry throughout the interior and in the north told us for years that this was going to happen. They said: "We're getting the highest prices we've ever seen for our products, but we're barely making any money. The reason we aren't is that we've got this tremendous overregulation and overtaxation. We need relief from it. Unless we get it, our mills will be the first to go down when prices drop." Sure enough, they have.

Members such as the member for Vancouver-Burrard then say: "Well, that's because of the Asian flu -- the effect of the economies in Asia." Of course it isn't that. The industry was geared to deal with market cycles. This has been the culmination of years of overregulation and overtaxation by this government. When a market blip occurs, the industry has to shut down.

This government has also substantially ended mining exploration throughout the interior and the north. Again, the industry told us for years that this was happening. Recently some efforts have been made to try and turn that around, but it's a mistake for this government to pat itself on the back or thump its chest and say: "Look what we're getting done for northerners and for the interior." It's the same people who hurt that area in the first place and who drove the economy to where it is now.

Who was it that burned the unsecured creditors throughout that Hazelton-Smithers-Terrace area in the Skeena Cellulose debacle? Who was it that engineered a situation that the court had to reverse, where the government of B.C. presumed to declare itself an unsecured creditor to the point that it could outvote those poor people who had been telling us since the beginning of 1997 that they were facing bankruptcy because of the actions of Repap B.C., followed by the actions of this government? Who has it been that drove the economy of the north into the dust? It has been the New Democratic Party, and the government that has been in place since 1991.

Who was it that brought the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to the point where, by its own internal records, its policies have cost thousands of jobs in B.C. and over a billion dollars a year in economic activity? It was this NDP government. Is it doing anything about that problem? We don't see it. People everywhere in the north and throughout the interior are affected by that. This government and those ministries are so tied up in themselves and in their bureaucracy that they can't let anything positive happen.

The Premier himself rejected a call centre in the interior that would have employed 600 people, by frivolously saying: "We don't want to deal with big banks." Six hundred jobs went to the Maritimes as a result. We hope that this government has learned from its mistakes.

In 1998 it's commonly accepted that the best management practice is to allow people to do their jobs. The people on the ground actually tasked with getting something done are probably the best ones to decide how to do it. There should be minimal interference, if any, from senior levels.

We hope that when the commissioner recommends things to the minister, the minister and his cabinet will not cave in to special interests, as we're told happens repeatedly at the land resource management planning tables. Representa-

[ Page 8314 ]

tives of the mining industry tell us that if they make the mistake of saying at one of those tables that an area is of interest to them, at the very next meeting some special interest group will want to designate that exact area as a protected area, and they often have their way. Hopefully, when the commissioner tries to work against that happening, the minister and the government will listen.

Is this act about doing the right thing? Or is it about appearing to do the right thing for the north? We hope it's the former. British Columbia can't afford any more of this: appearing to do the right thing, repeatedly setting up new commissions, new agencies, new Crown corporations, installing new bureaucracies that only make things worse and tie things up. This little act, as brief as it is, is full of the words "reports" and "recommendations." There we go again: it takes a long time to write reports. Frequently nobody seems to read them. Frequently nobody seems to act on them.

Let's allow this person to do the job, whoever is appointed. Let's hope the government has changed its ways and learned from its mistakes.

The member for Peace River South referred to a fish analogy: you have to cast a lot of times before you get a nibble sometimes; and when you get a nibble, you don't always get a bite; and when you get a bite, you don't always reel it in. He was talking about investors and investment opportunities. Too many times when this government has finally reeled one in, it has bonked it on the head with overregulation and overtaxation and not allowed that economic opportunity to come to fruition.

Again, we hope that this government is learning. There were indications in the Premier's so-called consultations before this session of the Legislature began that he was listening to the business people and the pastors he was consulting with. He was saying the right things: that he had to reduce regulation and reduce taxation. But we've since seen one example after another, including new legislation, that the government hasn't learned how to do that -- if indeed it was sincere about doing it. The Workers Compensation Amendment Act is a classic illustration.

It imposes more regulation on business instead of taking regulation away. We've got to get serious about those things if we intend to turn these problems around.

We surely hope that the government pays attention to this commissioner when he or she is hired and gives serious consideration to this point: the north really doesn't need more government. It doesn't need more commissioners. It doesn't necessarily even need a minister. It needs more autonomy. People who live in the north and throughout the interior ought to have a whole lot more power and genuine decision-making ability with regard to how things are done in their area.

They shouldn't have to see their resource dollars trucked away, as one of the members put it earlier, and continually see it all vanish down to the black hole in the south on trucks and trains and have to come begging, cap in hand, for any little program. They shouldn't have to camp out in a hospital bed on the lawn of the legislature, for Pete's sake, to try and get some attention by government to the fact that the emergency rooms are all closed up there.

I was driving Highway 16 two weeks ago, and there were signs sayin