1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

13237 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 13237

An Act to Lower the Voting Age to Eighteen Years (Bill M207). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 13238

Election Contributions Disclosure Act (Bill M208). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 13238

Conflict of Interest Act (Bill M209). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 13238

Presenting Reports –– 13239

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Mr. Harcourt –– 13239

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 13239

Sechelt Indian land claims. Mr. Long –– 13240

Referendum questions. Mr. D’Arcy –– 13240

Music '91 contracts. Ms. Pullinger –– 13240

Apportioning of legislative constituencies by gender. Mr. Smith –– 13241

Supply Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 16). Committee stage. (Hon. J. Jansen) ––

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Mercier

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Serwa

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Long

Mr. Vander Zalm

Third reading

Tabling Documents –– 13269

Motions on Notice

Select Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest

(Motion 35). Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13269

Mr. Gabelmann

Royal assent to bills –– 13269

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to introduce to you Senor Antonio

Bullon, the consul-general of Spain to Canada, who is accompanied by

Mr. Joaquin Ayala, who is the consul of Spain at Vancouver.

MR. G. HANSON: I want to introduce to the House today a very

special guest, someone whose name is familiar to all Canadians. He's a

colleague from the riding of Rupertsland in northern Manitoba, a quiet

and powerful voice for the first nations of Canada. His efforts have

touched every Canadian, and I'm sure we're going to build a better

Canada as a result of it. He's here in Victoria to assist the public

service in acquainting themselves for the task of negotiating just and

honourable settlements for the first nations of British Columbia. Would

all members please join me in welcoming Elijah Harper.

MR. VANDER ZALM: We have visiting with us today Mr. Lowe, a

teacher from Davidson College in Richmond, a number of adults and 29

ESL students aged 16 to 24. They're here for a tour of the parliament

buildings and to familiarize themselves with the process of government

in the province. I would like the House to extend a big welcome to the

group from Richmond.

MR. MOWAT: In your gallery today we have Mr. Fred Pangan, who

has just come to Canada from the Philippines and is having his first

visit to our government — also Claire Vessey, who works with me in the

caucus. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: In the gallery today are four legislative interns

who have been working with our caucus for four months. There are four

others, but I do not have their names here, and I assume that the

government will introduce them and thank them for their work.

Working with us on this side have been Joanna Herrington, Tom

Kaweski, Eric Kristianson and Neil Reimer. They've made a tremendous

contribution as an integral part of our research team. Joanna and Eric,

I'm told, are planning to attend law school next fall, and Tom is

looking for work. Hear that over there? Tom is looking for work and

hopes to find employment in government. As a matter of fact, I'm

looking for work as well. Neil plans to go back to UVic to continue his

master's degree in political theory. I'm sure that the events of this

week will prove that new ground is being broken all the time. I

understand that Neil has a mountain of fresh material, based on his

short exposure, to assist us in our deliberations.

I think the intern program is a credit to everyone involved in it. The present

group is one of the brightest and most talented that we've had in years.

They've brought us a multiplicity of political viewpoints, but the program

is without partisanship. We wish them all the best and thank them for the work

they've done for us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It gives me great pleasure to join the

opposition House Leader in saluting the interns who have worked for our

caucus, and also the interns who've worked for the New Democratic

caucus. Without question, in the last 12 years that I've been here,

I've noticed the high quality of legislative interns who we've had in

our caucus and other caucuses. Some of them have gone on to very good

and rewarding careers.

From the Social Credit caucus, I'd like the House to extend

congratulations and best wishes to Jessica Mathers, Bryar Smith,

Jaqueline Versaevel and Julie Walchli. Could we give those interns a

nice round of applause. [Applause.] I'm not finished; we have more

interns. No, seriously.

Also visiting with me today from Prince George and Calgary, I'd like

the House to welcome my wife Beverley, my daughter Jody, and my

father-in-law Russell Bostock from Calgary. They are all visiting the

precincts today.

Finally, on behalf of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff and all members of

the Legislative Assembly, it gives me great pleasure to draw to the

assembly's attention that John Crawford, one of our Sergeant-at-Arms'

staff, is retiring today. John was born in Saskatchewan in 1926. He

went overseas with the Canadian army from 1943 to 1945. He served with

distinction with Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry from 1946

to 1976 at various bases in Canada and Europe. He came to Canadian

Forces Base Esquimalt in 1976 and served there until 1978. In March

1979 he started with the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff and served with

distinction until the present. Would the House please offer best wishes

on his retirement to John Crawford.

MR. GABELMANN: just in case this is the last day — I

understand there's a possibility of that — on behalf of members of the

opposition caucus, I would like to extend thanks to all the people who

work in the building for the Speaker and for the members of this House,

the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff, the pages, the restaurant staff and the

many others who contribute greatly to the "success" of our activities

in this legislative chamber. I also would like to thank, on behalf of

our caucus, the members of the opposition staff, who work long and hard

on our behalf, and without whose efforts we could not be nearly as

effective as we have been.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Earlier today I had the pleasure of

meeting with members of the B.C. Federation of Dairymen's Association.

Some of them are visiting here in the gallery today. I would like you

to help me recognize the importance of their industry to the province

of British Columbia and welcome Ben Brandsema, Johanna Mellor and John

van Dongen.

Also visiting from the great constituency of Okanagan South is a

very good friend of mine — and a fishing partner for the last number of

years — Mr. Michael Kumle. With Michael is Julianna Parry, who is a

businesswoman visiting from Brisbane, Australia. Please make them

welcome.

[ Page 13238 ]

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery today we have one of our

hard-working community office volunteers, Doreen Burgess. She is

accompanied by her friend Norma Tener. Would the House please make them

both welcome.

MR. LOENEN: We want to join with members opposite — if indeed

this is the last day of the sitting of this session — to thank the

staff, without whose dedication and commitment to our work we would not

have been nearly as effective as we have been. In all sincerity, Mr.

Speaker, we recognize that our days are full and that our days could

not possibly serve the people of this province as effectively without

the support and help of our staff. On behalf of all of us on the

government side, I want to join the members opposite in saying thank

you to them.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 60

Tajiri, from the Vancouver Formosa Academy in my constituency I would

ask all members of the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of this side of the House, I also

would like to welcome Elijah Harper to Victoria and into this

Legislature. As the hon. first member for Victoria said, discussions

are being held today and tomorrow relative to a better understanding

between native and non-native peoples, as we work towards resolving a

number of the native concerns and issues relative to land claims. I’d

like to take the opportunity to welcome Elijah to this assembly on our

behalf.

Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that I ask the assembly to welcome

my executive assistant working from my Ladner office, Diane Wilson.

Would this House please make her welcome.

[2:15]

MR. G. JANSSEN: Visiting us today are two journalists from

western Germany, Petra Lung and Andreas Hoelsman. Accompanying them is

Wolfgang Zimmerman from Port Alberni, a driving force behind the

Disabled Forestry Workers of British Columbia, and also Lynn Zimmerman

from Victoria. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, those of you who think this may be

your last day may be correct in this session, while I am the Speaker.

But as president of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth

Parliamentary Association, I must say that you will be expected to

attend in August when the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

members meet in this chamber in a much more relaxed and cordial

atmosphere.

Hon. Mr. Dirks tabled the 1990-91 annual report of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE

TO EIGHTEEN YEARS

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled

An Act to Lower the Voting Age to Eighteen Years.

MR. HARCOURT: This bill extends our most important political

right to a greater number of young people by reducing the voting age in

provincial elections from 19 years to 18 years. There are an estimated

42,000 18-year-olds in British Columbia today. They have the capacity

and the right to decide who should represent them in the Legislative

Assembly. This bill will bring B.C.'s voting age in line with federal

and other provincial jurisdictions.

Bill M207 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.

ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS DISCLOSURE ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Election Contributions Disclosure Act.

MR. HARCOURT: The most fundamental goal of any government is

to earn and keep the trust of the electorate. For that to happen, a

government must be both open and honest. Increasingly, however, the

public is losing trust in politicians. Their experience with the

current government has led them to believe that all politicians act in

the interests of their special friends. To help restore open government

and voter faith in their government, it is necessary that the public be

told who the financial supporters of their elected representatives are.

This bill requires that the source of contributions to election

campaigns over the amount of $100 be disclosed. Almost all other North

American jurisdictions have this type of legislation, and this bill

would bring our province into line.

Bill M208 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.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Conflict of Interest Act.

MR. HARCOURT: This bill is designed to establish legally

enforceable standards of ethical conduct and financial disclosure for

all Members of the Legislative Assembly. It gives special attention to

members appointed to the executive council, reflecting the public trust

held by ministers of the Crown.

Bill M209 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.

[ Page

13239 ]

Presenting Reports

MR. REE: This is some business that has been concluded, not

started. I have the honour to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Labour and Justice. I move that the report be

taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. REE: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MR. HARCOURT: A question to the Minister of Health. Last

night the board of the Vernon Jubilee Hospital passed a motion

restricting women's access to therapeutic abortions. The former Premier

violated a Supreme Court decision and tried to ban a legal medical

procedure, and this minister and this cabinet have stood squarely

behind him. Has the minister decided to inform the board of Vernon

hospital that its action is an unacceptable violation of the rights of

British Columbia women?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me say at the outset to the Leader of

the Opposition that the first part of his question is a

preamble that

is totally incorrect, and the member knows it. I want the record to

show that.

Secondly, with respect to the Vernon hospital or any other hospital,

they are legal autonomous bodies that have elected boards of directors

from their society. They are responsible for the processes, procedures

and operations held at their hospital.

If the NDP wish to make a statement with regard to taking away

autonomy from hospitals, that's fine. But in terms of what the Vernon

hospital has done to date, that is within the law, and they are a

legally autonomous body.

MR. HARCOURT: We don't say to police boards that you can

interpret and enforce certain areas of the Criminal Code; it's the law

of the land. The same should apply here, and it seems that this

government is still taking its lead from the first member for Richmond,

who of course is going to be endorsing the first member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain, who has endorsed his support of her.

When it comes to the rights of British Columbia and its women, this government

is all the same, and nothing has changed. The Minister of Health asked what

a New Democrat government would do, and I'll tell you very simply; we would

not let public hospital boards interfere with the rights of women. We would

not deny women the right to choose on abortion, and we would bring in a law

to that effect. Does the minister not accept that the present situation is unacceptable,

and has he decided to give women legislative protection from this sort of action?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first part of the question was not a question; it was a non sequitur

statement. Secondly, neither this cabinet, this member nor this

Legislative Assembly attended the Vernon hospital board meeting last

night. That decision was made by the society, and I'm sure you're aware

of that. If you're not, have someone read it to you, because that's how

it went. We don't attend society meetings, nor do we make decisions for

them. They made that decision.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary. The hospital trustees banned

abortion even in the case of rape or incest. This is not a health care

matter. This is the sort of extremism that the people of British

Columbia have come to expect from this government over the last five

years. Is it the minister's position that he will stand by and do

nothing while a vocal minority imposes its views on the women of

British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're not a vocal minority, Mr. Member, they're an elected majority. Are you opposed to democracy? That is the question.

Also, the Criminal Code of Canada, which is the law in Canada,

governs the procedure that you're talking about and the one that you're

concerned with. The Hospital (Auxiliary) Act in British Columbia

governs actions of hospital societies. If you want to change that,

suggest some amendments. If you want to get on your soapbox, go to

Vernon and do it, because the decision was made in Vernon, not in this

Assembly.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

Dr. John Garry, Richmond medical health officer, has written your

ministry saying that he does not accept your soil-testing process and

that he is concerned that hazardous contaminants could be dumped in

Richmond. In light of this new information from Dr. Garry, has the

minister decided to order that no soil from the Expo site be dumped in

Richmond until the province and the municipality agree on a

soil-testing protocol?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member has been an opposition critic of

this ministry for some time. It can be presumed that he knows the soil

hierarchy and the history of the soil that's being transferred to the

Richmond site.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Well, that's a term he should know. I don't

think he does, but he should know what it is. When he started off by

calling the soil toxic, he

[ Page 13240 ]

incorrectly described the soil in the first place, which led to the action the Richmond council took.

All that I ask of the Richmond council — for your information, Mr.

Member — is that it accord this soil, which is mainly sand and gravel,

the same treatment that it accords the soil moving to six other sites

in the municipality of Richmond. All I ask of this member is to get his

facts straight, to serve a useful purpose in this assembly.

MR. CASHORE: This minister knows that he's using a

smokescreen when he keeps referring to the same effort to try to avoid

his role in this issue. The question was about new information from a

medical health officer, who is a professional and presumably has more

ability to ascertain the nature of this issue than the minister has.

This minister refuses to admit that the plans for that site are to

import and process the most toxic of wastes in the Pacific Northwest.

This is in obvious conflict with your decision to begin dumping….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the question is: given the serious

concerns of Richmond's chief medical officer, the citizens of Richmond

and its council, as well as the belated concerns of the second member

for Richmond, has the minister decided to order that no Expo soils be

dumped in that community until Dr. Garry's questions have been answered?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I don't wish to impugn the reputation of

the medical health officer of Richmond. In fact, before I make another

comment.... I don't know why the member gets so excited. If he was

right, he wouldn't have to get so excited about posing this question.

But the medical health officer, to my knowledge, is not a soils

analyst. The medical health officer is reacting to the council, none of

whom, that I'm aware of, are soils analysts. The matter of testing the

soil is being conducted by our staff, not by this minister. I'm not a

soils analyst, but I have deep faith in the ability of my staff to do

the right thing. So, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't serve the member well to

challenge the staff of this ministry....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the minister to take his

seat. He was asked a question, and we're getting into a discussion well

beyond the scope of the question.

SECHELT INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Native Affairs. In view of the fact that the Sechelt Indian band is the

first native self-government in Canada and would like their land claims

duly dealt with, I would like to ask the minister what the government

has done to facilitate the negotiations between this progressive band

and the federal and provincial governments to deal with their unique

land claims.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid that question is for the order paper.

A question that takes 15 or 20 minutes just to begin to talk about is

far too long; it must be briefer than that. Next question, please.

[2:30]

REFERENDUM QUESTIONS

MR. D'ARCY: To my jovial friend from Willingdon in his

capacity as Provincial Secretary. Some months ago, in early May, the

government gratuitously — without being asked — declared its intention

to put before this chamber during this session those questions on which

it would go to the people in referendums on the ballot in the next

provincial election — other than those questions about the government's

own re-election, of course. Before the minister contemplates getting up

and giving an answer as to what those questions might be — such as, "in

the fullness of time" — I would like to remind the chamber that as far

as this session goes we have reached the fullness of time....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's the last day — I hope it's

the last. It's probably the last question period, and it's getting near

the end of it. Perhaps we could just have questions for this last

little bit. Could the member for Rossland-Trail ask the question.

MR. D'ARCY: I was just getting to that point, so I'm glad you instructed me.

Has the minister decided on the content and the number of questions

which he wishes to put before this chamber to fulfil the government's

declaration? Has he seen those questions? And has he decided to table

them today, since there's a strong possibility that the fullness of

time of this session may be reached in a matter of hours?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to advise the hon. member that he's a little premature in looking to his position in London.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this is future action, and so I would not

offend the rules of the House and answer that particular question.

MUSIC '91 CONTRACTS

MS. PULLINGER: My question is to the Minister of Tourism.

Last year I asked the minister if there was a tendering process for the

awarding of Music '91 contracts, and the minister said there would be a

fair process, but he wouldn't tell the House what that process was. Two

days ago the minister advised the House that the government is looking

at all of the contracts and how they were awarded. Can the minister

explain why all the contracts are under review at this time, and who is

carrying out that review?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'll keep this very brief. We are doing that review at the present time. We're reviewing

[ Page

13241 ]

all the contracts, because I think it's only good

business practice — and good practice, period — to review how all

contracts are awarded.

MS. PULLINGER: A supplementary to the same minister. Given

that the events side of Music '91 has only recently begun — it's only a

month into its mandate — it would appear there must be some serious

problems with the initiative if all the existing contracts are under

review. Can the minister assure the House that there is no conflict of

interest with respect to tendering? And can he assure the House that he

has taken all the necessary steps to guarantee public accountability,

and that no inside deals will be made in future contracts?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I hate to waste the time of this

House in a frivolous question like that. Obviously we're reviewing it,

and when we are reviewing it, certainly the reason to review it is to

ensure that they are indeed awarded in the proper way.

APPORTIONING OF LEGISLATIVE

CONSTITUENCIES BY GENDER

MR. SMITH: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. At

a recent meeting in Halifax, Mr. Speaker, the NDP endorsed setting

aside ridings according to gender. In light of that proposal, my

question for the Provincial Secretary is this: has he considered

dividing the 75 British Columbia constituencies according to gender?

Will the Provincial Secretary name the ridings that he has set aside

for men and the ridings he has set aside for women? Will the Provincial

Secretary tell us what he's going to do with the seventy-fifth riding,

and will he as well advise the House if he has established a cadre of

gender police to enforce this politically correct new program by a new

generation of new socialists?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I really don't know how the NDP intends to

operate at the federal level to ensure equality of gender for all the

candidates. In British Columbia, especially in this party, people come

forward because of their merits and ability, and I can assure you that

there are two outstanding women running for the leadership of this

particular political party, and several female candidates who will be

elected in the next election and help form the next Social Credit

government.

MR. LONG: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. During question period

I asked a question that's very important to the Sechelt Indian people.

It was at the discretion of the Chair that the advice was given that

the answer may be too long, without getting any answer from the

Minister of Native Affairs. I feel that it's only right and just that

the native people in Sechelt have an answer on where this government's

going and what they are doing for that Sechelt Indian band. Therefore I

stand up on their behalf.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the difficulty that the Chair faces is not

the substance of the question, but the manner in which questions are put. There

are offenders on both sides of the House, and I'll try not to name them.

Naming them might solve the afternoon's problems. The difficulty is that

when a question is put in such a way that it can be used to spin out what little

is left of our short question period, the Chair has to intervene, because there

have been some abuses by government members and government ministers of question

period. The subject of your question today was very valid, but it's scope

was such that any minister could have taken at least half an hour to answer

the question. There has been ample opportunity at other times in this session

to ask similar questions.

MR. LONG: On the question I asked for the Sechelt people, I

was expecting an answer, but I still have not got that answer. I want

to be treated like any other member of this House. Everyone else gets

an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a question of the treatment of the

member, it's the treatment of the question. The question was put in

such a way that it would be an abuse of the House, and the Chair has so

ruled.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1991

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. KEMPF: I'm happy, Mr. Chairman, about your ruling that we

are able this afternoon to talk a bit about Forests estimates. I intend

to discuss in depth the forest estimates of the member for Prince

Rupert, who seemed very anxious to talk about forestry issues.

The member doesn't listen very often, because I toured the province

with that member and the rest of the Select Standing Committee on

Forests and Lands of this Legislature. As I was saying before lunch, I

heard over and over.... I can understand that member getting very

exercised by me repeating those things that he spoke about and did

during that tour of the province. But I just want to make sure,

particularly to the viewing audience, that everyone understands where

that member is coming from.

I have a few questions to ask of that member as to where he stands

with respect to forest issues and policies in British Columbia. I was

very concerned — and I would like to underline that word "concerned" —

about the things that member for Prince Rupert was uttering during

those hearings of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. I

thought I was a little left of the member opposite when it came to

forest policies, but lo and behold and to my surprise, I found the

member opposite was far right of me when it came to forest issues and

policies. He consistently stood in that committee, as he stands here in

the House, and spoke in favour of the status quo — of that

[ Page 13242 ]

which the multinational corporations were doing in the forest industry of British Columbia.

That leads me to an awful lot of questions. I've got to ask because

I haven't heard that member clearly state in this House what he thinks.

It's the same as any issue coming from the opposition. For four and a

half years they've ducked every issue in this province. None of them,

including the member for Prince Rupert, who is the Forests critic, has

stood in this House and enunciated their philosophy with respect to

forests, health, human resources or any other issue. They expect to

slither by and come to the threshold of an election and hope the people

of British Columbia will elect them without knowing where they stand on

issues and on policy.

I can't allow that. I don't think that's right. The people of Prince

Rupert, particularly, ought to know where their candidate in the next

election stands with respect to forest policy. That's only right, and

I've got to ask that member some questions.

The first question that comes to mind.... I've heard that member

time after time call for a royal commission into the forest industry of

British Columbia. As all members in this assembly would know, we've had

a Forest Resources Commission, which for the last two years has

traveled around the province obtaining the concerns and thoughts of

British Columbians when it comes to forest policy. The first question I

have for that member is: does he agree with the report of the Forest

Resources Commission? Does he agree with the recommendations made in

this report by that Forest Resources Commission? If he does, I fail to

see how he can call for a royal commission. We've had one — and a very

good one.

The member talked about Hazelton. I want to talk a while about

Hazelton and about the recommendations I've made to the minister about

the situation in Hazelton. I want to get the member opposite on record

regarding some of the recommendations of the Forest Resources

Commission as they pertain to the Hazelton situation.

The first question I want to ask that member about the Forest

Resources Commission is whether he agrees with recommendation 24 of the

Forest Resources Commission, when it says: "...consideration be given

to absorbing the Agricultural Land Commission into the new land use

commission." Does the member agree with that? I think it's only right

that this House know, With reference to Hazelton, I think this

recommendation 45 must be taken into consideration, and the question

asked that member is: does he agree or disagree? If he doesn't agree —

fine. Then it's valid for him to call for a royal commission.

[2:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless the Chair is not hearing you correctly, I gather you're posing questions to the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I heard your ruling distinctly, and

I don't wish to take exception to the ruling of the Chair. I was a

little astonished, at the time, that the Chair would thus rule.

Nevertheless, I heard the Chairman rule that we would have some debate

on Forests estimates, and the estimates of the Minister of Forests

aren't on the floor. So I take it as valid that we would be discussing

the estimates of the Forests critic, because what else could you

discuss under Bill 16? This is logical, and far be it from me to want

to break the rules of this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member left out one word the Chair mentioned, and that was "limited."

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've got so many questions,

and I think the member for Prince Rupert must answer them in light of

his going to the polls very soon in Prince Rupert.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member knows full well that he can't direct questions to the member for Prince Rupert. The Minister of Forests is....

MR. KEMPF: If that's the case, I'd be happy to sit down and

find out who the Forests critic is going to ask questions of, given

that there's no ability in Bill 16 to talk about forestry issues. Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to relinquish my spot if the member for Prince

Rupert is going to be allowed to ask someone.... I don't know who he's

going to ask questions on forestry of, because I don't see it spelled

out in Bill 16.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the hon. member doesn't want

to lose his place in debate, then he must be relevant and must abide by

the rules laid down. The member knows full well that in this House we

don't question members that the.... When we're dealing with questions

such as this, they're directed to the minister in charge.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, never would I abuse the rules of

this House — certainly to the contrary. Never would I call into

question a ruling of the Chairman or the Speaker of this House. You

know that. But it was the member for Prince Rupert — the forestry

critic — who raised all these questions and who spoke in his debate

with respect to forestry issues. He talked about Houston and Hazelton.

I want to talk about Hazelton and the situation that exists there, and

ask him if he agrees with the recommendations of the Forest Resources

Commission, in which they say: "…on the conversion of existing tenures,

the amount of the allowable annual cut held under tenure by companies

with manufacturing facilities be reduced to not more than 50 percent of

the lesser of either their processing capacity or their present cut

allocation, and that the wood freed up be used to create a greater

diversity of tenures."

Does the member agree with that, or does he agree that Westar should

be allowed to sell the timber — the tenure — with their sawmill in

Hazelton? That's the question I ask. Let the member stand and answer

the question.

[ Page

13243 ]

MR. MILLER: I had actually posed some serious questions to

the minister before I was interrupted by this member for Omineca. The

member for Omineca — the author of the memorandum of understanding and

the man who undercut the B.C. government — went south of the border and

tried to cut a deal. He undercut the government of British Columbia; he

understanding with that member's support right to the hilt, even though

the Minister of Forests knows the difficulty we have with that

memorandum. It was that member for Omineca's actions as the Minister of

Forests which got us into the pickle we're in right now.

While that member was representing the constituency, Westar Timber

was out there high-grading the sawlogs out of the Kispiox timber

supply, and he never said one word. He's seen three mills shut down in

his riding, and we haven't heard a peep from him — not one peep. When

one mill started to get into difficulty in a community in his riding,

do you know what his answer was — this person who authored the MOU and

who said it was great for British Columbia? "Oh, there should be two

separate stumpage rates. There should be a lower one, because it looks

as though some jobs are threatened my community."

I have never heard so much hypocrisy in all my entire life. That

member is being called to account for those issues. I happen to know;

I've talked to people in your constituency, Mr. Member, and I think

you're going to pay a price. You're going to pay a price for those

rantings and ravings that you do on forestry with very little thought.

I think that was recognized by some of your colleagues.

I have spoken about the serious issue facing forest communities and

forest workers in this province, and I have advanced solutions to some

of those problems. I have put forward ideas. What my questions are

aimed at is trying to determine why this government has done nothing.

This government, as we saw last year with the change in the licence

documents — where they actually severed the responsibility of licensees

to process timber and made it easier for licensees to walk away.... We

saw that in Lillooet, and when various senior people from the ministry

were quizzed, they actually said: "We're not sure why we made that

change." I didn't hear the member for Omineca standing up for workers

in Lillooet when they lost their jobs. When the current Minister of

Forests was asked that, his answer was: "I don't know." Hard to believe

— he's the minister.

The minister talked about the Robson Bight area, the Tsitika-Schoen valley.

I'm proud of the work that my party did in government in terms of putting

together probably one of the most superior planning processes we have anywhere

in British Columbia. It was the first modern attempt by a government of British

Columbia to say: "It's not good enough for a forest company to say

what it's going to do; we're going to put members of the community and

members of interest groups an a planning board, and those people are going to

say what's good for this area." That Tsitika-Schoen watershed has something

like 19 percent of the operable forest set aside in ecological reserves and

parks. It's a model of how we should conduct our planning. I would go so

far as to say that had we been allowed to continue in office and to continue

that model, we wouldn't be faced with the kind of land use conflicts we're

seeing today in this province. When we left office in 1976, the Social Credit

government of the day scrapped that planning process. And that member for Omineca

knows darn well what I'm talking about.

MR. KEMPF: Do you?

MR. MILLER: He knows what I'm talking about, but he doesn't want to admit it.

When I talked about the need to approach this question of community

stability and worker protection in some kind of comprehensive way and

claimed that the government had not come to grips with that problem,

that was borne out last year, because the testimony given by ministry

officials to the Forest Resources Commission was: "We don't have an

industrial strategy." There's never been an industrial strategy from

this government in terms of forestry and forestry operations.

Why have we got this massive gap in supply? Why have we allowed

companies like Westar to high-grade sawlogs and not build processing

plants that are capable of taking that lower-quality wood, extracting

the best value from it and using the residuals? Why have we come to

this state? It's because there never has been an industrial strategy,

and there is no way that this government can address those serious

concerns. They don't have the tools. They're not equipped to do it.

The minister used a word, and it's a nice word because it really

avoids reality. The word is "rationalization." I have heard it now, and

I'm continuing to hear it from major forest companies and from some

smaller ones too. I'll interpret rationalization for the House.

Rationalization means shutting down sawmills. That's what

rationalization means. The minister said: "Yes, we're aware that

there's a gap in supply and that there's going to have to be some

rationalization."

My question to the minister was pretty specific: where is that going

to take place? Which communities? Can you go to a community like

Williams Lake or Quesnel — or the other communities that I mentioned

earlier today when I was quoting that newspaper

article — with any

degree of confidence in your planning and in the work and numbers you

have, and say that you don't have to be concerned? Can you go to the

communities that I mentioned — such as Houston.... I've been in

Houston, in that member's riding, and I've heard the complaints of the

small loggers. Can you go to Houston? Can you go to Merritt? Can you go

to Hazelton? Can you go to Williams Lake? Can you go to Prince George?

Prince George is a classic case.

Actually that member for Omineca did do something when he was the

Minister of Forests. He did do something that I thought was

particularly useful. He commissioned a study about the whole situation

of timber supply in the Prince George region. The mem-

[ Page 13244 ]

ber knows what I'm talking about. He's familiar with that study.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sad to say that at one time that member actually

was a critic of his own government. He at one time ran the risk. He was

known as a maverick. At one time he used to stand in this House and

criticize his own government. He doesn't do it anymore. He left the

caucus. He's back in the caucus. He paid a terrible price with his

silence. Prince George, where things were so desperate that they had to

take timber from the member for Skeena, who was the Minister of

Forests.... They had to take timber from his region and give it to

Prince George, and that's why everybody is unhappy with the member for

Skeena, and why he won't be back here, either. Can you go to those

communities I've talked about — Radium, Valemount, Cranbrook — with any

degree of confidence, and tell them in fairly precise terms what their

future is, what the timber supply position will be, what the milling

capacity will be, what the employment position will be? Can you do that

with any degree of confidence at all, Mr. Minister?

MR. KEMPF: All of that rhetoric, and still the member for

Prince Rupert — the Forests critic — did not answer the question about

tenure allocation in Hazelton. Where does he stand? He brought the

question up this morning. Where does he stand on that allocation?

I was going to concur very closely with your ruling, but the member

for Prince Rupert brought up the question of the memorandum of

understanding. I want to talk a bit about the MOU. The member says that

it's a bad thing for British Columbia. I can tell you and all of the

members of this assembly, I heard the member for Prince George very

recently castigate the MOU as well. I've got to tell the members of

this assembly: had it not been for the memorandum of understanding,

$650 million a year would be flowing into the coffers of the United

States of America and not British Columbia. That's what the memorandum

of understanding did. It returned $650 million a year from the forest

industry to the coffers of British Columbia; since 1986, that's over

$3.5 billion. Had I had it to do over, I would not have accepted 15

percent. The Americans were right: it should have been more.

[3:00]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: All you have to do — and I hope you've read it,

Mr. Member — is pick up the report of the B.C. Forest Resources

Commission where they say it, not me.... I was saying it when I was

minister, and perhaps that's why I wasn't minister very long. I would

caution the member for Prince Rupert to remember that, and I'll get

into some of that later. Perhaps that's why I wasn't in that chair very

long. In their report the Forest Resources Commission is suggesting....

I suggested from that side of the floor, in caucus, in public and in

Washington, D.C., that we were being shortchanged in the province by a

billion dollars a year that should be flowing from the industry into

the coffers.

The Forest Resources Commission report says that it should be four

times that amount. We're being short-changed by $4 billion a year,

money that should be flowing into the coffers of the province from the

forest industry. They give their reasons for that. It's all here, Mr.

Member. Read it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Not me. I'm not suggesting four times a billion. I said a billion. They're saying four times a billion.

The crux of the matter is: had we not entered into a memorandum of

understanding in Washington, D.C., in late 1986, $3.5 billion-plus

would not have flowed into the coffers of British Columbia; rather, it

would have flowed into the coffers of the United States of America. Is

that member — an elected representative in British Columbia, the

Forests critic — saying that's wrong? I hope his constituents, those

who he is seeking to be elected by to this chamber, are watching this

afternoon. The member said that that $3.5 billion-plus should not have

flowed into the coffers of British Columbia; rather, it should have

flowed into the coffers of the United States of America. Absolutely

astonishing! I simply can't believe my ears. Is the member that naive?

Does he not know? Does he really believe that that revenue should have

gone to the United States rather than British Columbia? If that's the

case, I hope that member never becomes the Minister of Forests in

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't.

MR. KEMPF: I know he won't, Mr. Member. But just think if he

did. He would probably retroactively write a cheque to the Americans

for the money collected, rather than have it used in British Columbia.

I'm at a loss for words.

I wanted to talk a little more about the Select Standing Committee

on Forests and Lands and the stand that member took on that committee.

I want to tell....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Committee business other than for the committee that we are in at the moment is not in order.

MR. KEMPF: I won't get into the business of the committee. I

just want to tell this chamber a little story about what happened after

a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. On

entering a restaurant in Vancouver the next morning, lo and behold,

there was the member for Prince Rupert meeting over breakfast with some

of the lackeys from the multinational corporations — the guys from the

ivory towers of the forest industry; the people who own 86 percent of

the tenure in this province. That was a year ago. When I asked if I

could sit on one of the two vacant chairs at the table and join them,

that member

[ Page

13245 ]

said: "No, this is a working breakfast." A year ago, and his nose was already brown, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: And his leader says that's great! I hope everybody in this province is watching this afternoon.

Already they were meeting with the likes of Bob Porter. Already they

were dividing up the forest industry in British Columbia, should they

become government. Already they were setting policies in conjunction

with the multinational corporations with respect to the forest industry

of British Columbia.

What answer does the member for Prince Rupert have to that?

MR. MILLER: I'm actually a bit flattered. I'm almost starting

to feel ministerial having these.... I'm sure it is good practice, and

it feels very good. I'd be happy to answer the member's questions,

doubly so because I would point out that any questions that we have

asked the Minister of Forests today have not been answered.

I want the member for Omineca to know that I will be faxing a copy

of the Blues to his opponent, specifically that

section where he

defends the memorandum of understanding as being necessary and then

goes one better and says it should have been higher. In the absence of

any other member on the Socred side standing up, I'm going to make an

assumption that that indeed is really their policy. Yet it seems to me

that I read recently where the first member for Cariboo, a Socred, said

we should get rid of the memorandum of understanding; it's hurting

people in his constituency. Mr. Chairman, I am baffled by this

inconsistency, but I really shouldn't be, because as we have pointed

out on numerous occasions, this is the most erratic and unstable

government this province has ever seen.

Finally, I will put paid to those vicious attacks and indeed confess

that I had breakfast with Mr. Porter. I can't recall what I had, but I

did have breakfast with Mr. Porter, as I have had lunch and as I have

had dinner with every segment of the forest industry in this province —

because it's my job to do it. Any chance I get to meet with people from

the forest industry to talk about protecting jobs and promoting this

industry, I'll take it. I'm even prepared to have lunch or breakfast

with the member for Omineca, in the probably futile hope that I can

straighten him out and put him on the right road. I don't think I can.

I want to deal with the Forest Resources Commission report. I think we should

be careful in how we deal with that report. I'm mindful of the people who

are on the commission, I'm mindful of the report and the recommendations

contained therein, and I'm also aware that in some of those recommendations

there is a degree of unanimity — for example, on the need to come to grips with

what's termed a land use plan and a mechanism for land use planning in this

province. If we take that

section and look at proposals made by other sectors

in the forest industry and people with environmental concerns, we can probably

come up with some mechanism whereby we can do that.

1 was careful, and I think all of us should be careful, in not

taking the report on valuation as gospel. I think there are

implications in that. What the Forest Resources Commission has said is

very significant and very important, but I do not accept the numbers in

that report as gospel. There are many reasons, and I think the Minister

of Forests understands what those reasons are. But I want to ask some

questions regarding that and what I think is an opportunity to deal

with these communities that I've mentioned.

First of all, we have to ascertain the veracity of those numbers.

Just to briefly recap, the commission has said that when they do

valuation of the forest assets using a stumpage-based approach they

come up with a certain number. It's slightly in excess of $1 billion,

the value of our forest assets. Using a consulting company and an

entirely different approach — using transactions between companies,

purchases of assets, etc. — they make a statement in that report that

the commission believes the value is $8 billion or thereabouts. They

also make a statement with regard to uncaptured value. They say, in

essence, that when forest companies sell their assets, with a forest

quota or forest licence attached to it, the uncaptured value — the

value of the trees not captured by stumpage — passes to private hands.

Mr. Chairman, we must determine whether those numbers are correct.

If they're not, then we nust determine what the appropriate numbers

are, because if that is true, if a private company can sell its assets

and have a forest licence or a quota position transferred to another

company, and if they are receiving the value of that quota position and

walking away with it, then that is wrong.

I mentioned Westar. I don't wish to slander any company, and I've

tried to avoid that as a critic, but it's my position, quite frankly,

that we've seen an abuse of the resource. I have some personal

familiarity with that history, and it's not a very good one. We

allocate our resources because we want to get the best for the people

of this province and the best return for the Crown. When those

resources are abused, we, as the owners of those resources, have an

obligation to step in, to interfere, to intercede on behalf of the

people. We didn't do that, and that's why we have seen that sad, sorry

history that that member said nothing about. That's why, when we look

back, we see this company that high-graded sawlogs. They high-graded 77

percent sawlogs out of a timber supply area,

whereas, when you look at

the profile, it was something like 50 percent sawlogs.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The member for Omineca says it was less. That's

an abuse of the resource, and the end result, the net result, of that

is that people will pay a price. They will suffer. We've seen that

suffering in mill closures. My point is simply that with Westar now....

I would draw the Chair's attention to the news release, which says:

"Westar Group to Reduce Debt." Great, they built up a fantastic debt

through inappropriate management, and they were given tremendous re-

[ Page 13246 ]

sources by the Socred government. Do I have to go

through that whole history of the B.C. Resources Investment Corp., the

transfer of all these assets to what was called BCRIC and the issuance

of these free shares? Do I have to mention the activities of that

company in taking the money raised on the sale of those shares —

between $500 million and $700 million — and not investing it back in

this province? They didn't put it back in this province in investments;

they took it and invested it in the North Sea oil and gas plays — and

they lost it all.

[3:15]

That's why you see this headline now: "Westar Group to Reduce Debt."

We transferred out assets to the company. They mishandled them. They

took our money and didn't invest it properly, and now they're proposing

to sell off their sawmills, and they're also proposing that the

licences that go with those mills be transferred. They're going to make

an application to transfer. Similarly, Fletcher Challenge is proposing

essentially to sell off their solid-wood mills, and in certain

instances to allow the quota to be transferred.

Coming back to the issue of value, if we don't know whether or not

there's an uncaptured value in the transfer of those licences, how can

we approve the transfer? That's number one.

Number two, if there is an uncaptured value, would it not make sense

to direct that value to the needs of those communities? Would it not

make sense, for example, in the case of Westar, if indeed there's an

uncaptured value, to take that money as some kind of investment pool

and look at how it could be useful in stabilizing those communities in

a variety of ways? For example, we could say to workers who are old

enough and may want to retire: "We're prepared to top up your pension

plan to help you ease your way out of the industry." Or we could say to

younger workers: "We're prepared to get some training programs here."

We could say to the region in general: "We're prepared to set up some

kind of silvicultural fund where you can do the kind of intensive

silviculture that perhaps can make up some of the gap in supply."

These are serious, important questions, and I think the member for

Omineca belittles the whole issue and tries to divert attention away

from the real issue.

I have worked my entire life in the forest industry Apart from this

job here, that's all I've done. I've worked on tugboats and pulp mills

and out in the bush, and I know what it's like. I know what it's like

to be laid off, and I know what it's like not to have certainty. I'm

asking if this government has done anything, and I'm making the charge

that it doesn't appear to me that they have done anything to meet those

kinds of issues.

It's not some wild, raving charge about you being in bed with the

multinationals or favouring this or that group. If we continue down

that road in this province, we will never come to grips with the

problems we have. I say that if you're not part of the solution in this

province, you're part of the problem, whether you're a big company, a

small company, a medium-sized company, an independent contractor, a

unionized woodworker, an environmentalist or a politician. If we don't

start to harness our energies and pull together on that issue, then we

face some really serious challenges. One of those we're going to face

first of all is the question of timber supply in those communities that

I mentioned.

I haven't had an opportunity to raise these issues in this kind of

debate this year. I should say that I believe the minister and I

enjoyed a good debate last year. I haven't had an opportunity to raise

them. They have not been raised, and this is the forum that I have to

raise them.

I would like to get some answers to those questions, and I would defer to the minister if he wants to get into this debate.

MR. KEMPF: Well, isn't that typical! For going on 15 minutes

the member for Prince Rupert, the forestry critic, skated around all of

the questions he was asked. Hindsight is 20-20, Mr. Chairman, but I'm

asking the question: where do we go from here?

I asked the member, with respect to Hazelton and TFL 51 — this is

for the people of the Hazelton area — does he agree or disagree that

the timber in TFL 51 that the Carnaby mill is now high-grading, that

Westar Timber is high-grading, should be transferred with the sale of

the Carnaby mill? Because you know, it's the only salvation of that

community.

The member says he has breakfast with all of the Bob Porters of the

industry. When has he last had breakfast with a small operator? When

has he last had breakfast with a category 2 operator in the small

business program? Those are the people that I'm talking about.

The multinational corporations can do very well, thank you very

much, in Tasmania, South America or wherever they might choose to spend

our money that they've made in the industry in British Columbia, but

I'm talking about the little guy who lives in Houston, Burns Lake or

Hazelton. Does the member opposite — the critic for forestry in British

Columbia, the one who is salivating over the chair over here for the

Minister of Forests — agree that the tenure in Hazelton should be taken

from that mill and not transferred with it, given that the mill has

been high-grading it?

I heard the member say himself, and it's the truth. It's in the

report. It has been high-graded. I agree that for that reason the

timber should not go with the mill, because if that mill continues to

operate it will further high-grade TFL 51 and plunge those communities

— the three Hazeltons — into a worse situation than they have now.

You know, it's typical. The member brought up the memorandum of

understanding, but he didn't answer my question: if he was the

minister, how would he make up the $650 million shortfall if, in fact,

he could go to Washington, D.C., and talk the Americans into

backtracking on the tariff? How was he going to make up to the taxpayer

of British Columbia that $650 million a year — $3.5 billion-plus since

I was in Washington, D.C., and was a signatory of that agreement. I'm

proud of that on behalf of the little guy in British Columbia.

That's where it's all at. It's not with the multinational corporation; it's with the little guy. I saw that

[ Page

13247 ]

member — the critic for Forests in British Columbia

— sidle up to those people during the whole tour made by the Select

Standing Committee on Forests and Lands. I'm really concerned about

that, because the Leader of the Opposition is so very sure that he's

going to be the next Premier and sit on this side of the House. The way

that member has been talking, he thinks he's going to be the Minister

of Forests. I'm really concerned about those early-morning breakfast

meetings. Who is that member representing? You hear a lot from the

other side of the floor that they represent the ordinary workingman.

When was the last time that he sat and had breakfast with a small

business operator? When you were in Burns Lake, did you meet with my

small business operators?

I know it's a little off-track, Mr. Chairman, but the question I

have to ask at this time is: when the Leader of the Opposition was in

Houston, who did he meet with? I'll tell him — nobody. Nobody showed

up. Not one person showed up to the meeting. Then this critic for

Forests talks about Houston. If they want to know about Houston, I'll

tell them all about it. I'll tell you how to get people to come to a

meeting in Houston: join Social Credit. That's the way to get people to

attend a meeting in Houston. I've got a membership book in my

briefcase; I'll bring it over.

Mr. Chairman, that member over there piously talks about

representing the little guy. He stands for the status quo. He's happy.

He stands in this House and talks otherwise, but I've seen him in

action. I saw the NDP in action from 1972 to 1975, and what did they

change in the forest industry? The critic for Forests for the

opposition likes the status quo. They aren't the answers to the

problem. There are many problems, and they can't be solved overnight.

That is in the report of the Forest Resources Commission. There are a

lot of people depending on jobs in the forest industry. You can't make

fast moves, Mr. Member, as much as you and I would like them. But don't

stand in this House and say you represent that little guy out there

when you're having breakfast with the Bob Porters of this world. That's

hypocrisy.

MR. MILLER: That member says he's seen me in action, and now he's going to see me in action again.

This morning, Mr. Chairman, I had breakfast with a consultant to a

small contractor who is trying to come to grips with the issues in the

west Chilcotin that are of concern to the Indian people, small

contractors and ranchers. He's trying to pull something together, and

he's having a hard job, because he can't get much cooperation out of

this government.

Today, even though I was trying to prepare for this debate, I had lunch with

two young writers over here from Germany. I stressed to them that indeed we

have some problems in British Columbia, that we're trying to come to grips

with those problems and that we're mindful that we have to have a strong

economy in order to do that. That's the message I wanted them to take back

to Germany to counteract those people who would try to undermine our forest

industry and the creation of wealth in this province.

The last time I talked to a small business operator in my riding —

he doesn't live in my riding but he operates in my constituency from

Terrace.... I know him to be a member of the Social Credit executive in

Terrace, maybe lapsed now. I gave him the following advice: tear up

that Social Credit card, because it's not going to be the thing that

opens the door in forestry in this province anymore. It won't be that

Socred membership card that is the reason for making decisions in

forestry in this province anymore. It will be what makes sense and

what's good for the people, not what's good for Social Credit members.

Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed that this member continually asks me

questions, and it appears he has some serious problems in his

constituency. He is making serious charges that a major employer is

high-grading. Those are indeed serious charges. I don't know if he has

asked the Minister of Forests. Does the member realize that he is a

member of the government side? Does he realize he sits in a caucus —

and that you are, indeed, the government? Is the member saying that the

members of the government — the cabinet — on his side won't listen to

him; that they won't pay attention to his concerns?

Mr. Chairman, the disease is worse than I thought. This government

is in worse shape than I thought. We have backbenchers now standing up

asking questions. In fact, we had a backbencher complaining that he

couldn't ask a question in question period, yet he probably sits beside

the minister he wanted to ask it of in their own caucus meetings. I

think that order and everything have broken down completely with this

government. What more proof do we need than the rantings and ravings of

the member for Omineca?

[3:30]

I see the Minister of Forests perhaps wanting to rise and answer

some questions, or cover up some of the damage that's been done by the

member for Omineca. I would prefer him to answer my questions,

particularly the ones I asked with respect to valuation and the work

that is being undertaken currently to verify those numbers.

I'd like to know if there were studies done in the past on that

question — say, within the last five years — or attempts to evaluate

the forest resources in the province. I'd like to know if currently

there are independent commissions or firms that have been commissioned

to take an independent look at that question. I'd like to know, if that

is being done, whether that will be fully released to the public so

they can indeed improve and make better suggestions.... The minister

has called for input on the Forest Resources Commission report, I

believe by mid-July. I think that's a central part of it; in fact, it

seems to me the most pivotal part of that report.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

With those questions I'll take my place and ask the Minister of

Forests to respond. I'm not sitting down yet. I see that the member for

Omineca is eager to get on his feet again and make some foolish speech.

If it's the intention of the government simply not to respond,

[ Page 13248 ]

then I think they do a disservice to the men and

women in this province who have deep concerns about their future in the

forest industry and about whether or not the mills in their communities

are going to keep operating. We know that the member for Omineca has

given us some examples. We do a great disservice if the Minister of

Forests refuses to stand in his place and answer these questions. The

questions are not provocative; the questions are indeed basic. They go

to the heart of the matter with respect to economic planning.

MR. HARCOURT: People's jobs and paycheques.

MR. MILLER: As my leader says, people's jobs and paycheques,

the stability of small communities around this province. If the

Minister of Forests wants to sit in his place and not answer, then he

does a disservice to his office. I'm sure it's an action that he will

regret and that this government will regret, so I'll leave it to the

minister to....

You've got to be faster, Mr. Minister, because if I sit down, the Chair is going to recognize the member for Omineca, I presume.

Carry on, I'd like to hear some answers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I do want to just jump in here lest we

leave the impression that I don't want to discuss forestry matters. I

said before lunch that I'd be very happy to discuss forestry matters

and to debate questions and answers with the member all day if that's

his desire.

Unlike that member, I don't pretend to have all the answers for all

the problems in the forest industry; but I've got an awful lot of them,

and we're working towards the others. We've put an awful lot of them

into place and made some good changes in this ministry and in the

industry in the last little while — changes that maybe not everyone in

the industry would agree with, but at least they understand why they

were made.

I do want to cover a couple of other points that the member made,

though. For some reason the members on that side of the House think

there's something wrong with a private member who happens to be in this

party getting up and asking questions and speaking on a given topic.

Certainly they can have a far greater latitude than a member of the

government — and that's understandable; it's been that way in British

parliaments for 800 years, and that's the way it should be.

He says that the member for Mackenzie has to get up in this House

and ask a question of the Minister of Native Affairs that he could ask

him sitting in caucus. It's not quite the same, Mr. Member. I'm sure

you will appreciate that the member for Mackenzie has every bit as much

right as every member on that side of the House to put his question on

the record and have the minister answer on the record. Lest the people

that are watching at home get confused about the proceedings in this

House, the member for Omineca or any other private member has every

right to stand in his or her place and ask questions and/or make

statements.

The member shouldn't assume too much. The member shouldn't assume

that because a private member makes a statement, it is government

policy; and he shouldn't assume that it's not government policy.

Depending on the statement, there's a possibility it could be

government policy; there's a possibility it might not be.

I'm not going to stand and try to respond to every statement that

was made. I respect the member's opinions. They may differ from mine,

but as long as I wear this hat that says Minister of Forests, it's mine

that count. I've listened to the member for Omineca many times, and

he's got some good thoughts about forestry. I don't agree with

everything he says. I agree with a lot that you say about forestry too,

but I don't agree with everything you say But that's what makes the

world go round, I think, and that's what makes our system work.

I want to respond a little about the Forest Resources Commission,

because it's a most significant report. The commission was put in place

by this government something like a couple of years ago.... [Applause.]

It deserves applause, and I'll tell you why. It has been mentioned many

times that it should have been a royal commission rather than a Forest

Resources Commission. I can understand the thinking behind that, and in

a lot of ways I would agree, but in one key way I disagree and so did

many members in our government. The reason is that a royal commission

tends to freeze things where they are.

Let me expand a little on that. A royal commission in education or

health may be a good thing, because those services carry on, with the

taxpayers' money, whether there's a royal commission in place or not.

Health, education and social services — they will carry on and be

funded by the taxpayer whether there is a royal commission or not. When

you're dealing with the forest industry, it's quite a different

scenario, because we're dealing with a public asset but we're dealing

with a private industry — a private industry that's very sensitive to

capital and to investment. I felt at the time, and still do, that if a

royal commission had been put in place to look into forestry, you run

the risk of drying up investment until people see where that royal

commission is headed. At the time, we could have chased away in the

neighbourhood of $6 billion in investment in this province that was out

there, taking a look, waiting to see whether they should invest.

The forest industry is a very complex partnership. It's a

partnership that exists between the people who own the assets — the

people of British Columbia, who elect us to be stewards of it; the

people who work and invest their money in the industry — people like

the member for Prince Rupert, who has worked in it all his life, and

people who have invested their life savings in it. But equally

important — and people forget the third rung of that partnership, the

third aspect — is the financial community. If the financial community

loses confidence in the forest industry, the partnership will collapse,

and you will have chaos in this province and in our number one

industry. We must always be cognizant of the fact that we're dealing

with a unique

[ Page

13249 ]

situation with a public asset and private industry, and we musk keep that partnership working.

The member is right — and so is the member for Omineca — when he

says that you can't make wholesale changes overnight in an industry

that's as delicately balanced as that, because you would see chaos in

our number one industry like you wouldn't believe, and then you would

see the loss of many jobs. We appreciate the work that the Forest

Resources Commission did; 13 very dedicated people from very diverse

backgrounds came together with a unanimous report, which has got to be

an achievement in itself.

There are now some minority reports coming in by way of letter

saying that they don't quite agree with everything, but that's fair

game. People are taking a second look at some of the things they

endorsed. One of them is the valuation. You probably know; you probably

received copies of the letters that I received from one of the

commissioners who said that he wanted to take another look at

valuation. When we saw the valuation numbers that you spoke of, myself

and senior staff had the same feelings: this really requires closer

scrutiny, because the valuations range all the way from here to there;

from $1 billion to $8 billion, and that's quite a discrepancy.

There are those who could agree with either number, but we said it's

not good enough. We've got to put a mechanism in place to put a proper

evaluation on it. How do you do that? We thought the best thing to do

would be to find at least two people — maybe three, but at least two —

who were well respected by everybody, so that their credentials would

be beyond question. They would have no political axe to grind either on

government side or industry side, and yet they'd be knowledgeable, know

the industry and know how to do evaluation. It's not easy to find a

couple of people who fit those criteria. A lot of people have the

knowledge, but a lot of people have other axes to grind.

We have found the two people that we have been looking for, and

within the next day or so, I'll be making the announcement that we are

going to put them in place to do a critique of the valuation side of

the Forest Resources Commission report. We'll be announcing that in the

next day or so. I had hoped to be able to announce it by now, but it

hasn't been that easy to find the two people that we were looking for.

Also the Forest Resources Commission report gave a lengthy dissertation and

recommendation on tenure, which is one of the other important sides of their

report, and they recommended themselves that we put out a discussion paper on

that report. We're going to do that. But we even thought that if we, in

the ministry, make up that discussion paper, it could be subject to criticism

that we only put in what we wanted to talk about. Again, we're putting together

a panel — I think it's four or five people; don't hold me to that — to

scrutinize what we come up with as a discussion paper People who will look at

it objectively — maybe someone from industry, the union side, the IWA, the pulp

and paper workers; we haven't come up with all the names yet.... We're

not dragging this out; this is not going to be a long process. We want to put

the discussion paper together and then say to these people who come from divergent

backgrounds who are well respected on all sides of the industry: "Look

at it, and see if you think that's a fair discussion paper to put out for

people to talk about tenure."

When you speak of tenure, anybody who has the forest industry impact

on their constituency knows — and the members for Omineca and Cariboo

know this — that the most valuable thing that any company or community

can have is tenure. You're talking about the very heart or the very

guts of the industry.

That discussion paper is extremely important. When we put it out, we

want to make sure it's right. When we get the input back.... If we

start to move on some of those recommendations without having really

thought them through — and the 50 percent takeback of tenure — we start

to dismantle the partnership that I spoke of, unless it's done very

carefully and with a lot of thought. We intend to do that.

I'm trying to cover some of the ground that the member covered, to

put the answers to some of his questions on the record. I'm rambling

all over the place, as he did with his questions. So I guess that's

fair game.

The member talks about abuses in the forest industry. There have

been abuses over the years — there is no question about that. Some

companies — I won't name them, because there are more than one. You

only named one company, but more than one company has abused its tenure

and abused the forest over the years. They've abused their contractors

too. That's why we brought in the legislation: to protect the

contractors and people who work for them.

[3:45]

In all fairness, there are other companies that treat their

contractors extremely well. If they were all like those companies, we

wouldn't have to bring in legislation like that. And there are

companies that treat their tenure very well. If they were all like

those companies, we wouldn't have to worry about abuses in the forests.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we have those in all

walks of life who abuse privileges. It concerns us, and we're watching

that very closely to try to prevent the abuses that have taken place in

the past.

The MOU is a subject that we could debate here for a week and not

come up with all the answers. Believe me, over the year and a half that

I've been the Minister of Forests, I've spent more time on that MOU

than I care to recall; the hours would number into the hundreds. It's a

very complex document. We were faced with a very serious situation.

In hindsight we can all look back — hindsight is 20-20 — and say

that if I was there at that time, I wouldn't have done this, or I

wouldn't have done that. That's easy. Now the question is how do we

solve the problem, if indeed there is a problem. In some people's

minds, even within the industry, they are split on whether it's a good

thing or a bad thing. I've had meetings with the industry — large

operators, small operators, remanners, you name it — and they cannot

all agree on the MOU.

[ Page 13250 ]

The various provinces in Canada can't agree on the MOU. So the first

thing we had to do was try to get a consensus among the four key

provinces of B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and have the federal

government pull all that together. It is an agreement between two

sovereign nations, as you know, and Ottawa has to go to Washington to

try to renegotiate this agreement.

We are now at the point where we have the key provinces in agreement

— all singing from the same song-sheet, if you like — and the federal

minister agrees. The federal minister is figuratively on his way to

Washington within the next month or so. The problem he's having now is

trying to set up a meeting with Carla Hills, who is the American

representative. With all the trade negotiations going on around the

world, everybody is very busy with GATT negotiations, Mexican free

trade, the C-7 meetings and all the rest that has been going on. So

it's hard to get the schedules to mesh.

When I was at a meeting with Michael Wilson in Ottawa two weeks or

so ago, he gave me his undertaking — and it's important — that he would

get to Washington as quickly as possible and start to renegotiate the

MOU. Where that ends up I wouldn't like to speculate on right now, even

though I have some ideas. I don't want to talk further about how we're

going to approach it, because we're going down to negotiate with tough

negotiators. I don't feel like playing our hand out right now on that —

as Canada.

Just a couple of more points that the member touched upon. The two

German writers of whom you speak are supposed to meet with me this

afternoon, if I get out of here for a few minutes. But I would like to

talk with them to give the other side of the story, other than what

they have been getting. I think they would like to hear it from the

government of the day: "Here is our position on it. We have some

material we can leave with you." There has been a lot of misinformation

that has gotten to Europe, and it can do tremendous damage to this

industry and to the jobs that we all depend on in this province. The

problem is growing there with the movement to ban B.C. softwoods and

pulp from the markets of Europe, many times for specious reasons that

don't hold up when you examine the whole picture. We have had Swedish

foresters out recently who agree with what we're doing. We're learning

from them....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister. Your time has expired.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, I was just getting wound up.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to belabour....

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have had

virtually no opportunity to debate forestry issues. This is a travesty.

This government is bringing in closure, and we get this garbage from

the member for Omineca. The minister stood up, spoke for 15 minutes and

refuted everything he said, and now he's going to do it again — and

take what little precious time we have. That is a travesty. Mr.

Chairman, I was on my feet, and you should scan the room before you

recognize members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Omineca, proceed.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I move that the member for Prince Rupert now be recognized.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there leave to move the motion?

Leave not granted.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman....

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, with all due respect, I think you have a responsibility to scan this....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: ... and to bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that it's

the role of the opposition to question this government. You should be

mindful of the fact that they have invoked closure now — unprecedented.

They have stifled our ability to raise questions and to debate these

issues that are important in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it gets a bit vexatious when we

have to put up with this kind of thing. We still have questions to ask

and no time left to ask them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have recognized the member for

Omineca. There will be further chance in the debates for the balance of

the afternoon to make your points.

MR. KEMPF: You know, that member over there spoke earlier of

being muzzled. Is that the kind of muzzling he's talking about? Is that

what the opposition would do if they were in government — muzzle the

backbenchers of their own government? Is that what they're talking

about?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I have every bit as much right as a member of this

assembly to rise in this debate as they do. Before the member provoked

me, I was going to wind down. But I don't think I'm going to wind down.

[ Page

13251 ]

Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert brought up a very good

point. He said he met over lunch with two of the German media, and I

think that brings up a very crucial point in these discussions. I do

hope that those two German media people don't meet with BCTV, because

the last time foreign media met with BCTV, the most detrimental

documentary that could ever be was put together as far as the forest

industry of British Columbia is concerned — paid for by the Swedish

tourism ministry. Is that what was happening in the meeting that the

member for Prince Rupert had with the German media today?

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: The leader of that party gets very exercised. I

wish he'd been exercised in the last four and a half years to tell this

assembly what they would do should they ever — God forbid — become

government. Because he hasn't. He can't even muster anybody to come out

to meetings to listen to him say nothing.

I'm happy that the member for Prince Rupert was angry and said some

of the things he did. He provoked me into speaking my mind, and I could

go on for hours and days and weeks. He's not the only one who has a

whole lot of time in the forest industry of this province. I spent 20

years in the forest industry of this province, starting by setting

chokers and wallowing in the mud. I defy the member for Prince Rupert,

the Forests critic, to say that — because he can't.

Yes, I have some experience in dealing with the forest industry of

the state of Washington, and I'm proud of that. Maybe if the Leader of

the Opposition went to some other jurisdiction to see how they do it,

he would come back with some ideas.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wind down, because it would look that....

The official opposition is very frustrated this afternoon. You know,

the member for Prince Rupert really wanted to debate forestry issues.

Well, where is he? He's gone. He's not in the House. We're discussing

forestry issues. He can get up next time. Where is he, Mr. Chairman?

I just want to say one more thing. The member for Prince Rupert said

earlier in his debate that I'm in trouble in my constituency. If he

thinks I'm in trouble in my constituency because I speak out against

multinational corporations and that they aren't going to donate to my

campaign, I like to be in that kind of trouble, because it's not the

multinational corporations that I represent in this chamber. It's the

little people in my constituency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to remind members, we're dealing with Bill 16, the Supply Act,

section 1.

MR. CASHORE: It's been interesting to hear the comments of the Richard

Nixon of the north. That member has changed his spots and changed his colours

so many times. Why I had to endure his voice sitting in this desk, two to my

left, year after year....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that sounds very unparliamentary to me, and I would ask you to withdraw, please.

I'm not talking about Mr. Nixon; I'm talking about changing spots.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw "changing spots."

Mr. Chairman, it begs the patience of this House to have to realize

that because of the decree that the government House Leader has made

with regard to closure, the clock is running down, and we are being

denied the opportunity to ask pertinent and pressing questions with

regard to forestry, with regard to the environment, with regard to

parks, with regard to Crown lands. We are being denied that opportunity

as this clock runs down because of the process that this member from

Omineca has been involved in — of simply trying to use up the time of

the House and subvert any opportunity that we have left to deal with

these urgent and pressing matters.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that $10 billion is on the

table. At the rate that this government is going, it's an awfully

costly process for democracy to realize how democracy is being

downgraded in this process.

I don't understand how this government can justify the efforts that

it has taken to muzzle democracy by not using the opportunities that

they have had to enable us to discuss these issues in a reasonable,

timely manner. Going back to an earlier time in the year when we were

here, we had the opportunity, but they decided to cut and run. Now we

are not being allowed the opportunity to thoroughly canvass the urgent

and pressing matters that we should be allowed to canvass.

[4:00]

When I was speaking in second reading yesterday, I gave the Minister

of Environment ample warning that when we got to the committee stage of

this bill, I would be asking him some questions. I also reminded the

minister at that time — I guess I'd have to say, in order to be

parliamentary — that it indicated the inexperience of this minister and

that he was the only minister during the interim supply debate who did

not bring in officials from his ministry to assist him in answering

questions. On this occasion I would like to encourage the minister to

send out for help, to send out for his deputy and for those who can

help him to answer the questions, because he has obviously got himself

into a situation where he doesn't know a lot of the answers.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, I think he needs the help of the whole department.

When we were canvassing some of these questions at an earlier date,

here's what the minister had to say. He said that we would get to a

question that we were asking fairly soon. In response to a question

concerning the bulk water issue, the minister answered: "I would have

to check the terms of reference." In reference to another question

concerning the soil reme-

[ Page 13252 ]

diation on the Expo site, he answered: "That

question really is not applicable to the subject of the debate here

tonight." In response to another question, he said that he would need

an opportunity to provide that the estimates could be referenced and

that he could answer it in that process. To another question with

regard to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, he said: "As the

member knows, my staff are not present with me tonight. I don't have

that figure immediately at hand, but I can get it for you."

In response to another question that the minister had from the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head concerning the costs of the Hazardous

Waste Management Corporation, he said: "I'll check with my staff for

those details and get the information." In response to another question

with regard to the Georgia basin, he said: "I do not have the number

available at the moment." In response to another question from the

member for Oak Bay, he said, "I can't speak for the operations before I

became minister, " and he went on to give a non-answer. Again he said

in response to the member for Kootenay: "That's another question that's

in the details, and I'll obtain that from the staff."

Clearly this minister has made a commitment to come back into this

House with the people who can help him and give us the answers, with

some kind of appropriateness, to the questions we have been asking, so

that the people of British Columbia can see — or that this minister can

take the opportunity to show that this province is not in the disarray

that they believe it is, so that he can show that in his ministry there

is not disarray.

I made the point yesterday that we have a serious problem with

regard to the government itself. There have been six Ministers of

Environment — four in the last two years — and three deputy ministers.

We referenced the problem of morale within the ministry and also the

problem with regard to the loss of confidence on the part of the

public. Again we find that this minister is not responding to these

questions when he has the opportunity.

I would like to give the minister an opportunity again to answer

questions with regard to the soil remediation at the Expo site. I would

like the minister specifically to respond to this: the minister knows

that his ministry had agreed that there would be an accord with the

officials and with the municipality of Richmond that would be an

agreement on a soil-testing process which would be put in place prior

to the Expo soils being moved to that site.

The concept of an accord is a good concept. It reflects much of what

my colleague from Prince Rupert has been saying about us having to find

ways to be consultative and appropriate in our dealings with people of

other governments and other municipalities That commitment was made. I

would like to ask the minister, especially in view of the scientific

information that he has received from Dr. Garry, who has stated that he

is not satisfied that the soil-testing protocol is adequate as

presented by the provincial government since it fails to test for

contaminants like cyanide, pesticides and DDT, if the minister will

respond specifically to that point. How can the minister justify not

agreeing to there being an accord before the soils are tested when this

question has been raised by a medical practitioner — a professional —

who points out very clearly that contaminants like cyanide, pesticides

and DDT are not being dealt with adequately in the testing procedure

the government has set up. How does the minister respond to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 1? The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask this minister why he has

refused to there being an accord with the municipality of Richmond

prior to the dumping of soils, given this new information from the

medical health officer.

HON. MR. MERCIER: This is an incredible abuse of the time of

this House. The question put by the member explains his ignorance of

the matters that he is supposed to be the critic on. If the member

would only realize how a municipality's operation is supposed to work,

he would know....

MR. CASHORE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was called to

order a few moments ago for something that I believe was much less

serious than the point the minister just made, and I would ask that he

withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair considers that unparliamentary as well and would ask that it be withdrawn.

HON. MR. MERCIER: If I understand the custom, I will withdraw.

"Incredibly naive, uninformed, lack of research, lack of wish to

deal with the facts as they stand." There are a number of words that

come to mind.

The substance of the issue is that the council for the municipality

of Richmond have, within their purview, the bylaw to regulate soil

movement. The fact this member chooses to ignore is that all the soil

that moves under the bylaw, as it has been redrawn, has to comply with

certain provincial standards. The provincial standards are set forth,

and the ministry has operated under those guidelines and under those

regulations for as long as they have been part of the law of this

province. Incredibly, the other day the member who asked the question

claimed that he is going to use the dictionary to define these things

rather than the regulations as they now stand. The member who has asked

the question doesn't understand that, in the municipal process, there

are a number of people in the municipality that are competent to deal

with soil issues. I suspect that the health officer is in that group.

If you take the process and decide to call it a protocol, that's

your choice. But there is a bylaw, and the health officer of Richmond

may choose to deal with the bylaw as he sees fit, and that's not a

matter for this House.

The ministry is dealing with regulations that are well known. If the

member doesn't understand those regulations and the soil description

categorizations,

[ Page

13253 ]

then the member should satisfy himself, because

it's all available in the public domain. It's not necessary for me to

repeat those detailed regulations and descriptions. That's where I got

to the point of it being a waste of the House's time. It is in the

public domain. Because he doesn't know that and hasn't read that, he's

asking this minister. The question about how the municipality of

Richmond chooses to enforce their bylaw is likewise not a matter for

this House, so for the member to ask that question is really an abuse

of the House. The municipality will do what they will do, but if the

member had not described the soil in the first place as toxic, then the

situation wouldn't have arisen.

All we're going to ask of Richmond is to treat the soil that is

being transported from the Expo site which is in the category that

meets their bylaw, exactly the same way as they would treat any other

soil moving in the same fashion in the same categories, under the same

rules, under the same soil description and same regulations as any

other operator and any other mover of soil.

So no matter what the member wishes to happen, and no matter how

long he continues to harp on the same issue, and no matter how wrong he

intends to be, it is evident, if you look at the sand and gravel that

is intended to be moved, that it does qualify to be residential fill

under the Richmond bylaw. It is not our job here to discuss how Dr.

Garry defines that soil; he works for the municipality of Richmond. The

regulations, as they stand, would appear to say that the soil qualifies.

The haulers of the soil will have to ensure that people are

satisfied. If Richmond, when the soil arrives, is not satisfied, then

that's another matter, but I think it's really inappropriate for us to

comment in this Legislature on the municipal procedures and the

checking procedures involved. The specific testing program is carried

out within the guidelines and with the common practice that has been

established over the years. The member is really questioning practices

that are in place and have been accepted by every other municipality up

to this time. The methods of testing were also accepted. The testing is

done in a practice that's been accepted. We are asking UBC to comment

in the next day or so on those practices so that we have an outside

endorsement. I think that comes under the category of future business

of the ministry, so I would understand that the member would know that

he shouldn't pursue that line until we get the report from UBC.

So the answer to your question is fairly complete. The only thing

that might be left out is that you might not have gotten your way in

making an issue out of something that is a municipal matter. The future

use of the site where the soil has landed is a municipal matter. The

standards that are applied happen to be those that are applied in law.

I would like to refer to a comment that the member made earlier. Other members

have asked questions, like the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. A complete letter

listing all the programs that you asked questions on should be in your hands

by this afternoon. Many of those programs are in the public domain. It doesn't

do a service to this House to talk about programs that aren't there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MERCIER: The closing line of the letter is.... You

know, you really can ask all the questions you like, but I was really

surprised that on some of those programs — especially those that affect

your own district, especially with the member's former involvement in

the community — you asked questions where you really understood where

they were, in effect, and how they had been developed. We have a

partnership program, a partnership program among all the stakeholders

in all the issues that deal with the environment. If you're telling me,

members opposite, that these programs and these partners are not really

operating effectively, you're not really talking to me; you're talking

to all those people who have been involved in all those programs. Many

of them are very happy with the programs and very happy with the

progress they've made to date in dealing with things like recycling and

reusing materials, and in dealing with the matter.

[4:15]

To move into another area, this morning we had meetings with people

representing the Capital Regional District and liquid waste matters.

Yesterday we had meetings with representatives of the GVRD regarding

liquid waste management. We're very supportive of the efforts in those

regions to deal with liquid waste matters.

On solid waste matters, the program to avoid taking solid wastes to

landfill operations.... We have partners in those operations. Be

careful when you criticize the minister and the ministry, because

you're also criticizing the partners in those endeavours. If you really

understood where those programs were, what they were meant to

accomplish and how far we've come, you wouldn't be asking those dumb

questions. I really think you've got a lot of work to do to be a viable

critic and to understand that.... I don't mind criticism of things I've

done myself, or even of things in the ministry that came before, but I

can tell you that the way it is today, we have the most progressive

programs on this continent, which makes them among the most progressive

in the world. We have partners.

One of your members asked....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MERCIER: I'm really sorry that the opposition

members don't want to hear about our partners. They don't want to hear

about these people. You should know that the partners in these programs

come from all walks of life. They are seniors, children and school

groups, They're all contributing their efforts to these programs that

you're criticizing and saying are inadequate.

We had an awards ceremony the other night. We made presentations of

awards to people working in all of these areas. They are working

diligently with the ministry. Our 1,300 employees are working

diligently.

[ Page 13254 ]

You in the opposition should know that our ministry

operates very effectively, very efficiently. For the money spent we get

a big bang for the buck, because we're involving all of the people in

the community.

You may want to build a bigger bureaucracy there, but we're getting

a lot of effort from volunteers. You may want to regiment things more,

because that's your nature. You like to regiment things; you like to

have big organizational structures. You want to have a czar in every

community. We don't do it that way. We've built the energy in this

ministry through the environmental interests of many citizens.

Mr. Member, I do hope that the answer to your question has been

developed. I do hope that some of this has sunk in, because I don't

want to be boring and repetitious like some of the comments from your

side. I really wanted to raise some of the points that would have come

had we been into estimates and had you had that opportunity.

I've got to tell you that I am so impressed with the people in my

ministry I am so impressed with them in all the endeavours I've had.

When you criticize the ministry, you're really criticizing a lot of

good people. In fact, you had a question on the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation. One of my effective staff, who heard you asking

these questions, took this thing hot off the press. Before I sit down,

I'm going to table the first annual report of the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation.

That corporation is another story. That corporation deals with

hazardous waste. The chairman is Mr. Bill Fomich, a very capable lower

mainland long-term political service person. Mr. Fomich is doing a lot

to bring this corporation along, and after a few little hiccups in its

early months of operation, it's proceeding very well with its mandate.

The interesting thing that I would put to the member who was asking

questions earlier is that when you deal with hazardous waste and you

talk about Richmond not taking any hazardous waste, you forgot to tell

anybody where Richmond's hazardous waste should go. So by your

definition, are you going to say to each municipality that you have

hazardous waste? That's a fact. Each municipality does; each city has

it. Are you going to say, Mr. Member opposite, that the hazardous waste

can't go anywhere? Are you going to say that there cannot be a central

facility?

It's really easy to criticize, but unless you're prepared to offer a

location, which we need — a central location — then by your definition

and by Richmond council's definition, every community will have to have

a hazardous waste disposal facility.

The member opposite, Mr. Chairman, thinks that hazardous waste is

going to vanish into thin air. It doesn't vanish. Right now it's going

into landfills, and the Crown corporation is working on finding a

location. If you're really clever, you will find a location for us, or

you will have a solution for us. I really don't think you have thought

about it, because hazardous waste is in every community in this

province. Hazardous waste has to be picked up, stored and treated, and

some of the technology to treat it is in development now. You should

know that because you're a critic who has served for some years. You

have been a critic for three and a half or four years, and I really

don't think you have learned anything. I haven't heard you ask one

constructive question on how to deal with the matter of hazardous waste.

Mr. Chairman, I have a report here to table, and the procedure....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has a report to be tabled. It

can't be tabled in committee, unless we get leave of the House. Shall

leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MERCIER: In wrapping up my comments then, I would

like to take this opportunity to table the first annual report to the

Legislature, for the period of 1990-91, of the B.C. Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's time has expired.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Now can I comment on tabling the report?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the minister's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, that has to be the most incredible

piece of bafflegab I have heard in this House. This minister has just

qualified for the Harvard hasty pudding award, and he's in competition

with the former Minister of Finance. This minister should come back,

sit down in his seat and answer these questions. This minister is

cutting and running the way this government has cut and run.

Mr. Chairman, I have questions to do with the environment of this

province, and I am not being given an opportunity to ask these

questions of this government. This government has to account for

itself, and this minister is not in this House. He has not fulfilled my

request presented yesterday to have people here with him who can assist

him in answering questions.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is reasonable to ask that this minister be

brought back into the House to answer these questions. That is a

reasonable request.

Mr. Chairman, we have had to endure the stonewalling of the member

from Omineca talking about nothing that has anything to do with the

urgent and pressing questions that need to be asked. We have had to

endure a 15-minute speech from the Minister of Environment that did not

touch the substance of the questions that I was asking. That is

absolutely unconscionable behaviour on the part of a minister of the

Crown who is paid to be in this House. He is paid to be here to answer

the questions of the people of British Columbia. This minister has cut

and run from this House because he is afraid.

I have questions that have to do with conservation officers in this

province. I have questions that have to do with pulp pollution. I have

questions that have to do with the public process in dealing with

resource conflict. I have questions that have to do with the

[ Page

13255 ]

situation in the waters of this province. I have

questions that have to do with our ability to deal with emergencies

when there's an oil spill. I have questions that have to do with the

need to deal with the prevention of disasters in this province.

The process of this government, when it comes to the environment,

has been to try to manage the environment by bafflegabbing and

confusing the public. This government has tried to manage the

environment by issuing press releases.

I asked this minister yesterday to come into this House and answer

questions about the Vision 2001 plan. This minister is not here to

answer this question.

I have questions dealing with the Expo soils that this minister has

not dealt with. Who is going to answer the question? Mr. Chairman, I

will ask the question to that vacant chair over there, that vacant

minister who has vacated this House, because he has cut and run.

If I reflect frustration in this House today, that is nothing

compared to the frustration of the people of British Columbia in being

denied due process. This minister has the moral responsibility to stand

in this House and to face the music, because he represents this

government and what it has done to the environment.

The way this minister has handled the issue of the Expo soils

involves a basic mistake that he made early on in the process. It goes

to the heart of the difference between our side of the House and their

side. He has a responsibility to deal with the questions that we are

presenting in this House, because the basic issue is this: our side of

the House has been saying in a great many ways that we must find ways

to consult and work cooperatively with municipal governments and with

other participants in life in British Columbia. The minister had said

that he would agree to an accord with the people of the municipality of

Richmond in order to agree on the testing process on those soils. He

has backed down on that agreement in a way that I would have to say is

verging on dishonesty.

This minister has stood in this House and claimed that he has some

higher life, higher being or higher ability than the medical health

officer for Richmond, who has stated that he is hot satisfied that the

government's test — this minister's test — is adequate, because it

fails to test for contaminants like cyanide, pesticides and DDT going

into Richmond. Is it too much to ask that the minister be true to his

word and follow up and produce an accord with these people? Is he,

afraid to sit down with them? Why is that too much to ask? This

minister is a wimp.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! Will the member

please take his seat. Order, please, hon. member. Order, please. The

member will take his seat, please. Order, please. Order, please! The

member will come to order or we will ask him to leave the chamber.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing order 19, the member will take his

seat. Order, please. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will take his seat,

please. Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order,

or we will ask him to leave the chamber. The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam will take his seat, please.

[4:30]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I will not take my seat....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well then, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, according to standing order 19, will please leave the chamber.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman has no jurisdiction over whether ministers are in this room or not.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please take.... All

right, that's all there is to it. If the hon. member would take his

seat and we could discuss this quietly for just a moment....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Richmond rises on a point of order. Will the member take his seat.

MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order. The member for Moody-Coquitlam has lost his place, and I seek my place on the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Richmond is recognized as standing on a point of order.

MR. VANDER ZALM: The member has lost his place. I seek my place on the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Richmond....

Interjections.

MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, this is a disgraceful performance by the NDP, and I seek my place on the floor.

[ Page 13256 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would both members take their seats, please.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: All members will take their seats.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, standing orders indicate that when

the Speaker stands in his place, all members will take their seats. If

members are not able to comply with standing orders, there is no remedy

left to the Chair. I ask the member for the last time to take his place.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Sergeant-at-Arms, please assist the member from the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I instruct you to remove the member. He is unable to comply with the rules.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under what possible standing order would the first member for Richmond be standing?

MR. VANDER ZALM: Sorry, I was wanting to continue with debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are not in a position of debate.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2, 1991)

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MS. CULL: The behaviour of this government that we've seen here this afternoon is nothing short of arrogant and contemptuous.

MR. REID: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, I move that this House sustain the action of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MR. GABELMANN: Point of order. One cannot gain the floor by a point of order in order then to move a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is well aware of that — other than standing order 46, of course.

[4:45]

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this morning you

said that we would have a limited debate on some of the minor

estimates. You permitted that. It's incumbent, in an estimates debate,

for the minister to be here to answer questions. If the minister

doesn't know the answers he could 'fess up to that, and we'd all

respect him for it. But to hide from legitimate questions is a contempt

of this House. It drives my gentle and honourable colleague for

Maillardville-Coquitlam to distraction, and you probably share that

distraction — or disruption. But whatever the case, Mr. Chairman, it's

incumbent upon the government House Leader to get that minister in this

place so we can proceed with the business as you outlined it earlier

this day.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just in response to the opposition House

Leader.... I understand that they've got to do a little huffing and

puffing — there's no question about that. I just want to explain to you

and to the member that when he said they wanted to debate and you said

you would allow some debate on other ministries, there are many other

ministers in this House, and they can question any one of them at their

will. So please be our guest and do the questioning.

MS. CULL: I have to add "patronizing" to the list of adjectives that apply to this government now.

We were conducting a debate on the environment, and the Minister of

Environment walked out in the middle of that debate. We've had 17

minutes on the environment. Is that the priority this government puts

on the environment? When I was elected a year and a half ago by the

people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, they elected me to come to this chamber

and talk about the environment. They are concerned about a number of

issues, and I have not had my opportunity in this session to talk about

them.

When we were dealing with the interim supply bill earlier, minister

after minister — and especially the Minister of Environment — got up

and said: "You will have your time later. I will not answer your

questions now." In fact, that minister didn't even have his staff in

the House. He couldn't answer my questions on the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation, the Georgia basin initiative or any of the

other things that I have been sent to this House to talk about on

behalf of my constituents. He was unable to answer those questions, and

he led us all to believe — as did the Minister of Finance — that we

would have the opportunity to debate.

Now, when we have this opportunity, after 17 short minutes the

minister gets up and walks out. He refuses to bring in any staff. He

refuses to discuss and answer our questions. He stands up for 15

minutes filibustering the debate, eating up the time on the clock so

that we cannot put our questions — after having listened to the member

for Omineca do exactly the same while we were trying to deal with

forestry issues. To top it all off, in what I consider to be one of the

most cowardly

[ Page

13257 ]

acts, this afternoon he sent me a four-page memo,

attempting to answer the questions that I raised during the second

reading debate, saying this is going to be the debate. "Here are the

answers, " he says to me. "You can come and talk to me later." He

doesn't want to do it in this chamber and before the people of this

province.

Mr. Chair, I was elected to represent the people in Oak Bay–Gordon

Head on these issues, and I'm going to do that. I'm going to talk about

some of these issues. I think that the Minister of Environment should

get back here so that we can start to talk about things like the

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. I want to know how much is in

his budget for the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. He can't

answer that question because he's not here. It doesn't show in the

estimates. He couldn't answer it when we were dealing with interim

supply. I demand to know how much is in there for the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation this year.

The minister talks about depots for hazardous waste collection. How

much money has been allocated towards those depots? He talks about

hazardous waste collection days, referring to what was done last year.

I want to know what's going to happen this year. What is in the budget

this year to collect stored hazardous waste? Right now there are

400,000 tonnes of hazardous waste stored in this province. It's

building up at the rate of 100,000 tonnes a year. I want to know from

this minister — who is not in the House and who has not had the

courtesy to show up and bring his staff to answer our questions — what

he's doing to deal with that.

I'd like to know what's happening with the Hazardous Waste

Management Corporation and to talk about the plans. He tabled the

report today, but there is lot that we have to discuss about this item.

I'd like to talk to him about what is in his budget this year in terms

of public input. Last year when we talked to the former Minister of

Environment on this matter, he promised us a full public debate on

hazardous waste in this province. A whole year has gone by, and all

we've got is some office space and a report. Where's the debate? That's

what this chamber is for, I thought. That's what I thought we were

elected to do: to come here and to be able to ask the government to be

accountable on these issues — on the issues that are of concern to all

British Columbians.

Another area I want to talk about is contained in this letter: the whole question

of solid waste. It's a very critical issue in my community. My community

has been pushed to the wall — to drain a lake to fill it with garbage — because

of the problems we have with solid waste in this province, and the minister

has the gall to tell me in his letter that in the last five years they've

increased recycling from 1 to 8 percent. Wow — 8 percent in four years! I figure

it will take us another 21 years at that rate to even come to the goal that

the province has set, which is 50 percent waste reduction. I'd like to question

this minister on his plans to make sure that we're going to reach that goal.

Less than 2 percent a year — that's supposed to be care for the environment?

There are some very important questions to be asked about this.

Nowhere in this letter or in the estimates does he say how much has

been allocated towards these programs. What is being allocated to

recycling?

MR. BLENCOE: Where's the minister?

MS. CULL: Where is the minister? How can we possibly put

these questions sensibly if the minister is not going to come into this

chamber and talk to us about environment issues?

I want to know how much is being put into the recycling programs. I

want to know how much money has been allocated to hazardous waste

collection this year. I'd like to know what this government's plan is

for public consultation on this matter and what they're going to do

about it. What do I get? The minister stands up and walks out in the

middle of the debate, so that we can't even question him on these

matters.

Just going on with some of the things the minister talked about, he

talked about cooperation with the municipalities and the regional

districts in this province, when only a week and a half ago we had the

member from West Vancouver standing up and slamming the city of

Vancouver and the Capital Regional District for failing to go along

with their plans.

He talked about consultation before decisions are made. Well, that

would be something novel! I'd like to ask him what consultation

happened before he decided to truck toxic soils from Expo to Richmond.

Why didn't consultation happen before that decision was made? But the

minister won't even show up here. How can we have this debate if the

minister won't show up? It is absolutely frustrating to be trying to

conduct a debate and to represent the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head on

issues that they are concerned about if the minister will not show up

and answer questions, will not have his staff here, will not appear.

That minister, when we debated these issues earlier in the all too

brief time we had during interim supply, said that he was going to come

back to this House with answers.

Here we are, on the last day of this session.... We will be going

away and tho