1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 3

[ Page 7113 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It is a great honour to introduce to the Legislature His Excellency Levko Lukianenko and Mrs. Nadia Lukianenko, who represent the new country of Ukraine, which for the second time in its history has achieved independence. We are indeed honoured that His Excellency is here, as someone who fought for freedom and paid a very heavy penalty by serving 15 years in jail the first time he was imprisoned by the Soviets and another ten years for once again keeping his commitment and the courage of his ideals for a free Ukraine. Indeed, we are honoured to have him and Mrs.

Lukianenko here with us, as well as Mr. John Stashuk and Mrs. Stashuk, the president of the provincial council of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.

J. Weisgerber: I would ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating a former caucus colleague and member of this House on her election as Canada's and British Columbia's first woman Prime Minister. Please join me in giving Kim a round of congratulations.

D. Jarvis: I'd like the House to meet Mr. and Mrs. Peak, who have travelled up from Carmel, California, in search of sunshine and who are here in B.C. as guests of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today are my father, Jim Cull, and Barbara Jeffries, a teacher from Torquay Elementary School, which is in my riding. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce today in the gallery 37 students from Vancouver Christian School in my constituency, who are with their teacher, Ms. Dyck. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: As one of those whose riding overlaps that of the soon-to-be Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell, I'd also like to extend congratulations to Kim Campbell and wish her a very productive, if not an overly long, tenure in her job. We'll leave that to the people of Canada to decide, but I look forward to working with her while she's Prime Minister.

Hon. Speaker, I'd also like to introduce two Floridians who are with us today in the public gallery. Carol Koester is the manager and Ellen Bennett is a travel agent at Travel Specialties in Altamonte Springs, Florida. They have been in B.C. inspecting the Alaska cruise industry, and have been very impressed by the hospitality, both in Vancouver and Victoria. I'd like to ask hon. members to join me in making them welcome here today.

D. Schreck: I have the privilege of making two introductions on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who is not able to be with us at this time. Visiting in the precincts this afternoon are approximately 29 grade 7 students from David Oppenheimer Elementary School. I bid the House join me in making them welcome.

The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has also asked me to make welcome on his behalf some visitors from the People's Republic of China. Vice-Mayor Zhang of the city of Zhengzhou, which is the capital of Henan Province, is heading a delegation visiting several Crown corporations. Will the House please join me in bidding these visitors welcome.

L. Reid: I ask the House to please join me in welcoming Linda Volidka to the galleries today.

D. Streifel: Touring in the precincts today are 33 grade 7 students from Christine Morrison Elementary School in Mission. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. R. MacLeod, and other escorts. I rise to introduce as well, Christine Morrison, after whom the school is named. She's a legend in Mission, a lifetime educator and the reason that Mission is what it is today. Hon. colleagues, when these students are in the galleries a little later this afternoon, take a note: the future of Mission-Kent is here.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (No. 2) AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill contains three additions to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act which were requested by their respective local governments. One affects land use decision-making in all regional districts in the Islands Trust. It will preserve, on specified grounds, the validity of their official community plans and zoning bylaws, which are these governments' principal tools in regulating land use and zoning.

Another part of this legislation is important to preserve jobs in the community of Trail in that it will clear the way for local government to implement an economic plan developed for the Trail area by the Job Protection Commission. Specifically, the legislation provides authority to the city of Trail and the Regional District of Kootenay-Boundary to become partners for the next ten years in an economic plan that will safeguard the economic future of the community of Trail. At the same time, it validates the regional district's variable tax rate plan for 1993 and future years.

A third provision of this legislation is important to the people of the district of Vanderhoof and to the

[ Page 7114 ]

economic future of this northern community. This legislation will permit the district to enter into an agreement with Transport Canada -- the federal government -- to transfer ownership of the local airport to the district, giving local people control over this vital transportation facility.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 43 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.

LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Elections Reform Act, 1993.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Today I am presenting a legislative package designed to make local government elections in this province more open, fair and accessible. Bill 35, the Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, modernizes an antiquated local election process which was basically designed in the nineteenth century and hasn't really been looked at, in any fashion, since 1957.

[2:15]

Our government believes in the necessity of bringing local elections legislation into the 1990s so that the operation of local elections meets the standards and expectations of all British Columbians. Bill 35 is the result of exhaustive and extensive consultation, through an overhaul of local government elections legislation. As I've said, it's the product of a process of major consultation with local government and concerned citizens. Many of the changes in this legislation were requested by local government.

These amendments require the disclosure of campaign expenses and contributions and require tougher penalties to discourage abuse of the election process. The legislation also increases access by lowering the age to 18, makes voting places more accessible to people with disabilities, provides local government with the option of using mail ballots and makes it mandatory for local governments to offer at least two days of advanced voting. It creates a fairer and far more open voting system by eliminating the vote for corporations, tenants and occupations, but it ensures that non-resident property owners have the vote, through one vote per property.

The Speaker: I regret, minister, that your time has expired.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, we will have lots of opportunity to debate this major piece of legislation.

Bill 35 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.

TEACHING PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. A. Hagen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. A. Hagen: The amendments to the Teaching Profession Act have been recommended by the College of Teachers of B.C. These miscellaneous amendments make changes to the dates for the election of members to the council of the college, clarify procedures for the election of the chair, provide greater flexibility in the appointment of council committees and areas of overlap between the roles of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the college and make a number of housekeeping amendments to clarify aspects of the legislation.

Bill 37 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.

EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT

Hon C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Emergency Program Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill repeals the current Emergency Program Act and replaces it with an entirely new act. The existing act is out of date. Many of its provisions relate to government's emergency planning and preparedness requirements during the Cold War era following World War II. The proposed act has been developed in consultation with emergency preparedness representatives from local government and provincial government emergency response agencies. This bill will improve public safety by establishing a clear legislative basis for effective preparedness and response to emergencies and disasters.

Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

BUDGET INFORMATION LEAFLET

F. Gingell: My question today is to the Minister of Finance. Would he be good enough to advise this House of the total cost -- mailing, printing, etc. -- for the circular regarding this year's budget that was mailed to all B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't have the details with me. I'm delighted to provide this to the members. I've provided it already for members of the press gallery. It was important, obviously, that the public know that 28 percent of British Columbians received a tax cut. It was important that they know that 95 percent of British Columbians received an increase in the homeowner

[ Page 7115 ]

grant. It was important that they know that the deficit has been reduced dramatically -- some 40 percent -- over the last couple of years. That was the reason for the mailing.

One last point. The cost of the mailing per household was less than the cost of Mayor Campbell's mailing to all households in the GVRD. I'm sure the member opposite is familiar with Mayor Campbell and his campaign.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that it uses up my supplementals, but could the minister please tell us how much it cost?

Hon. G. Clark: I would certainly be delighted to give a detailed breakdown. The last time I looked, I think it cost about 33 cents to mail a letter when you do it in bulk. There was no special deal by Canada Post for the government. We took advantage of their good services. The cost of the leaflet, as I said earlier, was significantly less than the cost of the GVRD mailing to regional districts. The magnitude of the cost was about $300,000, I believe.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

F. Gingell: I won't ask him that question again, because the cost keeps coming down; that's quite a bit less than he told the press gallery. I would be interested to know why he believes that his circular is fair, balanced comment and yet he accuses Mayor Campbell's circular of being cheap political propaganda that the people of B.C. do not accept. Why do you believe that?

The Speaker: I would remind the Minister of Finance that only the first

part comes within the jurisdictional responsibility.

Hon. G. Clark: There were two circulars from the person you support for leader of your party. One was a leaflet prepared for the GVRD that went to every homeowner, which was, of course, significantly more expensive than the leaflet that the government prepared. The circular to which you're referring is a property tax notice that has very misleading information, which indicates that a one-year program that was eliminated last year is somehow carried forward into this year's budget. It's misleading in the sense that this year most residents of British Columbia received an increase in the homeowner grant.

You wouldn't know that, obviously, from the information that's put out by the city of Vancouver.

Once again, it's important that we get the message straight: we have the lowest rate of government spending since 1987, the deficit has come down significantly, there are tax breaks for 28 percent of British Columbians and there is an increase in the homeowner grant. That's the purpose for the mailing.

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE COSTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The NDP in Ontario have finally realized that they have an obligation to their taxpayers to reduce public sector wage costs. If Bob Rae can cut $2 billion from his budget, surely this Premier can find a quarter of that amount in the British Columbia budget. Will the Premier follow the lead of other governments -- every other government in this country -- and take some real action to reduce public sector wage costs?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can answer a very affirmative yes; that's what this government has done over the last two budgets. The previous government, of which this Leader of the Third Party was a member, was giving 7 percent increases. We reduced those to 2 percent and less. Their spending was increasing at a totally unsustainable 12 to 13 percent every year. We have reduced that to below inflation: a 5.7 percent rate of growth, which is less than half the rate at which the Social Credit government was spending. Yes, we are making progress. We have reduced the deficit 35 percent in the last two years.

J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the Premier. While every other government in this country is slashing public sector wage costs, in two budgets this government has increased the cost of public sector wages and benefits in British Columbia by 23 percent. While every other government is reducing costs, this government has increased public sector wages by 23 percent.

Will the Premier sit down with his friends in organized labour -- with John Shields, Ray Worley and Ken Georgetti -- and work out some arrangement to reduce public sector wage costs in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can see that the Leader of the Third Party is using the same kind of public descriptions that he used when he was with the Social Credit government, when he told us that we had a $400 million deficit and a $800 million budget stabilization fund -- I think it was called. Then, just a few weeks after the last provincial election, we discovered the true state of the books -- not the silly money that the Social Credit government was playing with, but the true state of the books -- which was a $2.4 billion deficit. How he can stand up and talk about telling the people of British Columbia what's truthful about the books is a bit much to take.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: Other governments in this country have instituted three-year wage freezes. Will the government at least consider, or reconsider, our call for a two-year wage freeze on public sector wages in this province? Will the Premier live up to his responsibility to taxpayers instead of to the union movement and institute a two-year wage freeze on pubic sector wages and benefits?

[ Page 7116 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: We get two different stories from the Leader of the Third Party. The first story is, yes, we established Bills 19 and 20, which allowed teachers, for example, to go to free collective bargaining, and now we want to take it away. Yes, we established the budgets that allowed teachers to receive a 32 percent increase over the last five years that they were in government, increasing the taxpayers' costs dramatically.

So to now hear the pious Leader of the Third Party talk about freezes, about cuts, about slashes, after they brought in those huge increases in budgets, is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

ARTISTS AND WORKING LIFE PROGRAM

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Can the minister explain to the House why her ministry is showing a bias toward unions by agreeing to fund the artistic limitations inherent in the artists and working life grants program?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members, the question was listened to in relative silence, and I think that we need to listen to the answers with the same degree of courtesy.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'd be pleased to answer the question, hon. Speaker, but the question was incoherent. Would the hon. member please rephrase the question in a manner which is understandable?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Supplemental, hon. member.

[2:30]

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can confirm -- and I'll speak slowly -- that in order to get a grant under the artists and working life program, an artist has to paint or write something about workers of various cultures, women workers, regional workers or the unemployed. My question is: how can the minister justify a program in which you have to have union backing in order to apply for grants from her ministry?

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, I am proud to answer that question, now that it has become clear. The ministry has established a $50,000 cost-shared program with the labour movement in this province to encourage and assist the artists, who are workers, to bring forward and express their ideas. We have developed a joint selection system which works in conjunction with the B.C. Arts Board. Basically, it's a small program that aspires to service artists and performers who reflect the workers of this province.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

W. Hurd: The special committee to which the minister referred is comprised of two members of the B.C. Federation of Labour and one from her ministry. Can the minister explain why she is in the business of funding politically correct artistic endeavours in this province when regular artists and people who have total freedom of expression are having their funds reduced? Do we have a politically correct artistic program in this province?

Hon. D. Marzari: Regular artists in this province are in fact workers in this province, and I will state that unequivocally. Regular artists in this province very often work for less than minimum wage and hold down three or four part-time jobs in order to subsidize the rest of the community for the art they produce. There has been no cutback in the arts and culture budget this year. Although the federal government has been cutting back at the rate of 15 percent a year over the last five years, artists in this province have received a status quo budget for the last two years.

It's not good enough, but it has given artists and the Arts Board the stability that they need, as well as the stability the cultural services branch needs to deliver that money and to assure the artistic community in this province that there are no cutbacks for the arts in B.C.

SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can this minister confirm a media report, attributed to the B.C. Nurses' Union, that she is about to announce a task force to review the Shaughnessy closure?

Hon. E. Cull: No.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: It seems to be that the B.C. Nurses' Union is under that impression. My supplementary is to the minister again. Has this minister promised a moratorium on layoffs if, indeed, the Shaughnessy question goes forward?

Hon. E. Cull: The Shaughnessy closure is going forward, and the promise made to all workers at Shaughnessy is part of the labour accord, which Mr. Ready has been involved in and concludes today.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: It seems to me that consultation is still a question and that that task force was asked for by Vancouver City Council on April 27. Is this minister now prepared to consult directly with the people of British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm quite prepared to consult.

GAMING REVIEW

L. Hanson: My question today is to the Attorney General. It has been some six months now since the

[ Page 7117 ]

report on gaming was due to be presented to cabinet. Will the minister agree to table that report today, or has cabinet decided to deep-six that particular report?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no to both questions.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Hanson: That certainly hastens things up.

Is it still the position of cabinet that this government is, and must remain, responsible for the regulation of gambling activities within this jurisdiction? Can the Attorney General confirm that the jurisdiction of the province includes all territory and people within the geographic boundaries of British Columbia as we know it?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's at least the second time the member has asked me that question this session. The answer is still the same.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all hon. members that, by agreement, Committee A will convene at around 2:50 p.m. The minister has been delayed due to weather problems but we will, in any event, have the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in the Douglas Fir Room, commencing at about 2:50 p.m.

Hon. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on Bill 32.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

(continued)

L. Fox: Given that I had spoken at some length Thursday morning, hon. Speaker, could you perhaps indicate the amount of time that I have left to speak?

The Speaker: I will check on that, hon. member, and advise you as soon as possible. I've just been advised that the hon. member has 18 minutes left.

L. Fox: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

When debate adjourned last Thursday morning I was canvassing the concerns about this bill expressed by British Columbians as a whole and particularly by industry and the business community. As I said then, Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act, will discourage investment in B.C. It will extend the time frame for the process, and it will defray costs from the provincial government onto the proponent of a particular initiative.

The other morning I was pointing out what has happened because of policies and legislation such as this and a similar bill last year -- in fact, it was exactly the same number last year, Bill 32. They have caused the mining exploration companies and the mining community to spend their money elsewhere, other than in B.C. It's a real shame, because it isn't only that amount, which is quite substantial. In 1990-91 the amount spent in British Columbia was in excess of $150 million.

It's not only the fact that that money will go out of the province. We can look at losing that money not only for the current year but also for successive years, because it takes a considerable amount of work and time in order to develop a mining property. Beyond that, they also pull services out of British Columbia. We will lose business opportunities, opportunities for the service industry and opportunities to diversify the economies of single-resource communities.

This government doesn't seem to understand that there is life beyond hope and that their economic policies are dramatically affecting that. In fact, this government does not seem to understand that three out of every eight jobs in Vancouver are supported by the lumber industry. We keep seeing legislation come forward in this House that is devastating the resource industry throughout the province. When we look at the mining companies, most of their corporate offices are in Vancouver. They contribute a lot to the economy of the lower mainland, as well as to the economy of the rural parts of British Columbia.

When we examine what's happening in terms of job creation, we see that that is not occurring in the rural parts of the province. It's occurring in the lower mainland, in the Okanagan because of growth and here in the government because the government has been increasing the number of employees.

We need a process that provides a partnership arrangement between industry and government to collectively look at how we can utilize our resources in the best interests of all British Columbians, not just of small interest groups. We have to have a balanced approach to the environment and the economy. This bill is anything but a balanced approach; it's so loose that the government can do whatever it wishes with it. If a proponent wanting to invest in British Columbia were to look at this bill, it's unfortunate that they would not find out exactly what the laws of the land are.

The bill has been purposefully written in an open-ended manner so that the government can deal with day-to-day issues through regulations. What those regulations reflect might depend on which pressure group comes here on which day.

I -- along with, I'm sure, the rest of my caucus -- will be voting against Bill 32, because we believe it will do a great disservice to the province. It will do absolutely nothing toward creating jobs. The number one issue for the constituents I talk to around this province is job creation. I believe that this minister and cabinet forgot about that when they drafted Bill 32.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today to speak against Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act. This bill clearly has the potential of being a job-killer in the province. It will create more regulatory hurdles, without any evidence that environmental protection will benefit or that it will be enhanced in any way. This is an enabling piece of legislation that sets up a vague structure designed to look at environmental assessment in the province. I believe that it represents a duplication of the kind of assessments that are currently ongoing in other line ministries.

[ Page 7118 ]

I would like to echo the comments of others in the opposition benches about the difficulties faced by resource-based industries and other companies in this province when it comes to bringing projects on stream which have some environmental impact. Nothing in this bill would lead the opposition to conclude that the process by which projects can be brought forward will in any way be streamlined or enhanced by this legislation.

Because of its vagueness and because it is a vacuum into which the minister has the ability to plug a number of committees and processes, there is absolutely no security in this kind of bill that projects in this province will be able to proceed in an ongoing and timely manner.

As we deal with some of these megaprojects, large sums of money are required to be spent before they ever get off the drawing board -- money required for pre-planning, for environmental assessment and for other issues and initiatives that may be demanded from government. We are setting up a system of environmental assessment in this province which will act as a bulwark rather than a streamlining of this important process.

[2:45]

The opposition is very concerned about the potential economic impact of this bill. We are very concerned about what it means to resource-based communities in this province who have to attract investment capital in order to push projects forward and secure employment. As a result of this type of legislation, they will not see an orderly and timely review of projects which need environmental approval.

[R. Chisholm in the chair.]

Some of the highlights are disturbing in the extreme. As we look through this legislation, we will welcome the opportunity to question the minister at length in committee about exactly what some of these clauses will portend for people and companies in the major resource sectors in this province. The question we will be asking is: will this bill make it more likely for companies to invest in this province? Will it make it more likely that they will want to put the required money up front, without a firm time frame?

Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: I'm finding the member's comments extremely important to the people of British Columbia -- and I hated to interrupt him -- yet I find we do not have a quorum.

Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately that is not a point of order. There is a quorum when you count -- including myself. Carry on, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Speaker; it's good to see a neutral voice in the chair for a change.

As we review this legislation and look at some of the new initiatives in this Environmental Assessment Act, the executive director of the Environmental Assessment Board has the potential to be one of the most powerful order-in-council appointments in the province -- perhaps even more powerful than the Crown corporations secretariat, who knows -- when it comes to resource-based industries and resource-based projects in this province. Under the new act there will be limited grounds for appeal, and there are no grounds for any compensation to be dealt with under this assessment legislation.

As we deal with these types of applications going into a void -- with no end in sight as to how they are to be dealt with -- we really begin to appreciate that companies will simply not be induced to put up the kind of money that will be required without that kind of security or due process that would normally be called for under the existing legislation, which deals with line ministries such as Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and other environmental assessment legislation.

We know, too, that the applicant could well be responsible for any costs incurred by the Environmental Assessment Board, by other participants in the review or for fees of consultants hired by the environmental assessment board. As these applications wend their way through this process, it could end up costing a great deal more money.

It's almost as if this bill is an overreaction and overcorrection to the Kemano completion project, in which it was argued that a proper environmental assessment was not done. This may well be true, but the point that this legislation can't address is that it won't necessarily guarantee that we won't be seeing environmental assessment projects done by the federal government in addition to what's being proposed under this legislation.

As well, it's interesting to note that the project committee established under this act does not clarify either its function or method of recommendation to the executive director, yet it has one of the most powerful positions within the Environmental Assessment Act.

The opposition is concerned that this bill is another in a series of NDP blank-cheque bills. It is vague on specifics and direction, and it contains clauses of enabling legislation which are difficult, or almost impossible, for the opposition or the public to predict exactly what type of structure will be slotted into the various clauses in this bill.

We see a pattern of a consultative process developing in this province which, one assumes, is set up as an adjunct, rather than as a central core, to the type of legislation coming forward. The opposition is well aware that the hon. member for Nanaimo, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Environment, toured the province during the last fiscal year to make recommendations on bringing about some changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. We wonder what he could have heard during his trip and what is finally reflected in this legislation.

We wonder sometimes whether people who were consulted and gave their ideas during the public hearing process are not truly disappointed when they fail to see any reflection of their submissions in what finally showed up on the order paper as Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act.

[ Page 7119 ]

This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we're going to deal with in this session. It's a bill that has tremendous downside potential for an economy which is exceedingly fragile as we get out of the lower mainland. We have an economy based in resource-dependent communities that is struggling to maintain existing enterprises and, in some cases, is desperately looking for investment capital with which to expand regional economies. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that would induce anyone to have the confidence to invest in regional economies and resource-dependent communities and projects which are going to require environmental assessment.

The opposition believes that this bill is another example of a bill that contains a blank cheque, a void into which the government can slot virtually anything it wants into the various provisions. We'll be speaking against it in second reading and addressing significant concerns when we get into committee. It's a bill that British Columbians should have an opportunity to read. The opposition is already receiving letters of concern from business associations and groups that have had a chance to look at the general thrust of the legislation.

They are trying to weigh what it will mean in terms of the exhaustive environmental assessment process that they already have to go through in this province. The assumption being made by government is that we don't have an environmental assessment process that works. In fact, a great many projects in this province have been subjected to exhaustive review already, and this is another void -- another vague type of bureaucracy which will be set up to duplicate ongoing environmental assessment initiatives.

The opposition speaks against this bill in second reading. It's a bill that we'll be looking at closely in committee, and one that I think every British Columbian, particularly those who live outside the lower mainland in communities that require an orderly assembly of capital and an orderly process of major project review, should have the opportunity to read and assess. I hope the government will give serious consideration to inviting that kind of secondary input before the bill passes in this assembly.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I urge the government to rethink its approach to this bill. Once again I urge them to consider a wider array of public consultation. If they listened to the people on this particular bill and were prepared to accept some of the concerns that are now starting to emerge, I believe they would rethink the wide-open and blank-cheque nature of this legislation.

F. Garden: It's with pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of the bill before us. I'm really surprised to hear the opposition spokesperson for Surrey-White Rock speak against the bill, in that during the election campaign the Liberal opposition committed to the enacting of legislation to empower people in the decision-making process through the creation of an environmental review agency. This agency will hear public appeals and be responsible for conducting open public hearings, and we will publish detailed accounts of presentations and the reasons for all final decisions.

We now have before us legislation that takes these things into consideration, and again we find the opposition speaking out of the other side of their mouths opposing it.

This legislation is long overdue. The Liberal opposition would have us believe that the bill was hurriedly put together. This is not the case. The member for Nanaimo did extensive consultation throughout the province and heard the views of concerned stakeholders who would have input into the legislation. For far too long, developers of energy projects and mining in this province have run up against an amazing wall of time-consuming bureaucracy, with the result that in many cases projects are dropped. There's duplication between federal and provincial levels, and this legislation allows the province to sit down with the federal government and work out ways to eliminate this duplication.

As I stated previously, present developers have to get through -- or try to get through -- a mountain of bureaucratic nightmares that delay projects interminably. We had a mine approval certificate given last year in my riding which took over two years just to get through the certificate approval process. That mine still has not gotten off the ground. How long do you expect investors to stay around waiting for these processes to go through? It's high time that these bureaucracies were brought into the sphere of one decision-making process. I applaud the author of this bill for putting it before this House today.

I come from a community where mining is very important to our economic well-being. I ran into a situation where one of my constituents got so wrapped up in paperwork between the federal and provincial governments that he ended up in court. He was doing what he thought was the right thing by the provincial legislation, and then the federal people came along and said: "No, you can't do that." The federal ministry finally charged this individual, even though he thought he was going by the instructions of the provincial law, and he ended up in court.

Fortunately for him, because fish can't fly uphill, he won his case, but it was just a perfect example of the bureaucratic nightmare that is preventing mining and energy development in this province. If this kind of legislation had been in the regulations or legislation at the time that the Kemano project was first conceived, we wouldn't have gotten into the mess that we're in with that Kemano project. But again, it was because of the need for this kind of legislation that we did get into that mess, and now we're trying to clean up the mess that the former government and the federal government made over Kemano.

Once again, I'd like to say that I applaud this. I cannot understand why the Liberal opposition is against it. It goes along the lines of what they were looking for, or what they were telling the people they were looking for. Now that we've got it before us, they seem to be changing their minds. In my estimation, this is long overdue. Yes, there's some concern about the regulations, but there is time for a consultation process

[ Page 7120 ]

to take place. This bill has to go through several stages yet before it's law. We're prepared to listen to what the industry and investment people have to say. We have that assurance from the minister. This is progressive legislation, long overdue, and at least it lets communities know. What do you do when you're in a community and you wait three years to see whether a mine or something is going to go through in your area? Do you hang on, on the chance that you might get work there, or do you wait until this lengthy process goes through?

You might get unemployment insurance in the meantime, if you're lucky, but the present process is not conducive to investment in any energy proposal in this province. It leaves the investors hanging out; it leaves workers hanging out; it leaves whole communities hanging out for a longer period of time than they should.

[3:00]

Once again, I'm proud to stand up here and support this good legislation, and if the Liberal opposition were true to their own principles, they'd be standing up and supporting this, because this is the kind of stuff they said they would do.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock is rising on what matter?

W. Hurd: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce 22 grade 7 French immersion students from White Rock Elementary School in my riding, and their teacher Miss Julianne Huang. They are touring the precinct today. Would the assembly please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to participate in this debate today and to be able to say that I agree with many of the points made by the member for Cariboo North. He's absolutely right that we need an environmental assessment act in this province. He's absolutely correct that we need to streamline the process of approval of major projects in our province in terms of the environmental regulations and red tape that exist now -- under the government that he's a member of. He's absolutely right that we need to combine all of the various governmental levels of approval: the federal, provincial and regional levels.

He's right that there is a need to streamline the process. The problem is that with Bill 32, once you turn past the title page and start looking at the contents, it becomes readily apparent that Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act, is not the way to do it.

I am surprised and amazed that the Minister of Environment was able to get this bill through cabinet, because the minister's colleagues in cabinet obviously haven't read this bill. If they had, they would realize that we now have a czar of the environment, not a Minister of Environment, who will now be the most powerful minister in government. Perhaps that's the way it should be; perhaps the Minister of Environment should be the most powerful minister in government, because after all, as British Columbians, we all care for the environment. We all want to see a clean, healthy environment in British Columbia.

But the arbitrary and vague powers that are given to the minister under this act really don't bode well for a healthy democracy, because the decision-making that will be made under this government with this bill, once it has been passed into law as

an act, provides room for abuse -- and, yes, political abuse as well.

This legislation has not been well thought through, and I wonder whether or not the minister has hoodwinked his colleagues in cabinet into giving him the most extraordinary powers in the provincial government. Indeed, no project of any consequence will be able to proceed in British Columbia without the Minister of Environment giving thumbs up. Even though this bill sets up a labyrinthine, three-stage process of approval, a huge bureaucracy and massive red tape, the minister still has the discretionary ability to put thumbs up or thumbs down on any project.

One wonders whether the process really means anything, because political control is still vested in the office of this minister. He will still have the ultimate power.

One wonders why we are debating this lengthy bill, which goes on for more than 40 pages. This bill is detailed in what it proposes, but it doesn't define any of the terminology it uses. Earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Third Party said it was deliberately vague, and I must agree. We're being asked to pass a bill that basically says the minister can do whatever he wants. The government says they will pass regulations later on to fill in the details.

How can we, as responsible legislators, pass a bill like this? This is a major problem when any government asks its Legislature to approve delegated legislation, saying: "Give us these powers, and cabinet will fill in the blanks later through orders-in-council." Delegated legislation is an increasing problem in any modern government, and this bill is testimony to those problems. We as legislators are being asked to approve something the consequences of which we really can't understand. The minister is simply given broad discretion to do what he wishes under this bill, and that's wrong.

The major objections to this bill can be categorized very simply. First of all, the costs of approval for any major project in this province are going to be borne by the proponent of that project. That means that if a business comes forward wanting to develop a part of the province or initiate any conceivable project -- upgrade an existing facility, build a major housing subdivision or build a new recreational facility -- the cost of going through all the various hoops proposed by this bill are to be borne by the proposer of the project.

Yet it's impossible to say how many thousands or perhaps millions of dollars might be entailed in those costs. That's asking quite a bit from any business or developer. They can apply for approval, but no one knows whether that approval is going to be given. We know one thing for sure: the costs are going to be borne by the proposer, no matter what those costs will be. That's a bit much to ask of any proponent. It's going to significantly increase the costs of doing business in

[ Page 7121 ]

British Columbia, and I think that's bad, because it will scare away investment. The first major flaw in Bill 32 are the costs.

The second major problem that I foresee in this bill is that there aren't any time lines. Business needs to be able to plan. In order to decide to spend capital that will create jobs and help build a healthy economy in this province, one needs to know if the project is going to be approved within a certain time frame. This bill is deliberately vague. It offers no assurance whatsoever as to the time that will be required to pass through the various stages of environmental approval. This leads to greater uncertainty, an uncertainty that I fear will again have the effect of scaring away business.

Businesses will be unable to plan, because they will have no way of foretelling whether a project will take one, two or three years to get the approvals necessary to proceed.

Earlier in the debate, the member for Cariboo North stated that the Kemano project was being unnecessarily delayed, and he's absolutely right. This government has delayed it by changing the ground rules ever since it came into office. This bill isn't going to tighten that up. If anything, this bill gives any government licence to delay indefinitely any major project that comes forward. Rather than no time lines, business needs assurance of an answer within a reasonable time frame.

I'll give you an example. It's not to say that we should be following it, but in another jurisdiction in our hemisphere, in the country of Chile, when a mining proponent comes forward wanting to develop a new mine, the government there has set up guidelines stating that within 90 days they will receive an answer, yes or no, as to whether or not they will be able to proceed. That's tremendously efficient. I wonder if we could replicate that here. I don't know. Maybe 90 days is unrealistic, but at least they have a guideline.

We need some kind of guideline here so that if a proponent comes forward and wants to invest money, create jobs and help develop our province, they will be told with some certainty, within a certain time frame, that they will get a yes or no answer -- thumbs up or thumbs down.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

We don't have that here, and as a result we can see the consequence. The mining industry in British Columbia is moving to Chile, to different parts of the world, because there is no certainty here and there is greater certainty that there will be a return on investment elsewhere. We could fix that by putting into Bill 32 some specific time frames for approval. But they aren't here. The suggestion is that they could go on indefinitely, and that, I fear, will scare investment away even further.

The third major problem that I see in this bill is that there aren't any specific terms of reference. Bill 32 will apply to just about any project in this province. It's very broad. It includes potentially anything -- anything goes. The projects that are defined in this project are defined very vaguely. In the backgrounder put out by the minister's office, the proposed reviewable projects that will be subject to this new act of the Legislature, if it is passed, will include just about any project that goes forward in British Columbia.

The categories listed are industrial -- and what industrial means could be just about anything -- mining, energy, water containment and diversion, municipal and regional, agricultural, transportation, tourism and recreation. I think that within those categories we could find just about any project proceeding in this province that one could imagine.

Virtually everything is going to be subject to the approval mechanisms enshrined in law by this proposed bill. That worries me, because these terms of reference are so broad that it really suggests there isn't going to be anything taking place that creates a job, produces wealth or helps to build the economy of our province without the Minister of Environment giving explicit approval to it under guidelines that are very broad -- under time lines that don't exist.

We know one thing for sure, and only one thing: the costs of the approval and the costs of the various boards and the bureaucrats' time are going to be borne by the proposer of the project. What incentive is there to invest in British Columbia under these kinds of guidelines?

That leads to my final major concern with this bill, and that is the ministerial discretion. It's too broad. Under Bill 32, this minister is given such broad, sweeping and arbitrary powers that one really wonders how any responsible legislator can vote in favour of a bill like this. The minister is given such broad powers that the massive bureaucratic, technical review process enshrined in three different stages in this bill might be for naught, because the minister can receive the report of the various boards and decide whether he wants to accept them or not.

So the power still rests with this minister and his office. This minister undoubtedly will become the most important minister in the executive council of British Columbia with this bill. That may or may not be a bad thing, but I think we need to recognize it before we pass this bill into law. The Minister of Environment really will be running the province. No economic project, no investment will proceed in this province without the Minister of Environment giving his explicit approval. There are no real guidelines for why he should accept or reject any of the various approval mechanisms put forward in this bill, and so it seems rather arbitrary.

Something else is lacking in this bill. Where is the economic assessment of any project enshrined in this bill? There is a bias in this legislation that has to be referred to, and the bias is that business is bad, developers are bad, that they are evil people and have to be checked and controlled. They have to be regulated. There is an assumption inherent in the language of this legislation that development is bad and that it must be controlled or, at the very least, delayed indefinitely, and that the minister must be able to control that process.

There's an ingrained assumption that business is bad, but there's no recognition of where the wealth in our province is created. There's no shred of evidence in this legislation that this government understands how business in this province operates or how wealth is created.

[ Page 7122 ]

Instead of this kind of legislation, what we would like to see is legislation that recognizes where wealth is created in our province and how good-paying, sustainable jobs are created. There should be some recognition of a partnership, where business and government work together to develop the province in a dynamic fashion. Instead we have negative legislation. We have legislation that assumes that business is bad and must be controlled, stopped, checked or, at the very least, delayed. That's what's so wrong with this legislation.

There's another assumption in this legislation that speaks to why this legislation must be opposed. It is a process that forces British Columbians to choose either to have a clean environment or good-paying, sustainable jobs in a new, dynamic, vigorous growing economy. That's a false choice, hon. Speaker. British Columbians should never have to accept that choice. I believe we can have both. We can have both a clean and healthy environment and a strong, vigorous growing economy. There's no reason why British Columbians should have to choose between the two.

But we can't have both if we set up a process that is arbitrary, polarized and adversarial, or if we assume that business is bad and set up a process that pits business against the government and the regulatory process. This legislation requires more thought; at the very least it requires serious amendment. It cannot be passed this way.

When speaking earlier in this debate, the member for Nanaimo indicated that he thought this was very important legislation. He said that it would have a great impact on our province. Indeed, the member for Nanaimo is very correct. This legislation will have a great impact upon our province. It may be among the most important legislation brought in by the government during this session.

The government presents it as the culmination of a process that started off with the major project review process guidelines, which were sponsored by the provincial government back in 1991. I'm very familiar with those guidelines because I had to work with them when I was in private industry. They were very difficult to work with; there was lots of uncertainty. No one could tell what the guidelines were. There was a need to strengthen those.

[3:15]

So what did the provincial government do? It brought forward a discussion paper called, "Reforming Environmental Assessment in British Columbia." That was last year. There was a major discussion process and a consultation process as well. Did the government really listen to the concerns of business? The evidence is that they clearly listened to the bureaucrats. They've set up a process that has not streamlined the approvals at the federal and provincial level; in fact, they may have made them more complicated. Have they really listened? What have they done with this bill?

This bill has been introduced into the House very recently. Now the government has called for debate, and presumably they want to ram it through the House. They quickly want to pass it into law. That is inappropriate. We're in too much of a hurry with this kind of legislation. This legislation needs to breathe and see the light of day. It should be openly discussed by industry and local communities. The member for Nanaimo is correct: it will have a tremendous impact on B.C., and therefore it should not be rushed through the House. Today in second reading we are debating it in principle. I think that's important.

But before we get to the committee stage, we should have more time for consultation and impact. The committee stage on a piece of legislation like this is indeed going to take some time.

When he introduced the bill, and later when he started second reading debate, the Minister of Environment was very brief with his comments -- uncharacteristically so, given the importance of this legislation. I wonder if the Minister of Environment is too modest. Has he deliberately decided not to explain the import of this legislation in detail? Is he too modest in the sense that he's trying to conceal the fact that this legislation will confer upon him the greatest powers by statute that any minister in the executive council of British Columbia will have.

I wonder if he's trying to conceal the fact that this legislation will really have a tremendously negative impact on the province. One has to ask why the government would bring in a bill that would scare investment away from British Columbia. Why would the government of this province bring in legislation that is almost designed, through some perverted process of twisted logic, to scare investment from this province? Shame on them for bringing in a bill that is going to have a negative impact not only on British Columbia today but on British Columbians for all time.

We must think of the future and whether we are going to have a mining industry in British Columbia. We have already seen the mining industry virtually scared out of this province with the environmental processes that are being put in place. We want to see a clean, healthy environment, but we also want to see a mining industry. We want to see a healthy, strong, vigorous forest industry. We want to see an energy and petroleum resources industry thriving in this province, and we also want to see new investment -- major projects and minor projects -- proceed. But they're not going to be able to.

Who in British Columbia or outside of our province is going to want to invest their capital in a jurisdiction where an anti-business government has brought forward legislation that has no deadlines or guidelines for approval, that has no guaranteed return on any investment -- because even the process itself is going to be paid for by the proponent -- and that gives the minister sweeping, broad, arbitrary and deliberately vague powers of approval? Under those circumstances, who is going to come forward and help us work in partnership with the public and private sectors, working hand in hand?

How is that going to happen under this legislation? I'll tell you how, Mr. Speaker: it's not going to happen, and that's why this legislation must be opposed.

There hasn't been enough consultation. It's going to have a negative effect on investment; it's not well-thought-out legislation. The minister has asked us to wait for the regulations; I think that's an improper use of this Legislature. It's not a wise use of the legislative

[ Page 7123 ]

process to simply bring in a bill and say: "Hey, we'll fill in the blanks later. Don't worry about it." We are worried about it.

The minister is saying: trust us. Well, we don't trust this government anymore, and British Columbians are learning every day why we should not trust this government. We can't trust this government because it brings in legislation that is either not well thought out or perhaps too well thought out. That's the only other alternative: perhaps this legislation is very clever indeed.

Perhaps they've thought through the fact that if they actually show us what the details are, if they fill in the blanks in this legislation, it would be so repugnant that not only would it not pass through this Legislature but British Columbians might in fact reject this government today, rather than waiting for the next election -- which, of course, they're doing.

Bill 32 is a bad piece of legislation because of its inherent anti-business bias and because it confers too many arbitrary powers on this minister. It's going to scare investment from this province. I don't think anybody who believes in British Columbia, who believes in the potential future of our province and who wants to see economic development in our province could possibly support such ill-considered legislation.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak against Bill 32, because I feel that it is a very bad piece of legislation that is being put forward to the people and the businessmen of B.C. It is now obvious that this government does not understand how the business community operates, nor does it in fact even trust it. Neither the business community inside of this province nor the one outside of the province is trusted; that's quite obvious by the way things are going with the introduction of this bill.

This government is continuing to create an unbelievably poor atmosphere for the continued growth that is so desperately needed for this province. This government's attitude is not conducive to the creation of resource jobs in this province. All of this follows the fact that they are not creating any wealth, nor do they understand how to create it.

This government lives in a dream world. It needs a wake-up call to get us out of this nightmare they put us in. It's obvious that their ideological actions are deterring companies from investing in this province.

H. Lali: Prove it.

D. Jarvis: The member for Yale-Lillooet asks me to prove it. He just has to look at last week's papers and he will see that the Korean government -- which the Minister of Energy and Mines went over to visit and spent thousands of dollars on her Club Med tour -- has now come back and invested $55 million in the state of Washington, not in British Columbia.

Companies based in British Columbia and those outside of this province are making decisions that B.C. is an unfriendly province to work in -- there are safer and more hospitable climates elsewhere. That is obvious. Last year $1 billion-plus of Canadian money was invested outside of this province, and this year over $2 billion Canadian dollars are being invested outside of this province. Yet this government continues to bring forward legislation such as this Bill 32, which transfers and ties up decisions, which wreaks this socialist bureaucracy on us, causes delays, loss of money and loss of jobs.

Business investors look at the whole picture when deciding where they will be able to create their future. When they see high taxation on profits and pre-profits, and endless interference by the government's bureaucracy, they must wonder whether it's worth the gamble to come to British Columbia. Businesses cannot continually support their balance sheets if they are dealing with a government that is in a delay mode of every process leading up to investing in a mine in this province. When they continually see proposed legislation that erodes their confidence, when taxation and land use claims appear to be....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would hon. members please keep their comments down during the debate.

D. Jarvis: This government continually boasts of their achievements to encourage investments, both internal and foreign, and gives the appearance that they are prepared to make a change. However, their changes are detrimental to business and detrimental to creating jobs and wealth in this province. Yet they introduce legislation such as this, which is a classic case of government redundancy.

Investors, developers and businessmen ask for very little from government. But they do ask for a fair and honest playing field and a fair and honest government -- one that sets its priorities to govern and encourage businesses without the necessity of an ideology between the lines with an agenda that is not conducive to development in this province.

How does this legislation, for example, sit with a company such as Windy Craggy, the project of Geddes Resources Ltd. up in the Haines triangle? Years ago this mineral site was surveyed and staked, and a few years ago it was started up, as required by B.C. law. They put the mine into the mine development assessment program that was under the Energy and Mines ministry and went through the first stages. It wasn't perfect; they had to rewrite it. They threw it back into the mine development assessment program. It has now been well over three or four years and nothing has happened.

The previous government vacillated on the situation, and now this government is vacillating. It has withheld its decision as to what it wants to do. It's changing the rules again. It was placed into a parks review, first of all, and then into CORE. CORE came out with a report six months ago. This government is still vacillating and not making a decision on it.

These companies want to come to British Columbia and work to provide jobs and revenue. All they ask of government is that it follow the law of the land when these companies are starting out and not change the rules midstream, as this government is doing again. The most obvious example is that the government has

[ Page 7124 ]

changed the mine development assessment program for the Haines triangle area. As I said, they threw it into the parks and into CORE. Now it has been taken out of the Mines ministry, which is going to throw it into the Environment ministry -- and on and on we go. When is it going to stop? All these rules are changed midstream, as I said, because of the ideology behind the playing rules. Companies do not want to come to this province if they are faced with environmental lobbyists who change the priorities first.

[3:30]

The companies simply say to let them place this application into the mine development assessment program. If it passes the process, all very well; if it doesn't, so much for that. That's the way the system runs. That's the law, the way business is carried out and the way that governments are supposed to act, but not this government. The rules keep changing -- again and again. When the mine development assessment program was brought forward by the Energy and Mines ministry some years ago, it took six months before an application was processed. Then it went up to a year, then two years.

Now we're seeing it take three to four years -- and on and on it goes. As soon as the bureaucracy starts settling in, who knows how long it's going to be. It is extended and extended, the approval times get longer and longer and more bureaucrats are required. This mine development assessment program is growing like Topsy. Last year around this time I went out to the start of one of the mine development assessment hearings, close to the riding of my friend from Chilliwack, in Abbotsford. They were going to investigate the start of a feldspar mine -- perhaps the most benign material you can possibly think of.

I arrived there, went up to the top of the mountain and there were 21 bureaucrats, all in their 21 little half-tonne trucks....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Orange and green, and every colour you can think of.

In any event, that's what's happening. The bureaucracy is growing and growing. We know that under this bill there will be a new development assessment program started that will have such a large bureaucracy it will be hard to believe. And then you say, well, that's not too bad; at least they'll be getting rid of the assessment program and the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. No. Talk to that ministry, and they will say: "No, we have to leave that there, because we will write the final ticket to allow them to mine.

But we need all those people here to approve what's going to go on in the new mine development assessment program." So now we have doubled our bureaucracy.

The Windy Craggy mine, as I was mentioning before, has now invested a little more than $50 million in this province trying to get a mine development certificate. With no decision after all these years, I'm wondering whether this government really feels that they are being responsible by not giving them at least some indication that it is prepared to look into the matter of whether it's environmentally proper to mine in that area. Or is this government and the Minister of Environment going to listen to the lobbyists and duck under the situation and stall even longer.

That mine is probably the flagship of investment in this province. If it goes down due to the vacillation of the Environment ministry, we will see very little investment in the resource sector of this province.

Bill 32 is now changing all the rules once more. As I said, with the assessment program being taken out of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum, we are going to see more reviews and studies, more staff and more taxes. This bill must be looked at logically, as far as the mining industry goes. It was not too long ago that revenue from the Ministry of Energy and Mines was up around $200 million a year -- tax revenue to support our social programs. Last year under $40 million was brought in. We are now down to six working mines in this province.

One will close down in July and one in August, and Westmin mines is out on strike. Where are we going to get our revenue? This year we will be lucky if we get $20 million from the mines. As I said, this government got less than $40 million last year from the mines, but the budget shows that they're going to take in $59 million. Well, no one knows where that's going to come from. It's certainly not going to come from the mining industry. That's what you'd call juggling the books.

We have to learn how to create a positive playing field in order to get investors to come into this province. We need investment money. If we don't have people investing in this province and developing it, we will not have any revenue coming in, nor will we have any jobs for our workers to go to. Is this government going to continue to send out the message -- and they will do if this bill passes -- that the government of British Columbia has not created a friendly environment to work under or invest in?

Under this bill we are also ostensibly going to give cabinet the power to make all the decisions with respect to environmental assessments. Any project can be reviewed at the cabinet's whim. I trust that this will not include vehicles that are presently in operation. For example, do they now think that maybe they could close down the whole Kemano project? If a group of people feel that damage to the environment is occurring, this government, this cabinet, may say: "Yes, let's have another review." They could shut down Kemano. I'm going to the extreme, but ostensibly this bill will provide for that situation.

This bill is vague; and as the member for West Vancouver said, maybe that's their intention. If they came out with the truth, we might be viewing the real horror show that we're going to be presented with when business and developers fail to come into the province. With all the unemployment that's going to be created when they fail to come in, this government will be hungry for tax money to continue the province's social programs, and they'll have to go after British Columbians for more taxes. If the money doesn't come in one way, it's got to come in another.

It upsets me that decisions on mines and energy projects in this province will no longer be left to the

[ Page 7125 ]

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Bill 32 will wield a heavy environmental hammer on every imaginable project in this province. As I said before, it also gives the minister and/or a bureaucrat the power to intervene in any development on any grounds. The grounds are not even spelled out in the piece of legislation before us. The mine development assessment program should be the responsibility of the Mines minister. The Environment minister should not be the one steering this process. This new environmental process should be independent of, and more distant from, the Environment minister.

It should be handled by someone who is not biased, such as the Environment minister is. We have to say that he's biased, or else he would not be an advocate of his ministry. This bill gives the Environment minister too much power. In fact, this bill will now affect virtually every ministry in this province. He should actually now be called the minister of everything; I believe he thinks he is anyway.

Personalities aside, I feel that mine development in the Haines triangle, or anywhere in this province, is a necessity. I think we should get on with it, without the delays that are going to occur as a result of this bill. No mineral strategy, which the Minister of Energy and Mines professes to have put forward two or three months ago, can be implemented with this regressive legislation. This legislation will be bad for business.

In any event, I'll close by saying that the future always takes care of itself, fortunately, and there are only 840 days left of this government. There are no time limits on this bill, and it leaves no room for rational comment. This bill is perhaps the worst thing that could happen. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you've been paying attention to me all afternoon, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak against this bill.

H. De Jong: I'm pleased to rise and speak against this bill. A couple of weeks ago we passed a bill with a time limit on it. It was the type of bill that basically the government was not prepared to bring before this House, but it had no choice. We were all in favour of the intent of the bill, of course, which was to get the teachers back to work and the children back in school for educational purposes. Today we have a 45-page bill without any specifics -- 45 pages to set up another bureaucracy, and nothing more. There is nothing in this bill that gives any comfort to the environmentalists or the tree-huggers, or to anyone else in B.C. It simply sets up another bureaucracy.

[3:45]

The effects of this bill are unknown to industry, agriculture and the B.C. public. The minister stated quite emphatically in his news release that he was prepared to welcome comments from all interested parties before the Legislature completes its debate on the bill. There isn't a whole lot that the public can respond to other than the setting up of another bureaucracy to police existing and potential industry and also the agricultural community. The intent of the bill is probably to slow down development, particularly industrial development, in this province, but perhaps also to stop development that already exists.

To give an example of what may happen, the previous speaker talked about a proposed feldspar mine in my riding. This is a clean type of operation; it's about the purest stuff you can get out of the earth. A few years ago a well on one of the sanitary trunk lines in the Matsqui district was vandalized, which caused an overflow into a small creek.

The creek had never had any fish in it -- none of any substance, anyway -- but about two hours after the news broke that the well had been tampered with and some materials had flowed into the creek, even though it had already been stopped by that time, there were at least 20 or 25 environmentalist-type people on the edge of the creek seeing whether they could count the fish. I'm quite confident that they didn't count any more fish than there were bureaucrats on the banks of that creek, but the ministry was successful in laying a charge against the regional district.

They were successful in the courts in having the municipality pay a fine as a result of

an act of vandalism over which they had no control whatsoever. Then we talk about fairness through the courts.

If that's the kind of stuff we're looking at, what may come out of this bill is a lot of regulation that people will have to comply with, and I see the future for British Columbians as being pretty dark. There is not much indication of the size of operations to be included under this assessment.

The member for Nanaimo has gone around the province to get feedback from the people on what they would like to see in terms of environmental assessment, protection and so on. I am not against environment protection. I think we are all concerned about the environment, and we should be. I am sure that most industries are also concerned about the environment in which they want to operate. They wouldn't want to purposely do anything that would be detrimental to the environment.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

H. De Jong: There is very little detail of what is going to be policed by this act -- in fact, there is nothing. A blank cheque is being provided to the people of British Columbia. Unfortunately, it will be the government that will fill in the number. It will be a horrendous cost to British Columbia not only in administration and bureaucracy but also in the effects on the various categories of industries.

We talk about agriculture. I am not sure whether the minister is even aware that every municipality and regional district has its setbacks and zoning bylaws. There are setbacks from local streams, roads and other environmental aspects so that they are properly protected. So why have a further act to police agriculture?

From time to time there is concern about the high levels of nitrogen found in soils. At the same time, I think the minister should also realize that there is more and more pressure put on the agriculture community to produce more from that same acre of land, which

[ Page 7126 ]

requires more fertilization. I am quite confident that there is no farmer so foolish as to over-fertilize any piece of land, because it's a costly procedure to spread fertilizer on land in order to get production. The environmentalists see it from a different side off the coin, I suppose. They feel that the farms could very well go back to the early days, when much of the crops were grown without fertilizer. But in those days they weren't paying $20,000 an acre for the farmland.

For many years, many aspects of the agriculture community have been regulated through the application of codes of practice. In fact, there have been some very good self-policing groups of farmers of certain commodities who have done a tremendous job in setting up codes by which that segment of the industry would have to live. But they were practical codes. They are not the type of codes that I can see coming out of Victoria. Many of these people have never seen a real farm. I can see what's going to come out of Victoria in terms of codes and practices that will be allowable.

The member for Nanaimo apparently went on a trip throughout British Columbia to find out what is really essential to protect the environment, and which size of farms would be allowed. I read again from the material that was provided from the booklet "British Columbia: Handle With Care." It says that dairy operations where the milking herds exceed 700 animals will be subject to the regulations. What type of regulations? It doesn't say. The bill doesn't give any indication of what those regulations may be.

It further says that poultry operations of 200,000 layers, 200,000 broilers or 150,000 turkeys would be subject to regulations which are unknown. Beef feedlots involving more than 5,000 cattle would be included in the regulations, but again there are no regulations proposed at this point in time.

I fail to see how a government can be so double-tongued, you might say, as to at one time bring forth a bill which has a life span of only ten months and then it's off the record and off the books, and here they will bring forward a bill of 45 pages of bureaucracy that will have a detrimental effect, as I can see, upon any type of industry. It's certainly not working with industry, but rather against it.

The interesting point in all of this is that while in his news release the minister weighs very heavily upon the visits that have been made by the member for Nanaimo, as his parliamentary secretary, throughout the province, I am wondering whether there may have been some people making presentations there from California. I have not heard of a dairy herd exceeding 700 cows in British Columbia; in fact, I don't think there is one that's over 500. I have not heard of a poultry operation of 200,000 layers. Neither have I heard about a beef lot over 5,000 head of cattle.

Then again, if in fact there was a beef lot of 500,000, it depends on what type of acreage we're looking at and what the surroundings are.

We hear about air quality and atmospheric emissions. In the district of Abbotsford, as well as in the municipality of Matsqui, most of the housing developments are up in the side hills, and the farmland is on the floodplains down below. It's quite normal that the farmers will be out there disposing of waste products over the land to make the crops grow on a day when the sun is shining in early spring. It's also on those days that the atmospheric conditions in fact allow that emission into the air. Most of the time the people mostly effected by that emission are those that live up on the side hills.

I can see exactly who the member for Nanaimo has been listening to. I can also see that the people who made presentations certainly were not in tune with the size of farm operations. That's why I'm most fearful that the figures in this booklet are absolutely exaggerated. As I see it, the minister will obviously revise those figures, which of course brings fear into the agricultural community. If these figures would stand as they are supplied in this booklet, "British Columbia: Handle With Care," the farming community wouldn't be all that much afraid.

But this government is known for changing its course of action and making the regulations far tougher than what is intended through the bill that is presented. That's why I'm very concerned about this bill. It doesn't say anything. All it does is create a big bureaucracy, and it'll be fearsome not only to agriculture but to many types of industry wanting to establish or that perhaps already have established in the province.

C. Evans: I think it would be a good idea to explain what is really going on in words that people who don't work here can understand, because a lot of the talk we're hearing today is aesthetic in nature. It's in language that doesn't make a lot of sense; it contains threats about something that might happen if we do something that nobody understands. What's really going on here is pretty simple. We have a process right now which makes no sense and which nobody understands, and we're talking about replacing it with a process that makes a little sense and is upfront and public.

What happens if you want to build a dam, a pulp mill or a chemical plant right now? What happens if you want to build a smelter or a mine? You have to go through different processes for different purposes. You've got to go through the energy project review process, the mine development assessment process or the major project review process. Those are just the ones I have in front of me; there are probably others. Each industry has a bunch of consultants making a really good wage trying to understand the different processes by which you wend your proposal through government.

Now we have a minister who says: "I have a good idea. Instead of having a myriad of impossible-to-understand processes that wind up making money for lawyers and consultants, let's have something that makes sense. Let's have something that people can understand."

I went to a meeting awhile ago about a pulp mill that a company wants to build in British Columbia. I'm not going to embarrass the company by saying its name, but I just want to relate what the developer stated in the meeting -- which I found most amazing. He expressed some concern. He'd been trying to build his pulp mill under the previous government, and now he was trying to build his pulp mill under this government. He said:

[ Page 7127 ]

"Look, I know that governments make decisions in back rooms. That's okay with me. It's just that I can't find where the back room is so I can be there when the decision is being made."

What this legislation is trying to do is end the days when we make those decisions in back rooms. Among other things, this legislation says that there will be one process and a registry, and if somebody wants to build a pulp mill, they write that down and send it to one organization. Instead of taking ten years to deliberate, that organization has 35 or 40 days to say whether or not the application is written in such a way that it passes stage 1 of the process -- 35 or 40 days; that's less than two months.

[4:00]

What happens if it passes that stage of the process? It goes to the general public, and let me tell you what happens then. One major project in B.C. passed the major project review process since it was invented, and that was the pulp mill in Castlegar. It took 18 months of public hearings, argument and discussion before the company got permission to build that pulp mill. Is that what this legislation says? No, it says that there will be 15 to 30 days for the public to comment. If the project passes that stage, it will be referred to the ministers by the bureaucracy that members opposite are so afraid of.

It'll be referred to the ministers with one of three recommendations: go, no-go or go back to be rewritten.

Is it a secret or is it graft that makes that decision? If you slip a few bucks to a politician, or if you slip a few bucks to a party at election time, does that make that decision? Maybe it does now. But the legislation says that the ministers are going to have to write it down, so folks opposite, the news media and the developers can read why the answer was yes, no or no-go. It is going to be a law, not a promise or political commitment. We're asking all the people who work in here to vote for a law that says politicians have to say in writing why they decided what they did. They can't get a few bucks, put it in their pocket and say go or no-go.

People are paying us to make laws that say we have to do our jobs in an honest way and then tell the public the truth about why we did it. I've been listening to people -- especially the hon. member who mines in his mind -- saying why this legislation is going to get in the way of the mining industry. For those of you who maybe don't know, at the present time it takes an average of six years to go from a staked claim to a mine -- six years. The three stages that I just named in this bill are: 35 to 40 days, stage one; 15 to 30, stage 2; and 45 to 60, stage 3. That's about six months; it's not six years.

There is not a real mining company operating anywhere in this province that is afraid of a six-month review process. The mining industry is especially afraid of processes that they don't understand or that imply they've got to pay off somebody in a room that they can't find.

The minister has sent out his delegate to go around the province and say to people: "Look, the processes we have in place now don't work. What do you want?" The public said they wanted a non-political process where the ministers or their delegates have to say in writing why they chose the answer that they did. The people who are threatening a capital strike because of this legislation are speaking rhetorically. Quite frankly, I don't even think that they believe it. Everybody here knows that if we get the nonsense, dishonesty and confusion out of the application process, it will make it easier for business to function in British Columbia.

I want to give you some examples, hon. Speaker. Right now, if you want to build an apartment house in Vancouver, you have to work within zoning regulations. That doesn't scare anybody. It has been going on for decades, and the developers are making really good money operating within the context of zoning regulations, which is, essentially, government saying where you can build an apartment house. Then if they say you can build an apartment house here if the public says it's okay, they've got to put up a big sign with their intent to develop an apartment house on this space.

Then everybody can look at the sign, and say yes, it's a really good idea, or no. Then there's a hearing. In the hearing, the politicians coming out of the hearing have to say yes or no. It doesn't scare the developer. If the answer to the developer is yes, then they have a building code. They can't build a lousy building; they've got to build a building that fits the code. That doesn't scare the builders. They're out there building buildings all the time.

All this legislation is trying to do is to bring the same integrity and common sense to the digging of a hole in the ground that we now have when building an apartment building.

Maybe a hole in the ground -- a mine, smelter, logging show or factory -- isn't right on the street where you live, so you can't assume that a great big sign is going to draw the public's attention. We said it would be really nice if you put an ad in the newspaper, a registry or a place where you could go and read: "Today Corky wants to build a mine." Then you'd have a time-limited chance to respond. That's just honest.

The truth is that the members opposite demean the business community when they say that business people are afraid of an upfront, honest, application process. Because business people are just like everybody else, they would rather do their business in view of the public's eye and know what the process is than be tricked or have a secret or backroom deal. This government believes that investment is more likely to come our way if investors understand the process, rather than continuing with the process which went on in the past: if you could buy the government, you could buy the answer to your question.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Under our standing orders, hon. members should be recognized before they engage in debate.

Will the hon. member please proceed.

An. Hon. Member: Apologize.

C. Evans: No, he doesn't have to apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member, and address your remarks through the Chair.

[ Page 7128 ]

C. Evans: I think it's really good for the people of British Columbia to see the kind of debate that's being entered into here. We are dealing with a sophisticated society. There are poisons in the environment, and there are scary industrial processes that can ruin neighbourhoods and communities and people's lives. We are talking about a process to make those public, and the hon. member opposite decides to try to enter the debate by impugning my history rather than dealing with the law. It's a darned good law, and that's why folks over there can't deal with it: they have to deal with the messenger.

I'll tell you who is afraid of this law: business people who can't tell the truth and folks who are floating a stock scam on the basis of a secret -- not those people who actually want to dig a hole but those who want to dig the illusion of a hole and sell that bunko stock to some unsuspecting individual. This system is going to end the nonsense cowboy capitalism that replaces honest business in this province. This law is going to make it so that the gentlemen opposite will truly have free enterprise, which is also honest enterprise.

Interjection.

C. Evans: I'm really glad it got your attention. Maybe the next speaker will stand up and actually talk about the minister's legislation. If folks could hear people talk about it, they would know that it was an excellent development.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I understand that he is the designated speaker on second reading of Bill 32.

G. Wilson: I rise to speak on Bill 32. Perhaps the members opposite should be better briefed on the content of their bill before they rise to speak on it, because Bill 32 doesn't only deal with digging holes in the ground. I know some cowboys; I don't know how many of them are capitalists. I'm not sure what cowboy capitalists are, but it certainly makes for entertaining discussion in debate.

I would like to speak to the principle of this bill, because this is without doubt a major piece of legislation, which I think a lot of people in British Columbia have been waiting to see. They are waiting to review it, and they want to know exactly what the impact is going to be. This bill is not only going to affect miners, loggers, and those involved in the development industry; it is going to affect all British Columbians.

The bill attempts to set out regulations that are going to be used in order to determine the viability and approvability of a project, in terms of not only its environmental impact -- that would be something we would look at -- but also its economic, social and cultural impacts and the heritage effects. I fail to see what part of life in British Columbia isn't going to be dealt with by Bill 32.

Quite clearly, if one were dealing with simply the environmental impact, one could say that the regulation here was going to look at the principal impact on our hydrosphere, atmosphere and lithosphere, and we could look at that in terms of some technical aspect of measurement, something that could be scientifically demonstrated, proven and therefore documented. If it was simply going to look at the economic impact, one could argue that we have some empirical measurement potential there with respect to our economy. But when you talk about its social impact, that brings in values that are highly subjective.

It brings in values which are often politically driven. It brings in values that will differ within a community, within a society generally. When we talk about its impact on cultural and heritage effects, then we are dealing with something that is even more amorphous, especially in the question of cultural impact.

What do we mean when we talk about the cultural effect of a particular project? How is that to be defined? In looking at the principle of this bill, we have to recognize the language of the document. When we look at laws and how laws affect people, it's important that we deal with the language, because the language is important. I use that phrase only because I quote from the member for Nanaimo who, when he was talking about gender-neutral language on Friday, was telling us that the language is important. Well, I can tell you that the language can never be more important than when you're looking at a bill as pervasive as this particular Bill 32.

In the principle of it, we're not just dealing with something that looks at environmental impact. We are looking at effects on environment, on economy, on our social structure and social order, and on cultural and heritage factors -- all of which are very inclusive and are going to touch the lives of every British Columbian.

We have to sort out why this bill is coming in. Let me say at the outset, now that we know what it is attempting to gain, that the first question that begs to be asked by anybody looking at this bill or looking at the need for a bill that comes intituled Environmental Assessment Act, is: is it necessary for us to have some form of regulation that assesses environmental impact prior to developments taking place? Is this bill necessary?

Hon. Speaker, I think you would say that some form of environmental assessment is indeed necessary in British Columbia in 1993. So the answer to that question is yes -- some form of assessment is needed. Do we feel that the approach taken here is the right approach? I can tell you that this opposition's point of view is that this approach is not the correct one. I'd be happy to tell you in general philosophical terms why we don't agree with the approach that is being taken here.

Thirdly, and I think it's important if we're to be a responsible opposition, we have to ask: what would we do differently? How, then, would we incorporate the principles that we espouse and that we believe in, that might do something different than what we see in the legislation in front of us? Those are the three areas that I'd like to address.

[4:15]

The first one is the question of need. There is no doubt that we simply must start to recognize the concept of limits to growth. I've said it before, I'll say it again, and it's important that the record stand on this

[ Page 7129 ]

question from my perspective: it is important that we recognize that if we're going to have a long, sustained economy and a society that has a great emphasis on quality of life and perhaps less emphasis on standard of living -- because one measure doesn't necessarily bring the other, where quality of life is important for all British Columbians -- and if we're going to have the protection of our atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere, the three fundamental bases upon which our resource base occurs, then it's clear that we need to make sure we have some protection measures in place to stop activity that is going to be negative and damaging to the environment.

We need to have some means of doing that.

If we're going to do that, then surely the first place we have to start is in establishing a baseline of knowledge that lets us know where we are today. When you talk about the assessment-of-environment effect, you have to ask: how will this activity -- be it a mine, a logging activity or large residential development -- change what exists today? Is what exists today something that we see to be sustainable within the concept of our knowledge and understanding of the environment? If we don't have a baseline from which to make that judgment, and for most parts of British Columbia we do not, then how on earth do we determine whether the effect on it is going to be negative or positive?

With mining activity, we often talk about visual impact. We know that the people who are opposed to the Windy Craggy mine in the Tatshenshini are concerned about the visual impact of a bridge, because river rafters like a wilderness effect, so we have to weigh it. Is the visual impact of a bridge across a river that probably less than 1 percent of the population is going to travel down at any given time enough so that this project shouldn't go ahead? Others will be quick to stand up and say: "No, no. It isn't the visual impact of the bridge.

What we're really talking about is the potential for leachate as a result of holding ponds because of the slag that comes out of the mining operation, and that leachate is going to damage the environment." The bridge is a highly subjective question that some will say is important and others will say is not. It's not something that can be measured in any empirical way. We can't set down a standard that says what the leachate problems are with the existing ore in the ground now and what is likely to happen with leachate as we move the extraction to where we want to process it and use it in our industries.

The baseline work needs to be done.

I'm going to use an example with respect to what we can do differently. In my regional district we have what we call the inland sea, which is the Sechelt Inlet area. It's a very large body of water with Sechelt Inlet, Narrows Inlet and Salmon Inlet, and it includes a protected watershed with very limited oxygen exchange. There's not a great deal of tidal action because of the Skookumchuck Narrows at one end and Sechelt at the other. When we saw development taking place there.... What really triggered it was the propensity of fish farms to come into that protected water.

As an elected member at that time, I among others -- it was principally me -- stood up and said: "Wait a minute. Before we approve these projects, we have to have some means of assessing the environmental impact on that area." It's not that I'm necessarily opposed to fish farms, or to fish farms in Sechelt Inlet, although subsequently I did become very strongly opposed, because we found evidence of a potential hazard that was going to affect other activity.

I wanted to set down a manner in which we could make that assessment work in the interests of the community and also investors so that they didn't waste valuable time, money and energy on something that was never going to be permitted. But most importantly, how could we keep the integrity of a sensitive and highly volatile ecosystem, in terms of its disruptive potential, from being further damaged?

We looked at how to establish some baseline work. We brought together all of the provincial and federal ministries that were involved, but we also brought representatives from industry and the community to the table. So that Hansard can record it, I would like to digress and give thanks for the significant and important role played by then Minister of Municipal Affairs Rita Johnston. When I told her the importance of bringing people together to make this kind of thing work, she provided the funding. We said that we were going to work by consensus, and nobody believed it could happen.

The forest industry said they couldn't work with the fish-farming industry, and the fish-farming industry said they couldn't work with the community activists. There was a lot of infighting in provincial ministries over turf; at that time, the Ministry of Environment and Lands were different, and there was the Forests ministry. The federal government said that they didn't really have an interest. The most difficult of all to deal with was the Coast Guard, which had a mandate unto itself and didn't really want to participate.

But we pulled them together, and in that study, which is now printed and documented with everybody signing onto it, we established a baseline that would allow everybody to recognize that there were designations within that area that would permit certain activities. It wasn't zoning, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Crown lands and other agencies didn't want to have zoning jurisdiction place on lands outside of the regional district or municipal area. But it was area jurisdictions, which provided within it a description of that which could be sustained or would not have negative impact on the environment.

Part of that study which was lacking and which we could have used more of, was detailed environmental assessment of what existed in that inlet when we commenced. Coming back to my discussion, without a baseline or without knowing where we start from, it is impossible to determine what we are losing. It's like saying that if we establish a bank account, and we don't know what the balance of the account is but we're going to commence to write cheques on it, not only will we not know when we're overdrawn, but it is also going to be a tremendous shock when we eventually do

[ Page 7130 ]

overdraw and find that our cheques are starting to bounce.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Nanaimo saying: "Personal experience." I'm not going to get into the member for Nanaimo's personal finances; I wouldn't want to do that.

It is clear we have to have that baseline work done. What is perhaps philosophically wrong here is that it doesn't establish any mechanism to put in place a baseline description of what kind of activity is going to be determined within the province. All it says is that we're going to set down through this executive director -- and I want to talk about this executive director, because this is one of the biggest sticking points we have in this bill -- some means to set up a descriptive hierarchy of various activities that will be used in the review process. It says that we are going to categorize projects according to their size, production capacity and location.

For the first point, we ask if it is necessary. Yes, it is necessary; there's no question about it. But if we don't have a baseline to work from, then how are we to make anything other than subjective analyses of whether a project is good or bad?

How are we supposed to put in place something that can allow an investor an opportunity, when they come to look at the investment of money toward a pulp mill, a mine, a housing development or any activity that's going to be impacting the environment, to know what their chances for success will be if they have to embark upon this expensive and highly bureaucratic review process without any real knowledge of whether or not they're going to have success?

Instead of this bill coming to us now, the first thing we should be seeing is the government taking step one, which is putting in place an opportunity to do some baseline work, which would involve a comprehensive land inventory for British Columbia. In that comprehensive land inventory, we should look at classifications of sites. I am not talking about small-lot sites. I am talking about the larger geological divisions within the province, which we have a great deal of knowledge about -- very little of which is connected, very little of which is gathered into any single holding and very little that is put into any compatible system so that we can start cross-referencing and cross-tabulation.

In the Sechelt Inlet study, I was horrified to find out that the Ministry of Crown Lands and the Ministry of Forests didn't even have the same mapping system. They couldn't even take two compatible maps, put them together and tell you what was going on. When they were computerizing, they computerized to two totally incompatible systems, and now we're moving into GIS, which is good. Step one is that we have to know what's here -- before we put in the rules and regulations to say what should or shouldn't happen.

We have to know the capacity of the land to sustain; we have to know what areas we are going to look at -- developments in terms of reasonable or limited regulation; what are the areas in which we say that development in these sites is going to be a great hazard and have a great potential for environmental decay and damage; and we have to decide whether or not we are going to allow them to go forward at all. In other words, when we talk about comprehensive land use strategy, we have to have a strategy that says that some areas will be set aside.

That is what limits to growth is all about: it's understanding that it is important to set aside some areas that we deem, for sound reasons, should not be subject to the kind of development that may seem to be in the interests of those investors who stand to make a profitable venture.

By doing that we send a clear signal to those investors coming into this province that because we have set aside those areas that are deemed to be hazardous or in which we do not to wish to have that kind of development, we now have an area where investment will be welcome, where we will encourage investment to take place. People know, when a permit has been granted to explore to see if there's a viable ore body, that we recognize there is a reasonable chance they're going to be able to go into production if they find something that's economically viable.

If I can point back again to the example I used before, which was Windy Craggy, that is what so many people had been upset about in the Tatshenshini decision. It wasn't the question of whether or not we should, although that's subject to debate; it's the question of permits being given, mining companies having spent money, a viable ore body having been discovered -- about green lights being on all the way down the railway track until we get a hundred yards from the station. Then, all of a sudden, the light doesn't go red; it goes amber.

It warns that maybe you'll never get your train to the station, that maybe this little project you've just invested in may never get there. So we shunt it off to an environmental review.

What's in that environmental review? There is a whole series of different rules and regulations, and the rules and regulations change. It's kind of like a soccer team on the field, and every time they get down to the 30-yard line and they're ready to move in to score, you shift the goal. The goal isn't over here now; it's over there.

That speaks to my second point. What are we looking at in terms of the process for assessment in this province? We recognize that, yes, we need to have something, and we need a baseline. We need a comprehensive land inventory for this province. It's desperately overdue. We should have had it 20 years ago. We didn't know as much then as we know now, but now that we do know what we know, it's inexcusable that this government has not brought forward a measure to commence that comprehensive land inventory within a sensible set-aside policy, with a recognition that there are limits to growth because of a finite environment and that we simply cannot expand exponentially or indefinitely.

So we come to the second part of what I wanted to talk about. What is the assessment process here? Let's take a look at the production of coal thermal energy, for example, in the Kootenays. Here we have a situation where a company that was ready to get into thermal

[ Page 7131 ]

electrical production, which would have engaged and encouraged investment in the Kootenay region -- and the Kootenays were looking for increased investment -- finds that there is a policy of this government and this minister which says that restrictions will be greater in terms of acceptable emissions than the federal standards. Therefore this investor, because of the sulphur content of coal -- which was the lowest, I believe, in North America -- was no longer going to be permitted.

[4:30]

It's not a law. There's nothing on the books. You can't go to the statutes and sit down and read in black and white that this will be permitted and that that will not. So what do we see here? We see that we've got a group of people with the money. They have the potential for investment, they've got the market for sale. They've got everything that is required to go along. They also are able to meet the federal standards. And they're told that on the federal standards the province of British Columbia isn't going to accept it. They put in place a policy of emission standards that are simply not attainable under current technology.

So what happens? They invest in Alberta. Why wouldn't you invest in Alberta? It's cheaper and easier to move electrical power than it is to fight a government that moves the goalposts every time we try to set out what we want to look at in terms of the process. When they heard that this bill was coming down, they were pleased. Finally, they said, we are going to see put down in legislation a process that companies must engage in. It would be a process they could understand and comply with, so that they could either go ahead or not. But when we look at this process, how sadly disappointed we are with what the government has done.

What we hoped would be in place was an environmental assessment process that would first of all engage full public participation, not at the end but at the beginning of a review process. Secondly, we hoped it would be a process that engaged the public within the community in which they lived, again not at the end but at the beginning of the process. Thirdly, we hoped it would be a process regulated by a committee in which there was democratic involvement, so that there could be community-based acquiescence to and support of these projects.

We could get the communities supporting, from the grass roots up, the economic growth and development of the regions of the province. That's what it's going to take. We no longer have a set of communities in B.C. that will accept this top-down economic theory, the idea that we will tell you what's good for your community, like it or not. They want this in advance of the work that's being done.

The Bamberton project is a classic case in point. Here we have a project of enormous magnitude. It is one of the largest residential developments in Vancouver Island's history. What the people want in the Bamberton case is the opportunity to have a proper review process undertaken. They want to have a review process in the beginning. They don't want it at the end when the land has already been rezoned, when the green light has already been given and the potential for great profit by flipping property has been provided.

They want to have a sensible environmental assessment in the beginning of the process so they wcan hear from people who have some kind of expertise on whether or not the water supply is adequate -- because the water supply is going to affect a fairly significant region -- and on whether or not there is an effective waste management plan to protect the relatively fragile ecosystem in the Saanich Peninsula area. They also want to know whether the proposed densities are even possible on the site in question.

When you look at the area that they want to put the road through, you're talking about major land construction there. Where is all the fill needed for this road construction going to come from? Where will the transport of material happen? How will we look at the questions about potential siltation, erosion and other problems from that transportation? What was requested was a sensible review process.

Regrettably, notwithstanding this legislation which the members opposite say is great environmental assessment work, it seems that this government, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has tossed out the review process. We're not going to review it until such time as the rezoning is completed and we've got the CVRD fully behind the land use question.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

In the Environment estimates I went directly to the minister, and said: "You're talking about this great revision in Bill 32 and you've put in place a process here. I don't particularly think it's the best one, but at least it's process. why wouldn't you then use that process on the question of the Bamberton site? Why not use the Bamberton area as your test site to see whether or not this works? But don't do it after; do it in advance of the land use question."

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Nanaimo says it wasn't written. This is true....

D. Lovick: It wasn't ready.

G. Wilson: Excuse me, it wasn't ready. It was written, but not ready. Perhaps like a fine roast it needs to cook for a while and then sit to allow whatever juices may be in it to settle out. I don't know.

The point is that while it may not have been ready, still the public hearing process at the CVRD continues. It isn't over. This government can say: "Adjourn your public hearing and, as a case study, we will use Bill 32 to do the environmental assessment work." Let's test this regulation. Let's see if it works before we put it into law. Let's check it out, and let's see if works.

D. Lovick: You don't want legislation. Be honest.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Nanaimo saying I don't want legislation. The truth is, as I said at the beginning, that legislation is necessary.

[ Page 7132 ]

Hon. Speaker, I'm trying very hard to go through the Chair, but the member for Nanaimo is saying that we don't like this legislation and that we're putting in rules that make it impossible. That's not so. I just explained how, in the Sechelt Inlet strategy, we were able to bring together exactly the same players that are cited in this legislation with two additions: industry and the public. They were involved in the beginning of the process.

D. Lovick: We'll make you king. That will solve the problem.

G. Wilson: I didn't hear that. I thought maybe the member for Nanaimo was suggesting he was going to make me the executive director, which is a pretty powerful position, I can tell you.

D. Lovick: King, king, king.

G. Wilson: If it was king....

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'm flattered by their words of confidence and support in my abilities, but clearly....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I really hate to interrupt the very interesting conversations that are going on, but I have to remind hon. members that the member for Power River-Sunshine Coast does have the floor for the debate at this time.

G. Wilson: I know it's a problem for the members opposite when we criticize their bills with some substance and when they recognize that what we're saying has some merit. The principle of putting in regulations for environmental assessment is not really at issue. I would say, though not wanting to disrupt the flow of this debate, that the lives of our young people are clearly affected by the environmental impact of Bill 32, which is why I'm so delighted to be accompanied today by members of grades 3 and 4 of West Sechelt Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher, G. Struthers...

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

G. Wilson: ...which, in a moment, I'm going to ask leave to introduce, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon. member knows full well that leave must be granted to give an introduction. While in this instance the hon. member has done so, I would not want members to make a habit of doing this in the middle of a debate. Leave is granted. Would you like to make your introduction, hon. member?

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would like to welcome the elementary school students from West Sechelt's grades 3 and 4, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Struthers and, I understand, some parents who are with them as chaperons. Would the House please make them welcome as they join us here today.

The Speaker: Recognizing that this is not a precedent, I now invite the hon. member to continue on second reading debate.

D. Lovick: We would have granted leave.

G. Wilson: I wasn't certain that the members opposite would have, having entered into this debate earlier on.

Coming back to the question of process and the Bamberton issue, there is no doubt that this is a prime development that should be subjected to this kind of environmental assessment. It's important that we have this legislation tested before we put it into law. If they want to do that, then let's see the merit of this government by saying that they are going to move toward a review on the Bamberton question.

Philosophically, what we would like to see in this legislation is a process that involves members of the community in the early stages of a development. We recognize that in doing that, it has to be an inclusive process that we would like very much to see have a much greater degree of emphasis on consensus-building in the community. This bill clearly doesn't do it. Inasmuch as it's an attempt to put in place some actions, I suggest that one of the reasons it doesn't do it is the incredible powers that have been granted to the executive director.

The executive director is worth looking at in terms of what we're dealing with in this bill. When I commenced my remarks earlier, I said that in the first part of the three parts of the debate I'd like to engage in, we have to understand that this bill doesn't only look at environmental impact; it also involves the economic, social, cultural and cultural heritage characteristics in the vicinity of a project. If you look at the power of the executive director.... First of all, this person is appointed by government.

This executive director has tremendous powers in terms of the availability of the applicant to gain information and analysis plans, and so on. The executive director "may make available to the proponent the parts of the information," and so on.

Secondly, discretionary powers are granted to this individual with respect to the information that is provided or requested. So if we are going to have an executive director who has this kind of power appointed by government, philosophically we start to question whether or not this is the right way to go. Secondly, we see that the powers of the executive director with respect to requesting and therefore accommodating upon request amendments to applications are very substantial. I know that we cannot get into the substance of the language of this bill in second reading; we will do it in committee stage. But I really do ask people who want to read and understand this bill to take a look at

section 11 in terms of the application,

section 12, as well as subsection 13(3), where they talk about the limited amount of time the executive director must be involved with.

[4:45]

[ Page 7133 ]

Some people would say: look, this isn't bad; this is good. Because what it means is that government can't protract the process. Some people would say that this forces this executive director to actually take action when the application is in. But I come back to my earlier remarks. You see, the problem is that what is required of an applicant is not spelled out. What is required of an applicant in any particular project is not spelled out because there is no categorization of those projects; we haven't sat them down and categorized them out.

We haven't said that there's going to be a series of land use studies done prior to this kind of thing to set out some general parameters within which those kinds of decisions can be taken.

What we have said in the bill.... I come back again to the reason we have such concern with it in principle: it says right in the beginning, in terms of that which is going to be reviewable, that "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a reviewable project for the pu