Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 21, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 7, Number 3

Part 1

[ Page 6007 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: It's my pleasure today to have in the gallery my aunt and uncle, Gail and Doug Crawford, who are with us today from the land of scorched earth -- that being Alberta. They've come to witness how an actual multiparty system of government works. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

M. Coell: In the gallery today is Arlene Jule. She is a Liberal MLA in Saskatchewan and my counterpart -- the critic for social services -- in that province. Would the House please make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 51, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997. This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act; Company Act; Constitution Act; Creston Valley Wildlife Act; Ferry Corporation Act; BC Forest Renewal Act; Highway Act; Insurance Corporation Act; Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act; Land Tax Deferment Act; Legal Services Society Act; Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act; Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act; Motor Vehicle Act; Teaching Profession Act. Of course, we will deal with these in second reading and in committee stage.

Bill 51, 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.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1997

(MOTORIZED CYCLES)

J. Sawicki presented a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Act Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997 (Motorized Cycles).

J. Sawicki: The purpose of this act is to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to recognize the motorized cycle as a specific mode of transportation. Conversely, this bill will thereby exempt motorized cycles from certain requirements applicable to other motor vehicles. Currently, bicycles and cycles in general, when fitted with any kind of accessory motor -- however small -- are included within the same category as other motor vehicles, thereby requiring the operator to register, license and purchase insurance.

This constitutes a significant economic barrier to the use of motorized cycles, thus depriving British Columbians of an environmentally beneficial mode of transportation. In many other jurisdictions, motorized cycles have become very popular because the small, limited-speed electric motor can be intermittently engaged when the rider is fatigued or going up long or steep hills. Motorized cycles also provide another choice for those who don't, or don't wish to, own a private automobile.

The bill establishes the regulatory authority to prescribe the use, capabilities, size, power and weight of motorized cycles, as well as the operator and equipment requirements and restrictions. Riders of motorized cycles will be subject to the same safety-helmet provisions as for bicycles.

These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will bring it more in line with other government initiatives to develop bicycle pathways as viable commuter routes and to encourage more environmentally friendly alternatives to the private automobile as a means of reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.

Bill M209 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FOREST RENEWAL REVENUES

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

C. Clark: The NDP have decided to get half of the money that they pay for environment youth teams out of the Forest Renewal B.C. fund. In case the minister has forgotten, I would like to remind him that the Forest Renewal B.C. fund is intended to find work for displaced forest workers. Instead, the money for the environment youth teams is going to pay for staff people in organizations like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. I wonder if the Minister of Forests can tell us exactly how he plans to explain to displaced forest workers why they are paying money out of FRBC for WC 2 to have staff.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's disappointing to hear from the member opposite the same kind of whining and complaining that she did all through estimates . . . the kind of negativism when this government takes on a variety of initiatives. I think it's particularly too bad that today, when we made a major announcement about our government's commitment to environment youth teams, the member takes this opportunity to criticize the youth initiatives we've taken as a government, creating employment for thousands of youth across British Columbia.

Nonetheless, as the member well knows, there is funding available through the forest recreation portion of FRBC funding, which we access to employ youth through the environment youth teams initiatives. As I explained to the member at great length during estimates, this is subject to review by FRBC staff, and it is consistent with the goals of FRBC.

C. Clark: I guess I should start by thanking the minister for raising the level of debate in this House.

Second, I'd like to point out to her that WC 2 isn't the only group that the Premier has declared an enemy of British Columbia that's receiving funding through her ministry. The Sierra Club, which recently called for a decrease in the level of cut on Vancouver Island, is also getting money from Forest Renewal -- the forest renewal fund that's supposed to find work for displaced forest workers.

[ Page 6008 ]

Can the minister tell us if she also supports giving Forest Renewal B.C. money to organizations that are dedicated not to finding work for forest workers in British Columbia but to cutting back the amount of work that's available for them?

[2:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's unfortunate that the member chooses to attack the many organizations across British Columbia -- including first nations, municipal governments and many non-profit organizations -- which work with us to support objectives for environmental protection and in the employment of youth.

However, as the member is aware, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee is one of the successful applicants. They have hired two interns to work on a program around Ayum Creek in Victoria, and they're devoting some time to creating educational material around the Sooke watershed -- a recent announcement that this government made in terms of expanding the protected areas in that area.

The staff of FRBC and our own E-team staff carefully reviewed those applications. The individuals involved -- those youths -- will not be involved, and should not be involved, in any matters of civil disobedience. So I certainly hope the member is assured that the goals of the program will continue to be met.

C. Clark: It is interesting to hear the minister defend this program, when this is a government that has done more to contribute to unemployment for youth in British Columbia than it has to employment.

We now know that the minister is giving FRBC money to pay for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Sierra Club and, we might assume, Greenpeace or other enemies of British Columbia that the Premier has declared war on. Can the minister tell us how funding staff for those groups fits in with the aims and objectives of the Forest Renewal B.C. fund?

Hon. C. McGregor: I notice that the member listens as well in this House as she did in the little House, when I gave answers in the past. I have answered her questions as to how decisions are made. I think it's unfortunate, again, that the member raises points that aren't true. In fact, non-student youth employment was up 8,400 total jobs in June this year compared to a year ago. Clearly we're making major efforts on the part of youth employment, and we're making major progress, as well.

FOREST RENEWAL REVENUES AND

UNION PENSION FUNDS

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forests. On December 12, 1996, at the request of the IWA union, the board of Forest Renewal approved in principle an undisclosed amount of money to be transferred to the IWA pension fund. Can the Minister of Forests tell us today how much money has been paid by Forest Renewal B.C. to the IWA and how this payment can really seen as protecting trees?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll take that question on notice.

T. Nebbeling: At the same board meeting of the Forest Renewal B.C. board, it was decided that guidelines had to be set up to deal with future requests for pension fund assistance. Can the minister tell me today why FRBC is becoming a slush fund for unions? Have other requests for transfers of money to union pension funds been made to Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Having taken that request on notice, I will be happy to provide a full response to the member.

STANDARD OF CARE AT

SKELEEM VILLAGE TREATMENT CENTRE

S. Hawkins: Skeleem Village near Duncan is a rehab centre for patients with brain injuries and is a facility licensed by the Ministry of Health and funded by the provincial government. The public expects certain minimum standards to be met.

However, the minutes from a June 10 meeting reveal that this facility has grossly violated the Community Care Facility Act. The problems at this facility are obscene. They range from illicit drug use to sexual assault. Even worse, children in the care of the Ministry for Children and Families were sent to this facility. My question is to the Minister of Health: given everything that was going wrong, why did no one from her ministry do the right thing last year and investigate what was going on at Skeleem Village?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have appointed a public administrator, who will be assuming the management of Skeleem Village for the next three months. The medical health officer has been working in the community, investigating the situation there since early June. The licensing officer has made many visits to this facility over the course of the last eight months. There have been concerns raised by the community, and there have been allegations made. The member opposite has listed allegations, and they are allegations at this stage.

Hence I have done three things. I have appointed the public administrator. I have asked the provincial health officer himself to visit the site and work with the ongoing investigation. That has met with a great deal of support from the community. As recently as today, the regional district director, who has been very public around these allegations, has called to say thanks for the very quick action in this area.

But lastly, I made an announcement just a few moments ago -- actually, about an hour ago -- that I'm appointing an independent party to conduct a comprehensive review of all the existing regulatory framework, covering the 5,500 licensed community care facilities throughout the province.

S. Hawkins: The community has lost confidence in this minister's ability to ensure that the standards under her leadership are met. It's the government's job to make sure that these licensed facilities meet minimum standards, not just today but last year as well.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members, please. I want to hear the question. Okanagan West, I'm trying to get you some order. Go ahead.

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, it's government's responsibility to make sure that these minimum standards are met . . . not every time it's raised in the media.

The Health ministry's chief licensing officer for the area reveals that she has to monitor over 300 more facilities today but has the same number of staff she had six years ago, when

[ Page 6009 ]

she only had 178 facilities that she was responsible for. She had no idea what went on at Skeleem Village. She can't explain how this facility slipped through the cracks and how it started accepting children under the care of the Ministry for Children and Families.

My question is to the Minister of Health again: with 300 RCMP complaints last year and 129 or more this year, how is it possible that this facility went virtually unnoticed by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I think it's only the opposition that gets up every day, reads their news clips and doesn't bother to investigate what actually is going on. Certainly our government is far away ahead on this issue, but the hon. member wasn't listening. As recently as today, Richard Hughes, the regional district director, called my office to personally thank this government for listening to the community and acting. I'm sure they didn't call the Liberal opposition office to say the same thing about their performance.

Around the issue of the allegations, this is a society that is delivering services to brain-injured, head-injured people. There is no question that there have been allegations made. It is a society that delivers a service outside of an institution. Allegations have been made. They have been investigated by the RCMP; the RCMP continue their ongoing investigation. The licensing officer has made regular visits to that community.

In light of all of that, though, we are still doing this ongoing investigation by the provincial health officer. I also know that the way we deliver community services across this province has changed. People are moving out of institutions and into the community. That's why I've asked for the overall independent review of all of the licensing.

M. Coell: Certainly the government cannot be proud of this facility. At a June 10 meeting regarding this facility, a Ministry of Health official stated that they had "grave concerns about the safety of children in their care." Two officials from the Ministry for Children and Families said they were concerned about the children in the care of this facility.

One official said: "There was an accepted variance of the licensing requirements that allowed children into this facility." My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: could she tell us what kind of variance would allow children in her care to be placed in this facility, which houses recovering drug addicts, adults with violent tendencies and convicted sex offenders?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is an investigation into this matter. I will not make any comments until the outcome of the investigation is fulfilled. But let me just say this to you: the facility's licence to treat children has been voluntarily surrendered by the society. Arrangements have been made to best determine the placement for the remaining two youths in the facility. In the meantime, the youths are in a very secure setting.

M. Coell: There are still children in this facility. Apparently children were being forced to sleep in barns, consorting with an adult sex offender, trading sex for cigarettes and being placed in the adult facility for punishment. Skeleem even offered a summer camp for kids although adults with criminal records were present.

My question is to the Minister for Children and Families, not the Minister of Health: how could the minister send children in her care to this facility? Does she agree that this situation should be turned over to the children's commissioner for a full investigation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition takes allegations and turns them into facts. We have an investigation going on. The medical health officer has been working with the facility since June 10 around allegations that have been made. The medical health officer is doing a full investigation into this. On top of that, the provincial health officer is overseeing the matter completely himself. Our government will actually await the outcome of that investigation.

SUSPENSION OF SPEECH THERAPY

DURING SCHOOL HOLIDAYS

F. Gingell: An

article in the Vancouver Province informed me that speech therapy for school-age children . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: . . . and MLAs is not available during holidays and has to be paid for by their parents. This, as you can appreciate, will be difficult for families on limited incomes. So my question is to the Minister of Education, who as Minister of Health in an earlier life recognized the importance of continuity in speech therapy. Why do you permit school boards to withdraw speech therapy services during the summer recess?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller tabled the 1996-97 annual report of the B.C. Systems Corporation.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 50.

[2:30]

POWER FOR JOBS DEVELOPMENT ACT

(second reading)

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to move second reading of Bill 50, Power for Jobs Development Act.

At the outset of this administration . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm hearing some yelling from the Peace River country, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the member will want to get into the debate when it's his turn.

We did identify job creation as a fundamental priority of this administration, and this bill will be, increasingly, an integral piece of that job creation strategy. We have followed

[ Page 6010 ]

through on job creation in a number of areas: Fisheries Renewal B.C., the Fish Protection Act, the jobs and timber accord, and other initiatives of government.

One of the key elements that we have here in British Columbia that will, as I say, increasingly play a strategic role in job creation is energy -- electrical power. We committed to introduce legislation to use our abundant supplies of hydroelectricity strategically to attract new investment and create new, decent-paying, family-supporting jobs for British Columbians. The return of the Columbia River downstream power benefits under the Columbia Treaty presents an unparalleled opportunity to realize the potential of our abundant hydro resources.

The downstream benefits will be returned in stages, starting next year and reaching 1,400 megawatts in the year 2003. This represents power made available to B.C. at no new cost.

On June 26 the Premier and I were proud to announce our government's Power for Jobs initiative. This legislation sets out the details of that initiative. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that British Columbia's electrical power resources contribute to the creation and retention of jobs throughout our province. It allows British Columbia to provide surplus power, including Columbia River Treaty DSB power, to new industrial plants and to existing plants that plan to increase employment.

It provides for a request-for-proposal process, which allows the province to request proposals for the use of power and to select proposals which have the greatest overall economic and social benefit. It is expected that up to 4,250 direct jobs will be generated.

In the first phase of this initiative, 200 megawatts will be available to new investors through the RFP process. The bill also provides for the use of development rate electricity through the Job Protection Commission, to provide assistance to industrial companies facing financial difficulties. It provides for a Power for Jobs administrator to manage requests for proposals and to work with the Job Protection Commission to help industries facing financial difficulties.

As a separate part of the Power for Jobs initiative -- and this is very important to our existing industrial base -- existing industries will have access to an additional 225 megawatts of electricity at market-based rates. The program will be developed with B.C. Hydro and industrial customers over the coming months. This initiative for existing customers will be delivered through B.C. Hydro's real-time pricing. In the past, power discounts have only been available to firms in very restricted situations. Now, with Power for Jobs, new industrial investors as well as existing industrial firms that are expanding, creating and preserving jobs may be eligible for power at reduced rates.

I want to emphasize that this initiative does not require access to any of the power that British Columbians currently need. Power for Jobs will use surplus power to achieve our objective: our job creation and economic development goals. We are very fortunate in British Columbia to have access to valuable hydroelectric resources. This abundant supply of power provides a comparative advantage, and we must take advantage of that.

Starting next year, Columbia River Treaty DSBs begin to revert to provincial control. This creates an opportunity to use the province's hydroelectricity to generate jobs and new industrial activity in British Columbia. Industries such as mineral extraction and processing, forestry, electrochemicals and science and technology will be the primary focus of Power for Jobs. These industries will be attracted to Power for Jobs because they are energy-intensive; their energy costs represent a fairly big part of their overall costs.

Mining and smelting firms, value-added wood, pulp and paper manufacturers, scientific research and development and large mineral smelting operations all require secure, low-cost power to be competitive. By providing access for firms throughout the province, Power for Jobs will attract secondary industrial investment that spurs regional economic growth.

We have met with the industry, and they are very positive. The existing industrial base is very positive on this. Members know that there are firms from outside British Columbia that are also investigating the potential to locate large industrial enterprises in our province. It's going to be critical in the future.

As I say, we have a comparative and a competitive advantage in terms of the 1,400 megawatts of power that will be returned to British Columbians, and I'm confident that both members of the opposition and British Columbians in general will approve of the primary thrust of this legislation, which is to use that energy entitlement to try to create new jobs and new economic opportunities here in our province.

I move second reading of Bill 50.

G. Farrell-Collins: Certainly I think all British Columbians would agree that the best use of the downstream benefits would be to create good long-term, lasting new jobs for British Columbians. I think where the government and the opposition diverge, however, occurs shortly thereafter. I don't believe that this plan, this Bill 50, will achieve that. In fact, I think there is a far better way for the government to achieve long-term, lasting, good family-supporting jobs with our natural resources.

The minister and I had a somewhat protracted debate on this issue in his estimates at the time that this project was announced and this bill was tabled in the House. Our estimates were taking place in the committee room, and we had a debate on it at that time. It became very clear that there is a difference of opinion and a difference in philosophy on how the energy sector in British Columbia should be used.

It became clear that the government seems to be stuck in a 1960s model of economic development, where the government goes in and picks winners and losers, where the government controls the means of production -- in this case, energy -- and doles it out according to its wishes, according to its intents, according to its plan.

Certainly Bill 50 allows the government to go into the various sectors of the economy that rely upon large amounts of power and pick either new or existing companies and give to them a special privilege -- the privilege of being entitled to purchase power at market rates. Now, the key words there are "market rates," because they underlie the whole problem with the government's energy policy over the last number of years. The government has a plan -- or says it has a plan -- to develop the various regions of this province. They have an economic development plan, and this power deal is part of it.

The reality is that over the last five years or so, the energy sector has undergone some extremely rapid and probably permanent changes -- certainly in the mid- to long term -- that will have a big impact on the value of British Columbia's assets and our ability to sell them internationally.

At a time when every other jurisdiction in North America is moving to more competitive, more market-based energy policy, when the energy sector is being deregulated and various independent producers are now getting access to the various grids and are able to sell their power directly to industrial customers, British Columbia has refused to recognize the change that has taken place in North America and relate that

[ Page 6011 ]

to what goes on here in British Columbia. While on the one hand we are trying to participate in that new and opening market by selling our surplus power to industrial users in the American market, British Columbia continues to have an internal monopoly with regard to the supply of power. B.C. Hydro has protected that monopoly with a vengeance.

Indeed, what has happened is that while other jurisdictions and other producers around North America are benefiting from market rate power or cheaper power because of technological advances and because of deregulation, industries in British Columbia have not been able to do that. As a result, our industries here in this province have been put at an economic disadvantage, as opposed to their former position where they had an economic advantage because of our huge power assets in B.C.

The minister, in his moving of second reading, stated something to the effect -- and I'm paraphrasing -- of industries needing market price power in order to be competitive. I agree with him. I probably agree with him more than he agrees with himself, because I believe that all industries in British Columbia -- small businesses and large businesses, whether they consume 35 megawatts or not -- should be entitled to access market rate power. It's time B.C. Hydro got its act together, and it's time the government of British Columbia got its act together to ensure that because of our desire to raid B.C.

Hydro of substantial dividends in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars a year going into general revenue, we don't put our industries at an economic disadvantage over the long term.

We had a deal taking place that was found out -- unfortunately or fortunately, I suppose; whatever way you want to look at it -- between B.C. Hydro and Intalco in the United States. At a time when the minister stood up in this House and said that we need, that industries need and that the province needs a competitive market rate for power in order to be competitive, B.C. Hydro was selling cheap power to an aluminum producer in Washington State at a price that was almost half of what our industrial consumers were paying here in British Columbia. It puts our businesses, our communities and our workers at an extreme economic disadvantage.

What the government should be doing is using the huge assets we have in British Columbia -- namely, our hydroelectricity, our dams and our ability to generate and store vast amounts of power -- to sell that power when the market is high, and save and store that power in these big batteries called reservoirs at times when power prices are low. We have a huge geographical and geological advantage as far as the hydro and electrical industry goes in North America, because we have those dams that we can draw upon.

But instead of having British Columbia lead the way in market reform, change and deregulation with regard to the energy sector, we have been following. Instead of having us out there reforming the way we do things in British Columbia, putting us at a competitive advantage, and using those inherent competitive advantages we have and turning them into long-term competitive advantages, we've chosen to stick our head in the sand and ignore them. The reason this government has chosen to do that is because of the vast amount of money that they have been able to draw out of B.C.

Hydro in the form of dividends: almost a billion dollars has gone out of B.C. Hydro into general revenue and been spent since they were elected in 1991.

I agree with the minister that in order to have a competitive economy, to have competitive sectors in the pulp, mining and forest industries -- and other businesses, for that matter -- we need to have power available to us that's the same price as or, hopefully, less than the price of power that is available to our competitors across the border in the United States and, ever more importantly, across the border in Alberta and other parts of Canada.

But instead, because of the government's desire to avoid opening up the market in order to protect their revenue sources, we find ourselves at the end of the line with regard to change in the energy sector, instead of at the front of the line leading it.

I was really confused, because I got a call last week from a reporter in Toronto about an advertisement that had been placed in the Globe and Mail . I have a copy of it and I also have a copy of the actual ad itself.

It sort of surprised me, because we have the minister up here today saying: "We are going to use the Columbia downstream benefits to provide cheap power to selected businesses in order to make them competitive and in order to enable them to create new jobs -- preferably long-lasting new jobs -- in this province." But at the same time, the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation were putting out requests for proposals to build a 150-megawatt power plant at the Keenleyside Dam on the Columbia River near Castlegar. The interesting thing is that it's going to be a partially funded dam.

These companies put out a bid. The companies come back and say, "We can build this project, we can produce this many jobs, we can produce this much power at this price," and the government is going to give them some money -- some partially funded -- on top of the capital that those companies will bring themselves to produce this dam, and then we'll have some more power.

[2:45]

The problem is that all of the economic analyses of the project at the Keenleyside Dam that have been done by the government in their intention to do this project previously showed that the power we would obtain from it would be simply economically unviable -- i.e., we would produce the power and it would cost us more to produce it than we could get by selling it.

So I suspect that what the government is going to do -- and it's quite clear, in fact, from the ad in the paper and from the project as it is listed on the Internet -- is take money from the Columbia River downstream benefits, put it into the Columbia Basin Trust, and the money in the Columbia Basin Trust is then going to be used to build this project that is going to be economically unviable.

So on the one hand we're using the Columbia downstream benefits to offer cheap power to make our businesses competitive with the rest of North America, and on the other hand, at the same time, we're going to be using the Columbia downstream benefits to produce more surplus power that's so expensive we can't even sell it.

How does the government reconcile those two? Why put money into a project to make power cheap and more readily available to industries in the province at the same time as you're putting money from the same source into building a project that's going to produce expensive power that none of those industries will be able to buy? I would love to hear the minister explain that when he sums up and closes debate on second reading, because the two just don't work. There's no way that you can . . . . I suppose you can, but there's no logic behind doing both of those at the same time.

What the government should be doing, and what it should have been doing for the last number of years, is sitting down, thinking long-term, looking at what the future holds

[ Page 6012 ]

for the province of British Columbia, and looking at what the future holds for the various industries here and what we require to make sure that they are competitive with our competitors. One of the biggest costs of production to something like an aluminum smelter, a mining processing place, a mill or the pulp sector is an availability of power. If we're paying more for that large cost of production than our competitors are, then we're at an economic disadvantage. I think the minister agrees with that.

What the government should be doing is sitting down and looking at the energy sector long-term, realizing what is happening around the globe and around North America -- that in fact new technologies, new means of producing electricity, new means of producing power are coming on line all the time -- and trying to get ahead of that, opening up our grids to competition within British Columbia itself, and allowing us to use those huge economic and geographical resources we have in dams to make profit for the province of British Columbia but also to put our businesses here on an equal footing with our competitors across North America and, quite frankly, around the globe.

The question arises: why has the government chosen not to do that? In fact, at every step of the way the government has avoided dealing with that issue. The government has tried to sell our power internationally through Powerex, to bring it into markets . . . . In the estimates, we determined that we've been selling our surplus as far south as Mexico, and that's a good thing; that's what we should be doing. But to expect that we would be able to have access to the American market without them in turn having access to our market is simply ridiculous. So I suspect that the whole plan behind this jobs-for-power deal is another one of these projects that the Premier thinks up from time to time.

You saw the jobs-for-youth . . . . It was supposed to create 12,000 new jobs. I think it created less than 3,000; I can't remember the exact figure. The Hydro project in Pakistan and the various other plans that the Premier comes up with from time to time somehow sort of fall off his desk and nobody pays much attention to them, and they end up being a total and unmitigated failure. I suspect that this project will end up being the same way.

We have to fight in order to get this project through, which probably, unfortunately, is a reaction under NAFTA from the Americans -- from the competitors in the United States under NAFTA, possibly changes and challenges under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States. There are huge obstacles before this deal ever comes to fruition, and I suspect that the Premier and the minister know that. I think what they've got here is: let's take some of the downstream benefits, and let's see how we can turn it into television ads -- because that's what it seems to be.

All you have to do at home at night is turn on the television, and you can see the government's latest projects -- latest proposals, latest scams, latest schemes -- appearing on television in the form of ads. We've got the jobs and timber accord ads; we've got the jobs-for-youth ads. We're losing jobs, not gaining jobs, but they're still running the TV ads.

I suspect that this is an opportunity for the government to go out there and talk about creating new jobs. They throw numbers around like nothing. The minister said something over 4,000 jobs for this program. I suspect we'll never see them. I don't believe this government really believes that in the next two or three years it's going to be able to actually put any project on line that's going to produce new jobs for British Columbians, because of the opposition this is likely to find from other jurisdictions and because of the fact that the program simply won't work.

I've looked at the clips ever since this announcement was made. The Premier goes into these communities and says: "Gee, you know, we've got this cheap-power-for-jobs deal, and I think somebody might just like to build a smelter in your community." Then he goes to another community and says the same thing, and he goes to another community and says the same thing. I think there are now four different communities in British Columbia that all think they're going to get this new aluminum smelter.

It's great politics, because you can go out there and feed the people in those communities false hope -- a sense that there's going to be some big project come and revitalize the economy in their area, which has been so devastated by the economic and taxation policies of this government over the last six or seven years. So the minister and the Premier will go in, and the MLAs will travel around their communities and tell people about the wonderful things that are going to happen because of this jobs-for-cheap-power deal. And it's not going to happen.

They're going to be disappointed again, just like they were during the election campaign when the Premier went around this province, went into just about every community and told them they were going to get a school or they were going to get a hospital or they were going to get new money for this or a cancer clinic in their community, something else in this community, only to find after the election that the government had no intention of following through on those commitments and in fact had no intention of following through on them on the very day they were made.

I suspect that the same thing is likely to happen with this deal -- that the government and the ministers will go around, the backbenchers will go around . . . . I'm sure the government Whip from Alberni will go into his community and say: "Boy, isn't the Premier a great guy? We're going to get this aluminum smelter. Let's all rally around the aluminum smelter." And this will go on for a period of time, only to find out at the end of the day that it wasn't to be. In fact, it was never to be. The government had no intention of it ever happening.

I think it's time the government started to realize what's happening in the energy sector, be prepared for it and lead the way rather than follow -- put B.C. Hydro in an economic position where it can get out there and aggressively compete internationally in the United States, in Mexico, in the rest of Canada -- so that B.C. Hydro becomes a leader in the energy field instead of a follower, as it is now as far as deregulation goes.

I think it's time the government set their politics and their press release clip-, television ad-based policy development aside and started to realize that they should stop playing with our largest Crown corporation. They should stop playing with the legacy of British Columbia. They should stop playing with the Columbia downstream benefits and start leading with the Columbia downstream benefits. It's time we had policy that was meant to actually achieve something. It's time we had direction that was actually geared towards long-term sustainable jobs and towards putting this province in a position of economic advantage instead of one of decline.

I hope that the government and the Premier will actually produce something out of this that will last and that will make sense. I'm not very optimistic about it, given the track record. I suspect that it's nothing more than a political gesture by the government to have some announcements, to make promises,

[ Page 6013 ]

to spread false hope yet again amongst the resource communities of this province, only to find that there really was no intent of following through on it.

So I hope the government rethinks this. I wish they would take a longer-term approach to B.C. Hydro. I wish they would do what's right for British Columbians instead of just what's right for the Premier in the opinion polls, and start to lead this province.

G. Wilson: I don't intend to speak for very long on this matter, but I do think there are several aspects that need to be put on the record. I would say that Bill 50 is a very interesting method of amending the way that power rates will be established and applied through a process of public policy decisions taken by the government -- an attempt, at least, to provide affordable, competitive power to those companies who wish to invest in the province of British Columbia and expand our investment base. To that extent, I think it's a bold initiative, and it's one that I certainly hope will work.

I think that the government has come forward at a time when we need to address two or three critical issues around the whole proposition of power development and power provision in the province. I say so, because we are increasingly under international regulation or international treaty, being more and more confined and restricted in terms of what we are able to do with respect to putting in place competitive market rates with respect to our utilities. B.C. Hydro, of course, being a government-sponsored Crown corporation which holds a monopoly status to a degree, is one that is going to be subjected to some of these new international agreements.

So this is a bold initiative, and a rather innovative one that I hope works. To the extent that we in British Columbia can come together behind it and work to make sure that these rates apply in an equitable and fair way and actually diversify the economy -- especially diversify the economy into the rural regions of the province where we have industries that are currently the single industry in many communities -- I think that that will be worthwhile.

I don't share the Liberal critic's pessimism about the possibility of new investments in British Columbia with respect to whether it's an aluminum smelter or whatever it may be. It seems to me that we have to act now to try and provide investment opportunities to make British Columbia a desirable place for people to put their capital. One of the ways to do that is to make sure that we secure the most competitive power rates anywhere in North America. B.C. Hydro currently provides that, and I think that Bill 50 provides an opportunity for us to be able to maintain that.

Where we're going to have to put our shoulder to the wheel, and where we're going to have to unite and come together and stand in a somewhat united force, is when we are challenged. We may well be challenged through trade tribunals with respect to the FTA and NAFTA provisions and, more specifically, if we ever get to sign the MAI -- the multilateral agreement on investment which we've talked about in this House -- on how that agreement may in fact challenge the right of government to maintain a government monopoly power provider such as B.C. Hydro.

At that point, as British Columbians, I think we have to stand united in our resolve to make sure that we do not acquiesce, that we do not yield to those pressures. It seems to me that once we start to allow the erosion of our control over power generation -- more particularly over power transmission -- we are going to find ourselves in some serious difficulty. I think that the difficulty we have had in finalizing agreements with respect to downstream benefits and how those benefits are to be applied . . . .

Notwithstanding what the provisions of this bill may provide for us, I think we've seen the writing on the wall. Our neighbours to the south, when it comes to competitive trade practice, are not particularly interested in a level playing field at all. In fact, if they can get access to our markets, if they can get access to our transmission corridors, they will do so. And I think they will do so at our peril, because our ability to provide domestically based rates which are competitive, to be able to attract investment and to see that investment diversify is going to be diminished indeed.

So let me say, in conclusion to my remarks on this, that I think this is a very interesting and very innovative way of trying to tackle what is going to become an increasingly difficult problem, and that is the problem of being able to allow government to act as an authority that will be able to maintain and establish some level of control over the supply of electricity for domestic consumers at competitive rates.

Frankly, I think that the government is to be congratulated for this approach. I'm not certain it's going to work; I'd like to see it work. When we get into committee stage, perhaps we can flesh out, in particular, the jobs administrator's role a little bit more so we can see specifically how that application can take place.

But for now, we would have to support it, I think -- and we should support it. I think that this is an initiative that may very well translate into a diversified economy and therefore jobs in parts of British Columbia that seem to be threatened right now as single industries are diminishing and are looking toward increased investment.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'll take my seat. I look forward to the minister's conclusions, and I particularly look forward to committee stage, where we can flesh out in a little bit more detail how this is going to work.

[3:00]

D. Jarvis: I am rising to talk to the second reading of Bill 50, Power for Jobs Development Act. Basically, this bill is the government's wish to create jobs with the use of cheaper power for people in industry in British Columbia. The minister did mention the fact that he hoped that the opposition would approve their primary thrust. We do all agree with the primary thrust, and that is to see more jobs, more development and more wealth created in British Columbia. We're all for that, and we always have been for that.

We are the first ones to stand in line behind the government to make sure that we have strong, happy communities in this province where people can see career jobs that will last over the years and not the way we are going now. We are seeing close to 10 percent unemployment, and we've got about 7 percent on the welfare rolls. God knows what the percentage would be of the people that do not qualify for welfare or unemployment insurance. There's probably a large percentage out there.

I look at this bill and I see, as the minister said, that its main thrust is to attempt to create jobs and also to lock in existing customers to buy into the thoughts of cheaper rates -- also, the fact that this bill is probably somewhat of an excuse for amending the botched job they did on the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits several years ago.

Is this bill innovative? Perhaps it is, to a certain extent, but over the long run I have quite a few regrets as to the ability of this government to produce an innovative way of creating

[ Page 6014 ]

jobs. We know what their history has been with jobs. They have said that they're going to create so many jobs, and they don't create so many jobs. It's always a continuing . . . and amending it into the future. Now we see that the government is going to create approximately 46,000 jobs in one accord and another 8,000 jobs in the fishing accord. I'm not too sure for the moment how many jobs are to be created by this bill.

We've gone through the past six years of this government using Hydro as sort of a cash cow -- as a very monolithic cash cow.

Now the Premier is again attempting to convince the people that he is the great benefactor and that he is the great creator of more jobs. We know his track record; history shows us. His track record is abysmal as far as creating jobs in this province. The Premier was responsible for Hydro way back as early as '91. He used it as a cash cow then. He used it to help him try to balance the start of his deficit budgeting in this province, when he was also the Finance minister. In fact, I think he took approximately $900 million out of Hydro in those days and put it into the government's general coffers. There was no benefit to the industry or to the people.

He attempted to deny the BCUC in every initiative they had towards deregulation. He increased the commercial usage of power, the cost of power to industry throughout this province. Hydro's debt at that time went up over $800 million, and now he says that he wishes to create the Power for Jobs Development Act -- Bill 50 in front of us -- and like he usually does, he sets his sights on something without any plans or really any thought toward the people whose livelihoods depend on these decisions he's making.

Fundamental jobs -- great, we're all in favour of that. We think that jobs should be created out of the assets that British Columbia has. Hydro exports and power are being exported cheaper than . . . . The cost of exporting power out of this province into the United States is less than what our own consumers have to pay. Now, that's in conflict or is hypocritical with what he's trying to do here. Already we know that he is shipping what he calls excess power into the United States for less money than what our industry in British Columbia is paying. We tried to find out what that cost is. They refused to . . . .

They even went to court to stop that information being put out. Now he is saying that he is going to create jobs and cheaper power for the consumers in British Columbia. I only hope he does that.

You know, we look at the mining industry and the forestry industry and the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars they pay for electricity. Highland Valley pays way in excess of $600 million a year in hydro rates. Fletcher Challenge, one of the big forestry companies, has close to a billion dollars in costs that they pay for power. Now, how can they stay competitive and keep existing jobs if they have to pay those excessive power rates?

The Premier said prior to the last election that he was going to freeze hydro rates. Well, in actual fact he did freeze hydro rates, but he froze hydro rates up. The rest of North America and Canada were deregulating. Nearly all the major areas -- industrial countries in the world -- were deregulating. Power was going down. The cost of power was going down for everyone, but the Premier froze them up because he was using Hydro and the money out of Hydro to help balance his budget.

We have told this government -- we started telling them back in '92 -- that it was time for deregulation, that the market for power generation and sales was changing all across North America. The cost of power was screaming down. It was becoming a marketable item on the stock exchange. This government refused to accept that fact, and even when it was presented to the B.C. Utilities Commission, this government stopped them from holding deregulation hearings on it. They have now changed their mind on that. However, as I said, this government refused to accept the fact that market-rate power was out there.

We had companies that wanted to start cogeneration plants throughout this province. They've been lined up for years and years and years, since way back in the late eighties when the thoughts first came forward and it was approved by the previous government. Then in '91 this government shut down all the companies that were trying to put cheaper power into this province through cogeneration. When you talk about cogeneration, basically they wanted to create some power to run their own industry cheaper. Whatever excess they then had, they would put onto the grid.

B.C. Hydro would not allow them. They made it so impossible for them to do so that it became prohibitive costwise. Therefore we'd see B.C. gas taken out of northern B.C., travelling all the way down through British Columbia, where a plant wanted to use it for dry-kiln lumber purposes. It was unable to build a plant in British Columbia where, first of all, the building of a plant would have created jobs and then the running of the plant would have created jobs. That went across the border into the state of Washington, to dry-kiln B.C. lumber. They got the jobs, and they got the profits. That's the way this government runs B.C. Hydro and runs its job creation.

We have to be competitive. If we're not competitive with cheaper power, we will not survive in the years to come. As I said, the cost of power is going down all across North America. If this government does not create a situation in which our existing industry is able to compete, then we'll lose jobs on that end.

The basic thrust of this bill is good. Everyone agrees with it. But the track record of this government is bad -- really bad -- so we find it very, very difficult to support. Bill 50 is supposed to created jobs; I hope it does. But I worry about the existing industry and how they're going to be treated. Are they going to get a break? Or is it just a select few that are going to get a break, so they can show how wonderful a job they are doing? Will this government fall into the old pattern that it always did before and create more for export purposes, revenue that will go into general funds to help them balance? Or are they really concerned about industry and jobs in this province?

On that premise, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am theoretically in favour of this bill. I would be hypocritical if I said I could support it, on the premise of what this government has done in the past. We will wait for committee stage and see what they will do at that point, when we will have a further opportunity to question them as to what they are actually going to do. At this time I have to say that I cannot support the minister in his bill. We hope he will change his mind, and we will look into it further.

C. Hansen: When the minister started his second reading speech about this bill today, he referred to the job creation strategy of this provincial government. I was surprised that he would trot out that line. Only a few weeks ago, in the estimates debate on the spending of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, it became painfully clear that this minister has never been involved in the development of a job strategy for this government, that we have a Minister of Employment and Investment who has had no hand in the development of a

[ Page 6015 ]

job strategy. Yet we've had grandiose promises in years gone by, in election campaigns, that there would be a job creation strategy for this province. Instead, what we see is a whole bunch of micromanaged projects that are really designed to try to make the Premier look good but do nothing to build a solid, stable economy in British Columbia.

Quite frankly, the job creation record of this government is a total failure. When they talk about job creation in this province, they reach back to years gone by to try to show that they have a successful job creation record. The facts are unequivocal. In 1997 we have a net decline of 10,000 in the number of jobs in this province. Earlier this year we had a Minister of Finance who stood up in this House and said that his budget was going to create 40,000 new jobs for British Columbia in 1997. So far we're halfway through the year, and the numbers in the labour force survey tell the story.

The numbers in the labour force survey show that we are down 10,000 jobs since January. If this government is going to meet its commitment of 40,000 new jobs, it has to create 50,000 new jobs in the next six months.

What we have seen from this government is that they haven't got the foggiest clue of how to do that. They're going out with small projects -- like jobs for timber, for example. They're saying: "We're going to go in and micromanage this. We're going to dish out a little bit of money here and a little bit of money there. We're going to browbeat these companies, and out of this whole process there are going to be jobs created." That's not how you create jobs in an economy.

Now we have another example. We've got something called Power for Jobs, which is another example of this government trying to come in and micromanage the economy. We've got a Premier who wants to cut deals. It's understandable. He came out of the trade union movement, as did most of the cabinet, most of the NDP caucus, where they went in to negotiate these things. They went in to negotiate: "If we give you a little bit here, will you give us a little bit there?" That's not the way you build an economy.

I harken back to my first-year economics class, where we went into the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. Microeconomics is the theory of the firm. What is it that makes a particular company profitable or not profitable? Macroeconomics is the power that the economy as a whole has, and it is the power that governments have to drive an economy. We have a government that's living in a microeconomic world, which thinks that that's how government creates jobs.

[3:15]

In the Power for Jobs bill that's before us, we have something called a Power for Jobs administrator. This new Power for Jobs czar reminds me of the jobs-for-timber czar that we have, somebody who's going to be standing there pulling all the strings while the Premier is pulling his strings, while Ken Georgetti is, in turn, pulling the strings of the Premier. There's a lot of string there, and it's going to tend to tie them all in knots before too long. But I have a vision of this Power for Jobs czar, who's going to be doing the central planning for this government when it comes to economic development.

Remember a few months ago? There was a big controversy about the uniforms, the subsidized clothing for the Ministry of Forests employees. I was thinking that with all of the work that this government is giving to PR firms to try to prop up its public image, they should give one of those PR firms the job of designing a uniform for this Jobs for Power czar. There's a couple of images that they might play with. One is the image of Zeus. They could dress this guy -- or woman, depending on who it is -- in a toga. They could give him the two lightning bolts in each hand.

As companies come from around the world to the Premier's Office, they're going to come on bended knee and say: "Please, Mr. Administrator, will you give us some power for this big company that we want to create in British Columbia -- this smelter, this manufacturing plant?" This Jobs for Power czar is going to take his lightning bolt, and he's going to anoint these companies.

With the economic environment that this government has created in British Columbia, those companies are not coming to this province on bended knee. There is lots of opportunity around this world. If we don't create an environment that's going to be conducive to those companies coming here because of the economic climate, they're not going to come here on bended knee asking for power from this government, which is going to go through some order-in-council, some cabinet decree that says: "Yes, Mr. Investor, we're going to give you some power if you create some jobs."

I have no doubt that there will be some announcements made of how jobs are being created with this particular piece of legislation, this piecemeal handing out of electricity. There will be announcements. There will be companies that will come in and take you up on the offer of cheap power.

The question that remains is: how many companies are passing by this province today? If you start looking at the investment record in British Columbia that this government has created, it's not a very pretty sight. Last year the Canadian average was a 6.1 percent increase; 6.1 percent of GDP was going to plant and equipment across Canada. It wasn't too long ago that British Columbia used to be the leader when it came to new investment, job-creating investment. Last year in British Columbia the number was 4.3 percent of GDP.

This 4.3 percent of GDP was the amount that reflected new investment in plant and equipment. For every dollar that's not invested in plant and equipment in British Columbia, jobs . . . . I got out my calculator when I saw that number, and I did some calculations based on the gross domestic product of British Columbia. Last year there was $1.8 billion of investment that did not come to British Columbia, even if we were to have matched the national average.

You know, it's not good enough for us to be matching the national average in Canada when it comes to economic growth -- the dynamic economy. British Columbia should be number one. I think every British Columbian remembers when British Columbia was number one in economic growth per capita. You know what it is today? Of the 12 jurisdictions in Canada, British Columbia is number ten when it comes to economic growth per capita. This government has to be accountable for that record.

The reason we have that kind of a record today is because they have tried to micromanage the economy. They have tried to create jobs by advertising agencies, and it doesn't work that way. What we need is a government that's going to be committed to changing the economic climate in this province, a government that's going to create openness. Governments can be inviting to industries that want to come into British Columbia to create jobs and invest.

If they get the feeling, which they do today, that they've got to come to this government on bended knee and beg for power -- that they've got to beg for approvals here, approvals there -- that's the kind of thing where many companies are going to say: "Thanks, but no thanks. We're going to go somewhere else, where our investment and our jobs are going to be welcome."

If you start looking at our neighbour to the east, Alberta . . . . Last year Alberta attracted more investment than

[ Page 6016 ]

British Columbia on a per capita basis -- in fact, $2,000 per person more in Alberta than in British Columbia. We're starting to pay the price. If you look at our investments, our exports . . . . That is something that this government will brag about -- that exports are up. Well, they are up. Since 1990, the exports from British Columbia are up 50 percent. That sounds like a pretty good statistic until you start comparing it to the rest of Canada, which is up 80 percent. We are lagging behind in this province. We need a fundamental shift in the way that this government is approaching job creation.

Quite frankly, I believe that Bill 50 does more harm than good, for the very reason that it tries to micromanage everything that happens in this province. I ask that the government reconsider this bill, reconsider the approach and try to create an environment where jobs will be created and investment will be attracted. It would be a refreshing change from what we have seen over the last six years.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I did listen to most of what the members opposite had to say relative to the bill. I guess if I could identify, stripping away the rhetoric which is all too often a part of . . . . No disrespect meant by that; all of us do it.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Occasionally even I use that device.

Let me try to frame the issue here, because I think that my own sense is that this is a bill that all members should be able to support. Its premise is very simple. We have, as part of our obligation . . . . It's not our obligation; the U.S. has to, as part of its obligations, return the downstream benefit power back to British Columbia. It's our entitlement. Many, many years ago we built dams in the Kootenays. We sold that power entitlement for 30 years in advance. We used that money to build the dams. We flooded entire communities. But it was deemed . . . . That was a decision; I'm not standing here as a critic. It was a decision that was made some 30 years ago.

Now, under the provisions of the treaty, the power reverts back to British Columbia. We initially negotiated an agreement with Bonneville that fell through; Bonneville reneged on that. We went back to the table, and these are the results of that set of negotiations, which I think, over the long haul, are at least comparable in their economic value. The power under the previous agreement would have been returned at Oliver. The power under this agreement -- at least 1,100 megawatts -- will be returned at Blaine. There will be no cost. There will be no transmission cost -- no loss for that power which will be returned to the Canada-U.S. border at Blaine.

So here we are in a world that's very, very competitive, where other jurisdictions compete for the same types of industries and businesses that we do, and in pursuing that they use all of the devices that you can imagine. They offer free land; they offer huge tax discounts. And to some degree there's a warning in that: it's a bit of a mug's game. It's a race to the bottom, because all we end up doing is spending money in one form or another. There's no such thing as free land; there's a cost that has to be paid. There's no such thing as a free tax discount; somebody has to pick up that cost.

So we look and we examine British Columbia and say: "What are our advantages? What do we have here in B.C. that others might not have?" Well, we have 1,400 megawatts of firm electrical power that we can use in a focused way to create jobs in our province.

And I think this is really the parting point . . . . At least, the Opposition House Leader made this argument: rather than take a focused approach and negotiate with companies for specific plants, jobs, etc., we ought to simply throw this power out there on the market -- government, stand back; don't take any hand -- and the laws of the marketplace will provide all that we need. I reject that notion. I think it's shortsighted when it comes to energy. I don't think it's the right approach. I understand the issues around business climate, comparative issues around taxation levels, those kinds of things. This is different.

We quite rightly should be saying . . . . If for example, it's Alumax, a major international aluminum smelting company, they are saying: "We might be prepared to look at B.C., and we're going to look around to see whether or not the conditions exist in your province in terms of location for a smelter and the ability to have firm electrical power" -- because aluminum smelting is a very energy-intensive industry. If those things fit -- and we're currently studying that with them -- then it's conceivable . . . . This is not a false promise or an empty promise.

We're not saying it's going to happen; we're saying we're investigating it. We could end up with a second aluminum smelter, from that company. It's possible.

That means you have to be very focused, and you have to negotiate with those companies, because we don't want to give this power away on some empty promise. We want to have a fixed agreement that whoever is going to access it will in fact provide those jobs.

Secondly, we are offering a limited amount of that firm power to our existing industrial customers -- the pulp mills, the mines, forest products plants -- who rightly are saying: "The world is changing. More and more jurisdictions are opening up their previously regulated energy environments to a more market-based system." Therefore, recognizing that we are in a process where Dr. Jaccard is examining that and will report back to me as the minister and to government, we made a determination that our existing industrial customers ought to be able to access some of that power.

And in fact, I was delighted, when we made the announcement, that Mr. Apsey from the Council of Forest Industries and people from, I think, Highland Valley Copper and the Mining Association -- Gary Livingstone -- stood on the stage with us and said: "We agree; we concur with the thrust of the government's actions here."

Finally, we're saying that as we work with companies in distress -- companies that might have fallen on hard times for whatever reason . . . . I can recall the very difficult circumstances the community of Golden faced, for example, where essentially you saw a market failure. I'm currently working in the northwest part of our province, where we've seen, again, another market failure. And all we're saying in the bill is that we'll be able to use market-priced energy as one of the tools in the toolkit, if I can use an old millwright's analogy, to try to help maintain jobs in our province.

If we can do that, as we've done in Golden, as we originally did in Trail with the smelter, and as we're working on now with Skeena, surely all members of the House, regardless of party, would want to approve of that use. Using power that belongs to all British Columbians to save and secure jobs, and using power that belongs to all British Columbians to create new jobs and new industries, is something that, as a matter of principle, I would think not one member of this House could stand and oppose.

So I would really urge . . . . I know that my hon. critic from North Vancouver said that in fact he supported the principles I have tried to enunciate here. I would ask all

[ Page 6017 ]

members to consider that, because this is our entitlement. This is British Columbia's entitlement, these 1,400 megawatts. I think that the simple notion the government is putting forward -- let's try to use that electrical energy to create jobs here -- is unassailable. I would be surprised if, at the end of the day, any member stood and voted against this piece of legislation, notwithstanding that there are genuine criticisms that might arise on particular points. So I do look forward to committee stage.

Having said that, I would move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 50 approved on division.

Bill 50, Power for Jobs Development Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[3:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 19.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

FISHERIES RENEWAL ACT

(second reading)

Hon. C. Evans: This legislation will create Fisheries Renewal B.C., a new agency which we hope will renew our fisheries and enhance the fish, fisheries and fish habitat in fish-dependent communities. The Fisheries Renewal Act and the Fish Protection Act are key components of the B.C. fisheries strategy that the Premier, the Minister of Environment and I released to all members and to the general public on May 2.

That strategy was intended to lay out for all folks the B.C. vision on the rebuilding of the west coast fishing industry. It's based precisely on three goals: first is the protection of fish stocks and fish habitat; second is the creation of sustainable jobs, jobs that will last in communities all up and down the coast; and third is to find a mechanism to fully involve British Columbians in that process.

Hon. Speaker, you'll remember a lot of the rancour that we've been through in the last couple of years with the federal government, the Mifflin plan and the like. We heard over and over again that what was broken was the relationship of the people to the resource. Fisheries Renewal is intended to put us through a healing process to, if you will, mend that broken relationship somewhat by engaging the people themselves in the solutions.

On April 16 the Premier and the Prime Minister signed an agreement on management of Pacific salmon fisheries issues, making it clear that to this government the Pacific fishery is a sunrise and not a sunset industry. This bill is the next important step in building on that agreement with Canada to restore hope and jobs in coastal communities.

Investments by Fisheries Renewal B.C. will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the resource, end this mindset of everybody out to catch the last fish and hopefully put that sense of hope back into community development.

Priorities for the new agency will be set not by policy-makers somewhere in a different room or different level of government but by the board of directors themselves. There will be a place at that table for communities, for first nations and for the various groups with a keen interest in the health of the B.C. fish stocks. The agency will be efficient, employing only a small administration team with strictly limited non-program--related spending.

Fisheries Renewal B.C. will be streamlined, largely in order to respond quickly to the needs of fishing communities. There has been a feeling in the last few years, I think, of relative impotence in government at all levels, as people have essentially cried for help at the speed of change and the devastation that they've experienced. We have been lacking in tools to address that cry for help, and Fisheries Renewal, we hope, will fill that vacuum.

We have another hope for Fisheries Renewal B.C. We can assure members of this House and the general public that stakeholders in communities and this government will participate, but we are structuring this legislation precisely in order to create a seat for the federal government, should they choose at some point to change the way they relate to the province of British Columbia and fishing people and communities and take that seat and assist us in fishery renewal.

The initial funding of $22.7 million will be provided by Forest Renewal B.C. It will be applied over the next three years to a range of different programs and projects related to fishery renewal. Everybody here, I think, recognizes that past logging practices have had a major -- perhaps the major -- impact on salmon stocks, so we think it is reasonable to apply a pool of capital accrued by an industry with some culpability in the need for fishery renewal to kick-start the fund that will sustain the agency.

Funding from Forest Renewal will eventually be complemented by revenue from other sources, after consultation with what is in vogue today to refer to as stakeholders. I hope funding will also be forthcoming from the federal government should they choose to take their seat at the table.

Last year at about this time, the Premier of British Columbia introduced the fishery renewal concept, largely in response to the Mifflin plan and the other rapid changes that we were experiencing in federal fisheries policy. A whole lot has happened in the 12 months since. B.C. entered formal discussions with the federal government on the fisheries responsibilities of the two governments and on the impacts of the Mifflin plan itself.

That process led to a signing on April 16 of an agreement on the management of Pacific salmon fishery issues, which I personally believe is a major breakthrough in Canada and is certainly the beginning of a new era -- or an opportunity to begin a new era -- of cooperation, federally and provincially, in British Columbia.

In addition, we have reached agreement with stakeholders and with the federal government on a new management regime for the groundfish fishery, which, when we announced this bill initially, I held up as an example of the kind of dialogue that we hoped would work federally, provincially and with the fishing community itself. Then we announced the B.C. Fisheries Strategy and really presented for the world the broadest vision of where the provincial government was heading on fisheries issues.

Now this legislation, when we get it passed, will create Fisheries Renewal B.C. and establish the effective partnerships between all of the groups and agencies that are required to make that vision come true.

The people of British Columbia have been somewhat denigrated on the fisheries issue by agencies like the Globe and Mail and sometimes other levels of government. I remember once being accused of promoting a "social" fishery, as opposed to the efficient fishery that the federal government espoused.

[ Page 6018 ]

I think all of the participants in the industry want to have an opportunity to participate in ending the mind-set that stigmatizes the fishing industry as somehow being dependent on a handout from the federal government. Fisheries Renewal will provide them with that opportunity. We will be joined at the table by first nations, local governments, non-governmental organizations with some experience in fisheries issues, and community groups and/or individuals with knowledge in the fishery, fish habitat and fish sectors.

The types of strategic investments in the fisheries that we will make will be wide and varied. Remember here that we're talking about all fisheries, not just salmon. The agency may join fishery sectors and communities in projects that will protect and enhance streams and other fish habitat; add variety and value to B.C. seafood products, enhancing our market opportunities around the world; support recreational fishing initiatives; develop sustainable fishing practices; promote fisheries workforce skills and professionalization; and work with communities to develop fisheries job creation and infrastructure plans.

Fisheries Renewal B.C. will also provide assistance and advice to the province with respect to coordinating and delivering fishery-related programs. The new agency will respect the rights of aboriginal communities. Initiatives carried out by Fisheries Renewal B.C. must take into account the interests of first nations and aboriginal people in the fisheries resource, and I have made that commitment myself on numerous occasions. Aboriginal communities have expressed an eagerness to form partnerships that result in better management and protection of fish, shellfish and marine plant habitat. This legislation will assist those partnerships to actually move forward.

The Fisheries Renewal Act will help British Columbians keep a close watch over the actions of the corporation. The board will be required to publish a business plan prior to each fiscal year. The business plan will detail the agency's revenue stream and expenditure proposals and include a statement of assets and liabilities and any other information that may be required. Along with the business plan, Fisheries Renewal will produce an annual report and a full financial statement of activities carried out each fiscal year.

To further ensure public accountability, though, the Fisheries Renewal board will be required to hold an annual public meeting to provide information about the agency. Hon. members opposite, folks in the gallery and people in British Columbia generally may wish to attend that annual meeting in order to be assured that the money is being spent in their interest and in an utterly accountable fashion.

In conclusion, the Fisheries Renewal Act offers hope for our fishery, and I think all members would agree. It forms the basis of a sustainable future for both the resource and the communities dependent on the resource. It gives stakeholders a direct role in determining the course of public investment in habitat restoration and protection, industry development and long-term economic planning. Fisheries Renewal British Columbia will help build positive working relationships among government, first nations and fishery stakeholders and communities. This legislation is part of a comprehensive provincial strategy, often discussed in this room, to put fisheries on the right course for all time.

I actually think it's time that British Columbians learn to pull together to protect this vital habitat and sport fishery workers and their families. I hope this debate will be the beginning of that pulling together. If we pass this bill, put this board in place and fund it, I think we can accomplish some great things for fish, for people and for change, and I hope that all members feel the same way.

I remember discussing this very subject in the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast's riding some months back. One of the people in the room said: "Well, it's all very well and good for you to invest in having more fish. But why bother, if we can't guarantee that British Columbians can catch the fish? In the absence of a Pacific Salmon Treaty that works, why do fishery renewal?" I thought it was a really good question at the time, and it's a good question today.

Members opposite might ask: "Why bother to put forward this level of energy while our relationship with the United States over who gets to catch these fish is so terribly broken?" I would answer that question by saying our greatest weapon in the debate with the United States is our commitment to fish, our commitment that this is not about who gets to steal whose wealth.

This is about the commitment of the people of British Columbia to literally turn around a century of exploitation and invest in sustainability and then, on the treaty front, to guarantee our opportunity to catch the fish that we raise here in British Columbia. I don't see the slightest contradiction on going forward in parallel lines: on the one hand to raise fish, and on the other hand to protect our rights, internationally, to catch them. I hope all members agree, and I look forward to the debate.

[3:45]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in this second reading debate of Bill 19, the Fisheries Renewal Act.

First of all, some general comments. We think that in principle this bill has potential, but we say that with significant reservation about the lack of focus in the broad mandate, and, I think, particular reservation in terms of the structure and mandate of the board itself.

As I look into agriculture in our province, I see precedents for this type of structure. I see it specifically, for example, in the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, which was a similar vehicle established by government to achieve a specific purpose. In the case of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, the purpose was to modernize the tree fruit industry, and that particular legislation did have a sunset clause in it.

I mention that legislation because I find that in looking at the whole of the fishing sector, there are a lot of similarities between the current situation being faced by fishermen and the tree fruit industry five to ten years ago: a need for change, a lot of competing pressures impacting on fishermen, and some need for facilitation of change. So I think, from that perspective, this legislation has potential.

But we also have great concerns about the structure of the board itself, the need for clarity about the purpose and the role of board members -- how they're selected -- and a clear direction as to what their job really is.

I want to refer first of all to the minister's comment about the overall fisheries strategy by the government, as announced in May. I think one of the things that is very unclear to me at this point in time is the role of this organization vis-�-vis other agencies in government. I'm not just talking about the provincial government but also the federal government in the form of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Currently we have three agencies within the provincial government -- the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; and the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism, from a sport fishing perspective -- all involved in fisheries in some manner. It

[ Page 6019 ]

really is unclear to me how Fisheries Renewal is going to fit in. Certainly in the discussions I've had with civil servants and others, it's not clear at all. To some extent, I wonder if the script is being written as we go along. Having said that, certainly we hear lots of rumours about fisheries issues being brought together in one ministry by the provincial government, and I would see that as a good thing. I think that's a necessary thing, because right now things are very disjointed. Certain sectors of the overall fishing industry are not very well represented in terms of government policy and government activity. So that's the first point I want to make.

Secondly, from a general perspective again, I think it's fine to talk about initiatives such as this with motherhood-type purposes and mandates. I'm referring in particular to sections 2 and 5 of this bill. It's great to talk about things like maintaining habitat, maintaining economic activity and maintaining jobs. But there's also a real need to walk the talk on specifics.

Whether it's the salmon aquaculture review or foreshore leases or freshwater angling fees, government needs to realize that the types of decision they're making on a day-to-day basis have an impact on the fishery and the people whose living depends on it. I think that's a critical thing that needs to be remembered on a daily basis.

Now, to respond to the minister's comments about the B.C. vision and his three goals -- protection of habitat, sustainable jobs and a mechanism to involve British Columbians -- certainly we have no hesitation from this side of the House in supporting those goals. I just want to comment a little bit further on number three, the mechanism to involve British Columbians. Again, a critical aspect of this bill and of the proposed Fisheries Renewal B.C. is the involvement of stakeholders through the board of directors.

To refer back to agriculture, we've seen other precedents besides the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. We've seen various types of marketing boards, marketing agencies and marketing commissions which involve producers and processors and sometimes have consumer representation. Again, I think that is the right approach to running an industry, in many cases.

In theory, it should also work in this situation. But I say in theory, because I think this is probably a more complex situation when you see the different subsectors within the fishing industry. We see aquaculture; we see commercial fishermen and various segments of the commercial fishing industry; we see the sport fishing sector; we see other interests such as environmental interests; and we see the general community interest. So in theory, it has potential as a vehicle for communities that are dependent on the fishery and particularly for direct stakeholders to get involved.

But we will be raising a number of specific issues and a number of amendments, a lot of which are designed to provide some clarity to the appointment process -- to provide more discipline to the appointment process to the board of directors and also to clarify their role. I think there are some really critical things that need to be discussed there.

I also want to express some concern that this not become simply another public relations exercise. I think fish is a popular thing for politicians to get involved in. We're not interested in a public relations exercise. We're interested in serious, hard-nosed honest efforts to deal with the issues and get on with it. I think it's fair to say that some of the stuff that's been printed, some of the so-called strategy, etc., has been pretty repetitive and much more of a PR exercise than anything else. So I want to say that for the record.

Another concern, again from a general perspective, we have about this agency . . . . If we compare it to its older brother, Forest Renewal B.C., I think it's important to recognize that the government has not demonstrated yet through that agency the ability to effectively manage funds that have been taken out of the private sector in the way of super-stumpage and then turned back into Forest Renewal projects. I'm referring specifically to the 35 percent to 40 percent administration fee. That is a very massive checkoff, if you will, to administer those funds, and I'm concerned that it doesn't happen here.

I know that there are some provisions in this legislation to ensure that it doesn't happen in the case of Fisheries Renewal, but I'm not convinced that they will be effective. I say to the government: if the clause in this new bill that is intended to limit administration costs is going to be effective, then I suggest that the government immediately amend the Forest Renewal Act and put it into that act, also. I think it's a little more complicated than that.

I want to comment on

section 3, which I think is a critical section, and

section

Section 3 deals with the appointment of the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal, and

section 7 deals with the powers and duties of that board. Those are two of the more critical sections in the bill, particularly the issue of stakeholder representation -- how they will be selected and what they will be charged with doing.

I want to refer in particular to the auditor general's recent study of Crown corporations and governance, a pretty comprehensive study that was completed just about a year ago. It reviewed governance of all of our Crown corporations generally. There were some very good suggestions made in this study that I think have particular application in this situation in terms of the ultimate success of Fisheries Renewal.

One of the issues that is discussed in this report by the auditor general is a process for the identification of the skills and experience required by directors, the kinds of attributes that are required for people to serve on the board of directors of any Crown corporation but particularly this one. It sets out a process that the auditor general is suggesting be followed to get the best possible directors for this Crown corporation.

We will be introducing an amendment to the legislation that includes some of the provisions that the auditor general suggests. We feel, as I said, that it will be critical to the success of this organization that the selection process for the board of directors is done carefully, is representative of all the legitimate stakeholders and is in the appropriate balance in terms of the needs of that board of directors. There's a number of areas with respect to board governance that the auditor general addresses, which I think are very important and very useful in terms of reviewing our Crown corporations.

A specific one he raises that I am very concerned about with respect to Fisheries Renewal B.C. is the role of the board of directors themselves. It's not clear to me in this legislation whether the individual directors will be representing organizations, whether they will be representing particular stakeholder groups or whether they will be working as part of a total board of directors with no accountability directly back to a particular group or stakeholder group.

I want to read into the record a couple of sentences from the auditor general's report that I think are critical in this particular situation -- critical for the ultimate success of Fisheries Renewal B.C. I quote from the auditor general's report: "Good governance requires that the board act as a whole. It is the board that makes decisions, not individual directors. When directors are not clear as to whose interests they represent, the potential for an ineffective board increases."

[4:00]

[ Page 6020 ]

He goes on to talk about the Workers Compensation Board, and with good reason, because we saw there, with respect to the Workers Compensation Board a few years ago, an example of a board of directors that simply did not work. It didn't work because the people who were appointed to that board of directors felt and acted in a manner such that they were accountable to labour on the one hand and business on the other.

We can't afford to have that type of an approach on the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal if it is to succeed. I see nothing in this legislation that addresses that issue. If there isn't something included in this legislation to deal with that -- to really make it clear that the individual directors on this board represent the broad public interest and the interests of Fisheries Renewal as an entity -- then this agency will not be successful. I think that's a very critical aspect of the structure of this organization proposed in this legislation.

Another area that I'll mention right now, which the auditor general talks about, is the statutory duties of directors. He talks about three important statutory duties of directors: "a fiduciary duty -- to act honestly and in good faith; a duty of care -- to exercise the care, diligence of a reasonably prudent person; and a conflict-of-interest duty -- to disclose any direct or indirect interest in the affairs of the corporation" -- again, very useful advice from the auditor general.

I know that in this legislation, the government is addressing to some degree the conflict-of-interest issue. But there is no mention of the other two suggestions raised by the auditor general. He certainly indicates that it would be good for the government to consider building into legislation these specifics about board-of-director responsibility.

I want to continue to speak to the issue of the board of directors, which, as I said, is critical. I want to just be a bit more specific. I talked about balance of interests on that board of directors. We're talking there about balancing economic interests versus environmental interests and possibly social interests. The minister did make some comments about the Globe and Mail 's view of this government's agenda. But I'm focusing more specifically on the balance of economic interests and economic interest representation on that board versus environmental interests or possibly more general community interest.

In my discussions with stakeholders about this bill and this proposal, certainly it's clear that it has the potential for broad support.

But it will have that broad support, I think, only if it includes a healthy dose of representation of the economic needs of the industry. We're talking about economic activity; we're talking about jobs. We talking about an adequate representation for the sport fishing sector, for aquaculture and for the commercial fishing sector, as opposed to other interests. It's important that the direct stakeholders, from an economic perspective, have a healthy representation on this board of directors. Again, if that doesn't happen, then I would be concerned that we're missing the opportunity, missing the whole goal of doing this whole Crown corporation.

I talked about amendments that we're going to introduce with respect to the board of directors. We'll also be introducing amendments to improve the provisions in the bill with respect to accountability -- things like having a due date, a time frame as to when an annual report should be filed, and things like specifying that the annual report should be an audited financial statement. We think those sorts of things are critical. The public meeting that the minister talked about is a good innovation. It should include not only the business plan for the coming year but also the audited financial report for the past year.

The minister talked about the financing for this organization, currently being proposed to come from FRBC. But certainly there is every indication that the government intends to consider a landing fee of, say, 3 percent on all fish landed.

If that's the case, it's appropriate that stakeholders -- i.e., fishermen who are paying that 3 percent -- have the opportunity to question how that money was spent in the last year. So we'd like to see the annual meeting or this public meeting not only include the business plan for the future, which we all know can be flowery and good news, because we haven't seen the future yet . . . . It's always easy to embellish that, but it's not so easy to embellish the past. In terms of accountability of stakeholders, that could be a good vehicle to provide accountability as to how their money was expended by the Crown corporation.

Funding of $22.7 million over three years -- I want to just make a comment about that. It's important to recognize that these are dollars that have been announced before by the government. This is not new money. I guess the way that I like to put it is that this money is doing double duty. This money has already been announced in the form of matching dollars to federal proposals made, I think, on January 9 -- $15 million being proposed by the federal government for habitat protection and that sort of thing, seeking matching dollars from the province. So a big part of this money is the $15 million of matching dollars from the province.

Similarly, the federal government proposed -- I think, again on January 9 -- $7.7 million for transition programs. The balance of this $22.7 million represents the province's response to the federal government. I should mention that it's not a perfect match. I think the minister would probably confirm that this issue is still being negotiated with the federal government.

I just want to again mention the landing fee with respect to these comments about

section 20. It's clear that $22.7 million is not the total funding of this organization. Certainly there has been, as I said, the indication of a landing fee being considered. There has been some work done by the provincial government, as I understand it, as to the how and the legality of doing that.

It is a significant concern for fishermen that the 3 percent would come off the gross revenue of a boat. That would not only impact the owner and operator of that boat, but it would also impact the share of revenue that goes to the crew that works on that boat. As I understand it, a lot of them work on a percentage of the take of the boat. I think the merit of going that route is an issue that we would want to debate seriously. A lot of fishermen, as I said, are very concerned about it.

They're concerned that the hard-earned dollars that they make will be checked off at the dock, if you will, and used to subsidize and provide make-work programs for other fishermen who may not be quite so enterprising. I want to register that concern, and I don't think there are just one or two people that are concerned about it.

Finally,

section 14 deals with a limit on administrative and non-program expenditures. I like the intent of the section, but simply passing a

section like that does not guarantee effectiveness. It will be very interesting to see this Crown corporation and how it operates unfold with what we have been assured to be an absolute minimum skeleton crew of staff. It will certainly be a big difference from Forest Renewal. We'll watch with some interest to see how they do contain administrative costs. As I said, it may offer a good sound bite, but the proof is in the pudding and in the performance of how it actually works.

[ Page 6021 ]

In

summary, we support the intent and the principle of this bill. We support an initiative such as this which attempts to bring stakeholders together in a consultative, cooperative fashion. For it to be successful, we think it's critical that there be more work done on the whole issue of the appointment process to the board, in particular the mandate of that board, and how they're intended to work together as they go down the road. We think it's important to emphasize economic issues versus environmental issues. We think it's important that the direct economic stakeholders have an adequate level of representation on this board of directors.

With that, I'm pleased to participate in this debate. We look forward to discussing a number of amendments in committee stage and to discussing this particular bill

section by section.

F. Gingell: This reminds me somewhat of a debate we held in this House four or five years ago when we were setting up FRBC. This is a project that I think all members of the House support. All of us wonder why it's taken this government five years -- almost six years since they got into office -- to start to deal with the issues of the reclamation of damage caused to fish habitat and to see that our habitat is healthy and productive.

As we all know, we may be very upset with our neighbours to the north in Alaska about the number of fish they catch and whether those fish are sockeye or pinks. But the work that they have done in Alaska to restore the salmon-bearing streams -- primarily pinks, as I understand it -- has caused them a problem: they catch more pink salmon than they can sell, and they're having to get into arguments about landfill and those kinds of issues.

A little less than a year ago, we in the opposition began to hear rumours and stories, and we became concerned about raids on forest renewal funds. Now, we all supported the intention of forest renewal. We were all in favour of renewing the forests. We just got into differences of opinion about the best way that those things could be accomplished. If one goes back and reads through Hansard and sees some of the things about the inviolacy of these funds, how they would never be touched, how they were precious and that no one would have the audacity to raid them, it has been interesting to see what has happened in this past year.

The concern that's been expressed by the citizens of this province over the intention to raid Forest Renewal, over the intention to declare a dividend, caused the provincial government to reverse that position and try and push expenditures in, rather than take funds out. That's clearly what has happened, and that's clearly what is happening here.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo wishes to add something?

S. Hawkins: Cowichan-Ladysmith.

F. Gingell: Cowichan-Ladysmith wishes to add something? Well, if you do, would you speak a little louder? I'm getting old and deaf, and I can't hear.

Where were we? We were talking about the raid on Forest Renewal. That gives me an opportunity to bring back an embarrassing subject for this bunch of scoundrels across the Legislature. I must admit that the argument of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about why this should be funded by FRBC is one of the best arguments I've heard for raiding Forest Renewal. Certainly, questionable logging practices in past years may have added substantially to the reclamation job that faces us. So perhaps FRBC is a good place to get started.

[4:15]

We support the principles, of course. Let's spend some money sensibly, thoughtfully, carefully, effectively. Let's clearly identify the goals for what it is we're trying to accomplish to ensure that the money is spent in the best possible manner.

I personally question the need to set up these separate organizations. I think the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Environment could have got on with this job before, but they have decided to do it in this fashion. I don't think all of the organization and the way they've set it up adds up, quite honestly. Maybe that's why it's called Bill 19. It's somewhat like a crib hand: it doesn't add up if it comes out to 19.

So as our critic, the member for Abbotsford, said, we will be making a series of amendments. We're going to make sure that the minister has an opportunity to see them first, because I hope that they will be accepted. The amendments are intended to just bring the accountability that is within this bill up into the 1990s. It's going to deal with issues such as the one the member mentioned: the appointment of board members. Let's have a good, open process. It's going to call for Fisheries Renewal B.C. to do an inventory as a starting point to find out where we are before we go rushing off doing things.

If an inventory of the state of the various fisheries grounds isn't presently in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Ministry of Environment, let's find out exactly what the current status is and make that public. Then I think we need to clearly identify and clearly state what it is we are trying to accomplish, and that is part of the business plan. We'll be making some suggestions about how the business plan process should be handled.

The Speaker will remember that a big issue in dealing with Forest Renewal B.C., agreed at the beginning and not spoken to much these days by the government, was related to incrementality. All expenditures by the ministry, by Forest Renewal B.C. had to be incremental. They had to be incremental to expenditures, responsibilities -- at that point, of the Ministry of Forests -- or to a licence holder or the ministry under the small business program. They had to be incremental.

The intention of Forest Renewal B.C. funds was not to do the work that is presently required, because we were trying to make things better, not just stay where we were. I think that's an important rule for Fisheries Renewal to also follow. That's why we think there should be an inventory beforehand and why there should be clearly enunciated and identified goals.

So we're going to suggest that there be a little better timing. When one recognizes that there's going to be a business plan and a financial report, together with an annual report -- and Fisheries Renewal is going to have a March 31 year-end, as does the government -- it would seem appropriate to have the business plan for the year following submitted by January 31. As soon as that is available to come from cabinet . . . . I appreciate that the legislation requires it to be tabled in the Legislature, and we never know when the Legislature's going to sit, the way this government operates. It would seem to me that the appropriate timing would be to

[ Page 6022 ]

have the business plan done by January 31 and to have the public meetings as soon thereafter as can reasonably be arranged, but certainly before the House sits, presently at the end of March.

Then you need to put a real deadline in for the tabling of the annual report. I would suggest that 90 days after the fiscal year-end -- i.e., June 30 -- is a sensible date. That annual report should not only show the financial statements, it should also identify the results. In the description it suggests: " . . . a report on Fisheries Renewal B.C., on its operations for the preceding fiscal year . . . . " That report should be tied in, too. Deal with the business plan for the previous year so we can see whether or not Fisheries Renewal has accomplished those things that they set out to accomplish and if they are following along on their business plan.

We're also going to make a minor amendment that I hope the minister will accept: that the auditor general should advise the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the appointment of an auditor for Fisheries Renewal B.C., because Fisheries Renewal B.C. statements will be consolidated into the financial statements of the province, on which the auditor general is required to express an opinion.

There are a series of amendments that we're going to put forward to try to make the accountability in a more logical, progressive manner, and give the information to the citizens of the province, particularly to the minister and the officials in his ministry, so they can react appropriately. I sincerely hope that the minister will accept them.

One last point: when the Premier of this province came into office and spoke early in the first session of last year, he talked about making the standing committee process of this Legislature work in a more effective manner -- give them some important and necessary work to do. Well, the result of that is that nothing's happened. The committees haven't sat; nothing has been referred to them.

I see that a notice has gone around, and I understand that finally the Forests committee is going to sit on the Forest Renewal B.C. business plan. How many weeks late is that? It didn't come to any conclusions last year. I had the honour or privilege -- it wasn't much of a privilege, actually -- of sitting on the committee in 1995, and it wasn't a very instructive or productive process.

I think that government members should look at these select standing committee assignments as an opportunity to contribute and an opportunity to herald change -- and good change at that.

So as our critic said, we will be supporting this bill. We'll be putting forward what we believe are positive amendments and hope to make it all work better. With that, I thank you for allowing me to speak to Bill 19.

R. Thorpe: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and speak on Bill 19. I have some concerns that "here we go again," but I believe, as do my colleagues, that the strategic thrust of this bill is correct. With members of the official opposition, I agree with the principles to renew the fisheries and to enhance fish, the fisheries and fish habitat.

However, the real issue for me is the fishers and their families. I have some very, very grave concerns about the ability of this government and its lack of management expertise. In fact, this government has proven time and time again that, quite frankly, it's incompetent when it comes to management.

A further concern I have about FRBC 2 is the independence of this Crown and the independence of this board. I am very, very concerned that this board is once again going to be stacked with insiders and friends of the government.

Many speakers on the opposition side have said today that we are supportive. We are supportive of the concept; we are supportive of the thrust. But we want British Columbians to believe that the government is sincere. I challenge this minister to carefully review the amendments as they come forward and to ensure that this board is not stacked with insiders and friends, that we are all truly committed to renewing the fisheries in British Columbia, to enhancing fish, fisheries and the fish habitat, and to assisting the fishers and their families.

Therefore I ask that this government look at these amendments so that they can attract very disciplined and professional people who know what has to be done, who have the expertise, and that the government embark upon a process where they can attract real people from real communities throughout British Columbia that are affected, people who have real solutions to the problems, so that once again it's not insiders and friends espousing political rhetoric.

Most recently, as the fish wars continue, a fisher -- I believe it was from Prince Rupert -- said: "Take the politicians out of the current situation, and we, the people, would build the solution. We know how to solve the problem. We would look after our families. Take the politicians out of it." Isn't it interesting . . . ?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: The member across would do well to listen to this: a fisher from south of the border said exactly the same words. What do the fishers know and what do the fishers' families know that the politicians don't know? I believe that fishers and their families get it, and it's about time that this government got it.

Thus I request that the minister listen very carefully to the families who are directly affected all up and down the coasts of British Columbia. This NDP government will say: "If we don't control the board, how are we going to control what goes on?" It's really quite simple. As my colleague from Delta South alluded to a few seconds ago, it's what this Premier said in this House just over a year ago that together we have to work in partnership for all British Columbians and stop the political rhetoric. It's about time this Premier kept one of his promises -- especially the ones he makes in this House.

[4:30]

Let's get the Legislative Assembly Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries actively involved with FRBC. Let us make it real. Let us show British Columbians that when we're in this House, in this Legislative Assembly, we are truly working for them.

And, of course, accountability . . . . It's a word that unfortunately this government does not like to hear, because they certainly don't like to be held accountable. What we need in FRBC is a truly professional management approach. Why can't this government learn from its most recent mistakes in FRBC 1? Fisheries Renewal British Columbia needs a very detailed business plan. It has to be included in the legislation so that it clearly states what the objectives are, how they are going to be done and how we're going to measure them, so

[ Page 6023 ]

that we can be accountable to all British Columbians. We need a measurement technique included in this bill and, of course, full accountability for all British Columbians.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Isn't it interesting that all of these things I've just mentioned are also recommendations called for by the auditor general in his recently completed Crown corporations governance study? Yet does this government listen? Has this government heard? No, it hasn't. These things have been discussed at Public Accounts. Still, most of the recommendations of the auditor general are not brought forward in Bill 19. When one reads this bill and looks at the details and sees such words as, when it refers to the annual report, "as soon as practicable," that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm sure that when anyone listening out there hears the words of the NDP government, "as soon as practicable," they don't become warm and fuzzy. In fact, I believe it gives an indication to the people of British Columbia that once again we're embarking down a road of a scam and a sham. It's a media show. It's more propaganda, and that is wrong.

Further evidence of a scam is when this government projects that it's committing 22.7 million new dollars to this FRBC. All the while, it's not new money; it's off-balance-sheet financing coming from other locations. All the while, this very much-needed problem and concern . . . . This government continues to use it as promotional media tool for the Premier's sagging image. That's sad, because British Columbians, especially fishers and fishers' families, deserve better.

Thus, as I read this legislation, I can only conclude that this NDP government does not have a plan to protect or enhance the lives of our fishers and their families. This vehicle, which is so lacking in its business approach, is, sadly, probably going to encounter serious difficulties. And the fishers and their families, as they go through these extreme difficulties . . . . We can look to other parts of Canada that have experienced these difficulties, and we should be learning.

That's why I ask this minister to listen carefully and to seriously entertain and accept the amendments so that this plan can be referred to the select standing committee so that we can build together. I think it's important for the minister to know -- and we've stated -- that conceptually, we support it. We want to work with the minister and his officials in his ministry to build a better fishing industry in the province of British Columbia so that we can support families and have families support themselves and their communities.

So I ask this minister to very, very seriously consider the use of the select standing committee. I, like my colleague from Abbotsford, look forward to going through point by point in committee stage the various items in this bill that quite frankly need to be fixed and need to be improved.

I challenge this government, as I close: if they are committed to the fishers and the fisher families of British Columbia, listen to our amendments, accept our amendments. We can all work together to make this legislation work for all British Columbians.

J. Wilson: I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on FRBC 2. When you look at the design of FRBC 2, it's not a whole lot different from FRBC 1. If we care to go back a little bit and look at FRBC 1, when it was set up, there was a lot of rhetoric around it: "We're going to do this, we're going to do that, we're going to keep our administration to a minimum, we're going to get those dollars out there on the land base and we're going to do a job."

Well, in the opinion of a great many people in this province, that's not what happened. We're getting the dollars out but not to the land base. The money, in a lot of cases, is not put to the best use -- that is, renewing our forests as it was intended to. The administrative costs have climbed and the envelope percentages have changed to some extent. A lot of people have good jobs all right, within the infrastructure of the organization, the Crown. Probably the biggest surprise of all is that it has now become a slush fund for the IWA. That in itself was not part of the original mandate.

When I look at FRBC 2, I see the same thing developing here. Even though this government gets a few good ideas, every time they try to implement one, they fall down. They just cannot seem to make things work the way they should work. Granted, FRBC 2 is a good idea. Unfortunately, when you look at the track record of FRBC 1, we are headed for another potential disaster in this Crown corporation. It could very well become another slush fund for the Fishermen's Union. Who knows? We don't know what promises have been made in the last year, and the potential is there.

Things can be done. You don't have to complicate the whole thing here. If you want to get into FRBC and you want to grow trees, you want to enhance the forest, then you look at the tree, prepare a bed, plant it, and you manage the tree. The same thing applies to raising fish. You have a habitat, and you can also improve on that. We have some hatcheries around this province which have a tremendous amount of potential. However, the job does not seem to get done, and I don't see here where anything will change.

When I say that the job doesn't get done, I can't help but think of the hatchery we have in Likely. They have a capacity of five million fish. Last year I believe they were allowed, by DFO, to put out 125,000. The people there have taken this over from the federal government. They were given a very small quota.

The potential is there, and if we approach it from that aspect, then we can produce fish. We can produce so many fish in this province that everyone will have ample fish for whatever reason, whether it's in the sport fishing industry or whether it's in the commercial industry. That is one of the roles that FRBC 2 should be looking at and should be making one of its priorities. I don't see that in here.

When you take a hatchery with a potential for producing five million fish a year and you reduce it to 100,000, that's not production at a time when we need fish. Everyone out there today needs these fish, and the job is not getting done. That is basically where I see this Crown corporation going -- down the road that FRBC 1 went. Hopefully it won't, but unfortunately, with the record of this government with job appointments, patronage appointments, etc., that is the most likely scenario out of this new Crown corporation.

With that I would like to close.

G. Wilson: My goodness. I hope that it's not quite that gloomy a picture.

In rising on Bill 19, the first question that hasn't been asked in this debate and that I'd like to ask in this debate -- it might seem a bit surprising that I would -- is: why? The minister made reference to comments that were made by fishers in Powell River when the minister visited there and somebody said: "Why would we do this?" As the minister correctly alluded to in the reference that was made, the question was asked in relation to the catch that takes place outside of B.C. waters by foreign fleets, predominantly American fleets.

[ Page 6024 ]

I'm asking the question of the minister in a much broader context. Why are we doing this? Don't get me wrong for a second. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be doing this. We should be doing this, but we have to know why we are doing this. I don't think that we've heard much about that in the debate yet. I'd like to hear from the minister as to what exactly the end objective is. To be sure, it says that we're promoting, pr