1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Milk industry task force. Mr. Barlee –– 7785

Purcell heliskiing venture. Mr. Blencoe –– 7786

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7786

Investment of B.C. Hydro pension plan funds. Mr. Clark –– 7787

Petroleum industry oil-spill response organization. Mrs. McCarthy ––

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and

North Coast, Responsible for Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Huberts)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 7787

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Williams

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Clark

Ministerial Statement

Essential services in hospitals during labour dispute. Hon. L. Hanson –– 7818

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and

North Coast, Responsible for Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Huberts)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 7819

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Sihota

Seniors Advisory Council Act (Bill 41). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) ––

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Third reading

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act (Bill 42). Committee stage.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 7836

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Credit Union Incorporation Act (Bill 50). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7843

Mr. Clark –– 7843

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7844

Assessment Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 48). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 7845

Mr. Clark

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

We have in the members' gallery today two very distinguished visitors:

His Excellency James Humphreys, Australia's High Commissioner to

Canada, and Mrs. Humphreys. I would ask this House to bid them welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I would like the House to welcome two guests here today: my wife

Florence, who is a registered nurse here to support the nurses and also

to visit the galleries; and from Nanaimo my father-in-law, Clifford

McIvor, here on his sixty-ninth birthday.

HON. MR. REE :

I would like to welcome a friend from the great village of Lions Bay on

Howe Sound, in your riding, Mr. Speaker. She is a vice-president of the

recently established Whistler Institute of Advanced Learning, a private

business initiative that is being structured to offer executive

programs to business people throughout the Pacific Rim countries. Would

all the members please join me in welcoming Karen McAndrew.

MR. PERRY :

I would like to welcome to the precincts Marcia Forrest and Brenda

Jameson, who are registered nurses. Any other of the registered nurses

who were here this morning that I don't recognize I would also like to

ask the House to join me in welcoming.

MRS. McCARTHY : We have visitors in the gallery today from the state

of California: Mr. and Mrs. David McClelland and their three children. I would

ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. DUECK :

On behalf of this side of the House, I would like to welcome the nurses

who are visiting the precincts today. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MR. BRUCE : In the House today are 22 students from Crofton Elementary School, a little school in my hometown...

AN. HON. MEMBER : Name names.

MR. BRUCE : I'll name all 22 of them.

... with my son, Ryan, who is here with his fellow friends, taking a look around

to see what this place is all about. They are with their teacher, Mr. Tim Lord,

and several parents, Donna House, Judy Aitchison and Ngaire Wilson, along with

my wife. Would you please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

MILK INDUSTRY TASK FORCE

MR. BARLEE :

To the Minister of Agriculture. In a hastily called private meeting on

the night of June 12, the Premier told representatives of the

dairymen's association and the Minister of Agriculture that he wanted

British Columbia to pull out of the national milk marketing system. But

at a similar meeting a year ago, you stated that the decision to opt

out would be left up to the farmers, the decision whether or not they

wished to continue or discontinue participation in the national milk

marketing plan. After that meeting, the second member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) was appointed chairman of a hastily called

three-person task force on milk marketing, which the minister announced

the day after the meeting with the Premier. My question is this: does

the minister really believe that the appointed chairman can be

considered truly impartial, given his support of the Premier's position?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I strongly believe that the chairman of the task force can be

completely impartial, because I think we will have presentations from

all kinds of sources as to what the future of the milk industry will be

in this province.

I can tell you that there are golden

opportunities, and if we sit back and don't look at those, then we're

not representing the people properly. Hon. member, I stated very

clearly when I discussed it with the producers about a year ago that I

would gladly have their input. I have had numerous occasions, I might

tell you and members of this assembly, to meet with several different

groups involved in the dairy business. We have discussed different

options. We have discussed the issue of negotiating in the federal

system; we've discussed the offers that have been presented to us.

We've made personal appearances on behalf of this province, trying to

have a better allocation. I have a great deal of confidence that what

we are doing is the right procedure.

MR. BARLEE : Mr.

Speaker, again to the Minister of Agriculture: if this is a

representative body, why is there no announcement of a consumer

representative on the task force on milk marketing?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Over a period of time we have discussed what opportunities there are. I

guess I'm a consumer as much as the next person. I hope every one of us

in this assembly is a consumer of milk. It's very important; it's a

good health food.

I think the members of the task force —

both that are being considered — will be good representatives from a

consumer point of view. In fact, I bet you will have considerable input

from the consumers themselves, who will make their case known to that

task force. Once all those presentations are made, then recommendations

will come forward. I think it will be fair to everybody.

[ Page 7786 ]

MR. BARLEE :

A supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. It has been stated that

British Columbia consumers pay too much for milk in relation to other

provinces. The Shelford report last year placed the blame not on the

farmers but on the retailers.

The question is this: why

hasn't the minister taken the opportunity to look at the pricing

system, instead of picking on the producers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Through the discussions we've had with the formation of the task force,

I perceive the guidelines by which they are undertaking their

responsibilities. I think it leaves it very open for a number of inputs

that can be made in the way of comment and questions that they may well

ask — one group to another — as to what the future holds for that

industry. Without that input, I don't believe the task force will cover

the whole gamut.

The pricing, as far as milk is concerned —

whether it's at the retail level, at the farm gate or at the processor

level being distributed to the retail sector — is one that I'm sure

will come forward in those discussions with the task force. I think

it's only fair that all representations be heard in light of the

responsibilities of the task force.

PURCELL HELISKIING VENTURE

MR. BLENCOE :

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The business

community of Golden, the Golden council and the Regional District of

Columbia–Shuswap are all supporting the proposed operation of a new

economic venture: the Purcell heliskiing venture. Approval of this

venture appears to have been blocked by the provincial government as a

result of a personal objection by the member for Columbia River (Mr.

Crandall).

[2:15]

The question for the minister is: has the minister received the

revised bylaw of the Regional District of Columbia–Shuswap, and if not

already signed, can she assure the House that she will approve this

local government bylaw post-haste?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The bylaw is sitting on my desk at this time, and I have not yet dealt with the matter.

MR. BLENCOE :

This minister constantly says she that will not interfere in local

government and that she will support what local government requests.

The minister should be aware that the only serious objections to this

proposal are coming from the member for Columbia River. The project has

gone through all of the various stages. It's supported by the community

and the council. There's even been a court case supporting the

proposal. Can the minister assure this House that there will be no more

political interference in this matter? Will she support the Golden

council and community?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I would

suggest that the comments that have just been made by the second member

for Victoria could be construed as political interference. I have not

yet dealt with the bylaw.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. On May 31

of last year, the minister was asked by the press whether or not he was

interested in knowing how Mr. Giordano got onto the list of individuals

who can conduct pub referendums. At the time, the minister said: "I

haven't got the report." The question to the minister is this: was it

the purpose of that internal investigation to take a look at how Mr.

Giordano got onto the list?

HON. L. HANSON : I made a

statement Monday last which outlined my recollection of the sequence of

events. I'd suggest to the member that if he didn't get a copy, I'd be

pleased to present him with one.

MR. SIHOTA : This is

a question that flows from the statement the minister made on Monday.

The minister has told this House all along that the purpose of the

internal report was not to take a look at how Mr. Giordano got on the

list. That seems to contradict his statement on May 31, 1988. Again to

the minister: in light of that contradiction, could he tell the House

the purpose of the internal investigation that he ordered?

HON. L. HANSON :

I know the member is aware that it has been extremely well publicized,

canvassed, questioned and investigated. I say to the member opposite

that his use of the word "contradiction" is just not correct. Again I

offer a copy of my statement of last Monday for his knowledge.

MR. SIHOTA :

The contradiction comes again from the minister's statement. The

minister outlined in his statement at what point he first became aware

of concerns about how Mr. Giordano got on the list. On May 18, 1988,

the minister said: "There was no involvement from the Premier's office

or my office in dealing with the matter of how Mr. Giordano got on the

list." That was on May 18, 1988. Was that true?

HON. L. HANSON :

I would hope that at some point these repetitious questions would be

recognized as such. Again my answer is that there was a statement made

last Monday. It canvassed the event very well. During the various

question periods that we've had, the issue has been canvassed very

well. The issue was dealt with in great depth in the ombudsman's

report. There were subsequent investigations by the RCMP and various

people. The member certainly should get copies of all those public

documents, and he could find his answers simply by reading.

[ Page 7787 ]

INVESTMENT OF B.C. HYDRO

PENSION PLAN FUNDS

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Finance. I have a draft actuarial report

dated June 1989 on the B.C. Hydro pension plan. Can the minister

explain why $56,799,000 of that plan is invested in financial

instruments that are in clear violation of the Financial Administration

Act?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The question apparently had

such a high degree of interest that I couldn't hear it clearly. I

wonder if I could have it repeated.

MR. CLARK : I

have an actuarial report dated June, 1989, on the B.C. Hydro pension

plan. Can the minister explain why close to $57 million of that plan is

invested in financial instruments that are in violation of the

Financial Administration Act?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I obviously don't have the file at hand. I will be happy to respond to the question once I obtain the background material.

quick reaction from memory is that during some period between 1972 and

1975 the government of that day purchased some shares in a variety of

enterprises, and my memory is that as a result of those purchases we on

this side of the House have been looking at that situation from time to

time. Nevertheless, I will give an answer to the member on that

specific point when I get the material. I'll take the question on

notice.

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY OIL-SPILL

RESPONSE ORGANIZATION

MRS. McCARTHY :

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday morning

it was reported from Washington, D.C., that the North American oil

industry has admitted that it cannot handle a major oil spill and they

have announced a program that will cost $250 million to equip five

regional centres to react to oil spills within five hours.

the moment the plan calls for a petroleum industry response

organization to be headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field

offices in New York; New Orleans; Norfolk, Virginia; Long Beach,

California and Seattle. This is a privately financed oil industry which

takes a great deal of profit from British Columbia, but more

importantly, significantly affects British Columbia as its tankers move

off our coast.

Will the minister consider requesting that

the oil companies locate at least one of these field offices on our

British Columbia coast?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I am in

receipt of a letter to the President of the United States from the

Secretary of the Interior indicating what must be done in terms of

handling that industry, and also a recounting of the problems that did

occur with the Exxon Valdez.

I am also in receipt of a similar gesture of cooperation and of oil spill management

from the Canadian Petroleum Association. I don't know, but I suspect that

David Anderson, who is negotiating with the state governments of Alaska, Washington

and Oregon on behalf of the Premier's Task Force on Oil Spills, may speak

to the American petroleum association about siting equipment and resources and

considering plans for that type of reaction in Canadian waters. If he isn't

successful, we will still have the cooperation of the Canadian Petroleum Association.

I have spoken to their director, Ian Smyth, with respect to that. I think they

recognize their responsibility, as an industry association, to ensure that they

have the best management practices and emergency team practices available to

safeguard their industry and our Pacific waters.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I did not notice two delightful people in the audience until I sat here

for about five minutes. One of them is Christine, my executive

assistant from the constituency office, and her husband Chuck.

Christine and Chuck just recently married, and upon marriage, Christine

— who is a lovely young woman — became a grandmother. Would the House

please make them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY : I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY :

I'm pleased to welcome back to the press gallery, if only for a day, a

young lady who was in our press gallery for quite a long time. I know

all of the House will welcome Lisa Fitterman.

Orders of the Day

The House In Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR

VANCOUVER ISLAND–COAST AND

NORTH COAST, RESPONSIBLE FOR PARKS

On vote 61: minister's office, $290,010 (continued).

MS. PULLINGER :

I would like to pick up where we left off last night. We were dealing

with the ferrochromium plant in Nanaimo. We had discussed the fact that

the minister of state stated quite solidly that he has been a key

player in the team making decisions about the ferrochromium plant, and

that he had some involvement in all these economic developments,

initiatives, projects, etc. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick)

asked — and I would like to ask, because we didn't get answers to those

questions — just how the minister defines his role. What does being a

key player mean? What is your definition of a

[ Page 7788 ]

key player? I would like to know more specifically what your involvement has been in the decision-making process for that plant.

HON. MR HUBERTS :

As I indicated yesterday, being one of the key players certainly makes

it obvious that we're part of a team. The ministers of state and the

Minister of Regional Development discuss all the issues that are

brought to us from the regions.

In the case of Vancouver

Island, there were three sites identified, and Nanaimo in particular

was very interested in this ferrochromium plant. My statements have

always been, for any of the three sites, that whatever industry we

bring to Vancouver Island, we want to make sure it's environmentally

sound, and if it isn't environmentally sound we don't want it. If you

check through the history, I've always made that comment.

the same time, the ferrochromium plant would never have happened if the

people of Nanaimo didn't want it, would never have happened if the

federal government wasn't involved, would never have happened if

Regional Development wasn't also involved, and would not happen if the

minister of state was opposed to it. But the important thing to stress

here is that the people of Nanaimo wanted it. I think it's also

important to stress that Dave Stupich, the former member, was also

keenly interested in having it.

MS. PULLINGER : I'm

interested that you say that you're a key player, yet all I'm hearing

is that you brought three sites to the committee or you recommended the

three sites that were brought to you. But contrary to what you're

saying, there is some great concern among the citizens of Nanaimo about

the ferrochromium plant.

As your role, I understand, is

economic.... Maybe you can clarify that for me. You mentioned the

environment. Is your role also to look after environmental concerns, or

is it just economic? I'll let you clarify that first.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'll repeat

it again. I'm interested in economic development but not economic

development that's not environmentally sensitive. I think every British

Columbian needs to make that statement.

MS. PULLINGER :

One of the things that's becoming clear, Mr. Chairman, is that we have

to be very careful about economic development in terms of conflicts. If

nothing else is clear in this session, I think that particular issue is.

would like to ask very specifically what the involvement of the

minister has been — and I would like very specific answers — for

instance, with the Pacific Biological Station. Have you had any

discussions with the Pacific Biological Station people in terms of the

effects of this ferrochromium plant?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

If we're going to discuss ferrochromium, let's just have a few more

questions and put it all together to see where she's coming from.

MS. PULLINGER : Okay, I'll give you several questions then.

Obviously

there's some concern around Nanaimo about the plant, about conflicts

with various economic concerns. You tell me your role is to coordinate

and look after all the economic development in that region. I'm having

a little trouble defining just what your role is, if there is one. I

would like to know if you've spoken to folks like the Pacific

Biological Station. That's a very simple question. I don't see that

it's difficult to answer.

How about the United Fishermen

and Allied Workers' Union — have you spoken to them? Another simple

question. How about Hagensborg Resources Ltd., who have a fish-farming

operation fewer than five kilometres away from the plant? Has the

minister spoken to any of those people to find out what their concerns

are?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I think I've made that very

clear. I don't care if there are 50 organizations out there. If they

indicate to us that it doesn't meet the environmental standards and

it's proven by the federal government and the provincial government,

then it won't happen. It's just that simple.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Chairman, the minister of state is a relatively new role. What I'm

trying to determine is if there is in fact a role. I can't seem to get

any answers from the minister as to what he is actually doing. He says

he is a key player in this project, yet he won't say whether he's

talked to any of the other key economic interests, which is directly

related to economic development on the ferrochromium plant. He's having

a little bit of trouble answering that. It seems to me that it's a very

simple straightforward question. Have you dealt with any of these other

economic interests and people who can give you some information about

that, like the fishermen's union? How about MacMillan Bloedel? Have you

talked to the people there? Or Doman's? To add to that list of

question, how about the tourism people in Nanaimo? I would like some

specific answers to those questions so that I can see what exactly your

role is. Who are these people of Nanaimo that you're saying are so

enthusiastic? I would like to know where you get that information.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

My role is a coordinating role. Some of those specific questions are

environmental issues, and environmental questions are addressed to the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I play a coordinating

role; it's as simple as that. I should ask the member a question: are

you against jobs for Nanaimo? That's the question. At the same time, I

would think that you would answer it the same way that I do: I'm for

jobs for Nanaimo, but

[ Page 7789 ]

they need to meet the environmental standards, so that they are environmentally safe jobs.

MR. LOVICK :

We were trying very hard, based on the temper and tone of last night's

debate, to approach this in a quiet, careful, modulated and rational

way. But what do we get for answers? We get this vacuous kind of

puffery that we've come to associate with that side. All we're asking

you is: what does being on the team mean, Mr. Minister? What does being

a team player mean? You want to tell us that you're making great things

happen in our community. We say: give us an illustration; tell us about

that; lay it out; give us some specifics; give us some detail. Instead,

all we get is the reiteration of the same silly stuff: namely, "I'm a

team player, and I make big things happen." We need better than that.

also want some answers to some very specific questions. A few minutes

ago the minister made reference to the fact that he had input from a

number of people. No, I'm sorry, that's not quite right. He didn't say

that. Rather, he said: "Do you think I would have proceeded if we

hadn't had input from X number of people?" He made reference to the

people of Nanaimo, among others. My colleague quite rightly poses the

simple question: who do you mean when you say "the people of Nanaimo"?

Our information is that the great majority of the people of Nanaimo

were not consulted. Moreover, the city council, you recall, put some

very definite obstacles in the way of this proposal, because it felt it

didn't have enough information and was not in fact consulted. We are

getting a groundswell of opinion throughout our community, and more and

more individuals are suddenly perceiving that perhaps we're proceeding

with this project — which has long-term implications — before we have

the answers we require.

We're asking you, Mr. Minister, to

simply give us some idea of what your involvement was. We know that

most of these questions will be for the Minister of Environment.

Believe me, we have lots of questions for that minister. But we also

want to know what you do to earn your salary. We want to know what your

particular job was. Who did you consult with? Who did you check this

out with before you gave it your so-called clean bill of health? How

about a few answers, Mr. Minister? How about a little help?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There are some questions posed with respect to a ferrochromium plant in Nanaimo and the Ministry of Environment.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Oh. Well, let me just tell you where it is. It's been announced in the

press release, but I'll say it again. The proposition does have

approval in principle, but there are two conditions. Number one is a

public hearing process put in place by the applicant; and secondly, the

submission of a full-permit application. The proponents know what that

is, and they will comply with that at their timetable. Until such time

as they do, nothing proceeds. So that's the answer from the standpoint

of Environment.

MS. PULLINGER : As the first member

for Nanaimo has pointed out, we're not pursuing this from an

environmental point of view right now. What we're trying to do is look

at the economic coordination, which is what you're telling us is your

role. I would specifically like to know if you've talked to any of the

other economic interests involved in that area. For instance, $75

million to $100 million worth of herring go through the channel each

year. Have you talked to those folks at all? What about the fish-farm

that is not too far away, in which there is also public money? Have you

talked to those folks? Have you talked to MacMillan Bloedel, which has

1,500 jobs — one of the biggest employers in the region? They expressed

some concerns. Have you talked to those people? How about Doman? Surely

you would talk to those people. Tourism is a growing industry in

Nanaimo. Have you talked to those people to see if a ferrochromium

plant and a mineral wool plant are compatible with that industry?

Who

are these people you've talked to? What kind of contact have you had?

What I'm trying to get at is: what is your role? What are you doing in

this? Maybe the minister can answer some of those questions. If you

haven't talked to those people, tell me who you have talked to.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Mr. Chairman, I think I've answered their questions adequately. They're just repeating themselves.

MR. LOVICK :

As dispassionately, quietly and as low-keyedly as I can, I will say to

the minister that, with all due deference, no, you didn't answer a

single one of those questions. The obvious suspicion that is arising

over here is that maybe you don't know or maybe you haven't consulted

with anybody and maybe you're a very minor player in that particular

game, who simply sits around the table and says: "Yeah, guys, whatever

you want to do is okay with me." That's the suspicion we have, Mr.

Minister. We're giving you a chance to vindicate yourself, to vindicate

the role of the ministries of state, to show us that you indeed have a

function in this government. Last chance, Mr. Minister. Do you want to

answer?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'm very comfortable with my position as minister of state.

MS. EDWARDS :

I want to talk to the minister in his capacity as the Minister

Responsible for Parks, because we have some major recreational problems

surrounding the reservoir behind the Libby Dam known as Koocanusa Lake.

Two years ago the ministry you now head — which was at that time part

of the Ministry of Environment and Parks — was involved in a

recreational study of the use of the Koocanusa reservoir. It was a

study not of the

[ Page 7790 ]

Kikomun

Creek Park but of the unorganized areas. What was found was that there

were at least 18,000 users around that reservoir in the summer between

the middle of June and early September.

The problem was

that there were, I believe, 24 sites in all. Of that, 83 percent of the

use was in 8 sites and 25 percent of the use was at a single site —

that was at Newgate. Following that survey of the users and the

statement of the obvious crisis that was there as long as we had all

these people using sites that didn't have adequate facilities for

recreation — meaning that there were a number of crises about health

concern and so on — the Minister of Environment and Parks in 1988

promised the establishment of a park at Newgate. I believe two toilets

were installed and there was some other, minor work.

Could

the minister explain to me what his understanding is of what is going

to happen to this park at Newgate, because progress has been

disappointingly slow. Would the minister tell me what his understanding

is of what has happened and what is about to happen, and what his

expectations are about the use of that park at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

It's getting very specific to that park. But we're reviewing that park

and a few others as far as updating some of the facilities we have.

That's one of many we're looking at and reviewing.

MS. EDWARDS :

I intend to be extremely specific, Mr. Minister, and as I understand

it, it's your task to be able to answer me on the specifics.

want to know what's going to happen at the park at Newgate, which had a

disappointingly small amount of work done on it last summer. As I

understand it — and I've done some work on the specifics of it — there

is nothing but talk going on right now and no indication of what the

Ministry of Parks intends to do, except that there was no allocation of

funds for development of that park this summer.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : To be very specific, we are reviewing Newgate park.

MS. EDWARDS :

Does that mean that you're reviewing its existence? Are you reviewing

whether or not you shall in fact carry out the promise that was given

that there will be a class A park at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Any promises that were mentioned we will certainly be in the process of carrying out at the appropriate time.

[2:45]

MS. EDWARDS :

The appropriate time was last year or previously. This year is too late

to have answered the concerns that were put to you and the survey,

which showed you very clearly that there is a problem around Lake

Koocanusa. It centres on the Newgate park; it's not only at the Newgate

park. What happens is that there are more and more people going to Lake

Koocanusa, partly as a result of the kind of promotion that the lake

got in Beautiful British Columbia magazine. You may not know, since you were not minister at the time, that Beautiful British Columbia

came out with an absolutely magnificent colour

article on Lake

Koocanusa just in the year when B.C. Hydro and the Bonneville Power

Administration were deciding that they would be able to draw down

enough water in a drought year. The lake was in extremely bad

condition, and what was promised to be a fish year turned down, so the

use that could have been expected in fact didn't happen.

That

kind of use will come back as long as the fishery remains. The fishery

has been extremely valuable so far. If we are going to continue to have

people using the lake, we need to have development of the sites around

the whole reservoir. They all suffer to some extent the same pressure

that the Newgate park suffers. If something doesn't happen at Newgate,

the impact affects all the other sites; if we have something happening

at Newgate, it affects all the other sites.

All of these

impact on Kikomun Creek Park, which is under your jurisdiction, albeit

administered by a private group on contract. In the parts not directly

under an organized park, we have problems, because the Ministry of

Parks has allocated no money, as far as I understand. Neither have the

other ministries. Some of them have allocated a very little money.

What

we need to know is: what kind of plans do you have to deal with Newgate

and the other sections? You are talking about review. In what context

are you doing a review?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'm not at

all disagreeing with what the member is saying. All I am saying is that

we are reviewing and discussing it with B.C. Hydro regarding the

reservoir areas. As soon as that gets to my desk, we will do what we

believe is necessary. I'm not disagreeing with the member that it is an

important area.

MS. EDWARDS : I wonder if the

minister could tell me what made the ministry change its mind, and why

the minister changed his mind about developing a park at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I don't recall saying that we weren't going to develop Newgate.

MS. EDWARDS :

The minister, as I understand it, said that he is reviewing the park at

Newgate. The promise that I was given was that there would be a park

developed at Newgate. That was in the spring of 1988, after the crisis

was put forward to the other minister. The minister says now that he

hasn't changed his mind. What made you decide that you wouldn't proceed

with development at Newgate?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I

think I've answered that. I said we are reviewing all aspects of that

and I don't disagree with the member. I'm not quite sure what

[ Page 7791 ]

she

is all excited about. I recognize that it's a concern to her, and I

recognize that we are reviewing it and will be dealing with it.

MS. EDWARDS :

I wonder how quickly the minister thinks parks would be developed in

this province if we reviewed them all the time and called that doing

something. I would sit down and wait for an answer if I thought I would

get any, but of course it's such a foolish question, because the answer

that I was given was so foolish.

Nothing is happening at

Newgate, Mr. Minister. When is something going to happen? How are you

going to do it? Are you going to involve the people? Are we going to be

able to have a public meeting to deal with the recreational use of the

reservoir on which that particular dam was justified by B.C. Hydro and

this government? The recreational use of the reservoir has not yet been

adequately dealt with. The government promised that it would be. It now

says only that it can't do it under current legislation, but it doesn't

look forward to any new legislation. When we do get a promise from the

minister about a park at Newgate, we get — a whole year later — a

different minister saying: "Everything is going ahead. I am reviewing

it." So nothing is happening.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I am

just wondering if the member would go on as much as that if she were

meeting me one on one. It seems to me sort of ridiculous. We indicated

that we are reviewing the process. If you are just looking at the

history of the 11 months that I have been here, and look at how we

strengthened the parks and the commitment that we've made to them,

recognizing that there are many parks that need development, and

Newgate is one of those.... We're not saying that we're not going to do

it. It's not in my budget this year, but it is certainly something that

we will be reviewing and looking at for next year. Every member here

has got a park that he would like me to develop right now.

MS. EDWARDS :

I presume that I can take that to mean that the minister doesn't intend

to get anything done at Newgate this year. It's not in your budget.

It's under review. Nothing is happening at Newgate this year. Okay.

I would like to ask the minister, given the fact that he intends to do nothing with Newgate this year: does he intend...?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : He didn't say that. You're making it up.

MS. EDWARDS :

He said that nothing would happen at Newgate this year under his

budget. Is he willing to share with us any ideas he has vis--vis

having some agreement with B.C. Hydro about operating that park?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : As I mentioned, there are discussions with B.C. Hydro, and whatever comes out of that, I will announce when the time comes.

MS. EDWARDS : Does that mean the minister goes in with no opinions?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'm very comfortable where I'm coming from.

MS. EDWARDS :

I have a number of constituents who frequently speak to me about

another lake, Grave Lake. It's a privately owned lake in Elk Valley,

north of Sparwood, and it is currently operated by a private

organization. It is owned by Crows Nest Resources, but the regional

task force in the area has recommended that Grave Lake be purchased as

a recreation area to be developed as a park. I believe indications were

when the company first went in there to do coal-mining that the idea of

the ministry was that the company might donate the park to the

ministry. That didn't happen. I wonder if the minister would make some

comment on the possibility of following the recommendation of his

colleague's task force on purchasing that lake.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : At this point I have not received the recommendation, but I would be very delighted to look at it.

MS. EDWARDS :

I only have one more thing to deal with, Mr. Chairman, and that's the

Purcell wilderness. The management plan for the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy is currently undergoing review, and I have been asked to

try and get assurance from the minister — because there seems to be

some worry — that the review process will continue as it has been laid

out. As I understand it, the questionnaires have been collected. They

are going to be put together and that will go to a basic, I guess you

could call it, sort of White Paper, which will go back to the public

for more input from the public. After that time, there will be a draft

management plan put out, which will again go to the public. I would

assume there would be more public meetings. I'm not sure how many

public meetings will be at the second level that I mentioned. I would

like the minister to comment on that. I would like him to give

assurance that there will be that level of input and I would like to

hear his comments about how he expects to respond to the input from the

public in the area.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : As the member

knows, the Purcell wilderness planning newsletter has gone out, and we

have invited public involvement. I can assure the member that the whole

process will be very much open to the public.

MS. EDWARDS :

Could the minister tell me how he sees it being open? Does he see it

being open through public meetings, or how does he see that happening?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

If I can recall, we have already done some public meetings on Purcell.

If we need to go to more of them, then we'll go to more of them.

[ Page 7792 ]

MS. EDWARDS :

I guess, Mr. Minister, you tempt us to get assurance that you know what

is being said by your ministry and that you do agree with it. The

ministry says that there will be two other rounds of public process.

Will that involve public meetings?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

Well, the question isn't whether I agree with the ministry. If we need

more open public processes, then I as the minister will indicate that's

what we need, and then that's what we'll do.

MS. EDWARDS :

I would just like to conclude by suggesting to the minister that we

need more public process; that the people in our area believe we need

more public process. I am sure, that being the case, the minister will

hear that — by whatever means it is that he finds out — and determine

whether it is needed or not.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I have

sat through the minister's debates here and was briefly involved

yesterday, and I have listened to him say, on questioning from this

side of the House, that he's involved; that he consults; that he

listens; that he convenes; that he is in fact a team player. As we

know, on a baseball team, you've got a batter and a catcher and a first

baseman and a second baseman, and you have fielders; and in football

you have quarterbacks and fullbacks. But you've also got the bat boy

and you've also got the water boy. What we're trying to determine here

is: are we dealing with a fullback, a quarterback, the batter, the

pitcher, or in fact the bat boy or the water boy?

We're

simply trying to identify from this side of the House why the minister

has his estimates here and why in fact.... I wonder what the $10 at the

end is for. I hope that's not his wages for the year.

We're

simply trying to determine what the minister of state does and is

involved in. As is widely known, the former member for Alberni and

myself have been calling for an independent review of the land use

conflicts that are occurring, particularly on Vancouver Island in my

riding. That hasn't been done. An offer was made by the federal

Environment minister to do that study. It wasn't taken up by this

government. The conflict undoubtedly will occur again. It happened in

Sulphur Passage. It's now happening in the Carmanah. It's going to

continue up and down the Island, on the coast, and perhaps all over

British Columbia.

I see that the Solicitor-General (Hon.

Mr. Ree) is leaving. We attempted to get some answers out of him on

PEP. We attempted to get some answers out of other ministers. The

minister of state says: "You can always come and see me, and I'll take

it up for you." He says he reviews, he consults, he meets with people,

he calls hearings. I guess the question is: can he in fact make a

decision?

[3:00]

Now that Tofino's city council and the chamber of commerce.... I

know he was in Tofino and is undoubtedly aware — he's on top of matters

in his ministry — that they have done a study for some $5,000 or

$10,000 to determine the future of the Clayoquot Sound area. They would

like to become more involved in the tourism aspect and move away from

the resource-extraction type of industry that's been prevalent there

for some time. They've requested a further quarter of a million dollars

to do a larger study — an impact study. I'm sure that's gone through

the minister's office. Is he going to approve that quarter of a million

dollars? Is he going to deny it? Is he going to partially fund it? Are

we going to have some local input to see whether we can ward off future

resource and land use conflicts in this area?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

We did meet with that group in Tofino, and we also facilitated their

ability to come to ELUC and make a presentation. It is one of many

groups that are concerned about that issue. We encouraged them to make

sure that other groups were also part of that planning process.

Hopefully they will come back and indicate to me that they are working

with the other groups as well, so that they can resolve some of those

difficulties. Certainly, some of the other groups are quite willing to

work with each other to resolve the problem and to prevent problems in

the future.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK :

Sitting in the gallery today are two very dear old friends from

Nanaimo. On behalf of the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) and

myself, I would like to introduce and ask the House to make welcome Ron

and Florence Riley. Florence Riley, as a matter of fact, was the

executive assistant to the former Leader of the Opposition, the Hon.

Bob Strachan.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Again we're told by

the minister, as before, that there's consultation: "I'll take the

message. I'll get groups together. I'm willing to listen at all times."

But no concrete action is taking place. He's saying now that the group

in Tofino — city council, through their chamber of commerce — has been

asked to meet with the other groups of the area. How was the minister

involved? What does the ministry of state do? When groups from various

areas within his jurisdiction come to him, does he simply play traffic

cop and direct them into various areas? "You go over there and meet

with him, and I'll take this to cabinet for you. Would you please go

over and speak with the Minister of Environment or the Minister of

Highways."

I fail to see that any direct action comes out

of his ministry. Does he make any decisions? Does he have the right to

spend any money? Does he have the right to give any approvals? Was he

involved in the Carmanah dispute? Did he direct the Ministry of Forests

or the Ministry of Environment or the Minis-

[ Page 7793 ]

try of Tourism to carry out studies there? Or does he simply carry the water bucket?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

I indicated before that we've met with the group from Tofino. If I can

coordinate and facilitate to resolve that difficulty, I'm happy to be

there. If you want some examples of where we got involved, let's look

at the Cribco deal. Campbell River has a $44 million development that

wasn't coming together. The native Indians wanted to be involved with

that. They couldn't get money from the federal government, and the

provincial government wasn't playing a role. We were able to coordinate

and bring them all together. Now the native Indians are happy; the

federal government is happy; the provincial government is happy. And we

are going to have a $44 million development at Campbell River because

of my involvement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

You call it whatever you will; I think I made a major difference there.

It had been going on for 15 years, and we've resolved that problem. I'm

certainly not the only player, but I made a difference.

Port Hardy they talked about closing the mine. We met with the

principals of the mine; we met with people from Port Hardy. They

indicated to us that there would be 500 people unemployed if that mine

closed. We met with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, and again we coordinated and facilitated. That mine today is

open because of our involvement. Again, I wasn't the only player, but

I'm sure that we facilitated and helped solve the problem — and there

are many more.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Great facilitation!

You brought groups together; you got a project going in Campbell River.

Wonderful stuff, if that's what your ministry does.

There's

a rally going on outside very shortly on the Carmanah Valley. Were you

involved? Did you speak to the Ministry of Forests? Did you speak to

the Ministry of Environment? Tourism? What was the minister's role?

Surely a dispute that has made headlines across Canada — even "The

Journal" had a special program last night on the valley.... What was

the minister's involvement there?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

First of all, as you recognize, that area is under the jurisdiction of

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). Having said that, as the

minister of state and also as the Minister of Parks, I have been to

Carmanah. I spent an afternoon there looking at Carmanah. I've also met

with my federal counterpart, Mr. Bouchard, and discussed Carmanah with

him. I also recognize the conservation and recreation aspects of

Carmanah, and I've voiced that issue a number of times with my

colleagues.

MR. LOVICK : As a former teacher of

language, I always used to tell students: beware of those fancy words

that end in "ate" — words like "coordinate" and "facilitate" — because

what they usually mean, as opposed to their counterparts in Anglo-Saxon

four-letter words, is that there is nothing going on. They're not words

like "work," "make" or "do." Rather, these are fancy words that tend to

generate their own realm of inactivity. So I'm a little suspicious when

I hear that the only definition of that minister's job is, apparently,

to coordinate and to facilitate, and perhaps indeed we'll throw in....

Do you ameliorate too, Mr. Minister? Do you mitigate? Do you militate?

I don't know what else might be in there.

MS. PULLINGER : Hibernate.

MR. LOVICK : How about hibernate, as my colleague for Nanaimo says? It seems the most appropriate description thus far.

The

question I wanted to pose, picking up on this debate, is to do with the

question that my colleague from Port Alberni just....

HON. MR. REE :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to acknowledge that

I'm back in the House, since the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen)

made a point of saying I was leaving the House earlier.

MR. LOVICK :

Well, I am pleased that the Solicitor General did that, because if he

hadn't, I'm sure nobody would have noticed his arrival. So that's good

to see.

In any event, what we were discussing was the point

raised by my colleague the member for Alberni, Mr. Chairman — and a

very important one: namely, what has this minister's involvement been

vis--vis the Carmanah? We know what's been said by the federal

counterpart, all right, in Ottawa. And I'm wondering if in fact this

minister is telling us that he as a Minister of Parks is perhaps

responsible for federal minister Bouchard's possible decision about

giving some park status to that area. Is that what you discussed with

the federal counterpart, Mr. Minister? Tell us what you talked about

when you discussed this with Bouchard. What did you say to him? Did you

say: "Here's our list; here's our involvement from B.C.; here are the

kinds of things we want"? Give us some illustration of that, if you

would, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Well, since

the member opposite obviously wants to send this out to his

constituents, maybe he should also send out that it wasn't him alone

that got the handyDART buses. They might want to write that up there,

to make sure they know that. You might also want to indicate that the

$760,000 Go B.C. program was not done by the member respectively.

MR. LOVICK :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have never at any time taken all

the claim for the handyDART in Nanaimo; I have always given credit to

all the others involved, at every single occasion. To

[ Page 7794 ]

suggest otherwise is unparliamentary and dishonest. I would suggest you don't do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, that's not a point of order in Committee of Supply. The

member knows he can respond at any other time. Secondly, I heard the

imputation of the word "dishonest," and that must be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member withdraw the word "dishonest," please.

MR. LOVICK :

I will withdraw that word, Mr. Chairman, but I will also emphasize the

fact that what the member opposite said does not conform to the reality

of what was in fact said by me. But I will withdraw the word.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm very interested in this debate. I had not anticipated this; I was coming to talk about something else.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Give us the Botanical Beach story.

MR. SIHOTA :

Oh, Botanical Beach, yes — singlehandedly saved that one. I can tell

you more stories about that. We've got new stuff. Actually, I was going

to talk about Botanical Beach.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : What do you know about Botanical Beach?

MR. SIHOTA : A lot more than you do.

By the way, I want to thank the minister of state for responding most recently to my letter about Botanical Beach.

want to know from the Minister of State for Vancouver Island what he

told his federal counterpart when he looked him in the eyes and

discussed the Carmanah. I'm sure the minister didn't want to blink

before he did. What did you tell him? What representation did you make

on the Carmanah on behalf of the people of British Columbia in your

capacity as Minister of Parks and Minister of State for Vancouver

Island? What position did you take, Mr. Minister?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

When I met with my federal counterpart, I indicated to him that I had

been through Carmanah and seen parts of it, and that certain aspects of

it definitely needed to be preserved. We just had a general discussion

about Carmanah. That's in essence what it came down to.

MR. SIHOTA : I don't know if I should have walked in here today.

Generally,

you had a discussion about preservation. As Minister of Parks and

minister responsible for Vancouver Island, where the Carmanah is

situated, could the minister advise the House what his position is on

the Carmanah? Do you have a view as to whether it should be preserved

or logged or what? I am most interested in knowing what you, in your

capacity as minister, have to say about that.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

As one member of government, that decision will come down in the near

future. Certainly I'm part of the democratic process that takes place.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA :

As a part of that mighty team of cabinet members, can I ask the

minister a question then. I know we'll have a chance during Forests

estimates, when we ultimately get to them, to ask the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) this question; when we ultimately get to the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), we'll have a chance to ask

him this question to ascertain the views of individual ministers. With

respect to the minister's own area of jurisdiction, what position is he

taking on the Carmanah? Are you advocating, as I guess your

responsibility is for parks, a park status for the Carmanah?

MR. CHAIRMAN : It's future policy, but the minister may wish to respond.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Precisely; it is future policy. I've indicated that I recognize a lot of the conservation-recreational aspects of Carmanah.

MR. SIHOTA : It's future policy as to what you may do in the future. I'm trying to ascertain where you are now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : He's right over in his seat.

MR. SIHOTA :

I know where he is physically. It's important. I think the minister

knows full well it's a critical issue. It's a very important issue in

my riding, in that there are people who work in the forest industry.

People in my riding feel strongly about the environment.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

What's my stand? Our stand has been very clear right from the outset:

we believe as much of that area must be preserved as necessary to

maintain the Sitka spruce and the ecosystem that maintains it. It's as

simple as that.

Having shared our view, if that satisfies

the Solicitor-General, could the minister tell the House what his

personal view is on the matter of the Carmanah, which I would agree is

a difficult and contentious issue. What is your ministry's position on

the Carmanah as it sits right now?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I just told you.

MR. SIHOTA :

So I take it the minister's position is that it's a good recreational

corridor and that some of it should be preserved. Is that basically the

position,

[ Page 7795 ]

I can paraphrase the minister? Am I wrong? I don't want to misrepresent

the minister. Is that an adequate phrasing of the minister's position

on the Carmanah?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I don't remember using the words "recreation corridor."

MR. SIHOTA : Just for my benefit, could the minister go over his position again for me? I'll make a note of it.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : You can read it in Hansard tomorrow.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm sorry, I would have respected that kind of response from other

ministers, but not from the Minister Responsible for Parks and the

Minister of State for Vancouver Island–Coast and North Coast. I would

like to ask the Minister of Parks if it is his view that there should

logging in the Carmanah Valley region.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

As Minister of Parks, undoubtedly the minister is aware that a number

of people in British Columbia on Vancouver Island have called for the

Carmanah to be put into a park. The Cowichan regional district had an

opinion on that, as well as the Sierra Club and other groups involved.

Polls show a percentage of British Columbians believe that the big

spruce, the entire watershed and the ecosystem should be preserved. Has

the minister, in his capacity as Minister of Parks, done a study? Has

he listened to the concerns of all the British Columbians who have been

involved in this for the last year or so?

Has he advised

any of his people in his department to take a serious look at the

Carmanah Valley and ask if it is feasible to make this a park? Is there

any reason to make it a park? Are we concerned enough about the

ecosystem? Is it so unique? Are we following the wishes of British

Columbians? Has any study been done? Has he considered it? Has he

talked about it with the federal minister when he met with him? What

exactly did his ministry do about the Carmanah Valley?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

The question was: "Have I listened to the people?" Yes, I have, I am

and I still will continue to listen to the people. I've already shown

that in a lot of the decisions that we've made I'm listening to them in

Garibaldi, in Strathcona and in the Purcells. I'm not sure what more I

could say regarding listening to the people.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Very simply, Mr. Minister: has his ministry looked at the Carmanah

Valley with the viewpoint of preserving it in a park or a recreation

area?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : The answer to that is yes. We're reviewing that.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Now as Minister of State for Vancouver Island–Coast and North Coast,

has the minister taken into consideration the processing plants that

have to survive on the allowable cut on the trees that are necessary to

keep the community of Alberni viable?

AN HON. MEMBER : Why don't you ask him as the vet and get it all done?

MR. G. JANSSEN : I know what vets do; they did it to my dog. Hopefully they won't do it to the Carmanah Valley.

Has

the minister of state considered the economic implications of allowing

the valley to be preserved, of not allowing any logging to be done in

that area and of cutting off that supply of raw material that is so

vital to the community of Alberni and the four big processing plants

that virtually keep the community of Alberni alive and the

infrastructure that surrounds it? As minister of state, has he reviewed

that in an economic sense?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : As I've

indicated, I listen to the people. I have also sat down and talked to

the mayor of Port Alberni. I have toured the Franklin division, so I'm

listening to all the people.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Now

we've determined that the Minister of Parks has looked at the Carmanah

Valley with the view of turning it into a park, and he's obviously had

his people in there reviewing the ecosystem and the tall trees. He's

also gone down and talked to the mayor of Alberni. He's also toured the

Franklin River area. He must have some indication of the economic

benefit those trees have. Now all we have to determine, Mr. Minister,

is what decision you have made, or are you again trying to facilitate

the people who are in favour of a park or in favour of logging? I can't

recall you facilitating, intervening, consulting or even trying to

bring together those two groups to have a meeting with you — in either

your capacity as Minister Responsible for Parks or your capacity as

minister of state — in order to resolve the issue. Are you attempting

to do that fairly quickly?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : All the

knowledge I'm gaining by listening to the people I will bring to the

cabinet table. In the fullness of time, I may reveal that to you.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Can I at least ask if the minister of state has consulted with the

Minister Responsible for Parks about the issue of the Carmanah and has

come to any conclusion?

MR. SIHOTA : This is a very

interesting debate. There is no doubt that there are conflicting

concerns here. There is the economic concern, and there is the

environmental concern. There are the economic responsibilities that

fall to the feet of the minister of state for Vancouver Island, and

there are the environmental concerns which, of course, fall to the

Minister of Parks. We have the good fortune of having the minister

responsible for both functions.

[ Page 7796 ]

seems to me that he — as the spokesperson for Vancouver Island in this

scheme the government set up in terms of regional ministers — has got

quite a role to play on this matter in reconciling these conflicting

demands.

After listening and considering what people had to

say, could the minister tell us what his next step was? What has he

done on the matter of the Carmanah, now that he's listened to people

and has the benefit of their wisdom?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

As I indicated, I've listened to the people, I'm reviewing the process,

and I'm bringing all that information to the cabinet table.

MR. SIHOTA :

I don't want to ask the minister to break his oath and tell us secrets

about what transpires in cabinet, but I do want the minister to let the

public know what he thinks about the issue. I don't think that's asking

much from the minister, and I think it would be appropriate for the

minister to embellish in this House what his position on the Carmanah

is. He's responsible.

I don't really care to know what

happens in cabinet. We'll know the end result in any event, but you're

certainly not going to be violating any secrets if you tell us what

position you intend to take, or what position you have taken to date.

Perhaps instead of dealing with the position you intend to take, could

you tell us what position you have taken on this very difficult,

sensitive and complicated issue? I'm sure it's not a passing thing for

the minister. I'm sure it's occupied some of his time, and I'm sure

he's come to some general conclusions in his mind, apart from the

vagaries he's given us to date. I'm just wondering generally what

position you are prepared to take. Do you think it should be converted

into a park? Do you think it should be logged? Are you leaning one way

as opposed to the other? Have you got a third option, in keeping with

the statement made earlier this week by the Premier? Just what are the

variables you're weighing, and which way are you leaning on this issue?

MS. PULLINGER :

We'll come back to that subject in a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, but I

would like to pursue the whole issue of the ferrochromium plant and the

minister of state's involvement in it.

Although we hear the

minister telling us that his role is to facilitate and coordinate, and

he's listened to the people, all those different bodies I mentioned

from the biological station, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers'

Union, Hagensborg Resources and the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective

Association haven't heard from you, and you haven't heard from them. I

don't know where this coordination, facilitation and listening to the

people.... I don't know who you're listening to.

[3:30]

I'd like to ask a couple of questions concerning your involvement in

this process. The first question is: given that you haven't spoken to

any of these people, that you haven't done any investigation into the

potential economic conflicts with this plant, I would like to know if

the minister has had any studies done. Have there been any studies done

about the whole economic viability of the plant in that area, given the

other industries there? Have you done anything with that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

I think the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) answered that

question very well. There's a process in place, and that process is

being followed. From my perspective we should let the process just

continue. If it turns out for some reason that it's not environmentally

sound, then let's not let it happen.

MS. PULLINGER :

My seatmate was just commenting that I ought to remind you about

something that we've discussed: that there is a fundamental flaw in

that process. The flaw is that the plant can be built before the permit

process is complete.

MR. LOVICK : Check that out with your officials.

MS. PULLINGER : Check it out with your officials. That's the information we get from your officials.

In any case, I am asking about the economic viability of this. Has the minister been involved in any studies...?

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER : There's a fundamental flaw on the other side of the House.

Has

the minister done any studies about the economic viability of this

plant? Can he answer that? I'm talking about not environmental but

economic viability. There's a difference.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Nanaimo continues.

MS. PULLINGER :

I assume that the answer is no, that the minister has not talked to any

of the people, nor has he done any studies about the economic viability

of the plant.

I would like to ask a very simple question.

I'm sure you can answer this one. When was the approval in principle

given for this plant?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Nanaimo.

MS. PULLINGER : I note the minister doesn't seem to be able to answer that one either. I'm very suspicious as to what his role is.

note that the repayment of the taxpayers' loan from the provincial

government — our moneys — of $4.7 million comes in the form of

royalties in lieu of interest. Am I correct in that assumption?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member continues.

[ Page 7797 ]

MS. PULLINGER :

This is ridiculous. Are there no questions you can answer? Do you know

anything at all about the ferrochromiurn plant? Have you had any

involvement in its development? You haven't talked to anybody, you have

no studies, you've done nothing with it, you don't know when approval

was given. I am most interested to know.

I notice that this

plant produces 25,000 tonnes of ferrochromium each year, and that seems

to have been looked at. It also produces 20,000 tonnes per year of

mineral fibre — mineral wool. Has the minister looked into the markets

for that? Does he know that it's economically viable? It is a saleable

product? Can you answer that question?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

We can continue talking about the ferrochromium plant and be here all

day, but I have mentioned that there was a process in place. The

approval in principle was given a number of months ago; I believe it

was around January. The economic viability has been discussed with the

Minister of Regional Development. We've got a process in place to make

sure that it is environmentally sound. I am not sure why the member is

dragging this out.

I get approached all across Vancouver

Island continually by towns and cities wanting projects in their

regions. It is my position as the minister of state to bring those to

the team and see what opportunities lie there.

The process

is carrying on. Nothing is definite, and as I indicated before, if all

the numbers and all the environmental issues don't fall into place, it

won't happen. At the same time, you wouldn't want to turn everybody

down immediately and say: "You're not welcome on Vancouver Island." I

think we need to research everything carefully.

MS. PULLINGER :

You say nothing is definite? I have some trouble with that, because my

understanding is that once approval in principle is given, they are

free to go ahead and start building the plant. Is that not correct, Mr.

Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before I recognize the

minister, perhaps I could ask all members, especially when the tenor of

the debate starts to get a little acrimonious, to remember that they

must address the Chair and questions must be placed through the Chair.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the plant will not go forward unless

the Minister of Environment approves all the environmental standards

that are necessary.

MS. PULLINGER : That is

contradictory. My understanding from your own people is that the permit

process happens as the plant is being built — before it's allowed to

operate, but after it's built; they can start pouring concrete. That is

the information I have.

You say that you're part of a team

and that you're responsible for the coordinated economic development of

the region, and I'm not getting any answers about that. Can you tell

me: have there been any independent studies whatsoever about the

economic viability of this plant?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Can I ask the member to again refresh her memory and address the Chair.

MS. PULLINGER :

Through you, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing, quite clearly, with a

ferrochromium plant that's unproven. There has never been a prototype

built. As far as I can see, in the one preliminary study, an overview

only — and the authors of that study say that more needs to be done —

this plant has not been looked at. It's a preliminary study on an

unproven plant, done on preliminary drawings and on the owner's own

information.

The minister is confirming by his silence that

there have been no independent studies whatsoever, in spite of the fact

that it's an unproven technology with no prototype and only very

preliminary reviews. Is that correct, that there is no other

independent study whatsoever? Can you respond to that?

MR. LOVICK :

Just a couple of other questions. Clearly one doesn't want to beat the

empty drum too often, because the sound is monotonous — monotonous.

The

minister made reference to the fact that his

part in this was to

promote Vancouver Island sites, and he made reference to three

different sites. Is it not the case — through you, Mr. Chairman — that

two of those sites were rejected because of opinions expressed by the

residents of those particular communities? Will you confirm that? Heck,

you can even nod, if need be.

MR. CHAIRMAN : First

member for Vancouver South. If the member wishes to speak, that will be

fine, but I will advise the member that the Chair will be firm on his

debate this afternoon.

MR. R. FRASER : I think I

heard, when that member was going, "through you to the minister, Mr.

Chairman," that he didn't like to hear any word ending with "ate."

That's the whole thing with the NDP; they don't like the word

"fortunate," either. What a great, fortunate province we have. How many

hundreds of parks do we have here?

One government after

another run by the Social Credit Party, creating one park after

another. We have a system that's unequalled. California has half a

million hectares of parkland; British Columbia has 5.5 million hectares

of parkland — not too bad, not too shabby. This government that you

criticize has done all these things, year in, year out, still ongoing,

while you hassle the minister mercilessly.

I can't stand

here and let that happen, because the park system here is wonderful.

You know what I'd like to see, Mr. Chairman? I would like to have seen

a provincial park in the city of Vancouver, or close to it. It would

have been grand to have the former UE Lands as a provincial park. I

think the minister

[ Page 7798 ]

would have done a great job with that. It would have looked good: a provincial park for British Columbia.

Here's

the thing about the opposition: what do they care about the jobs in the

lumber industry? Not one job do they care about, unless Jack Munro

tells them to stay off the front stairs. Then they care. "Don't come to

the meeting," he said. Isn't that right? No. We went to the meeting,

and it worked out very well.

How many parks have we had

since 1988? How about Botanical Beach Park, Halkett Bay Marine Park,

Sandwell Park, Squitty Bay Marine Park, Columbia Lake Park and Adams

Lake? You probably haven't heard of these parks. One of those little

parks is on Gabriola. Have you heard of that, Mr. Member, and the

second member for Nanaimo? Probably not. Have they ever cared to create

one little area? No, no, no. What they say is: "Save every valley.

Forget about the jobs of the men and women in the lumber industry.

Let's save everything."

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

who has a great interest in the forest industry, who I am sure will be

able to extend this debate three, maybe four, days single-handedly,

would say to the minister here: "Yes, have some parks, minister, but

let's have some logging. Let's have some forestry; let's plant some

trees." We're in the tree-planting business in Parks, are we not?

Saving those trees — you bet.

How about some stand-alone

recreation areas? How about Blanket Creek, International Ridge,

Loveland Bay, Niska Lakes, Roderick Haig-Brown — there is an

interesting name; a great old British Columbia name — Sunnybrae, Green

Lake, Kentucky-Alleyne, Mount Judge Howay, Pennask Lake, Silver Star,

Kootenay Lake and Mansons Landing. Have any of you ever travelled this

province and found out how wonderful it is? Have you been anywhere in

the world that can tell you how great it is here? I urge you to go

somewhere. Anywhere. Compare what we've got here with what you'll find

anywhere.

MR. LOVICK : I urge you to go somewhere too.

MR. R. FRASER :

I've been there and back. You guys don't even dream big. It's terrible.

I've been to countries in Europe where they're making streets into

parks because it's so crowded over there. It's important to have a nice

combination. But do they think that way? No, they don't. They never

liked the "ate" words. They don't want to hear "fortunate." They don't

want to think it's grand. They don't care who pays for it. They just

want to nag, nag, nag to the minister who's been running hard since he

was appointed to executive council.

MR. LOVICK : Relevance at last.

MR. R. FRASER : And do they heckle me, Mr. Chairman? Yes, they do. Do I care? No, I don't. I want to put you in Hansard today, Mr. First Member for Nanaimo. You're here. It's a great breakthrough. As a matter of fact, for those at home reading Hansard today, they'll find out that all three members of the opposition party are here today.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please relate this particular line of your debate to the relevancy of vote 61.

MR. R. FRASER :

And all three have spoken about parks. Mr. Minister, you get up there

and tell those good people over there some good news, because we've got

lots of it. If you're not good, I'll come back and give you more.

[3:45]

MS. PULLINGER :

I just want to respond to the great economic management team over there

— as they always tout themselves — and just ask one last question to

see if I can't elicit some kind of intelligent response. We have $4.75

million of the taxpayers' money being invested in a ferrochromium plant

in Nanaimo. The return on that after five years interest free is

through royalties from the plant, not interest. Of course, royalties

assumes that the thing is viable and it's going to have some sales.

We're

dealing with a prototype — something that has never been built, that

has never operated. This government has done a two-week overview based

on the plant owner's own information. The corporation in Luxemborg that

they had a partnership with backed out of the deal because 46 percent

of the product — namely the mineral wool, which is 46 percent of what

that plant will produce — had no markets.

On the face of

that information, it seems like a very foolish economic deal to make

without further knowledge. It doesn't look to me like a good deal from

the great economic managers across the floor here. I would like to ask

once again: have there been any independent studies done to show that

this is viable, that that 46 percent of the product, the mineral wool,

is a viable product, has markets and can sell and produce royalties so

the taxpayers of British Columbia can have their money back? Can the

minister confirm that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : It's

interesting that it's the last question; it's also going to be the last

answer. What I will do for you—- and I'll make it so detailed you won't

know what to do with it — is give you all the details and all the

information on that project. We'll make sure it gets to your desk, and

you can read it all.

MS. MARZARI : I'm interested in

talking to the minister in his role as minister of state for the

Island. The member for Vancouver South has talked about big dreams. The

thing about big dreams is that in order to accomplish big dreams, you

have to have very specific tools. I'm interested in knowing from the

minister of state what has been presented to you by your cabinet, by

your government, by the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) in terms of what economic tools you do have to bring to your

region and to bring to your role in the region. Have

[ Page 7799 ]

you

had briefings with your staff and with your fellow ministers of state

on those economic tools and those programs available to you, both from

the federal level and from those programs that have been initiated here

provincially?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : We meet with each

other as ministers of state and with the Minister of Regional

Development, and constantly discuss opportunities that are available —

both provincial and federal funds that may be available as well.

MS. MARZARI :

Could the minister advise me which programs are in use today? For

example, in your particular ministry and in your role and the role of

your fellow ministers of state, are you at all involved in the process

of giving tax concessions to various projects and proposals that come

before you?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Those are options that are available.

MS. MARZARI :

Would the minister talk in some detail about those programs that are

available? Is the special investment interest subsidy program still

being made available by this government and by you particularly?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

We have the seed capital program and the venture capital program; we

have small business programs and other programs that may come through

other ministries and that we can tie into. We try to do that as well.

MS. MARZARI : Is the minister involved at all with the special investment interest subsidy program, commonly called SIIP?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

As I've mentioned, there are a number of programs we can be involved

in. That particular one doesn't ring a bell, to be honest with you.

MS. MARZARI :

Is the minister involved with a program called low-interest loan

assistance, and is this a program which is extant right now? I gather

it used to be under BCEC, when BCEC was in the business of offering

loans, special grants and subsidies to corporations. Many of those were

closed down. Obviously BCEC no longer lends, but I've been told that

LILA, the low-interest lending agreement, is still in existence. Are

you involved with LILA?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Let's just go through the process we go through, without trying to make me Minister of Finance at the same time.

When there's an initiative brought to my attention, say, from the task

forces, then there's a process we go through. Obviously it comes from the

task force; it comes to me; then we go to Treasury Board if necessary. We discuss

it with our colleagues the ministers of state and with the Minister of Regional

Development, and there are staff people on the team that help us find the suitable

funding process that needs to be in place.

MS. MARZARI :

Do you know whether or not you're involved with LIFT, something called

Low Interest Funding Today, and if this program is still available to

businesses and corporations?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Many

of the questions being addressed to me should have been addressed to

the Minister of Regional Development, who has the members on staff that

deal with those programs. I, as one of the members of the team, sit

down with the Minister of Regional Development and his staff, and we

try to coordinate the right program to help facilitate some activities

that may be possible.

MS. MARZARI : Is the minister

saying that basically he doesn't have hands-on experience of any of the

individual programs which are available for small corporations and

large corporations as they come before the ministers of state?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'm saying that I have access to all those programs when necessary.

MS. MARZARI :

Does the minister have a working, hands-on understanding of these

programs? Or do you approach your team and your grand master — the

great Pooh-Bah, as he is being called — as a supplicant? I'm trying to

ask whether you have hands-on, working knowledge of all these programs.

I'll

tell you why I'm asking the question, Mr. Minister. I stood up a few

weeks ago during the Finance estimates and asked the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) what programs were available for the

subsidization of corporations and small businesses needing risk capital

and venture capital so that they could dream, so that they could build

business, so that they could help the economy. The Minister of Finance

told me that he did not deal with these programs, that these were not

within his jurisdiction and that, in fact, I would have to talk to the

ministers of state in order to get any kind of responsible answer to my

questions about what programs were available.

I am asking

you now: do you have working knowledge of each of these programs? In

other words, when people come to you from whatever company, corporation

or enterprise seeking risk capital, seeking tax exemption, seeking some

assistance so that they can dream a little and help our economy and

help their neighbours and their communities, do you have working

knowledge of these programs so that you can, in effect, walk into your

team and lobby effectively for particular dollars from a particular

program?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : You asked those questions

of the Minister of Finance. You should have asked a lot of those

questions of the Minister of Regional Development as well. However, we

are familiar with the programs that are available. We have staff that

are

[ Page 7800 ]

also

familiar with those programs. Certainly when you're talking about small

business men, we talk about the venture capital program or the seed

capital program. We've been very involved with those. We have high-tech

firms that we've assisted; we have tourist facilities that we've

assisted as well. We've also helped small business men get started in

photography. We've helped small businesses start in medical fields.

We've been involved with a number of issues through the seed capital

program, in which we guarantee the loan up to 75 percent.

MS. MARZARI :

I'm not asking you who you're helping; that isn't the purpose of my

questions. It's mostly women who are engaged in small business

nowadays, I should suggest; 60 percent of successful small businesses

have been started and are run by women. So if you're only dealing with

businessmen, you're already doing yourself a disservice.

But

I'm not interested in who you're giving the money to; I'm interested in

your knowledge of the programs that exist now. I'm not interested in

what the Minister of Regional Development knows; I'm interested in what

you and your fellow team members know — what you're being told. If

you're not being told about the programs, if you are bringing your

shopping-list to one senior minister, I want to know that. If you come

in as a shopper with your shopping-list and your only job is to lobby a

senior minister for your package to take home, I want to know why I as

a small business person wouldn't go straight to the Minister of

Regional Development in the first place. Why would I have to come

through your office in the first place? Why would I as a taxpayer be

spending $809,000 keeping you running around the Island?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The reason the House....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The reason we have these rules about addressing the

Chair and speaking through the Chair is so that debate doesn't become

so acrimonious. The Chair becomes the receiver of some of these rather

caustic comments. Perhaps we could ask all members just to remember

that. It will help, hopefully, in the waning days of this session.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

Let me say that I am knowledgeable about a number of programs. Any

group, or business lady — or businesswoman, if you want to put it that

way — that comes to me with a set of facts and has a business plan....

We will do whatever we can to facilitate the opportunity for that

individual.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Minister — through you,

Mr. Chairman.... I will save my caustic comments for you, Mr. Chairman,

but you're doing such a good job. It's difficult to get angry at you;

you're so mellow.

Mr. Minister, I'm beginning to understand

that you do not have a hands-on, working knowledge of the individual

programs you have to offer to the people who come to you. I am

beginning to understand that in fact you take a list back to your team,

and your team captain pretty much tells you where the money is going to

go, when and how, depending on his priorities, not your priorities. I

am beginning to understand that very clearly.

Do you, Mr. Minister, sign contracts?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : The answer is yes.

MS. MARZARI :

Do you, Mr. Minister, sign contracts all by yourself, or do you have

the signature of your senior Minister of Regional Development on each

contract that you sign?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Some I sign by myself.

MS. MARZARI :

May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how big the contract is allowed to be? What is

the financial level? What is the ceiling? Does he sign the big

contracts, or is he allowed to sign the little, weenie contracts?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

There is in essence no level, but any wise businessman would be prudent

to discuss major contracts with the other people involved before he

signs.

MS. MARZARI : When does your Minister of Regional Development let you sign a contract by yourself, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Well, exactly. I'm going to ask for all the questions at one time, if you're just going to nitpick away. Let's have them all.

MS. MARZARI :

I want to know when you're allowed to sign a contract, and I want to

know under what programs you're allowed to sign a contract. I would

like to know what the level of dollars is that you're allowed to sign a

contract for, before the senior Minister of Regional Development takes

over. I want to know how many times a year you meet with your team and

the senior minister.

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER : Slow down. He's making notes.

MS. MARZARI : He can read the Blues — possibly.

MR. LOVICK : No, this is for today.

MS. MARZARI : Oh, you mean today.

MR. LOVICK : Yes, we want answers.

MS. MARZARI : Okay.

[ Page 7801 ]

I'd

like to know what you do, Mr. Minister, in your role with your team

colleagues, with your cohorts, as the minister of state for a region,

besides going around and acting as a sponge to absorb people's dreams

and aspirations, and taking them off to your senior minister, who may

or may not respond to you, but may, rather, respond to the wishes of

some other plan that has nothing whatsoever to do with your agenda.

I'm

interested in knowing what you know about your job. I figure that if

I'm coming to you as a business person seeking help — a tax concession,

a rebate on my water rates, some lessening of my water bill, some

special venture capital, a low-interest rate on a loan, some

guarantee.... I want to know what you know. I want to know what you've

got to offer. You have $809,000. I want to know why I shouldn't be

talking to the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch). He's

the one who probably knows. I want to know what power is decentralized

to you; that's why I asked you the specific question as to what

contracts you signed.

Finally, my last question is: do you

sign as many contracts as you cut ribbons? I was at a ceremony the

other day for the wellness clinic in James Bay, and the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) was there. I noticed that he sat there on

the dais, but there were four ministers sitting at the front of the

group in front of 150 senior citizens. Sitting under a tent were four

ministers for a small opening of a small clinic that we're all very

proud of, but it was a very local affair. Four ministers showed up at

this little local affair for the opening of a wellness clinic. They

took time off their busy schedules to be there, and I think that's

rather good of them. They were the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck),

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid), the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier), the Minister of State for Vancouver Island and the

second member for Victoria. I was there along with my colleagues,

because I happened to be invited by the local organizers of this event.

Now what stood out....

AN HON. MEMBER : Why were you there?

MS. MARZARI :

Why was I there? Because 20 years ago I was involved with establishing

social service and health facilities in this province as a member of

city council. The James Bay Community Health Clinic was one of the

prototypes for the whole province. The four ministers who were there

were reinventing the concept, but that's beside the point. The fact

that 20 years ago it was invented by another group altogether was

hardly mentioned, except by my colleague from Victoria.

The

important thing here is that the organizers — the people at the wellness

centre — didn't quite know who to give the scissors to, to cut the

ribbon, nor did they know how many ribbons to actually stretch. So it

turned out that rather than one ribbon being stretched across the

opening to the centre, there were two ribbons. They compromised on two

ribbons. One of the ribbons was a blue ribbon, and one ribbon read "Go

B.C." I can imagine what cabinet must have looked like that day,

because I would think that the minister who wanted to cut the ribbon

would have been the Provincial Secretary, who runs Go B.C. But no, he

was allowed to speak. So the minister who was allowed to cut the ribbon

was the minister of state.

The minister who was allowed to

cut the other ribbon was the Minister of Health. The Minister of

Finance and the Provincial Secretary were allowed to make long speeches.

AN HON. MEMBER : No kidding.

MS. MARZARI : Yes. Four ministers....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MS. MARZARI : Well, the major point....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The Chair is trying to find this out of order, but

can't. Therefore I will sit here and listen to it. But I must insist

that if members are going to shout across the floor, they must at least

do it from their own chairs. I would remind the government Whip that he

is not allowed to comment from locations other than his own chair. I

think it would facilitate the business of the committee if members of

the executive council would restrain themselves during this rather

enlightened discussion.

Would the member please continue.

MS. MARZARI :

The question comes down to my original point, Mr. Chairman. The

minister claims he signs contracts, but he has given me no reason to

understand why he would be allowed to sign contracts with his team and

his colleagues. I asked him if he signed as many contracts as he cut

ribbons. I would suspect that the minister is there for every

ribbon-cutting, but when the crunch comes and when those business

people have to actually follow through with their contracts and ask

questions, they won't be going to him; they'll be going to the Minister

of Regional Development.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'm going to take your advice — you asked me to read the Blues — and I'll get all that information to you.

MR. BLENCOE : I think we started these estimates yesterday. I was trying to....

MR. DAVIDSON : It seems longer.

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, the minister doesn't give us answers that are very fruitful. I

was trying to ascertain from the minister yesterday — and maybe he's

thought about it overnight.... He's had some time now with this

consultation process, input and meeting all these organizations, and

his mandate is to "coordinate economic action," according to his own

words.... He's meeting all these various leaders and

[ Page 7802 ]

all

these task forces that exist; he has coffee and doughnuts on a regular

basis, I gather. It's all very nice. He got close to $1 million for

coffee and doughnuts. I'm just wondering if the minister, in all these

months — and I asked this question yesterday — has any sense now....

Could he show some leadership to this region and Vancouver Island? What

game plan has he as minister of state for economic action and economic

development? Or is it just a matter of going around and talking to the

grand Pooh-Bah or the grand czar over there, who might endorse your

projects? It's just a matter of picking out little projects here and

there, but with no definitive direction or strategy.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, citizens of British Columbia have been asking now for over a year

what the direction is, and you keep saying: "We don't know." Nobody

knows what you're doing — except a million dollars for....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. I must ask the member to address the Chair, and I will

ask the newly arrived minister to restrain himself, as others have been

asked to restrain themselves, or else absent himself from this

committee, or be absented by the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister knows exactly what I'm getting at. He's got this

organization, this minister-of-state role, that's supposed to be

dealing with economic action. We'd like to see some leadership The

citizens would like to know what action they can expect from all this

meeting, all this discussion, all these ideas that are being generated.

Can we see some plans? I am particularly interested in the capital

region. What great things can we expect from the minister of state for

the future?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : The member for

Victoria continually wants me to take an NDP position whereby I take

such leadership that everybody had better follow my directions, and

then it's all top-heavy. We are trying to get away from that, because

we believe that the local people in the areas know better what they

need than we do, sometimes, in Victoria.

If he were to go

up and down the Island.... I suggest he should. He should meet with all

the councils, with the regional districts, with the 14 task forces that

work and give so much of their time, and with all the mayors. He would

probably really feel bad when he came back home, because they truly

appreciate what I'm doing.

MR. BLENCOE : Let's try and lay it out in a simple, straightforward way that even this minister can understand.

You've got a task force here, you've got a task force here, and you've

got a task force here, and you've got a committee here, and a committee

here, up and down the Island, and a committee here in the CRD, all meeting with

I don't know how many people, over a period of I don't know how many

months, and all these people come together and under normal procedures and process

they suggest ideas for some kind of strategy on what you say is economic action

for the future. You've got this group and this group and this group and

this group, all meeting, suggesting ideas. One would conclude, with a normal

government, that the end product would be some definitive action, definitive

recommendations for economic development — something specific.

I'm

not asking you to tell people what they should do, but I'm saying if

you've got all these organizations, they're all meeting, having coffee

and doughnuts.... I can tell you they're getting very tired of meeting.

They'd like to see what the end result is going to be. What are we

going to see for these millions of dollars we are spending on all these

meetings? This region would like some strategy, some leadership from

this government. There comes a time when you've got to stop meeting and

you've got to lay out some plans.

Has the minister got the

message? Can we expect some definitive response, some definitive plan

or strategy on — I don't know — the fishing industry, tourism, Via

Rail, environmental issues? Can we expect some definitive analysis or

action on public servants and what's happening in our region? Some

direction from the minister on the Princess Marguerite , for instance?

Or are you just going to have coffee and doughnuts forever in your

little meetings with no plan for the people of this region and this

Island?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I can't believe that someone would ask the same questions as often as that member does.

The

transportation committee will be reporting to me. I am very much

involved with transportation throughout greater Victoria and Vancouver

Island. We are looking at aquaculture and will be making decisions in

that area. We were involved with the value-added....

Are you listening, Mr. Member, or are you not interested?

[4:15]

The value-added symposium that we put on in Nanaimo was a great

success. We had about 160 people from North America there. We had a

report brought to us. We are trying to implement some of that report.

There is the Keogh bridge up near Port Hardy — it's a bridge that

hadn't been replaced for the last ten years, and we are now in the

process of making sure that happens. As I indicated before, we are

involved with the mine. We are also discussing with people about the

Inner Harbour. We were at the symposium for changes to Victoria. We are

involved in all those issues. So from the perspective of greater

Victoria and this area, if he speaks to the local mayor and if he

speaks to the mayors of Oak Bay, Saanich, Central Saanich, North

Saanich and Sidney.... I can tell him that they are very delighted with

all the

[ Page 7803 ]

input and the involvement that I've had and what I'm doing for the city of Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE :

I really don't want to tell the minister what many local politicians

are telling me, because I would definitely be ruled out of order; it

would not be a part of the language of this facility. I can assure you

that there is great frustration about this kind of process that seems

to go on and on with no leadership, no direction at all.

Let me ask the minister something specific: what are you doing about the Princess Marguerite ?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Maybe you want to be a little more specific.

MR. BLENCOE :

I thought he knew the issue. I will try and tell him what the issue is.

As you know, it now looks like the Princess Marguerite will end this

season. She will be mothballed and put aside. I am wondering if the

minister has had any discussions with Stena Line to see what the

possibilities are for continuing that ship on the Seattle-to-Victoria

run. I don't have to go into the history of why that ship is so

important. The minister is supposed to have this important role of

economic action. What is the minister doing on this issue?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

If the member would do his homework, I was on the B.C. Steamship

Company as a director, and I have always said that the Princess

Marguerite is very valuable to the people of Victoria. We need to

preserve it. Ideally we should keep it on the run, but if we can't keep

it on that particular run, at least we need to preserve it in Victoria.

I mentioned, I am having discussion with people who are involved with

the Inner Harbour, and part of that discussion involves the Princess

Marguerite .

MR. BLENCOE : That's all very well.

MR. WILLIAMS : That's a spinning wheel.

MR. BLENCOE : Yes, that's right.

the minister prepared to say that...? After less than one year, Stena,

which took over this corporation and indicated publicly in its news

releases that the Marguerite has a long future with that line and that

they are upgrading and refitting her and she will be complemented by

another vessel, suddenly, very shortly after they acquired this

privatization by your government, are now saying that her future is

virtually doomed.

Is the minister prepared to say that he

doesn't accept that, and that Stena has some responsibilities to this

community to ensure that the Princess Marguerite has a future in the

harbour and on these waters?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I've already indicated my position for the Princess

Marguerite . I have indicated in the past that it should be taken care of and

protected. That's nothing new. Although I am surprised. From what I know,

there has been no decision made with Stena Line. It's your typical approach.

You are trying to scare the people again and get them all riled up. There is

no formal, final decision made by Stena Line. At the same time, as I indicated,

I appreciate the Princess Marguerite .

also appreciate the E&N railroad that you talked about. We've

written a letter to Mr. Bouchard, and we have indicated in the letter

the responsibility of the federal government to preserve that railroad

for the benefit of Vancouver Islanders.

MR. BLENCOE :

This is the minister who appreciates everything, but when we ask him

what he is doing in terms of concrete action, it's: "Well, we're

meeting" and "I appreciate it." I mean, what are you doing? Tell me:

what letters have you written to your cabinet colleagues? What

discussions have you had with Stena, with the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier) ? Where is there evidence that you are putting your

position as minister of state on the line, if you will, for the future

of that ship in this region? Or is it just, "We appreciate it," but

that's about it?

MR. LOVICK : I hadn't planned on

jumping up at this juncture in debate, but I do have a set of questions

that we were pursuing some time ago and, sadly, we were interrupted.

That probably doesn't matter too much, because we weren't getting

answers in any event. But perhaps I can try again by just asking the

minister if he can tell this assembly what his involvement was — if

there was any involvement — in terms of the transfer of a parcel of

property in a designated greenbelt within the area of Nanaimo to the

private developer as part of the economic development agreement that

was made as far as this ferrochromium plant was concerned. I think it

falls directly within the purview of this minister in two ways: (1) as

the minister of state responsible for Vancouver Island and ostensibly

responsible for economic development measures; and (2) as the Minister

Responsible for Parks. That's because a contract — indeed, a covenant —

was signed between what was at that time called Duke Point Development,

which was also part of B.C. Enterprise Corporation and is now, I

understand, probably in limbo, but is probably part of the Crown Lands

responsibility.... I see your colleague, the minister responsible for

that particular configuration, is here. Perhaps he can give some

guidance if that's necessary.

In any event, that body of

government — the government of the province of British Columbia, in

effect — made a covenant with the city of Nanaimo to put into a

greenbelt a particular parcel of land in the larger area called Duke

Point. The covenant said — and I think I can quote it directly from

memory — "for public or park use." That was its purpose. What we have

recently discovered, however, is that the covenant has apparently been

revoked, or whatever else one legally does with a covenant; and the

developer, apparently as an added incentive to settling in the

community, has been given permission to

[ Page 7804 ]

build a private residence of some four or five acres within the greenbelt.

want to ask the minister first whether he's aware of that — I sincerely

hope he is — and whether he was consulted, as the Minister Responsible

for Parks, about the legality and advisability of making that change

and in effect breaking that covenant.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

As the member knows, it's a local Nanaimo council issue, and the answer

is that I was not involved with it and I don't intend to interfere with

it. It's more involved with the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr.

Dirks) than it is with me.

MR. LOVICK : I'm not

entirely surprised by that answer. In fact, in the course of our

discussions with the minister of state I think we've invoked the ghosts

and spirits of about 15 other ministries thus far. In terms of every

substantive question we raise, the answer is: "Well, that's really not

my responsibility, because I facilitate and I coordinate; so perhaps

the member could talk to Minister X, Y, Z or Q."

However, I

would ask this particular minister whether he might give us some

assurances, or if that's going too far.... That's probably a bit too

gutsy a claim to be asking the minister to make at this point. It would

be perceived to be intemperate. I won't ask him that. Instead, I'll ask

him whether he ever considered making representation to the bodies

directly affected, insofar as he was the Minister Responsible for

Parks, because in effect that greenbelt land became a park the moment

it was declared and covenanted to be for public or park use, and public

or park use only. Did the minister consider doing that?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : We're talking about a municipal park, and it's not within my jurisdiction as the minister of provincial parks.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Ecological reserves intrigue me. Looking at the last filed annual

report, I note that Canfor has finally sold Nimpkish Island to the

government of British Columbia. Could the minister advise the House

what the arrangements were? This is a very significant grove of Douglas

firs in an ox-bow of the Nimpkish River in north-central Vancouver

Island. It certainly is important. I'm intrigued as to how generous

either Canfor or the province was.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

I'm obviously aware that it's one of our new ecological reserves. I

don't have the exact details, but I would be happy to get them for you.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I would appreciate that. I look forward to the information. They

sometimes arrange an exchange in these cases, but I think that's been

difficult to do in recent years, given the overcommitment of the

forests in British Columbia.

I was trying to remember

exactly what the goal was when the ecological reserve program was set

out. If my memory serves me right, it was something like 1

percent of the land area of the province. In the initial years, when

the program was more active, particularly '72 to '75, interestingly, we

moved along well in terms of those goals. I wonder if you're coming

anywhere close to that. In those years we actually set aside something

like a 35,000-acre virgin Sitka spruce grove on the western part of

the Queen Charlottes, and so on. Has there been any equivalent in

recent years in terms of major ecological reserves?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

We've just added four ecological reserves and now have a total of 121.

The latest one we were involved in was Brackman Island, and as you

know, they act in educational and research aspects — sort of like an

outdoor laboratory. We are looking at some others, and over the next

few months we'll probably have two or three more coming up. As for the

size and whether they are large, not necessarily so; but they sort of

protect a certain aspect of British Columbia flora that we want to

preserve.

MR. WILLIAMS : I wonder also how we're

moving along with major parks. Not much has happened in terms of major

park designation since those days, either, I'm afraid. Parkland in

British Columbia was doubled in that period of '72-75. It was an

extremely active period, when many progressive things happened. The

benefits are still being felt by people around the province, even in

the regions where nothing is happening.

There are obvious

places where we don't have representative park areas, and I just wonder

what active work has gone on in terms of genuine, significant park

planning in the province. For example, in the southern Chilcotin there

are areas clearly not represented in the park system which are pretty

dramatic and which have been clearly pointed out by wildlife people.

While Carmanah is actively on the minds of people outside, I think the

more neutral park observers would argue that some of the southern

Chilcotin is worthy of designation on some scale, but it's not in the

forefront like the current green battles outside. What sort of work has

been done by your staff in that area, Mr. Minister?

[4:30]

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

We've had the addition just recently of six parks: Botanical Beach,

Halkett Bay, Sandwell, Squitty Bay, Columbia Lake and Adams Lake.

reference to your question about the Chilcotin area, you probably

weren't in the House at the time, but I did address that issue. I had

representation on that prospective site that it's worth protecting, and

I'm actually spending some of my holidays this summer to make sure that

I tour it myself, and my staff are looking at the area.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'm pleased about that, because it's probably overdue. We might meet up

there in the summer. It's a good place for us all, I suspect. It is

significant and I think it has been overlooked.

[ Page 7805 ]

However,

the list you just gave us is an indication of the kind of problem we're

talking about. These are pretty little parks. For example, Squitty Bay

is that little eye of a nothing cove on the east side of Lasqueti

Island — isn't that where it is? These are awfully modest things, so if

you're

pointing to those as recent achievements, the Chilcotin would be more

worthwhile, and I'm pleased that you're seriously looking at it at

least.

Maybe you could also, while we're in this mood, tell

us the status of the Grand Canyon of the Stikine. Is it fully

designated now or is it a recreation area? I haven't kept up to date,

but I'm one of the lucky people in British Columbia who actually

helicoptered down the Grand Canyon of the Stikine many years ago, and

it is genuinely one of the wonders of western Canada. It's absolutely

magnificent. Maybe you could advise us on the current status of that.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : In regard to the Stikine, about two-thirds of that area is protected and the lower one-third is under discussion.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The lower one-third is immediately east of Telegraph Creek or

further.... The canyon is just up from Telegraph Creek and continues

through to the east. It's the lower part of the canyon that is not

designated, is that it?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : That's correct.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would the real reason for that be the hydro potential and B.C. Hydro's possible power interest?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : From what I understand, it's under discussion, but I don't think that it's the primary reason.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The other interesting area there, when I think about it, is that once

you leave Telegraph Creek — and most people of British Columbia won't

have ever seen this country, because it's very hard to get to and you

basically need a helicopter to get around in it — and Glenora, the

Stikine becomes a magnificent braided river that moves back and forth

over the sand and gravel bars, with glaciers breaking off into it

immediately back of the Alaska panhandle, and that, too, is really one

of the magnificent corridors of the province. Has any thought been

given to that part of the Stikine in terms of some kind of protective

designation?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : What I can say is that we are looking at it.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Maybe the minister could advise us on the process. How much of a staff

does he have to work in this area of future park designation, and what

is the process? Do you have to work it up through ELUC? Does it go to a

deputy ministerial committee prior to that? Is that the current process?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : That's basically correct, sir.

MR. WILLIAMS : I think my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has other matters in terms of the minister-of-state responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER : What's on the badge?

MR. SIHOTA : The minister wants to know what's on my badge. It says: "Value Nurses' Work."

want to ask the minister some questions that relate to his budget. The

first is in terms of parks. There are several parks in my riding: China

Beach, French Beach, Sooke Potholes, Goldstream and some adjacent to my

riding at Gordon Bay and Bamberton. First of all, could he tell me what

the cost to government was last year for maintaining the parks at

French Beach, China Beach and the Sooke Potholes?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I have a rough idea, but I'd prefer to get that detail and get it to you.

MR. SIHOTA :

I won't hold the minister down to the number. Could he give me a rough

approximation of the number that pops to mind? I won't hold him to it.

It's for the purposes of this discussion, and he can clarify the number

for us a little later on.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'm hesitant to do that; I'd prefer to get exact details.

MR. SIHOTA :

Could the minister tell me how many full-time employees will be engaged

by government to look after the maintenance of those three parks this

year? I guess you hire auxiliary employees to look after them.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

We're going to run with as many as we need. It may be up to four. We

attempted to contract out French Beach and China Beach. We have not

been able to get a contractor for those two parks, so we will continue

to run them this year and contract them out next year.

MR. SIHOTA :

Are you saying that you will run them this year with the same number of

employees as last year, to maintain the same level of service?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

We will continue to manage them from the Ministry of Parks, but we may

contract out specific services: for example, the wood to the parks and

that sort of thing.

MR. SIHOTA : I understand that

the government has the other option. I know you're looking at the

option of contracting out the maintenance — for example, looking after

the toilets, the wood, and so on — and I understand you've made some

contact with some janitorial and security firms in that area.

question to you is this: while you're waiting for that, the parks are

open, running and functioning, and my constituents are complaining

about the level

[ Page 7806 ]

service, in terms of the number of people hired to look after the

parks. Can you give us an assurance that prior to any privatization,

you will maintain the same level of staff you had at those parks last

year?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : What I can assure you is that we will maintain the same level of quality.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to tell the minister that you can't do that if you don't have

the same number of staff. Last year, just for China and French, you had

four employees. This year, for those two and the Sooke Potholes, you've

got two employees, and physically they just can't do the job. Would you

not agree with me that over the year, given what's happened now in

terms of the number of employees you've got there, the standards just

can't be maintained and in fact have not been maintained?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

The season's just begun, and at this point we have two employees. We

are attempting to contract out some of those services. If we do that,

then two employees are adequate. If I see that the standards are not

being upheld and that we don't immediately have someone to take care of

some of those other initiatives that we're trying to contract out, then

we'll have to bring another individual in.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to know, first of all, what evidence you need that the quality

of service is not appropriate. What information do you need? I'll

provide you with the information if you tell me what would satisfy your

mind in terms of maintaining adequate standards in those parks. What

information do you need?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : Certainly

my staff would be reporting back to me — no doubt about that. We also

have satisfaction surveys that come back to me. I also handle all the

letters that come to me. People may have positive responses or negative

responses, but I can assure the member that they will be reporting to

me, and it's important to me that the standards are kept. It's also so

close to home that I'll probably, as the minister, drive through it

myself.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, I'll be happy to take the

minister through there myself, if you want to take me up on that. And

I'll be happy, more importantly — because you can put your satisfaction

surveys aside — to take him through there with the employees that work

there. Would he then be prepared to listen to the employees and accept

their versions? He hasn't mentioned listening to the employees, in the

list that he just rattled off. Why don't the minister and myself hop in

a car and go out there with the employees, and let the employees

explain to the minister what's lacking? And on the basis of that

information, would you be prepared to supplement the staff levels that

you've got there?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'll be happy to

go there with the member, and if those employees want to come to me and

meet me in my office, I'm happy to sit down and talk to them too.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, I'll make those arrangements right away with the minister. I'll even pay for the gas.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : But you've got to pay for lunch, yes, that's right.

The

question to the minister is this now. I want to know specifically, with

respect to privatization of the parks in my riding that I've referred

to that were privatized, and also those on southern Vancouver Island

that were privatized in his riding — it's interesting to note that the

only ones that were privatized to employee-operated groups were the

ones that fall in his riding — what the value of those contracts are. I

think there was Saltspring; there's Galiano; I think there was McDonald

Park, as well as the other ones that I've mentioned. The ones that were

left — that hadn't been privatized — were China and French. Is the

minister prepared to tell us what the value of those contracts are?

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

I don't have the details on those right here, and they've just been

completed. But I don't have any problem sitting down with you sometime

and discussing what the value of those contracts are.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'd also like to know from the minister, at the same time, if he also

will provide us with information as to what it cost last year to

maintain all of the parks that I've enumerated, both those that have

not been privatized and those ones which have been privatized, on an

individual-park basis.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : That sort of information I will provide to the auditor-general when he requests it.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to know from the minister what objection he's got to providing

it to another member of the Legislature, particularly for those parks

that fall within my riding. Are you prepared to provide me with that

information? Is the minister not prepared to provide me with that

information?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member address the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister: is he prepared to provide me with that information?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I think I've already answered that question.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the minister explain why he's not prepared to provide me with that information?

[ Page 7807 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 61 pass?

MR. SIHOTA : No, the minister's up on his feet.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

That project of contracting-out services is not yet complete, so we've

got another year to go. At that time, possibly I'll think about sitting

down with the member.

MR. SIHOTA : I think the

minister has misunderstood my question, Mr. Chairman. My question to

the minister is this: I want to know what it cost you last year, prior

to privatization, to deal with those parks. It's got nothing to do with

priv