1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 12

[ Page 10163 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

L. Reid: I have the privilege this afternoon of welcoming members of the British Columbia Medical Association to the public gallery. We have the president, Arun Garg, the vice-president, Mark Schoenfeld, and Steve Hardwicke, who is with us as public affairs committee chair. In the gallery today, hon. Speaker, you'll notice approximately 65 local action committee chairs from around this province. They're here today to see if this Legislature can come to grips with some of the pressing issues in health care. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I had the honour -- as did a number of members of cabinet -- of having lunch with and addressing the members of the B.C. Medical Association. They are in Victoria to look at the progress that has been made in bringing about a far better relationship in the province between the leaders in medicine.... The doctors here today are in seminars to learn about the political process and to meet for dinner later on with their MLAs.

I too would like to welcome the leaders who are here. You've heard, of course, of Dr. Arun Garg, who has played such a strong leadership role in helping this new relationship come about; Dr. Steve Hardwicke, who is the chair of the public affairs committee; and Dr. Mark Schoenfeld, who will be the president shortly when the elections occur. They are here to watch question period -- they're quite fascinated -- and asked me whether we would require the services of the surgeons or psychiatrists afterwards. I left that to their very good medical judgment. Would you please give a very warm welcome to leaders in the medical community who are here today.

L. Reid: I would also ask the House to please welcome Tom Hitchmough, who is visiting from Chester, England, and Sheila Seehagen from West Vancouver. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

H. Lali: Visiting us today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Bill Sturn, superintendent of the Lillooet School District. Would the House please make him welcome.

L. Stephens: In the House today, visiting with us from King's School in Langley is a teacher, Mr. Ferguson, and about 11 of his grade 11 students and their parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Barlee: In the gallery today, visiting British Columbia, are His Excellency Bjorn Inge Kristvik, Ambassador of Norway, and his wife. They are accompanied by Mr. Bjorn Hareid, honorary consul general of Norway in Vancouver, and his wife, as well as Mr. Cecil Paul Ridout, honorary consul of Norway in Victoria, and his wife. Would all members of the assembly, including those of Norwegian background, give them a warm welcome.

V. Anderson: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming students of the Machon Esther School, who are here today visiting along with their teacher, Mrs. Gladys Brown. They are accompanied by Yoseph Thomson, the director of development for the Central Organization for Jewish Education. Please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: Joining us from Ottawa today is Mr. Ludovic Dsouza, the special projects adviser with the Minister of National Defence, who is touring some of the National Defence facilities in the greater Victoria area. I also notice, just looking up into the gallery, an assistant in my office, Bev Carry. Would all members please make them welcome.

J. Sawicki: I would like to welcome two constituents of mine to the Legislature today, Lou and Doris Jaccard. They are actually here for the jazz festival, and of course, wouldn't miss the Legislature while they're here. I also want to mention that they're here partially at the courtesy of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who apparently offered the use of his apartment as an auction item at a fundraiser.

Introduction of Bills

URANIUM MORATORIUM ACT

D. Symons presented a bill intituled Uranium Moratorium Act.

D. Symons: The Uranium Moratorium Act, as the name suggests, is

an act to protect the environment and the health of citizens of this province from the harmful effects of radiation that's released into the environment when uranium is mined. The moratorium would be achieved by amending the Mineral Tenure Act to ensure that mining for uranium is prohibited. The act recognizes and makes allowances for the fact that trace amounts of uranium are found while mining for other minerals. It would not, nor is it intended that it would, inhibit normal mining operations for other materials.

This act is not new. I freely admit to plagiarism from the moratorium regulations brought in by the Social Credit government -- now somewhat reformed -- and...

Interjections.

D. Symons: Oh, they caught that.

...in effect from 1980 through 1987. When that regulation expired in 1987, the then opposition New Democrats strongly advocated the reinstatement of the moratorium. This act does precisely that. Because of that past support for the act from both parties, I would hope for all-party support to bring forward and, with leave, pass this bill tomorrow on private members' day to coincide with Earth Day, which falls on April 22. We can do no better than do all we can to leave our environment as clean as possible for future generations. Uranium tailings and waste remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. That is not a legacy we should leave to our children.

Bill M215 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

USE OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN CASE INVOLVING ATTORNEY GENERAL

M. de Jong: We are advised that a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the accused minister on April 7, 1994. When did the Premier first become aware that his Attorney General was being investigated by a special prosecutor for perjury and obstruction of justice?

[2:15]

[ Page 10164 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I became aware that a special prosecutor had been appointed on the Monday after the appointment.

M. de Jong: This House was not advised of that appointment until April 13. I wonder what the Premier was up to for those days that he was in possession of that information prior to advising this House. Who was he speaking and meeting with? How far does his contempt for this House extend, that he wouldn't advise this House right away?

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The Premier wishes to answer?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I find it very upsetting -- as somebody who was called to the bar in this province in 1969, although I am not a member of the bar and haven't practised for many years -- to see someone who considers himself an officer of the court using the kind of language he has used and showing the ignorance he has shown of the process that is very clearly laid out in the Crown Counsel Act. Very clearly, he should know better: the Premier is not informed of these things by the Attorney General's department.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Harcourt: These appointments are made by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General in charge of the criminal justice branch...

Interjections.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...from a list of names...

The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...put together with the Law Society of British Columbia...

The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...of lawyers of immense integrity in this province.

The Speaker: Order! Please take your seat, Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, when one of those lawyers is attacked....

The Speaker: Hon. Premier, order, please. Thank you, hon. Premier. The Chair is having great difficulty with the length of time it is taking you to respond.

I should ask all members to please take their seats. Obviously, it's going to be necessary for the Chair to remind all hon. members to apprise themselves of

section 47A of our standing orders. As a matter of fact, in the next few days I will undertake to provide some comments on how question period should be conducted. But when questions are raised with

preambles that suggest argument, tend to be inflammatory or border on unparliamentary language, it is very difficult for the Chair to expect a response to be in order. I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind.

Does the member have a final supplementary?

M. de Jong: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier calling this member ignorant may have bordered on being unparliamentary, but I didn't.....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Please proceed with your question.

M. de Jong: I also appreciate the Premier drawing attention to the Crown Counsel Act, because, as he correctly points out...

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: ...it is that act...

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

M. de Jong: ...that dictates the manner in which material and special prosecutions....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

I'll recognize the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. Given that the minister has spoken out so passionately in the past about the integrity of the Attorney General's office, how can he sit in the same cabinet as an Attorney General who has failed to meet the same ethical standards as former AG Bud Smith?

The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?

A. Warnke: The minister missed a heck of an opportunity, because that minister is also facing a special prosecutor from Alberta recommending that charges be laid against him.

My next question is for the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General explain the difference between his current situation and that of Bud Smith? Indeed, I'm wondering why the Attorney General is so determined to go down in history as one who has failed to meet even the same ethical standards as Bud Smith.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will resist all of the obvious temptations and simply say there are no parallels.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

A. Warnke: I think that really does illustrate some of the tremendous weaknesses that the Attorney General has in his post. So I ask my next question of the Premier, who was asked to withdraw from this House for demanding ministerial accountability from the previous administration. Why did the Premier demand Bud Smith's resignation then, yet as Premier now, he continues to compromise himself by hanging onto his somewhat discredited Attorney General, contrary to all legal and parliamentary convention?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is the same question that has been asked of me at least ten or 15 times in the last week, and I will give the same answer as I have over the last week and a half.

[ Page 10165 ]

Interjections.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The difference is that this province now has the toughest conflict-of-interest laws in this country. Conflict-of-interest laws were brought in because cabinet ministers in the previous government couldn't tell the difference between private and public interests and had to resign over and over again, because they put their own pecuniary interest ahead of the public interest. On top of that, we have the most intense freedom-of-information laws in the country, so citizens have access to information like they never have seen before.

As well, there are changes to the Crown Counsel Act that we didn't have under the previous government, which allow the appointment of a special prosecutor in cases involving a cabinet minister or an important public official. Those are the differences between the previous government and this government.

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO CORRECTIONS SYSTEM

D. Mitchell: I wish I could ask this question of the acting Attorney General. I will have to ask the Attorney General, who remains in office. With respect to the scandal over Danny Perrault and the scandal within the corrections system, when will the Attorney General's office be announcing a public inquiry into the corrections system in British Columbia? Is he prepared to do that today? If not, when will he be making such an announcement?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the very near future I intend to make a public announcement with respect to the Danny Perrault matter.

D. Mitchell: Supplementary to the Attorney General. I know that over the last number of days he has received significant representation from a number of people on this issue: the general public, victims of crime and their families, the peace officers' association and corrections officials. Will the Attorney General commit that when he makes the announcement to which he just referred, it will be of a full and independent public inquiry not only into the Danny Perrault escape but also into conditions within the corrections system in British Columbia which have concerned people with respect to the handling of dangerous offenders.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members will have to await my announcement before they see the details of the package.

The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: The government of which the Attorney General is a member says that it believes in whistle blowers' protection for government employees.

Can the Attorney General commit to the House today that the very brave corrections officials who came forward over the last number of weeks to help expose the scandal within the corrections system will receive full protection and immunity; that there will not be any disciplining or reprimanding -- evidence already exists that some of that has taken place -- within the corrections system; and that they will be offered full protection to come forward and provide details of what is going on in the corrections system, without any repercussions to their careers?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the last few weeks I made that commitment to employees of the corrections branch and to others in British Columbia who want to come forward with information. If they feel more comfortable coming directly to me, I will ensure that they are not disciplined in any way for providing the kind of information we need.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE

J. Dalton: Again to the Attorney General, in his press release of April 13, it is stated that no further comments would be made on this matter. However, on Tuesday of this week the Attorney General made several comments in the House on this unfortunate case, and yesterday he made further comments. Does the Attorney General not agree that it is inappropriate to be making those comments, which fly in the face of the very statement he made in his release?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member made reference to "this matter," and the only matter we were discussing was the Perrault matter. I assume he's referring to another matter. I am very careful about what statements I make. I have always seen my role as being accountable to British Columbians through this Legislature. I say as much as I can on issues, and I'm going to continue to do that.

J. Dalton: Unfortunately, there are so many matters in the Attorney General's ministry that it's very difficult to know which ones to comment on. However, again to the Attorney General, he's saying that there will be a full investigation of this matter -- that is, of course, his affidavit -- and that he will be found innocent at the conclusion of it. That is a very unfortunate and wrong comment for this Attorney General to make. Is he not putting the special prosecutor in a very awkward position by such a comment?

The Speaker: The hon. member has a final supplementary.

J. Dalton: Finally, again to the Attorney General, apparently his advice to the criminal justice system is: "Do as I say, and not as I do." Will the minister not step aside pending the results of this investigation?

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MEETING WITH B.C. COALITION FOR ABORTION CLINICS

C. Serwa: My question is to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General tell us if Hilda Thomas was present at his meeting with the Everywoman's health clinic group, or was she involved in any way in making arrangements for the meeting?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that the matter is being looked at by Mr. Peck, I'm not going to make any comments in respect to that question.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE

W. Hurd: A question to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has advised this House that there are no legal parallels between the case involving former Attorney General Bud Smith and the current investigation. Can the

[ Page 10166 ]

minister tell us whether he has commissioned a legal opinion on that, or is he just basing it on his own

interpretation of both events?

The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?

W. Hurd: I again ask the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks -- who had so much to say in this House about former Attorney General Bud Smith and had charges recommended by a special prosecutor outside the province of British Columbia -- why does he refuse to stand when asked a question about the former Attorney General, inviting comparisons with the current situation?

To the Attorney General: why has he not gone outside British Columbia to have a special prosecutor appointed, as the previous administration did?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Behind the member, against the wall, are some blue books. One of them contains the Crown Counsel Act, and I would advise the member to read it.

G. Farrell-Collins: The public is very concerned about this issue. The public is wondering when the Premier of this province will finally exercise the leadership he is required to exercise and restore the integrity of the office of Attorney General if he cannot restore the integrity of the individual. Day after day, it gets worse and worse for this government. When will he finally do what he's supposed to do as the Premier, as the leader of this province? When will he ask the Attorney General to resign, and put somebody in there who can deal with this case while it's ongoing?

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to make a ministerial statement. The statement is that British Columbia will not participate in the federal Liberal government's social security reform if it is going to be used as a mechanism to cut transfer payments to the provinces and funding for social and educational programs. We are serious about the income security review, but we will not let this review be carried out on the backs of British Columbians.

[2:30]

The federal Human Resources Development minister, Lloyd Axworthy, will be in Vancouver tomorrow. I'm instructing two of my ministers -- the Skills, Training and Labour minister and the Social Services minister -- to meet with him to deliver these key messages. We will not accept the federal government's off-loading of the federal deficit onto British Columbia. British Columbia supports the renewal of our social safety net, and we will have our own agenda for that renewal. The federal government must involve the provinces in a real partnership to reshape Canada's social programs.

We must have a genuine federal-provincial discussion that will lead us to building a British Columbia and a Canada that are compassionate and affordable.

This province leads the country in the creation of jobs and economic opportunities. We have an important role to play in the reform of social security. But if British Columbia is to participate in this review, the meetings must be based on real consultation and negotiation. We will not accept an arbitrary imposition of changes to programs that affect so many British Columbians.

The federal Liberal Finance minister, Paul Martin, has said that the federal government expects massive cuts to transfer payments for provincial programs. He expects massive savings by cutting transfer payments to provinces. This is a policy of blaming the victims of unemployment, poverty, illiteracy and illness, instead of a progressive and compassionate policy of being good neighbours to our fellow citizens in need and instead of taking the fair and progressive approach that British Columbia has taken in leading the way in this country.

I say let the federal government make its savings in legitimate ways, as we have here in British Columbia. Ottawa should take its cue from British Columbia. We lead the country in economic growth; our deficit is down, and it will be eliminated by 1996; and we have frozen taxes for three years. We have done all of this while protecting the essential services that people in this province rely on. We have put our fiscal house in order, and we anticipate that Ottawa will do the same without attacking social programs and transferring its debt to the provinces.

We don't want to see the federal government use the same terrible approach that the Tory government used in capping funding to the Canada Assistance Plan, post-secondary educational institutions and health care. There is a better way. We're prepared to sit down and genuinely negotiate that, instead of having the Minister of Finance accelerate the tax dump from Ottawa onto our citizens from $3 billion this year to $3.2 billion next year, and add what we anticipate could be a $2 billion cut across Canada -- $500 million to British Columbia alone. That is not the way to bring changes to our income security system.

F. Gingell: I understand, and I completely agree with the concerns the Premier has spoken about. But on this issue I plead for him to recognize his responsibility to represent all of us in the province, not only as British Columbians but as Canadians. A series of things need to be done. The rationalization and creation of new social service programs that are integrated with job creation, skills training and various other options that are open to us are critically important. Please do not allow the federal government to act unilaterally. We must have real consultation and real negotiation.

I believe this government only gives lip service to this subject on certain occasions, but this matter is critically important to all of us. Please meet with the federal government. Don't cut off the lines of communication. Stick to your guns that these problems have to be solved by all of us together, not by the federal government taking unilateral action that creates problems for the British Columbia government to solve on its own.

At this point we are dealing with one issue. I would like to suggest that there are a series of issues: major tax reform, the whole tax system in Canada, and the way in which social programs, health and education are paid for. I can assure you that when the Liberal Party of British Columbia forms the government, we will continue to look after the interests of British Columbians in exactly the same fashion that I trust our Premier will.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, regrettably I cannot recognize you for a response to the ministerial statement. As all members know, according to MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice, page 51.... The rules are clear; you are not a recognized party.

[ Page 10167 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: I hear members saying aye. I also hear a nay, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I ask leave to respond to the Premier's ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I listened very carefully to what the member for Delta South had to say about....

The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier. Ministerial statements are not motions; they are simply statements. There is no reply to a response.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee A to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. In the House, I call adjourned debate on Motion 43.

Motions on Notice

FEDERAL ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

G. Janssen: I rise to conclude debate, I would assume, on Motion 43, the discussion about the redistribution of federal seats which quashes B.C.'s efforts to be recognized and take its rightful place in the democracy that we call Canada. The Liberal Party in Ottawa is again depriving British Columbia of its rights. By the year 2001, 1.3 million more people will have moved to British Columbia, yet we will receive no more representation.

David Anderson, the member from Oak Bay, said: "What do you expect? Do you want more like us? Just look at the quality of MPs in Ottawa." Hon. members, let's look at the quality of the member from Oak Bay: a former provincial Liberal leader and a former Liberal president who, after being retired from politics in British Columbia, joined the pork-barrel politics of Ottawa and was appointed to federal positions. When he was elected to the House of Commons, he couldn't double-dip into that pork-barrel, and he threatened to take his own government to court so he could get two paycheques out of one government.

He supported killing TRIUMF-KAON -- something that cost this province over $10 million. He supported no more shipbuilding in British Columbia and $11 billion worth of shipbuilding contracts to eastern Canada. He supported a tax dump of $3 billion onto this province, with $3.2 billion more to come. He supported closing Royal Roads Military College. He supported turning Clayoquot Sound into a park. After Moresby Island was turned into a park, it wiped the community of Masset right off the map. That's not what my constituents want, and that's not what British Columbians want from their Member of Parliament.

All British Columbia Liberal MPs voted in favour of this dump on British Columbia.

B.C. is doing it right. We're reducing the deficit; jobs, housing starts and new business starts are up. We are leading Canada out of the recession, but it's like swimming upstream. British Columbia is meeting the challenge despite Ottawa's attempt to thwart B.C.'s determination. British Columbia is the favourite place to live in Canada. Federal Liberals are kissing cousins to our friends across the way. They're helped by Members of Parliament of the Liberal persuasion in Ottawa.

The Leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party wrote the Prime Minister a letter:

"I urge you to withdraw it from third reading and, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, ask that your government and the Parliament of Canada proceed with redistribution of seats to reflect the founding principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

"Thank you for your consideration."

Thank you, indeed. The Prime Minister doesn't listen to the provincial Liberal Party. He takes their money, I presume, but doesn't listen to their requests.

[2:45]

I want to ask the provincial Liberal Party: was there a response from the Prime Minister? Was representation made on behalf of the other Liberal MPs? Did Anna Terrana talk to the Prime Minister? Did Hedy Fry, Raymond Chan, or Edward McWhinney? Were they there on British Columbia's behalf, or did they follow the lead of David Anderson and dump on British Columbia? The provincial Liberals try to distance themselves from their federal counterparts. Will they return that portion of their tax rebates when they contribute to the federal Liberal Party?

Will they tear up their federal Liberal Party membership cards, or will they continue to carry them in their back pockets while they say something out of the front of their mouths? Those members worked to get the federal Liberals elected. Will they now commit in this House to help rid B.C. of those Liberal MPs who try to thwart British Columbia at every turn?

I quote from Hansard: the member for Richmond Centre is "not connected" to the federal Liberal party; "will not kowtow" to what the federal Liberals do. Later in his speech he goes on to say: "I am quite sure that the federal government will see that B.C. receives its just representation in the next federal election." What is it? Confidence or no confidence; that is the question. Do you have confidence in British Columbia, or do you have confidence in the federal Liberal Party?

This House has a duty to stand up for British Columbians and to see that their federal Members of Parliament support British Columbia, not dump on it. The Liberals on the other side of this House have to commit to seeing that their federal counterparts support British Columbians. We on the government side of the House know where we stand. We support British Columbia. We want to see that British Columbia gets its fair share, and I urge all members of this House to see that British Columbia comes first, now and always.

R. Chisholm: I would like to rise in the House on this motion. I think it's a complete and utter waste of time.

The problem is that we have spent a day debating a motion put forward by the Premier. Our leader put exactly the same motion prior to the Premier's, but this one was pulled forward. I think people are getting sick and tired of the waste in this House. When you tabulate the waste that is happening federally and provincially on this matter, it is tremendous; it should stop.

I want to read into the record a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada dated March 28.

"Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

"I understand that on April 12 the House of Commons is to pass third reading of Bill C-18, the Act to Suspend the Operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which delays the redistribution of seats in Parliament on the basis of a 1991 census.

[ Page 10168 ]

"Mr. Prime Minister, this bill makes no sense. Parliament does not strengthen the country by disenfranchising its

fastest-growing region, nor does Parliament strengthen its bond to the people it serves by further weakening the principle of one person, one vote.

"Mr. Prime Minister, the damage done by this piece of legislation will be significant. I urge you to withdraw it from third reading, and on behalf of the people of British Columbia ask that your government and the Parliament of Canada proceed with redistribution of seats to reflect the founding principle of democracy: one person, one vote."

That's the end of the quote from the document that was sent to the Prime Minister. And I will remind you that it was April 12....

I'd like to remind these hon. members, while we waste the taxpayer's dollar, that on April 14 the Hansard from Parliament in Ottawa stated -- and I'll table it at the end of this:

"Government Business, March 17:

"The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons:

"That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with standing order 68(5), respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the House of Commons by electoral boundaries commissions, and in preparing the said bill, the committee be instructed to consider among other related matters the general operation over the past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, including: (

a) an assessment of whether there should be a continual increase in the number of members of the House of Commons after each census, as now provided in

section 51 of the Constitution Act; (

b) a review of the adequacy of the present method of selection of members of electoral boundaries commissions; (

c) a review of the rules governing and the powers and methods of proceedings of electoral boundaries commissions, including whether these commissions ought to commence their work from the basis of making necessary alterations to the boundaries of existing electoral districts wherever possible; (

d) a review of the time and nature of the involvement of the public and of the House of Commons in the work of electoral boundaries commissions;

"That the committee have the power to travel within Canada and hear witnesses by teleconference; and

"That the committee report no later than December 16, 1994."

In other words, this bill has been withdrawn. A committee was struck to hear what Canadians think about it, and they will respond by December 16, 1994. In other words, taxpayers are paying for a committee to look into the situation, and we are debating it for a full day here in this House. I wonder what it costs to have 75 members stand up in this House and debate something that is not even of any importance. What does it cost to have all the support staff in this Legislature while we debate something that is not an issue? Hon. members, it is time you learned how to use a pen.

Write a letter, send it to Ottawa and have your points heard. Go and talk to the committee. Stop wasting the time of the people of B.C., and stop wasting taxpayers' money. Get with it!

We sit in this House day after day, and we're supposed to debate the business of the people. When are we going to start? When are we going to stop wasting time and resources? We have deficits and debts. But what do we do? We talk about something that is not an issue at this point in time. It is a political ploy by this government to try and embarrass the provincial Liberal Party. This provincial Liberal Party does not have connections to the federal Liberal Party. When you look at our constitution, it does not read.... I will quote the New Democratic Party's constitution. You might be interested in this, hon. members -- it's your constitution.

"Article I -- Name and Purpose.

"1.02: The party shall constitute a

section of the New Democratic Party (of Canada).

"1.03: Should conflict arise between the constitution of this party and that of the New Democratic Party (of Canada), hereinafter referred to as 'the Federal Constitution,' the Federal Constitution shall prevail."

Who is pulling your strings, hon. members? You will not find that in the provincial Liberal Party's constitution.

We've had members from the opposite side stand up and rant and rave. As members know, I don't usually get up and rant and rave, but this time I'm getting a little fed up with the way they are acting. For instance, the Minister of Investment stood up and with pompous and righteous indignation denounced the Liberal Party as being guided by the federal Liberals. I've just proven who is being guided by whom. The NDP is being guided by the federal NDP. That's right in your constitution. It's about time for you to be honest about what you're doing, hon. members. I can look in the mirror: can you?

I'd like to bring in another point here. This is one of your constituents, hon. members. I guess the constituent is about as angry as I am. Maybe he's a little angrier, because he has had enough backbone to pick up a pen and write a letter -- you haven't been able to do that -- and send it off to Ottawa. It's addressed to the Premier -- reference: motion in debate. He states:

"Please, Mr. Premier, withdraw this motion. We do not need this debate. As a matter of fact, 295 seats in the House of Commons should be reduced to half, not increased. There is more important business that should be debated, and more important to the ordinary British Columbians. Therefore please debate more important issues than the above, which is in my opinion much more important. Adjourn this debate immediately.

"J. Labrosse"

That's from Kelowna.

Hon. members, pick up your mail and read it. Guess what. You're going to find that your constituents are writing those letters.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: Every person in this province is one of your constituents, hon. member. If you haven't learned that yet, you'd better learn it now.

If I recall a few months back, there was only one party in this country that opposed the Charlottetown accord. This Premier got the nickname.... We won't say it, because we're not supposed to say "bonehead" here. This hon. Premier agreed to fewer seats. That was your party. If I recall, you were wearing Yes buttons, not me. Before you stand up here and start spouting off all this pious, pompous garbage, you'd better take a look at your past history.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to end my speech right now. I'm going to keep this short, because I don't believe I should be debating a bill that's not before this House and has no effect on this House at this time. If these members want to affect it, they should get in front of the committee, write a letter and stop wasting the taxpayers' money and time -- my time and their time.

T. Perry: I'm going to be very brief. I'm going to be voting in favour of this resolution.

[ Page 10169 ]

Do you know what the real issue is, hon. Speaker? You do know. So does the member for Esquimalt. So does the member for Kootenay. So does the former member for Atlin. Some of us who formerly represented double-member ridings know it extremely well. We had a redistribution report in British Columbia that threatened to take our seats away. I used to sit over on that side representing the riding of Vancouver-Point Grey. I felt I represented it well, and the voters seemed to like me. They gave me a near majority -- even a majority, I think -- in an election. But the report of Justice Fisher came down and dissolved that riding. It meant that my seat disappeared.

The seat of the only aboriginal member of this House disappeared. Some of us felt very distressed about that, and one member of the Social Credit Party stood up near where I'm standing now. I can't remember who, but someone was brave enough. I think it was Mr. Loenen, the member for Richmond, a much more articulate member than the present members, who stood and pointed out that there were some problems with that redistribution as well.

[3:00]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe we're short of a quorum, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I believe we have a quorum now. Would the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain please proceed.

T. Perry: Let's see if I can remember where I was. I still don't see any members of the opposition. There is one of the official opposition. Perhaps a few government members will filter in and make it look more respectable on that side.

There was some pain from that redistribution. A lot of members had to shift their seats, yet they recognized, when Justice Fisher brought down his report, that the public demanded a fair electoral redistribution and that our interests came second. Not one member of this House, if I remember accurately, voted against the Fisher commission recommendations for redistribution. It was a unanimous vote -- a rare occurrence in this House -- in favour of electoral redistribution. Virtually every one of those MLAs stood to lose something personally. At least one of them lost the opportunity to contest again in the election -- one of our most unique members, Mr. Larry Guno, who then represented Atlin.

Do you know what this is really about? This is about the failure of the parliamentarians in Ottawa, particularly the Liberal majority that passed that bill and have now sent it for confirmation in the Senate. It's about their own gutlessness and failure to recognize that the public interest comes before the interest of their seats. People who claimed they were elected on the new politics, who were elected only last November -- or October, or whenever it was -- were claiming to represent a new political philosophy. As soon as they saw that they might risk losing their own seat in another election, they bolted.

They about-faced and ran away from the truth, ran away from fairness to the people of Canada and, in particular in this province, ran away from fair representation for British Columbia.

I hope that people who are sitting in the gallery and anyone who is watching on television will think about that. I contrast it with how members on both sides of this House in 1990 or 1991 faced the fact that the public demanded a fair electoral redistribution and that our interests came second, that if we wanted to run again we should find ourselves a nomination in another riding and face not only the electorate but also the constituency associations in those ridings to prove we were good enough to be nominated -- and then prove to the voters that we merited re-election, even in a different riding.

I was one of those, and it was very difficult. It meant lots of extra work to get that nomination, to get the voters to recognize and support me, and yet it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, our Liberal representatives in Ottawa did not share that philosophy. They felt it was better to protect their own seats -- protect their own behinds, so to speak -- and sell out the interests of this province, despite the most rapidly growing population in the whole country and the enormous difficulties in keeping the country together while at the same time recognizing provinces such as Quebec and the Maritimes, with their enormous economic difficulties.

Ontario, with its 98 Liberal seats, has dominated Confederation historically and will hold onto that monopoly of power, while we are represented by seven relatively weak government MPs in Ottawa -- and one incompetent cabinet minister -- and will be condemned to less representation proportionally in the future.

That's what this resolution is about. I can't conceive why any member would not want to support this motion and call on the conscience of our recently elected parliamentarians in Ottawa. They have a second chance. The Senate could defeat this bill. The Senate could stand up for the rights of British Columbians, and it ought to. I hope that it will.

I hope that the Liberal and other Members of Parliament who voted in favour of blocking electoral redistribution and reform in Ottawa will think twice and go back to their own consciences and the people they really represent, and think not only of the interests of the country but of the fair interests of British Columbia in Confederation. I'm proud to vote in favour of this motion. I hope we get on with the vote and make it unanimous.

G. Farrell-Collins: Before I enter into the debate, I just want to remind members of this House that the position of the Liberal opposition on this issue was clear some time ago. It was clear at the time the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of the country demanding that the problems created by Bill C-18 -- the removal of two seats from British Columbia -- be addressed in such a manner that no province was disadvantaged because of that bill, and that the justice and representation that comes along with a growing province arrive on time and not some time in the future.

A motion was put on the order paper by the Leader of the Opposition well in advance of the motion brought forward by the Premier. I'm not going to bother to read it, but it quite clearly calls on the federal government to do away with Bill C-18 and address the problem of electoral distribution in this country as soon as possible. That was before the NDP found out that this was an issue; that was before the Premier stood up in this House to move his motion last week; that was before the NDP got excited about this motion.

I don't know why it took the NDP so long to realize that this was a problem, when members of the Liberal opposition in the province realized it was a problem some time ago. We forwarded a letter to the Prime Minister expressing our objection to it and put a motion on the order paper so this House would have a chance to do just what we're doing today -- which is to debate this issue and show the federal government that British Columbia needs to be represented by its fair share of MPs in the House of Commons.

[ Page 10170 ]

I think that deals with the motivation. That addresses up front some of the very odd factual and historical revisions that have taken place by members opposite, particularly the member for Alberni -- which I found quite interesting. I don't know how it related to this motion exactly, but he started to make all sorts of disparaging comments about members of the House of Commons who were double-dipping and triple-dipping and getting their snout in the public trough.

Quite frankly, I agreed with much of that, but what the member didn't bring up were the New Democrats who have their nose so far into the public trough that they're touching bottom. The former leader of the New Democratic Party and former Premier of this province collected a pension from the province of British Columbia at the same time he collected a paycheque from the people of British Columbia when he sat as an MP in Ottawa. How is that any different than the things the member for Alberni alluded to? I don't hear him commenting; I don't hear him saying anything. I don't see the same outrage as before.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He says that I'm right. That's true, because I am right on this one.

What about Mark Rose, a former opposition House Leader of this House, a New Democrat who now sits in England representing this province and collecting a paycheque of some $120,000 a year at the same time he's collecting a pension from the taxpayers of British Columbia? He forgot to mention that one. What about Dave Stupich -- among others -- who collected a pension from the province of British Columbia at the same time as he collected a paycheque by sitting as a Member of Parliament? I understand he has been defeated, along with the previous leader.

We know what British Columbia thought of the job their NDP Members of Parliament did, because there are only two left out of 32 representatives from this province.

I find it really interesting that that member would get up in this House and defame a number of members of the House of Commons in such a selective fashion. Somehow, because he's a New Democrat, he has a little halo above his head, he's beyond reproach and his own motives are beyond question. I agree that a lot of things go wrong in this country. There is a lot of double- and triple-dipping, which has to stop. A lot of things take place in this country that need to be changed, and a lot of things need to be done. But let's not be blind to the things that go on right around the country; let's not be selective.

The government has brought forward this motion not so much to defend the interests of British Columbians or the rights of British Columbians to be represented.... Most of what they have been saying is an attempt to somehow weld the federal Liberal Party together with the British Columbia Liberal Party and identify them as one.

An Hon. Member: Well, it's true.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, it's interesting. The member says: "It's true." Let's look at the facts. We just heard the member for Chilliwack read from the provincial New Democrats' constitution, which shows that the provincial New Democratic Party takes its orders from the federal New Democratic Party. It says that right in their constitution.

An Hon. Member: How did they vote?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asked how they voted. I think that the six MPs who are members of the federal Liberal Party should be ashamed of themselves for supporting that bill. Do you know who should be even more ashamed? -- the many New Democratic MLAs who stood up in this House and voted, not once but twice, in favour of agreements that would see a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament representing this province, relative to the rest of the county. At Meech Lake they supported it, and with the Charlottetown accord they supported it. In fact, they negotiated the Charlottetown accord.

We saw the most embarrassing demonstration by a Premier in this country -- by the gentleman who normally sits opposite me in this chamber, the present Premier. After the previous Premier, I didn't know you could be any more embarrassing on the federal scene. I can't even say the word in this House that was used to describe the capability of the Premier in those negotiations; that's how embarrassing it is.

When I see these members stand up and put their haloes on and start to talk about how wonderful the NDP is in standing up for British Columbia, I ask: "Where were they in October 1992?" They were voting in favour of an agreement that would have entrenched a level of representation from this province that would have been less per capita than we are entitled to. I don't think anybody in this House would say that we can solve the country's problems with more politicians. I don't think anybody in this province or country would say that. We need to reduce and tone down this House.

This House jumped, I believe, from 69 members to 75 members in the last parliament -- probably not the best direction to be going.

[3:15]

The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, I believe, was up talking, and he said that there were.... I just want to set his facts straight, because I think if he's going to be addressing this issue he should get his facts straight. In the province of Ontario, 98 of 99 seats went to the Liberal Party; I believe that's the fact. And in British Columbia, contrary to what he said, there are not seven Liberal MPs from the province. There are six. I just want to set that straight.

The argument that the member used was interesting, too. He says that the reason behind this bill being brought forward -- Bill C-18 in the federal Parliament -- and voted upon by the federal Liberal Party was that they were afraid of losing their seats because of redistribution. They'd be shuffled over a bit this way or that way, and they'd have a different constituency and perhaps a somewhat different riding association to deal with in order to get the nomination. And because of that they were terrified that they would lose their seats.

Well, if they won 98 out of 99 seats, it seems to me they could run anywhere and win, with the exception of one riding. So I think the logic that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain uses is somewhat faulty, not to mention that his facts are faulty.

If we're going to talk about parties and the relationship between federal and provincial parties, I find it really interesting that the gentleman who's purported to end up being the interim leader of the New Democratic caucus in Ottawa and the New Democratic Party nationally, who actually is a member from British Columbia, Mr. Riis, has put forward a proposal that he join -- and his caucus sign a pact with the devil, as he put it

-- the Reform Party of Canada, that he put aside the principles he espouses all the time and join with the Reform Party of Canada. For what reason? So that they can become the official opposition and get more money. Do you know what it is? The NDP caucus, the eight NDP federal MPs who are left, are finding that they have to be weaned from the wonderful perks and allotments of cash

[ Page 10171 ]

with which they were allowed to go out and set up a nice research department, nice offices and all these things. They want to get their noses back in there. They're willing to give up all the things these members stand up in the House and spout as their undying principles. They're going to join with the Reform Party of Canada in order to be the official opposition.

First of all, I find the motivations of the members opposite suspect in bringing this up. I find their commitment to British Columbia suspect, given how they voted on the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords. I find their facts and their understanding of the legislation less than accurate. And I find them a little late in the program, having followed after the Leader of the Opposition in his motion and in his letter to the Prime Minister.

I wonder why they brought this forward. All it does is highlight their hypocrisy, their lack of principles, the shallowness of their principles, the shallowness of their understanding of the federal scene and the ineptitude of their Premier, who participated in the negotiations leading up to the Charlottetown accord. Aside from trying to commit political suicide, I can't find any logical, political or rational reason why the New Democrats would choose to bring this motion forward.

We thought we were scooping them by putting this motion on the order paper.

We thought that they'd never dare to call this motion and have to stand up and defend the negotiation talents -- or lack thereof -- of their Premier, that they'd never have the nerve to stand up and defend their facts and understanding of the federal legislation, that they wouldn't have the nerve to stand up in this House and answer for Nelson Riis's comments on joining the Reform Party of Canada, that they'd never have the guts to stand up in front of this province and really have the truth out about how well or poorly they and their Premier have represented the people of this province.

During the Charlottetown accord, right across this country there was one provincial party, outside the province of Quebec, that stood against the other provincial parties and their federal counterparts, whether distant or close. There was only one party that did that. It was the British Columbia Liberal Party. So people in this province should have no doubt at any time that we will speak for the province of British Columbia first. We will speak for the province of British Columbia within this country of Canada.

I'm amazed and shocked that the members would bring this motion forward and actually choose to debate it, for the reasons that I've stated. I assume we can go on for some time and hear more embarrassing facts from other members, more embarrassing tales from the New Democratic Party as they try to change history, as they try to change the facts and make up for the ineptitude of their Premier in negotiating on behalf of the province of British Columbia. I am very interested to hear the next speaker in the House.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the question is: "Be it resolved that this House condemns the federal Liberal government's Bill C-18, which shortchanges British Columbia of two seats in the House of Commons, and that this House calls upon the Senate to reject this unfair legislation."

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply B, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM

(continued)

On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800 (continued).

[3:30]

G. Wilson: I appreciate that we have almost finished canvassing this particular issue. I would certainly, by agreement, yield to the official opposition as soon as I have finished a couple of questions.

To the minister, if he is ready: when we adjourned for lunch, we were on the question with respect to the jurisdiction of local government. I recognize that local government has jurisdiction with respect to waste management issues. In this particular instance, even that local government was split virtually fifty-fifty. There was not a great deal of agreement -- certainly not unanimity -- on that question.

I draw now on a broader level with respect to some of the issues around the whole question of waste management and the technical aspects of what Dayton and Knight, the engineers, may have recommended. As the minister will know, in 1977, Dayton and Knight could find no suitable sites. They have now yielded on that, presumably because of increased technology, new methodology or whatever the reasons may have been.

My question to the minister is simply this: how much money is the ministry now putting into direct site survey work? That is survey on site; I'm not just talking about air photo analysis or topographic analysis. To what extent is the cost of that ongoing monitoring system going to be borne by the Ministry of Environment, and to what extent is the cost going to be borne by the municipality if, in their wisdom -- if I can use that term loosely -- the ministry decides that this proposition should go forward?

Hon. M. Sihota: The monitoring requirements will be put into the permit to be funded by the municipality. I don't have the actual quantum of funds allocated in this year's budget for the issues that the hon. member raised at the outset. I'll get staff to get that number. You can appreciate that trying to get that precise number out of a budget of $250 million is going to take a little bit of time.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to get back to us with that.

With respect to potential costs on this site, it is also understood that there is an intermediary step with respect to permitting. The minister might want to clarify what seems to be a point of dispute, where the recycling portion of the waste permit happens after general collection. This doesn't refer only to Powell River, but to any of the areas around the province where there would be a similar permitting process. There is a central depository and items are then taken out of the waste stream, put on a truck and hauled off to the disposal site.

What kind of permitting and what kind of site inspection is done with respect to the location of that central depository? I raise this only because of the proximity of the proposed site to the Powell River airport. My reading of the Ministry of Environment regulations is that they prohibit the location of such a site within proximity of any piston-driven

[ Page 10172 ]

aero engines. I wonder if the minister might clarify that, because there seems to be a point of some dispute.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. member, we don't have the specifics of a transfer station. So that staff can research it, are you talking about a transfer station situate within a certain kilometre range of the proposed landfill site? I just want to make sure that I understand it before I ask staff to research it.

G. Wilson: That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a transfer station at which general collection will be deposited, where recyclable materials will be taken out of the waste stream prior to that material being trucked to the eventual site. It's not the proximity to the landfill site that we're concerned about; it's the proposal that it be proximate to the airport. My understanding of the regulations is that particulates that may get into the atmosphere would prohibit the location of such a transfer station proximate to an airfield where

piston-driven aero engines are operating. It's a point of some discussion and confusion, and I'm asking if you might clarify it.

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe that you are talking about the proposed transfer station. It would therefore fall under the provisions of the solid waste management plan. This facility doesn't actually exist, as I understand it. As we go through the solid waste management plan and its application to that site, if there are contraventions of the regulations the appropriate authorities are notified.

G. Wilson: I would hope, then, that the minister would take our discussion today as at least notification of our concern. I don't pretend in any way to be an expert on it. In reviewing the plan, I think there have been two or three options discussed. This one seems to be of concern to a significant number of constituents, and that's the only reason I raise it now. I looked through the regulations, and it was difficult to find the area they were citing in any regulation. So I'm just assuming that it's policy, and therefore not necessarily in written form.

I have two other questions, and then I would yield to the official opposition. The minister will know that our exchange prior to lunch was viewed by large numbers of people in Powell River who, purely coincidentally, happened to be watching the television at the time of this debate. That coincidence is, of course....

D. Streifel: A few faxes and phone calls.

G. Wilson: This is true, there were a few faxes and phone calls -- and I know the regulations with respect to what you can and can't hold up in the House.

There were two issues brought to my attention over the lunch hour that I think the members would like to know. Specifically, they have to do with the cleanup cost in the event of a breach of the liner. At the public meetings, Dayton and Knight apparently indicated that there clearly would be leachate. There wasn't a question of it not leaking; it will leak. The question is how much it will leak and what kind of damage that is likely to do to the environment. The question that was put to me came from both sides of the argument, so the minister can rest assured I'm not trying to score any political points on this one. It's an honest question, hopefully to get an honest answer.

In the event there are leachate and cleanup costs, if that is as a result of compliance with the permit, is it the minister's understanding that the cost of cleanup and any reclamation will fall upon the municipal government? Or does this ministry have funds available to assist local government with respect to reclamation and cleanup costs that may result because of a condition in the permit that was approved?

Hon. M. Sihota: I would suspect it would be the offending party, which would probably be local government, and there are bonding requirements.

G. Wilson: My second question, and the last before I yield to the official opposition, is with respect to the bonding requirements. How is the bond determined? To what extent is that based on the permit and the liability potential? Or is that just a flat rate applied to solid waste disposals whether they're in watersheds or not? If the minister could allow us some information on that, it would be useful. Local taxpayers are clearly going to have to bear the cost of this; therefore it's important for people to know what costs are going to be incurred in this project.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not a flat rate. It's based on an assessment of risk.

G. Wilson: I thought the other question was the last, and this probably will be -- although I certainly reserve the right to come back to all other aspects of environmental questions in the estimates.

With respect to the bonding, then, will the risk assessment be part of the permitting process, or will that be done internally by the Ministry of Environment? What kind of public information will be available with respect to that risk assessment -- the methodology by which it is determined and the potential liabilities identified by it?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry. You asked your last question; I can't answer that one. Just kidding.

It's part of the permitting process. The information is generally available to the public. The final negotiations with regard to the quantum of costs obviously are private with the ministry, but I would think that once they're done they would be available to the public through the regional level of government.

I want to say that the hon. member indicated in his comments that there have been quite a few letters on this issue. I'm not doubting you. I'm just saying that we did try to check over the lunch break, and we were able to find only one that came in a few days ago with the same pamphlet that you tried to hold up that started with the word "stop." For your information, that's the only one we can find in the system at this stage.

G. Wilson: I couldn't possibly let that last comment go without some correction. I would be happy to provide the minister with a list of the names of people who have written in, and I would further be happy to provide him with the petition on which there are literally hundreds of names. The minister can see here that it has names, addresses and phone numbers. So if the minister thinks that there are very few people, then I would suggest he might want to be apprised of these concerns, since there is literally page after page of people who have indicated concern.

I am trying to yield to the official opposition. I know they are trying to get in, and by virtue of their agreement they have allowed me to continue after lunch on this matter.

With that said, the last comment I would make is on that risk assessment -- and I mean this in all seriousness. The

[ Page 10173 ]

public really want to have access to the technical information that the ministry is using to make a final judgment on this question. As the minister will well know, when you're talking about the potential damage to a watershed, emotions run very high all over the province. People feel very strongly about the protection of their water systems and their water courses.

So I hope that the minister will honour what I believe he said before lunch -- we'll of course check Hansard to make sure he did; this may be a good chance for him to suggest he didn't, if I have it wrong -- which was that all of the technical review information and the information with respect to the assessment of risk and the viability of such a project will be made available to the public for their review prior to any permit being issued in this instance.

[3:45]

If that is so, then I believe that the public would feel more comfortable recognizing that they would have an opportunity to review the potential impact as determined by experts in this field and to respond to that prior to any permit being issued. Would the minister commit to that? I believe that's what he committed to before lunch, but I don't want to hold him to something if he didn't say it.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think my statements this morning were clear enough. If they're not, then I'm sure the hon. member and I can work it out.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I would like you to say for the record.... I appreciate also the fact that the minister makes himself available to this member on a regular basis, and we do have an opportunity to have ongoing and useful discussions in the interests of not only my constituents but British Columbians. He's one of the more accessible ministers.

With that being said, I would yield to the members of the official opposition and reserve the right to come back in future aspects of this estimates debate.

D. Jarvis: Did the minister have an opportunity to obtain from his staff the information I asked about regarding Mount Washington?

Hon. M. Sihota: There was a study to control the acid mine drainage. The Ministry of Energy has paid about $2 million to remedy the tailing site.

D. Jarvis: Then I assume, Mr. Minister, that you have a report now and that nothing has been done. Is that right?

Hon. M. Sihota: The Ministry of Energy paid about $2 million to remedy the site, which meant that we covered it with clay. There has not been any further deterioration of the situation at Mount Washington.

D. Jarvis: Can you tell me when that was done? Or could you tell me when the ministry will have this completed? I'm receiving reports that it has not relieved the problem at this time.

Hon. M. Sihota: I agree that the problem has not, in its entirety, been relieved. I wouldn't want the member to have the wrong impression; I've just answered the question you asked this morning. The problem hasn't gotten any worse, but it hasn't been remedied in its entirety, either.

D. Jarvis: Do we assume, then, that you're going to go further in this remedy of it? Or is this it now?

Hon. M. Sihota: I suspect, hon. member, that it's a matter of resources. As resources permit, obviously, we'd like to solve all the problems that are out there.

D. Jarvis: I'm rather surprised, Mr. Minister. If this was a private concern, such as in the Charlottes, you would have been up making a grandiose statement at a press conference with photo ops and all the rest. Or up in Britannia Beach, which has no money, you'd be doing further ops and all the rest of it. The government has made a commitment to this problem. Why are you just sitting around doing nothing? There's a problem there. Go out and do it.

Hon. M. Sihota: There's no easy remedy to the problem from a technological point of view. Therefore it's difficult to just throw money at the problem. Obviously, we have to have solutions that work. The solution we used at Britannia, for example, was a solution that -- from the work that had been done -- we knew would work. I would be most interested in hearing a solution, from a technical point of view, that the hon. member could suggest in this chamber.

D. Jarvis: The government is in the position of having.... It's their responsibility, and you were aware of the responsibility. You told me that when you sidestepped down that black diamond hill, you could see the mine; you knew it was a problem all the time.

But I want to say this: you commissioned a report on it. If that report is not satisfactory, then how come the ministry hasn't gone out and found another report? If it was a private enterprise, you'd be screaming and yelling blue murder. Now you're sitting back. You've got a report; you tried to act on that report. You found it's unsatisfactory, and now you're saying....

The Chair: Member, I'm sorry. I don't mean to interfere with what you're saying, but I must caution you. Please do not use "you." Go through the Chair, please.

D. Jarvis: Well, you all....

The Chair: Please, member, we do have rules. Please abide by them.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I appreciate that.

As far as I can see, it's a cop-out. It's a different thing when the government is responsible, versus a private enterprise outfit that's responsible.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make sure the hon. member knows that an interministry committee is working on this problem. So please don't think that nothing is being done. An ambient water quality report will be available to the stakeholders in about three weeks; that may assist us in finding solutions. The hon. member should also know that, given the history of the site, the materials that have been released have drained out of the mine and found themselves well into the water level. Consequently, the solutions and expenditures that would be required are fairly significant.

Given the potential significance of those solutions, surely the hon. member would agree with me that before we start putting taxpayers' dollars into dealing with the problem, we had better make sure that the solutions we have identified will work, because the costs to the taxpayer would be significant.

[ Page 10174 ]

D. Jarvis: You could have said that at the start, I am afraid, because all you indicated to us on this side was that the Minister of Mines had spent $2 million for the report, you had acted on it and so far it hasn't cleared up the problem. All we were trying to do is find out if you're going to do further work on it. The Minister of Mines was laughing about that point a few minutes ago, but this is what we had asked. What was happening there? That's all we wanted to know.

Another subject I want to go on to is with regard to the 120-day scan report that you have. An item in here states that it's your intention to make an announcement with regard to water export. I was wondering if the policy on water export has changed in your department.

Hon. M. Sihota: I couldn't hear you at the end. Were you asking whether or not we had changed our position?

D. Jarvis: Yes.

Hon. M. Sihota: The position of the government has been very clear with regard to the export of water. We do not think that a commodity like water should be exported. We're concerned that that would occur under the provisions of NAFTA. I would hope that the hon. member and his party would agree with the position of the government, which has been outlined for some time -- namely, that NAFTA allows for the export of bulk water and that there ought not to be exports of bulk water.

D. Jarvis: It was an inquiry in the sense that I see that an announcement on water export is to be made by you and the minister of development. We were wondering if you were just going to repeat what you've already decided. Or is there going to be some change?

Hon. M. Sihota: Our position with regard to water exports won't change, but I do hope that the hon. member's position with regard to mining in parks will.

D. Jarvis: No, my attitude to mining in parks has not changed. As far as I'm concerned, if you can mine in parks in a responsible manner, as they're doing up in Myra Falls now, there's nothing wrong with it. I trust that the minister would realize that.

Another aspect I want to ask the minister about is with regard to an

article in the paper. An environmental group in the east is quite concerned about the export of natural gas, which is theoretically the most environmentally safe way of heating. That group felt that the environment and energy security costs were at stake, and they were supported by the Energy Council of Canada -- or it was brought to their attention that maybe the council was concerned about it as well. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the export of natural gas being environmentally wrong for this province.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have thought about many things, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: That was a classic example of an answer from a minister who is very bored with questions. The minister came back with a short, sharp answer that meant nothing, when we asked him a specific question.

However, I'll go into something he might know of: his ministry's regulations and inspections of the mining industry. We all appreciate that there are problems in the environment out there. Most of the mining companies, as far as I'm concerned -- and from what I have been informed of and what I have seen -- do really concern themselves with it. It appears that in a lot of cases I have heard about, instead of using a shield to protect the environment, the inspectors have been going out with a sword.

In cases where the minister gives instructions to the inspectors who go out there, what does he tell them? Does he advise them and try to help them prevent further problems, or is he out looking for problems with a sword? This is what appears to be going on. If you go out and talk to the mining companies, they will tell you that an inspector comes with only one thought: find something wrong and fine the companies. I know of an instance where an inspector walked into a mining company and looked at an oil tank that was leaking.

They then grabbed him, took him out to his own car and showed him where it was leaking oil all over the site as well. This is the way they feel. I'd be interested to know how the minister feels about it and what instructions he gives his inspectors. If he doesn't give them any instructions, he should, because it's not serving proper relationships with the mining industry.

Hon. M. Sihota: They are told to enforce the law.

D. Jarvis: That's exactly what I was trying to tell the minister. He's obviously not using his office to promote good relationships between the mining industry and the Environment ministry by giving the department a shield or helping them. He's just going out with a sword. He's acting like a little policeman. He sits back there.... You laugh about it as though it's a funny thing, but it's not a funny thing. There are people out there who are working for a living. They are putting up their money and trying to make an investment in this province to provide work and taxes for people like you and your deputies, who are sitting back here....

Both you and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources laugh and smile about things like that, and you don't care. Well, Mr. Minister, as I said before, you are probably one of those individuals who had better start writing your curriculum vitae ticket, because both of you are going down very hard in the next election.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would put another question to the minister: can he tell me what the status of the Burrard Thermal plant is?

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: I've tried to be short with the hon. member, because after listening to the advice of the member for Okanagan West, I felt that I should be when he gave me some gratuitous advice during his opening comments. I have listened to what the hon. member has had to say about mining and parks, about environmental regulation by government and about the relationship between this government and the mining industry. I have had occasion to listen to what he has to say about the electoral chances of this government.

Let me say, first of all, that this government enjoys its relationship with the mining industry. I know that my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has done an outstanding job in making sure that there is a good relationship between the mining industry and this government. In fact, if memory serves me right, in the budget that was introduced by my good colleague the Minister of Finance, there were significant changes in taxation, which showed the mining industry, with clarity, that we welcome their participation in the economy. We

[ Page 10175 ]

enjoy working with them closely as a government. That's not to say that there won't be tensions from time to time, but it's to say that when a compelling case is made, it's made well. If it had not been for the vigorous representations of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I'm sure that some of those taxation changes would not have been forthcoming. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her for her hard work in that regard.

With regard to the other issues the hon. member raised, let me make it abundantly clear. The hon. member seems not to know what's happening in British Columbia today. One-third of all the new jobs created in Canada this year have been created right here in B.C. That's because British Columbians are enjoying unprecedented economic good times. That's because our resource communities -- forestry, mining and the agricultural industry -- are doing well. There are opportunities for working people in those areas. There are also opportunities in secondary industries in British Columbia.

The hon. member should know that as a consequence of what's happening in this buoyant economy of British Columbia, jobs are up. Because of the fiscal progress that the Minister of Finance has made here in British Columbia....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm glad the hon. member knows that the deficit is down. The deficit that we inherited from the Socreds was about $3.4 billion, and it's now down to about a billion dollars. The Premier has indicated that by the year 1996, we will be able to balance the budget in British Columbia, and I know that we will. At the same time, the government has indicated that taxes are frozen for the next three years. The hon. member opposite would like to see this government defeated, but I'm sure that, unlike him, most British Columbians appreciate the fact that jobs are up, the deficit is down and taxes are frozen. I think that's a recipe for electoral success.

During the course of his cross-examination, the hon. member made reference to the fact that he was worried about the way in which we enforce our regulations. The current Leader of the Opposition indicated the difference of opinion which exists between us on this side of the House and his political party. We think that environmental regulations are required in British Columbia and that British Columbians have a strong environmental ethic and want enforcement of environmental regulations. We think that British Columbians want polluters to pay and the quality of our environment to improve.

As a consequence, we have brought in some of the toughest environmental regulations in the history of the province. A little earlier we debated the fact that, as a consequence of the leadership demonstrated by this government, we have the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge standards in North America. We have the toughest standards with regard to the elimination of CFCs, as a result of the environmental regulations that this government has brought in.

We will not hesitate to bring in appropriate environmental regulation to protect the integrity of our environment and to make sure that future generations will have access to an environment that is as safe, clean and bountiful as the one we inherited.

I regret that on February 1, 1994, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in the Vancouver Sun that his first environmental priority as Premier would be to "get rid of the bureaucratic overload" of environment regulations. I'd like to know exactly which regulations he's talking about. Would the opposition prefer to get rid of those tough pulp mill effluent discharge standards? Would they like to see us go back to the Socred standards in terms of AOX discharge? Do they disagree with us in terms of decisions we made with regard to CFCs?

Do they take issue with the initiatives of this government with respect to clean air? I'd like to know which environmental regulations those members opposite would seek to eliminate from the face of regulatory reform in British Columbia. It speaks volumes in terms of whose side the opposition is on. As evidenced by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, they are clearly not on the side of the environment.

I think a perfect example of that is the comments the hon. member made just a few minutes ago, when he said there should be mining in parks in British Columbia. We have indicated -- for example, during last year's session -- that we will establish some remarkable and internationally renowned parks in British Columbia. One of those is the Tatshenshini; the hon. member is familiar with it. I want the hon. member to understand that under no circumstances will this government allow mining in parks.

I just do not understand the mentality that would support mining in our pristine protected wilderness areas in British Columbia. If that is the record of the opposition, in terms of wanting to allow for mining in parks, then it would seem to me that it demonstrates the degree to which the Liberal opposition has no respect for the environmental ethic in British Columbia.

With regard to Burrard Thermal, the facility exists in downtown Vancouver and provides assistance in terms of our overall electrical plan.

D. Jarvis: That was a great campaign speech. I guess we're getting close to an election. It was full of untruths -- first of all, the fact that he would suggest that the Minister of Mines has done a proper job in this province and that she's well thought of in the mining industry. You just have to go out and quietly talk to some of the people and listen to what's reported across Canada about the Minister of Mines and how she treats the mining association in this province. Unfortunately, the minister doesn't realize that she tossed the mining industry peanuts.

Although they certainly appreciate the approximately $25 million they got in tax savings in the coal industry, it certainly wasn't enough. It hasn't created any more jobs.

When we get into the aspect of jobs, you're sitting there with a large number of deputy ministers. You've created 12,000 more jobs in Victoria for the likes of the people -- the academics -- who are sitting around here. When you have deputy ministers who write books -- and we all read those books -- where they say they don't give a damn about mining in this province and that they want to take over the mines.... The minister's deputy feels that the mines should be owned by the government and not by private industries. He's a typical socialist. That's the way he thinks, and that's the way you think.

An Hon. Member: That's the way he wrote.

D. Jarvis: It's exactly what he wrote. As I said, all I wanted to know.... And I say this about the environment aspect of it: at no time did I say that I was not an environmentalist. I happen to be from six generations in this province; my family has been in this province for quite a few years. We have just as much concern about this province as you have, and perhaps more. We have a lot more invested in this province than you have. So don't tell us over on this side that we're not environmentalists.

[ Page 10176 ]

The thing about mining in parks -- the Tatshenshini aspect of it -- is that you didn't go through the process. Your department set up the mine development assessment program, which mining had to go through in order to get a licence to do it. But you shortcut it, because you -- and perhaps your deputies or your friends at the B.C. Federation of Labour -- didn't like the people who were in the mine.

The Chair: The member for Mission-Kent on a point of order.

D. Streifel: I would like to draw the member's attention to the necessity that debate be carried on through the Chair in order to respect parliament, and I recommend that the member spend some time in the evening reading the standing orders.

C. Tanner: Why don't you do that?

The Chair: I hope we're not going to get into a battle over points of order now. The member's point, by the by, is well taken. I would caution the member to please, if at all possible, avoid referring to the minister as "you"; refer to him, rather, as "the minister." I am the only "you" that can be referred to in debate, according to a strict reading of the standing orders. I give the member that caution.

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me, member -- I have to hear the first point of order before I can take the second. Please continue, minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have had the privilege to be an elected member of this House for seven years, and I have witnessed many debates. It strikes me that the lowest form of debate in this House is when hon. members attack those who have no right to speak in this House. Hon. Chair, I want to appeal to this House that members not attack the reputation of staff who serve this province, and not direct comments towards those who serve our province.

The Chair: That is not a point of order; however, the point is a valid one.

Member for North Vancouver-Seymour, do you wish to continue on the point of order?

D. Jarvis: I am quite aware of what the gentleman said about the point of order. Everything I was discussing dealt with the minister's ministry. The minister brought up the matter of employment, so I had to discuss the aspect of employment.

The Chair: I'm sorry, member, there seems to be some misunderstanding. I apologize if I haven't made it clear, so I'm going to try once more. The point of order made by the member for Mission-Kent -- the one that I said is well taken -- has to do with the means whereby we conduct debate in this chamber. One of the basic rules of debate in this chamber is that we do not refer to members opposite as "you." In short, we don't talk directly to them; rather, we talk through the Chair.

If one wants to disagree with the minister, one says, for example: "I would point out that the minister is wrong when he or she says...." We do not say: "I would tell you, Mr. Minister, that you are wrong." That's the only point of order made by the member for Mission-Kent, and I would ask all members to please pay close attention to that rather important point which governs how we conduct our affairs in this chamber.

I will now ask the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to please carry on, and he's perfectly in order.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister, after his little speech in trying to castigate me.... I would like to say to the minister that I can see nothing wrong with mining in parks. If you feel that the Myra Falls mine in Strathcona Park is so bad and so dangerous to our environment, why don't you close it down? You have the opportunity to do so. That's the question. Or is the minister going to sit back and smile, pretending that he knows more than everyone else in this room, and not answer any questions?

I originally asked the minister about the status of Burrard Thermal, and he gave me a short, cute, quick answer that made no sense whatsoever. So I will specifically ask the minister again: can you tell me what is wrong with a mine such as Myra Falls in Strathcona Park, and if it is wrong, are you prepared to close it down now?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well the unique situation with regard to the mine in Strathcona Park, and if he doesn't know it, I'd be surprised. He knows the situation in terms of its pre-existing status and its tenure, and some of the compensation issues related to that. So the hon. member knows full well that at the time there was a policy of the day.

[4:15]

But if it is the Liberal Party's position today that there should be mining in parks and that they see no difficulty with mining in parks, I'd rather leave it at that. That is a statement, and that is the official position of the Liberal Party, and I can assure the hon. member that it will meet with appropriate comments from those who have an interest in the environment.

With regard to Burrard Thermal, I'm not sure what the hon. member wants to know about it. He knows full well it's a facility that exists in Vancouver. It has some permits to be able to proceed with activity in Vancouver, and it provides backup power to maintain our electrical system in the province.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Minister, you didn't answer my question. The question I asked you at the time was: is there anything wrong with the mine in Strathcona Park?

Hon. M. Sihota: There is everything wrong with mining in parks, and this government will not allow mining in parks. If that is the position of the Liberal Party, then I must say that I'm sure the Liberal Party will be the recipient of many comments from those who have an interest in the environment. With regard to the particular mine, the hon. member knows that it has a pre-existing status.

D. Jarvis: I would ask the minister again: is there anything wrong with the mine in Strathcona Park being there?

I just want to put on the record that the minister has therefore stated, by not answering, that there's nothing wrong with the mine in Strathcona Park. With that conclusion he is signifying there's nothing wrong with mining in parks in British Columbia. That's all I wanted to get out of him -- that he agrees with me that if it's done in a responsible manner, there is nothing wrong with mining in parks.

[ Page 10177 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I see that the Environment critic for the Liberal Party is here. I'd sure be interested in knowing whether he supports the notion of mining in parks.

M. de Jong: In reviewing the hon. minister's estimates, I note, not surprisingly, that a significant amount of the budget is allocated to staff salaries. One of those employees interests me: Mr. Gerry Scott. I wonder if the minister could confirm that Mr. Scott is an employee of his ministry.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I was saying a few minutes ago, I've had the privilege of being in this House for seven years, and never before have I been aware of the critic for any portfolio remaining outside the House for most of the estimates. We've been debating these estimates for, I think, the better part of six or six and half hours, and I find it astounding that only now does the critic for the Liberal Party find himself engaged in debate on environmental matters.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to the question, that issue is already on the record in Hansard.

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Matsqui continues. I caution other members to please try to at least keep it down.

M. de Jong: To the minister again: what day was Mr. Scott hired?

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I don't have the exact date. But if it's important to you, we'll try to get you the exact date.

M. de Jong: How many applicants were there for his position?

Hon. M. Sihota: I've addressed the question of Mr. Scott. The matter of advertising, notice and the like are all matters of record in Hansard, and all members should familiarize themselves with that information first.

M. de Jong: What was Mr. Scott hired to do?

Hon. M. Sihota: I've answered that question; it's on the record in Hansard.

M. de Jong: What is Mr. Scott paid?

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, the hon. member obviously isn't aware of the fact that those questions were asked. The question was taken on notice in my absence by the Premier, and some days later I had the occasion to put all that information on the record.

M. de Jong: Did Mr. Scott and the minister have a relationship prior to his being hired by the ministry?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure what he means by "relationship."

M. de Jong: That's why I asked the question.

Hon. M. Sihota: I take it the hon. member doesn't know what he meant by "relationship."

M. de Jong: Did the minister know Mr. Scott prior to hiring him?

Hon. M. Sihota: I knew many British Columbians prior to the last election.

M. de Jong: I think the difference between the minister and me is that I recognize where I have homework to do and am prepared to brief myself on coming into a new ministry or new critic's portfolio. Let me put it to him very simply: did he know the gentleman before he hired him?

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I thought the reason the hon. member was outside the House was that he was engaged in double-dipping

-- something the member for Langley is well aware of.

D. Jarvis: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think it's incumbent on you, if you are going to admonish us about talking out of turn, that you do the same thing with the minister and make sure that he doesn't inflame the situation, which he is trying to do. Have him answer the question if that's the situation.

The Chair: Member, please take note that nobody has been admonished by me or by any other Chair, to the best of my knowledge, for anything other than deviations from the rules of this chamber. I have done nothing to impede the flow of this debate, nor will I, except to caution all members to please stay on those matters that are properly within the compass of the estimates of this ministry. I would suggest to members on both sides that we seem to be moving some distance away from vote 30, and I would caution them to please address both their questions and their answers to what is germane to that vote.

D. Jarvis: The point is that every question I have asked, and the member for Matsqui has asked, has been directly pointed toward the minister's ministry. If we have got off track, we can only assume that the minister has inflamed that situation by not answering the questions.

G. Farrell-Collins: I had the displeasure of being the critic for that member when he was the Minister of Labour. I must say that it was a displeasure, because I have never in this House -- in the very limited time, mind you, that I've been here -- found anyone as unwilling to speak to the public and answer questions put to him, or as incapable of answering questions put to him. We spent time in estimates for Labour last year when this member was admonished and chastised for his inability to answer questions within that ministry. I see he's not even aware of what's going on in his new ministry.

He's already moved down the ladder one notch, the next is the back bench, and I assume that the Chair will be taking over his job.

M. Farnworth: Is the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rising on a point of order, or is he on estimates? If he's on estimates, would he please stick to estimates. We seem to be hearing a great deal of

preamble. Brevity is supposed to be the order of the day.

The Chair: Again I am not confronted with a point of order; rather it seems to be with the quality of debate and what is happening. The points made by a number of different members on both sides have validity. May I just suggest that we would all be much further ahead if we could

[ Page 10178 ]

refrain from any personal insults and attack and deal with the administrative operations of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Minister Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to ask the minister a question. I hope he'll answer, because the question that was asked of the Premier, which was taken on notice for this minister, included not one patronage appointment -- that of Gerry Scott -- but two patronage appointments within this ministry. The other gentleman was Jas Manak, and ministerial comments with regard to him are noticeably absent from Hansard. Perhaps the minister can inform us when he was hired, who hired him, who else applied for the position, how much he is paid and what his responsibilities are.

What justification can the minister give for appointing a personal and political friend in the bureaucracy without advertising that job for all British Columbians?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member had paid attention -- as he should have -- to the question taken on notice, he would know that the question taken on notice was with regard to Mr. Scott. When the subsequent question was asked with regard to Mr. Manak, it wasn't taken on notice. Hence there was no need to reply at that time to the question as it related to Mr. Manak. The member knows that, and he pretty well admitted that in the heckle that he just sort of hurled towards this side of the House. As a result, I've answered many of the questions with regard to Mr. Scott.

I'll be happy to answer the questions with regard to Mr. Manak. I would encourage the opposition.... They know full well the rules of this House: a question once being answered does not need to be answered a second time.

With regard to the individuals we are now discussing in the House, both are temporary auxiliary employees of government with no pension or seniority rights. Both of them have assisted us in the development of policy: Mr. Scott in the environmental area, and Mr. Manak in the multicultural area.

As I indicated during the response regarding Mr. Scott -- and the same applies to Mr. Manak -- the salary is $65,000 per year. Auxiliary positions are not advertised. If they are to be converted to permanent positions, they are advertised and, at that point, available for anyone who wishes to engage in securing those positions.

Mr. Scott's responsibilities -- I don't think I said this at the time, so I will amplify on this point -- relate to oil spills, clean air, pulp mill discharge regulations and some of the other matters that we have been working on in terms of regulations that are long overdue.

I'm sure that there is a passing interest in Mr. Scott's and Mr. Manak's work, but it should not overshadow the fact that the Liberals have no environmental policy and no stated multiculturalism, immigration and human rights policy. It seems to me that the tactics on the part of the opposition are such that they find little scope to be able to criticize the policies of this ministry, in terms of both the environment and human rights, and therefore they would rather focus their attack on the good people hired to implement those policies.

G. Farrell-Collins: By his comments the minister has just indicated exactly how truthful he is on a regular basis, and how open he and his ministry are. It's exactly the same thing I've seen over the last two years. The fact of the matter is that a question was put to the Premier in this House. He took part of that question on notice. With the other part, the Premier sat on his behind and didn't answer the question. Upon finding out that questions were asked of his ministry, the minister stands in this House and gives the minimal information he's required to give by the standing orders -- if at all.

He gives the minimal amount. He knows full well that there's a full question for the minister to answer, but he evades the question. He avoids answering the question. He fails to be truthful and forthright with the public. Those questions are asked on behalf of the public, and the minister knows that. For him to stand up in the House and play his piddly little legal games, which he has played for so many years in this House....

M. Farnworth: On a point of order, the comments that the minister was being untruthful are, I think, offensive to members in this House, and I would ask that they be withdrawn.

[4:30]

The Chair: As the Chair, I must confess that I didn't hear the direct impugning of one's integrity. I'm sure the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, in order to see that the debate proceed smoothly, would be willing to withdraw the remark if indeed it was made and gave offence.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have no need to impugn the integrity of that member opposite. I have no need to do that.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Of course, I withdraw the comment. I don't need to impugn the minister's motives. I don't need to impugn his integrity.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's not required. The minister made comments with regard to these two gentlemen. Can the minister tell us how long people stay in his ministry as auxiliary....

U. Dosanjh: Point of order. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has made allegations accusing the minister of being untruthful. Then he withdraws them in a qualified fashion, allowing the impression that he first created with his remarks to linger.

The Chair: I'm sorry, hon. member, but that is a subjective judgment, and whatever sympathy I might have is irrelevant. The member was asked to withdraw and did so. I must take him at his word and proceed accordingly. May I suggest, however, that we try to avoid the personality clash and conflict, and focus our remarks and concerns very much on the issues. I hope that will get us over these high hurdles.

[ Page 10179 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I think that's advice well given and well taken. I hope the minister takes it, too. What's happened here is that members on this side have been rising to ask legitimate questions of the minister, and he has felt it important to put himself on a pedestal as the almighty god of the environment and to talk down to members of this House as if he were somehow better than everybody else. That's not uncommon. I spent eight weeks doing the Labour Code with this same minister. It's his personality, and that's fine. His reputation among the public is well known, and his....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't intend to help, hon. Chair.

I think the minister's attitude speaks for itself, and I'm sure it will serve him well in the next election, because as we know, the NDP stronghold in Esquimalt is no longer there. In fact, it has been eroded -- unless he too intends to join the Reform Party.

My question to the minister gets back to hiring policy and practices within his ministry. How long does somebody stay in his ministry as an auxiliary? Does it start whenever the minister feels like it and then end at the next election? Is there some time line where a person sitting in a position must eventually become a permanent employee? Do they just stay as auxiliary people, put in by the minister for political purposes, in perpetuity?

Hon. M. Sihota: They are term contracts, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: They are term contracts. Have those contracts been renewed since those gentlemen were personally appointed to their positions by the minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

G. Farrell-Collins: How many times for each?

Hon. M. Sihota: Once.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us the length of the terms of those two contracts for each individual, for a total of four contracts?

Hon. M. Sihota: We're functioning from memory here, but the first ones, we believe, were for six months; the second ones are for 12.

G. Farrell-Collins: I seem to remember some members of this House -- I can't remember exactly who they were -- standing up time after time to talk about contract employees, and the way this government deals with contract employees. Are these employees going to be there for a long term? Are we going to see those contracts renewed? Are they likely to be renewed after 12 months? That's an 18-month temporary assignment. That seems to me to be relatively significant. Should not those positions, if we have 18 months' worth of contracts, be put into the permanent category and put out for public posting so that all British Columbians can apply for them, not just the friends of the minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: They may well be advertised in due course, in keeping with the statements that I made at the outset. But the intention at this point is to maintain them as temporary employees. I can't read a crystal ball about what will occur 12 months from now.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us if any other such employees within his ministry are going on similar contracts?

Interjections.

The Chair: Sorry, minister, if I may. Members, please, we aren't serving the public interest very well with this activity, so please let the dialogue and question-and-answer go on.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are quite a few employees who are hired on an auxiliary basis. If the hon. member would like a total number, I guess we could find it for him. But if his concern is whether these are the only two, they are not. There are a lot of auxiliary employees hired within the ministry at any time. You can appreciate that we have about 2,500 employees within the ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can be more specific, then. I understand these gentlemen were hired as managers of special projects. I believe that was the title given to both. Is that the title they both have?

Hon. M. Sihota: They work on special projects in the communications component of the ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us if any other special project coordinators or managers will be hired within his ministry on an auxiliary basis doing similar work, perhaps on different policy matters?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure other people have been hired from time to time. People are hired on special projects.

G. Farrell-Collins: Could the minister tell us what other special projects are taking place within his ministry at present?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are hundreds of special projects at any given time in the ministry. You have to understand that the ambit of the ministry is quite significant. We have people looking at grizzly bears, the impact of water on particular watercourses, insects and fish habitat -- just go down the line. The ministry has all sorts of potential to engage people on special projects.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure it does. Can the minister tell us if there are any other special projects within his ministry with a communications slant? The minister obviously knows what I'm asking. How many other political friends has he parachuted into his ministry? I know he's not going to answer that question, so I'm trying to ask the minister not how many friends he has out there counting grizzly bears or insects but how many friends he has hired in his ministry who directly or indirectly deal with various matters.

I can't ask the minister how many of his friends are in the ministry, because he won't answer me, but I can ask him if there are any other special projects. Particularly let me ask the minister about special projects within the communications area that he alludes to, which seems to be where all the patronage bodies are buried in his ministry.

Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the first person the Liberal caucus hired immediately after the 1991 provincial election campaign was Paul McKivett, the defeated Liberal candidate in Oak Bay-Gordon Head. The second person they hired was Jim Bennett, the campaign manager for the then-Liberal

[ Page 10180 ]

MLA for West

Vancouver-Garibaldi. I also know full well that one of the people the opposition party hired was the individual who, I believe, ran for the party in Kamloops. I know full well that the former MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena, Mr. Art Cowie, was hired by his party in order to make room for the Leader of the Opposition in this House.

So the hon. member knows full well that the Liberal caucus, shortly after it formed the official opposition -- and currently I'm sure it does the same -- went out of its way to hire known Liberals. It's a decision that they have made for their own reasons, and that's a determination they will have to speak to. Just functioning from memory, the Liberal caucus also reached over to Mr. Chretien's office in Ottawa...

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, whose office was that?

...to look at some communications options.

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. The member for Abbotsford on a point of order. Your point, member?

H. De Jong: I have great difficulty understanding where the minister is leading. Certainly what he's mentioned so far has nothing to do with the Ministry of Environment.

The Chair: The member's point would normally be well taken -- albeit not a point of order, except perhaps on relevance -- except that it's an answer to a question that raises precisely these issues. Therefore, just as the question is in order, so must the response be, I'm afraid -- though you're quite right to wonder whether this is taking us in a direction that seems appropriate.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's fine.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think this minister knows as well as everybody else that any government has a political staff. Certainly no issue was raised when Mr. Jas Manak was a member of this minister's political staff, serving him directly as an executive assistant, I believe. Those are political positions. They're temporary; they come and go with the minister, the party and the government. That's understood, and that's necessary. One needs political people in political positions, doing direct service to the minister and particular MLAs. Nobody disputes that fact.

I'll repeat the question I put to the minister because I notice he didn't answer it: how many other temporary auxiliary positions, or whatever the minister wants to call them, does he have within his communications department, spread out throughout his ministry?

[4:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: I've just consulted with staff. We can find out how many other auxiliary employees there are, so that the hon. member can engage in his witch-hunt. But I can assure the hon. member that there must be occasions when we hire people in communications. There's a fairly large communications component in the Ministry of Environment, because it does a lot of things that other ministries don't regularly put into communications. So I'd have to find out to what extent we have engaged, or anticipate engaging in this year's budget, the services of people as auxiliaries in the communications department.

G. Farrell-Collins: This certainly isn't a witch-hunt. We all know, and the public knows, there are no witches in the NDP. They're not allowed to be in or to run for the NDP. We all saw that. This Minister of Multiculturalism should have something to say about that. It's amazing he can stand up and hold his head high.

The minister knows what the question is. It's not sufficient for the minister to say anymore in this House that he'll get back to us. In his previous portfolio he was asked a series of questions, and it took 13 months to get an answer back from the minister. He is incapable of either coming up with the answers or administering his office in a manner that he can put out that information. The first ten times, we took the minister at his word that he would get back to us, but he's not able to do that. So I assume these estimates will continue at another time, throughout either tomorrow, the next day, the day after or some time next week.

I assume that 24 hours should be sufficient for the minister to go through his office and find out how many other auxiliary employees that he has hired personally are working on his behalf in the communications department within his ministry. I'm sure he would be able to know that figure; he should know it off the top of his head. We all know that he hired these two gentlemen for personal reasons. They're in there as political staff, taking auxiliary positions in the ministry that normally should be posted and advertised so all British Columbians can participate in them.

They should probably be considered -- given the minister's and other members' comments -- as actual government employees and be employed as such, with full rights, benefits and pension benefits in accordance with the laws that he and the Premier talk about so often. I don't want the minister to think he's getting off lightly.

We will be coming back to him with these questions, trying to determine exactly how many of his friends he has parachuted into his ministry, how much they are being paid and why all British Columbians can't apply for those jobs and have direct access to employment in the government of British Columbia.

It's sort of back to the good old days of Louisiana, when you had to be related to the right person to get the job. It appears that that sense of morals and that sense of management style has now gone into this minister's ministry to some depth. I think it's quite disgraceful, actually. We hope to hear back from the minister very shortly. I would assume that 24 hours is long enough for the minister to get that information, so that if his estimates come up tomorrow or Monday, he will have that information available to us and the public can find out just how many jobs they are missing out on.

Hon. M. Sihota: We think we should be able to get you that information by tomorrow. I have chosen to participate in this debate and try to ignore many of your comments. I note again that the Liberals seem to have some difficulty taking issue with the policies of this government around environmental matters. They know full well that we've embraced a rather progressive environmental agenda, so they choose to criticize the people behind the development of those environmental policies. I would hope that the debate can focus on issues as they relate to policy.

I guess it's fair for the hon. member, in terms of my capacity as Human Rights minister, to criticize with regard to religious rights -- if you want to put it that way -- and the role of witches. I hope that he will take occasion to lecture his colleagues on the issue of double-dipping in the same fashion he was lecturing members of this House a little earlier with regard to that issue.

H. De Jong: I would like to introduce a different subject at this point. It has to do with the Chilliwack River valley. I'm

[ Page 10181 ]

sure that most members and the minister know about the problems they've had there. There were the '89 and '90 floods -- two years in a row. During 1990 and 1991, I believe that the government of the day spent a quarter of a million dollars each year to do a lot of cleanup on the river -- stump piles, trees and who knows what all -- but the riverbed was never touched.

The main problem, as I and the residents of the Chilliwack River valley see it, is that the Chilliwack River has lost its flow capacity due to lots of rocks and gravel having come down with the heavy rains. It has affected not only the Chilliwack River, but also the Vedder Canal through which it flows into the Fraser River.

[S. O'Neill in the chair.]

The Vedder Canal was once used for a canoeing contest during one of the games held there -- the Canada Games or whatever. If anyone is a little familiar with the Vedder Canal, they would know that if they tried to do that today or any time during the year, except for when there is high water, they would have great difficulty having a canoeing contest in the canal. It's also loaded with stumps, trees and a lot of silt that has flowed through the Chilliwack River into the Vedder Canal, so that everything right down to the Fraser River is impeding the flow of the Chilliwack River.

The previous administration initiated a study done in 1991 by Hay and Co. It was turned over to the auspices of the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam. There was some manoeuvring, and I'm not sure where. But instead of the river management study that people had called for, it turned into a river hazard study. Many things were studied -- and I'm not criticizing Hay and Co. for what it was mandated to do. But I have difficulty understanding where the mandate came from for changing the course of the study. The minister may want to comment on where that change of course came from, but I will complete the whole procedure that they went through.

The people were very hopeful that this study would bring out something that would indeed help the situation. The residents also saw that if the study were done as they thought it would be, the cost of improving the river flow would not be extremely high. But Hay and Co. looked at all the little things -- the small creeks flowing in from the adjacent hills, not just the main source of the water. They looked at all the problems. With the planner of the Fraser-Cheam regional district, Dr.

Cave, being involved, they have put in a lot of lines crossing different properties as to the 100-year flood level, the 200-year flood level, and so on. Now the owner of any property in the so-called danger areas between those lines can't even get his roof repaired. They go to the regional district office to find out whether they can get a permit to put a new roof on the house or make internal changes within a house, let alone build a new one, and they simply cannot get a permit unless they sign a covenant stating that they will take full responsibility should a flood ever occur.

I find those rather harsh and unreal measures. I think it's high time the minister took a hard look at the study done by Hay and Co. and how it is affecting the property owners and their properties.

The people were very enthusiastic last fall, because they thought some money might come forward if they put a bylaw to the people to share the funding for some of the immediate improvements. There are a couple of very dangerous areas; there's no question about that. The people voted on these bylaws on April 9, but they didn't have enough information. In fact, they received negative information from the Premier of this province.

In their final attempt in January, they sent a letter to the Premier -- and I sent one as well -- asking why nothing had been done after two years of waiting, other than lots of people tramping along the riverbank. The point is that the letter from the Premier stated that there would be no money available this year for the Chilliwack River valley diking works, the rock work or whatever is needed. I believe that $100,000 would have covered a lot of the work that needs to be done immediately. Because of that negative letter from the Premier, the referenda were voted down. People lost faith.

[5:00]

The people are well aware of many river projects -- not only the Fraser River program, which has been in existence for many years, but projects on other rivers in the lower mainland -- that have received assistance in order to save riverbanks and to save properties from being washed away. Before I go further, my first question to the minister would be: what caused the change of direction on the study? Is the minister fully aware of the implications for properties in the Chilliwack River valley within the 100- and 200-year flood lines?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that the cost of proceeding with the work is fairly significant, and I think the hon. member knows that. We're talking some millions of dollars. We have to rank the needs and risks of the Chilliwack River against the needs in other areas of the province. We try to deal with areas of the province that have the highest exposure to risk and then move down the list, as we go from one problem to another. I think that, in large measure, explains some of the delays with respect to Chilliwack.

It's not as if I haven't had discussions with you -- we've read your correspondence -- or with repr