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)

MONDAY, MAY 9, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 3

[ Page 10637 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

U. Dosanjh: I am delighted to introduce five visitors to the House today. Three of them met at college about three decades ago in the village of my grandfather. I was delighted to meet them on the ferry on their way to Victoria today. Kesar and Jangbir Bhatti, Pritam and Pritam Kaur Dhindsa, and Mehnga Singh Rasida are in the gallery. Would the House please welcome them.

G. Janssen: Visiting us from the salmon capital of the world, beautiful Port Alberni, are 30 high school students from Alberni District Secondary School. Accompanying them is their teacher, Frank Holm. Please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

F. Gingell: On April 22, 1994, when special prosecutor Richard Peck reported his findings on the actions of the Attorney General, we received both a press release and the entire report of the special prosecutor explaining why no charges had been laid. To any member of this cabinet willing to answer the question, I ask: why has the Attorney General and this government not made public the portion of the special prosecutor's report that explains why no charges have been laid against directors in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal?

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

F. Gingell: This whole matter casts a shadow of suspicion over the members of this government and the funding of their election campaigns. My question is to the Deputy House Leader. Will she, as the person in charge today, having reconsidered this matter over the weekend, agree today to refer the matter to the special committee on ethical conduct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Last week the Attorney General gave the answer to all these questions: the matter is before the courts.

ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT CONTRACT

G. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In view of the environment of mistrust that has been created around this government's appalling ethical standards, a number of concerns have been raised with regard to the Island Highway agreement which she helped to negotiate, whereby $2.1 million has been allocated for government-approved unions. Can the minister inform this House how the people of British Columbia can be sure that their tax dollars will not be laundered and kicked back to the NDP?

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Thank you for that informative response, hon. minister.

It's interesting that when we look at the Island Highway agreement, we see that most unions receive 15 cents per hour as a contribution to their advancement funds; the ironworkers' union, on the other hand, receives 25 cents per hour. I notice that one of the ministers who negotiated this agreement used to work for the iron-ministers -- they will be called iron-ministers in the future, I'm sure.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Please proceed, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Can the Minister of Transportation inform this House why she negotiated a special agreement with the ironworkers and what the additional ten cents will be used for?

Hon. J. Pement: I'd just inform the member that I'm the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and with regard to the issue of the project agreement, that is under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment.

The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I was aware that the minister is actually responsible for transportation and highways, but in view of how few highways are being built in British Columbia, I thought she had left that out of her portfolio.

The minister was evidently at the meetings. All the minutes from the meetings suggest that she was there, so she must have participated. Again, can the minister tell this House and the people of British Columbia how they can be sure that their tax dollars are not going to be laundered and kicked back to the NDP?

NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Last week the hon. minister in Ottawa, Ron Irwin, suggested that a bill to enact a self-government agreement for Yukon natives, which will be put in place in Ottawa, will have a clause that says that the Charter must apply in that agreement. Will the minister confirm that any agreements in British Columbia with respect to self-government will have a clause that is similar to that?

Hon. J. Cashore: I will not confirm that at this time. We continue to follow through with the process to discuss self-government in the context of treaty negotiations, and it will be in that process and in that context that any such confirmation will be made.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think the people of British Columbia want to see a treaty that's crafted in British Columbia voted on by people in Newfoundland.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I have no idea why the minister would have an idea that people living on a reserve in British Columbia

[ Page 10638 ]

would vote in Newfoundland. Would the minister confirm, then, that he would be prepared to put, by way of a referendum to the people of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, any agreements with respect to self-government in the province?

Hon. J. Cashore: Discussions continue with third parties and with first nations. It's in that context that these deliberations will be carried forward, so I will not be making any further statements on that at this time.

COMPENSATION FOR CHILDREN ABUSED WHILE IN GOVERNMENT CARE

V. Anderson: Unbelievably, the Minister of Social Services recently stated that her ministry is not liable for children who have been abused while in government care. Yet while the minister, by her statement, has no liability or moral responsibility, the government has compensated some former foster children who were abused. To the Minister of Social Services: what real responsibility does her ministry accept for the abuses suffered by children while they are under the care of the government?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was our government that first gave recognition to historical abuse of children while they were in the care of previous governments by instituting the residential historical abuse program. We have had many former children in care take advantage of that program, all of which is funded by our government. Our government also recognizes that former children in care have the right to proceed to court on these matters.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: We have heard many tragic histories of abuse and neglect by this province's Social Services ministry. James Hale, for one, has reported being beaten, demeaned, abused and drugged while a ward of the state. Yet it's been suggested that abused individuals who have pursued therapy through the residential historical abuse program are less likely to receive compensation from the government because they have attended that program. This is an inhuman way to save costs. Will the Minister of Social Services assure this House that those seeking therapy through the RHAP will not be penalized in seeking further compensation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that these are difficult issues facing us. This residential historical abuse program, for the first time ever, is meeting the needs of some of these former children in care. That program has been well funded by our government and will continue to be funded. In the meantime, as the hon. member opposite knows, there are opportunities whereby former children in care can seek compensation through the courts.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

V. Anderson: As the Minister of Social Services well knows, those people who have been abused have very grave difficulties, financially and otherwise, going through the courts when they cannot get support from Social Services. They need support in being able to undertake that process. We need only to be reminded of young Matthew Vaudreuil to confirm the facts of abuse.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

CALL FOR REVIEW OF SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY

V. Anderson: The Minister of Social Services has been asked repeatedly for an independent review of her ministry. Now I ask the Minister of Social Services exactly which part of her ministry does not need an independent review.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that the system failed Matthew Vaudreuil, and there is no one more than I who wants to get to the bottom of the reasons why that occurred. I have promised members of this House the results of our internal inquiry. That will be the first step. Following that, I will be discussing further actions with my cabinet that we need to take to ensure that the system does not once again fail a child. That may, and probably will, include changes to the law. I expect your support on those changes.

SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Social Services as well. The tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil was a shocking and brutal demonstration of government neglect. First of all, we need to know who was responsible. How could that child, having been in the custody of the sister at one time, have been returned to its mother -- with 60 telephone calls from one neighbour? We need to know that this can never happen again, but I want to know if the minister conducted an internal review immediately following Matthew's death. If there was an internal review, will the minister agree to table it today?

Hon. J. MacPhail: When the criminal investigation into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil was completed, our ministry started an internal investigation. I have committed to you and every member of the House that I will make the complete results of that internal inquiry available. That will be the first step into ensuring that this never happens again.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: It's incredible that the ministry would sit for almost two years while a criminal investigation was taking place. Can the minister tell me that no investigation was done in the time between Matthew's death and when a criminal conviction was obtained? Does the minister say that nothing happened within the ministry to ensure that other children would be protected from the kind of neglect that was responsible for his death?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have committed that all details of our involvement and the system's involvement with Matthew Vaudreuil and his family -- in the incidents leading up to the death of Matthew and during the time of the criminal investigation -- will be made available to each and every one of us in this House. You will have an opportunity to review that and join with me in determining what other actions are necessary. In the meantime, our government will be considering and taking further action to deal with the fact that this should never happen again.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The answers demonstrate why British Columbians are clamouring for an independent review of

[ Page 10639 ]

this incident and others in the ministry. Will the minister confirm and commit today to launching an independent review of all the circumstances leading up to Matthew's death?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I find it difficult to stand up and take these questions from the hon. member opposite, who spent the majority of time in his government slashing and cutting services to families such as that of Matthew Vaudreuil. The first step will be the tabling of the internal inquiry. Our government will take whatever steps are necessary after the internal inquiry to get to the bottom of why this horrible incident occurred.

PRIORITIES IN CORRECTIONS SYSTEM

J. Dalton: In the absence of those who should be accountable for this issue, I will direct it to the Government House Leader. Two federal prisoners just this weekend have been arrested for armed robbery in Oregon, and they're implicated in a Seattle murder. Provincial offenders walk out of minimum-security facilities. Clearly public confidence in both the corrections system and the justice system has been eroded. My question to the Government House Leader is: will you take to your colleagues that in the entire issue, and public confidence and safety must be placed first and not the placement and reassignment of inmates?

Hon. G. Clark: As tempted as I am to talk about problems in federal correctional institutions, I'll take that question on notice on behalf of the Attorney General.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Marketing Board for the year ending March 31, 1993.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, in

Section A the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and in

Section B the Ministry of Environment.

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).

W. Hurd: I have a series of questions this afternoon on the government's commercial back-country recreation policy. I think it's important to engage the minister in a discussion about his philosophy on increasing the number of such ventures in the province. He'll be aware that considerable attention has been devoted to the tenure Issue and the importance of writing into the licence arrangement some sort of longer-term commitment in order for ski operators, heliski operators, wilderness adventure tour operators and so on to make the kind of investments in their ventures that are needed to provide employment.

Could the minister tell us whether he agrees that the type of licence arrangements that the Crown may enter into is of vital importance to these tourism operators in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I do think that it is a matter of vital interest to the tourism industry of British Columbia to have knowledge of the back-country policy as it is being considered by government. It is vital for them to have input, and that's exactly what we've been doing.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what progress his ministry has made towards a proper and recognized back-country recreation policy for the province? As the minister knows, it has been in the works for quite some time and has been part of the CORE table discussions in the province, however briefly. Can he tell us when he expects a policy to be available for those individuals and companies who want to make long-term investments in tourism ventures in the province?

Hon. M. Sihota: The process of consultation went through a phase where I had considered that perhaps the whole policy development did not require further consultation. As the hon. member indicates, consultation has been going on for quite some time. On reflection last week, as I looked at the options that government was considering, I decided to meet with some of the representatives -- particularly from the tourism side -- to discuss their concerns further. In particular, Mr.

Corbett, representing the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, has expressed a number of what I think are legitimate concerns. On the basis of that, I want to engage in more discussion with the industry sectors that have an interest in this matter.

[2:30]

I also want to take this opportunity to thank some representatives of government, in particular the minister from Cariboo South and the representatives from Burnaby-Willingdon and Nelson-Creston, who have been trying to work through this issue with me. I must say that their contribution has been much appreciated.

W. Hurd: I am certainly delighted to learn that the minister is agreeing to meet with some of the tour operators and associations. As the minister knows, they are very concerned about a confidential cabinet submission document which makes a number of recommendations with respect to tourism issues in the province, particularly the tenure issue. In reviewing this document, it's important to focus on one of the recommendations.

It says: "All licence tenure agreements will contain clauses specifying that the tenure be revoked by the Crown without compensation, upon 90 days' notification, to address either the public interest or first nations interests that were not identified in the consultation process prior to tenuring." It further says: "Before granting the tenure documents, the potential tenure holder will be advised of such clauses so that there is no misunderstanding."

I have a series of questions with respect to this confidential cabinet submission. I wonder if I could ask the minister first whether he agrees that revoking a tenure upon 90 days' notification is the best way to encourage long-term investments in this emerging sector of the provincial economy.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if 90 days is the best answer or the only answer. You're right that a proposed cabinet document -- I think that's the way it has been labelled -- has been made available to the industry. I don't have a major problem with the input I've been getting since that document found its way out. But it's just that, hon. member: a draft document. No definitive decisions have been made. Whether or not we conclude to have a 90-day provision or a

[ Page 10640 ]

longer provision remains to be seen. As I said earlier, that's why I'm engaging in a degree of consultation with the industry and its representatives.

W. Hurd: I must confess to being very troubled by the answer from the minister. He knows that there is tremendous potential for back-country wilderness ventures in British Columbia and that there is investment available for these types of ventures. Why in the world would he allow a document to go out to the tourism industry that addresses the issue of compensation in a major way -- not in a minor way -- and suggests that it is important for the Crown not to increase the potential for compensation?

How does he expect people to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in an industry when, according to this submission, the Crown is looking for ways to decrease compensation in the event that the Crown or the government has to eliminate the tenured licence agreements? Why would a document like that be placed in the hands of the industry if it doesn't represent government policy with respect to compensation for these types of licence agreements?

Hon. M. Sihota: The matter relates to the document. If you're worried about why the document would reflect those concerns, maybe you should ask the people who released it. We're in a process of consultation with the industry. I surely wouldn't want the hon. member to get worked up in a lather by thinking that something is happening which may or may not happen. Let us work through these policy issues.

There are a number of competing tensions. On the one hand, industry wants some certainty, because investment is predicated on certainty; I understand that. Secondly, there needs to be some provision to deal with the environmental degradation that occurs when competing groups go into the back country; I understand that. In addition to that, it seems to me that there are some trespass issues that relate to Crown lands; I understand that. And it seems to me that some issues deal with aboriginal matters and the rights of aboriginal people to access some of these areas as well; I understand that.

I also understand there are the competing interests of guide-outfitters, on one side of the coin, and packers, on the other side of the coin.

It seems to me that the hon. member doesn't understand all the competing tensions. Any time you are developing policy, you try to strike an appropriate balance between all those competing tensions. That's why we engage in consultation, and that's why staff prepare discussion papers. That's why we sit down and discuss those issues among ourselves and with the industry. That's why I've said that I want to talk to Mr. Corbett and others, and that's why I've encouraged the involvement of members of my caucus who have a special interest and expertise in this area.

And that's why I'm confident that at the end of the day we will arrive at a policy which makes sense. Just relax, take it easy and ask your questions. I will try to answer them the best I can. But please understand, hon. member, that I'm going to engage in further discussions with the parties affected, so that we can achieve the right balance with regard to these policies.

W. Hurd: Those are very reassuring words, except that I keep looking at this cabinet submission and seeing language that would hardly induce anyone to rush out and mortgage the family farm in order to engage in a tourism venture in the province.

I note another phrase here: "Where a lease is requested -- for example, to build a lodge -- that is dependent on a Crown licence for business viability, the lease document shall contain a clause specifying that possession of the lease does not guarantee access to that adjacent licensed tenure." Why in the world would he be responsible for pushing these kinds of draconian ideas out there to the tourism industry, which is busy at the present time trying to arrange financing and going to banks to talk about the security of its licence agreements?

That, after all, is all it has when it comes to financing these ventures. I ask the minister again: why would he allow this type of restrictive language -- 90-day cancellation of tenures -- to go out there when this industry is in the state that it's in now and is looking for long-term financing not only from British Columbia but from abroad?

A sizable amount of foreign investment could flow to this province if the government were to send out any kind of positive signal with respect to licence agreements in the tourism field. Instead, we have a cabinet submission with draconian language, restrictive covenants and lease-breaking arrangements as to how the Crown can get out of its commitments. Will the minister stand in these estimates today and say that this document does not in fact reflect the position of his government? As the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, will he at least stand and say: "This is a document that does not represent the philosophy of my government"?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that there are a number of tensions and conflicting issues -- which I alluded to a few minutes ago -- that we have to reconcile in the development of a particular policy. That's why I'm engaged in a process of discussion and consultation with the affected parties. You may not like to hear that; you may want to know what the final policy is. But I'm not in a position to announce the final policy, because I haven't concluded the discussions that I need to have with the parties that are affected.

Yes, I understand that there are some who are going to come and argue for more than 90 days; I'm sure that there are going to be some who are going to argue for tenure for more than a five-year period. I'll hear them out, and I will make a judicious decision with regard to these matters -- as we're supposed to do and as we inevitably will.

One of the benefits of engaging in this discussion in estimates is that we get a sense of how poorly researched the opposition can be. I think the hon. member is confusing this policy with other major capital investments that occur in British Columbia. If someone wants to invest in a ski hill on Crown land, there is a different process than that which you are referring to in the document you have in your possession, hon. member. You may know -- you may not know, but either way you'll know now -- that we make provisions for long-term investments, for example, in the skiing industry on Crown lands.

We negotiate long-term agreements with the ski industry, for example. We have a different process with regard to the utilization of Crown lands for heliskiing. If people want to make a major capital investment, then they make it through the process that's established. We also have a different process for guide-outfitters who want to make investments and engage in economic activity.

From the questions you're asking, it seems to me that you aren't differentiating between those large capital investments such as ski hills or the problems and solutions we've developed with regard to heliskiing and the regime that we have in place for guide-outfitters, which are distinct from the commercial back-country operation that we're talking about under the document that you've got. Anyway, I wish to inform you of that.

[ Page 10641 ]

In addition to that, let me also take the opportunity to deal with your argument that somehow the absence of this policy is frustrating economic development in British Columbia. The hon. member should know that one-third of all the new jobs created in Canada last year were created in B.C. This province is the place of choice for people to move, and we have the most buoyant economy in Canada. These things are happening because this government has created an atmosphere conducive to investment and economic growth.

In fact, if you take a look at the statistics from StatsCan last month, a full one-third of all the new jobs in Canada were created right here in Victoria. Hon. member, I want you to know that this government is doing an outstanding job of creating the kind of atmosphere needed for investment and growth. It's occurring in every sector, including the tourism sector, and I think that's witnessed in part by the growth here in Victoria.

So, first of all, let's understand that there are different processes for those large capital investments. Second, let's understand that we're talking about something different with regard to commercial back-country recreation. Third, let's understand that we're engaged in consulting with the industry with regard to some of these issues that are giving them some frustration. Fourth, let's put to rest your view that somehow this is impeding development in British Columbia.

We have the best economy in Canada, and I can assure the hon. member that if he wants to know what my philosophy is, it's to encourage that to occur in the future. Fifth, and again, you've demonstrated that perhaps you folks haven't done the research you need to do.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can then give voice to some of the operators who have reviewed this confidential cabinet submission and do not share the minister's rosy view of its contents or meaning. He talked about the snowcat heliskiing and helihiking operators in the province. With respect to this cabinet submission, I'm just lucky enough to have a letter addressed to the Premier, which expresses grave concerns about a confidential document entitled "Cabinet Submission on the Policy Proposal for Commercial Back-Country Recreation."

"We are commenting on this paper on behalf of the snowcat skiing, heliskiing, helihiking and back-country hut operators and the mountain guides' associations of the commercial back-country recreation industry. The members of these associations...generated $43 million in revenues and directly employed 300 persons full-time and another 500 people on a seasonal basis."

The letter goes on to say:

"We participated for two years in a consultation process on the proposed commercial back-country recreation policy diligently and in good faith. Throughout this process, we were kept informed by the officials of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on how the policy was evolving. We were further advised there would be a 12-month review period giving all stakeholders a chance to examine the provisions of the new policy during actual implementation thereof and then comment further on it. In the end, we were satisfied that the concerns of all stakeholders were addressed in a satisfactory manner."

Then they go on to say, referring to this cabinet decision:

"The document before us in no way reflects the consensus achieved among the stakeholders during the consultation process. We have to conclude that your government chose to ignore the input provided by all stakeholders during the last two years as well as the advice of the officials of the policy branch in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks."

Many organizations have clearly indicated in a letter to the Premier that this cabinet submission, far from being an innocuous document, will affect their ability to go out and finance some of the ventures that they want to finance. All the committee is asking the minister to do today is to stand up and say that this confidential cabinet submission, which has been roundly condemned and rejected by the recreation proposal groups in the province, in no way reflects the position of the government and that releasing it was a mistake. That's all that's being asked for. The minister is skating on this.

I have letters here from a wide variety of groups and organizations that are concerned about this particular document, particularly the tenure arrangement. It's important to read some of them into the record. The Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia talks about the tenure issue. This council represents just about every major tourist and campground association in the province, who see that if this document is allowed to remain unchallenged by the government, it will discourage people and companies from making long-term investment.

I would settle for the minister standing today in this set of estimates and roundly rejecting this cabinet recommendation that talks about revoking tenures, with no compensation after 90 days. Will he at least stand and do that, given the opportunity?

[2:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for the opportunity. First of all, he asked me to indicate whether or not it reflects government policy. I think I have said it, but if it hasn't been said clearly enough, let me just say it to him again right now: it does not reflect government policy. After all, there is no government policy in place. That's why we're engaged in consultation, and that's why I'm meeting with the groups that are affected.

Yes, I understand that some of the groups have "grave concerns. That's why I'm going to meet with some of the groups that are affected. That's why, as I said earlier on, I'm going to meet with Mr. Corbett in particular. Other groups will have the opportunity to meet with the appropriate staff within the ministry. Yes, there was a process which resulted in some consensus. It's my understanding that apart from the tenure issues, that consensus still stands.

We have taken very a difficult and complex policy issue, engaged in two years of discussions with the public and narrowed it down to probably a couple of issues that need to be refined. I have said that I'll sit down and meet with the groups that are affected. I think that's what they expect from a minister, so that's what's going to happen.

You have some kind of document there that expresses certain views, and that's fair enough. I don't have a big problem with staff putting out discussion papers or circulating drafts; there are dozens of drafts that go around in government. The hon. member should look at it from that perspective. It's one of many drafts that are out there and it does not reflect policy, because there is no policy as of yet.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, this particular cabinet submission was distributed widely at the CORE table discussions in the Kootenays. I find it absolutely astonishing, given the sensitive state that this industry is in and the need to attract capital investment, that the minister would brook a document going out that says -- and here's another classic: "...it should be noted that if the tenure can run its full term, there is no need for compensation, since the contractual arrangement provides that the improvements return to the Crown at end of term."

Mr. Chair, can you imagine allowing a document like that out? It suggests going ahead and borrowing a few million dollars to put up a ski lodge or anything else. At the end of the contractual term it will revert to the Crown anyway, so

[ Page 10642 ]

we don't have to worry about compensation. This minister should be on his feet, distancing himself from this disgraceful document which, if allowed to stand, is going to discourage operators from investing anything. These are draconian measures of compensation and recognition of tenure. They are measures that this government should be.... I'm astonished they would allow a document like this to be circulated. That mistake having been committed, I'm equally astonished that the minister is not on his feet today suggesting that this document is in error, that it's wrong and that it does not represent his beliefs.

But we have not heard the minister distance himself at all in the last 15 minutes from these recommendations. He says that it's under review, and that it's under discussion. How do you discuss a recommendation that says: "We're going to take your licence away after 90 days"? What's to discuss? That type of arrangement would kill investment in this industry, and for it even to be circulated is extremely....

An Hon. Member: Shame!

W. Hurd: Well, it is shameful. I give the minister another opportunity to stand up and advise the committee and the people of the province that this confidential cabinet submission, which is entitled "Summary of the Policy Proposal for Commercial Back-Country Recreation," does not represent the policy of this government; furthermore, to stand and say it's a document that he and his government do not support; and to apologize for the kind of anxiety this document has caused people who, in good faith, want to provide an employment opportunity and an alternative industry for British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota: If anybody should be apologizing, it's the opposition for again either not doing their homework or not adequately understanding an issue. The hon. member asked why somebody would make an investment of millions of dollars in a ski lodge, only to have it revoked and have those assets returned to the Crown in a 90-day time frame. The hon. member does not understand the proposal of the policy; he obviously hasn't even read the document with the care he should have.

Read my lips, hon. member. It does not apply to multimillion-dollar ski lodges on ski hills in British Columbia. When we have a Whistler or a Big White, it doesn't apply to those kinds of situations. People are invited by this administration to make those kinds of investments. Indeed, most recently I met with the Canadian ski association to discuss ways in which we could enhance the industry in places like Silver Star, Big White and the new facility on Tod Mountain.

If there are any apologies to be made, they're to be made by the hon. member, who just does not seem to understand that these do not apply to ski lodges and those kinds of multimillion-dollar investments. It's a different proposal -- sorry, it's a different process for that; it's not even a proposal. We've worked out some financing issues with the industry on those, when we're off and running. So you've got it wrong, hon. member.

That gets me to the next point, when you refer to anxiety: if anybody is causing any false anxiety, it's the hon. member, to whom I give a ten out of ten for his acting in the House today. You know, you've got to understand what I've said, hon. member.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I understand there are some concerns and that some even call them grave concerns. So I've said: "That's great!" I'll sit down, talk to people, deal with those issues and try to work them through with individuals so that we can arrive at some kind of resolution which serves the industry well. I realize that tourism has a role to play in land use matters in British Columbia. We want to encourage that. I wish the hon. member would realize that tourism is doing well in British Columbia, given the kind of atmosphere we've provided.

I know there are people who have taken some umbrage with that document, and I'm not worried about that. It just says to me that there's an opportunity here to sit down with those people and try to work through those issues. And that, hon. member, is precisely what we were going to do. But you have to understand there is a limited application in this policy. It does not apply to those multimillion-dollar ski lodges that you're standing up trying to defend in the House.

W. Hurd: The document specifically refers to lodges: "Where a lease is requested -- e.g., to build a lodge...." As the minister well knows, it doesn't have to be a ski lodge; it can be a hunting or fishing lodge, or whatever.

This particular document talks about compensation avoidance. That's the purpose of this document: how do we get out of having to pay compensation if we decide to yank a licence? That's the thrust of the document. It is important that the Crown not increase the potential for compensation. The policy provides for compensation avoidance in a number of specific ways.

Perhaps the minister can tell us, first of all, if he has read the document and if he agrees that there is a situation in the province that requires compensation avoidance on the part of his ministry when it comes to dealing with back-country recreation ventures. Is dealing with compensation avoidance issues the most important function of his ministry in fostering the growth in this sector of our economy?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think there were three questions there. The first question was whether or not I've read the document the hon. member has in his hand. I don't know; I haven't seen it. If he tables it, I can let him know. As I have said, there have been dozens of drafts, so I don't know which one he has there. The second question that the hon. member asked related to compensation avoidance, as he called it. Yes, it seems to me that government has to put its mind to potential liability in compensation issues. We have to at least have a discussion about those.

I don't think the hon. member should be too surprised at that. Governments get into situations all the time -- which we're criticized for -- where there is liability and exposure on the part of government. I think it is only fair that staff have discussions around those. That's reflected in this -- and let me emphasize the word -- draft document.

Third, if someone comes to this province and makes a proposal to build a multimillion-dollar facility in British Columbia, I fully understand that they require some security of tenure in order to finance that project. Because that is required, then obviously we have to deal with those needs, and we have a process in place that deals with those needs. If the hon. member hasn't got it yet, let me say it clearly: there is no policy on the part of government, and we are still in the throes of discussion with the industry with regard to the policy.

W. Hurd: Again with respect to the confidential cabinet submission, I'm sure the minister has had an opportunity to

[ Page 10643 ]

review it. I'll be happy to table it when this discussion is over. There's a recommendation to recover the cost for managing tenures with an annual management fee increase in the range of $300 to $750. The minister will note that the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. has been particularly concerned about that.

Can the minister tell us whether he has built the assumption of a fee increase ranging from $300 to $750, to recover the costs of managing these tenures, whatever they might be, into this set of estimates? First of all, perhaps he can elaborate on the costs of managing the tenure, and then on whether or not his ministry has built that fee increase into this set of estimates for the granting of these types of tenure.

Hon. M. Sihota: That set of questions just demonstrates the degree to which the Liberals, after two years of being in opposition, just don't understand the processes and procedures of this House; they ask questions that they haven't thought through. But again, I'll go beyond my scope and answer the question. First of all, the hon. member should know that we're dealing here with the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. We deal with issues of expenditures on the part of the Ministry of Environment in our budget.

The appropriate place to ask about revenues is during debate of the estimates of the Minister of Finance, because that's when revenue issues and other like matters come up. It's also appropriate for hon. members to raise those issues during debate on the budget.

[3:00]

It just amazes me that after two years with this opposition, we get these questions. I can understand it in the first year, but I can't understand it in the third year. In any event, now that the hon. member knows what the rules of the House are, and knowing the charity of the Chair, let me say that no provision has been made for revenue.

W. Hurd: Then perhaps the minister would care to explain. I'm sure he must have read the document, knowing how well prepared he has been for other items of discussion in this set of estimates. He must have seen the cabinet submission that talks about recovering costs for managing tenures -- obviously a part of the discussion document that was released at the CORE table.

If it's the total responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, perhaps he can explain how it found its way into a document prepared by his ministry or under the direction of his ministry, one would assume, that calls for this kind of increase in the management fee. Why is it there if it's the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance? It's another issue that has come to the attention of the Council of Tourism Associations, and they expressed concern about it.

Fees can be increased up to 150 percent, and administration fees can be levied up to $750 per year, per tenure. After 1998, rental fees will be based on an unknown adjusted percentage of the gross revenues. These are issues that these people, these companies, need to be apprised of before they can go out to the bank and borrow money for these kinds of investments.

Again, I find it troubling and astonishing that the minister, having admitted that this document is a mistake.... It has to be a mistake. I mean, no government would attempt to foster investment in the tourism industry by suggesting that they're going to take a licence away, with 90 days' compensation. No government would do that, would they? They wouldn't. The costs of managing tenures and the fee is specifically mentioned in this document.

The minister may choose to blame the Ministry of Finance; that's his option. But the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia and other people that have to deal with this ministry are concerned about this provision for fee increases. For their benefit, not for the opposition -- they are writing letters to the Premier, to this minister and to the opposition -- will he stand today and say that at least the fee structure is under review and is not going to be adjusted 150 percent in the coming fiscal year?

Hon. M. Sihota: I enjoy these questions, because I've got to tell you, they just reinforce the ineptitude of the opposition, which just doesn't seem to understand how the system works. For people who would aspire to government, you would think they would understand how the system works.

On the first issue that you raised, which was that if Finance makes these decisions, why is it an Environment document, let me again give you a lesson in Government 101. The ministries responsible, such as mine, put proposals for revenue forward, and they go to Finance. Finance deals with them. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to you that the draft document that you've got makes some reference to those issues. Secondly, I have said on several occasions that I agree with you that there are industry representatives out there who have some concerns about this, and I will meet with them to discuss their concerns.

I honestly believe, just from watching the flow of the discussion, that you came in here hoping to be able to say, "Will you meet with them?" and when I said that right off the bat, you had to fill in the time by asking this different line of questions. Obviously what you would expect when people have written the kinds of letters they have is that I would meet with them and the staff would meet with others, and that's exactly what will happen with regard to this situation.

Finally, let me emphasize again that there is no government policy in place, and because there's no government policy in place, what you've got there is exactly what it says it is: it's a draft discussion paper. We will deal with the industry on these kinds of issues, whether they be revenue, tenure or scope, so as to arrive at some kind of resolution on these matters. I will give you my assurance that I will sit down with the appropriate people and have those discussions, and staff will sit down with others and have discussions with them.

W. Hurd: We've been attempting to get the minister to at least concede that if the document circulated by his government is allowed to go unchallenged, it will cause some serious reservations on the part of potential investors. The minister talked earlier about ski resort owners. I have another letter here from the Canada West Ski Areas Association, which says:

"I am in receipt of a document entitled 'Cabinet Submission on the Policy Proposal for Commercial Back-Country Recreation.' It is marked 'confidential'; however, it was circulated freely at a CORE meeting in Cranbrook on April 19. It is difficult to understand how such a high-level confidential document arrived at a comparatively open meeting.

"The ski-area industry is at a loss to understand the enormous variation between this document and the final draft of the back-country recreation policy issued some 18 months ago.... In fact, it bears no relationship whatsoever to the consensus reached and perhaps emphasizes the huge waste of time, money and effort with such a process.

"The document as it stands, if implemented, will without doubt destroy the majority of the operations involved, with resulting loss of jobs and large tourism and tax dollars for the province."

[ Page 10644 ]

I agree that the minister has very little regard for the opposition; that's his right -- he's in government and I expect that. This minister spends hours every year on the ski slopes. We understand that he even flies there in a government jet sometimes -- at least he did before they were sold. You would think that for the benefit of the Canada West Ski Areas Association he would at least be willing to stand in the assembly today and say that this cabinet submission, which was circulated at the CORE table either by error or by accident, in no way reflects the position of the government.

He should be telling them that he likes to ski; instead, he's skating and saying that it's still a matter of discussion. Again I ask the minister: how do you discuss taking away a licence without compensation? What is there to discuss about that? Don't respond to the opposition; respond to the Canada West Ski Areas Association. Who knows? He might want to ski somewhere besides Mount Washington in the future.

They would really appreciate some input from the minister to the effect that this confidential submission is just a watered-down document, that it was released by accident and that it does not represent his philosophy as a skier in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, this has nothing to do with ski hills. Secondly, you're right: I spend a lot of time skiing. But I never seem to spend enough time skiing. Thirdly, it seems to me the hon. member should know that I will extend a courtesy to the appropriate people to meet with us and discuss this policy, so that these issues can be resolved. That's why I've responded to Mr. Corbett in the fashion I have. In addition to that, once the policy is concluded by cabinet, you would have to extend the same opportunity to members of the opposition.

D. Jarvis: I was surprised to hear the member for Surrey-White Rock mention that document. The word is out there, even though it's not supposed to be. The minister says that he is talking to people and that it's only a submission, that there are many submissions out there and that this is not what it's going to be. He told us that he was going to give the Liberals a message on economics. I think he needs a lesson in Politics 101. The job of government is to create some confidence so that people will invest in this province.

It seems to me that he is making every effort to offend and demoralize the business sector throughout British Columbia with the draconian rules in the operation of his Environment ministry.

I happened to be up in the Fort St. John area a couple of weeks ago, and it was obvious that this was a point of question. Hotelmen and outfitters were all concerned about the fact that they were possibly going to lose their tenure after 90 days. So there's no confidence-building out there by this minister.

It seems to me that the minister derives enjoyment from contrasts.

I was talking to you some days ago about your zeal for publicity through photo ops. I wonder if we can revisit some other situations. For example, I had mentioned to you the photo op at Britannia Beach. The next day I turned on a news broadcast and you were flashing across the screen with your photo op up in Mackenzie -- I think it was in the Donna Creek area -- where one of the logging companies had caused some damage to the roadway over two years ago.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Two years ago.

We all appreciate that in the past logging companies have created damage -- on purpose or by accident -- resulting in situations where the government would have to come down with stronger laws regarding the environment. I was wondering why the minister would take a situation -- for example at Three Mile Creek, where the logging road had been built back in '85, the last logging had been completed back in 1986 and trees were planted in 1987 -- then seven years later say on TV that he's going to sue the logging company because of a slide that occurred which he wasn't aware of.

But the company had gone to the Environment ministry and the Fisheries ministry back in February '91 and reported the slide -- prior to your election. They fixed it all up and revisited it. It was all fixed and approved in '93; then in '94 you get on TV again and say that you're going to take them to court and sue them.

I had talked to you before about the fact that your department should be using this, and I had mentioned that the Environment ministry should be using its instruments as a shield rather than a sword. The people out there were saying: "Here they come again, trying to find something wrong with the environment." They were offending and demoralizing the business sector -- who knew what was going to happen?

I wanted to ask the minister why, with something like Three Mile Creek and Donna Creek -- one of which happened over seven years ago and was repaired over three years ago -- he'd all of a sudden get up and say that he was going to fine the company, in his zeal for publicity. What good did that do the people out there in the province?

Hon. M. Sihota: I know the hon. member knows that I can't speak on a matter that is before the courts. Charges have been laid in the Three Mile case, so any comments I make from here on in will be more generalities. But before I do that, I should also say that staff did explain that at the press conference, and the hon. member wasn't there.

The hon. member makes the following argument. He says: "Why are you offending and demoralizing the business sector by taking action on the environment?" This is 1994.

An Hon. Member: Not on the opposition side it isn't.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the opposition side I guess it's still 1954. I've got to tell you, hon. Chair, that British Columbians want to change the way we manage our forests. They want the government to be tough on enforcement. They've had enough of the forest practices of the past, and they've had enough of the headspace that allowed people to simply take our forests for granted.

[3:15]

I make absolutely no apologies whatsoever for being tough on enforcement in the forest sector. I want the hon. member to know that last September there were nine investigations underway by this ministry with regard to forest-related activities. That has increased to 47 since I've been Minister of Environment. And these are serious investigations. The number of serious investigations that are going on in the province will increase over time, hon. member.

It is our intention in the Ministry of Environment to be tough on polluters, to make polluters pay for their violation of the environment and to say to that industry what we said with pulp mill standards. We said we would introduce the toughest effluent-discharge pulp mill standards in North America. That's what we did, and we make no apologies for it.

We will continue to issue the compliance list in British Columbia to make it very clear which companies are behaving and which aren't. We will encourage an increase in

[ Page 10645 ]

the amount of fines that can be paid by companies when they engage in polluting our environment.

I've got to tell you, hon. member, that I am sickened to hear that there are members of the opposition who still think that that is not the way to go, who do not pay enough respect to the environment and who believe this outdated attitude that it somehow demoralizes businesses if we take them to court for environmental wrongs. If people pollute in British Columbia, they are subject to fines. If our laws are insufficient, they will be changed to be efficient. If enforcement is lacking, it will be beefed up. That, hon. member, is the approach that this minister and this government are taking and that this ministry will take.

I thank you very much for the comments you just made, because I think they demonstrate, in ways better than I ever could, the difference between us on this side of the House, who advocate for the environment, and those on the other side of the House, the Liberals, who stand for the rich and the powerful in society.

D. Jarvis: He forgot the hungry.

The minister obviously has not been listening to us, because we said that we were aware that there were abuses in the past. There will probably be abuses in the future. Hopefully not, but mistakes and accidents are made. There was one where the logging was finished in 1986. What benefit would there be, after it had been finished for three or four years, for him to come on TV and say: "I am the hero for the environment"? All he's doing is creating a situation out there that is not one of confidence. Everyone is aware that the environment is probably the most obvious thing that's going to be detrimental to our society if it's not looked after.

An Hon. Member: The environment is detrimental to our society?

D. Jarvis: Perhaps I'm not as eloquent as some other members in the House. Nevertheless, the point is that the minister says, for example, that there are another 40-odd investigations coming up. Will he not publish them and let us know what it is now, or can we expect him to be on TV every time he lays charges on them? That seems to be his bent. He likes to be on TV to tell people how strong his department is. Everyone knows how strong they are; everyone agrees that he should have strong rules. But the fact is that he is creating a bad environment out there. It is not a good situation.

For example, he got on TV with the Britannia Beach situation. The minister knows full well that there are no moneys in Copper Beach Estates. It's broke; it's a company that cannot pay the fine. Yet he's taking them to court. He's standing out there demanding this and that, and it can't be done. Nothing can be done. The government will probably have to come in unless we can find another investor.

But investors will be very reticent about coming in to take over Copper Beach Estates when they hear the minister on TV all the time saying: "We're going to sue the hell out of them." The minister obviously is not aware of the situation with Copper Beach, or he wouldn't have gone up and made as silly a statement as he did on TV.

The other aspect, which I've brought up before, is Mount Washington. Here we go again. It's his favourite mountain. He sidesteps down and looks at the mine from this big steep hill he has been on. He knows the mine quite well. He told this House that they would try to do something. Then the next day he says that it's going to cost too much money. Here is an environmental problem that the government has accepted responsibility for. It's their position to do it, and yet they're not going to look after the acid drainage because it's going to cost them too much money.

Yet at the same time, he's prepared to turn around and do another photo opportunity with a company that's completely broke. It has no moneys whatsoever. Where is the value there? What confidence is he building in this province? I ask the minister: will he commit his government to looking after the acid drainage situation on Mount Washington?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say that I've already provided the hon. member with an answer to that last question, and it's in Hansard.

Secondly, let me say that I wish to thank him for his eloquence. He demonstrated the difference between the values that his party represents and the values that this side of the House believes in. He sees it as his responsibility to defend Copper Beach Estates and somehow suggests that it is a disincentive to investment if we say that a former mine operator has to clean up its mine. Material was leaking through the creek into the water in that case, and it required action. We came through with a directive, an order and a time period that required action.

It may trouble the hon. member that we did that, but I can tell him that I consider it our responsibility to take appropriate action in instances like this. It's clear to me that he considers it his responsibility to defend the large corporations and the rich and powerful in society. That's fair enough. He comes from that value base; I come from a different value base. I guess that's what politics is all about.

I make no apologies, hon. member, for standing up and being tough on enforcement and for insisting on more fines and actions from those who pollute. I make no apologies for advocating the polluter-pay principle, nor should you or members of your party make any apologies for defending the rich and powerful, the large corporations and those kinds of interests. You should not make any apologies, because it's part of your value system to suggest that environmental issues should take a back seat.

To quote you: "...to be a shield rather than a sword." To quote you: "...to avoid situations which demoralize the business sector." That's your prerogative. It shows British Columbians very clearly where you, your leader and your party are coming from. I'll tell you, hon. member, you're out of touch.

D. Jarvis: I would just like to say to the minister -- and I mentioned it to him once before -- that my family has six generations born in this province. We have just as much, if not more, invested in this province and in the environment as you have. So don't try to tell everyone in the country that the Liberals aren't aware of the environmental situation or that they're not environmentalists. We are just as concerned as you are; however, we're going to take a different approach. We're not going to try to scare business and investment out of this province.

This economy is falling completely apart as far as investment and development in the resource areas of this province are concerned, because they don't know how to look after it. They use the environment as a sword and try to attack everyone there is.

The minister and his government are responsible for Mount Washington. They have assumed responsibility. It's going to cost somewhere in the area of $20 million to $30 million or $40 million. Seeing that his party is the only party in the world that's interested in the environment, will he take the initiative and commit to looking after the acid drainage problem at Mount Washington -- yes or no?

[ Page 10646 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I have sat through about 12 hours of debate on Environment estimates to date. I have listened with care to what the members of the Liberal Party have had to say, and it is becoming evident to anyone engaged in this debate that the environmental ethic is not to be found anywhere within that Liberal caucus. It is clear to me that the Liberal Party has no environmental policies for this province. It is amazing to have sat through 12 hours of debate and witnessed three things.

First of all, the two leading spokespeople for the Liberal Party on the Environment estimates have been the member who is their Mines critic and the member who is their Forests critic.

During the course of this debate it was interesting to note that the Mines critic, who speaks on environmental matters on behalf of his political party, said that we ought not to take action on the environment, we ought not to be tough on polluters, and we ought not to be tough on industry that violates our environment because it would "offend and demoralize the business sector." That shows very clearly which side the Liberal Party is on, and it shows very clearly that the Liberal Party has no environmental ethic.

The other day the Forests critic, who has been leading the debate on environmental matters for the Liberal Party, stood up in this House and, as he has been, conducted the debate. He was quoted in this morning's Vancouver Sun, saying that it was a publicity stunt for this ministry to put out a list of non-compliance on pollution concerns. Every six months this government puts out a list of British Columbia's worst polluters, and we tell those individuals that they are violating our environment.

We tell them that they had better develop a plan to clean up the environment with regard to damage they are causing, and that even if they do, they may face some fines, penalties and litigation. In some instances, people like Lilydale -- who have been on the worst-polluters list over and over again -- find themselves in court notwithstanding that they have taken steps to solve the problem. In other cases they don't. In some cases people face fines and penalties. But the point is that we decided very consciously as a government that there is a value in putting out a list of British Columbia's worst polluters.

And the Forests critic, who has been leading the debate on the Environment estimates in this House, said in this morning's paper that that was a publicity stunt.

I want hon. members in this House to know that approximately 170 to 190 different operations have appeared on the list since its inception in July of 1990 -- a total of eight lists in that time period. About 140 of these operations have come into compliance over the same period because of the list that we put out. Some may wish to call it a publicity stunt. Some may say that we ought not to do it because it demoralizes the business sector in British Columbia.

But you know, hon. member, it has its effect: 140 of those have now come into compliance; approximately 50 percent of the non-compliance operations solved their problems between publications of the list. Many of the current permittees on the list are implementing long-term compliance involving large capital plans.

This initiative on the part of our government to list British Columbia's worst polluters gets those polluters to clean up their act. And if it means getting them to make the capital investments that are required, the fact that their name is on the list gets them to do it. Alcan, Cominco, Skeena Cellulose and Eurocan have all engaged in significant capital improvements to their operations so that they come into compliance with our pollution regulations. The Liberal Party opposite would suggest that somehow that's a publicity stunt and something that we should avoid because it "demoralizes the business sector."

In response to a questionnaire put out by this ministry, most permittees indicated the list as an important factor in them coming into compliance. Think about that. We as a government said that we were going to name the worst polluters in British Columbia. We named them, and 140 out of the 170 to 190 that were on the list fell into compliance. When we asked them why, they said that one of the most important factors was the fact that they were on this list. In addition to that, many of them, because they appeared on the list, were prepared to make the appropriate capital investments.

[3:30]

We've got the mining critic speaking during the Environment estimates -- and yes, to his credit, he has spent a lot of time raising these issues -- saying that this government ought not to proceed with environmental prosecution, because it would "demoralize the business sector"; that we ought not to make the polluter pay, because it would "demoralize the business sector." That says a lot about the values of the Liberal Party, and it says a lot about the absence of an environmental ethic on the part of members opposite.

It also says a lot that the Forests critic would dismiss the list that we put out twice a year on the basis that it is a publicity stunt and overlook the effect it has. Again, that speaks volumes with regard to the lack of environmental consciousness on the part of the Liberal Party and says very clearly whose side they're on, which is the side of the rich and the powerful.

I have sat through 12 hours of debate in the estimates, and I'm quite prepared to sit for as long as it takes, obviously, to pass these estimates; that's not my problem. But the third point I want to make is that in all those 12 hours, the Environment critic for the Liberal Party has spent approximately one hour raising three different issues in debate. What does that tell you? That tells you that forestry and mining take priority.

That tells you that what the mining critic for the Liberal Party said is true: it's their attitude that we ought not to engage in environmental prosecution and be tough on polluters because it would "demoralize the business sector." It is abundantly clear to all members of this House that the Liberal Party stands for the rich and the powerful, for the corporations, and does not have one bit of environmental consciousness.

The Environment critic, as I said a few minutes ago, has yet to stand up in this House and raise any significant environmental issues; in 12 hours he has participated for approximately one hour of debate. I find myself wondering why the Liberal Party is lacking so significantly with regard to environmental policy. It occurs to me as I speak that the reason for it is self-evident. The now-leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition, prior to taking over that office, said that his first environmental priority would be to get rid of overregulation, to get rid of environmental regulation.

That would be his highest priority. He said that in a quote in the Vancouver Sun, I believe, on February 1. So it's evident there is no....

R. Chisholm: Point of order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, now we get to points of order, because they can't take the heat.

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. I must take the point of order when it's raised.

[ Page 10647 ]

R. Chisholm: I'd just like to bring up a point of order. Standing order 43 is called "Irrelevance and repetition in debate," and the hon. minister has been irrelevant for about 12 hours. If he answered the questions -- he's had three hours' worth -- we wouldn't still be standing here. If he got relevant, maybe we'd do something here.

The Chair: All right. Member, I just caution you that if we were to enforce the relevancy rule in any serious way, we would likely reduce estimates by a factor of about 90 percent. I have to give you that caution. Having said that, of course I will ask all members to be guided by the principle of relevance.

Hon. M. Sihota: That is the reason: it is the stated intention of the Leader of the Opposition that it would be his first priority to get rid of environmental regulations. The only thing that hasn't been exposed yet during the course of this debate is which regulations.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

We take pride on this side of the House that we brought forward British Columbia's toughest pulp mill discharge standards. Would he prefer that we get rid of those AOX standards? We on this side of the House take great pride in the fact that we have brought in the toughest CFC standards in British Columbia. We have put in the strictest guidelines and time frames to get rid of those CFCs that cause a problem to the ozone level in British Columbia. Are those the regulations that the leader of the Liberal Party would like to see us remove?

Or is it the provisions that we've brought in with regard to the Forest Practices Code? The toughest standards are in B.C.'s first Forest Practices Code, which we proposed and brought forward in this House to change the way we manage our forests and to be tough in enforcement. Are those the standards that the Leader of the Opposition would like to see us eliminate? Mining in parks. The hon. member, as one of the lead spokespeople for the environment on the side of the Liberal Party, has said that we should allow mining in parks.

Is it the stated intention of the Liberal Party that we will have mining in the Tatshenshini should there be a change in government? These are the kinds of questions British Columbians are asking in light of what the Leader of the Opposition has said.

It was my view originally, when looking at that statement, that perhaps it was made without appropriate care. But as I watch this debate, the Mines critic says: "Do not engage in environmental prosecution, because it's demoralizing." The Forests critic says that we ought not to print our list of British Columbia's worst polluters. The Environment critic is not participating in debate on environmental policy here in this House. It becomes evident to me that the statements by the Leader of the Opposition were not made in a cavalier fashion; they were made with great intention.

Now I'm glad that he said that, because this debate, coupled with his statements, makes it very clear whose side the Liberal Party is on. One thing is abundantly clear: they are not on the side of the environment.

D. Jarvis: We have just heard a diatribe from the petulant little Minister of Environment. He gets up there and he talks about his being in Environment estimates for 12 long hours. Well, he may be here for another 12 or 36 hours, until such time as we may get some answers from him. The minister has sat there and done nothing but try to be evasive and tear down the Liberal Party on the premise that they are not environmentalists or do not believe in the environment, which we all know -- and he knows himself -- is completely erroneous.

The minister talks about me being the critic for Mines, and because I am, he says I shouldn't be asking questions on the environment. However, I have said that having been in the mining industry, I'm quite aware of a few situations where there are environmental problems. Everyone is an environmentalist in this province, and we all would like to see all the companies in full compliance. We all agree that they will not all be in full compliance, because some people will cheat or make errors. We're trying to tell the minister that that is no way to proceed with his environmental sword that he feels so big with.

When you give a little man a big weapon, then you see all these bad things start to happen.

I also want to ask the minister.... We started off here.... I guess I've been here for an hour, because he says that I've been talking to him for an hour. Can we get any answers out of him? Will he answer? Mount Washington is his responsibility. He has assumed responsibility; the government has assumed responsibility. There is environmental damage being caused at Mount Washington. He's afraid to get up, because he can't get a photo opportunity standing in front of Mount Washington, which he has assumed the responsibility for.

He told me on the side that he's aware of Mount Washington and of how much money it's going to cost; yet he's prepared to get up for a photo opportunity and criticize the small businesses, big businesses and municipalities like Britannia Beach. He criticizes them left and right. They have no more money; they can't do anything. Yet he will not get up and commit his government to look after the acid drainage problem at Mount Washington.

He has suggested that perhaps I would start mining in parks when we become government. I'm going to give him an answer, but I wish his government would call an election right now so we'd have an opportunity to do that right away, because they would no longer be the government. He, of anyone, is so disliked out there for the way that he and his staff handle the Environment ministry -- walking into everywhere with their sword, creating nothing but demoralization for the business sector, as I said before. That's exactly what they're doing all the time. If they called an election, we would end up in government. I will tell you, there is now a mine in a park....

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. A point of order has been raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: As entertaining as this is, it's difficult for those of us who have questions on the environment to actually get into debate. I wonder if we can get back to the issue of relevance in these debates, because some of us have to divide our attention between two Houses, and it's difficult to do so. If we could get down to the issue of environment rather than debating the outcome of the next election, we might get further ahead.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I would remind all members of the House that we are on Environment estimates and that questions pertinent to environment matters would be most appreciated.

D. Jarvis: I would just say to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that the PDA party has two members,

[ Page 10648 ]

so one could be in one House and one could be in the other House. If I don't get my questions answered here, I'll be another 12 hours, and the member of the PDA party can sit where he wants to sit, in this House or the next House. He waits his turn.

The minister said that I am the opposition critic for Energy and Mines, and he suggested that if we were in power, we would be mining in parks. I want to remind the minister that there already is a mine in a park. It's doing very well, and no one's complaining about it. We would consider a mine in the Tatshenshini provided that they could comply with the environmental laws that are set up through the mine development assessment process.

What we said, and what we say again to the minister, is that there was a process set up by his government, and his government did not comply with that process. They went outside it, and that's why we're talking about it. With everything that we suggest to him is a problem, he says: "We're going to be talking to the people. There's no problem." But we know they do not stand by their word. When a situation arises, they do what they darned well feel like. They go outside the process and outside the law. That's what the law was at the time.

If you wanted to have a mine in this province, no matter where it was, the rules were that you had to go through the mine development assessment process. This government did not go through that process.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to tell the minister that the Liberal Party is an environmentalist party just as much as the NDP is. However, more people in this province support the Liberal Party than the New Democratic Party, and the polls are showing that. When we get to the other parties, like the PDA party, when they have 0.004 percent.... Never mind.

Would the minister please answer two questions. First, Copper Beach Estates at Britannia Beach is broke. There will be no buyers forthcoming, it is quite obvious, to assume Copper Beach Estates' indebtedness. Therefore they will not be able to deal with the environmental problem that was created by the previous mines. Therefore it appears that the government must be responsible. If the government isn't responsible, who is? How does he expect the environmental problem at Britannia Beach to be solved? Will he kick all the people off, as his hydro company tried to do over a week ago?

There were 400 people, and they wanted to cut the power off. That was probably one of the last acts of Mr. Eliesen, and fortunately he agreed to turn it back on again.

[3:45]

Second, would the minister please answer the question regarding the Mount Washington situation. They have an environmental acid drainage problem in the area. He has committed his government to looking after it. Will he commit right now to solving the problem as soon as possible?

J. Pullinger: I'm sitting here, minding my own business and listening to this debate. I hadn't intended to stand up to participate in it; however, I can't resist. What I'm listening to, first of all, is this debate between the mining critic in the opposition party and our Minister of Environment. Now we have the environmentalists....

The Chair: On a point of order, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Environment a question during estimates, and we're not getting a reply from the minister. Could you please tell me why he has to have a member from Nanaimo, one of the charity organizations....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! Hon. member, you asked a question. I turned to recognize the next speaker, who is the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. The Chair can only recognize speakers in the order in which they stand to speak, so I ask the member to please bear that in mind. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith continues.

J. Pullinger: As I was saying, it's fascinating to stand here in this chamber and watch the Liberal mining critic engage in debate in estimates with the minister. What's even more fascinating is to listen to the Liberals, who claim to be environmentalists, reiterate their commitment to look at mining in the Tatshenshini. The decision of this government to protect that world-class river has been hailed around the world. The Liberals are making it very clear that they want to mine the Tatshenshini and that mining is okay in the parks. That's their environmental stand. It's absolutely amazing.

I guess, given that kind of stand on the environment, it's entirely appropriate that the Liberals should put up their mining critic to engage in and take the lead on Environment estimates.

What's really fascinating here is that we have heard the Liberals, in every instance -- on every issue, when it comes to environment or forestry or any of these things -- argue the case for the rich and the powerful. They take the part of the big corporations in every instance. We see them objecting to the Forest Practices Code. We see the Leader of the Opposition....

The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe, if the Chair consults the rules, the point of estimates is to examine the spending estimates of the Minister of Environment. I encourage the member either to ask a question of the minister or to sit down.

The Chair: On the point of order, all members, the purpose of estimates is to ask questions. But within that, members often have been allowed some latitude in stating their questions. I'm quite sure that the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith has a question that she will be asking. I just ask all members to bear that in mind.

J. Pullinger: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm amazed how the saviours of democracy across the way are okay with whatever goes on as long as they're doing it.

Anyway, I find it fascinating, as I say, to watch the Liberals perform on this issue. Their leader has stood up and said publicly that the first thing he, the leader of the Liberals, would do if they were elected government would be to get rid of all that nasty environmental legislation: "Let them go; let them do it." Where are these people? How can they say that they would in any way represent or protect the interests of the environment? What about pulp mill standards? What about fish and wildlife guidelines? These people have voted and spoken against every piece of environmental legislation this government has brought in.

Interjection.

J. Pullinger: We've seen the Liberals object.... And I am speaking on the issue of the environment. I'm certainly

[ Page 10649 ]

getting to it -- just about the same place where your questions are.

We see the Liberals get up there and represent their big buddies on Howe Street on every issue. This one is no different. The Liberal member is asking whether the government will protect Copper Beach Estates and relieve them of their responsibility to clean up their act and the damage they have done. They're saying that the taxpayers should pick that up, instead of the company that created the mess. But that's not surprising, because, after all, these people held up our environmental review legislation last year; they wouldn't let it happen.

We need to understand, and I want to be on the record as making you understand, that these people are representing Howe Street and the corporate elite. In every single instance they want to make sure that those people, their buddies who fund their elections, are looked after. We see them voting against the forest renewal plan. The first time in history we've had a government that's going to look after workers, the environment and our forests in a constructive and creative way, and they all voted against it.

We have a Liberal Party that is objecting to our AOX guidelines, objecting to the Forest Practices Code, objecting to the CFC standards here, which are some of the highest around....

The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Prince George-Omineca.

L. Fox: As interesting as this discussion is, with one party slamming the other one, I think it's a huge waste of taxpayers' dollars. What we should be doing is addressing the issues of the Environment....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! The hon. member is rising on a point of order, and I would ask all members in the House to let that member speak so the Chair may hear the point of order.

L. Fox: As I said, as interesting as it is to hear the parties hammer back and forth at one another, there are some very important issues in the Ministry of Environment that some of the members would like to address. I would encourage the Chair and all members to deal with the subject at hand, which is the Environment estimates.

The Chair: The Chair is going to recognize the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, but the Chair would ask that if the member speaking has a question, now would be a good time to state it.

J. Pullinger: I'll by happy to continue, and I'll get to my question as the others have.

For instance, I want to ask of the minister: will he ensure that we retain our AOX guidelines? Will he ensure that our CFC standards remain high? Will he adhere to the polluter-pay principle and not listen to the Liberal opposition, which is demanding that he look after the corporations and, because they've run out of money, make the taxpayers clean up the pollution that they've created for years? I'm asking the minister to ensure that the Environmental Assessment Act, which the Liberals objected to last year, goes through this year -- and if they object again, to keep us here until it does.

I'm asking the minister to make sure that this government continues to represent the average person, that this government continues to protect the environmental interests of British Columbians and that his ministry continues to ignore the Liberal opposition in their demand that we look after their corporate interests and their well-paid friends. I would really like to hear from the minister that he's committed to keeping intact all those good environmental programs that his ministry has brought in.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me first because I was standing first. You just finished saying that....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair has not recognized anybody yet. The Chair will do that momentarily.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Environment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to thank the hon. member for the question. Let me make this clear. This is the most significant and telling debate that we have had in this House since the now-Leader of the Opposition became the leader of the Liberal Party. I know that British Columbians are interested in this issue, and I'm sure members of the press gallery are as well, because for the first time we're seeing the Liberal Party opposite in full retreat in this House. For the first time we are seeing a party fully exposed -- naked -- on environmental issues.

I stood up in this House a few minutes ago and talked about the Liberal Party. Who got up and responded? Not the Environment critic for the Liberal Party, who has yet to engage in debate for more than one hour in the 12 hours that we've spent, but the mining critic. The mining critic for the Liberal Party -- and I know they don't like hearing this now -- stood up and said that this government ought not to make polluters pay, because it is demoralizing to business for us to be tough on polluters. The leader of the Liberal Party said that it would be his first priority....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the debate and would like to take this opportunity to remind everybody that we are on estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

An Hon. Member: Tell the minister.

The Chair: Hon. member, I called for order. I would remind all members that the debate, while it has been wide-ranging, is now straying far past the latitude that the Chair has allowed. I would ask members to rein it in a little and remember that we are on Environment, Lands and Parks estimates.

Hon. M. Sihota: The leader of the Liberal Party said that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. I want to know which regulations. Is it going to be those tough pulp mill discharge regulations, the AOX standards...?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the Mines critic saying: "All of those regulations will be gone." Under the Liberal Party, the toughest CFC standards in North America that we brought in to protect our ozone level would be gone. The Forest Practices Code, which changes the way we manage our forests -- the first forest practices code in British Columbia's history, backed up with tough enforcement -- would be gone under the Liberal Party.

[ Page 10650 ]

The more I listen to this debate, the more it becomes obvious that the new Liberals are simply old Socreds. That's what we're saying in this House. For the first time in debate in this House, we are witnessing a party in full retreat, demonstrating exactly whose side it's on. It's on the side of the rich and powerful, it stands up for the corporate interest and it has no environmental ethic.

I have yet to hear the Liberal opposition critic for the environment stand up in this House and say: "It is an error on our part to suggest that the first priority of the Liberal Party would be to get rid of environmental regulation." That's what the Leader of the Opposition said. This forum provides an opportunity for members opposite to show that he was wrong when he said that.

It is abundantly clear that not one member of that Liberal Party has the strength, fortitude or courage to stand up in this House and say that their leader was wrong when he suggested that they ought to get rid of environmental regulation; that their Mines critic was wrong when he said in this House that we ought not to proceed with environmental prosecution because it would demoralize the industry; that the Forests critic was wrong when he stood up in this House and said that we ought not to put forward the noncompliance list.

This is an opportunity for members opposite to show very clearly whose side they are on. Not one of them has demonstrated at any time during the course of debate that they have any sensitivity for the environment. In fact, they've done exactly the opposite: they have stood up in this House and shown their values; they have said whose side they're on. They say, very honestly, that they don't want environmental regulation.

[4:00]

As a result of these comments, the Leader of the Opposition is finally sliding into this House. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to stand up in this House and say that he was wrong when he said that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. I challenge him to say that he was wrong when he said that to the Vancouver Sun on February 1, I believe it was. This is the opportunity for the Liberal Party to demonstrate that once and for all.

I challenge the Leader of the Opposition, who is now in the House, to say that his Mines critic -- and I want him to hear this -- was wrong when he said that it was wrong for this government to engage in environmental prosecution because it would demoralize business. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to set the record straight and tell us that his Mines critic is wrong. I ask him to explain, before he leaves this House, why his Environment critic hasn't engaged in debate in this House about environmental issues.

The Leader of the Opposition walked into this House, listened to what I had to say and walked out, which shows the extent of the resolve on the part of the Liberal Party in terms of standing up for the environment. It's not there. I say shame on the Leader of the Opposition, who walked into this House and then walked out without for one moment explaining and defending the environmental policies of the opposition.

G. Farrell-Collins: We've just witnessed probably the most disgraceful display of testosterone gone wild and of grandstanding by the Minister of Environment that this House has ever seen. Mind you, I wasn't here during the disgraceful period when he sat in opposition. I find this very interesting, because I had the opportunity to sit opposite that member when he was Minister of Labour, before he was demoted. He went through a similar barrage of ridiculous comments, a tirade, to try to cover up the fact that he did not understand what was going on in his Ministry of Labour.

We went through a similar estimates debate, which went on for some 12 hours, when he was asked questions about a number of areas and made comments that were subsequently found to be false. The minister's credibility comes into question when those things take place.

What we've just seen is a minister who is addicted to the narcotic of media coverage and has found that he has been unable to get any for the last little while. He has engaged in a debate in this House, and every two seconds he looks up to the press gallery in the hope that somebody is coming in to pay attention to him and to cover his ranting and his tirade. It wouldn't be so bad -- it would be humorous more than anything -- if the effect of what the minister said, and this character flaw that he has, didn't affect the jobs of average working British Columbians. It does affect them.

The first thing this minister did when he took over his portfolio was hold a luncheon with, I believe, the Langford Chamber of Commerce in his own riding, where he stood up and berated his own government and previous governments for their dismal environmental record in the forest industry. That statement was put on the wire services, and it hit Germany and England within the half-hour. Now we're seeing a full boycott of forest products from this province, primarily because of the irresponsible comments of the Minister of Environment.

One has to ask how much of what the minister is saying is pure pomp, how much is because he hasn't had enough media coverage lately and how much is because he's really indignant about something. We heard these speeches by this minister in his previous portfolio, and now we're hearing them in his current portfolio. It is no different from what this minister has done in the past; he's doing it exactly the same now.

His comments with regard to the Liberal opposition are erroneous -- he knows that. The Leader of the Official Opposition did not make the comment that the first thing the Liberal opposition would do if it formed the government would be to get rid of all environmental regulations. He knows that, as does everybody else in this House. He is misrepresenting the facts and misleading this House with regard to what was stated by the Leader of the Opposition.

I think the minister should just relax a bit, maybe take a Valium and come back into the House when he's a little calmer and when he's ready to answer the legitimate questions being put forward by members of the opposition. We've asked a number of very specific questions, and the minister has not answered them.

We could go through his estimates very quickly. The Environment critic from the Liberal opposition would be able to get up and ask the minister reasonable questions if he would grant reasonable answers. But once again we see that this minister has a profound character flaw: he doesn't understand the issues, and he is incapable of administering a ministry responsibly, as he proved in his last ministry. As compensation for that, he brings out all of this bluster, all of this loudness, all of this vociferous denunciation of the opposition. He forgets that he's not in opposition anymore; he's in government.

In government you have to answer the questions of the public; in opposition you ask them. He should be aware of that. He should understand how that process works. If he would act in a slightly more mature manner, perhaps we could get through his estimates in a reasonable fashion. If he would please answer the questions that are put forward by members of the opposition, we would progress at a much better rate.

[ Page 10651 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of points. I want to emphasize that we are now watching an opposition in retreat, and I want to make that really clear to all members in this House. It's not me who said that it would demoralize the business sector if we engaged in environmental prosecutions; the mining critic for the Liberal Party stood up during Environment estimates and said that it would demoralize the business sector. It wasn't me who said that we should not publish the non-compliance list each year because it's a publicity stunt; that was the opposition forestry critic.

It wasn't me who said that we should have mining in parks; that was the mining critic for the Liberal Party. I must say that it wasn't me who said that it would be my first priority to get rid of environmental regulations; that was the Leader of the Opposition. In a quote that I will be happy to provide the hon. member in a few minutes, he said in the Vancouver Sun that that would be his first priority.

In response to that, the Leader of the Opposition could have stood up and said: "No, hang on." When he walked into this House during the course of this debate, he could have said: "No, it isn't my first priority to get rid of environmental regulations," and "No, I don't think they should be mining in parks," and "Yes, I support B.C.'s Forest Practices Code," and "Yes, we were wrong when we opposed the forest renewal plan," and "Yes, my Environment critic should be engaged in this debate." He had the opportunity when he walked into the House; he didn't do that. That's fine; that's his prerogative.

The response from the members opposite was to engage in some kind of personality attack or a kind of psychological profile, rather than stand up and say: "This is our policy."

All I'm saying is that during the course of these estimates, it has not become evident that the Liberals have any policies on environmental matters. Rather, it has become abundantly evident that there is no environmental policy or platform on the part of the Liberal Party, unless it's one which defends business interests, one which is best demonstrated by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who said that we ought not to engage in environmental prosecution, because it would "demoralize the business sector."

All I'm pointing out during the course of this debate is that this is a debate about values. We have witnessed, in a way that we haven't witnessed before in this House, an indication of the kinds of values that form the basis of the thinking of the opposition. It's a value system which does not put a priority on environmental matters. That's known, that's evident, that's on the record, and British Columbians will come to hear of it more and more. I want hon. members to know that these exchanges -- I'll be honest with you -- will obviously make their way throughout the environmental community and throughout communities in British Columbia...

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: ...and to assist my colleague over there, even during the campaign, so that British Columbians fully understand that the new Liberals are just old Socreds.

M. de Jong: To preface my remarks and my question, I'd like to say that I'm pleased no end that the hon. member has missed me and my participation in the debate so much that he lies awake at night wondering where Her Majesty's Environment critic is. That pleases me. Yes, I'm here; I've been listening with great interest to some of the answers, vague as they may be, that the hon. minister has given.

It doesn't surprise me that the minister would be unhappy to answer questions from the previous Environment critic, who is now the Forests critic, because individuals who have something to hide, who don't appreciate close scrutiny and who don't feel that they or their operations will withstand close scrutiny usually are reluctant when someone in a position to present that close scrutiny steps forward and begins asking questions. That clearly is the case with respect to this minister and the questions that he has faced from my colleagues, including the Energy and Mines critic.

It also speaks volumes, I think, about the way this minister approaches government, which is to compartmentalize everything. If one is involved in the mining sector or in the forest sector, presumably this minister believes that that precludes them -- notwithstanding that only five weeks ago, one of them was the Environment critic -- from participating in the debate in any meaningful or significant way. That doesn't surprise me, because clearly this minister has that compartmentalized view of government, that oversimplified view of administering to the needs of the state that precludes cooperation and coordination among the various ministries. I'm not surprised that that would be his view.

I'm also not surprised that the minister would expect the Environment critic to launch into debate with him ill-equipped to deal with many areas of the ministry, because surely that is the way he approaches matters of state and of governing. Quite frankly, having listened to this minister now for some hours during this debate, my approach of seeking information about the Environment ministry elsewhere was, I think, the sound one. It appears that this minister is the last person you would approach to obtain valid and accurate information about the Environment ministry.

So if the minister finds fault with one who would seek information elsewhere, who would seek to become properly advised about some of the very important issues that are facing the province and who would want to be well informed and offer sound and valid criticism and questioning, so be it. I stand guilty of those charges, certainly, and if the minister believes that that is an irresponsible way to proceed in these debates, so be it. I'm not surprised, because it certainly demonstrates and is consistent with the manner in which he addresses and approaches matters within his ministry.

[4:15]

I listened earlier in the debate today when the minister made reference to some prosecutions that had been initiated with respect to companies, corporations and individuals that appeared on a non-compliance list. He indicated fairly, I think, that in a number of cases names published on that list had subsequently come off the list when they brought their operation into compliance with the guidelines set up by the ministry. He also indicated accurately that prosecutions had taken place in certain instances, and in other instances prosecutions for past misdemeanours had not taken place. The minister will appreciate, I think, that all of us seek some degree of certainty in the law.

My question to him is: what criteria is his ministry applying in determining whether or not prosecutions will proceed following compliance by companies who have, in the ministry's view, formerly been non-complying? What criteria is being approached, so that these people will know in advance whether they stand to run afoul of the law or be prosecuted?

Hon. M. Sihota: The process is as follows: we put out a warning letter, and we identify a problem. We sit down with them and discuss possible solutions through mitigation actions that can be taken, and we will develop a time plan

[ Page 10652 ]

with them. If there is not compliance, the matter will be turned over to Crown counsel, who will then make a determination.

M. de Jong: I may not have understood the minister's earlier response, but the impression I was left with was that the ministry or minister was exercising some discretion at some point. He mentioned the Lilydale incident. I understand that that is presently before the courts as a result of a decision that was taken somewhere. The minister indicated earlier that some discretionary authority was being exercised within the ministry. Is that discretionary authority being exercised at the stage when it is referred to Crown counsel, or after that or before that?

Hon. M. Sihota: The discretion is exercised, I suppose, in a number of places. First of all, let's say a conservation officer is out in the field. He or she may notice a particular problem and may discuss it with the offender. Secondly, it may be a matter of insufficient evidence, in which case a conservation officer would not proceed with it. Some discretion is exercised there. Thirdly, there may be some discretion with regard to discussions that they have with Crown counsel.

M. de Jong: Perhaps I'm not articulating clearly enough the issue I wish to have addressed. Companies are told they are not complying with the Environment ministry's regulations, and they are put on notice. I take no issue with the minister's comments up to that point. Presumably, they then make a decision to bring their operation within the regulations set by the ministry. In at least a number of cases, subsequent to so doing and spending a significant amount of dollars on capital improvements, the ministry then opts to prosecute pursuant to regulations. Are such companies told of that in advance?

That is a significant factor for them to take into consideration, to the extent that the fines being levied by the ministry are now very significant. I'm not quarrelling with the minister in that respect. But presumably this is something that the companies involved -- or individuals, in some instances -- would want to know and have before them, insofar as it may affect their decision whether or not to carry on operations.

Hon. M. Sihota: If they're not in compliance and they're being investigated and get a warning letter, they know full well they're facing the prospect of litigation. That in itself may get people to comply. So if I understand the hon. member's question correctly, yes, in that context people do have some understanding that litigation may be an option.

In the preface to his question, the hon. member indicated that perhaps he wasn't making the matter clear, and I'm not too sure if I clearly understand his concern. But to assist him -- and again, I thought his research staff would have this -- we put out a publication that lists the steps, the degree of discretion that's exercised and the options available to various polluters. That's to assist them and to make it clear where the ministry is at. I'd be happy to provide the hon. member with a copy of that information.

M. de Jong: One further question on this point. The essence of the issue is that polluters, or entities that the ministry labels as polluters, subsequently make the necessary correction to their operation and, after spending that money -- sometimes six, eight, 12, 16 or 18 months after the fact -- find themselves before the court with newly launched legal proceedings. Some do, some don't. It's a question of equity for those operators. Where is the equity when, after having made the necessary repairs or installations, some are being prosecuted and some aren't? That's the nub of the issue. Where is the equity there?

Hon. M. Sihota: Equity is dealt with in a number of ways. It may be dealt with through amendments to the permit; it may be dealt with through the office of Crown counsel.

M. de Jong: Actually, I have no idea following today's proceedings whether we're still anywhere near the

schedule that was originally set when these debates began. I have some questions about lands and water. I don't know if we're there yet or where we are in these proceedings.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's why I was hoping you'd be sitting through the estimates and why we agreed to a

schedule with your people. It was at your request that we agreed to compartmentalize things in that fashion. Having said that, if you have questions on lands and water, I'd be happy to entertain those at this point.

M. de Jong: I have some questions for the minister regarding the groundwater situation in the eastern part of the Fraser Valley. Specifically, the reports I have seen suggest that 60 percent of the sampled wells in the Abbotsford aquifer show nitrate levels that exceed acceptable standards. That report, I believe, was some two years old and showed that there was no prospect of that situation improving. Does the minister have information he can offer regarding the groundwater situation in the eastern Fraser Valley?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. I see the member from Vanderhoof smiling, and I know exactly why he's smiling. You may have been watching the last few days in question period. We, as a ministry, have prepared a discussion paper on water stewardship, and obviously we're looking at some policy options in that regard. We have not concluded our policy discussions on that point, but it emphasizes the nature of the problem throughout British Columbia. As I said on Prince George radio the other day, I'm not persuaded there's a problem in Prince George.

But there's clearly a problem in the Fraser Valley, one that you allude to. We have to find a solution to that. When we do that in the Fraser Valley, that triggers all sorts of legitimate concerns in the interior of the province with regard to the permitting of wells and dealing with the groundwater in the interior. The trick is for us to develop a policy option which deals with the legitimate concerns in the Fraser Valley around environmental and health matters, without instilling the kind of fear, concern and anxiety that we're seeing in the interior of the province.

I'm not sure if we've yet resolved that issue, but I can tell the hon. member that we are very actively working on it and hope to resolve it in the immediate future.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister's comments that his ministry is in the policy formulation stage. Perhaps he would give us some indication when he would expect some tangible results that could be presented for examination and discussion.

He will know that to some degree at least, the groundwater difficulties that exist in the eastern Fraser Valley have been attributed to certain agricultural operations. Could he indicate whether the study is being undertaken and whether the recommendations, which he indicates may be tabled, will include recommendations that will assist the agricultural sector in a meaningful way? Again

[ Page 10653 ]

I return to the comment I made earlier, that in this field, as in any other, certainty is a key. If we are going to expect members of the agricultural sector to adhere to certain guidelines, they had best be prepared in a way that they can understand and that will be applied equitably and consistently. My question for the minister is whether those areas will be addressed in the activities being undertaken.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, I don't know who does your research, but those discussions are underway. There's wide-ranging consultation, and it does include the agriculture industry.

R. Chisholm: I've been a while getting to my feet, with the tirades going on around here. I would like to ask a few questions from the agricultural point of view and the fisheries point of view. Hopefully, we can get some answers.

As for being environmentalists, hon. minister, if you recall, there's a bill on ethanol that's been before this House for the last two years and that I've put forward. It has yet to be debated. We have had debates on ethanol itself and on hog fuel and how they could be used to clean up the environment. They have yet to be debated.... Maybe if we debated some of those things, this government wouldn't be in such dire straits.

[4:30]

One area I'd like to talk about is air quality. Let's talk about B.C. Hydro. In the last four years they've had a $1.4 billion profit, but they have yet to clean up their stacks. It costs approximately $270 million to do that. In the four years they've obviously had the money to do it. My question to the minister is: why did it take so long? How come we were signing long-term contracts to sell power to the Americans, but yet we had still not cleaned up the effluent coming out of the stacks at Burrard? Like I've said, when B.C.

Hydro has shown that kind of a profit there's absolutely no reason that that couldn't have been started four years ago. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that one.

Hon. M. Sihota: Again I don't know exactly where you get your information from. But it's my understanding that B.C. Hydro has made the commitment to comply with the standards that have been laid out for it to clean up its Burrard Thermal operation.

Secondly, your questions didn't seem to quite make sense. But remember that this is Burrard Thermal, which is not in use at all times. Burrard Thermal is a backup plant to meet the electrical demands of the province. Having said that, and even if you do understand that, you should understand that they have made the commitment to start doing the appropriate work.

R. Chisholm: This is eventually leading up to ethanol, but the point is that these are your facts from your B.C. Hydro reports. These are facts from the Vancouver Sun and the Province, and it goes on and on. Basically, they come out of your own statistics. My point is that when you have that kind of profit in a Crown corporation, you should have started the job four years earlier. We are now talking about doing that.

My point is that we have had some solutions for cleaning up the effluent in the atmosphere throughout the Fraser Valley and into the rest of the province, and one of those happens to be ethanol. I know your ministry has studied Dr. Paszner's theories about ethanol and how he could use hog fuel to produce ethanol. And you know as well as I do that ethanol will decrease tailpipe emissions of various chemicals and gases up to 40 percent.

Ethanol is on the green plan federally, and I am wondering why this ministry hasn't gone out of its way to promote ethanol, considering you are trying to get to a zero-emission vehicle. When you take into account that ethanol could be produced from grains in the Fort St. John area where the grain growers are practically bankrupt, here is a way to put them back in business. And it would be cleaning up our environment. I have yet to see any movement on the part of this government to try to do that.

I mentioned Dr. Paszner's theories about hog fuel. I have yet to see you do anything constructive to put that into practice. Yet that would decrease the effluent from tailpipe emissions by up to 40 percent, and that would definitely help some of the pollution problems in the Fraser Valley. You've had the facilities, equipment and resources with the Burrard Thermal plant, but you have yet to take care of the problem. You've had four years on that one, and I'm just wondering if it's going to take four, eight, ten or 12 years. What is it going to take to look at ethanol and possibly put it into your system to help clean up our environment?

The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, given that this House seems to have a kind of fragile civility on occasion and we get into some wrangles that I don't think any of us really want, can I advise members to be guided very much by one rule of the chamber, namely that we go through the Chair. And that means we don't point the finger at the person across the way and say "you." Rather, we go through the Chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know where the member's research gets done. Let me just go through the points he raised.

First of all, a new permit has been issued by the GVRD with regard to Burrard Thermal, and it requires a series of steps to occur with regard to air emissions from Burrard Thermal. And hear this carefully: it requires that there be a faster upgrade

schedule for the six units that are involved; it requires an immediate decrease in the allowable nitrogen oxide emissions; it says that modelling studies are required for nitrogen oxides and ammonia; it insists upon an evaluation of greenhouse gas mitigation options; and it insists on compliance with federal, provincial and regional strategies. The permit will make Burrard Thermal the cleanest facility of its type in North America. We have given the opposition a lot of funding for research. But that's the background of Burrard Thermal, and I don't understand the basis of the question.

Second, with regard to the issues you raise about methanol and ethanol, I agree there is an appropriate use for methanol and ethanol with regard to gas. Yes, I've looked at your bill with some interest, but I would leave it up to the House Leaders. I encourage you to talk to your House Leader about how and whether it is to be debated in the House.

Third, with regard to the hog fuel problem, some time ago we as a ministry established a

schedule to bring beehive burners in British Columbia to an end. We are saying to industry that we see all sorts of potential uses for hog fuel. We have encouraged West Fraser, for example, to take a look at using wood by-products to power vehicles. I know that they have been doing some innovative work in that regard, and they deserve a lot of credit. In other areas, we're looking at independent power production.

[ Page 10654 ]

R. Chisholm: I guess that the point I'm trying to make to the minister about B.C. Hydro is that you're at the top of that list of polluters in this province. B.C. Hydro happens to be a Crown corporation. It has been polluting this province for a number of years, and it has had the profits to be able to clean up its stacks. My point goes back to: you're at the top of the list, and here are solutions to clean up the environment. Yet you're not reacting to them. It would be nice if this government would react to some of these solutions that are brought forward.

It doesn't matter if it comes from the PDA, a Liberal, the NDP, a Socred or a Reformer. If it's a solution, look seriously at it. If it comes from outside of this chamber, look at it seriously, too. Dr. Paszner has never professed to be affiliated with any of those parties.

My next question to the minister comes from the B.C. Shellfish Growers' Association. They're having a bit of a problem. I will just read the question exactly the way they've phrased it, because they've had some problems with this ministry and a couple of others:

"The B.C. shellfish farming industry is over 60 years old, producing high-quality oysters, clams and scallops. Our farming methods are 100 percent environmentally sustainable, economically viable, and generate significant export revenues.

"Given these facts, we cannot understand why our industry continues to suffer a moratorium on new tenures, initiated without justification, by the former Minister of Lands, the Hon. Dave Parker, in 1990. Shellfish farming in general, and more recently clam farming in particular, has proven itself as a viable industry. This has been recognized by the Hon. David Zirnhelt, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, MLAs Leonard Krog and Margaret Lord, and the managers that regulate our industry. Why have we been unsuccessful in our requests for a meeting with the Hon.

Moe Sihota, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, or Ms. Lynn Kennedy, director of the land programs branch, for answers to these questions?"

Hon. M. Sihota: I have a couple of points. First of all, in terms of meetings, I will certainly meet with people when there is a need to meet with them. In this instance, should that need arise, we will meet. I should say that we are working on that issue, and I know that the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the member for Comox Valley have been very diligent in pursuing the matter with us. I would hope that we could provide some satisfaction in a relatively short time period.

R. Chisholm: Maybe he can help them in another area where they're having problems. Specifically, it comes under the Health ministry, but the Environment minister might be able to persuade the Health ministry to look into it.

"The second issue is of equal or greater concern, in that while we cannot obtain new farmland to grow, we are losing farmland to pollution closures. For example, just recently 400 acres of prime shellfish lands were closed in the Baynes Sound area, south of Courtenay, due to leaking septic tanks from the upland homes. At a public meeting recently held in Courtenay, which included both federal and provincial government representatives and MLA Margaret Lord, the finger-pointing was disgraceful, with no ministry accepting responsibility for cleanup. The local health inspector, who is supposed to oversee the septic systems in the area, didn't even bother to show up."

The question goes on to the hon. minister, Paul Ramsey, but the same question is for the minister....

The Chair: Member, I'm sorry to interrupt you. If you'd take your seat for a moment, I just want to caution you that names are verboten in this chamber. Always refer to members by their ridings even when you're quoting correspondence. Given that there may be some other