[ Page 11347 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Protect Parks and Wilderness Areas (Bill M236). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 11347

Community Reforestation Act (Bill M237). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11348

Incremental Silviculture Act (Bill M238). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11348

An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat (Bill M239).

Mr. Zirnhelt

Introduction and first reading –– 11348

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act (Bill 79).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 11348

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail line reopening costs. Mr. Miller –– 11349

Softwood lumber agreement. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11350

Surgery waiting-lists. Mr. Perry 11350

Ethics advisory committee report. Mr. Perry –– 11350

AIDS advisory committee reports. Mr. Perry –– 11350

Highway safety. Mr. Peterson –– 11351

Points of Privilege

Takla-Sustut forest licence. Hon. Mr. Speaker –– 11351

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Chalmers –– 11352

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Long –– 11352

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Davis)

On vote 21: minister's office –– 11353

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 67).

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11378

Statutory Appeals Procedure Act (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11378

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 76).

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11379

Electoral Districts Act (Bill 3). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11379

Mr. Vant

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Mowat

Third reading

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill PR402).

Second reading. (Mr. Mowat) –– 11383

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Perry

Mr. Mowat

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill PR402).

Committee stage. (Mr. Mowat) –– 11383

Third reading

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill PR404).

Second reading. (Mr. Mowat) –– 11384

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Jones

Ms. Cull

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Mowat

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill PR404).

Committee stage. (Mr. Mowat) –– 11385

Mr. Perry

Third reading

Seventh-day Adventist Church (British Columbia Conference) Act

(Bill PR403). Second reading. (Mr. Crandall) –– 11386

Mr. Crandall

Seventh-day Adventist Church (British Columbia Conference) Act

(Bill PR403). Committee stage. (Mr. Crandall) –– 11386

Third reading

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 1990 (Bill 34).

Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 11387

Third reading

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

(Bill 71). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 11387

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 78).

Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 11388

Third reading

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 50). Second reading.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 11389

Hon. L. Hanson

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. L. Hanson

Range Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 74). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 11392

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 41). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 11392

Third reading

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 70).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11393

Third reading

Carmanah Pacific Part Act (Bill 28). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 11393

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Referendum Act (Bill 55). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11394

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Rose

Mr. Perry

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Senatorial Selection Act (Bill 65). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11396

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Rose

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11399

Hon. J. Jansen Mr. Perry

Appendix –– 11407

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's my pleasure to introduce some very important young people who are in the members' gallery today. I'd like to introduce Mr. Robin Dhir, Mr. Mark Pettie, Ms. Meena Dhir and Ranji Katyal. Robin is the president of the Young Socreds for Burnaby and the director of provincial high schools for the provincial Young Socreds. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to introduce today the manager of environmental and government affairs for Chevron Canada, Bill Strachan, who's visiting here from Vancouver, and with him is a visitor from Great Britain, Guy Wareing, who is the manager of public affairs for Gulf Oil in that country. I would ask the House to help me make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is my great pleasure to introduce to the House today the very fine Madderom family. They are visiting with all of us all the way from my native country, Holland.

Many years ago the Madderoms, like my family, emigrated to Canada and settled in Bradner, British Columbia. Their father, Mr. Cor Madderom, worked with my father in the bulb business. The Madderom family returned to the Netherlands in 1955, and the children grew up there with relations and others. They have kept contact, and you may be interested to know that Mr. Piet Madderom, one of our guests, is the chairman of Worldcontact, an association of family and friends of immigrants, with over 50,000 members in the Netherlands.

The sons and daughters of Mr. and Mrs. Cor Madderom are visiting in the Legislature today, and I would ask that you extend a warm welcome to Piet, Wim, Nelly and Adrie Madderom.

I also have the pleasure of introducing in the gallery today three Richmond residents and good friends: Jim McPhail, accompanied by his sons Terry and Gary McPhail. The McPhail family owns and operates a variety of businesses, and through this have contributed significantly to the development of our beautiful constituency and municipality of Richmond. Currently Terry is president of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and president of the Social Credit riding association for Richmond-Steveston, and I would ask the House to welcome the McPhails.

MR. CLARK: I have a number of introductions today. First, I'd like to introduce two Victoria residents who were wined and dined by members of the press gallery this afternoon: Heather Tasker-Brown and Shawna Jamison. As well, visiting the gallery from the constituency of Richmond is Margaret Weymer. Two other individuals — Mike Collins and Joe Leclair — are here trying to meet with Ministry of Labour officials regarding a very difficult labour dispute in Burnaby. I'd ask the House to make these five individuals welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the precincts today are two representatives of the North Central Municipal Association. Would the House please welcome Aid. Steve Wallace from Quesnel and Aid. Colin Kinsley from Prince George.

MR. MILLER: I would like to add my welcome to Mr. Strachan from Chevron and to make members aware — who might not be aware — that Chevron has done a great deal in terms of sponsoring the delivery of arts to many of the small communities in British Columbia — particularly the ballet, which Mr. Strachan has a passion for. I don't, but on behalf of those small communities, I'd like to extend my welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the liberty of welcoming him as well, because we both work for the same charity.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, visiting us in the precincts today are 30 ESL students from Kwantlen College in Surrey. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege today to introduce three people from my riding. From the little community I was born in we have the mayor of Princeton, Gloria Stout, Ald. Ron Goodwin, and the administrator, Rob Grivel. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROTECT
PARKS AND WILDERNESS AREAS

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act to Protect Parks and Wilderness Areas.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give legislative protection to B.C. parks, wildlife areas and ecological reserves and to complete the province's system of parks and wilderness by expanding it to include 12 percent of the province's land area as recommended by the Brundtland report.

Nothing in the act is to be construed as prejudicing any present or future claim of aboriginal title to affected lands. The bill also establishes an advisory group for the purpose of selecting additional park sites and making recommendations with respect to the elimination of all mineral exploration and timber cutting in parks and recreation areas. The advisory group is also charged with developing a procedure for the payment of fair compensation to affected parties and workers.

Bill M236 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 11348 ]

COMMUNITY REFORESTATION ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Community Reforestation Act.

MR. MILLER: I know the government is anxious to listen to this. These are good ideas, and they're short on them.

This bill requires all reforestation, which is the responsibility of the provincial government, to be undertaken by community-based reforestation projects unless otherwise directed by the district manager.

Under the current Forest Act this program would include the areas in the province currently harvested under the small business program, areas harvested before the fall of 1987 and areas of NSR land harvested before that time.

If only the small business area is taken into consideration, it could involve over 30,000 hectares of basic silvicultural work and employ hundreds of people in each district of the province. The district manager in each forest district is required to set up a program to carry out community reforestation in the district.

The overall goals guiding each program will be reforesting harvested areas to acceptable standards, employing and training young and unemployed people, encouraging incremental silviculture and maintaining or enhancing the quantity and quality of the forest resource of the province.

Bill M237 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCREMENTAL SILVICULTURE ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Incremental Silviculture Act.

MR. MILLER: This bill sets out a new program for intensive silviculture on land where the province has responsibility for reforestation. It recognizes that increased levels of silviculture are essential to maintaining economic security for forest communities while preserving the forest environment in unique wilderness areas.

The bill requires district managers in the province to develop plans for the incremental silviculture treatment of all eligible land in the district. The broad goals of these plans are to reduce the loss of productive forests due to the growth of non-commercial species of trees, to improve the quality and quantity of wood available for harvest from these lands and to improve the province's ability to plan and carry out incremental silviculture programs. The bill requires that plans be available for public viewing, and it allows any member of the public to make written comments before a plan is submitted to the regional manager.

Plans developed under this act will be renewed every five years, and part of that renewal process will include an evaluation of the results of the previous plan.

Bill M238 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN ENVIRONMENT
AND LAND USE SECRETARIAT

Mr. Zirnhelt presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The purpose of this bill is to create a secretariat whose main function will be to provide support to the cabinet with respect to resolving the conflicts over the use of a diminishing land and resource base. In recent years this conflict has been heightened by previous patterns of waste and over extraction in B.C.'s resource industry and by the increasing pace of urban development.

This bill is necessary in that the province currently lacks a comprehensive and well-coordinated approach to the issue of environment and land use conflict. The establishment of a secretariat will greatly assist the resolution of these conflicts and will ensure that environment and land use decisions are given serious treatment at the highest level of government.

Bill M239 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING DISCLOSURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act.

[2:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This act will introduce a new concept of openness in public sector negotiations. It embodies the democratic concept that the public has the right to know about public sector collective bargaining — the right to know what both sides of the bargaining table are proposing. In the end it is the public which ultimately pays and suffers the effects of job action in our public service. It is our intention to ensure that at the beginning of negotiations and, most importantly, before any job action occurs in the public sector the public should be aware of the issues in dispute so they can make informed decisions about matters discussed at the bargaining table and the consequences of a potential strike or lockout. This act will provide a framework that allows the public, who are always an affected party in public sector bargaining disputes, access to full information about the issues — the employer and employee positions on these issues as well as the financial impact. Simply put, the premise of the legislation is that the public has a right to know

[ Page 11349 ]

about public sector bargaining issues that will ultimately impact them as citizens and as taxpayers.

It is also important, Mr. Speaker, to ensure, when we encourage the sunshine in to public sector bargaining, that we do not interfere with the collective bargaining process or dispute resolution mechanisms already in place in our labour legislation. This is accomplished with this bill. We intend that the process of collective bargaining continues in a successful manner with a minimum of interference from government, but that does not mean that the public should be insulated from the facts that affect them directly. We believe that the collective bargaining process in British Columbia can be improved with openness and information to the taxpayers, and we commend this bill for the House's consideration.

Bill 79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL LINE REOPENING COSTS

MR. MILLER: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In May of this year you issued a press release stating agreement had been reached to reopen 315 kilometres of B.C. Rail line north of Fort St. James. You quoted a figure of $25 million, to be financed over 20 years. Is this figure still accurate?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the best of my knowledge, it's still accurate.

MR. MILLER: Further to the minister, B.C. Rail have conducted a thorough review cost-estimate of this line. I have a letter from Mac Norris, the former chairman, confirming that the cost in 1987 dollars is $42 million. Could the minister advise just who's telling the truth here? Which is correct, $25 million or $42 million?

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, there is a clear discrepancy. The well-respected former chairman of B.C. Rail says it's $42 million. The minister has an obligation to clarify this matter.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I resent being asked who's telling the truth. But to further the information and make it available to the House, I would suggest that the question should be referred to my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, if the press release was issued by the Minister of Transportation, presumably she has responsibility for the issue.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'll take it on notice.

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. Two branches within your ministry identified the $25 million cost as being totally unrealistic and too low. You're also attached to the press release announcing the $25 million. Are you confident of the figures, given that your ministry has questioned them?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the reopening of this rail line will be of tremendous importance to the people of that area — to the community of Fort St. James and to the natives in the Takla area — and it is for this reason that cabinet made the decision to award forest licences in that area to enable that rail line to be reopened. I would suggest that, given the press we've seen lately from the member for Prince Rupert, he is against the reopening of this rail line.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, whatever the cost, it will be borne by the forest companies who have been issued those licences. We have been reassured by B.C. Rail that there will be absolutely no subsidy and no cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia. So the issuing of those forest licences was the correct decision made by this government for all the right reasons. I would put it to that member: if he is so against it, why doesn't he get up and say so?

MR. MILLER: The issue, Mr. Minister, is telling the truth about the true costs. There's a scandal brewing on this issue, and there's a cover-up.

To the Minister of Forests. I would ask him to explain why the government is providing a massive subsidy to private companies to access Crown timber.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House and that member: is there a scandal brewing just because that member and Vaughn Palmer say so? Or does the truth have anything to do with this?

When the deal is finalized and all the contracts have been signed, the costs will be known to the taxpayers of British Columbia. What will also be known is the fact that industry is going to pay the costs, not the taxpayers, as implied by that member.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that the minister says the costs will be known and the press release says the costs are going to be $25 million. It is now apparent that the bidding process for the Takla-Sustut was a rigged game. Given that as a first start, is the minister prepared to refund to those western applicants the significant amount of money they expended in putting together applications for a forest licence of which you had predetermined who was going to get it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit to you that the member's language is unparliamentary. "Rigged game" should be withdrawn, and he should apologize to this House.

[ Page 11350 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I must deal with the matter of unparliamentary language. The Chair has some difficulty with determining whether this language was unparliamentary. If the member was imputing an improper motive, I would ask him to rise and withdraw.

MR. MILLER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if I was perceived as doing that, I would withdraw.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, to answer the remainder of the member's question: this decision was one that governments are elected to make, and that doesn't come easy when we sit in the cabinet room and look at bids on various forest licences. I can assure this member, this House and the people of British Columbia that every aspect of these bids was taken into account, because we knew of the importance to the Hazelton area, the Smithers area, the Takla-Sustut and Prince George. It was a decision that cabinet debated and discussed for hours in order to make the best decision for all the people of British Columbia.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

MR. RABBITT: My question is to the Minister of International Business and Immigration. Recent reports indicate that the Canadian government is now considering negotiating U.S. withdrawal of the softwood lumber agreement memorandum of understanding. This agreement has worked much hardship on the interior lumber mills of British Columbia. Is the minister prepared, in conjunction with the Minister of Forests, to offer British Columbia's assistance and cooperation to the federal government in this very important initiative?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that stringent application of the softwood MOU has worked a hardship on the interior softwood lumber producers. I've informed my counterparts in Ottawa that the British Columbia government will work hand in hand with the federal government to eliminate the MOU or at least provide the flexibility required to help the interior producers, their employees and the families that depend upon them.

SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health. The question has some urgency, given the imminence of the minister's estimates debate before this House. On April 26 I asked the minister for a copy of the Dr. Keon report on open-heart surgery in B.C., and I was assured I would receive it.

On June 5 I asked again in this Legislature for that report, and I was assured I had received it. On June 19 I asked again, and I was assured I would be briefed on it. None of those have come to pass, and I would like to ask the minister whether he is now prepared to table it so I might have at least a few minutes to study it before the estimates debate.

HON. J. JANSEN: The commitment I made was not in terms of giving a briefing. The commitment I made was in terms of having a briefing note prepared for the hon. member. I indicated in my response to him that the report is somewhat complicated and lengthy and two years out of date, and I thought it fair that I give him some background information to assist him in his review. That process is ongoing, and when it is completed, I assure him I will give him that report.

ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

MR. PERRY: A supplementary. Although the answer was rather insulting, I am sure it was highly parliamentary. I will simply ask whether, in view of the Premier's answer to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, the minister might be willing to table a report, albeit an out-of-date one, from the provincial ethics advisory commission on the abortion review which the previous Minister of Health informed me last year had cost the taxpayers $8,000, or, failing that, whether he would be willing to release the reports of the AIDS advisory committee so that we could review them during the estimates debate.

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, I am pleased this member has suddenly shown an interest in this report. In my term as Health minister this is the first time he has asked for that report. I guess it was prompted by recent media coverage, and he is reacting to that. Yes, I would be pleased to give him a copy of the report. If he wants it later on, he can come and pick it up from me.

AIDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS

MR. PERRY: This is a step in the right direction. I did ask for that report last year. Would the minister then be willing to table the reports of the AIDS advisory committee?

HON. J. JANSEN: I am not quite sure what the member is talking about. We have in place an AIDS strategy report. I am waiting with some anticipation for his contribution, because I want to prepare this report to outline a strategy for British Columbia in terms of dealing with AIDS. I'm not sure what other report he was referring to. If he wants to give me some more clarification, I would be pleased to look at that request as well.

MR. PERRY: Further supplementary, to clarify for the benefit of the House. If memory serves me correctly — I won't swear to it — I also requested last year in this Legislature ongoing reports of the Provincial Advisory Committee on AIDS, so I'd be happy to review those.

In March a lack of funding threatened Victoria's highly successful needle exchange program. The

[ Page 11351 ]

Treasury Board approved the Health ministry's application to approach the federal government for cost shared funds. According to the CRD health officer, Ottawa has agreed to pay its share. Why have no provincial funds been delivered to this very important public health program to date?

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess what the member wants to do is start the debates of the Health ministry prior to the actual debate starting. We are meeting with the federal government to determine the participation the federal government will have in terms of this very successful program. I would be pleased to talk at length about how we're dealing with this, what additional funds are going into this program and what our commitment is to it. It's a tripartite commitment — from the regional districts and from the cities in some cases, from the provincial government and from the federal government. We cover different aspects of the program, the federal government carries out different aspects of the program, and the CRD and the city of Vancouver carry out their contributions to this very successful program. In fact, it's the model for North America.

[2:30]

MR. PERRY: Supplementary. I was more interested in a concise, accurate response rather than a lengthy one.

I wonder if the Minister of Health can confirm whether or not the application by the Capital Regional District has been held up in the Premier's office pending his personal moral approval.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

MR. PETERSON: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. My constituents are very concerned about safety on our highways. In view of today's....

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON: Quit laughing. It's serious.

In view of today's revelations that CP Rail documents show bonus payments to truckers for carrying overweight loads and avoiding government weigh scales, has the minister decided, in cooperation with the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), to launch a full investigation to determine how widespread this practice is and what steps need to be taken to eradicate this abuse?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This morning I was made aware of the concern that has been identified. The matter does fall under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor-General, as you correctly pointed out. It's my intention, on his return, to have the matter investigated and to determine what steps, if any, we should be taking. Thank you for the question.

Point of Privilege

TAKLA-SUSTUT FOREST LICENCE

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Monday last the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) rose on a point of privilege with respect to what he characterized as "misstatements of fact" made by the Minister of Forests in the presentation of a bill in 1988. 1 have reviewed the material filed, which included a copy of Hansard and a copy of the correspondence from the ombudsman to the mayor of Hazelton. In addition, the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker), who was the Minister of Forests at the time of the alleged misstatements, made a statement of denial in the House later in the day.

My review of the Hansard transcripts and the minister's statements leads me to conclude that this matter involves a difference of opinion between two hon. members as to facts. As has been ruled on numerous occasions, such a dispute ought not to form the basis for a complaint of a breach of privilege.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the clarification and for your ruling. It would be appropriate at this time if we made time available for the member for Prince Rupert to apologize to the member for Skeena.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not normal, when the Chair has finished dealing with a matter of privilege that has been raised in the past, that there be any other intervening business. The Chair has made a decision. If members wish to ask leave to make a statement, that is always appropriate.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to rise on a point of order to answer the government House Leader's point of order and demand for an apology. If the situation was ruled not a matter of privilege but a dispute over facts, then it imputes no motives on behalf of my friend from Prince Rupert. Therefore an apology is not only not customary, but isn't required.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the opposition House Leader may say that no motive was imputed, but I submit to you that the member said that the former minister deliberately misled this House, and that is one of the most serious charges a member can make against another member. It's extremely serious. I know I need not tell you that there is hardly a more serious charge that a member can make. The headlines it received, thanks to people who believed it, are never going to be erased from the public's mind, and I think that that member, in all decency, owes an apology to the other member.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, if anybody is owed an apology, it's the constituents in Skeena. As the person who was present at debating the bill at that time, I honestly brought forward the facts as I believed them to be true, and I respect your ruling.

[ Page 11352 ]

Point of Privilege

TAPED CONVERSATIONS
OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege with respect to the serious allegations made against me by the Leader of the Opposition. I am tabling herewith two affidavits which will be forwarded to the RCMP with regard to the comments referred to by the Leader of the Opposition.

The facts of my matter of privilege are that on July 12, in company with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) stated in a conversation at the St. John's airport: "We have known about the taping for months." He went on to say: "I am the chairman of our P&P committee of caucus, so I knew all about them." And once again, he said: "We have known about them for months." Mr. Speaker, these statements were made not once but twice in that specific conversation. Therefore in view of this information and in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has called me a liar, I demand a full and complete apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I deal with the first member for Nanaimo, I must ask the member to advise the Chair if he is prepared to move a substantive motion on the matter.

MR. CHALMERS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been tabled with the other documents.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member.

Point of Privilege

TAPED CONVERSATIONS
OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. With respect to the remarks made on the television news last night by the opposition leader in front of 500,000 British Columbians that I was lying, I demand an apology from the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never here.

MR. LONG: He's never here. Well, that has nothing to do with it.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, he....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, let's just briefly review the process. If a member rises and wishes to bring forward a matter of privilege, he states the matter briefly and tables the information that the Chair may wish to have. If there is written information that the Chair should consider before deciding whether or not a prima facie case exists, then that information should be tabled, and then the Chair should be advised that the member is prepared to move the motion. There is no debate.

It would be a courtesy to the Chair if during the time that the member is briefly stating the facts we could have silence in the chamber.

Would the member please continue.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I feel that with the accusation made against me by the opposition leader, he owes me an apology. I feel he misled the people of British Columbia, and he deliberately misled this House, in those accusations against me. I demand an apology.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, insofar as I am named in the member for Okanagan's motion of privilege, I assume I have a right to offer a brief comment.

MR. SPEAKER: Please continue.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief. I am offended bitterly to hear a suggestion that I made two separate statements on a particular night that are remembered verbatim by people sitting in a bar. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that defines and defies credibility. All I will say....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there can only be one member standing at a time. I'd ask the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) to take his seat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is not a debatable issue. There is no debate on this issue. But I will hear what the first member for Nanaimo has to say. I ask the member to continue.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, to make the point as briefly and succinctly as I may, I deny emphatically that I made the statements I am alleged to have made by the members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that concludes the matter. The Chair will take the information which will be available in Hansard and bring a decision back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to reserve the right of the Leader of the Opposition to reply to this charge the next time he is here — at the earliest appropriate moment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has established the practice for some time that if a member is not present when such matters are made, we will deal with it when the member is first here after that.

[ Page 11353 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 21: minister's office, $308,757 (continued).

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to offer my apologies to the minister for not having been here earlier today when he began his estimates and made his statement. I had no idea the minister would be coming in to begin this long and onerous task we have in front of us. I have read his comments in Hansard, and I will proceed as quickly as I can.

I assume the minister will be joined by some members of his staff. I thought I would tell him that I will be dealing first of all with petroleum resources issues. After we deal with things that relate to natural gas, I will want to talk about electrical energy issues and then move on to mining issues. If it makes any difference to the people who are with the minister, that will give them an idea of how I want to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the minister first of all about his policy paper entitled "The British Columbia Natural Gas Removal Policy." This paper was released in May of this year, and it is the policy the ministry is proposing for dealing with natural gas. As the minister knows, it takes away a large part of the requirement for proving security of supply to any of the producers who want to sell gas or export it. This paper has been described to me as a recipe for disaster by some of the more informed observers and participants in the natural gas industry in this province. It has been called absolutely outrageous in the way it treats security-of-supply tests.

In Alberta, by the way, there is less security of supply required than in B.C., and the minister says that that's the direction he wants to go in. He wants to allow the producers to be able to sell their gasoline without proving a secure supply. In Alberta there was 29 years of supply in 1983. Right now there are only 19 years of supply proven, and next year it's likely to be 16 years. In B.C., which has a 100 percent requirement for proof of supply, there is a 23-year supply proven now.

[2:45]

The expectation by informed observers is that the declining trend will definitely be there and that there will not be that kind of supply security because of the withdrawal of the requirements. The whole test could be described as going, going, gone. In B.C. it's going, in Alberta it's going, and in Canada it's gone. It's a very tenuous situation. In about three to four years, I am advised, we in Canada may not be able to meet our production levels.

If there is any need to cut back on export sales, it will hurt our industry considerably more than it will hurt.... I will clarify this. If there is an emergency and we say, "Look, there isn't enough supply on the basis of there being an emergency; we're going to reduce the number of export sales that are going to be allowed" — that kind of thing, which has to be equal to what is done on the American side of the border because of the free trade agreement — the industry on our side of the border will be hurt considerably more than the industry on the other side of the border.

If we had kept the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, we could have kept the border-price test. We should have kept the border-price test, which is another issue. No longer is the border-price test going to be kept, according to this policy paper. As it is, we are already selling gas to the United States at prices lower than we're selling it for within Canada. With the disappearance of the border-price test, it will regularly be less, because we are not going to require the same royalty for export sales as for domestic sales.

The whole process is going to be market-driven. That's in the paper regularly. It's a phrase the minister uses, and that's what he has been trying to achieve. Well, if you look at where the market is, you know that it is in the U.S. What that means is that it is going to be U.S.-driven. The question to the minister is: why in the world would we benefit the export market at a cost to the domestic market? That seems to be the whole tenor of this report.

I would like to talk a bit about the risks involved with this proposal that has been put forward by the ministry. The risks involved have been described in two spots in this paper. I'd like to read the two statements, which seem to be directly contradictory. I'm sure the minister doesn't want to leave the impression of a contradiction, so I'm sure he'll be able to explain this for me.

On page 5 of the report it says: "Contracts provide the best means of supply production." Producers, exporters and transmission companies say that contracts provide the best means of supply protection. Interestingly, that compares with the statement on page 9, which says that "the ministry recognizes that buyers face greater risks with development contracts than with contracts fully backed by established reserves."

The whole issue is very clearly laid out in the paper. What happens is that we become well aware of what the minister has done. The minister saw a conflict. He saw that the conflict was between producers, exporters and transmission companies and the consumers and the utilities, basically — the core market people. That has been very clear, because he says that the mandatory surplus test, which was adopted in 1987, was a compromise between the two highly polarized positions. Local distribution utilities had argued for retention of the tests, while producers, exporters and transmission companies had favoured its elimination. So it's very clear where the conflict is; there is a huge polarization, a clear difference of opinion. The residential and core-market consumers are pitted against the producers and the transmission people. The ministry sees this, and it

[ Page 11354 ]

is put into the paper. The minister chooses — without any input from the consumers — to go with the position favoured by the producers, the exporters and the transmission line people.

The only protection the residential core-market consumers have is that they are still regulated. While the other sales of gas are not to be regulated, the utilities and private purchases will be regulated. The Utilities Commission may well tell the utility that they can't pass on enough of the costs, that they have to get a contract to buy the gas and that they have to provide a long-term supply to their consumers. But they may not be able to do that.

This is not anything near a level playing-field. It is very uneven ground, and it gives the opportunity for friends and insiders to get special treatment. The same polarized views continue to exist today, and the minister makes that very clear. In the paper on page 5 it says: "The same polarized views continue to exist today." So it is not an attempt in this paper to deal with the conflict — to deal with the contradiction and the polarization. The minister has simply chosen one side of the issue and has gone ahead with that.

Consumers will also have to put up with all kinds of very loose requirements. It is interesting to go through the paper and look at what is going to be required in order to get energy removal certificates. It suggests that a conditional ERC may be granted where dedicated lands are considered by the ministry to have sufficient potential within a reasonable time-frame." What is "sufficient, " and what is "reasonable"? Later you move on to a further spot — on page 10 of the paper — where it says you can have a certificate for longer than the 15 years if the ministry is persuaded that it is required. What is it that is going to make this persuasion? It is extremely loose. It is not clear to anybody who wants to make an application. On the next page it says: "...if the applicant is able to provide justification." What is that justification? To top it all off, the paper goes ahead and says that the ministry has not yet even decided how it's going to monitor short-term withdrawals. It's so loose that it makes it extremely difficult to know what is going to come out of this policy.

We have an interesting statement on the situation when the ministry begins managing B.C.'s gas reserves instead of requiring the companies to prove that they have secure reserves so that they can remove as much gas as they have in reserve. It suggests that the province will manage British Columbia's gas reserves, and then the paper says: "in return." I wonder if the minister will be able to explain to me what the trade-off is here. In return for what? The government is taking over the task of managing the supply and seeing that there is security of supply. In return for doing this for the industry, the ministry will give the industry access to the ministry's inventory. Maybe they should have access to the inventory, but what is the return? Is there a trade-off there? What is the paper trying to say in this case?

One of the more interesting parts of this is about who is taking the risks on this. We are talking about the security of supply. When the province begins to manage the reserves in the province, the security of supply is basically in a 15-year basket, except for.... I would like the minister to explain to me the exceptions. He talks about short-term energy removal certificates. Now there is some question about the length of a short-term ERC. Is it for less than two years, as it says in the paper? Or is it, as described in the seminar on this paper that I attended, for less than five years?

However, there is going to be no requirement at all, no reserve dedication required at all for short-term ERCs. Then it says in the paper right there on page 13: "Gas removals from British Columbia are predominantly short-term."

Does that mean that nearly all of the gas transactions that happen are not going to have any requirement for reserve dedication? It seems to me that the largest part of what's going to happen will have no requirement whatsoever. Even though the minister says that we're going to require a 50 percent dedication, in fact most of the transactions will not have any requirement attached to them whatsoever.

There is another risk that will have to be borne by somebody or other. It would seem to me that we need the answer to the question of what happens when the capacity to move gas — in other words, the pipeline capacity — is built or allowed to be built, and then it's not used because contracts such as these short-term contracts are not used.

Who is going to be paying for the unused capacity? It seems to me that the answer usually is the utility, who regularly is going to have to use a certain part of that pipeline. If all of the pipeline isn't used, who is going to assure that the pipeline company gets its return? I'd like an answer to that from the minister, because I think he would like to answer that one for the people of British Columbia.

What I was most shocked about with this whole paper — at the very beginning of it — was that the minister chose to announce this policy through his deputy minister in the province of Alberta at a Calgary meeting. I'd like to ask the minister why he chose to ignore any courtesy to the people of British Columbia by announcing this policy in Alberta.

If, when you read this paper, you wonder who was going to be favoured in it.... As I say, I think the minister made it very clear that this policy was very much made for the producers, the transmission companies and the exporters. It says that the monthly reporting, which is to be replaced by the ministry gathering and disseminating information, was made not because that's a better way to do it, but because it saves the burden of reporting to the industry.

Is that really the reason that it was changed? I'd like to know that. And I'd like to know one other thing right now. I would like the minister to define for me the goal. The goal of the policy is said to promote sustainable development of the industry. Well, sustaining the development of the industry is a very good phrase, I'm sure, because it may be

[ Page 11355 ]

confused by the public to mean what is supposed to be represented by the term "sustainable development, " which is usually used in terms of the environment. It means to sustain the environment, or development which allows the sustenance of the environment.

In this case, the paper says the goal of the policy is to promote the sustainable development of the industry. I would like the minister to define that partly in the context of that statement in his paper and also in a statement made by the Premier who leads his government. The understanding by the Premier as to what sustainable development is may have something to do with this paper talking about sustainable development, when it really is applied only to the industry.

[3:00]

The Premier was quoted at a mining gathering in May 1990 to say: "The real solution to mine closures is mine openings, and that's sustainable development." Does the minister agree with that statement? Is that your definition of sustainable development: when you close a mine, you open another one? That may well sustain the industry, but it doesn't sustain the environment. I would like the minister to define for me in some clearer terms what he means by the goal of the policy, which is to sustain the development of the industry. Is that what he meant, or did he mean he would like to have development and sustain the environment? I would like the minister to respond to some of those questions.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raises a number of questions; I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability. I'll try to deal also in simplistic terms, because there are certain broad generalizations which are possible. While this is a complex industry, one can certainly cut through the complexity in many areas by making some categorical statements.

One of the essentials — indeed from an economic point of view the main essential — of our policy is that the delivered price of natural gas to the consumer is market-driven.

The hon. member is trying to turn this upside down and say that our policy favours the producer and the transporter. What does market-driven mean? Market-driven means that the consumer — the end buyer, the user — has the principal say. This is much more likely to happen when energy is in abundant supply. There is considerable competition around the world, oil prices are down, coal prices are down, and so on. For the last three or four years the consumer has been king. The consumer has called the shot. The utilities directly selling to the consumer, be they in this country or elsewhere, are the ones which have called the shot. There's an excess of production and supply, the pipelines are running less than full, and so on. The producer and the transporter, compared to some other times of shortage, are really in difficulties.

It's the consumer who's calling the shot. It's the end-use utility — for example, in British Columbia, B.C. Gas — which is in the driver's seat, so let's remember that this is not a situation which is highly favourable to the supply end, the producer and those big, bad oil companies, to use the hon. member's kind of terminology. It's not all in their favour. Currently it tends to be the other way around. The consumer end is calling the shot. The end-user is in the driver's seat.

The hon. member, like most people in the New Democratic Party, takes a static and always very pessimistic view of things when it comes to resources. They don't have any concept of a dynamic approach to resources; it's always a snapshot. You look at the snapshot, and you immediately become alarmed.

I like to refer not to one but to a host of commissions which have been established in this country and elsewhere to look at the supply of resources. Invariably those commissions taking the snapshot approach have ended up in alarm. There's only so much gas proven, there's only so much iron ore proven and there's only so much oil proven.

There was a presidential commission in the 1860s — that's a long time ago — and the question put to that commission essentially was: when will we run out of oil for the lamps of the United States? The commission reported back after several years of deliberation that the proven reserves of oil in the United States at current rates of consumption would last ten years. That's an NDP approach. The NDP has no idea of the dynamics of an industry. Industry will have just about as much proven as it needs to meet current production levels, and won't prove up any more unless there's some law, some edict which requires them to prove up 15 or 20 years supply. We have an incredible resource of natural gas in this country; a large one in B.C., but fantastic particularly in the Arctic territories.

We only have 30 years of proven supply today, and we're not likely to have much more than that proven up because there's no economics in it. You can't sell any more than a relatively short-term amount like 25 years maximum in contracts, so why would the industry have proven up beyond any possible doubt the ability to produce more gas until the market develops, their contract is possible and contracts come to be signed? Then they'll put down a few more holes and not only find but establish with absolute certainty that the supply is there.

We've got a lot of natural gas in north-eastern British Columbia, and the fact that there have been fairly strong markets for some years has given the industry enough money to prove up 30 years of supply. In other words, if they didn't put another hole down up there, the industry could run for 30 years full bore at current rates of production without needing any other sources.

Who says that there isn't more energy there, that there isn't more gas there because of, essentially, long-term market prospects? We have a drilling program going on up there which is close to, if not as intensive as, it's ever been.

The industry was drilling for gas with great enthusiasm in the late seventies. With a drop in the

[ Page 11356 ]

world price of oil, the industry pulled back. Lately it's begun to explore more actively again. But it's gambling, in part at least, that it will be able to sell some of this production, not just in B.C. and in eastern Canada but also into the United States.

To the extent that the market is slow in development and to the extent that the price for natural gas in the marketplace stays way down as it is now, that interest is limited. It's surprising that we have all the activity in B.C. that we do, especially since it's fallen back dramatically in Alberta. It's simply that the B.C. climate's a bit better from the point of view of geology, and also our policies at the provincial level are more market-oriented, if you like, than those of Alberta.

They think they have a better chance of selling more gas in the shorter middle-term, or they simply wouldn't be looking at prospects in the B.C. Peace River area with the current intensity and enthusiasm.

The hon. member talks as if a different-minded regime and a different attitude on the part of the provincial government would produce security. I would like to remind the hon. member that in the last NDP year, we did begin to run out of natural gas, if only because the industry ceased to drill. They ran into a water-flooding problem which they hadn't encountered in the Peace River area before. That's all history. The industry knows how to deal with that today, but it didn't then. Production had to be cut back especially on the export market side.

We are unlikely to face that ever again, partly because the industry knows more about that kind of problem, but mostly because the proven supplies are much greater now than they were and the market has given signals that in another five, ten or 20 years, B.C. Gas will find an outlet. The small producer especially has trouble raising money. The only way, it can raise money is to sell some of its proven supply.

Small companies — as well as large — are interested in a relatively dynamic approach to marketing. Ours is dynamic. We're saying to the producer that you don't have to have every last cubic foot proven up, but you must have enough wells drilled and enough information on reservoir size and so on to give our government geologists confidence that you will be able to deliver the full amount identified in the contract, and that you will be able to honour those contracts throughout their lifetime.

There is a risk of some order there, but a minimal one, especially if you look at the totality of the reserve position in the province and the prospects for future discoveries. We're covered many times over if you look at the total picture. It's just that some producers, especially the small ones, will appreciate not having to have every cubic foot they are likely to deliver over a 15-, 20- or 25-year period proven up today before they get their energy removal certificate to remove gas for consumption in B.C., Ontario and the U.S. Pacific Northwest or California.

We've been a little more — to put it this way — considerate as far as the small producer is concerned. It doesn't have to have every cubic foot proven up today, but the geological and other information has to point with considerable certainty towards them having not only enough gas, but considerably more gas potentially there than is indicated as deliverable under the contracts.

The hon. member has said that our policy somehow favours exports. The policy is market driven and market oriented. The test we apply, in addition to making sure there's enough gas there to want to reach a contract, is that the price the producer receives at the source — effectively, at the well — is the same regardless of destination.

There is no preference given for gas going south as opposed to gas going east. The price must be the market-determined price. There's a going price. The average of recent contracts will be published every month. Unless the price entered in a new contract is directly comparable with — equal or higher to — the going market price, the energy removal certificate will not be forthcoming. It doesn't matter what the destination is — domestic or foreign. The price received by the producer cannot be discriminatory or preferential in any way. It has to be a market-determined price. It has to be, if you like, a level playing-field as far as pricing is concerned.

The hon. member has said that we've given up on the border price. It's comfortable to think that every proposal and every contract would be judged by some hypothetical price at the border and that all prices at the border had to be 100 percent or maybe 105 percent of the price for gas sold nearby in Canada. In other words, as the gas crosses the border, it's priced at the price for sale right there in Canada. Therefore for every mile it goes beyond that, it's priced higher than Canadian gas being sold in the United States.

Our approach now is to have the same price, regardless of destination, in the field. The farther away you get from the field the higher the price because of transportation charges. Automatically a U.S. buyer — south of the 49th parallel — will pay more than any buyer In British Columbia because of distance and pipeline tariffs. They are higher the further you go.

That is the essential, natural, ingrained protection that Canadians — certainly British Columbians — have in respect to natural gas pricing. Prices are best near the field, at the field. Prices rise as you move away from the source. Prices will be better in Prince George — delivered in Prince George — than in Vancouver; and prices in Seattle, certainly in San Francisco, will be much higher than prices here in British Columbia. So it follows automatically, from the general pricing approach we're taking, that there is a delivered-price differential, not at the wellhead but certainly as one moves out to markets. The price rises; the delivered price will be higher. Those close to the source will pay less than those at a distance. That's some comfort to industries locating in the Prince George area or, better still, Fort St. John, as opposed to industry locating in the lower mainland, and certainly as opposed to industry locating anywhere in the U.S. west coast states.

[ Page 11357 ]

So much for this business of favouring foreigners. Why would any government in its right mind even contemplate for a moment a policy which favours foreigners? It doesn't make sense, and clearly the pricing mechanism we have in place automatically protects....

[3:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, but time has expired under standing orders — unless one of your colleagues would like to intercede.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm finding the remarks by the minister extremely interesting, and would be happy to hear more.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll wrap up in a couple of moments, but the hon. member did ask some two dozen questions, and I'm trying to answer them in a general way all at once.

We're putting more emphasis on contracts. The producer must honour his contract to produce and deliver. The contract is sacred. It's sacred insofar as a sale, for example, to B.C. Gas is concerned — the gas going to consumers in British Columbia — or to a utility in the United States. But the commitment does not extend beyond the life or volume named in the contract. The commitment is over once the volume of gas named in the contract has been delivered and the number of years — if there's a duration element in it — has expired. Incidentally, short-term sales are less than two years, and that's the great majority of current sales; but firm long-term sales could be of the order of 15 years or even 20 or 25 years.

Of course, we look at the longer-term sales, which generally are to utilities, with much greater care and scrutiny than the short-term ones, which tend to be more on a spot basis. They are generally entered into by industries which think they can take advantage of producers while the market is soft; and they don't halve to worry too much about the longer term, hoping that prices will stay down. I would like to repeat what I've said to industry often: they had better take the long view of things, especially if they are a Canadian industry. They should sign up gas well into the future because some day gas will not be the bargain that it is today; and it may go up in price more or less in line with the cost of living and not keep dropping as it has done in recent years.

Utilization of pipeline capacity. More and more on this continent pipelines are being regulated as common carriers. They no longer own the gas in the line. They simply carry for a customer, and they are allowed to charge fees at rates approved by commissions. The rates in British Columbia are set by the National Energy Board on Westcoast's large-diameter pipe and by the Utilities Commission in respect to the shorter, smaller lines reaching out to individual municipalities.

They are allowed a rate of return on their total investment, and the worry, especially on the part of the user, but also the producer, is that they are allowed to install too much pipe or too many compressor stations, that they "gold-plate" their facilities unduly, and that being allowed a rate of return on that big investment, they are able to charge a price that's higher than would more properly be in place. It's up to commissions, it's up to interveners at the hearings, to ensure that the pipeline companies and the distributors don't get away with gold-plating. That's the main reason why they're regulated, the main reason why governments step in and say: "You're a monopoly. You have to be watched. You must not be allowed to install unnecessary facilities. Because you're a monopoly, you can't be allowed to charge any old price. You are only allowed a certain return on your investment — no more, no less."

The hon. member is right if she is saying that the pipeline companies have an incentive to overbill. They do recover their costs even if the line is not fully utilized, and that's something the producers don't like — certainly the consumer doesn't like it. It's therefore a matter which public bodies like our regulatory commissions and the National Energy Board have to watch with great care. There is concern there. It's covered by "regulation."

Finally, sustainable development. We all know that certain resources are in some measure finite. We tend to talk about water power as if it's available indefinitely — and it is, certainly in comparison to other sources of energy. To that extent, hydroelectric developments and related energy-using industries are sustainable. As long as development occurs in a manner that's compatible with good environmental practice, it is indeed a sustainable, highly desirable event, both from an economic and a biological, or environmental, point of view. So hydro is fine from the sustainable development vantage point.

Resources like coal, while they are finite in an economic sense, exist in incredible quantities. We hardly use any coal in this province. We do export 12 million or 14 million tonnes a year, principally for metallurgical purposes in Japan and the Orient generally, but we don't use much of it. There's an awful lot of it in British Columbia, and we don't have to be too concerned about whether that export business can be sustained, at least from a quantitative point of view. Competition is so keen from oil and natural gas, etc., that it's difficult to cover all the costs of coal-mining and coal transportation. The problem in that industry is essentially costs, economics; it's certainly not sustainability in the sense that environmentalists think of.

Oil and gas are in between. Gas is more available in the earth's crust than oil. Even if you include tar sands, oil shales and so on around the world, gas is still more plentiful. One reason it's more plentiful is that it's not only derived in part from oilfields or oil sources, but it's also generated by the rotting of vegetable materials of all kinds. We've all seen gas bubbling in swamps; it's rotting material at the bottom of the pond. That is natural gas. Nature is forever producing natural gas, and it's being found in incredible places and at great depth. There is a big resource there. At some point it begins to run out. I

[ Page 11358 ]

suggest that time is centuries away, not years or months. When there are signs that gas is becoming scare, because you have to reach further north or go deeper for it, then you simply go over to the conclusions of that presidential commission of the 1960s which said we'll have to switch to natural gas made from coal. Coal is much more abundant.

We've got gas in its so-called natural form. We've got gas that can be made from oil, gas that can be made from coal and even gas that can be made from recently harvested crops. There really isn't a supply problem; it's a cost problem. It's cheap; it's cheap today. It's very low-priced in the market. It's the cheapest fuel available not only on this continent but generally around the world. Gas costs half as much to deliver for space-heating purposes in the lower mainland as electricity, less than half as much as oil, and it is tending to go down compared to those other commodities.

The consumer is in good shape. The consumer is paying a much lower real price for gas than ever before. The consumer is well protected by our system. It's the producer who we want to keep reasonably active, proving up some additional supplies. The industry is healthy but constrained by a market that is very selective and insists on very low prices. So I really can't feel too sorry for the consumer. The consumer is really in the driver's seat today, and I think for quite some years it will continue to be the case.

MS. EDWARDS: I noticed the minister accuses my party, the New Democrats, of taking snapshots and then deciding that the snapshots show the whole picture. Then the minister proceeds to tell me what is in his snapshot: that the consumer is currently king That doesn't last forever, Mr. Chairman. However, that's the basis on which the minister went ahead with his paper.

His snapshot says that right now the consumer is king; right now we don't need the security of supply. However, I notice in his paper he says the ministry recognizes that buyers face greater risks with development contracts than with contracts fully backed by established reserves. The minister has simply made his choice. He laid out the two sides — the polarized choice — and he has chosen the side which gives the greater risk to the buyer, to the utility, to the residential and core-market consumer. The minister has made that very clear in his remarks.

I would, though, like some more specific answers I will ask some short questions that I am sure the minister won't have any trouble answering in as short a way.

First of all, why did he announce this White Paper in Alberta?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think it is fairly obvious that the producers — certainly the head offices of the producers, and this includes virtually all of the little people — are in Calgary. Sure, we released it in Calgary; we released it simultaneously in Vancouver and elsewhere. But the people who were immediately able to grasp its significance.... Again, it was a paper asking questions as much as defining policy with great finality. The people we expect to hear from are principally headquartered in Calgary; they are for all of western Canada. We could have had a meeting in Vancouver and then gone to Calgary the next day. The Vancouver meeting wouldn't have been at all well attended.

I guess the hon. member is saying: "Why didn't you play politics and pretend that the industry is headquartered in Vancouver?" It isn't. It is headquartered in Calgary.

MS. EDWARDS: So again what the minister tells me is that he was speaking with the producers, the exporters and the transmission line headquarters. He wasn't talking to the consumer. He wasn't talking to the people in B.C. who are going to do this, and he didn't ask the producers in Alberta to come to Vancouver to hear what he had to say. My suggestion that the minister, in this paper, very much looks to the point of view of the producer and the exporter is supported by what the minister has said.

My next question is: why would the minister continue to make a preference for the export customers? He says he doesn't do that. He says that it is market-driven and therefore there is no price preference. But he does recognize that because of the transmission differences, not the price of gas at the plant where it is produced....

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: That's right. But he says by the time it gets further away from where it is produced it is going to cost more, and because of that he gives a special preference in royalties to the foreign buyer. Why does the minister do that?

[3:30]

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member has grasped the essentials of pricing along the route. She has, however, somehow invented an idea that we will be charging a different royalty depending on where the gas goes. That's not true at all. The royalty is the same for everyone. It's 15 percent of the gross value of sales. It isn't 15 percent plus 1 percent for Canadians and 15 plus 10 percent for exporters, or vice versa. It is 15 percent for all producers. Where is the preference in that?

I think she is confused by the fact that we do have a fail-safe — if I can put it that way — clause, which really we copied from Alberta when Alberta was concerned about being raided by distributors and buyers in Ontario, and some of its weaker, smaller producers, in order to get cash, were selling at lower prices than the going price. We first will ensure that they don't sell at less than the going price. But there is a formula there which says that if prices generally are declining — and I am talking about the going price in western Canada — we still won't accept for royalty purposes a price that is less than 90 percent of

[ Page 11359 ]

the recently established price. But I don't think we will ever get to that situation.

Alberta allows 20 percent. Eighty percent of the going price paid by everybody in Alberta is the minimum price that they will recognize for royalty purposes. That applies to sales in Canada as well as the U.S. If our 90 percent formula is ever triggered, it will apply wherever the gas is going. It isn't just focused on the Americans.

The way we are administering, I can't see us approving a removal certificate involving a price which is materially different from the current going price in the area. We simply have a clause that covers the possibility that prices generally are trending down so fast that a 90 percent formula would be triggered. It would be triggered regardless of where the gas was going. The provincial treasury has that additional comfort level. It will never be employed.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister is correct. I was sloppy in the way I put that. What I have to say is that when the minister allows a royalty to be paid on a price that is 90 percent of the going price, that going price is what the utility consumer pays. They are going to pay that anyway. They are never going to get the opportunity to have that lower going price — at least very infrequently or very disproportionately. It's the residential utility consumer — the core-market consumer — who is going to pay the royalty on 100 percent of the regular price.

They've got long contracts, I presume. Utilities are still going to be required to have at least 15-year contracts. The commission will be directed to ensure they have assured long-term supply. They will therefore be paying the higher price. They will be paying the price that will show up on that monthly price citation.

It's the other people who then will be able to pay a royalty on a price that is at 90 percent of that royalty floor. As I understand it, that's the way it is. It gives a better opportunity to the major buyers who are outside the utilities, and those are the export people — the people who buy from outside the country.

Could the minister clarify for me the statement in the paper about short-term energy removal certificates? Is that the major amount of sales? What are the proportions of short-term energy removal certificates to longer-term? The minister says that short-term means two years or less. As I say, there are other people in the ministry who have interpreted that a little differently. But at any rate, long-term, I presume, is five years — maybe more than two years — up to that 15-year mark and also beyond the 15-year mark which the paper is going to allow the minister to have judgment on.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The short-term, according to our definition, is any contract that's two years or less. Long-term is anything over two years. The hon. member is right. Utilities generally are required to buy firm and for a reasonably long period, or the regulatory bodies aren't satisfied.

The hon. member seems to think that somehow American importers are favoured over Canadian core-market suppliers. In British Columbia, there's really one substantial Canadian core-market supplier, and that's B.C. Gas. Last year B.C. Gas-and this matter comes up annually — was able to get a much bigger price reduction in the field than anyone else. This was purely market forces. B.C. Gas is by far the biggest buyer in the Peace River area of British Columbia. So if size counts for anything — and it does some; certainly large volumes and economics of scale and so on — then B.C. Gas is the price-setter, not outfits that come in from the U.S. and buy a few months at a time or industries in B.C. that buy short-term, like pulp mills.

There's no reason why B.C. Gas, wanting to maximize its profits, would pay more for gas than it has to. It's going to try and drive as hard a bargain with the producers as anyone else. The history of the last couple of years is that B.C. Gas has been the one outfit that's been able to drive the field price down. There's nothing on the record that indicates that outfits in the United States are — disproportionately, anyway — getting gas at prices which are not the recent average price.

B.C. Gas must now buy according to dictates of policy from this ministry, which are reflected in policy put into effect by the Utilities Commission. B.C. Gas must have at least 15 years firm supply on hand, in the sense that it's fully contracted from reliable producers, with good geology and covering today's current rate of consumption for that 15-year period. It must have that gas. It buys additional gas which it can sell to some industries that claim they can shop around and do in fact shop around. If B.C. Gas is able to offer them gas for a somewhat more attractive price, B.C. Gas does so. But the contracts vary from a matter of months to a few years.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Most of the big industries in the province now — the forest products firms; certainly Cominco in Trail — buy in the field; they shop around among producers and they pay the processing and transportation tariffs to their plants. They prefer to do that because they think that maybe they can get better prices that way. They don't go through B.C. Gas, in other words. B.C. Gas buys more gas than simply its core-market requirement. The price varies depending on the volume of the sale and certainly the load factor. In other words, is it a large amount for a short time in the winter and a small amount the rest of the year? What are its characteristics?

The Utilities Commission's job in respect to gas — probably its biggest single job — is to make sure that (a) the gas is in fact here and (b) B.C. Gas, the monopoly utility that it governs, has bargained long, hard and effectively on behalf of the consumer to cover the core market.

[ Page 11360 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could tell me what proportion of the British Columbia supply of gas is bought by B.C. Gas.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm advised that B.C. Gas buys roughly half, plus or minus 1 percent, of all the gas sold by producers in the B.C. Peace River area. Clearly, it's by far the biggest buyer. There are miscellaneous other buyers: industry in the province buying directly from the field; a couple of smaller utilities distributing gas here, buying in the field; then of course a mix of utilities and industries on the U.S. side; and now, beginning to be significant, industries and utilities in eastern Canada.

MS. EDWARDS: I have one more question in this area. The minister is usually very good about answering questions filed on the order paper, and he didn't answer my question on the order paper. I wonder if he could assure me that it will be answered.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, certainly it will be answered. I'm told we have the answer right here; we could send it over. If the hon. member could paraphrase it simply, maybe I can just answer it off the top. I don't know.

MS. EDWARDS: It's a fairly long question, and that's why I had it written. It's not long but it's complex. It's question No. 6, and it has to do with the prices of export gas and so on. I would like to have that information, but I don't want to take any more time right now, because we're not getting very far. I have many other things to canvass. I had hoped I'd be able to get the answer to those questions.

I want to talk about the minister's response to the proposals on greenhouse gases. This is an international affair. In April of this year the federal and provincial energy ministers had a meeting and categorically rejected any plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It had been proposed that they reduce them by 20 percent over the next 15 years, or various things. I'm not suggesting to the minister that there should have been any particular formula, because there are various ones that have been suggested. However, I do know that the energy ministers rejected it and that you rejected it for the province of British Columbia because you felt we shouldn't do that.

I would like to quote something that you said. As you know, we go to a number of meetings commonly. You talk; I listen. What you said, Mr. Minister, on December 7, 1989, at the Globe '90 conference of the Institute of Energy, was that we might do a 20 percent carbon dioxide reduction by the year 2005; if we do, it will be for sheer political effect. The context in which you put that statement, Mr. Minister, was that we have a nearly 100 percent good environment in B.C., and whatever carbon dioxide we produce, our forests eat. That may or may not be true, but your attitude on carbon dioxide reduction was obviously not one of great enthusiasm or to say: "Let's get at it and let's do it fast."

I believe the minister has changed his attitude, and the ministry has certainly come out with at least a plan to get a strategy, if we can put it that way, after a report came out from Energy, Mines and Resources Canada about the emissions of carbon dioxide in this province. The minister, I believe, got into a bit of a scramble with somebody over which industry produced the most carbon dioxide. He made it quite clear at the time that the forest industry in this province is the greatest producer of carbon dioxide.

All of that aside, there is a lot of carbon dioxide produced in natural gas — 12 million metric tons a year. We have that from natural gas. Gasoline, diesel fuel, oil — all of these produce carbon dioxide.

The announcement of the search for a strategy was made on June 29 of this year. It promises consultation. There are some interesting anomalies there; I'm not sure whether they are anomalies. We talk about beehive burners, but one of the proposals is the use of waste wood. I also am a supporter of the use of waste wood at mills to create energy, but I'm not sure that it does much for the carbon dioxide effect.

If we don't change our ways, the announcement said, there will be a 17 percent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide released in British Columbia by the year 2005. And there will be no increase in the number of sinks in the province.

[3:45]

I wonder if the minister could tell me a little bit more about what he plans and how he promises consultation on this particular strategy that the ministry is developing and that, I presume, the government is developing with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests. What is going to happen with the consultation? What is going to be the process by which you will consult with the people of the province? What is going to be the result of that consultation? How will the people know that they've been listened to? And what time-frame does the minister see for coming up with a strategy to deal with a promise, I hope, to reduce the amount of CO₂ emission in British Columbia by the year 2005?

HON. MR. DAVIS: One of the great difficulties in this problem of carbon dioxide emissions — at least it's a perceived problem by 50 percent of the world's scientists; the other 50 percent don't agree — is that we don't altogether know what we're talking about.

Our first step was to generate some hard numbers on carbon dioxide generation in the province. We now have the numbers industry by industry. It's not surprising that the forest industry is the biggest producer of carbon dioxide, because it's by far the biggest industry in the province. In Alberta, on the other hand, by far the biggest generator is those coal-fired power plants. We don't happen to use coal or other fuel much to generate electricity, so in that area we haven't been a major producer. The forest industry is big simply because the power industry isn't, so the forest industry looks more the villain.

The forest industry has several subgroups. They all involve processing wood and in some measure burning wood wastes to generate steam and electric-

[ Page 11361 ]

ity. There the main improvements will be in efficiency — to the extent that a tonne of wood will produce more electricity than it has in the past. That tonne will produce less carbon dioxide for each them or kilowatt-hour of energy that comes out. The main hope for improvement is really efficiency in use. It's possible with full recycling and a fully integrated operation in a fairly modern pulp mill to go from efficiencies of 40 percent to efficiencies of 60 percent. That is a material improvement, but it will only occur as plants are modernized and as we continue to insist on efficient use of the wood wastes as fuel.

With beehive burners, carbon dioxide is simply generated to no useful effect. You can take the same waste wood and produce useful electricity that you're not having to produce in some other way. So it results in a net saving. Of course it does clean up a local environment. So it has two advantages: improvement of the environment and more efficient use of potential fuel. If you'd left that sawdust or bark on the ground, it would eventually rot out and generate roughly the same amount of carbon dioxide as if it was burned.

It isn't as if man is the only source of carbon dioxide; we accelerate the process by having industries which hasten the deterioration of wood, for example, into its components. We now have some numbers on British Columbia. We have less room for economies because hydro is still quite important in our total scheme of things, and it doesn't generate CO₂. We're less of an offender, if I can put it that way, than some other provinces — certainly other jurisdictions — for that reason.

We must make every effort to be efficient both from an economic point of view and from the point of view of generating carbon dioxide if there's any possibility — let alone a real possibility — of the carbon dioxide causing global warming. The member is asking when and how to consult. We're trying at least to get some numbers to describe the situation better in British Columbia and then deal with it. This subject will come up time and again when applications are made to build a new power plant, pulp mill, etc. There will eventually be a heading, if you like, or a chapter dealing with global warming or the CO₂ formulas insofar as they apply to that particular development. The better developments or improvements will be those which generate less CO₂.

It's a difficult area mostly because we know little about it so far. But clearly there are some things we can do, essentially in the area of improving efficiency, which will reduce CO₂ generation in the province.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister says we have little room for economies in this place, but if he looks again at the figures provided by his ministry, B.C. provides 11 percent of the Canadian total of CO₂ generation. That's more than our share, Mr. Minister.

I might say that according to a different report, we're either the second-worst in the country or the third-worst; we're the second-worst after Alberta, with its coal-fired electricity plants, of course. But Alberta is the highest generator, and some people say Ontario is next; some people say we're next. We certainly have a large generation of carbon dioxide.

What consultation does the minister propose? I hope it's not just what comes up when projects are proposed which will generate carbon dioxide and people object to it. Surely there will be some process of consulting on this strategy for the management of carbon dioxide emissions.

HON. MR. DAVIS: It's an important topic, and I'm sure there will be opportunities for discussion. The hon. member is inferring that there is some great wisdom out there that can suddenly be mobilized and that we're not tapping. If the public is really concerned, it's going to buy smaller cars and drive fewer miles. It's as simple as that. How does the NDP intend to deal with that? That's doing something about carbon dioxide emissions.

It covers a lot of areas where in order to really make a dent in the numbers over and above better efficiencies in plants and industry, our society as a whole is going to have to discipline itself.

As for B.C. being — I think the hon. member said — the second-worst offender in this area, has she any idea what Quebec's numbers are? Quebec hasn't published any. I suggest that just on the population basis, if we generate 11 percent of the carbon dioxide, we're better than the average because we have 12 percent of the population. I suggest that Quebec, Ontario and Alberta are "worse" than we are. But we all have to do something about this.

I hope that before too long we'll have some real evidence that there's a danger of the earth's temperature rising. There seem to be just about as many scientists who think it's going to fall and that we're going to be in for an ice age. Twenty years ago, when I was Minister of the Environment for Canada, one of the first things we did was to retain the world's authority on the subject: Professor Hare, who was at the University of Toronto. Dr. Hare spent a year and a half studying it all and couldn't make up his mind which way the world's temperature was going.

There was concern then, and there's concern now. However, we certainly have an interest in improving the efficiency with which we use carbonaceous materials to generate energy. We'll go at the efficiency in industry, but the real offender tends to be the individual. We'll have to get at that if we really want to do something about our  numbers in B.C.

MS. EDWARDS: I asked the minister to talk about how bad or good we are, I'm simply dealing in amounts, and in British Columbia we emit 30 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year per person. The national average is 15 metric tons per year per person across the country, and certainly in amount and volume — according to this, and I didn't track it down — we are second to Alberta. So I say that the problem is serious. I don't want to argue this with the minister, because I think we both recognize it's a serious problem. But I want the minister to recognize

[ Page 11362 ]

that I have some concerns that he doesn't recognize how serious it is, because of his statement.

I also would like to quote from the news release that came out on June 29, 1990, which says that the government is going to take action; they're taking the lead in a strategy to reduce carbon dioxide. It says the Ministry of Environment will consult with the public, industry and key government ministries. Does that mean that the Ministry of Energy is not going to — only the Ministry of Environment? The release for the three ministries, announcing this strategy, said that the Ministry of Environment will consult with the public. I assume that meant the Ministry of Energy as well. The minister has not talked about what he's going to do with consultation.

I would also like to ask the minister here, because this may fit in.... In the ministry's business plan for 1990-91, it says: "We will release a comprehensive energy policy statement soon." I presume that's sometime during this year. Can the minister tell me when that's coming out? It will deal with the basic tenets of the policy: energy efficiency, clean energy, energy security, and energy and the economy. It describes what you're going to see when you see this comprehensive energy policy statement. Is that coming out soon?

HON. MR. DAVIS: We'll be releasing that paper around the end of August or early September. I don't think it will cast a great deal of light on the carbon dioxide problem or the global warming challenge that mankind faces. That one is going to take a while.

just back to the numbers for a moment. We generate, say, 11 percent of all the carbon dioxide generated in Canada. The forest industry is responsible for 41, 12 or so percent of the 11. Because the forest industry is roughly in balance, 4 or 414 percent is consumed by our forests. If you talk generation of CO₂ only, we're 11 percent; if you talk net contribution, because our forests eat carbon dioxide, then we're more like 8 percent.

You have to know more about this subject than simply the numbers that have been produced so far. In Canada it seems that the Department of Energy is the lead ministry, at least at the national level. This comes about mostly because Energy, Mines is supposed to have all the numbers on power plants and automobile efficiencies, and so on. It's true with us; we're the lead ministry. But clearly Environment has considerable concern — I'm talking about our Environment ministry — and Forests does, simply because forestry is such a large industry in the province. Certain other industries do. I'm sure municipalities are concerned.

But if Professor Hare could look at all the world literature and so on and not really make up his mind over 18 months, I'm not sure that going to the public soon and asking the public what it thinks is going to be all that helpful. Once we have a better handle on the CO₂inputs, outputs and flows in this province, we'll be able to throw the issue out there and hope that some bright ideas come along.

MS. EDWARDS: There are some bright ideas that have come already, as the minister may know. He may have read Law Reform for Sustainable Development in British Columbia, a book that came out. It has a total of 23 recommendations in its chapter on global warming and atmospheric change that it suggested for adoption through energy conservation. Very few of them have taken place in British Columbia. I would commend the minister to that particular consideration which has been given by the public — that is the public; that's who they are. They have some ideas. They've done some work on it, and that's what they came up with.

I would like to ask the minister if he would elaborate for me on the extension of gas services throughout B.C. and assistance for the extension of natural gas service, which was announced in the throne speech and, I believe, in the budget speech. There's nothing that I know of which has come out to describe that.

[4:00]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Extension of natural gas service, like the extension of power services into thin areas or rural areas of the province, tends to be expensive. The utilities — B.C. Gas, B.C. Hydro — have formulas. They'll take their pipe and power lines a certain distance down the road, but it depends on how many homes, factories or whatever are out there and how many miles have to be covered, and so on. At some point, which is established by their formulas, they cut off. They're not prepared to spend any more money than the amount allowed for in the formula.

The province, in the past and again beginning this year, has voted a certain sum of money - this year it will be $4 million — for extensions. It's really topping up the moneys that B.C. Gas and B.C. Hydro will make available for several dozen extensions, if possible this year. What our staff has done, in cooperation with those utilities, is to rate the proposals in economic order as to which makes the most sense and which the least, and we'll be doing some $4 million worth of work. In other words, these extensions are subsidized to a total of $4 million over and beyond where the utilities would normally go. It's a topping up process. It uses information supplied both by our ministry and by the utilities, and is decided on economic merit, let's call it: which serves the most people or serves an area with a new industry coming in, and so on, more effectively than another area that might otherwise get the money?

I hope we can continue this policy for some years. My impression is that were we to continue it for five, six, seven or eight years, we'd probably cover all of the remaining small centres of population which have any kind of claim to that service. There are a few that don't have natural gas. Revelstoke is an example. They will get gas in that five- to eight-year period. It's roughly a $20 million to $30 million challenge, and we are facing it by topping up the utility formulas for serving those areas, using economics as our test as to who gets what first.

[ Page 11363 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I have a personal interest in this, because I've moved into an area where we don't have natural gas anymore, and it makes a major problem and expense in heating my house. But I don't know that the criteria are very clear to me yet. Revelstoke, I know, has a much higher population than the centre in which I live or the centres in my riding which have been making a great case that they should have natural gas. I talk regularly to B.C. Gas about this, but I don't know what the criteria are to get access to this subsidization.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the member should perhaps talk to John Allan or Peter Ostergaard with our ministry. The criteria are fairly straightforward. It's a bit complex. As I say, we do rely on the utility for quite a few of the numbers, but they can give the hon. member some idea of where that particular community in which she lives stands in what appears to be the pecking order of things from an economic point of view.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I now want to deal with some public involvement issues that come up and seem to always bring us back to the issue of where the people were when this was being talked about or when we were talking about it.

I preface my remarks by a quotation from Mr. Bell, who is the chair of B.C. Hydro, as you know. He said at the third annual Electrical Energy Forum in Prince George that he is not happy with the adversarial nature of the public hearing process. This leads me to hope, of course, that we're going to have some different methods tried and some that will allow the public even greater say and greater involvement in some of the decisions that are made.

The first instance that comes to mind where the public needed more involvement and didn't have it is the issue of B.C. Hydro's recent application to the B.C. Utilities Commission for service rate increases, including increases in the reconnection charge — that was raised from $10 to $64 immediately — and increases in account charges and service connection charges. Now these will increase, and they will continue to increase. Past practice of the commission has been to hold public hearings into service charge increases, but in this case the Utilities Commission issued an order approving the changes after consulting only with the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Urban Development Institute.

Section 4 of the Utilities Commission Act — and I've written the minister about this, so he knows my position, but just to clarify it for the House — states that the commission may fix rates after a hearing, and section 101 of the act allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to order a public hearing when it's in the public interest.

The first question is: does the minister agree that public involvement and input is an important part of evaluating and dealing with these applications before the Utilities Commission?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the member that the public must have every opportunity to intervene in matters of this kind. I was surprised myself to suddenly see B.C. Hydro's announcement that it received the approval of the commission in this area. At least, the consumer advocates who interpreted Hydro's release and the commission's release have interpreted it wrongly and rather mischievously.

A reconnection. If you've had a connection and for some reason it's been discontinued but all the hardware is there, it will cost you $10 to get reconnected. That's not a big deal. The cost goes up from $5 to $10. These charges haven't been changed for 20 years.

The review dealt not just with connecting brand-new homes or existing homes, or new industry or existing industry, but also with extensions of some length. For example, who pays for a transformer on a pole if a transformer is needed? The new arrangement will be that Hydro pays for all those expensive items. The developer, or the person building a new home or industry, won't face those big, lumpy charges any longer but will have to pay $25 instead of $10, which has been the case for 20 years. They have scheduled increases year by year thereafter to cover the cost of the connection. Remember, this is a brand-new connection; it's a brand-new home; it's a brand-new factory. It's the first connection. It's the meter, the wires down to the meter and so on.

There's good and bad in this from a consumer point of view. The big, lumpy items-poles, transformers and so on — Hydro is going to pay for right up front and then collect it through the power bill. But the actual connection charge is rising. It's rising this year according to this ruling — from $10 where it's been for 20 years — to $25.

Hydro's contention is that people should know what these costs are and should pay the costs — no more, no less. I must say that this was an order of magnitude change across an area of considerable interest to the public. I'm surprised it didn't also require or involve a public hearing.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't know where you are getting your figures, but I do know that the charge for a reconnection has changed from $10 to $64. We were alerted to this when we had welfare people come into our office. That was an immediate jump, and they came in. As you may or may not know from your constituency office — but certainly from my constituency office — welfare recipients frequently have problems paying their Hydro. They have problems for any number of reasons that I don't want to go into, but they are probably the most frequent payers of reconnection charges of anybody in this province.

For a fee to go from $10 to $64 is a matter for considerable alarm. However, you and I may agree that people should pay the cost of the installation, but we don't know what the people feel, and we don't know what case has been made. I'm happy to hear that the minister says he was surprised there wasn't a public hearing. I wonder if the minister is

[ Page 11364 ]

going to ask the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to direct a public hearing and the Utilities Commission to hold its decision until such time as the public hearing has been held.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The commission has an application to reconsider on its books right now. I'm taking this under consideration — I'll put it that way.

The hon. member refers to a charge being raised from $10 to $64. This is the charge for people who haven't paid their bills for a long time. It's not a reconnection — simply connecting up again; in other words, just throwing a switch somewhere. Essentially that's all that's involved once the house or the plant is built, the meter is in place and so on. It's a charge levied against people who are habitual non-payers of bills. Those who administer our welfare services will have to contend with that as a cost and try to deal with it accordingly.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm well aware that the Minister of Energy may not feel that it's his responsibility to deal with the problems of welfare recipients, but if his constituency office is anything like mine, he will deal with it fairly frequently. I would like to suggest that even if the appeal to the commission is accepted and it retracts the order, it does not need to have a public hearing under the act. In this case a public hearing should be held. I would ask the minister whether he agrees with me that a public hearing should be held, in which case he must recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to so direct — unless the commission makes some decision.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I haven't taken this up in cabinet yet, so let's say it's under consideration.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to another presentation that has been made to me about issues of public involvement. The minister has also received this one, so he knows about it. It comes from the clerk of the village of Harrison Hot Springs.

Through their work through the UBCM, the UBCM has forwarded the resolution directly to you as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and requested appropriate amendments to the legislation to ensure that land use priorities established by local government are recognized. This one deals more with allowing the staking of mineral claims. The resolution says:

"Therefore be it resolved that the UBCM petition the provincial government for changes to the Mineral Act which would establish an approval process during the filing of mineral claims and which would require approval from a municipal council or regional district board where such claim areas fall within the jurisdictions of the municipality or regional district or greater board."

There have been any number of problems, as the minister knows. The business of being able to stake a claim almost anywhere in this province creates its own little flurry of activity around it, consistently across this province.

[4:15]

Recently a Mr. Musgrave has made a fuss about a mineral claim and what is going to happen to his property near Gold River. In that case again, a municipal government might have something to say. It may well be that there is no municipal government there; it may be a regional government. It might well have worked better for that case had a regional government had the opportunity to work there. The Union of B.C. Municipalities suggests that where a claim falls partly within the boundaries over which a municipal or regional government has some jurisdiction, there should be some requirement that they be Involved. Has the minister considered this resolution? If so, would he tell us what his consideration has brought forth?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The staff tell me that there has been one meeting between our staff and the people at Harrison Hot Springs, and they are trying to understand what the issue really is. Hopefully we will come to a resolution of it.

MS. EDWARDS: I believe that a resolution would involve something broader than simply a resolution of the Harrison Hot Springs problem, which deals with whether or not the hotel can expand. It's not the only one there; there are a number of them. Has the minister considered anything broader than simply dealing with a single issue?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I know nothing about this particular issue; my assistant deputy minister does. The member asks: "Has the ministry considered anything broader?" Currently we have underway a joint ministerial — or multiministerial — task force looking at gravel pits and how best to administer them from a zoning point of view, from the point of view of rehabilitation, to have a really understandable process where everyone — including the local municipalities, regional districts and Municipal Affairs — has their input.

It's an untidy situation which has existed for many years. Ontario has made an attempt to tidy theirs up, and we are pursuing what they have done. But it will be into next year before we have recommendations in that area. I am mentioning it only to indicate that we are quite prepared to work with other ministries and the municipalities in trying to improve, streamline, smooth out and make more sense out of the process of allowing a certain mineral development to proceed or, alternatively, to make sure it conforms in every way with local zoning requirements.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, the issue of environmental premiums in this province was announced by the Premier during a by-election last fall; however, the premiums themselves had no guidelines. As I understand it, the guidelines were only put together and finally taken to Treasury Board last week. Have we finally got some guidelines for environmental dividends? If we don't have the final word yet, is there going to be any public involvement in discussing the guidelines for those premiums?

[ Page 11365 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: The environmental premium is defined. It will really only apply to certain forest products operations and possibly one or two mineral developments where there has been a chronic situation — such as beehive burners which are likely to continue indefinitely unless there is some incentive provided to clean up beehive burners or have some disposal process or procedure which has been going on for a long time.

The general policy of the province is to have the polluter pay. The industry must clean up, at its cost. If it's proposing a new development, it pays all of the costs of meeting the environmental standards. But falling in between that and no policy at all there are a few situations such as waste wood from sawmills.

Looking around North America, it seemed that there were a few jurisdictions — several states certainly — that have a policy of an allowance of less than, and not more than, 15 percent on price. In this case the price of power generated using that waste wood would be credited to that development. Whether or not the Williams Lake development will require the 15 percent is yet to be established. That's the most they could hope for, and it would be in the higher price paid by B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro, in turn, would collect that money from the province — very nominally, I'll say — through reducing its dividend payment to the province by a corresponding amount in the year in which those expenses were incurred. It's a subsidy of up to 15 percent in situations where requiring the industry to pay all the costs just doesn't work.

There's no way that the beehive-burner situation in Williams Lake — there are similar ones in Quesnel and elsewhere — will occur unless there's some assistance. In Williams Lake it's not clear that there's assistance needed; maybe they can produce the power at the low competitive rate anyway. If they can, they won't get assistance. The maximum assistance is 15 percent. It is paid by the taxpayer, not by the user of power in the province.

MS. EDWARDS: The question, of course, is: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the announcement come first and then the decision, or did the premiums come first? What are the guidelines? When are they going to be made public so that the people who want to go for projects know whether or not they are going to be eligible for an environmental premium when they apply for an independent power project certificate, an energy certificate, as independent power producers? When are the guidelines going to be made public so that it is open to everybody, not just the Williams Lake project?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are only two projects about to get underway in the province. There will be others. Companies or consortia which are interested in an independent power project or a co-generation project already know about this. We haven't produced a pamphlet for general distribution, but certainly anyone with any interest in competing or responding to B.C. Hydro's call for expressions of interest knows what the situation is now. They know it's a maximum of 15 percent and that it only applies in respect of a few situations, such as the cluster of beehive burners at Williams Lake. I could perhaps name half a dozen other locations around the province, including the East Kootenay, where an untidy environmental situation can be addressed through the utilization of wood waste, generally where there are several sawmills producing useful electricity and steam.

MS. EDWARDS: "Untidy environmental situation" is not how I've had it described to me. I've had the guidelines described as meant to deal with two situations: the possibility of the generation of energy from wood waste and the generation of energy from garbage, from solid waste. Those were the only two, until you stood up and said it would possibly be for mineral developments too. Could the minister elaborate? What I've been told is that unless the proponent suggests that he will clean up an existing environmental problem, the premium will not be available. In other words, it is not adequate to simply be "an untidy environmental situation." You cannot simply go in and say: "Look, I have a marvellous environmentally friendly project." You have to go in and say: "There is a mess here. If I get a premium of up to 15 percent" — why that number was decided upon I'm not sure, but the minister may know — "I can clean up this environmental problem with my project." Is that the case? That's how I've had it described to me. Or is it in fact a little sludgier on the edges than that? Is it soft and pliable?

I might say to the minister that it's all very well to say that everybody who responds to the request for proposals that Hydro puts out knows about it. But that's not public. Let's make it public; let's lay out the criteria and let everybody know what it's going to be offered for. We the taxpayers are paying for it, so we the taxpayers should know what is being paid for.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I mentioned two projects that are about to get underway. One is the big Port Mellon redevelopment. It doesn't qualify. It's really low-cost power. There's no need for any kind of support to make that project come off. The only one that's qualified to date is the Williams Lake development, which utilizes exclusively wood wastes from sawmills.

Fording Coal applied because they are using waste coal. The answer is: "No way. You created the waste coal pile; it's your problem." It's not there for a candidate to receive that kind of support, nor would Westar's possible development utilizing coal wastes and so on. The project, in each of those cases, would have to be economical and stand on its own feet with no help from government under the heading "environmental premium." The only two areas where this will work is wood wastes from around sawmills, and the other is possibly garbage disposal situations, although the economics of producing power from garbage are so bad that it doesn't look as if we have any real projects offered at this moment.

[ Page 11366 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Perhaps this is the time to ask you about independent power producers and when they make proposals. I presume we are going to have more and more independent power producers tying into the grid and so on. Did the minister say that there will be no requirement for them to have public hearings before they go to their projects? I presume they wouldn't qualify for a major project review process, but some of those projects may create a great deal of controversy in a community. I don't know where the minister is on that. Would the minister inform me as to the state of it as far as assuring that the people in a region where an independent power project is proposed would have the opportunity to hear what's going on, to give some input and to have their feelings heard?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I can say categorically that any power development project of any size or impact locally — let alone province wide — will go through a public review process. It may be a process instituted by the ministry, but more likely the Utilities Commission will review the project in the full public view.

Certainly a sizeable production of power — if it's for sale to B.C. Hydro or for export — will have to go through all stages. Before that is a real project, the company or companies involved will have to produce sales contracts for the output of the plant covering the life of the plant, and will have to produce reasonable estimates of costs to show that there is an element of profitability. In other words, they are not likely to come back on the treasury at any point to honour their commitments.

The environmental side, which often is significant in cases like this, will have to be covered very thoroughly and provincial standards met in all cases. The hearings will be held in the area where the development is proposed to occur.

[4:30]

MS. EDWARDS: B.C. Hydro's 1990 plan talks about work proceeding on Peace Site C environmental and socioeconomic studies, a joint provincial and federal hearing being required and work going ahead to see how that kind of joint hearing can be held. Can the minister comment on where we are right now as far as deciding how we will have joint hearings? Perhaps the best example is Site C with the environmental appeal and review process of the federal government along with the provincial requirements.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Site C. It wouldn't have occurred to people concerned about the environment in the province ten years ago that Site C is on a river that flows into another province, and there are concerns. Fisheries was certainly one then, but there are other concerns like the issuance of a licence to put work in navigable water and so on. They all involve the federal side.

Unless there's a process in place — procedure, hearings, etc. in sequence — the federal government will institute its own hearings. As was the case with the Vancouver Island pipeline, there were federal concerns. The federal government through its various departments had observers there throughout, and they advised us continuously as to what their standards and concerns were and we — or the Utilities Commission, or certainly the company — were able to convince them that their concerns would indeed be met and more than covered. That's really how we're hoping developments like a new power project will be covered, that there won't have to be hearings provincial and hearings federal, but there would be one set of hearings where the federal government was involved to a greater or lesser extent.

In Site C it will be concerned to quite an extent. We obviously want to avoid any repetition of the Oldman River situation in Alberta or the Rafferty dam problem in Saskatchewan, where there was a federal requirement in law that was simply ignored. Because it was ignored, the project was suddenly called to a halt when the federal process had not been honoured.

MS. EDWARDS: There's an announcement of an agreement with the United States. The announcement came on July 11 that the Columbia River coordination agreement has been signed between B.C. Hydro and the Bonneville Power Administration. This agreement works around the Columbia River Treaty and works with non-treaty storage.

The employees of B.C. Hydro were told before such time this agreement was sought that there would be a process of public consultation and ongoing opportunities for residents to exchange views with Hydro, which will in turn permit B.C. Hydro to identify and address possible impacts and concerns. There was a promise that the public consultation process program is currently in its initial stages. B.C. Hydro is providing copies of the environmental impact assessment to local and regional governments, as well as relevant provincial agencies, as a first step in public consultation.

All of this came out I believe in May sometime — it was certainly before June. It was shortly before the announcement that the agreement had been signed. All of the investigations that I did indicated there had been no public consultation. I asked for the environmental impact assessment, which I did not receive, as far as I know. I don't know whether regional governments and so on got it.

As far as I know, there were no public meetings. I'd like to know what the minister sees as a public consultation process around this very important agreement which will have major effect and impact on the people of Revelstoke in particular, but also on the tourism, the recreation and the forest and fishery resources for both the Mica Dam and the Revelstoke Dam.

HON. MR. DAVIS: We recently passed an order-in-council which declared that project — I'll call it a project — a regulated one, which means that the B.C. Utilities Commission has to look at it from various

[ Page 11367 ]

points of view, including environmental concerns. So there will be hearings and there will be due process.

I don't think I'm telling any secrets by saying that B.C. Hydro is not accustomed to this kind of review, and B.C. Hydro is still resisting any thought that an agreement that it enters into with a foreign utility — in this case the Bonneville Power Administration — be subject to further reviews.

I could draw a parallel. You could have an independent power producer in British Columbia sign a contract with a U.S. importer for power, but that's only the beginning of the process. There have to be hearings. The whole thing has to be out in the full public view. It has to be examined from all sides. And we, the government, are insisting that on this one, while there is an agreement between the two utilities, the project is not a whole project until it's gone through the Utilities Commission and a public hearing is held.

I'd be less than frank also if I didn't say that one of the reasons we're doing this is that if we don't do it, the feds are going to do it. It's an international river; it's an international development. We are assuming certain obligations which extend into the United States and vice versa, so there will be due process.

We know there's an agreement between Hydro and Bonneville. Those parties are saying they've done certain environmental studies. They may not have done all the studies that are needed, I don't know, but we'll see. We've got roughly two years in which to clean it all up.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm very pleased to hear that answer, Mr. Minister, because I had some major concerns about this issue having gone to an actual agreement being signed with no public involvement whatsoever. Even the B.C. Hydro materials that were put out named the problems for which they were going to have to mitigate. If that was laid out, obviously, in B.C. Hydro's viewpoint, there might be even more extreme views of those very same problems by other people, particularly the people in Revelstoke who have lived with a lot of dust storms over the years that come from low water in the reservoir behind the Revelstoke Dam.

Mr. Minister, I want to change now and talk about electrical energy. I asked you about the comprehensive energy plan, which you said you thought should be available in late August, I believe.

I also want to ask you about a re-examination by B.C. Hydro of its obligation to serve. I refer to the "Electrical Issues For the Nineties" paper. In this paper it's very interesting that B.C. Hydro suggests.... Here we are; I just don't have it marked Under the section on the obligation to serve — there's a whole section on it in this issues paper, Mr Minister — it says, "In the past the assumption was that provincial benefits have resulted...." It says: "In today's environment of rising costs and fairly comprehensive provincial infrastructure, the obligation to serve has to be examined." I assume that that means not, "Do we serve or do we not serve?" but "What is our obligation to serve the public?" The whole section concludes with the statement: "No clear policy exists. The issue of obligation to serve has continued to be tested case by case, community by community, with economics, desired community development and fairness to other customers who must bear the cost all playing a role." It says: "We will be making a submission to the BCUC within the next year seeking clarification."

Can the minister clarify for me how B.C. Hydro is going to arrive at its new statement of what its obligation to serve is? What part will the minister and the ministry have in it? What part will the Utilities Commission have in it? At what point will B.C. Hydro know what its obligation to serve is?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Later this year we will be publishing a paper talking about this subject, obligation to serve, and then we'll refer it to the Utilities Commission for a review. It's a big subject. I think B.C. Hydro, properly, is asking for guidance in this area. They go so far down the road and no further. They don't supply everybody everywhere in the province regardless of cost, for example. What are the reasonable cutoffs? That's a simplistic characterization of the problem; it's more than that.

Yes, it's been hazy for years, and hopefully we'll get some clarification not only as to how far each utility is obliged to go before the province moves in and supplements, as in the case of those gas- and bar-line extensions, but also as to how the utilities should deal with each other in selling power backward and forward. Is B.C. Hydro obliged to sell to West Kootenay at its average cost, or at the appropriate industrial rate in its published tariff, or can Hydro charge all the market will bear — in other words, looking at West Kootenay's alternatives and just shaving their price a little bit under West Kootenay's alternate costs? Those subjects also come up. It'll cover a lot of territory and areas where there has not been clear policy guidance heretofore.

The hon. member refers to the paper we're publishing in late August, early September. It's not a plan; it's a policy paper.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure if I missed it, but did the minister tell me what the Utilities Commission's part in this is?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Essentially it's a public review to take them various materials it receives. To make it really tangible, Hydro would propose that its obligation to serve is A, B, C, and D, and then we would all have at it and end up with a generally agreed policy.

MS. EDWARDS: At a recent Utilities Commission hearing on B.C. Hydro's application for an increase in rates, the commission in rendering its hearing made some statements as well on Powerex and the proposals of B.C. Hydro to use its newly created Powerex subsidiary as the agency to deal with power pooling in British Columbia. The commission had some major concerns — concerns which I share, by the way —that Powerex is not independent enough from B.C.

[ Page 11368 ]

Hydro to be sure, without some considerable examination, that the customers, the ordinary consumers of power in British Columbia, are not or would not be subsidizing sales of power, particularly export sales. The Utilities Commission was very clear on that. One of the quotations from the decision was that "the commission determines that the existing arrangement between Powerex and B.C. Hydro is inadequate to protect the interests of B.C. Hydro's domestic customers. In the current form, Powerex places the domestic customers at risk with respect to the commercial arrangement it undertakes." I wonder what actions the minister has taken to ensure that B.C. Hydro's domestic customers are not put at risk through the activities of Powerex.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, clearly we have to define with much greater certainty the role of Powerex in creating a power pool that will allow various suppliers and buyers to buy on a relatively short-term basis, trading power backward and forward not only within the province but into and out of the province. There cannot be any subsidy from B.C. Hydro to that operation. The B.C. consumer of power has to be fully insulated against any possible losses which Powerex might incur in launching that pool operation and maintaining it.

[4:45]

The main reason for involving Hydro is that it has the transmission facilities — in most instances, anyway — that will be utilized. Hydro will have to be fully compensated for the use of those facilities. I personally don't see B.C. Hydro through Powerex being anything like as active a player in the export business as some people might think. I'm surprised that the commission really raised this subject; they devoted several pages to it, when they were really supposed to be focusing on the general level of income of Hydro and whether Hydro needed a rate increase. Clearly the commission doesn't have a clear idea of the role of Powerex. We have to make it abundantly clear so there's no possibility of any sudden cross-subsidization of any export activity by Hydro's customers.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, that it would be any great surprise that the commission talked about Powerex. It was central to a lot of the discussion when I attended a couple of times. The commission also said in its decision that B.C. Hydro appears to be carrying out interruptible sales for Powerex while, on an initial accounting basis, receiving less profit than before Powerex was created. Does the minister consider this to be an efficient method of handling sales through Powerex? Presumably these would be export sales. The power pooling is not necessarily export, but the Powerex sales are supposed to be export sales.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I repeat that Hydro is not supposed in any way to be subsidizing the export of power from other producers of power. We really don't export power on a firm basis at all; we do it on an if, as and when basis. Hydro is the only business in town doing it, if I ignore West Kootenay, which doesn't go over Hydro lines. I don't quite know what that statement intends to say. If you add Powerex and Hydro together, surely the income is the same as it was before. Perhaps the salaries of one or two former Hydro officials who are now with Powerex and said to be looking at long-term export prospects are being deducted from what otherwise would be income from export sales, but I can't imagine those costs being more than a tiny fraction of the total income from export sales. In any case, we just simply have to clear up those uncertainties and make sure that Powerex is in no way in the business of intercepting income to Hydro from the sale of interruptible power on an occasional basis to the United States.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: Of course, there is an expectation of considerably more export of power, and it will be firm power — and that's what the minister has said he's planning to do. I don't know when; the minister has to tell me that. Presumably that was why Powerex was set up. The minister says if you add B.C. Hydro and Powerex incomes together, it's the same as before. That doesn't seem to be what the commission found. It was getting less. But the point is that they are not the same, and they haven't yet been made different, and the commission is concerned that they are not existing as separate entities, however. Another problem is that if you want competition, you don't say that one of them does not interfere with what the other does.

The commission suggested that Powerex's expectation would not compete with B.C. Hydro, and that implies a restraint on competition. Presumably there is never going to be a great deal of competition between Powerex and Hydro, but the commission was worried. Does the minister think that restraint of competition is an appropriate action between Hydro and Powerex?

"It's the commission's view" — another quotation, Mr. Chairman — "that Powerex should be a stand-alone export marketing company. In this way Powerex will be evaluated as to whether it's able to add value to export sales, as was originally planned. And Powerex should provide incremental benefits sufficient to justify any receipts it receives from B.C. Hydro sales, including interruptible sales."

The commission made those comments on April 30, and less than a month later the chairman of B.C. Hydro was touting Powerex as a subsidiary of B.C. Hydro. I would like to know if the minister thinks that the subsidiary relationship between Hydro and Powerex will allow anyone to evaluate the success or failure of Powerex alone, or will it simply have to be considered as part of the total Hydro picture?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, my view of the role of Powerex has changed somewhat. I think it will really only be the administrative agency that facilitates the development of this power pool where

[ Page 11369 ]

Hydro sells in and sells out and others sell in and sell out, and it must generate more income than it has costs. To what extent it's a profit centre for Hydro I don't know, but it will not be in the long-term export business. An independent power producer — and I assume these are only private companies — who finally manages to get a project cleared through hearings and so on will be solely and totally responsible for its costs, for the honouring of its export contracts and so on.

The reason we used several people from Hydro in these early stages is that Hydro is the only outfit in this province that has an ongoing business relationship with the utilities to the south. So, in effect, Hydro asked two people to continue to advise us and Hydro on what the prospects were — short-, medium- and long-term — to trade in power. We just haven't been a major exporter of power. We haven't ever exported power firm. When we'll get a project that meets all the criteria we've established I certainly don't know. Personally I'd be surprised if we had one under construction within the next three or four years.

The only projects that currently seem to be economic, or at least lowest cost, are gas-fired plants near the border. Their major problem is that while you can buy gas for the next couple of years, no one's really prepared to sell gas for 25 years at a known price. So even the gas-fired projects have a big question mark over them.

Coal and coal-fired plants — the environmental questions are numerous, and for plants located in narrow valleys and so on there are additional cost obstacles. We'll have to have the highest standards anywhere in North America in order to qualify for any export of power from coal-fired plants — indeed from any fuel-fired plant. And while it's easy to imagine developments, we really haven't generated any firm inquiries yet. There is a lot of interest but not much follow-through.

MS. EDWARDS: I still see the problem as how the commission views Powerex and what's going on, because the commission has said: "Unless Powerex is restructured to preclude financial risk for domestic customers, the commission will have no alternative but to regulate B.C. Hydro so as to effectively review all sales by Powerex." That's what the commission says it is going to do — this is the power-pooling proposal. Whereas Hydro, within weeks afterwards, issued a statement saying: "We see this approach acting as an efficient market-maker and a totally deregulated open-access environment, one that will be unique in North America." Obviously the commission and B.C. Hydro are headed for each other unless the minister has some other view. Presumably the minister is not going to tell the commission what it should do; but it may have some policy, and it does tell Hydro what to do. The two statements seem to be totally at cross-purposes.

While the commission talks about having to assure that it is independent, it will regulate Hydro in every deal, in every transaction that goes through. Then Powerex reaffirms its subsidiary status and announces that it will be operating and deregulated. Who is right? Does the minister have a view on whether the commission is right in its statement that Powerex should be independent? Or is Hydro right in wanting Powerex to stay as a subsidiary?

I recognize that the minister is backing off what he said about.... Well, maybe he's not backing off. He is saying that the expected increase in export sales of firm power will be done through independent power producers, not through Hydro. Nevertheless, we have a situation where it is very probable that Powerex is looking to broaden its base and sell power for export. What does the minister say about that? Does the minister see it being concluded and resolved? Or does he see it as a conclusion that is going to be decided at some point when the commission steps in and says what's what?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Clearly the government, through this ministry, has to establish with finality the broad policy guidelines which cover these kinds of activity. My inclination right now is to limit Powerex to the power pool operation and simply say to the private companies: "You go out and line up your own market. The power pool is essentially a short-term operation. What you will be involved in, if you are successful in getting contracts and containing your costs, is a one-way sale for a definite term of years. You won't be involved with Powerex at all." I'm talking about long-term sales; I'm not talking about day-by-day, week-by-week shopping around.

I don't think there is too much wrong in Hydro being the "chairman, " if you like, of a power pool operation. Certainly that's the role of the Bonneville Power Administration in the big pool in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. That operation has to be, if anything, a profit centre. It can't be a cost centre; it can't involve costs to Hydro. The only reason Hydro chairs that little operation is that its facilities, its powerlines, really make the pooling possible. So Hydro must be sure that it gets an adequate return on those facilities.

The commission was saying that it wasn't fully informed as to the future of Powerex. It didn't ask the ministry people to appear to give it any information; it simply threw out a number of questions. They are good questions, and they have to be answered. But Hydro will not be subsidizing any export business.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to ask the minister about rates and the environment. The B.C. rate application, as the minister knows, said that Hydro wanted to increase its rates in order to effect further conservation; that the environment is the centre of our issues today, and if we could get conservation by increasing the rates, that would save the environment. However, there are a number of problems in Hydro's statement of the issues when it talks about its rate structure.

[5:00]

In the issues section there is a statement: "The price signal" - in other words, when you have rate

[ Page 11370 ]

changes — "should reflect the cost of building or purchasing...." But that is not what B.C. Hydro said when it went to the B.C. Utilities Commission. It said very clearly that the price signal — in other words, the environmental signal — would affect the environment by achieving conservation. Which would the minister say is so? Does he expect that the price signal will continue to reflect the cost? Or will the price signal begin to reflect what we want done with our environment?

HON. MR. DAVIS: That is a good question. I have been around it a number of times, and I must say that I am tempted to go in one direction first. I have concluded that rates must reflect costs, and costs only. This business of getting into using rates to determine the behaviour of customers — forcing them, if you like, to use more efficient equipment and so on — is marginal. Our power prices are low. It would take a remarkable increase in price to really influence a significant number of people in a big way as to how much power they use.

Hydro's rates will continue to reflect its costs. That's the engineering type of approach. Essentially it's historic or tends to be a backward-looking approach, but at least it has some certainty to it. If you get into projections and then estimates, inevitably you are getting into an area of guesswork. When regulators try to regulate on the basis of guesses, they've got a problem.

This last hearing was really caught somewhere between historic cost-setting rates and statements such as: "This is a hearing about the environment, not about rates." It was a hearing about rates.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about dividends?

HON. MR. DAVIS: One hon. member says: "What about dividends?" Dividends are a cost, and the cost has to be identified. In other words, the public's return on its investment should be there too. Then the regulatory commission at least has some pretty hard information on which to base its rates. If many aspects of what the commission is dealing with are projections — and we can all debate those projections, particularly low growth — it's going to be very hard to reach any kind of consensus.

MS. EDWARDS: What the minister says is consistent with another statement in the same section under "Rate Structure." It says: "Paying customers to conserve directly through the rates would not give the right price signal for making operating decisions." That's what it says here, which is confusing, considering all the statements that Hydro has made. It has made almost all of them. My question to the minister is: how will this affect the rate structure proposal that B.C. Hydro is going to put forward in December? If the minister is now convinced that we establish the rates based on costs, and we simply don't say that if it's a higher rate we will achieve conservation, what will be the basis for the Hydro application to restructure its rate formula?

There are many ways to do that, I would suggest to the minister. Does that mean that B.C. Hydro is going to consider it? If it really is going to consider all costs, and it considers a dividend to the people of the province through the government to be a real cost, does it also consider, when we have a project such as the damming of a river, that there are the social and environmental costs which are actually put in there? Does the minister see that that's going in?

Will this application for a rate restructuring include those kinds of costs, as well as the other cost which the minister says is a dividend cost? If we're really only going to consider costs and not just a proposal that we charge more people who use less, what is going to come forward? What will be the costs on which this application will be made in December?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Regarding projects — Site C, for example — Hydro must include all costs, including those relating to ensuring that the environment is fully protected, the cost of the hearings, and on and on. The users of B.C. Hydro service will pay the bill and cover all those costs.

The hearing this fall is not dealing with Site C specifically or any other project. What the hearing this fall is dealing with is the general structure of rates. Traditionally, in the power industry particularly, it's been assumed that the more electricity one used, the more economies of scale came into account and the more efficient the supplier could be. In other words, the more power you use, the more efficient Hydro will be.

That may have been the case in years past, but from now on a case can easily be made for the reverse: that the more power you use, the more you should pay per kilowatt-hour, or at least that you pay some average price per kilowatt-hour across all of your consumption, regardless of whether you use a little or a lot; and that we get away from the old-style rate structures — all of Hydro's rate structures — where the price you pay declines as you use more.

It's a hearing that's going to address the structure of rates. So essentially it's focusing on whether rates should decline with volume, be an average rate or cost, or rise over volume, and on what criteria should be used in establishing those curves. But it's sort of the shape of rates. That's what that hearing is about, not a review again of Hydro's total income and whether Hydro needs an overall rate increase, but whether the individual rates should not themselves be redrawn.

You can make a case for the first block being a lesser price than later blocks and so on, so that's really what that hearing will be about — the shape of the rate curve as it applies to different classes of customers.

MS. EDWARDS: With respect, I totally disagree with the minister that B.C. Hydro's customers pay the total cost. They have not paid the total cost, for example, of the hydro projects that we've had over the years, and I can assure you that there are people

[ Page 11371 ]

in the Columbia River basin that are paying the costs themselves, and they are not paying it to Hydro to be paid. It did not go that way. There were social costs; there were environmental costs that were not calculated into the equation.

Of course, you're correct that what Hydro is going to be taking to the Utilities Commission is how we shape the amount that everybody pays. But it also could well be that Hydro suggests, if the minister supposed, that there be some proposal as to how we deal with other costs, such as environmental or social costs, and whether the minister intends to increase the amount of dividend that might be required by the government from Hydro, because as you say, that wouldn't deal with the shaping of it. But it could deal with the shaping of it, whether or not you include costs that have not previously been included. I put those costs as social and environmental costs, and they have not previously been included totally.

There's no question that the environmental costs around even the Libby reservoir — the Koocanusa reservoir — were not paid, that they're being paid by other people, They're being borne by other people in different ways.

I would like to ask the minister now about some of the applications for independent power projects. In the 1990 B.C. Hydro plan it is described very carefully what the priorities are for the order in which we shall develop electricity generation. There are different lists of analysis, but we have PowerSmart, ResourceSmart, coordination of purchases, self-generation and co-generation and so on and so forth.

I would like to ask the minister how he sees that working with the number of projects that have been received and put on shortlists by B.C. Hydro. As these independent power producers make application, they are put on shortlists. They don't necessarily fit into these priorities at all. Does the minister see that becoming something of more significance in the future? For example, I have to name the coal generation and even the natural gas generation, which are below where the priorities are in the province.

HON. MR. DAVIS: B.C. Hydro tells us — and we've lots of information to confirm this — that there are what I'll call resources available to Hydro that are cheaper and can be made available at less cost than the traditional old way of simply building larger hydro projects.

The first and most interesting is PowerSmart, which is essentially conservation, or the user of electricity using electricity more efficiently. Hydro intends to invest certain moneys in getting people to install modern, well-insulated refrigerators and on and on. The cost of that resource is considerably less than having to build a brand-new plant to supply. So PowerSmart comes in as a resource, something on which Hydro should spend money, to get the consumer to change his or her habits, It's number one. It's first priority, partly because it simply conserves energy, but equally important, because it's by far the cheapest way; it's least-cost. PowerSmart — or call it conservation or efficiency in use — is number one.

Number two is simply what is called ResourceSmart. What it really means is that Hydro is going back to existing dams and existing facilities and digging out a tail-race, or raising the dam a few feet, or simply enlarging a penstock size or whatever. Tinkering with the design which went in 25 years ago and producing more power at that site — including better utilization of water — turns out, in a number of instances, to be far cheaper than building a brand-new plant. So that's number two, and it gets in mostly because it's less expensive than going out and building a totally new dam with all its transmission line appurtenances and so on.

Purchases or trading with neighbouring utilities. Hydro has been able to strike a really good deal with Alcan to buy some of Alcan's low-cost power and trade water as well with Alcan and get an additional supply of energy at a price well below that of starting on a Site C. That's again ahead of building Site C. That's number three on Hydro's list.

Then it gets into the possibilities of co-generation: that is, working with existing industry which has been a customer but which has waste wood and pulp mill liquors which it can burn to produce some of its own steam and some of its own power. Even on a time-sell of surplus power to Hydro, that's also a lesser cost than building a Site C.

Independent power producers. There could be a privately financed project, or projects, which are lower in delivered cost and lower-in-the-lower-mainland delivered cost, if you like, than a Site C. Again, they proceed ahead of a Site C — I'm using Site C simply as some kind of benchmark.

I'm looking at a table which says: "Cost of Electricity Supply Options." It's in cents per kilowatt-hour. It is supplied by Hydro and shows Power-Smart as producing power at 2.4 cents a kilowatt-hour. I think if it had talked about.... Co-generation is 2.9 cents. ResourceSmart — that's redeveloping some of its own plant — is 3.5 cents. It could buy from independent power producers for 3.8 cents — obviously they know projects that come in around that figure — whereas Site C is between 5 cents and 6 cents. So it simply illustrates that these alternatives are worth examining, PowerSmart, namely efficiency in use, being the most attractive of all. So Hydro is taking a very different look at power supply than the traditional approach, which was simply building more dams and power lines.

[5:15]

MS. EDWARDS: Some of the proposals from the independent power producers have been way down on the list, Mr. Minister, and that was basically part of my question. They are certainly below one of the options, which is downstream benefits. The government has said that it's going to reclaim the downstream benefits from the Columbia River Treaty but has not yet said what it's going to do with them. Has the minister yet decided whether or not those downstream benefits will be made available to B.C. Hydro?

[ Page 11372 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, the government hasn't decided what to do with these benefits, which will become available beginning in 1998 and really be all deliverable around the year 2003. We are a decade away from that energy actually arriving or being available. A future government may decide to turn all or part of it over to Hydro, but it may just as well use it to facilitate certain industrial developments — in other words, for economic development purposes — or even sell it outside of B.C.

I certainly would be opposed to that, especially at today's prices. That energy should be priced at all the market will bear and should have nothing to do with past costs. The cost of that energy delivered to the border, of bringing it up to Canada, is next to zero. It's the best, least-cost power we'll ever see in this province. It's order of magnitude is of the scale of Site C. I'd hate to think that this good-news item resulted in upsetting all of the future planning of B.C. Hydro, but it's there. It belongs to the people of the province; it doesn't belong to B.C. Hydro. To say today that it's earmarked and committed to Hydro would be wrong. It would be really wrong to indicate that at some point we're going to leave it in the United States.

MS. EDWARDS: Has the minister been conducting any negotiations with anybody other than B.C. Hydro who might want to buy the downstream benefits?

HON. MR. DAVIS: That would simply make nonsense of our policy. There's no way I would discuss with anyone the sale of downstream benefits.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to talk a bit about the Alcan and Kemano completion project. The agreement signed by the federal and provincial governments and Alcan in 1987 include the result that the Nechako River will fall to 12 percent of the level it was at before the original agreement. When the project is done, Kemano will be the largest generating plant in B.C., as you are aware. For the record, it's 1,346 megawatts. Can the minister confirm his statement last year that Alcan is an unregulated utility? Given that it is now selling to B.C. Hydro and thus to the consumers of British Columbia, is Alcan going to continue as an unregulated producer — the largest generator of electricity in the province? Or is the minister going to require any regulation of this generator?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is wrong on several counts. The Revelstoke Dam is considerably larger than the Kemano developments combined, as is the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. The latter is 2,400 megawatts; Revelstoke is around 1,800. It's a sizeable producer, including the Kemano 2 aspect. No, it isn't a regulated development. It won't be regulated, but the power Hydro buys from it is regulated. So Hydro must table at hearings its purchase agreement with Alcan, and that is subject to review by the Utilities Commission.

MS. EDWARDS: I thank the minister for correcting me on that. I had a bad note. However, the original agreement that the province signed with Alcan in the fifties granted the company the right to use the power from the rivers they dammed to provide power for a smelter at Kitimat. The agreement was expanded in 1987, and that led to an agreement between Alcan and Hydro for Hydro to purchase the 285 megawatts from Alcan. Last July the minister told the House that none of the electricity generated at Alcan will be exported. Now this summer a Hydro spokesman says that Hydro is indeed exporting some of Alcan's power to the United States. Does the minister think that exporting Alcan's power violates the intent of the original 1950 agreement, which was meant to provide jobs and industrial development for the northwest of this province? The whole business of that promise was canvassed extremely extensively by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) last session, so I don't want to go into it totally again. Does the minister think that it violates the terms and the spirit of that agreement to be now exporting power from the Kemano project into the U.S.?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's kind of silly of Hydro to say it's exporting Kemano power. Hydro has a grid system, and it has input at different points. On occasion it has a surplus, which it dumps into the United States. But I defy Hydro to say that kilowatt hours that go into the United States all originate at Kemano — or a significant proportion of them. Anybody who supplies Hydro anywhere can be accused of exporting, but Hydro is only exporting on a very short-term basis whatever surplus it has contracted and can't use at the moment. But let's be serious. It isn't economic. It certainly wasn't economic to build a plant up in Kemano and ship output to the United States. It isn't economic if a pulp mill — and this was considered in Howe Sound — shopped around and among other things went to the aluminium company and said, "Will you supply us? Hydro will wheel it over their lines." The answer was a flat no. Hydro's charge over their lines just rule it out. It's uneconomic to bring Kemano power down to Howe Sound and so on, so it's kind of silly to talk about exporting Kemano power to the United States.

MS. EDWARDS: The other side of the equation was of course the promise that Alcan, with its Kemano project and with the generation of all that power, would use that power to enhance the industrial development in the northwest part of the province. Various community centres in the province have paid a considerable price for what has happened at the Kemano project. With the river down to 12 percent of what it used to be and with pulp mills at Prince George and so on, the dilution factor isn't there. The temperature has raised and the fish life is affected. There are a number of sacrifices that the people of British Columbia have paid for the agreement that allowed that project to go ahead.

After the 1987 agreement, Alcan announced that it planned to use the additional power to finance

[ Page 11373 ]

industries in the region. It wasn't that it just said it earlier; it said it again after the 1987 agreement, and it said it was investigating at least one additional aluminium smelter. It was investigating the production of industrial gases and aluminium engine blocks in Vanderhoof.

Can the minister tell the House how many additional industrial activities have begun in the northwest of the province as a result of the 1987 Kemano completion agreement?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, this additional power will be available in about five or six years' time, so the member is asking what industry is going to be locating up there in five or six years' time. Alcan has a much lower cost development than the best that Hydro has. Alcan is therefore in a position to deliver power at lower prices to industry in the northwestern corner of the province.

To the extent that power-using industries make sense up there, I'm sure Alcan will be the principal supplier. Its development is good news to the region. How fast industry will move in to take advantage of a low price for power — certainly far lower than Hydro can quote — I just don't know. The contractual arrangements between Alcan and Hydro envisage some swapping backward and forward while the tunnel is under construction, because they may have to shut down their main tunnel for a bit. B.C. Hydro is, in other words, supplying Alcan's smelter for a time. But in the longer term, as customers come on the line in Alcan's corner of the province, obligations to deliver to B.C. Hydro disappear.

Alcan can obtain interim revenue from B.C. Hydro, but Alcan's intention is to be a non-regulated supplier of industry and not a utility selling to homes, stores and small industry. Alcan is a resource for the future, and hopefully there will be some industries going to that corner of the province because of its cheap power.

But we're still some years away from any tangible results in that area; it will take quite a time to complete the Kemano project. With the Nechako River and its flows, the only way that agreement was possible was with federal Fisheries and Oceans agreeing totally to the end effects of the reduced flows. Of course, there are provisions in the agreement whereby at certain times of the year the discharges from the Kenney Dam have to be greater than they have been in recent years.

MS. EDWARDS: Of course, one should know five or six years before if there were some major projects going. I know that Alcan suggested another smelter of its own. There's a proposal for another smelter in Quebec, so there's no question that there is need and a market for another aluminium smelter in the country. Alcan itself seems not to have taken advantage of that opportunity. There are as yet no industrial activities or extra permanent jobs there for the people of Vanderhoof, who in fact have had 78 percent of their river taken away for private power production.

I might say, as the minister says, that Alcan produces power much more cheaply than B.C. Hydro — thanks to the people of British Columbia, by the way. It was not only the federal Minister of Fisheries who made concessions for Alcan; it was the people of the province who talked about their water licence, which makes a considerable difference for Kemano.

The minister is always going to be responsible for this kind of an agreement with Alcan — whether the company that got all the concessions is delivering on the promises it made in order to get those concessions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move on to some issues that have more to do with mining, and I think Mr. McRae is finally going to have some reason to be here. Thank you to Mr. McRae, Mr. Allan and the other staff member for being here and listening to our debate this afternoon.

I want to talk a bit about the Iskut road. I have a bit to say about it too, but I am going to have my colleague from Prince Rupert lead off the debate on that.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, after all the debate in the last couple of days, I thought it was clear that I come from the west — not the east.

I have been following this Iskut road development fairly closely and have talked to some of your officials. I just want to find out where we are now. I appreciate that the Premier made an announcement in May. I thought he overreached a touch in terms of the other opportunities, particularly forestry. I am advised that there is not a significant forestry potential in the area. In any event, it would all have to be exported in order to be economically viable.

First of all, with respect to the work that had been done previously on the cost.... I know they had gone through a couple of scenarios — a base case scenario — and the argument was put forward that even under the base case, the numbers were good enough to justify the construction of the road. I am just wondering if the closure of the Johnny Mountain mine has affected those numbers to any extent.

[5:30]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the closure of the Johnny Mountain mine hasn't helped, but the big players really are Cominco and Prime Resources. They are still prepared to put up their share of costs, which were much greater than the Johnny Mountain contribution.

Essentially we faced alternatives. One was to have Highways go in and build a road and then attempt over the years to recover — through some kind of toll system which would be new to B.C. — some part and hopefully eventually all of the cost of the road; or to set up a company which would be in part financed by the mining companies themselves. As other companies came in or those mining companies expanded their output, they would take over more and more of the obligations to do with both the building and maintenance of the road. We chose the latter course.

[ Page 11374 ]

The road development will cost roughly $20 million. The mining companies are prepared to put up $14 million to $15 million of the $20 million, so the treasury will be putting up some money. I could put it in these terms: the treasury will retain certain shares which it will sell to late-comers, and the mining companies will own the other shares — the $14 million or $15 million worth. The companies will specify the quality of road they want, so it won't be built as expensively as would be the case if Highways builds it. They'll have a road, however, that meets their needs, and they'll keep their costs down. There will be a toll for the late-comers or other incidental users.

If at some later stage there's general interest in that area, which is much more than mining and marginal forestry operations, then at any time the Crown can take it over and assume all the maintenance and upgrading costs. But in the short term the industry is going to pay for it in large part. There's a mechanism whereby eventually industry can have its own road pay the whole shot. In the fullness of time the road will undoubtedly be owned by the Crown, but it will be paid for in the first decade or two by industry as opposed to by the Crown.

MR. MILLER: Part of the structure, as I understand it, was that a Crown corporation was to be formed. I'm not aware that that has taken place. Perhaps I could get some advice from the minister with respect to that. Clearly that would have to be by legislation, and that has not occurred during this sitting. Future sittings may be a touch uncertain, so I would appreciate any clarification the minister might be able to offer.

I will cover most of the areas while I'm on my feet. I was a bit concerned about statements attributed to some American government representatives from Alaska with respect to this whole region. The Americans, I understand, have made provision for a bond issue to be floated to finance a road from the Bradfield Canal into the valley as well. I'm also aware that Cominco purchased a hovercraft and proposed to ship, via the river system, to tidewater. I'm not convinced that Cominco, I would presume, if they are a partner in terms of the cost of the road, would also want to ship any of their ore out via the road. But I don't know if that is the case or whether, even with the road built, we would still see the kinds of shipments of that product out via the Alaskan side.

With regard to the Alaskan road, I have been apprised that the area presents environmental constraints. Nonetheless, presumably the Alaskans have a process in place and have gone to a certain point in terms of providing funds. Presumably that was based on their belief that those environmental constraints could be overcome.

The prospect of a road straight through to the Bradfield Canal would still present the problem for Canada, for British Columbia, of that being the cheapest route: water transportation to the end of the canal and then a much shorter haul distance into the valley via that road. I'm wondering if the ministry, having looked at that area, can offer their opinions about those environmental constraints. To be blunt, I don't suppose that we should take actions unilaterally simply to protect our best interest. But in view of the environmental constraints, has British Columbia any opinions about not wanting that road to be built on Canadian territory? Once they cross the panhandle border, you are onto Canadian territory, and then we have a lot to say about that and whether or not our concerns would be sufficient to prevent a road being built in from the U.S. side.

Finally, the Americans — and the representatives I am talking about are Senator Lloyd Jones and Representative Robin Taylor from Alaska — talk about their long-term view that in the initial stages they would like to be able to sell power into the region from their sources, which are diesel-electric, I believe, but over time would like to be tied into the British Columbia grid. As they have expressed it, it would require that the prospect of a dam for the Stikine or Iskut be revisited. I know that Hydro, going back a good number of years, has looked at this area. It concerns people in the area that we're now looking again at the prospect of dams on either of those river systems.

If the minister wanted to offer some comments on that prospect in terms of time-frame, what the Americans are saying and how realistic it is, that would be useful.

HON. MR. DAVIS: First to deal with the power side, it looks as if B.C. Hydro is adequately covered for its power requirements through to the year 2000 or maybe the year 2010, so there's no immediate prospect of developments occurring either on the Iskut or the Stikine. In other words, we won't have one or several major power dams built up there, so we're not likely to be in the power export business to what would be a modest outlet nearby in Alaska.

The road which is being financed now in B.C. to the mineral-rich areas along the Iskut is considerably cheaper for the mining companies to use than a hovercraft or a combination of hovercraft and road on the U.S. side, cheaper than a U.S. road all the way into the area, and environmentally much safer than any of the several U.S. proposals. So environmentally we're on safe ground; economically we're following a cheaper course.

Also, from the point of view of provincial development, that road will eventually open up parts of the Stikine Valley as well as the Iskut; at least it's reaching out towards the Stikine Valley. Any developments, mining or other, that occur up there will benefit from the early road and its ability to move wheeled transport right into the mineral developments there. Naturally Stewart will become the port of departure for concentrates, which wouldn't be the case, of course, if there was a road in from the Alaska side.

Fortunately in some ways, both economically and environmentally - what we're doing is preferable to what the Americans would like us to do. Their road proposals only make sense if all of the output of our mines is committed to their road. They are not

[ Page 11375 ]

hanging it on anything other than 100 percent support from the Canadian side. While they'll perhaps be disappointed, I think we're doing the right thing from every point of view, including long-term development. So Hydro is not likely to be very active up in that area for a long time to come. The development which will be taking place through a company incorporated under the Company Act — not a Crown company — will see that the road construction begins late this fall and certainly is completed by this time next year. Hopefully one or several of the big developments will be well along a year from now.

MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought I had read in the Premier's speech that it was a Crown corporation. I note that the B.C. government has passed an order-in-council governing the transmission line proposed from Alaska into B.C. I'd appreciate the minister's advice on why that was required.

Dealing with the port of Stewart, I agree with the minister. I have been somewhat confused with regard to the development, looking at the region overall and the requirements — whether they are road, rail, port or whatever — and trying to tie the activities of various ministries together. I was struck, for example, by announcements by the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) that they are proceeding with a study of the construction of a lumber port in Kitimat when we have one down the road that's underutilized. I wondered about the economics of that. I go from there, where I see a fairly significant government initiative in terms of ports, to the port of Stewart, which had been identified in previous studies as requiring upgraded infrastructure. It may be beyond the minister's authority, but I wonder whether — in terms of tying this together — there has been a look at the port of Stewart and the infrastructure requirements. There are some difficulties there, both environmental and geographic.

As anybody who has been to Stewart can readily understand, they are in almost a fjord, with rivers flowing down very fast in the runoff period. As I said, they have some environmental constraints and clearly a need to develop that port to build out into the canal. There has to be sufficient lead time so these events all dovetail. Anything the minister could offer with respect to that would also be useful. Those are my two final questions.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I've been informed that the port facilities at Stewart could be relatively inexpensively expanded. They are sufficient to look after the SNIP and Prime Resources project for at least a few years. If they became a much larger operation or if other mineral developments were to increase volume considerably, it's still likely that a large sum of money would be invested in Stewart, or in close proximity to Stewart, to handle the concentrates leaving the province. Therefore it would be highly unlikely that any of the mineral production up there would go as far south as Kitimat.

[5:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I just want to question the minister for a bit about the use of that road by recreational users. Because it's a private road, what will happen with people who want to use it? There are some sturdy recreationists in this province. I presume suppliers will be allowed to use it; they will be connected to one of the companies involved in the road company. But what about recreational users? What about control of the company? Will the government maintain majority control there? How will that company work?

HON. MR. DAVIS: For a few years, at least, the province will be a significant shareholder. It might have $5 million or $6 million in the project, and the company, say, $14 million or $15 million. The government will therefore have some say as to the level of tolls and so on. They have to be reasonable. I doubt if they would be of a magnitude which would discourage anyone who got that far from using the road.

The Johnny Mountain people may come back into the picture. I doubt if they would elect simply to pay a toll. They would probably want to buy a few shares so that they could get a reduced toll. But the tolls can't be of a level which is prohibitive to any kind of activity, including recreation and certainly including log haulage and so on.

In any case, there will be a road, and the tolls have to be reasonable, and the company's board of directors, I suppose, will set the policy. But the government will have a "golden chair," if you like, in this operation always and will have a say in the level of the tolls for non-mining purposes.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to refer to some of these publications the ministry has been putting out. Particularly, I want to find out what is meant by some of these statements about research.

In the business plan on page 6 under "Mineral Resources Division," it is announced that: "An environmental research program for the mining industry will be implemented, focusing on acid mine drainage cyanide processes for gold-mines and methods for disposal of mine rock." It is also mentioned, by the way, in.... Well, there are other things. I will leave it at that for the mineral resources division.

What kind of expenditures, Mr. Minister? What extent of research will actually be done on these things? Probably the dollar value will be the most useful way to hear.

HON. MR. DAVIS: For those several research projects in the general area of environmental research for mining, the budget this year is half a million dollars. It will continue for some years at that level — in other words, $500,000 annually.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could update me on what's happening with negotiations with the federal government on the MDA.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I wish I could report progress. Simply put, the federal government decided to take a

[ Page 11376 ]

number of its programs and throw them all into a single basket. MDA, western diversification and CANMET were all thrown into one total program, but the size of the total program in dollars is considerably less than any of its original components. The prospect of our getting much out of all this for mining is dim. If we got our old figure of some $10 million a year I'd really be surprised. We may get a few million dollars a year out of the federal government, but the federal government is just welshing in the entire area. It's an economy move; it's a budgetary move by Ottawa. They're just backing right out.

Forestry will get a much reduced amount in dollars, but probably the lion's share of whatever moneys are available.

MS. EDWARDS: It's bad news, as usual, I guess. That program has not been as good news as it should be.

I have a question, again, about the business plan. The minister says the executive is committed to supporting the work of the ministry's women's programs working committee, and one of the things is that they will ensure that women in EMPR have equal access to job advancement and career development opportunities and ensure equal treatment of all employees. I wonder if the minister could give some details and report on the progress as to what has been done to ensure these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I've been hoping I'd get some help from staff here; they say we have a women's committee. They're gathering information. I haven't got a plan in a few sentences that I can lay before the hon. member, but I will commit to answer by letter shortly. The budget is $15,000 for this year, I gather.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you to the minister. It always helps to have a good nag working at you; I'm great at nagging.

I was pleased to see it in the business plan, and I hope it proceeds well. I'm sure there are people in your ministry who are hoping you will carry on with it.

I'd like to make a few other comments to the minister. One is on the new mines regulations. I know you've had this comment before, but I have had some comments made to me that the problem is still there. When the mines inspector visits a mine, there is no requirement that the members of the union be contacted so that the mine committee can accompany the inspector. That, I am assured, would be very helpful to the mines inspector and to everyone concerned. I've had a number of instances put to me where that would be a good idea. So I hope the minister looks at that.

I would like to ask the minister what is happening as far as uranium mining is concerned. He has a moratorium on uranium mining, but not on exploration for uranium. Is there any change in policy on that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There's no change in respect to uranium-mining policy; there are no developments that I've heard of which could lead to any commercial activity in the next few years.

Regarding the mines inspector visiting the union people at the mine, I'm told — and I'm somewhat surprised — that it's a requirement under our new legislation for the inspector to do just that.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, in relation to mining, I might refer also to the proposed Windy Craggy mine. I know the mineral development process is proceeding, but that mine would exist in the valley by the Tatshenshini River, which has been proposed as a heritage river under the Canadian heritage rivers designation process. It's an international process, and certainly the state of Alaska has already proposed that that river become a heritage river. Our caucus, by the way, supported that proposal, and it was also supported by the Wilderness Advisory Committee, which reported several years ago.

It has been suggested that this whole issue will have to be taken to the International Joint Commission. Can the minister tell me whether he has considered that? Who would take the initiative on that, and at what point would that happen?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It's interesting to know that if the NDP were to form the government, it would kill the Windy Craggy project. It is, I am told, in terms of mineralization, a bigger deposit than the Sullivan mine. It's a remarkable occurrence. It's in a high-cost area; it's in a beautiful area.

The company has made a proposal for development which the ministry found unacceptable and has sent back. At the present time the company is rephrasing the general outline of the project it would like to proceed with. I would guess that the project will be in the mineral review process for a year or two at least. There will be submissions from many sources. There's a very real international interest as well as a Yukon interest — interprovincial, in other words, as well as international.

I'm told that if it was ever to be appealed, it would go to the International joint Commission — that's the Canada-U.S. body dealing with transborder water and airflow pollution problems.

It's a contentious project; there's a lot at issue there. It will certainly test the ingenuity of the mining industry to carry on a development there that's environmentally safe and that ensures that the local environment is not affected. That certainly includes the Tatshenshini River itself.

I don't know what the outcome will be. We're going to treat it with due process. We're going to involve Ottawa and the Americans to some degree from day one. Most of my mail — virtually all of it — comes from Alaska or the United States; very little comes from Canada. However, we'll have to watch it step by step and make sure it is in fact a very clean development, or it won't take place.

[ Page 11377 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I presume what the minister is saying when he says that we would kill the project is that we cannot have that heritage river and that project too. If that's the case, I'm not sure that that is so, but that's what I hear the minister saying.

I'll lead into the question that I'm going to ask the minister by talking about the closure of the Sullivan mine in Kimberley just this past January. I have made my views well known to the minister since that time. My views include the fact that we, the people of British Columbia, put a considerable amount of money, at least $55 million, into Cominco's operation, with the promise that whatever went into Cominco's coffers would support the operation of Cominco in both Trail and Kimberley. Any examination of the material that was put out around that particular drive — the request for funds and the political activity that went around getting that money out of the provincial government — indicates very clearly that the promise was that if the zinc plant and the lead plant and the operation were to go ahead in Trail with public money, it would mean magnificent prosperity for the people of Kimberley as well. That certainly didn't turn out to be so. When it turned out that the company wanted to close down the Sullivan mine, all of a sudden it had nothing to do with the plant in Trail, according to the company. That's one of those expected patterns, I guess, that the minister might like to comment on.

We have to be more and more careful when we as government give money to the private sector, on whatever basis it is, and then tie some of the promises that are made to that requirement. There was no notice given to the government or to the employees when the Sullivan mine was shut down with two weeks' notice. It looks as though the mine is going to be reopened now, but that is now that the bargaining is all over. Since the negotiations are through and we have finally come to some conclusion with the bargaining, now Cominco finds that it can reopen the Sullivan mine, and all of a sudden it's going to be fine. Well, the minister was in a situation where, having made a large donation to the coffers of a private company, he had no power whatsoever to work for the benefit of the workers in Kimberley at the time the mine decided to close down.

[6:00]

I'd like to ask the minister whether it has any relation to this.... Certainly if the minister has any proposals to avoid that kind of situation again, I'd be pleased to hear them.

I would also like to ask him what he means by the statement in the business plan that "the ministry will be actively working with communities throughout the province in support of minerals-related economic development opportunities, especially in areas where existing mineral reserves are being exhausted." What does the minister mean by that? What is the proposal in the plan? Does it have some relation to what happened in Kimberley? What support to those opportunities will be given by the ministry?

HON. MR. DAVIS: My ministry, in cooperation with several other ministries in government, has been working for some time on the general parameters of something — call it a plan — which would in an orderly way deal with the shutdown or the progressive closure of a mine or mines important to a local community. There are several services in government which can be brought to bear. Obviously, if some alternative industry could be induced to locate in the area, that would be the best possible news.

There has been a task force looking at what's been done in other parts of the world in order to cushion the blow of a mine closure. That, together with local ideas, will be in a report which is coming out later this year as to what might be done. Kimberley, fortunately, is not now in that category. But the Sullivan mine will be totally mined out by the year 2000 or thereabouts. We know an initiative has to be taken there over time to deal with a developing situation. The Brenda mine is virtually closed. We will have other closures over the next three to five years. So our various ministries are putting their thinking-caps on. I'm not sure we are going to come up with all the answers we would like to have to deal with those difficult situations.

MS. EDWARDS: As the minister knows, at a hearing in Courtenay last year the Utilities Commission directed B.C. Hydro to do some research into electromagnetic fields. The issue has heated up again, and people's concern with the level of information we now have has made the public somewhat concerned about the possibilities of being in electromagnetic fields too often or for too long, and about what the damage could be. I wonder if the minister could tell me exactly what B.C. Hydro is doing to follow the directive. I will qualify my question by saying I know that Hydro has hired a full-time staff member, Dr. Kelly Gibney, and I have spoken to him on a number of occasions. I know he is arranging to provide information to the public and to Hydro employees. I take some of these steps from a letter one of the Hydro people wrote to a community group.

One of the things Hydro was also directed to do was to participate in research in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. I will bring this up with the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen), but I would like the Minister of Energy to tell me how Hydro has been able to work with the Ministry of Health to conduct some research. As I understand it, that has not been as simple as it seemed to be. I know there is other research going on, and I wonder if the minister could give me a budget figure.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I have a few notes here, Mr. Chairman, and I will simply read them out.

In response to the commission's direction, the Ministry of Health is drafting the terms of reference for a provincial advisory body on EMF issues. This is the powerline issue the member is referring to. This body would include B.C. Hydro, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Ministry of Environment and other participants to be sug-

[ Page 11378 ]

gested by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health does not want to take a very active stance on EMF or finance research since it considers it to be a very low health risk. B.C. Hydro has hired a full-time manager, Dr. Kelly Gibney, to direct research into EMF. Greatest exposure to EMF for most people does not come from powerlines, but from household wiring and appliances. Scientific reviews of biological research on EMF typically conclude that no causal link has been found between these fields and health effects. However, given the suggested effects from epidemiological studies, more research to resolve the issue is widely advocated. A four-year, federally funded study is under way in several Canadian cities to try and determine more conclusively if EMF is connected with childhood leukemia. Because of uncertainty over EMF, some scientists are advocating prudent avoidance of these fields whenever this is practical.

I know that Hydro is also a member of a concerted research effort by power utilities generally in North America, looking into this matter and trying to come up with some answers.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister have a budget figure? Does the minister have even a general range of the amount of money that B.C. Hydro is putting towards this?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I am told around a quarter of a million dollars a year.

MS. EDWARDS: My final question to the minister — he will be glad to hear this. I really need to know before I go home again what B.C. Hydro's commitment is to the development of parks around B.C. Hydro reservoirs in the province. Of course, I have had personal experience in my riding with Newgate Park and with discussion of recreation around the Koocanusa reservoir. For three years I've worked hard trying to get a public meeting going to discuss the recreational and park-use potential of Koocanusa, and so on and so forth. B.C. Hydro was at the point of arranging that meeting when they backed off and said it wasn't their responsibility anymore. In fact, they have changed their view of what their responsibilities are around that particular reservoir. Can the minister enlighten me on what's happened?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I can't. But if the hon. member jogs my memory by sending me a note, I'll pursue it with Hydro.

I think the public review of this, I'll call it, mini-Columbia Treaty matter will provide one of several opportunities to go into parks and other remedial measures relating to excessive drawdowns of those reservoirs.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister certainly makes a good point. It is very much exactly where it is — part of the problem. Of course, the mini-treaty won't affect that reservoir, but it will affect reservoirs.

Vote 21 approved.

Vote 22: ministry operations, $36,014,233 — approved.

Vote 23: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $10 — approved.

Vote 24: Fort Nelson Indian band mineral revenue sharing agreement, $500,000 — approved.

Vote 25: mineral development and exploration incentives, $1,100,000 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 67. The bill contains amendments to some 15 statutes. They are: Architects Act, British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, Ferry Corporation Act, Financial Institutions Act, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, Highway Act, Hydro and Power Authority Act, Industrial Development Incentive Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Municipal Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Public Service Labour Relations Act, Social Service Tax Act and Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

STATUTORY APPEALS PROCEDURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Statutory Appeals Procedure Act.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm introducing this bill for first reading only in order that members of the public and affected groups might have the opportunity to examine the provisions of the bill, so that the government might have the benefit of their comments and suggestions.

This bill is based on a recommendation of the 1988 report of the Justice Reform Committee. The purpose of this bill is to set out standard procedures for

[ Page 11379 ]

appeals to court that are authorized by various statutes. These are appeals from decisions of administrative tribunals, government officials, professional and occupational disciplinary bodies and other agencies.

The act is intended to remedy the present situation in which over 120 statutes provide for appeals with widely different procedures. Each of the statutes authorizing appeals to the court will have to be amended as amendments consequential to this act in order to indicate that this act applies to appeals there under and to standardize procedures dealing with appeals. Two of these consequential amendments are included in this bill.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains amendments to a number of statutes administered by the Ministry of Attorney-General: Commercial Arbitration Act, Court of Appeal Act, Court Rules Act, Land Title Act, Law and Equity Act, Offence Act, Provincial Court Act and Small Claims Act.

[6:15]

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 3.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On the schedules.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, pages 17 to 23. [See appendix.] It's about seven pages in length. I don't plan to read it all, the opposition House Leader will be pleased to note. The purpose of the amendment is to delete the proposed boundaries of Cariboo North and Cariboo South and substitute the ones on the order paper.

I must admit that this is a very bold move, but it is necessary. Of course, during second reading, I very respectfully requested the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) to consider an appropriate amendment in light of my remarks during second reading. However, as a private member, I have moved this amendment which has the effect of moving the line slightly northward so that all those communities near and adjoining Williams Lake would end up in Cariboo South — the same constituency.

I want to say that as a member of this House, I certainly believe in an impartial process when it comes to moving electoral boundaries. I participated fully in that process. I submitted briefs to Judge Fisher. I appeared before the select standing committee. But I cannot — with integrity — give up on my position. That is why I'm taking my place in this House at this time and making this bold move as a private member moving this amendment,

The judge's line is absurd for the following reasons: it separates Williams Lake, a natural trading centre since the 1920s, from surrounding suburbs like Fox Mountain, North Lakeside, Lexington subdivision and Commodore Heights, as well as rural areas like 150 Mile, 140 Mile, Sugarcane, Miocene, Big Lake, Beaver Valley, Horsefly, Likely and Keithley Creek, whose major road links are all to Williams Lake, where the residents would do their banking and seek major services. For example, if a resident of Horsefly was injured, the ambulance would take that person to the hospital in Williams Lake. It certainly wouldn't drive all the way up to Quesnel. Also, I consulted with the Cariboo Observer in Quesnel, and naturally they don't have one subscriber to their paper from Horsefly. The people out there all read the Williams Lake Tribune, and I'm certain that they tune in and listen to the radio stations that serve the Williams Lake area.

It so happens that during the course of the by-election in September 1989, both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that there was a real problem with the judge's absurd line, which was based solely on population balance. Indeed, in the Williams Lake Tribune on Thursday, September 14, 1989, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that the proposed Cariboo electoral boundaries were the stupidest he had ever seen.

In the September 26, 1989, edition of the Williams Lake Tribune the Premier said: "I didn't believe Judge Fisher, however fair a man I believe him to be, had considered sufficiently community of interest. He was too concerned with balancing population from one constituency to the next. I think the Cariboo is one of the most blatant examples because of distances here." So it is acknowledged that there certainly is a problem with Judge Fisher's line.

Local governments in the city of Quesnel, the city of Williams Lake, the Cariboo Regional District and the village of 100 Mile House all wrote in support of this amendment. They too described how absurd Judge Fisher's line is.

In second reading of this bill, a very distinguished member, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who served on that standing committee, said: "Nowhere in B.C., from what I could see, were the concerns so gravely expressed as in the Cariboo." So it is acknowledged by a key member of that select standing committee that we

[ Page 11380 ]

had a real problem in the Cariboo. Indeed, it's still a mystery to me why that committee failed to unanimously agree on changing the boundary in the Cariboo. I was very disappointed, because I believed in that process, which led absolutely nowhere.

Very recently I was informed by our leader, the Premier, that the Leader of the Opposition wrote suggesting that this problem be referred back to that select standing committee. I'm very disappointed at that suggestion, because that would lead absolutely nowhere, as the first process did.

That's why I'm standing at this time supporting my amendment on the order paper. It's consistent with my original and ongoing position. It does not affect any other constituency in the entire province, and I'm very pleased that the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) is in complete support of this amendment. I certainly appreciate his wholehearted support. He, like a majority of people in the Cariboo, believes in good common sense.

We talk about process. To me, as a member of this House, the ultimate process is when MLAs here vote on the legislation. Not in all situations should the judge have the final say. Indeed, these 75 new electoral districts do not become law until this bill is passed.

This amendment is very critical, because if it does not pass it's the equivalent of asking someone who lives right near Kelowna to drive all the way to Kamloops to see their MLA. It's absolutely absurd. It's like asking someone who lives right near Esquimalt to drive all the way up to Courtenay to see their MLA.

Judge Fisher himself, in his final report, said: "We wouldn't dare extend the boundary of Cariboo North to take in some of the suburbs of Prince George. That would be completely unacceptable." Well, he forgot about the people who live right in the suburbs of Williams Lake. So I sense a lack of consistency in the judge's final report.

Certainly this amendment would bring about a violation of the plus or minus 25 percent. But if my amendment passes, only about 1.33 percent of all the electoral districts in the whole province will fail this plus or minus 25 percent. Before Judge Fisher's electoral boundary commission, 32 percent of the electoral districts in this province failed to meet that test. So we certainly are making progress. Indeed, back in 1963, which isn't that many years ago, 63 percent of the constituencies in the province deviated by plus or minus 25 percent.

One great plus to my amendment is that Cariboo South will be a near-perfect constituency. It will only deviate by plus 1.8 percent,

Provinces like Alberta adhere to the plus or minus 25 percent in urban areas only. In federal ridings, in cases due to extraordinary circumstances, the actual deviation in some constituencies does exceed 25 percent.

Given the absurdity of this definition, as defined by Judge Fisher, in the bill, I ask every member who is present in this House to support my amendment. I want you to prove that common sense can indeed prevail. The amendment, as I said, does not affect any other constituency. Both incumbent MLAs, one a Socred, one NDP, support the amendment. This is a unique situation which gives us all a chance — every member in the House at this particular time — to demonstrate that the Legislature, elected by the people of the province, has the final say.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It's with a bit of a heavy heart that I rise to speak in this debate. But there's hope, and the hope comes from the mind. We have a challenge here, which is for common sense to prevail over the rule of a judge.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: What's a judge anyway, he says.

The people of the Cariboo feel fairly deeply about this issue, and my heavy heart comes from the fact that I feel so bound to run in the south, although I live in the north and I grew up in the north. This is how absurd it is, and how much it tears people in this area. It really hurts when I know that my friends and neighbours, say that they might not even vote in the next election, because they want to vote for somebody in the riding that they relate to, and that would be Cariboo South. All those little communities up in that area are saddened by the fact that the judge couldn't find his way through to recommend this.

But I'm very pleased that we were able to gain some support for this between the parties. The first member for Cariboo, in proposing this amendment and all the work that's gone into it, has done a great service to the people of that area of Cariboo North who want to be in Cariboo South. It remains, then, for this Legislature to find a way to vote in favour of this amendment so that we are not condemned for ten years of virtual disfranchisement of those 6,000 to 7,000 people who live in that corner area bordered by Big Lake, Horsefly and Likely. I think it's a case where if we don't pass this, there will be a bit of tyranny that's somehow imposed by a system, by a majority, on a community that feels very much together on this issue.

It is ludicrous that somebody should have to drive 175 miles to meet their MLA in Quesnel, when he probably can't afford to operate two offices. If we fail to pass this amendment, all those people in the Horsefly-Likely-Big Lake-Hendrix Lake area who have to drive to Quesnel are going to put a greater burden on the MLA from Cariboo South. I am sure any MLA worth his salt is going to be happy to pick up the load that is transferred his way, but I am sure the budgets won't be....

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Well, certainly I would. But I don't think the budget is going to be big enough to run two offices for the member in the north, so the south member is going to have to pick up an awful lot.

[ Page 11381 ]

Let me say that I commend all those people who stood behind us in our attempt to make these changes: all the municipal councils and the regional district people. Credit goes to them. In advance, I would like to thank all those members of this Legislature who would also support this very reasonable and rational amendment.

[6:30]

MR. KEMPF: Very briefly, I stand to support both of my northern colleagues in supporting this amendment. It is fair to say, in speaking to this amendment, that the whole Fisher report was absurd to all northerners who were disfranchised by the Fisher report. I would stand today and vote against this bill, but I see absolutely no point, because thanks to members on both sides of this House we have this kind of legislation before this chamber. It was wrong. It has disfranchised northerners.

We talk about people having to drive miles to see their MLA. Well, after the next election I will be representing a riding in this province where it is shorter from the community of Burns Lake to Victoria than it is from the community of Burns Lake to the community of Atlin, and they're in the same constituency. If you think that's fair to northerners, you've got another think coming. Impartial process, indeed! Impartial to whom?

The members of this House and those who voted in favour of the legislation that followed the Fisher report have got to understand the distances and have some concept of the problems of the people of the north in getting services and, yes, in getting to see their MLA. That was exacerbated by the Fisher report and it will be further exacerbated when this bill comes into effect on the call of the next election. We will grow to rue the day in this chamber — particularly those who live in the northern two-thirds of this province — that we ever brought in this kind of legislation.

In 1952 there were nine northern seats in this House that contained a total of 52 seats. After the next election, there will be eight northern seats in a 75-member House. Do you think that's fair — and I think my two colleagues from the north, particularly, will agree — when the lion's share of the dollars it takes to provide the services that all of the people of this province enjoy comes from the northern two thirds of this province?

It was an absurd report. It's absurd legislation. But members on both sides of this House were responsible, Remember — and I read it into the record again for posterity — that there was only one dissenting vote in this chamber at the time this legislation was introduced and passed. That will remain forever in Hansard for all of the people of British Columbia to see.

It's all very well to bring in amendments to make funny little changes to the boundaries as designated by Bill 3, but the whole of the bill is wrong. I know that as one member I can't fight that in this chamber Again I say that we in the north, we who are proud of the north, proud to live there and provide the resources that everyone enjoys the return from in this province, are not happy with this legislation. There will be more amendments as inequities are pointed out. There's an inequity with respect to the community of Stewart, which is really set adrift in this legislation. It's left out by itself with really no connection to any riding at present, and it should have been placed in Bulkley Valley–Stikine to start with.

I guess there's not much more to say. The whole legislation is a retrogressive step in British Columbia. The Leader of the Opposition nods his head in approval. Where was he when this legislation was first brought into this House? One dissenting voice. I saw members from both sides of the floor stand in support of these kinds of changes, this kind of redistribution in British Columbia. I even saw a member on this side of the floor speak against it, but when the vote came, he was gone. Is that the kind of representation we give our people? Well, not me. If anything, I will show that again by voting in favour of this amendment.

MR. LOENEN: I'm pleased to inform the House that I did not bring my running-shoes. I won't be running away from it. I'll be here to support this very worthwhile amendment. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

I think we have heard the presentation from both members for the Cariboo. They've spoken up for their constituents. They have voiced the concerns of the people there, and rightly so, because it seems odd to me that a process of redistribution that is meant to lead to greater democracy does, in fact, for some pockets of the population, do the opposite. We ought to recognize that and recognize that it is possible for us to do something about it. We don't need to slavishly follow this particular formula that has been laid out. To think that somehow you can adopt one formula and squeeze all of the province into that one formula is simply to fly in the face of reality.

I'm not in favour of deadly uniformity; I'm in favour of variety. I'm in favour of listening to the people and responding to the people. It has been suggested to us that if we allow one change, there will all kinds of other changes demanded as well. I'd like to say to you that if other constituencies can make as strong a case as this particular constituency, they have every right to also demand changes, because it is not right for us. We ought to be building communities, not splitting communities. That's exactly what we're doing: we're splitting communities.

As an MLA you represent not just individuals; you represent those individuals through the social infrastructure — the councils, the library boards, the school boards, the hospital boards, the seniors' organizations. We have effectively cut off those 6,000 people from that social network that's in place there. We've cut them asunder. We're not building communities; we're destroying communities. I think we should be big enough in this House to recognize that it is possible for us to make allowances for those unique situations. Surely all of us have enough

[ Page 11382 ]

common sense to see that you cannot force deadly uniformity, driven by a formula, onto all of the people in the province.

All we need is the political will to do the thing that is right and correct. This is a moment in history, and we can make history by doing the right thing, by showing that we have political will, that we respect the views of the constituents, that we respond to the people there.

I've said before that the formula of plus or minus 25 percent has led federally to a situation where this province is not merely underrepresented; it is not represented at all. It is that kind of situation which I think most members of this House are very upset about, and that we now, by our own actions, foist on those people in the Cariboo. We ought to be ashamed of that. We ought not to do that, because we have no right to complain about the inequities that exist federally when we're willing to put that kind of a straitjacket on the people in the Cariboo. Having said that, I'm happy to support this amendment, and I hope this House will as well.

Schedule 1 approved.

On the amendment to schedule 2.

MR. MOWAT: I commend the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) and the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) for bringing to my attention the very difficult circumstances due to the passage of this legislation. I have now heard from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), and I very clearly heard that we are really disfranchising a number of people because of the drawing of those boundaries.

I think the case has been well put forward by the first member for Cariboo that there is a need to revisit this and that the legislation was probably in error when we allowed this to happen. I think history will prove what the member from Omineca said — that we are disfranchising a number of the voters in the area. I think it's been well documented here. I think we have an opportunity to reverse something that many of us feel was wrong, specifically in that area, and therefore I'm in support of the motion.

MR. VANT: A couple of major points, which I failed to make when I spoke initially. I want to emphasize to all the members present that my amendment in no way violates the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act which this House passed last year, because there is a clause in that act which says that, under special circumstances you may violate the plus or minus 25 percent.

Also, there's a very dangerous trend — an imbalance of political power — which my good colleague and friend the member for Omineca highlighted in terms of the northern half of the province. Back in 1945, when there were only 48 members of this House, there were eight members from northern British Columbia. In 1990, with the 75 single-member constituencies established by this Bill 3, there will still only be eight northern members of this House, and that's counting the three Prince George ridings. So there is far too much emphasis on representation by population,

I'm standing here in my place for other things: community interest, transportation links and the history of the area. These factors have to be considered, or I'm afraid that by the year 2000 there will probably be 95 MLAs in this House and only four will be from the northern half of this province. We'll have an imbalance of political power similar to the one we are very aware of In the Dominion of Canada today.

By my amendment I want to buck that very dangerous trend. Let us pass my amendment in the spirit of true parliamentary democracy, where those who are elected by the people have the final say, especially in response not only to local government but also to thousands of citizens who are most directly affected by the proposed electoral districts of Cariboo North and Cariboo South.

I urge every member present to vote for this very sensible amendment, which is technically correct and makes a lot of good, common sense.

[6:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 7

NAYS - 42

Schedule 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 11383 ]

Bill 3, Electoral Districts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill PR402.

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1990

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the city charter outline that all the council committees must be discharged after the election, and that a two-thirds vote by the council is necessary to rescind a passed motion. It goes on to describe the powers given to the city for the building inspector to board and secure unsafe buildings, and allows the recovery of these costs to be given to the owners to meet the building bylaw standards. It also allows the city to temporarily close streets, to impose development cost levies for sewers, water, highways and parkland, and recognizes the power of the city to require developers to provide certain public amenities.

Mr. Speaker, due to the city of Vancouver's uniqueness in having its own charter, these amendments are necessary to carry out the council's mandate. These amendments were brought forward on the request of the city council, and I am pleased to have brought them forward.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, as you know from your chairmanship of the Private Bills Committee, this bill has had a somewhat stormy course, but all members of the House can take pleasure and delight in having accommodated earlier this morning the wishes of the city of Vancouver. I'm pleased to support this bill.

I'd like to briefly raise one personal problem I have with it, which is the encouragement it gives to the process of the Molson Indy 500. 1 know that many members of this House do not share my views on this topic, but I'd like to register my concern that the event is going to glorify the gas-guzzling motor racing car and the association of alcohol, specifically the Molson brewery, with fast cars. I find it paradoxical in an age of heightened environmental consciousness that with unseemly haste we connect a beer company with fast cars and the macho image of fast car driving and gas-guzzling racing cars with something to be valued in society.

I feel quite the opposite about both of them, and I confess to being a lover of good beer and to enjoying the occasional Molson brew. The opposition House Leader asked if I ever enjoyed a ride in fast car. Not in my own, I hasten to add, but I have enjoyed the odd ride in someone else's. I'm not questioning the utility of fast cars to get from point A to point B, but to celebrate grown men going around in circles in the heart of a city and burning up scarce non-renewable resources in order to satisfy sedentary spectators and to push beer somehow is not my idea of the new environmentalism.

I realize this is something that the public has spoken on, and this year at least it's going to go ahead. But I encourage members of the House to consider in the future whether this is really in the planet's long-term interest.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain closes debate.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill PR402.

Motion approved.

Bill PR402, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1990

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that section 6 does not just deal with the Indy car race, but gives the power to the city that they didn't have in the past to temporarily close streets. This is for parades, motion pictures, television productions and other cultural events or street things. It's not, as the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey said, just for one car race.

[7:00]

Sections 6 to 11 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill PR402, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of private member's bill 404, printed in the name of the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

[ Page 11384 ]

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

Bill PR404 deals with amendments to the Vancouver city charter as follows. A levy for day care costs on special capital projects. A levy for replacement housing costs on capital projects. It provides an amendment that trees cannot be cut on properties that are going to require a development permit, without approval of the director of planning. It also has an appeal process for the applicant who is denied a development permit by the director of planning in regard to the removal and replacement of trees.

Again, due to the city of Vancouver's uniqueness in having its own charter, these amendments are necessary for the council to carry out its mandates.

MR. JONES: We are supporting these amendments. The process that has transpired was strange and convoluted, but in the end probably very good. This process began well over a year ago. A round of meetings with the city of Vancouver and the mayor of Vancouver also took place last year, and last year the committee agreed to put forward amendments to the Vancouver Charter. Those amendments, unlike this year, did not see the light of day in this Legislature. We're very pleased to have those amendments today.

We're very pleased that, contrary to some of the debate in the committee, we do see amendments that will allow development cost levies for such valuable social issues as day care, although we lost the community-mix housing.

At the same time, we did gain the right to preserve trees and to avoid the kind of situation we've seen in Vancouver where developers, for their convenience, have clearcut what I consider to be a most important community resource. Trees that people have grown up with in their neighbourhoods can now be preserved. We have a process and an appeal aspect to the process that will allow those trees to be saved.

Although it is strange that this is in two separate bills and these parts were taken out and put into this part.... I know there has been a good deal of discussion in the committee over the two years. There's a been good deal of discussion between the mayor and various ministries. What we've ended up with is a reasonable compromise that we on this side of the House are very anxious to support.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: You really get lippy late at night around here.

I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill. It's an important first step in recognizing the social costs of development. It recognizes that development and growth bring benefits and costs to a community. The benefits are usually widespread throughout the municipality. Development increases the tax base or provides people to come and work in the community.

It fills jobs. It does all kinds of good things that are spread generally across the community. But the costs are usually narrowly focused on the neighbourhood where the development is located.

That's where we come up with a lot of the opposition to growth, because people are concerned about the fact that development in their neighbourhood means that their child will be going to school in a portable and that their recreation centre and parks will be crowded. The social amenities they have come to expect in an urban area are coming under increasing pressure because of the growth in the community.

I welcome this amendment as a recognition that growth has social costs, and that the cost has to be paid, in part, by the people moving into the community.

During the discussion in the select standing committee, one of the members raised the fear that perhaps this amendment to the Vancouver Charter would cause other municipalities to request similar amendments to the Municipal Act. I hope they do. I think they should. I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. L. Hanson) will consider such an amendment.

The other concern was the level of development cost charges by municipalities not covered by the Vancouver Charter. This may be a problem for Vancouver. Those costs look enormous at $8,000, $10,000 or $12,000 per unit, but they represent the cost of providing services to that development. I am sure that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff are very careful in making sure that the bylaw setting out those costs accurately reflects that they are attributable to the growth.

Other jurisdictions have recognized this. Last November Ontario brought in a similar piece of legislation covering all their municipalities. San Francisco has similar policies that attribute the social costs of growth directly back to not only residential developments but also commercial developments. This is a good step in the right direction, and I hope that we're going to see more of it.

MS. MARZARI: In my 20 years in politics, civic and provincial, day care has always been a priority. I must say, though, that through those 20 years, very rarely has day care become a part of civic infrastructure. It has always been a program whose capital financing is generally by provincial governments and sometimes with some cost-sharing by the federal government. This is the second time in my experience in this province that child care has received the recognition it deserves by being incorporated directly into a piece of legislation dealing with the financing of capital projects.

The first instance occurred about 15 years ago in Vancouver, when day care was bonused in a zoning bylaw. This allowed a developer to actually increase the floor-space ratio of a development if child care facilities were included. That did not work out. Very few developments actually incorporated child care. That was probably because of the lack of operating capital after the day care centres had been built.

[ Page 11385 ]

This is the second instance. What I see in this bill is an opportunity for cities and municipalities, starting with Vancouver, to regard child care as natural a part of civic infrastructure as sewers, water and electricity — all those things that basically service housing developments. I heartily concur. This is a very major step forward in the power of municipalities — in this case the city of Vancouver — to develop innovative proposals for providing social services. I also see it as a major step forward for child care in this province. Hopefully Vancouver can light a beacon for other municipalities to take the same steps.

This bill also looks to the trees, most particularly the trees in Point Grey. They have been under attack in recent years, partly through the fault of city council for allowing massive single-family housing to be built on west-side lots, but also because the impetus for development itself has led to a disregard for trees that are considered by many people in Vancouver to be part of their heritage. This law once again gives the city the power to control somewhat the cutting down of some of our older trees. It also gives the council the opportunity to ask for replacement of those trees.

I heartily agree with this bill. It's been a year coming to this House. It's a pleasure to be able to talk to a private member's bill in this House. It gives me faith that the small, private member can have a say and can bring a message from the mayor and from the city council of Vancouver. It certainly is going to be very instrumental in providing us with some new ways of giving power to the cities and giving them some ammunition to deal with the problems they face.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain closes debate.

MR. MOWAT: I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill PR404, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

The House in committee on Bill PR404; Mr. Loenen in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. PERRY: I was called out of the House and missed my chance in second reading, but I want to make some very brief comments on the bill at this stage.

On section 1 — if I'm correctly interpreting all these crossed-out lines in front of me — I want to record for the Legislature that there has been tremendous pressure in the city of Vancouver for instruments that will allow the city to deal with the tremendous pace of social, economic and demographic change and development in the city, and that I feel very pleased that we've been able, in this Legislature, to achieve an instrument which will allow the city the power to at least attempt more effectively to deal with the kind of problems that are facing it in the next decade.

I think the principle is a valid one, that governments which are close to the people are probably often better able to serve the real needs of people than governments more removed. Therefore I'm very encouraged that this Legislature has seen fit to endorse the request from the city of Vancouver.

I regret our inability, in opposition, to obtain the community-mix housing clause in this section, but we can live with this and hope that this will give the city further ideas on how to serve the people of Vancouver and that this Legislature will respond to the city's needs in the future.

[7:15]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. PERRY: In the same vein, I'd simply like to record that the movement to attempt to protect trees in the city of Vancouver has been quite a potent one. I think it's very dear to the hearts of many citizens. Like the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), I've today received a letter from a constituent concerned about the implications of the bill for private property rights, and I think the revision the committee made to the bill has attempted, effectively, to deal with those concerns. I see it as perhaps a narrowing of the scope of the original amendment proposed by the city, but a constructive one that does respond to people's legitimate concerns and gives the city the chance to try a process to protect the natural parts of the urban environment.

I want to predict on the record that we will see an intensification of the urban ecology movement, if I can call it that, to an increasing recognition of the importance of the natural environment, not only in Vancouver but in other cities in British Columbia, and a much wider understanding of what nature means in the city.

I can think of a visit to the city of Tashkent in the Soviet Union, in 40-degree weather, where it was pointed out to me by guides that Tashkent is tolerable in the summer months only because of the microclimate created by trees throughout parts of the city. After the major earthquake in 1966, the climate of the city changed significantly because of the damage to trees. I think we will learn those lessons in our own way in Canada eventually and follow other parts of the world, such as European and even Asian cities, that learned that lesson centuries or even millennia ago.

I'd also like to predict that we will come to realize that even wildlife in a city is important to us. Believe it or not, perhaps even insects in mature trees in the

[ Page 11386 ]

city are important to the survival of bird species, and a diversity of bird species and other urban wildlife will contribute to the quality of life in our cities.

So I see this as a first step, Mr. Chair. I wish to acknowledge the perhaps reluctant but nevertheless good-natured cooperation of the private bills committee in seeing this legislation through, particularly its Chairman, whom I see listening. I will be delighted to support it.

MR. MOWAT: I think we all respect and want the trees. I know there's a concern about the rights of the property owners and trees. I think the section handles it well.

I want to commend, though, the Vancouver parks board for the tree program they have had in the past. They are intensifying that. I know that we'll be announcing a proposal soon between the city of Vancouver and the government where we'll really be putting together an aggressive program for the planting of more trees. We'll have a day in September to be known as Arbour Day, where we'll really be greening the city of Vancouver.

It's really interesting to note when we do travel by air over Vancouver how green it is becoming and how the trees are starting to come up over the Burrard Bridge. The city is developing an intensive policy of reforestation in Stanley Park and on many of our boulevards. So again, thank you.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. PERRY: Again, I think this is a potentially constructive alteration to the original bill, granting appeal to the board of variance. I simply would like to record, for those who may attempt to interpret this legislation, that members on this side were concerned about the long-term implications of this bill, including the recommendations of the recent Vancouver city task force entitled "Clouds of Change" on the implications of global climatic change for the city. Several recommendations in that report concerned the conservation of mature trees in the city and the planting of more trees.

I'd like to echo the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain's (Mr. Mowat's) enthusiasm for replanting programs on city land as well as private, particularly because for the first time in my life — since my election here — flights over Vancouver have really revealed to me the nakedness of the eastern half of the city and industrial areas such as the northern part adjacent to Vancouver harbour, where there's no reason why there may not be tree plantings. We all have a stake, in terms of climatic change, in redressing that situation.

Section 3 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. MOWAT: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill PR404, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill PR403.

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
(BRITISH COLUMBIA CONFERENCE) ACT

MR. CRANDALL: This bill will establish by statute the Seventh-day Adventist Church in British Columbia. The church has operated in our province for many years with both an incorporated and an unincorporated body and desires to amalgamate these into one body established under this statute. The bill provides more flexibility than would otherwise be possible under the Society Act and is very similar to many other previously passed statutes for other churches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind hon. members that pursuant to standing order 42, the member closes debate.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill PR403, Seventh-day Adventist Church (British Columbia Conference) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
(BRITISH COLUMBIA CONFERENCE) ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR403; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 11387 ]

Bill PR403, Seventh-day Adventist Church (British Columbia Conference) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 34,

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 34, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND
CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: Before I do this, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery today is my family, who like everybody, I think, are hoping that the session will end very soon. Would the House please welcome my wife Victoria and my three sons: Christopher, Jonathan and Richard.

On this section, I would like the minister to perhaps assure us that the issue of limiting liability.... I'll back up a little bit. During second reading I indicated my concern that there was an expression from citizens and cases, and now court cases, indicating that perhaps we are going a little too far with absolving municipalities from liability.

We've done major shifts in major legislation in the last few years, and I'm just wondering — and the minister may be able to assure us — if this section compounds that concern. My overall concern is that we may have reached the threshold in terms of this limiting liability.

I am more and more finding citizens.... I've got some good examples here, very close in the capital region — one family in Sidney, I believe, who experienced a horrendous problem with the storm drain and sewer system. From what I looked at, I have to say that there was some responsibility by the town, but because of this limiting liability, those citizens, the last I recall, were out thousands of dollars and with no recourse.

That's the concern people are having. This section today limits municipalities. My understanding is that if they believe an inspection has been done properly by a qualified engineer, and something goes wrong, they at least have a clean sheet because they in good conscience thought the person was qualified and the building had passed. Maybe the minister could comment — I think it is a critical issue — and be specific in terms of this section.

[7:30]

HON. L. HANSON: I do know of the case the member is referring to. We are all concerned about the liability line, if you will, going too far. But I don't think you could interpret this piece of legislation as relating to that case.

As far as this legislation is concerned, it isn't acceptable that the plans are deemed to have been inspected by an engineer or by a lawyer, or to have been drawn up and certified to that effect. An architect and an engineer have their seals of certification that state their professional status, and as such would state that the plans comply with the Building Code. That in no way releases the municipality from the responsibility for ensuring that the construction of the building is according to the plans. It simply says that if the building is of a complex nature, they can accept the certification of those two professions that the plans do correspond to the Building Code. It only exempts the liability in the certification as far as the plans are concerned, not as far as the inspection and the other parts involved.

Not in any way to downgrade the professionalism and abilities of our inspectors throughout the province, but in some cases the qualifications of the professional architect and engineer in some of the smaller communities are far in excess of the building inspector's. So I think it is a reasonable approach.

All of those professions do have a responsibility that is taken very seriously. Because of that professional status, there are some very dire consequences for inappropriate action. I understand what the member is concerned about, but I don't think this piece of legislation goes beyond that line.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to take much more time with this, and I realize that in terms of this specific section my general comments may not be totally applicable. We have to find that delicate balance between protecting the corporate public ex-

[ Page 11388 ]

posure and liability and the individual's ability to seek damages. I am coming to the conclusion that in our desire to protect the public liability of a municipality or a corporate entity, we may have gone a little too far. Now more and more citizens, when they clearly have a case of damages or liability, or when there has been negligence on behalf of a public entity, are finding it nigh impossible to get any action or any settlement. There are cases; I mentioned one. I don't have the file in front of me, but I have a number. I am sure the minister has more than I do.

Is anything being done by your staff or your ministry, given these issues that are arising which surround the issue we're dealing with tonight in a global sense? Are you taking a look at that? Am I wrong, or am I totally out to lunch that citizens' individual rights have been set aside to some degree because of protecting the liability of the public corporate entity in this case?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I don't think that could be construed as what is happening today. We are certainly looking at the broader issue both in the philosophical sense and in practical terms of the responsibility to protect the individual and to continue to give them the opportunity of recourse.

I noticed that the member mentioned the word "negligence" in his question. I don't know of any statute that protects an entity or an individual from negligence. It is fairly clear that if there is negligence, this piece of legislation doesn't give people immunity from responsibility for it. I think that is fairly true in almost every case.

I would point out to the member that it has been the practice of most municipalities in the past to accept the seal of an engineer or an architect as certifying certain things within the plans. That has not caused a difficulty. There have been some court cases disputing that practice which has been in place in the past. I don't think you could construe it as being harmful to the interests of the individual in cases of negligence. Quite often cases of negligence are really cases of nuisance, and there is quite a difference between the two issues.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a very quick question. There is a reference to the municipality of Whistler. I believe this is to correct the legal definition of land in Whistler that is exempt from taxation. Does this amended version contain more or less land than was contained in it before, or was the previous amendment simply incorrect? Maybe the minister can give me some background on the Whistler component of this.

HON. L. HANSON: It does contain more land but not more than was originally intended. The description originally intended included all of these lands, but it wasn't accurate. When an assessment was made of the actual description, it didn't cover the lands it was intended to. So yes, it does cover more lands but not more than were originally intended.

MR. BLENCOE: My next logical question is: what has been happening in the interim when it was incorrect? What have we been doing, collecting taxes or not collecting taxes? I am just trying to get this clear.

HON. L. HANSON: The title to the lands in question was transferred to the village land corporation on December 1, 1989, and the tax-exempt portion is to be retroactive to that date. So effectively, there is no taxing.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 71, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 78.

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX
REFORM ACT (No. 2), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 78; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Sections I to 15 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 78, Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 50.

[ Page 11389 ]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 50 contains revisions which clarify regional district legislation passed last year, and makes minor corrections. It also contains measures which provide taxpayers with a more effective means of voting on regional services.

Bill 50 also contains revisions which allow municipalities to enact bylaws to make smoke alarms mandatory in existing dwellings.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't keep the House very long. This is traditional housekeeping. The only comment I make is that it appears to be correcting a number of mistakes made in the original legislation. Perhaps some of the staff, when they come back for committee, will be available to make some comments to the minister on that very topic. However, we will support the legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes the debate.

HON. L. HANSON: I move that Bill 50 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 50, Municipal Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

[7:45]

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 74; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question for the minister on section 2. One of the main concerns we have here is that natural boundaries might be removed. Under range tenure, they may have relied for years — maybe as much 100 years — on natural barriers. But the granting of another tenure — that is, a forest licence — over another area could result in the removal of trees and deprive the range tenure holder of a feature they previously relied on. The question is: is there any compensation payable by the government when this situation occurs? Alternatively, is there any thought given to having the new tenure holder — the one who does the offending in this case — share the costs incurred when this situation occurs?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I didn't get the first part of your question.

MR. ZIRNHELT: In the interest of speeding up the debate, I cut out my preamble. My question has to do with the removal of natural barriers. For example, if one type of tenure, such as a timber tenure forest licence, is issued over an area where there is a range licence, the removal of the timber may involve the removal of a natural barrier. A bunch of windfall, or some trees that are dead and down, might open up the area so that there is drift of cattle, thereby creating a cost in order to control the cattle. Has there been any thought given to making the forest licence holder share the costs when this situation occurs?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That is not covered under this act. We are presently working on a policy that will cover that, and that can be brought in under existing legislation. It is not dealt with in this act.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It doesn't preclude it either.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. ZIRNHELT: You may be able to answer my next question simply then. I was wondering if, under the integrated resource management planning that takes place on individual tenures, this tries to avoid the problem of removing natural barriers. Or is that the subject of other legislation?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, it does. Wherever possible, we would not remove natural barriers.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Is this amendment directed at the particular situation that arose up in the Douglas Lake country when there was a dispute between the Douglas Lake Cattle Co. and the Ministry of Highways?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The short answer is yes. This section is specifically to deal with that situation and like situations in the future. What it really says is that a person will not be able to claim compensation under a Range Act tenure regarding past uses of that area by others for the purposes listed in this section. So it limits compensation to its value as grazing land.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Previously the only reason for deleting an area was because the land was required for an incompatible use. Now the land may also be deleted if it will lead to what you call more efficient resource use. Previously a year's notice was required for change. Now if a number of animal unit months

[ Page 11390 ]

or the quantity of hay is not changed — although some other factors concerning management might change — six months' notice is all that's required.

Why is it now possible for land to be deleted if the deletion will lead to more efficient resource use as opposed to the previous requirements for deletion?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll just read the briefing note here, because again I'm not sure I understand what the member is driving at. The current act enables deletion of land from a tenure area upon one year's notice. With the amendment, only 60 days' notice will be required where the deletion does not restrict the amount of forage available under the tenure.

A further provision is added that tenure boundaries may be moved in the interest of efficient resource management. This may be to avoid a non-compatible use or to reduce conflicts among holders of Range Act tenures.

The powers of this section are vested in the minister, so I guess the key words in there that you're looking for are that we would, wherever possible, move the boundaries rather than delete.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Yes, I understand the spirit. I guess we're changing the notice time, which may affect people. When we try to define more efficient resource use, it may be that you're trying to integrate more uses, whereas the previous use may have been almost exclusively up to that point in time the range use. So if you delete or change, you're doing it in the interest of efficiency for all resources. There may be factors to do with management of the one use — that is the range — that may be affected, and you're only giving 60 days.

In whose interest are we defining more efficient resource use? I presume that the intent here is to make it possible for more resources to be utilized.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In general terms, the public interest is being better served. But as my staff member points out, in many cases it can be two ranchers whose interests are being served. It's not always just the general public, but that is a broad brush answer.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Then it would appear to be a broad interpretation of what efficient resource use means. That remains to be defined.

Finally, I have a question on the ability to change the boundaries under this section. In practical fact, will it be the regional district resource managers who will make these boundaries? Or do you expect that will remain a ministerial discretion?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In actual fact it will be the staff who will recommend, as is usually the case, but the powers of the section are vested in the minister.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Under this section there seems to be some incentive for ranchers to invest in inexpensive improvements and not to invest in improvements near the end of their tenures if there's any concern about deletions being made from the tenure.

Does the minister see any problem with this disincentive to do high-quality work on tenures? If you're towards the end of your tenure, and an improvement needs to be done — some seeding or fencing or whatever — there's going to be a disincentive to make that kind of improvement. That kind of disincentive seems to be built into the formula.

I'll give you an example. If you just spent $4,000 on a mile of fence with a life expectancy of 25 years, and it had two years left in the tenure, then the compensation would be two over 25 times 4,000 or $320. Nobody's going to invest in a fence worth $4,000 if you're only going to be compensated for $320. It's fine if you built the fence at the beginning of the tenure, but what I'm getting at is that there's a disincentive here to make investments as you approach the end of the tenure.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't feel that the tenure-holder's rights are significantly reduced, because under the act as it's written now the Crown could withhold making a deletion and refuse to renew the tenure under section 15. In that case no compensation would be owing. The formula for capital investment in this new act protects the Crown against high compensation settlements. But you're right, it may inhibit investments by the ranching industry. This will especially be the case with short-term tenure and projects with long-life expectancy.

The alternative, as I said, would have been to compensate for the lost capital investment over the entire life of the project. Depending on which way you look at it, we could under the present act just withhold making a deletion. In such a case, if we don't renew the tenure, the compensation wouldn't be owing, because it would just run out. I should add we intend to use this act very sparingly when we absolutely have to, such as in the case you cited with Douglas Lake Cattle Co., where there's a highway project going in. This doesn't happen every day. Because this is a new act, we don't intend to run out and start using it. It will be used very, very sparingly.

MR. ZIRNHELT: This is a second question on that same section. Since the government now has a stable and predictable compensation schedule for deletion from these tenures, is this an indication that they will be turning more towards compensation rather than finding alternative forage for tenure holders?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We would rather plan alternative forage, if such is available for any rancher. That's always the most desirable alternative. That's the way we would go.

[ Page 11391 ]

MR. MILLER: Very quickly to the minister. Perhaps we could have a broader explanation of the change. It seems to me that we're going at the principle as compensation for the removal of land that had been granted for a specific purpose. There's an amendment here that clearly, in the view of the tenure holders, reduces the amount of compensation they would be entitled to — in the existing act versus the proposed changes. Is this basically an expenditure measure? Does the minister see it as an expenditure measure primarily?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Under the current act it's not specified, so in order to avoid lengthy disputes and court battles over what the tenure is valued at and improvements, we decided to spell it out in this act rather than leaving it vague as it is now, because it is not specified at all.

MR. MILLER: I'm advised that these improvements were fully compensated.

[8:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I guess we're on two different subjects here. I misread you. If we're talking about forage rights or grazing rights, it's not spelled out in the current act. In improvements — yes, they were compensated under the present act.

MR. MILLER: Is the basic thrust, from the ministry's point of view, one of expenditure — in other words, the amount of money that the ministry's currently required to put forward to compensate for these improvements that are contained in areas that are removed? I'm trying to establish the primary thrust of the amendments. Is it dollar driven or is there another principle that the ministry is trying to establish with respect to the Crown's obligation for compensation on improvements to Crown land?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll answer the member's question as simply as possible. Was it dollar driven? I suppose the simple answer is yes, not for the ministry's sake but to save the taxpayers dollars in cases where we have to reclaim tenure.

MR. MILLER: It would appear the minister is suggesting that there would be a reduced expenditure on the part of the ministry under the provisions contained in these amendments as opposed to the act as it stands now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised by a staff member that it's probably a moot point, because up until now it's been zero. We've never had such a claim.

MR. MILLER: I love these academic debates. My second question was: was there an attempt in the provisions to establish a principle in relation to the question of compensation for improvements on Crown land?

Disregarding the fact that no claims were paid, as the minister outlined, clearly the act as it stands made provision for compensation. This amendment is very specific in terms of what the Crown's obligation is to the tenure-holder for improvements that are made on Crown lands which are subsequently taken back by the Crown. I'm trying to get at the broader question, if you like, of the Crown's obligation to compensate. My question is pretty simple and flowing from that.

Is this an attempt by the Crown to establish some kind of basic principle about the Crown's responsibility or obligation in these kinds of matters?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Simply put, the answer again is yes, it is. It's to establish a formula and, if you like, a principle on how ranchers will be compensated when any forage or grazing land is taken away from their tenure. The formula for capital investment protects the Crown against high compensation settlements.... I've already read that part; it's in the record already. As I said, the alternative would have been to compensate for the lost capital investment over the entire life of the project.

MR. MILLER: Following from that then, could it be inferred — or is it the intent of the Crown, having established a principle in a bill with respect to the Crown's obligation for compensation — that this could be applied to other Crown lands that may be used for different purposes? Is there a consistency of approach contemplated by the minister, who has under his mandate a wide variety of Crown lands that are given out in various forms under licence, whether that be a grazing licence, forest licence, tree-farm licence or you name it? Is the principle that's being set forward in the bill one that the minister foresees as being applicable — again in a broader sense — to other contractual obligations between the Crown and individuals?

HON. MR- RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the simple answer is no; there is no hidden agenda, and this is not intended to set a direction or a pattern. It's strictly to deal with grazing leases.

MR, MILLER: Finally, Mr. Chairman, it might be worthwhile considering it. That's all I'm suggesting. I'm not necessarily saying you've got a hidden agenda, but the broad issue of the Crown's obligation or responsibility in a variety of circumstances might well be something that the Crown should be looking at. Clearly you're doing it in this specific instance. In fact, I would recommend that there needs to be the kind of review of those other arrangements that I just mentioned.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There may be a point there that would be very difficult to apply to other types of licences, but it's something worth looking at. I should have said in my last answer that it applies strictly to grazing leases and grazing licences.

[ Page 11392 ]

MR. ZIRNHELT: I was trying hard to listen, because I was going to ask you the same question. This applies to grazing leases and grazing licences. My understanding is that it would apply only to grazing licences.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll get it straight yet. It applies to grazing licences and permits. Okay?

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. ZIRNHELT: As I understand it, this section validates licences granted between January 1, 1988 and now, despite the fact that they may not have been granted in accordance with the Range Act as it was in effect. Why is this amendment necessary? What's the problem that has thrown the status of these licences into doubt?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The problem identified occurred on the first renewal of licences since the Range Act came into force. Many tenure-holders were not aware that application for renewal or replacement must occur at least one year prior to the expiry of the licence. In fact, some had been advised by staff that applications would be accepted up to the end of the term.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Do we know how many licences are affected by this validation section?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that we're not exactly sure. There are at least 80, but it could be as high as 300. We don't know that number at the moment.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 74, Range Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 41.

EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. 

[SECTION 2, in the proposed section 190) (a) of the School Act, S.B.C. 1989, c. 61, by adding "as a teacher" after "qualification".]

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. 

[SECTION 6, in the proposed section 230) (d) of the Teaching Profession Act, S.B.C. 1987, c. 19, by deleting ", administrative officers, superintendents of schools and assistant superintendents of schools".]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 41, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 41, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 11393 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 70.

PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

The House In committee on Bill 70; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR COUVELIER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 70, Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have to jump the order a couple here. We don't seem to have a minister in the House. I'm going to call committee on Bill 28.

CARMANAH PACIFIC PARK ACT

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Reid in the chair.

Sections I to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. MILLER: I seek clarification from the minister on the wording of section 7. It appears to allow an alteration of the boundary, although a previous section of the bill clearly sets out the boundaries as defined in section 1. This appears to offer flexibility that does not require the scrutiny of the Legislature.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The surveyor-general is given the power to determine the actual location on the ground of the boundaries of the Carmanah Pacific Provincial Park and the Carmanah Valley forest management area if they are in dispute. It is not the intention of this section to amend the boundary, but to amend the description in the schedule as necessary to ensure that the intended boundary is properly identified and can be administered. All this says to you is that if there is an actual dispute on the ground as to whether the boundary is here or 20 feet away, the surveyor-general is given the power to determine exactly where the boundary is.

MR. MILLER: I hope you'll allow some latitude in discussing this. Following from that, there clearly is some.... I wouldn't use the term dispute, but there is obviously some further work required, as outlined previously by the minister, with respect to investigation of the upper areas and whether or not harvesting should take place, because of the constraints outlined. I would have thought that that would have given rise to the need at some point to make a different demarcation line. The bill doesn't offer it, so presumably if that kind of work is undertaken — and I'm talking about movement either way — the matter would then have to come back before this Legislature.

[8:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, it does have to come back here. All this is intended to do is to mitigate in the case of a dispute where it's laid out by metes and bounds in the act and is not accurate to within a few feet. So if a dispute should happen — I doubt very much if there will be one, but if we should get down to being that picky and precise — we've made provision for that. The surveyor-general will be called in and given the power to determine the exact location of the boundary.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 28, Carmanah Pacific Park Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 30

[ Page 11394 ]

NAYS - 18

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: I'm pleased to introduce the lady who helps make the active life of a politician bearable. I know the men in the room are admiring the gorgeous woman in the audience, and I'd like to introduce her so they know that she belongs to me. I'm pleased to introduce my wife, Marion, to the House tonight.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

REFERENDUM ACT

HON. MR. DIRKS: This bill marks an important step in the development of democracy in our province. It responds to a current, deeply felt need to reconnect the public with the democratic process, which has too often come to appear aloof and even hostile to the contributions of ordinary Canadians. We live in an era of instantaneous global communications and face an unprecedented level of public concern about the ability of our historic institutions to respond quickly and effectively to a diverse public's rapidly changing needs and priorities. The recent Meech Lake process made all Canadians acutely aware of the divisiveness and painful frustration which ensue when the public feels it has been inadequately consulted in the making of vitally important decisions,

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

In the Canadian tradition, it represents an evolutionary step, not a revolutionary one. It respects our parliamentary tradition in retaining discretion over its use in the hands of elected representatives, but it provides a very powerful avenue for effective public expression, whenever that may be required, to establish a provincewide consensus for change, to give government clear direction in dealing with unforeseen matters or to break a deadlock where strongly opposing views are creating a sort of paralysis which is leaving important problems in the province, a region or a community to fester.

Some critics will undoubtedly claim that the current bill does not go far enough, but I believe that the government is acting prudently in taking one step at a time. In our view of the experience in other jurisdictions, we have found that referenda generally work very well. Switzerland is a model of achievement, civilization and decency for the whole world, and their experience with referenda has been phenomenally successful.

There are examples to the contrary and legitimate areas for concern. Under a system of direct initiative, for example, the passage of overlapping referenda or the passage of apparently or partially contradictory referenda could pose severe problems.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would just like to remind everyone to have a little quiet in the House so we can hear what's being said.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It should not be forgotten that even under initiative systems the elected legislatures remain primarily responsible for the implementation of the public's wishes. Referenda do not provide a substitute for representative democracy; rather, they form an adjunct to it.

If one looks at the California experience, one might suggest that the very number of referenda has trivialized their use and that the enormous amounts — in the millions of dollars — spent on some media campaigns have commercialized and manipulated the process in ways which rob it of that vital spark of sincere and legitimate community participation which is the very essence and ideal of the referendum process. To cite an example, recent attempts to end by referendum California's blatant electoral gerrymandering were countered by a lavish television campaign featuring Hollywood stars calling the proposal a threat to the environment. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, these are the sorts of concerns which have prompted the government to be cautious and to move to a referendum system which does not yet embrace the direct initiative. At the same time, however, make no mistake about it: this bill is a major step.

The referendum system is not perfect; no system is. But that is not sufficient reason for complacency in the face of rising public demands for greater inclusion in the decision-making process. Even the Mother of Parliaments, the ultimate defender of parliamentary tradition, saw fit to put Great Britain's continued membership in the European Common Market directly to the people on June 5, 1975.

[8:30]

In British Columbia our experience with referenda has been limited. Since 1873 we have held just seven provincewide referenda: four of them relating to liquor laws; one to MLAs' salaries; one to daylight-saving time; and one very significant measure, in 1916, to give B.C. women the vote. This legislation is the basis for expanding our province's limited experience with referenda. Perhaps the day will come when we feel the public initiative process will be appropriate. But given some of the concerns quite legitimately raised about the holding of referenda within the parliamentary system, we feel that greater experience is needed before making such a tremendous departure from our historic way of governing the province.

[ Page 11395 ]

What we will not do is turn the province into a circus or an auction-place with the prize going to the best-financed media campaign or the most deeply held prejudice. If we are looking for a model for our referendum process, it is in classical Athens or Anglo-Saxon Britain, perhaps as exemplified by the New England town meeting and not by Madison Avenue or the Mississippi lynch mob.

Mr. Speaker, this bill goes beyond the current enabling provisions of the Election Act, in that it now provides, with the amendments that are on the order paper, for the government to be bound by the intent of the public as expressed by simple majority vote.

Those who love our parliamentary system and traditions, as I do, ought not to be offended by this bill. Parliament has survived so well over the centuries only by adapting to changing conditions. The surest way to doom our system to extinction would be precisely to steadfastly resist all change. The Magna Carta was a change; so was the parliamentary supremacy over the King in matters of substance; so has been the Charter of Rights. Each change has been the positive outgrowth of our real historical experiences. Today we take a further step down that long historic road of freedom and democracy.

Wherever you travel in this world today, there is the scent of democracy in the air. It is throughout the world, and like the changing seasons it will not be denied. Mr. Speaker, this is a move in the right direction; therefore I move second reading of Bill 55.

MR. ROSE: We intend to support the bill, despite the fact it's really redundant. Right now section 196 in the Election Act already gives the cabinet all the power they need to run referenda, so why we're doing this now is beyond me — unless it's to outflank the Reform Party, which is really big on referenda. As far as we're concerned it's unnecessary.

The hon. Provincial Secretary suggests that this business of referenda in British Columbia has been used rarely. It looks to me as though it has been used rather widely. MLA sessional indemnity pay increase — that's always good for an interesting debate. In 1873 — and I presume it might happen again — most British Columbians felt that it was necessary. In 1909, local option for liquor; 1916, prohibition defeated, but the royal commission recommended disallowance of some of the overseas soldier vote and the measure was subsequently proclaimed to pass — an unmitigated disaster; 1916, women's suffrage, held concurrently with the general election and the prohibition referendum — passed; temperance plebiscite in 1920; beer by the glass in 1924.

So you can see that these all have been used for real biggies in terms of public interest. A health insurance plebiscite was held concurrently with the general election in 1937. I think it probably passed, but it didn't come in until W.A.C. Bennett brought it in about 1952 or 1953. We had another liquor plebiscite in 1952 with the general election — sale of wine and spirits by the glass in the licensed premises. It passed. Daylight-saving time in 1952 and the time plebiscite with the general election allowed certain ridings, including the Provincial Secretary's own riding, to have the benefit of Mountain time or Alberta time.

I don't want to make an unfair personal judgment, but his accent sounds a little bit Albertan to me tonight — but then my hearing is not.... I inherited this job from Frank Howard, whose hearing wasn't that great either.

Let me say that I regret.... First of all, I congratulate the government for at least the forthcoming amendment which puts this whole amendment process under the Election Act rather than the Municipal Act. That allows multiple voting, and I don't think in a democracy that would be an advantageous thing.

I don't think we have any real problem supporting this. If you're going to go to the American system of referenda, we would like to include initiatives. They have not always been successful. Proposition 13 was an initiative which wrecked the education system in California and, incidentally, provided my daughter with a job. And recall — if we don't like a particular member, through initiative we can recall him.

Why go partway? Why stick just the tip of your toe in the water? Why don't you go the rest of the way? The point is that we don't object to this bill; we just don't think it goes far enough. We're pleased that the changes we recommended have been acknowledged by the government and are part of the amendment package coming through to committee stage.

MR. PERRY: I realize it's late in the evening and the members are eager to get on with the business of the House. I feel some obligation to the library which, when the original version of this bill was presented, did yeoman service — particularly Mr. Gordon Yusko, the reference librarian — in looking up some British Columbia history for me.

Although I don't want to impose on other members' patience, I want to raise for the consideration of members some caution that in this province there is a long history of a darker side to populism. I say that as a representative of a party which has its roots embedded in populism. Even before the Social Credit Party was begun in the province of Alberta, the forerunners of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had their roots in prairie populism much before that — and much better, more widespread roots than the Social Credit Party had.

MR. SERWA: But they were wrong, and the tree withered and died.

MR. PERRY: The member for Okanagan South suggests that they were wrong and the tree withered and died. I think the tree grew selectively. Fortunately some of the less happy sides of that populist movement did wither in our party. I'm sure that if one were to look far enough back into the origins of even this party, one would find some things that even we might be ashamed of, including some intolerance of ethnic groups and non-majority races. But we worked very hard to expunge them and deal with

[ Page 11396 ]

them, to confront prejudices and to come to grips with them.

What I am getting at, although it doesn't seem to interest members on the other side.... I see the opposition House Leader listening, because he has much more experience with these issues than I do. He stood in the House of Commons and voted against the War Measures Act — one of only 16 people to do so, if my memory serves me. It was an act of great political courage at a time when mass hysteria was urging him in the other direction. As leader, the Hon. Tommy Douglas was the conscience of the nation. Having been a student in Norway at that time and seeing how the Europeans reacted, I feel very proud of that tradition in our party.

I see the members of the government side waving the white flag of surrender. Perhaps that means they understand what I am getting at.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PERRY: They will be shedding real tears in Skeena, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) says. I suspect he is right; they will be.

I wonder if they recall that one of their former colleagues, Mr. Bob Wenman, Social Credit member for Delta, proposed in this Legislature on February 27 or 26, 1971, a private member's bill proposing mandatory sterilization. Mind you, he proposed the bill for persons with whom very few in the public would have sympathy: those guilty of abuse or neglect of children. I wonder if he would have felt the same way about....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you please take your seat. I would just like to remind all members of the House that while we are in second reading, we are debating the principle of the bill. I think we are straying from that, and I would like to remind the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey about that.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you have been listening attentively. If some of the other members would show me the courtesy of listening, perhaps I could make the point more coherently.

What I am getting at is that we have a history in this province of some intolerance, and I am concerned when I see in the original version of the bill the provision for the cabinet to decide who may vote on what subject. Shall we see votes on issues that many of us on this side would consider intolerant? I hope the government will clarify that when we come to committee stage and discuss the amendments.

I will give one other example, since I can't really do justice tonight to the research our library has done, but I refer other members to the documentation if they wish. I will simply quote from a British Columbian who has inspired me personally — the second Premier, if I am correct in my memory, Amor De Cosmos. He had a very colourful record, as some members know. He died of a mysterious disease which may have been alcoholism; perhaps it was something worse. But, in general, he enjoyed a good reputation in this province as a man who represented the public well in Ottawa and Victoria and a man of the people.

What was his attitude, for example, toward blacks who voted against him in a local election on January 7, 1860? On page 65 of Crawford Kilian's history of the black pioneers of British Columbia, Go Do Some Great Thing, we find Amor De Cosmos, our illustrious former Premier — whose name was a bastardization of "lover of the universe, " a mixture of languages — saying: "The coloured people who have controlled the election are not the only party who is to blame. Coming hither from a country where no political rights are conceded to them, it is quite natural that they should eagerly accept every privilege offered to them." As the book says, he made a bitter editorial on the perfidy of the blacks and of their white allies.

What I am getting at is that we have a tradition in British Columbia that is not only noble but includes some darker side. It behooves us to exercise some caution and to record in this Legislature, before we proceed to the passage of this bill, that we expect the Premier and his cabinet to exercise restraint befitting our society in the 1990s and to ensure that any referendums put to the people of British Columbia are dignified and reflect the democratic traditions of this country at this time.

[8:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There being no other speakers, the minister, under standing orders, closes debate.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I call the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 55, Referendum Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 65.

SENATORIAL SELECTION ACT

HON. MR. DIRKS: It gives me great pleasure to move second reading of the Senatorial Selection Act. Mr. Speaker, this is an incremental step towards Senate reform and represents the most a province can do, acting on its own, to advance the process of reform of the Senate. It is the view of this government — and it has been this province's position since 1976 — that the feeling of western alienation that has developed over the years and is still developing could be alleviated in part by a properly constituted Upper House.

It is only right that the seats in the House of Commons should be distributed on the basis of

[ Page 11397 ]

representation by population. However, to follow that same principle in the distribution of seats in the Upper House is contrary to all that a federation stands for and is anathema to outer regions of the country and smaller provinces having a proper say in national decision-making. That is why this government supports a reformed Senate along the lines of the triple-E model — a Senate that would give equitable representation to all provinces and that would truly be elected.

Unfortunately, these reforms can only be brought about by major constitutional reform....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Burnaby North rises on a point of order.

MR. JONES: It seems to me that we are on the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill may have wide ramifications, but a triple-E Senate and all the things that this bill might do are not the subject of debate at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that the hon. minister is just trying to make some distinction between the triple-E Senate and what's being proposed in the bill, so I would like him to proceed with what he is presenting.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'll try and speak a little slower so the member opposite will be able to understand.

Unfortunately these reforms can only be brought about by major constitutional reform in which the federal government and seven of the ten provinces would have to agree. This government will continue to press for that reform in the short term. In the meantime, however, there is now an opening in the Senate of Canada from this province because of the death of the distinguished Senator, Nancy Bell of Nanaimo.

This bill will allow the electorate of British Columbia at the next provincial election to democratically choose a person to represent them in the Senate of Canada. In order for the process to work, it will be necessary for the Prime Minister to appoint the person successful in this senatorial election. Surely that ought to represent no problem for the Prime Minister. Surely the Prime Minister, far from resisting this, would embrace it because of the democratic nature of the proposal. Who could be more deserving of being a Senator from this province than one whom the electors in this province choose?

As I have said before, this is not major Senate reform, but it is an incremental step in that direction As the Premier said in his letter to the Prime Minister on July 19, 1990, "it is most essential that whatever democratic elements can be grafted onto the existing institution be taken."

I commend this bill to all members of the House and enthusiastically encourage its passage. I move second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try to top that!

MR. ROSE: Well, that would be really difficult. I'm really pleased to see that your seatmate over there, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), is looking at me with great interest, because he thinks the whole business of the Senate is a crock — although I think he's too polite and well educated as a Rhodes Scholar to ever say that. I think the whole thing is a crock myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. ROSE: I don't pay any attention to calls for order from my own side.

What this really is is a repository....

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. ROSE: I know you're in the medical business, but it's spelled with an "r, " not an "s."

The whole Senate is a repository for bagmen and....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You got it, eh? There's a real delay in your humour over there.

Our attitude here, and that of my colleague as well, is that if we have to have a Senate, however repugnant it is to some of us.... Personally, I don't think we need a bicameral House. A lot of people have described the Senate appointment as a taskless thanks. Let me try that again on you: a taskless thanks. I agree with this.

I've said, many more times than I would like to, that we're calling for a triple-E senate. We'll never get it. But we've already got it: elderly, expensive and expendable. We don't need that.

Let's deal with this particular bill. I agree with the Provincial Secretary that it's not Senate reform. Senate reform was killed long before Meech Lake. Senate reform is really not possible under the present circumstances. But if we have to have a Senate — and I don't think we need a bicameral House in this country — then we would prefer to have somebody who is elected.

The urgency to replace Senator Nancy Bell, who was a very fine person and a very fine British Columbian, is a matter of some importance, but not of great importance. I mean no discredit to her, but it hasn't changed my life one iota. We've got about five other Senators down there, and they haven't changed my life one iota either. Whether or not we have one or not is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

However, if we're going to have that, why do we have to tie it to the next provincial election? The way things are going, that could be two years from now.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be two weeks from now.

MR. ROSE: You can't do that, because the Election Act calls for 28 days. No matter how you guys try to

[ Page 11398 ]

gerrymander the rules, it's got to be 28 days, in spite of what you guys could do to it.

It offers a tremendous chance, along with the Senate bill, to do a little bit of fed-bashing, to outflank the Reform Party and do all the rest of it. An elected Senate won't change a thing, but if we had changes, we'd like it to be on the electoral basis of the federal voting at 18 years. We'd like it to be constant with the municipal election in November.

That's what we would prefer for the whole thing, because it would hurry the whole thing up before Mulroney has a chance to appoint Pat Carney and give you guys some kind of weapon to hurl at Ottawa so you can continue your fed-bashing until the polls look good for you just before the next provincial election. You are whistling in the dark. You are chasing your own cherished rainbows. By the time we have the next election, all of you will be eligible for the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The humour you attach to your comments is always appreciated after ten hours of debate.

MR. MILLER: It's pretty difficult to have an extensive debate about this. I understand the dynamics of that situation. Nonetheless, we want to register a few concerns about the issue of Senate reform. I agree with my colleague in this respect that the bill is virtually meaningless. It illustrates part of the larger problem we face in this country.

There hasn't been any substantive debate on the issue of changing our form of government. My party has held, for many years, a view of the Senate which is the correct view.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Health (Hon. J Jansen) is taking words out of my mouth. I was just going to describe it, and he's doing the same thing. If he wanted to shut up, I could finish and get on with my speech. If he wants to prolong it, I guess that's his option.

To continue, my party's view is well known. We view the Senate as an anachronism in this country. It serves no useful purpose except to provide a haven for friends of the government who happen to be in power. I have heard — as have other Canadians — all political parties denounce patronage. I have seen all political parties practice it with fervour and zeal. I suppose that goes with the territory. It goes with our system.

The fact remains that the Senate has not been a useful vehicle in terms of the politics of this country Senators don't have any particular connection with the provinces they come from. They don't report, and they're not answerable, and for that reason I think the policy that we had for many years to abolish the Senate was a good, sound, practical policy. We're now dealing with and entering into a new era and trying to define what this country is about; how we deal with the difficult issues of keeping this country together, which we all want as Canadians; and how we structure a form of government that recognizes regional interests, because there's a feeling in many parts of this land that those interests have not been taken into account.

On a provincial level, I'm aware as a northern representative that quite often we feel the same in relation to the more populated areas of the province. We don't feel that the regional interests have been taken into consideration by people in the lower mainland or by governments that are dominated by members from the lower mainland. We don't propose that we develop a two-tiered system of government within the province to resolve that. We instead subscribe to the notion as laid out by Judge Fisher that there should be some relative equality in terms of population representation.

If you look at the groundwork that I've laid, we're proposing now to really do what was talked about in the previous bill and what my colleague from Point Grey talked about as well as some of the dangers of a referendum bill. We are proposing to put forward in some sense a very simplistic notion to the electorate that we have to elect a senator from British Columbia to somehow represent these regional interests that have not been taken into account by the people we represent federally through the normal process. The voters, I would think, would jump at the opportunity — yes, that's right — and they will go forward, but without any clear understanding of what is exactly being proposed in terms of this different structure.

What do we want? Do we want a hybrid system? Do we want the U.S. system? Nobody has defined that; there has been no broad discussion on that issue. Although we support the bill because it does not make sense to oppose it, it does not deal with the substantive issue — and I think a very serious issue that I feel quite concerned about as a Canadian — of how we deal with changing our structure of government to accommodate those regional interests.

For that reason, I felt compelled to offer my two bits' worth. As I said from the start, the atmosphere for a serious debate in this chamber is not here. Witness the loutish comments from across the floor. Perhaps there will be other opportunities when serious British Columbians who want to discuss those issues will have the opportunity to do so.

[9:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There being no other speakers, under standing orders the minister will close debate.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I now move second reading of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 65, Senatorial Selection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today

[ Page 11399 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $352,605.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm pleased to rise today to present the Ministry of Health budget estimates for the 1990-91 fiscal year. The ministry's expenditures this year will be increased by more than $488 million, or 11.3 percent over last year's voted appropriation. In the coming year we expect to spend an average of more than $1,525 for each British Columbian, or more than $4,000 per family, to ensure continued access to quality health care.

Before I begin to discuss the ministry's program plan for the current fiscal year, I'd like to report briefly on a few particularly important initiatives of the last fiscal year. First of all, our British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care, which was announced February 22, 1990, has been given a very broad mandate to examine the structure, organization and effectiveness of British Columbia's health care system. It has been asked to focus on ways to ensure continued high-quality and affordable care throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century.

We also established the office for seniors. This has been a very eventful and successful year for the newly established office. We launched an initiative last spring called "Toward a Better Age." This task force visited some 21 communities across the province and produced the "Toward a Better Age" report, which I released in April.

We also announced that $1 million will be available for demonstration projects related to the health and well-being of seniors through the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation.

On June 15 I announced to members of the first Seniors' Advisory Council — the chairman being Dr. Howard Petch — that they will play a key role in advising the government on issues of concern to seniors. In addition, an interministry coordinating committee on seniors will be reviewing the "Toward a Better Age" report to ensure that their programs and services are consistent with the directions outlined in this report. In the meantime, the office for seniors will continue to serve as a contact point for seniors and work to develop and coordinate programs and services for seniors.

Midway through the last fiscal year the office of health promotion was established. This significant initiative demonstrated the Ministry of Health's commitment to making health promotion and wellness a cornerstone in our health care system. The work of the office will focus on broad participation, healthy public policies and physical and social environments which support health. Programs undertaken by the office will expand the number of health communities in British Columbia as part of a worldwide movement to create supportive environments for local action to resolve health issues. We will be promoting the healthy schools program to encourage children, parents and teachers to work together to create healthier schools.

We will survey children's health issues in order to establish priorities and action plans to improve the health of children in our province and encourage more municipalities and workplaces to adopt non-smoking bylaws or policies.

In addition, this year the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation will sponsor $1 million in research demonstration projects designed to encourage and assess a wide variety of health promotion initiatives.

In further recognition of the importance of achieving good health through the prevention of disease and the promotion of positive lifestyles through public health education, I'm also happy to advise hon. members of an important communication initiative which the Ministry of Health has launched this year: Your Better Health magazine. This magazine is published quarterly and is delivered to every household in the province. It offers a wide range of general health issues and concerns in an unbiased manner and will provide topical health information from a wide range of credible professional health sources, from medical, public and community health perspectives.

As well, we are extending our important prenatal care education program with the introduction this year of a film version of our widely acclaimed Baby's Best Chance program. This was developed specifically to reach those people who do not attend prenatal classes or who have difficulty reading English. It is done in a convenient video format for viewing at home or at a local health unit.

These initiatives demonstrate our ongoing commitment to developing good preventive health information for British Columbians. The key focus of the coming year will include development of information-education programs in aid of health, as well as our ongoing commitment to develop and disseminate educational materials on AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases as part of the provincial AIDS strategy.

Community and family health funding has been increased by over 15 percent to initiate and expand programs in family health, environmental health, mental health, and forensic psychiatric and disease control services throughout the province. With this additional funding, we'll be able to substantially augment health services for the mentally ill, the mentally and physically disabled, children with special health needs, native people and seniors — and also strengthen our commitment to a healthy environment and promote wellness as well as treating disease and disability.

In February we announced the British Columbia mental health initiative. It is a ten-year program to greatly increase a wide range of community mental health services. It will be replacing Riverview Hospital with modern in-patient-care facilities more accessible to those in need throughout the province, and it

[ Page 11400 ]

will responsibly manage a shift to a more community-based approach to the care of the mentally ill.

This budget which we are presenting also includes an additional $6 million for mental health services — the first instalment on the $20 million we said would be added to this area over the next few years. This additional funding will provide additional community residential beds, more treatment and case management through increased medical and psychiatric coverage, an increase in services by other mental health specialists and a number of new rehabilitation programs. Funds are also included for the training of caregivers and professionals dealing with the mentally ill and for continuation of a broad public education program.

Let me repeat for the record that new community facilities and services developed over the next few years to replace those now at Riverview Hospital will be fully developed before any corresponding reduction in beds at Riverview takes place.

This budget also contains nearly $5.5 million in new funds and 13 FTEs to address the needs of those mentally handicapped children and adults who also suffer from physical handicaps and need special assistance in moving from institutional to community living arrangements.

We are also solidly committed to helping families cope with children suffering from chronic medical problems. An additional $2.4 million has been provided to expand community nursing-respite services to assist families caring for children with severe handicaps. An additional 60 children will be able to receive nursing services in their homes during those periods when their families are given relief from their own regular care giving duties.

Over $2.5 million and 12 FTEs have been allocated to better meet the needs of children and youth with mental health problems, to increase services for infants and preschoolers with neurological and developmental handicaps, to permit an additional 1,200 young people and their families to receive mental health services, and to allow almost 1,000 more young children to receive needed therapy as a result of this increased funding.

Children are also the focus of an ongoing program to enhance speech pathology services throughout the province, and $600,000 has been allocated to increase staff levels, which will result in improved access to and coordination of speech services, a training program on hearing impairment and management for parents and caregivers, and a pilot project to prevent communication disorders in high-risk infants.

We will also implement a $3 million interministry sex abuse interventions project for 1990-91. This will develop standards for services and training programs for service providers, and deliver direct services in assessment counselling, consultation and training through the local community agencies to victims of sexual abuse. It will be targeted to at-risk populations such as children in families, natives, people with physical or mental handicaps, juvenile offenders and those who live in rural or isolated communities.

Each year, about 5,500 British Columbians receive head injuries serious enough to warrant hospitalization. Approximately 400 of these individuals suffer severe or permanent disabilities. Recognizing the unique ongoing service and support requirements of these individuals and their families, I am pleased to announce that $1 million has been set aside in 1990-91 to enhance current service levels.

Two other groups will receive special attention in our community health program this year: native British Columbians and seniors. Funding will be provided to develop innovative projects to improve access for natives to health services in a culturally sensitive manner. Programs will be delivered through consultation with native leaders and communities and will include input from other ministries and levels of government.

Additional funding of $459,000 has been allocated to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control to ensure that most of our seniors can be vaccinated against influenza over this next year. British Columbia's Centre for Disease Control continues to be a centre of excellence and innovation in the prevention and treatment of disease.

British Columbians have also made it clear that they place a very high priority on the quality of the physical environment, and that they expect public authorities to ensure that health risks associated with the environment are minimized wherever possible. To help respond to this, more than $2 million and 22 FTEs will be added to the budget of the environmental health protection branch this year, which is an increase of over 20 percent.

I indicated earlier in my remarks that it is most important for the future health of British Columbians that we shift our focus from illness towards wellness in our society. It is far more effective to prevent disease and promote healthier lifestyles than to simply treat illnesses and injuries which may often be chronic or self-induced and which refuse to yield to medical intervention. This budget, therefore, includes additional funding of over $1 million to permit a number of important wellness strategies to be implemented this year through the ministry's community and family health division.

Our hospital programs have been provided an unprecedented increase of $304 million this year, a more than 14.6 percent increase over last year's estimate. This year's hospital programs will continue to support the implementation of a provincewide mammography screening program. The initial pilot program in Vancouver has been very successful, and a second clinic was opened recently in Surrey. We have identified four fixed-site clinics later on this year; and a mobile van, based in Kamloops, has just recently started operation.

Our open-heart programs, as you know, have been subject to problems due to a chronic shortage of critical care nurses and perfusion technologists. These problems have not been related to the funding levels for these positions. Funding was provided to perform approximately 2,100 operations per year, but due to the nursing strike last summer and the

[ Page 11401 ]

shortage of nurses and technologists, the program has been running at 200 to 300 cases behind the level achieved by this time last year.

[9:15]

However, as you may be aware, a temporary agreement has been reached with several Washington State hospitals to provide open-heart surgery procedures for up to 200 British Columbia patients. In an attempt to further alleviate this problem, I announced last week a $3 million initiative which would see approximately 100 additional open-heart surgery procedures performed this year at St. Paul's, as well as the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria. In addition, we expect the new open-heart surgery facilities to open shortly at the Royal Columbian Hospital and later in Kelowna.

The target for open-heart surgery for '90-91 within these expanded facilities is 2,366 adult procedures and approximately 130 pediatric procedures, for a total of 2,600 cases. These capacity increases substantially address the wait-list backlog.

To deal with the serious shortage of critical care nurses, the Ministry of Health has undertaken several initiatives to improve recruitment and retention of nurses. These programs include over $1 million for critical care nursing training, as well as a grant of $154,000 to the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia to implement specific nursing retention projects.

We have also recently developed a nurse action plan which addresses many of the concerns related to nursing issues, established a broadly representative committee to examine nursing issues and appointed a senior nursing consultant responsible for pursuing the strategies and recommendations contained in the nurse action plan.

Transplantation technology has advanced to the point where organ replacement is now the treatment of choice for chronic renal failure and is the only effective treatment for end-stage heart, liver and lung failure. My ministry has increased funding for immunosuppressant drugs and begun a network of transplant follow-up clinics for the ongoing monitoring of transplant patients. Our kidney transplant program has been very successful. Renal transplants in British Columbia have quadrupled over the last three years to over 140 per year, and British Columbians now benefit from the highest rate of renal transplantation in Canada.

The hospital-community partnership program was established in 1989-90 to encourage and support hospital management in developing programs to provide appropriate health care delivery systems for the community in conjunction with local health boards and community agencies. Programs approved to date include diabetic education, nutrition, lifestyle counselling, respiratory therapy, psychogeriatric outreach, discharge support and several quick-response programs.

The hospital innovation incentive program, also established last year, continues to help hospitals make investments resulting in reduced operating costs.

The continuing-care program in the Ministry of Health is recognized internationally as being one of the finest in North America. Last year the program continued its efforts to maintain this status by introducing a number of important initiatives. The Continuing Care Act was brought into focus on July 1, 1990, which further strengthened the accountability of the long-term-care industry.

To bring about greater equity between various parts of the continuing-care system, an additional $11 million was provided to improve wages for home support workers. Significant adjustments were provided to residential care facilities to reflect their actual staffing costs. The government recognizes and strongly supports seniors being able to stay at home wherever possible. This year we will continue to emphasize home support services such as homemakers, adult care services, group homes and Meals on Wheels, and we will provide additional funding to field staff to ensure prompt, responsive services to clients.

I'm proud of British Columbia's continuing-care program, but we cannot stand still. We must strive for ways of providing better services. In this regard, the continuing-care division will allocate $1 million to support about a dozen comprehensive-care pilot projects which are designed to explore innovative approaches to the delivery of care in residential facilities.

We continue to update and expand our capital stock of facilities to meet the needs of our citizens. We have started construction of a $6.1 million new health centre in Kelowna, scheduled to start this month, with a completion date of May 1991. We will be seeking planning and construction approval of nine new health centres valued at over $25 million for Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Abbotsford, Campbell River, Coquitlam, Courtenay-Comox, Penticton, Powell River and Trail. We will also be seeking planning approval for our new B.C. Centre for Disease Control and for our new Forensic Psychiatric Institute.

On top of these major initiatives, the ministry will be seeking approval for construction of 20 other major expansion and modernization projects at existing acute- and long-term-care facilities to meet the demands of a growing and aging population. These latter projects will have a value of $163 million and will create approximately 1,300 person-years of construction-related employment.

We will also continue to improve the delivery of vital statistics services throughout the province, with new regional offices opened in Kelowna in December and in Prince George on April 2, 1990.

1 am particularly cognizant of the need to address on a priority basis those areas of particularly high population growth in the province, especially in Surrey and the lower Fraser Valley. The population growth statistics for these areas are dramatic. For example, over the next five years the population in these two areas will increase by an average of 22 percent, compared to an 11 percent overall growth for the province. By 1995, only five years from today, we will have 100,000 more people living in Surrey

[ Page 11402 ]

and the lower Fraser Valley, all of whom will depend upon our health care system. Even more startling is the growth in seniors; in the same five years the number of seniors will actually increase by about 37 percent. To address this rapid population growth, I recently announced construction initiatives for the Delta, Surrey and Peace Arch hospitals, which will result in an additional 130 acute- and extended-care beds coming on stream in the near future and an additional 630 beds in the longer term.

At this time I take great pleasure in citing the acknowledged excellence of the Emergency Health Services Commission in British Columbia — the ambulance service. This organization, with nearly 3,000 full- and part-time staff, faces great challenges in providing ambulance service and pre-hospital care to the people of the province. In response to increased utilization pressure and in order to maintain the high quality of service, the government is providing more than $11.5 million in additional funding, an increase of 17 percent to maintain and improve this essential service for British Columbians.

Given that negotiations are currently going on between the British Columbia Medical Association and the Ministry of Finance's government personnel services division, it will not be appropriate for me to comment on this issue, except to say that I'm optimistic. As long as both parties stay at the table, I feel sure that we will eventually reach an agreement that is acceptable to British Columbians.

I can tell you, however, that negotiations with all supplementary practitioner groups have been concluded. Final agreement has also been reached with the B.C. Medical Association regarding the pay-out in relation to the last three-year contract. A payment of $9.5 million has been made to the BCMA for distribution to its members.

The Medical Services Commission recognizes the need to improve its ability to ensure that medically required services are provided in the most effective manner possible.

We also recognize that greater efforts are needed to educate the public as to the most appropriate use of health care services. Towards this end, we have created a program-monitoring and education branch which is developing and using medical service performance measures and is developing educational programs to promote greater awareness of the need for prudent use of health care services.

I would also like to take a moment to apprise the House of the fact that government and more than 400 employees of the Medical Services Commission are celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the plan's operation this year.

The last division, the Pharmacare program, ensures that all British Columbians have reasonable access to prescription drugs and certain nondrug benefit items through a system of reimbursement Last year the government program included home blood-glucose monitoring strips as a benefit for three high-risk diabetic groups: children under the age of 19, pregnant diabetics and gestational diabetics. It was agreed that once the program had been in place for a period of time, it would be reviewed. I'm happy to report that, as I had the pleasure of announcing recently, we are now able to offer the same financial assistance to all diabetics who require the ongoing testing program. As with the earlier pilot program, diabetics will need to take the training course offered through special clinics at hospitals throughout the province.

All told, Pharmacare will receive over $32 million in additional funding this year to address population and utilization growth and to cover increased drug costs and expanded benefits. We are only one of three provinces in Canada with a universal drug program. It is important to note that since the universal program and the seniors' program are not cost-shareable with the federal government, they must be paid for entirely by the province of British Columbia.

We are also pleased to report that with the cooperation of the College of Pharmacists and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, we were able to introduce the triplicate prescription program last January. This program provides tightened control over potential drug misuse and double-doctoring.

We've also been discussing the concerns of the pharmacists of B.C. with them, and as a result, have developed some very innovative programs which I was able to announce recently.

Mr. Chairman, I have made a real effort to keep my comments as brief as possible. The vast and complex operations and services provided by the Ministry of Health touch virtually every person and every region in the province. Our citizens have come to expect the absolutely best health care that a generous funding base and a highly trained and devoted body of professionals can deliver. I am proud to say that thanks to the prudent management of available resources, innovative delivery techniques, careful evaluation and long-range planning, we have continued to meet those expectations — although even with our many successes, we keep on trying to find innovative, flexible and practical solutions to the many challenges we face.

MR. PERRY: The minister and I have waited many moons for this privilege.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) suggests that I immigrated to Canada for this kind of government. I can assure him that my decision was unrelated. Had I known more about this kind of government, who knows what I would have done.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I think the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr, Rabbitt) is referring to the great Canadian safety net and the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain contrasts us with the 38 percent of Americans who have no health coverage. I wonder if his enthusiasm for the recent Presidents of the United

[ Page 11403 ]

States would be modified by the recognition that in the health field, the American system has failed a substantial minority of its population. I think it's refreshing to see that he's aware of that problem.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: I hope I can encourage some members on the opposite side to rethink whether we can be as sanguine as we sometimes are about the status of our own health system.

I found it enjoyable to listen to the minister. He made an interesting presentation, and it's appropriate at this point in the parliamentary session to acknowledge some of the goods things the ministry has been doing in the last year.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I'm prepared to go all night, if necessary, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to acknowledge some good things. I'm pleased to acknowledge, as I did in my response to the budget, that there has been a significant increase in preventive services in particular and in community services in the budget estimates. I wish that we had more time to explore these issues in great depth, but I think we would test the patience of the House if we did that, so I'll limit myself to saying that it's encouraging. It remains to be seen how it will translate into reality.

[9:30]

The overwhelming sensation I'm left with after listening to the minister is: why, if everything is quite so wonderful as he has outlined it, so many people are unhappy in British Columbia with the state of the health care services? In the 28 years that I've lived here, I can't remember a time when there was so much unrest in the health care system and among the population about where we're heading. In the 16 years that I've personally been in the health field or in the 11 years that I've practised as a physician in British Columbia, I can't remember a time when there was so much malaise. When I've attended meetings of the Registered Nurses' Association or of the Hospital Employees' Union or met with representatives of the Health Sciences Association or the B.C. Health Association representing hospitals in the province, I detect the same malaise. In study sessions of the physicians, I see many of those physicians most self-sacrificing and dedicated to the care of patients in British Columbia in the audience — some of the finest teachers who taught me — looking very worried. It would be a salutary experience for any member of this House to think on what their own personal physician or physicians are telling them about problems in the system. I see the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain nodding; many of us have had those contacts, and are troubled at some of the problems that we face.

I find it particularly unsettling looking out on an audience outside on the steps of the Legislature where, for the first time in history, physicians have gathered, many of them not out of concern for their own financial circumstance but out of concern for the general state of the health care system.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) suggests that it's only a fight for money. There may be a significant element of self-interest in it, but it would be a mistake, I submit, to construe it as only that. The demonstrations by psychiatric and community health nurses outside the buildings for the first time that I'm aware of in British Columbia history, the demonstrations last year of the hospital nurses, the picketing of government buildings by psychiatric nurses, and the occupation of a health centre, Woodlands school, by psychiatric nurses only a few weeks ago are all serious warning signs.

I see government members laughing and smiling to themselves. I hope they're laughing about something else, because we're facing difficult times in this field.

What concerns me most in observing the government's response to problems in the health care field in the last 16 months isn't so much the level of funding, which consumes one-third of our total budget. The minister and his staff will note that I've resisted the temptation that many others have succumbed to of saying that more money will fix the system, and that perhaps a 0.02 percent decrease in the total provincial budget allotted to health care somehow represents a major failing on the part of government.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I see the need for more funds in some areas, but in many more areas I see the need for more rational application of money and of human talents, and for a cooperative working relationship between government and health care providers, and between patients, or ordinary British Columbians even before they become patients, so that we can achieve a more effective and efficient health care system in this province.

Cochrane, a famous professor of epidemiology and community medicine at the University of Cardiff in Wales, published in about 1946 a book by that title — Effectiveness and Efficiency — based on the Nuffield Lectures delivered in England. The book is still available in libraries. It describes the importance of focusing on outcomes — not only on goals but on outcomes in health care. This is what we must review in these estimates debates in the time allotted to us by the Legislature. One of my intentions is to examine, in the limited time available, some of the outcomes and to contrast them with some of the beautiful and reassuring words that we've heard tonight.

Tonight we can only begin this debate. I would like to pick up on a few of the more challenging assertions that the minister made in his speech. Before I do that, I would like to invite him once more — since it's the last chance before we pursue these

[ Page 11404 ]

debates and the adjournment of this Legislature is imminent; this is likely to be the last sitting of this Legislature — to table for my information the reports that I've requested in this House many times: specifically, Dr. Keon's report on open-heart surgery in British Columbia and the reports of the AIDS advisory committee, because I think it would facilitate not only our debate in this Legislature but the public debate of these very complex and controversial issues.

MR. MOWAT: You heard it at question period. Why waste taxpayers' dollars?

MR. PERRY. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain asks a very appropriate question: why waste the taxpayers' dollars? He points out that I asked the same question in question period many times — and I did. By dint of repetition I secured today the release — in a very courageous act by the minister, perhaps in defiance of his Premier, who had censored this report produced at an estimated cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia of $8,000.... The minister finally released it two years after it was published. He did not release the appendices, the detailed dissenting or adjoining opinions submitted by members of the ethics committee, which would have made fascinating reading and which would not only have been instructive but added to intelligent debate in this province of the controversial issue of abortion. He gave us a start by defying his Premier, who only a day earlier had refused to grant to the people of British Columbia access to a report for which they had paid.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain asks: "Shall the taxpayers get value?" The answer to that is yes. The report commissioned from Dr. Keon in the wake of a similar crisis in Ontario, in which physicians in the city of Windsor ultimately had to set up their own exchange program with Detroit to achieve satisfactory heart-surgery services for Ontario patients.... A major review was ultimately commissioned of St. Michael's Hospital, one of the major cardiac-surgery centres in Ontario. In the wake of that experience, the ministry evidently commissioned its own review in 1988 from Dr. Keon, the pre-eminent heart surgeon in Canada — director of the Ottawa Heart Institute and a pioneer of heart transplantation in this country.

That report has been circulated in some hospitals. I have spoken to people who have seen it. I have not seen the report myself, nor have the people of British Columbia. I submit that they are entitled to that information because they paid for it. They are entitled to know whether or not the government faithfully honoured its process by listening to and acting in a timely fashion on the recommendations of Dr. Keon in his report.

If the government did follow the recommendations of the Keon report, as the minister has suggested, what has it got to hide? What conceivable reason is there, other than impudence and contempt for the people of British Columbia, not to release that report? Dr. Keon himself, a man of conscience, is not willing to release the report without the permission of those who commissioned it, the people of British Columbia. And yet, the people of British Columbia are bound in a chain of ignorance by this government, just as I as the Health critic am bound.

When I have asked for the report before, I have been treated with contempt. I've been assured that the report would be too complicated for me to understand, that it would be beyond my intellectual capacity, and by implication that, if it is beyond mine, there is no one else in the opposition caucus who might be able to understand it. I can understand why government members may or may not enjoy confidence in a particular member, but surely that reflects contempt for the opposition and therefore for the people of British Columbia.

I want to invite the minister again to table that report, just as we, the people of British Columbia, were able to learn through the release of the Emergency Health Services Commission report what was really going on with the air ambulances in this province — how "Gran Air" was really abusing those jets paid for out of public funds and using them at a time when patients in this province could not get adequate ambulance service.

Having made that invitation, may I ask the minister some specific questions relating to some of the encouraging comments he made in beginning his speech about the importance of services and programs to prevent disease and to promote healthier lifestyles.

Tomorrow night in Vancouver will begin the Benson and Hedges-sponsored Symphony of Fire. Mr. Chair, I am sure you are aware, as other hon. members are, that tobacco advertising is illegal in Canada. Through many years, public health agencies, led by physicians, nurses, others in the health field and many Members of Parliament, including my colleague the opposition House Leader and the late Barry Mather, among others, fought very hard for the prevention of tobacco advertising. Yet the law still permits companies, the purveyors of death, the deliberate purveyors who make their living through the suffering of British Columbians.... I see the minister nodding. He obviously recognizes the seriousness of their activities. These agencies, the tobacco companies....

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: My colleague, the opposition House Leader, points out that the minister also obviously recognizes the cost to medicare, which reckons in hundreds of millions of dollars to British Columbia annually.

These companies — for example, Benson and Hedges — still enjoy the privilege of attaching their name to major civic events. They have developed a culture in which our arts and sporting organizations

[ Page 11405 ]

are dependent on their largesse and in which expenditures that they make for their own advertising credit are deducted from their income tax at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers — like you, Mr. Chair, and I — who pay our full share of taxes in this country, deducted from our paycheques at source. Benson and Hedges does not. It can write off its costs on a project like the Symphony of Fire — a major fireworks display in the harbour of Vancouver — as an advertising cost. You can be sure that its senior executives will be enjoying the finest that Vancouver has to offer in food and lodging this week. They will be regaled by civic dignitaries who will welcome them, the merchants of death, to my city.

Who are the few courageous people willing to stand up and be counted against this? Well, I note that Alderman Price of the city of Vancouver was willing to stand up. Some of his colleagues — Alderman Eriksen for one — felt the same way about this issue. A few West End residents — a Mr. J. Arnauld and a Mr. R. Walker — appeared in the city council to protest this. And I note that a notice of motion offered by Alderman Price in the Vancouver city council on March 8 of this year noted of the Symphony of Fire fireworks display sponsored by Benson and Hedges: "The event is associated with a tobacco company as an advertising strategy and therefore is counterproductive to the city's anti-smoking initiatives and community health promotion."

[9:45]

Incidentally, six evenings of fireworks in a two-week period might be unfair to the neighbourhoods around English Bay. From a distance, when you see those fireworks, maybe they look wonderful, but when you're listening to them keeping you awake at midnight, they are not always so much fun.

I want to ask the minister what his own feelings are. Is it a good thing to have a company whose sole and deliberate basis in life is to addict people to tobacco, one of the most addictive substances known in the world and one of the most dangerous, which is guaranteed to cost many such individuals, perhaps 17 percent of all those who smoke, their life...? Is that a good thing to be encouraging in this province? Will the province ever take a stand against these and make this kind of promotion illegal?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member has made a couple of comments that give me some concern. Regarding the air ambulance, he said that patients cannot get adequate air ambulance because of cabinet ministers utilizing aircraft. I would like the member to give me just one instance of where a patient could not get an aircraft from the air ambulance service — just one patient. I have tried to find one example. I know he has said on a number of occasions that government air services is putting the patients and the people of British Columbia at risk because we can't provide regular flying service.

I would let the member know that I asked staff to go back to 1973, 1974 and 1975. I wonder who was in government at that time. Can anyone answer that? Let me tell you something, hon. member. During 1975 the government of the day shamefully allocated 271 flying hours to Airvac. Do you know what they allocated to their cabinet? Forty-five hundred hours of flying time. Do you know what that compares to today, Mr. Member? I'll tell you. Last year we allocated 1,600 hours of flying time and 2,400 hours of other flying time. Compare those figures for a moment before you make any statements about putting the patients of British Columbia at risk. Shame on you, Mr. Member. I ask you not to make those kinds of statements unless you bring to me one example of a situation where we were unable to provide air ambulance service in the province.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Smoking is a concern on this side of the House, as well as with all members. Again, we have a different ideology. We believe that people sometimes know what's best for them. We enable democracy to work in the true sense. We encourage communities to take leadership on these issues. That unfortunately offends some members of the opposition, because they have this centralized approach to their policies — that if it's made in Victoria and made by them, it must be good and it must apply to everyone in the province.

We don't go on that basis. We think that individual communities have a say in these matters. There are 44 communities in the province of British Columbia which have introduced anti-smoking bylaws and smoke-free places of work. We support them. We've also introduced a smoking cessation project with the physicians of the province, our own workplace environment and the city of Vancouver — one of the first such communities to adopt an anti-smoking bylaw.

The member asks me whether or not we support anti-smoking initiatives. Yes, I am pleased to say that we do. We encourage communities and will work with them to ensure that the bylaws that they bring forward are the bylaws that are going to be effective in terms of dealing with this problem.

MR. PERRY: The usual practice in this House is for the opposition to ask the questions and the minister to respond. Since the minister has raised.... I don't think he has answered my question — and I'll come back to it — on whether he thinks it's a good idea....

MR. CASHORE: He's asking questions because he's ready to be in opposition.

MR. PERRY: My colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam suggests the minister is asking questions because he's ready to be in opposition.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I'll let the people decide that. I think he'll enjoy these benches if he gets the chance.

I don't think I've had an answer to my question, which was not about the minister overruling the city of Vancouver on this issue of the Benson and Hedges

[ Page 11406 ]

project, but: does he think it's a good idea? Does he foresee the day when sometime under a Social Credit government — God forbid we should have another — into the twenty-first or twenty-second century, we might arrive at the point where it's considered unethical for a tobacco company to sponsor events like this which suck in more young people?

Implicit in the question is this issue: is the addiction foisted onto a nine-year-old schoolgirl or schoolboy by a tobacco company really a matter of free will? The tobacco companies — as I showed in excerpts from previously secret court testimony in a private member's statement I gave a couple of weeks ago — deliberately target their advertising strategy to those young kids, to try to seduce them and suck them into a lifelong addiction. That's what I'm asking the minister.

Let me return to his question. What's really on trial here — perhaps it's not on trial, but it's certainly appropriate to interrogate the minister — is this government's ambulance commission report which showed that the reduction.... From page 15 of the annual report this year, a document we're not normally privileged to see — it normally ends up being censored down to three pages in the annual report and published a year and a half late This report shows that "the reduction from 2,800 hours to 1,800 hours per year caused an increase in charter costs of $1.2 million" and that, in fact, government air services withdrew from the ambulance service hours that it had expected to achieve in government operation.

Let me deal directly with the minister's question. I will not name the individual in question until I have permission from the family, but the minister's staff are aware of the case and will be aware of the facts. I had chosen to deal with this case privately in order to respect the confidentiality of the family, but since the minister raises it in this House and suggests that somehow there is something less than honest about my concern....

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: I will answer his question.

Because the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran) chose to release government air logs for a short period of only a few days, for a few hours each day, there was no opportunity to go back and look at the logs for this date. I don't know what the government jets were doing that day, but the overall impression created by the withdrawal of air hours from the ambulance service and the abuse of jets provoked the complaint that led to what I'm about to tell you.

In early May of this year a young British Columbian who was dying of liver disease required urgent liver transplantation in London, Ontario. According to his mother, he was told by the social worker at his hospital that it would be impossible to achieve an air ambulance transport to London, Ontario, because the cost would be $15,000. It was suggested, according to the mother, that she ask her friends for assistance.

Being on a fixed income and her husband being on pension, she considered selling her house in order to achieve a life-saving transport for her son to London, Ontario. The transport was arranged at the suggestion of the Vancouver Transplant Clinic and the medical care was appropriately and promptly approved by the Ministry of Health.

When that boy arrived in London, Ontario, he unfortunately suffered a series of exceptionally difficult complications. When I last spoke to his mother his life hung in the balance, and I don't know at the moment whether he's even still alive. His case was an exceptionally difficult and exceptionally tragic one, and one which should not properly be aired in public.

MR. MOWAT: That was May and you haven't phoned the family?

MR. PERRY: Of course I phoned the family I made inquiries with the greatest of discretion and decided not to raise this issue in the House — although it would be acutely embarrassing for the government — precisely because of the boy's interests. When I last spoke to his mother, the boy was in the University Hospital in London, Ontario, at the brink of death.

MR. MOWAT: How long ago?

MR. PERRY: Two weeks ago.

Mr. Chair, when that mother arrived in London, Ontario, and entered the hostel where families of patients who are awaiting or undergoing transplantation reside, she discovered, as she put it, that the four British Columbia families there were "orphans" — I use her expression — in that patients from other provinces were transported to London, Ontario, by air ambulance. Even a patient from the state of Oklahoma in the United States of America, a patient without medical insurance, was transported in similarly dire circumstances from his home state to London, Ontario, at the expense of the state of Oklahoma. But British Columbia patients were not transported there by air ambulance.

When this mother returned to British Columbia, with her son still desperately ill and her husband remaining in London, Ontario, her seatmate on the airplane told her about the "Gran Air" scandal. Mr. Chairman, imagine how you would feel if it were your son lying in intensive care in the University Hospital in London, Ontario, and you found out from a seatmate on a commercial airplane that while your son was not privileged to enjoy access to the government ambulance, cabinet ministers had been flying around for their own convenience and running up bills of a thousand dollars to save ten minutes of their own time.

Let me be perfectly clear in what I'm saying. The ministry, to the best of my knowledge, was not specifically asked to supply a jet in that instance. When I raised the issue, the ministry made the honourable response that if this young man survived his operation, it would provide an air ambulance. Let

[ Page 11407 ]

me be clear about that. The response by the minister's staff was appropriate, and I do not fault them for their response.

[10:00]

What I do fault is the understanding through which a patient in such desperate condition, fighting for his life, ill with encephalopathy — that means that his brain could not function normally because of his severe liver disease — for the year before this happened, bleeding to death days before this happened and requiring eight units of blood transfusion, was not offered air ambulance transport; and that despite the fact that his medical condition was so desperate that an intern from the Royal Jubilee Hospital volunteered to accompany him to London, Ontario. He was obliged to wait four hours in the Toronto airport while undergoing commercial airline transit.

If that is not a clear case in which the people of British Columbia have been let down, then what clearer case can I provide to you? What individual in this House could not identify with the outrage experienced by that mother?

MR. MOWAT: Did the doctor call for the air ambulance?

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, it makes me very upset even to recount this story because it is so appalling that our society can countenance the kind of use to which these jets have been put while a boy in that condition — ill through no fault of his own with a congenital liver disease that has affected his entire life — experienced that kind of treatment. I hope that answers the minister's question.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening we inadvertently neglected to move a motion that Bill 55 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today, and I so move.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:02 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENT TO BILL

In the Schedule, by deleting the proposed boundaries of "Cariboo North" and "Cariboo South" and substituting the following:

CARIBOO NORTH — all that portion of the Province of British Columbia which is contained within the following boundaries: Commencing at the intersection of the 125th meridian of west longitude with the 53rd parallel of north latitude; thence easterly along the said 53rd parallel to the westerly boundary of Lot 1420, Range 3, Coast Land District, being Tsachla (Tsacha) Lake Indian Reserve #8; thence northerly, easterly and southerly along the westerly, northerly and easterly boundaries of said Lot 1420 to the 53rd parallel of north latitude; thence easterly along said 53rd parallel to the 124th meridian of west longitude; thence southerly along said 124th meridian to a point lying due west of the southwest comer of Lot 3430, Cariboo Land District; thence due east to the southwest comer of said Lot 3430; thence easterly along the southerly boundaries of Lots 3430, 3431, 3432 and 3435, Cariboo Land District, to the southeast comer of said Lot 3435;

[ Page 11408 ]

thence easterly in a straight line to the most southerly southwest comer of Lot 3745, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Lot 3745 to the most southerly southeast comer thereof; thence easterly in a straight line to the northwest comer of Lot 10149, Cariboo Land District, being McKay Meadows Indian Reserve #4; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 10149 to the northeast corner thereof; thence easterly in a straight line to the northwest comer of Lot 6118, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 6118 and continuing easterly and southerly along the northerly and easterly boundaries of Lot 6116, Cariboo Land District to the northwest comer of Lot 8001, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 8001 produced to the middle line of Fraser River; thence in a general southerly direction along the middle line of Fraser River to the westerly prolongation of the southerly boundary of Lot 5103, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly to and along the southerly boundary of said Lot 5103 to the southeast comer thereof; thence north-easterly in a straight line to the southeast comer of Lot 9975, Cariboo Land District; thence north-easterly in a straight line to the most southerly southwest comer of Lot 3730, Cariboo Land District; thence in general northerly and easterly directions along the southerly boundary of said Lot 3730 to the most easterly southeast comer thereof; thence north-easterly in a straight line to the intersection of the middle line of Beady Creek with the most southerly natural boundary of Ben Lake; thence north-easterly in a straight line to the southeast comer of Lot 12571, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly along the easterly boundary of said Lot 12571 to the middle line of Quesnel River; thence in a general easterly direction along the middle line of Quesnel River to the southerly prolongation of the middle line of Cariboo River; thence northerly to and continuing in a general northerly direction along the middle line of Cariboo River to the easterly prolongation of the southerly boundary of Lot 9549, Cariboo Land District; thence westerly to and continuing westerly, northerly, easterly, northerly and easterly along the southerly, westerly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 9549 to the northeast comer thereof; thence north-easterly in a straight line to the northwest comer of Lot 11757, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 11757 to the northeast comer thereof; thence due east to the westerly boundary of Lot 3496, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 3496 to the southwest comer of Lot 12088, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 12088 to the southwest comer of Lot 12089, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly along the westerly, northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of said Lot 12089 to the northeast comer of aforesaid Lot 12088; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Lot 12088 to the northerly boundary of Lot 349, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 349 to the northeast comer thereof, being a point on the natural boundary of Cariboo Lake; thence due east to the middle line of Cariboo Lake; thence in a general north-easterly direction along the middle line of Cariboo Lake and Cariboo River to the westerly prolongation of the middle line of Little River; thence due east to the westerly boundary of the watershed of Clearwater River; thence in a general northerly direction along the westerly boundary of the watershed of Clearwater River to the westerly boundary of the watershed of the Upper Reaches of Fraser River; thence in a general north-westerly direction along the westerly boundary of the watershed of said Fraser River to the southerly boundary of the watershed of Haggen Creek; thence in a

[ Page 11409 ]

general westerly direction along the southerly boundary of the watershed of Haggen Creek to the westerly boundary of the watershed of Dominion Creek; thence in a general northerly direction along the westerly boundary of the watershed of Dominion Creek to a point lying due east of the northeast corner of Lot 9518, Cariboo Land District; thence due west to the northeast comer of said Lot 9518; thence westerly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 9518 produced to the middle line of Bowron River; thence in a general northerly direction along the middle line of Bowron River to a point lying due cast of the southeast comer of Lot 6943, Cariboo Land District; thence due west to the southeast corner of said Lot 6943; thence westerly along the southerly boundaries of Lots 6943 and 6945, Cariboo Land District, to the southwest corner of said Lot 6945; thence due west to the easterly boundary of the watershed of Hixon Creek; thence in a general southerly direction along the easterly boundary of the watershed of Hixon Creek and continuing in general southerly and westerly directions along the easterly and southerly boundaries of the watershed of Terry Creek to the easterly boundary of Lot 8554, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly and westerly along the easterly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 8554, and continuing westerly along the northerly boundaries of Lots 8547, 3182, 3181 and 3180, Cariboo Land District, to the easterly boundary of Lot 3214, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly and westerly along the easterly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 3214, to the northeast comer of Lot 7817, Cariboo Land District; thence westerly and southerly along the northerly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 7817 to a point lying due east of the southeast corner of Lot 4887, Cariboo Land District; thence due west to the southeast corner of said Lot 4887; thence westerly and northerly along the southerly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 4887 to a point lying due east of the southeast comer of Lot 5855, Cariboo Land District; thence due west to the southeast comer of said Lot 5855; thence westerly along the southerly boundaries of Lots 5855, 5856, 5857, 5858, 1629, 1628, 1489, 1488, 1483, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1436, 1437, 1438 and 1455, Cariboo Land District, to the southwest comer of said Lot 1455; thence northerly along the westerly boundaries of Lots 1455 and 1456, Cariboo Land District, to the northwest comer of said Lot 1456; thence northerly in a straight line to the southwest comer of Lot 5205, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly along the westerly boundaries of Lots 5205 9 5204, 5203 and 5202, Cariboo Land District, to the southeast corner of Lot 5209, Cariboo Land District; thence westerly along the southerly boundaries of Lots 5209, 5210, 5216, 5217 and 5218, Cariboo Land District, to the southwest comer of said Lot 5218; thence northerly along the westerly boundary of said Lot 5218 to the southeast comer of Lot 5225, Cariboo Land District; thence westerly along the southerly boundaries of Lots 5225, 5226, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1050, 1051, 1056, 1057, 1256, 1257, 12621 and 1263, Carl boo Land District, to the southwest comer of said Lot 1263; thence due west to the 124th meridian of west longitude; thence southerly along said 124th meridian to the northerly boundary of the watershed of Batnuni Lake; thence in general westerly and southerly directions along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of Batnum Lake to the northerly boundary of the watershed of Chedakuz Creek; thence in a general westerly direction along the northerly boundary of the watershed of Chedakuz Creek to the natural boundary of Chedakuz Arm of Knewstubb Lake-, thence in general northerly and northwesterly directions along the said natural boundary to the 125th meridian of west longitude; thence southerly along said 125th meridian to the 53rd parallel of north latitude, being the point of commencement, shall

[ Page 11410 ]

constitute one electoral district to be designated as "Cariboo North Electoral District". (Population: 23, 381).

CARIBOO SOUTH — all that portion of the Province of British Columbia which is contained within the following boundaries: Commencing at the intersection of the 53rd parallel of north latitude with the 124th meridian of west longitude; thence southerly along said 124th meridian to a point lying due west of the southwest comer of Lot 3430, Cariboo Land District; thence due east to the southwest comer of said Lot 3430; thence easterly along the southerly boundaries of Lots 3430, 3431, 3432 and 3435, Cariboo Land District, to the southeast comer of said Lot 3435; thence easterly in a straight line to the most southerly southwest comer of Lot 3745, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Lot 3745 to the most southerly southeast comer thereof; thence easterly in a straight line to the northwest corner of Lot 10149, Cariboo Land District, being McKay Meadows Indian Reserve #4; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 10 149 to the northeast comer thereof; thence easterly in a straight line to the northwest comer of Lot 6118, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 6118 and continuing easterly and southerly along the northerly and easterly boundaries of Lot 6116, Cariboo Land District to the northwest comer of Lot 800 1, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 8001 produced to the middle line of Fraser River; thence in a general southerly direction along the middle line of Fraser River to the westerly prolongation of the southerly boundary of Lot 5103, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly to and along the southerly boundary of said Lot 5103 to the southeast comer thereof; thence northeasterly in a straight line to the southeast comer of Lot 9975, Cariboo Land District; thence northeasterly in a straight line to the most southerly southwest comer of Lot 3730, Cariboo Land District; thence in general northerly and easterly directions along the southerly boundary of said Lot 3730 to the most easterly southeast comer thereof; thence northeasterly in a straight line to the intersection of the middle line of Beedy Creek with the most southerly natural boundary of Ben Lake; thence northeasterly in a straight line to the southeast comer of Lot 12571, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly along the easterly boundary of said Lot 12571 to the middle line of Quesnel River; thence in a general easterly direction along the middle line of Quesnel River to the southerly prolongation of the middle line of Cariboo River; thence northerly to and continuing in a general northerly direction along the middle line of Cariboo River to the easterly prolongation of the southerly boundary of Lot 9549, Cariboo Land District; thence westerly to and continuing westerly, northerly, easterly, northerly and easterly along the southerly, westerly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 9549 to the northeast comer thereof; thence northeasterly in a straight line to the northwest comer of Lot 11757, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 11757 to the northeast comer thereof; thence due east to the westerly boundary of Lot 3496, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 3496 to the southwest comer of Lot 12088, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly and easterly along the westerly and northerly boundaries of said Lot 12088 to the southwest comer of Lot 12089, Cariboo Land District; thence northerly, easterly, southerly and westerly along the westerly, northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of said Lot 12089 to the northeast comer of aforesaid Lot 12088; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Lot 12088 to the northerly boundary of Lot

[ Page 11411 ]

349, Cariboo Land District; thence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 349 to the northeast corner thereof, being a point on the natural boundary of Cariboo Lake; thence due east to the middle line of Cariboo Lake; thence in a general northeasterly direction along the middle line of Cariboo Lake and Cariboo River to the westerly prolongation of the middle line of Little River; thence due east to the westerly boundary of the watershed of Clearwater River; thence in a general southerly direction along the westerly boundary of the watershed of Clearwater River to the 52nd parallel of north latitude; thence easterly along the said 52nd parallel to the middle line of Clearwater River thence in a general southerly direction along the middle line of Clearwater River to the easterly prolongation of the middle line of Mahood River; thence westerly to and continuing in a general westerly direction along the middle line of Mahood River to the natural boundary of Mahood Lake, thence in a general westerly direction along the said natural boundary of Mahood Lake, on the southerly shore thereof, to the northeast comer of Lot 3546, Kamloops Division of Yale Land District; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly boundaries of said Lot 3546 and continuing westerly along the southerly boundary of Lot 2882, Kamloops Division of Yale Land District produced to the easterly boundary of Lot 3385, Lillooet Land District; thence southerly along the easterly boundaries of Lots 3385 and 3384, Lillooet Land District to the southeast corner of said Lot 3384; thence southerly in a straight line to the northeast comer of Lot 8250, Lillooet Land District; thence southerly along the easterly boundaries of Lots 8250 and 8424, Lillooet Land District to the southeast comer of said Lot 8424; thence due south to the northerly boundary of Lot 1866, Lillooet Land District; thence easterly, southerly and westerly along the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of said Lot 1866 to a point lying due north of the northeast corner of Lot 52 10, Lillooet Land District; thence due south to the northeast corner of said Lot 52 10; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Lot 52 10 to the southeast corner thereof; thence due south to the northerly boundary of the watershed of Deadman River; thence in general westerly and southerly directions along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of Deadman River to the northerly boundary of Section 18, Township 24, Range 2 1, west of the Sixth meridian; thence westerly along the northerly boundary of said Section 18 and continuing westerly along the northerly boundaries of Sections 13 and 14, Township 24, Range 22, west of the Sixth meridian to the southeast comer of Section 22, Township 24, Range 22, west of the Sixth meridian; thence northerly along the easterly boundary of said Section 22 to the northeast comer thereof; thence westerly along the northerly boundaries of Sections 22, 21, 20 and 19, Township 24, Range 22, west of the Sixth meridian, and continuing westerly along the northerly boundaries of Sections 24, 23, 22, 21, 20 and 19, Township 24, Range 23, west of the Sixth meridian to the northwest comer of said Section 19; thence southerly along the westerly boundaries of Sections 19 and 18, Township 24, Range 23, west of the Sixth meridian to the southwest comer of the northwest quarter of said Section 18; thence due south to a point lying due east of the northeast comer of the west half of Section 34, Township 22, Range 25, west of the Sixth .meridian; thence due west to the northeast comer of the west half of said Section 34; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly boundaries of said Section 34 and continuing westerly along the southerly boundary of Section 33, Township 22, Range 25, west of the Sixth meridian, to the easterly boundary of Lot 95, Lillooet Land District (situated within Kamloops Division of Yale Land District) ; thence northerly, westerly and southerly along the easterly, northerly and westerly boundaries of said Lot

[ Page 11412 ]

95 to the southerly boundary of aforesaid Section 33; thence westerly along the southerly boundaries of Sections 33, 32 and 31, Township 22, Range 25, west of the Sixth meridian, to the southwest comer of said Section 3 1; thence northerly along the westerly boundary of said Section 31 to the northwest comer thereof; thence due west to the easterly boundary of the watershed of that part of Pavilion Creek, flowing into Pavilion Lake; thence in general northerly, westerly and southerly directions along the easterly, northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of said part of Pavilion Creek to a point lying due east of the northeast comer of Lot 914, Lillooet Land District; thence due west to the northeast comer of said Lot 914; thence westerly along the northerly boundaries of Lots 914 and 652, Lillooet Land District to the northwest comer of said Lot 652; thence southerly along the westerly boundary of said Lot 652 to the northeast comer of Lot 877, Lillooet Land District; thence westerly along the northerly boundaries of Lots 877, 3635 and 385, Lillooet Land District to the northwest comer of said Lot 385; thence southerly along the westerly boundary of said Lot 385 to the northeast comer of Lot 3637, Lillooet Land District; thence westerly and southerly along the northerly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 3637 to the southwest comer thereof; thence due south to a point lying due east of the northeast comer of Lot 4682, Lillooet Land District; thence due west to the northeast comer of said Lot 4682; thence westerly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 4682 produced to the middle line of Fraser River thence in a general southerly direction along the middle line of Fraser River to a point lying due east of the northeast comer of Lot 2975, Lillooet Land District; thence due west to the northeast comer of said Lot 2975; thence westerly along the northerly boundary of said Lot 2975 to the southeast comer of Lot 4946, Lillooet Land District; thence northerly along the easterly boundaries of Lots 4946, 299 and 2981, Lillooet Land District to the northeast comer of said Lot 2981; thence westerly along the northerly boundaries of Lots 2981 and 2973, Lillooet Land District to the northwest comer of said Lot 2973; thence due west to the northeasterly boundary of the watershed of McKay Creek; thence in a general northerly direction along the easterly boundary of the watershed of McKay Creek to the southerly boundary of Lot 2990 ' Lillooet Land District; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Lot 2990 to the southeast comer thereof; thence northerly along the easterly boundaries of Lots 2990 and 2987, Lillooet Land District to the northeast comer of said Lot 2987; thence westerly along the northerly boundaries of Lots 2987 and 2988, Lillooet Land District to the northwest comer of said Lot 2988; thence southerly along the westerly boundary of said Lot 2988 to the southwest comer thereof; thence due west to the northerly boundary of the watershed of McKay Creek; thence in a general southwesterly direction along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of McKay Creek to the northerly boundary of the watershed of Bridge River; thence in a general westerly direction along the northerly boundary of the watershed of Bridge River to the summit of the Cascade Mountains as defined for administrative purposes in the Interpretation Act, Statutes of British Columbia, 1974, Chapter 42; thence in a general northwesterly direction along said summit of Cascade Mountains and continuing in general northwesterly and westerly directions along the easterly and northerly boundaries of the watershed of Southgate River to the easterly boundary of the watershed of Homathko River; thence in a general northerly direction along the easterly boundary of the watershed of Homathko River to the southerly boundary of the watershed of Doran Creek; thence in a general northwesterly direction along the southerly boundary of the watershed of Doran Creek to the natural boundary of Homathko River, left bank thereof; thence due

[ Page 11413 ]

west to the natural boundary of Homathko River, right bank thereof; thence in a general southwesterly direction along the said natural boundary of Homathko River, to the westerly boundary of the watershed of Mosley Creek; thence in general northwesterly and northerly directions along the westerly boundary of the watershed of Mosley River to the southerly boundary of the watershed of Colwell Creek; thence in a general northerly direction along the southerly and westerly boundary of the watershed of Colwell Creek to the southerly boundary of the watershed of Klinaklini Lake; thence in a general northwesterly direction along the southerly boundary of the watershed of Klinaklini Lake to the easterly boundary of the watershed of Jobin Creek; thence in general northerly, westerly and southerly directions along the easterly, northerly and westerly boundaries of the watershed of Jobin Creek to a point lying due east of the most southerly point of Knot Lakes; thence due west to the most southerly point of Knot Lakes; thence westerly in a straight line to the summit of Monarch Mountain; thence due west to a point lying due south of the mouth of an unnamed creek which flows northerly into Talchako River from Talchako Glacier; thence due north to the middle line of Talchako River; thence in a general northerly direction along the middle line of Talchako River produced to the middle line of Bella Coola River; thence in a general northwesterly direction along the middle line of Bella Coola River to the southwesterly prolongation of the middle line of Burnt Bridge Creek; thence northeasterly to and continuing in general northeasterly and northerly directions along the middle line of Burnt Bridge Creek, and continuing in a general northerly direction along the middle line of the West Fork of said Burnt Bridge Creek to its headwater; thence due north to summit of Cascade Mountains, as defined by the Interpretation Act Amendment Act, 1936, thence in a general northerly direction along the said summit of Cascade Mountains to the most easterly intersection with the 53rd parallel of north latitude; thence easterly along the said 53rd parallel to the 124th meridian of west longitude, being the point of commencement, shall constitute one electoral district to be designated as "Cariboo South Electoral District". (Population: 39, 242).