Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1992

Volume 3, Number 6

[ Page 1555 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

G. Wilson: It is my great pleasure to rise today to introduce the Hon. Lynda Haverstock, who is the leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan, and the MLA for Saskatoon Greystone, the largest urban riding in Saskatchewan and formerly a very strong NDP riding, which has now gone Liberal, much as they are in B.C. I would say that the Liberals are quite proud that we don't just talk about gender equality: in the five provinces from Ontario to British Columbia we have Lyn McLeod in Ontario, Sharon Carstairs in Manitoba, Lynda Haverstock in Saskatchewan and, of course, we have the two men, Laurence Decore, and myself in B.C.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. This is introductions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Wilson: Based on the NDP formula of gender equality, how more safe could I be?

Would this House please welcome the Hon. Lynda Haverstock.

D. Symons: It is my pleasure to introduce a longtime friend, Ms. Lois Boyce, from my constituency. Lois has been terribly involved over the years that I have known her with many social issues. She has worked hard for the Voice of Women, End the Arms Race and the World Council of Churches. Among many other things, she has spent most of her life working for the individuals of this province and country. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: I think the hon. member neglected to mention one other very important point in Lois Boyce's past. As I recall, she was also one of the founders of SPEC. I'd also like to welcome her here.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to draw attention to my constituency assistant, Gail Ball, in the gallery, and to the presence of my wife, Geraldine, who has just returned from Israel. Would you make them welcome.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Hon. Speaker, we noted with interest on this side of the House the reports from Mile 108, where the Premier said that he intends to move toward a new private sector model for government -- something that we would welcome on this side of the House. The Premier was also quoted as saying that British Columbia will be out of debt in four years. Can the Minister of Finance share with us this great plan that will bring British Columbia out of debt in four years?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I noted with interest the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, where he said we hadn't cut enough. I'm waiting with interest now to hear which schools he'd like to cut, which hospitals he'd like to cut and how many people he'd like to lay off, because every time he opens his mouth in this House he's asking for more spending. I would be interested in his plan to deal with this problem, other than the platitudes or rhetoric that we hear from him -- which change, by the way, with the audience.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to say that we are committed to balancing the budget within our term of office. We're working very hard at it. We have cut the rate of spending in half. It's the lowest rate of spending growth in the last five years. We have also moved on the tax side in order to deal with the financial disaster left behind by the previous administration. We cut the projected deficit by $1 billion, and we're moving toward a balanced budget as fast as we can.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have to congratulate the Finance minister for a fine filibuster while he tried to think up the answer to that question. It's quite clear that the Premier said that British Columbia would be out of debt -- he wasn't talking about deficit reduction -- in four years. Would the Minister of Finance tell us whose plan this is to get us out of debt? Is it the Premier's plan? Is it the minister's plan? Is it Bob Williams's plan? Or is it the plan of Peat Marwick Thorne? Could he tell us that?

Hon. G. Clark: All British Columbians are working together -- that's what this government is all about -- to solve the financial legacy left behind by the Social Credit Party. We are very confident.... We now have the highest credit rating in Canada. We are borrowing money at interest rates 25 basis points lower than Ontario is, which is a historic change. This government's fiscal prudence and credibility is now being measured by the international markets as the best in Canada.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

G. Wilson: It's fairly obvious that this minister disagrees with his own Premier. He can't even tell us what this plan is. It's quite clear, when the Premier has said we will be out of debt, that this Minister of Finance doesn't know what plan the Premier's talking about; he doesn't know how the Premier is going to accommodate it. And to simply talk about the debt from the previous government or some kind of mythical idea that he has with respect to tax increases isn't sufficient.

My question to the Minister of Finance: who's in charge of government in terms of this debt reduction that will leave this province in a debt-free position in 

[ Page 1556 ]

four years? Who is going to put this plan in place, and what is the detail of the plan?

Hon. G. Clark: I believe that in the last election the people of British Columbia voted for the New Democratic Party, and that's who's in charge. I am delighted to answer this question. When all the budgets are in across Canada, we will be able to say that we have the highest rate of increase in spending on health care in Canada, the highest rate of increase in spending on education in Canada, the highest rate of increase in spending on social services in Canada. We will have the second-lowest taxes in Canada and the lowest debt burden in Canada. We will in fact have the lowest deficit per capita in Canada. That's good management. That's getting our priorities right. That's cutting waste. And that's the platform we were elected on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

J. Weisgerber: After that ringing endorsement of the previous administration, it makes one feel particularly good to stand up and ask a question.

My question today is to the minister responsible for constitutional issues. The minister was kind enough this morning to offer our caucus briefings on a regular basis on the constitution, and we certainly appreciate that. But I believe that it's particularly important that the select standing committee, which travelled this province gaining information, be apprised by the minister on a regular basis as to how the constitutional talks are progressing. I wonder if the minister would agree to reconvene the committee and to give them regular briefings.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to be back for Friday's follies here in the House -- after watching the last exchange.

It's not a bad suggestion. As the hon. member has indicated, I have made an offer to brief him and, through him, his caucus. I have extended the same opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition. We think it's important that all members in this House and all parties represented in this House be apprised of developments around this very difficult area of policy. Therefore I will continue with the practice of informing the leaders of the two parties on a more regular basis than has been the case in the past. I'm quite happy to make that commitment publicly.

I will consider the matter of advising the committee. It seems to me that if we're going to do the leaders, it may not be necessary to do the committee. We can have that discussion among the three of us, and if we agree that going exclusively to committee, as opposed to the leaders, is the best way to handle it, I'll be happy to accommodate that.

[10:15]

J. Weisgerber: Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that while they will hold a national referendum, he has no intention of being bound by the results. I think that's unfortunate, and I'm sure the minister would agree. In order to prevent there being any confusion in British Columbians' minds, I would like the minister to reconfirm that it is the intention that the results of the British Columbia referendum will be binding on this government.

Further, I would like to encourage him to refer the issue of developing the question to the select standing committee. I believe that the question is as important as the answer and that the appropriate way to develop the question is through the select standing committee on the constitution.

Will the minister confirm that the referendum will be binding on the government, and will he ask the committee to develop the question?

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to thank the hon. member for those questions. First of all, with respect to the question on the referendum, it's fair to say that I've been giving that a fair bit of thought. I have not had the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues the way in which the question is to be drafted. Clearly there are a range of options. One of the options that you refer to is in the mix. At this point I'm not in a position, having not had the opportunity to discuss it in some depth with my own caucus.... It also presupposes that the matter is going to be resolved. Quite frankly, there are some days when I think it will be and other days when I have my doubts. In fairness, I am happy to say that I will discuss this matter with my colleagues and report back to the House and to the leaders on the issue. I don't think that should be interpreted as a no but as an indication of where we are at this time.

I haven't looked at the wording of the referendum legislation -- the way it was drafted. I'm confident that it is drafted in a way that is far more firm than the sort of plebiscite proposal being put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada. It seems to me that we should spend some time working on the matter of the question, and that how many questions you have and the way in which the questions are framed are important in terms of their binding nature. Let me give you one example.

The Speaker: Could the minister wrap up his reply, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: It was such a good question. I will discuss the matter further, then, with the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition.

The Speaker: A very brief final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The questions are always brief; it's the ministerial statements that at times get a little long.

In any event, my final supplemental is this: if the minister decides to reject the notion of asking the select standing committee to frame the questions -- and I think it would be a mistake if he were to discard that idea -- would he then agree to involve either the 

[ Page 1557 ]

leaders of the other two parties or the other two parties through some other mechanism in drafting the question?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm afraid to give a complete answer after my last run at it, but let me put it this way. The matter has to be discussed by cabinet. I want the member to clearly understand that I'm not discarding that option in any sense of the word. I think it's best left at that at this point.

ICBC RATE INCREASES

W. Hurd: I also have a question for the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. I would like to welcome him back from the constitutional follies to the Friday follies in the House.

The question is regarding ICBC. The opposition has been advised that the decision to delay ICBC rate increases from January 1 to February 1 of this year cost the corporation up to $30 million in lost revenue for the first quarter alone. Was this decision made by the ICBC board alone, or was it the minister who personally intervened to overturn the original decision by the board not to delay the rate increases?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe that number is wrong. I don't think that it was anywhere near the neighbourhood of $30 million. That's my recollection of it. I believe that at the time the board recommended a 24 percent rate increase, and we asked the corporation to review that recommendation, which ultimately resulted in a 19 percent rate increase. They indicated they needed some time to do that, and that's why there was that one-month delay in terms of implementing it on February 1 instead of January 1.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can explain some contradictory statements in one of his press releases on ICBC. On the one hand, his release claims the situation at ICBC can only be turned around by a reduction in accidents and claims; yet the same release acknowledges that claims in the first quarter only increased by 2 percent, well below the 5.3 percent -- the consumer price index -- which was contained in the Minister of Finance's own budget. Who's to blame in this province -- the drivers or the minister's meddling in phony statistics and ICBC? Will he give us the numbers for the one-month delay in the rate increases?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe that the number, in terms of the delay for that month, would probably be in the range of approximately $10 million.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: In view of the discrepancies in his own accounting, why has the minister turned to a longtime friend and insider, Bob Williams, to head a review of ICBC? If the government is prepared to intervene with the ICBC board and can't get its numbers straight on ICBC, how can this minister expect the people of the province to trust a so-called independent review by the recipient of the government's most important patronage appointment?

Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the opposition House Leader praised the appointment of Mr. Williams to be in charge of the Crown corporations secretariat. So, hon. member, you may want to talk to your own colleague about that aspect of the issue.

WESTAR MINING LTD.

D. Jarvis: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. When faced with the Cassiar issue, you chose to wait and see. What we then saw was the closure of the mine and maybe the end of this community. Today you are faced with another situation at Westar. What action, if any, has this government taken to protect the people of Sparwood?

Hon. A. Edwards: The member brings up an issue of considerably long standing. As you know, the government sent in a job protection commissioner to investigate the situation of Westar Mining in the Elk Valley. Before the commissioner could report, a labour dispute had ensued, and we now have a lockout in the Elk Valley. I assure the member that the government views with extreme concern what's going on in the Elk Valley and what the implications are for rail transport, Westshore Terminals and the economy of British Columbia, but most particularly for the economy and the social structure of the community in the Elk Valley. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely and trust that we will have some moves soon.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I would like to respond to a question taken by my colleague the Minister of Finance yesterday, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. minister.

WESTAR MINING LTD.

Hon. R. Blencoe: My critic, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, asked a question about the Westar Mining situation in terms of the $12 million owing in back taxes. I suspect the member is not fully aware of the full implications of the legislation that is now coming before the House. The member presumed or assumed that the municipalities involved could not move to tax sale. That is not in the legislation. We have tried to give some time and breathing space for the municipalities to borrow against the back taxes and to avoid, to waive if they so desire, the requirement to force a tax sale. The Westar mine has claimed protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in order to reorganize its finances. The tax sale of the land is only deferred while this process is underway. Ultimate security for this property still lies with the communities, while the tax sale of the lands may be deferred. We also have the job protection commissioner 

[ Page 1558 ]

in there as well, trying to give him some time to try and rearrange the situation.

The supplementary question, hon. Speaker, was: when will the legislation be coming for second reading? I think it's due for discussion next week, hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the 1991 annual report of the British Columbia Railway Group on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Private Members' Statements

RACE RELATIONS

J. Tyabji: I rise to speak to an issue that has come to the forefront in recent weeks with some events in Los Angeles and Toronto, and that's with regard to race relations. These recent events lead us to a turning point in our society, where we have to ask ourselves whether we will make the choice to be xenophobic or progressive. We can definitely attribute the sequence of events in the last few weeks to a lack of understanding and perhaps a lack of communication. What I would put to the House is that we as legislators have to take to heart what this represents to us and what we will decide to do as a result of those events.

I understand that our hon. leader has appointed a race relations task force. I encourage every member of the House to participate in that, because we can foster a better understanding of current race relations. As we move forward as a society, we will be fostering the progressive approach.

One of the questions that came forward during these recent events was: can it happen in Canada? It's very important for us as B.C. legislators to realize that it has happened in Canada; in fact, it has happened in British Columbia. One thing that offended me with regard to the questions that came up was the implications. A North Shore columnist is one of the noted people who made comments to the effect that it broke down with regard to race, and that skin colour had something to do with the way it broke down. I'd like to read to you a little bit from a book called White Canada Forever with regard to the riots that took place in British Columbia. One in particular that took place in 1907 was with regard to the immigration of Chinese labourers to B.C. I'll read you this: "...it took Vancouver's police force four hours to control the crowd in Chinatown, which left behind it a few minor injuries, thousands of dollars of property damage and thousands of Chinese and Japanese quivering with rage and fear." This is part of our history. It's important for all of us to know that we have to move forward, and I think we have moved forward from that point. But we cannot attribute recent events to something that breaks down on the basis of skin colour, because these events took place, and the skin colour was different. In this case it was the whites who were perpetrating the riot. "It was simply a spontaneous outburst, one which asserted west coast racialism in a clear and emphatic way," again from White Canada Forever. We've moved forward from that point, but obviously there are still very important problems that we have to address.

I would put to the House that two of the primary causes for the problems are poverty, which causes the economic strife, as was the case with the Chinese at the turn of the century, and a lack of education with regard to the different cultures and backgrounds of people.

As a people we are moving toward a global village. It becomes more and more important for all of us, as participants in that global village, to recognize that we're all the same people. We may have different cultures. The more we can educate ourselves with regard to the different cultures, the easier it will be to challenge some of the other problems -- for example, the poverty issue, which is the fundamental cause of all of this strife.

It's easier to break it down in terms of race. Human nature goes towards the easiest way of attributing blame. In that case, you can put up an "us" and "them" barrier. You can go back to the riots in London, which weren't race-related but were economically related; then it was with regard to class. Then we had the breakdown of the class structure. You have different races immigrating, and then you have it on a racial basis. We had these kinds of riots in B.C.

I would also point to some of the things that we've done in the past in this Legislature. We should examine why we did them, look at the current events that are happening and see if we are doing similar things or if there aren't things we can be addressing here. That goes back to the Chinese head tax. In 1888 a $50 head tax was introduced. In 1903 we had a $500 head tax. I know that there's a motion on the papers right now, and no doubt we will be addressing this issue in a debate in the House. In 1914 another racist incident occurred, and that was the Komagata Maru. I think that we as legislators should be addressing what significance that has to all of us. The more we embrace all these issues as our own, the more likely we are to find solutions to the problems that are all-encompassing.

[10:30]

What we've tended to do in the past is look at the groups involved and say: "Here's a Chinese group, here's a white group. Let's let those groups decide on the best solution for them." All of us are part of society, and it's very important for all us.... I know that our member who is in charge of the race relations task force has stressed that. He wants people from the white Anglo-Saxon ethnic group to be participating. We are all part of different ethnic groups.

The final point I'd like to make is with regard to a book written by Crawford Kilian. I think any of us who read very noted B.C. authors have read Crawford Kilian's things. I was introduced to him through science fiction, which is one of my personal favourites. This book is called Go Do Some Great Thing. In it he traces the history of black pioneers in British Columbia. It's a fascinating book. Before coming across it a few years ago, I didn't even know there was a history of black pioneers in British Columbia. I'd like to share with you some of the things that blacks have done in British Columbia that should make us very proud of what they've contributed.

With regard to the nature of the blacks.... There was a large migration of blacks from San Francisco, and 

[ Page 1559 ]

when they came to B.C. they brought with them a great understanding of North American culture. Sir James Douglas, the first Governor of British Columbia, was the son of a Creole and probably had black ancestors. I'm sure that's something we weren't aware of.

The small communities in B.C. had a higher understanding of the blacks, and there was no strife. The greatest strife actually occurred in Victoria, and a lot of the problems were with regard to us as legislators and how we dealt with the black people in Victoria. The choice that we face in the future is ours: whether to be xenophobic or to foster a greater understanding and therefore be progressive. It's incumbent on all of us as legislators to make that fundamental choice.

D. Schreck: It's with considerable pleasure that I join in the remarks of my friend from Okanagan East and make it a truly non-partisan statement to condemn racial intolerance and to attempt to show some understanding of the challenges that are put to all of us in this era, where we face riots not only in Los Angeles but in Toronto. My friend has put the context of racial intolerance in a historical perspective. I personally did not ever feel racial intolerance until I ran as a candidate. In the first election in which I ran, I received hate literature directed against my name -- it being a German name. I suddenly felt for the first time what it must feel like all the time for people who are in visible minorities and are constantly the victims of that sort of intolerance.

I know that from time to time when I speak to audiences on the North Shore -- particularly in my riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- some people take the unfortunate attitude that these problems of intolerance wouldn't exist if it weren't for immigration. I sometimes ask those people: other than my friends in the Squamish nation in my riding, who else would they exclude? Where are they drawing the line? Why five years or ten years ago? Why not 2,000 years ago? There's no room in our society for the kind of racial intolerance that leads to the L.A. and Toronto riot situations.

My friend from Okanagan East mentioned two North Shore personalities: Crawford Kilian, of whom we're all proud; and a columnist who does us all shame. It's with considerable regret that I mention in this House that in North Vancouver we have a regular columnist by the name of Doug Collins, who is given regular exposure in the North Shore News, who repeatedly fans the flames of intolerance. Just this Wednesday that columnist wrote: "Who caused the riot in Toronto? The Ottawa politicians who place the immigrant vote before the welfare of the country, and the demented provincial ones who believe in the brotherhood of man." Who in this House would support this type of intolerance? I say that all legislators from all sides of this House condemn racial intolerance and are ashamed when they hear the words of Doug Collins promoting that type of intolerance. The North Shore News has repeatedly come under attack for this type of column oozing from the pen of Mr. Collins. It's not the first time he has engaged in this type of diatribe. Regrettably, we experience this monthly. There are regular demonstrations calling on the North Shore News to stop abusing freedom of speech in order to give Collins a forum for promoting intolerance. I think I can speak with confidence on behalf of all members of this House that we do not tolerate the intolerance of Doug Collins.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to make mention of two prominent black people who have really done us proud in the Legislature. I know that before having the honour to join the Members of the Legislative Assembly that these people, to some extent, served as role models for me, because I found that they had overcome many kinds of barriers to skin colour or to being a minority. Of course, they are Rosemary Brown and our current Deputy Speaker. These are people who have come forward with the courage of spirit to go against what the majority of society has put forward as acceptable and have gone forward in a very non-bitter way -- if I can put it that way. It's very easy to get bitter if you've been subjected to something that you have no control over or if you've been excluded from something because of a matter of birth.

If I can just make a few comments on a personal note, I happen to be an immigrant. My parents came here when I was a baby. I think like a Canadian in my mind. I feel fundamentally that I'm a Canadian, but the fact that I'm an immigrant has actually been a reason for people to have discriminated against me in the past. It's one reason that I kept my last name, because I found it very interesting that some people were accepting of me until they heard my last name, and then it was a case of: "Well, where's that from?" Some of them, if they were not particularly bigoted, would say: "Well, that's okay. You don't really look like you're from India." I found that that was enough for me to think that I would like to ferret those people out by keeping that last name and showing them that I'm proud of being from somewhere else. I would be just as proud to be from anywhere. All of us should be proud of all of our backgrounds, and nobody has the right to take that away from us. Nobody has the right to indiscriminately say that because you're from that area, you should be a little more humble. Very few people have called me humble in the past. Perhaps that's one reason why I've tried not to be quite so reserved.

I would really encourage all legislators to talk to people whom they think may have been through an experience of racism or discrimination and ask them what they think they can do to help alleviate the problem. There is a problem, but it's not a problem that we can't overcome. If there's one thing I can leave the Legislature with it should be a message of hope that we have come so far, and that Canada is such an incredibly model society, and that we have brought together people from all parts of the world and live very closely in relative harmony and very good spirits. We can serve as the model for the world of the ideal society, the society that brings people together from all parts of the world. Each one of us, then, has a responsibility to embrace all the other cultures and all the people we think may have been unfairly treated, to bring them in, to take that discrimination on as our own and to take it home with us and try to work on it.

[ Page 1560 ]

GOVERNMENT AGENTS' OFFICES

H. Giesbrecht: With a name like mine, I rather enjoyed the previous two speakers, but I'm here to talk about something a little different today. When we were on the hustings not so many months ago, we promised to bring open and accessible government to the people of British Columbia. It was restated again in the throne speech, and I'm proud to say that it is happening.

In less than a year, initiative after initiative has brought good government home to the people, in spite of the difficult financial circumstances. But no legislation can fulfil this promise, no matter how just and how well intentioned, unless it has the mechanism to reach the people -- all people in all regions equally. That's why government agents are so important.

The government agents branch has a history that can be traced back to Sir James Douglas and the very earliest days of European settlement in what is now British Columbia. In 1858 during the gold rush, Governor Douglas appointed tax collectors and gold commissioners, positions which were the prototype of what are now known as government agents. Because of the vast expanse, rugged terrain and relatively sparse population of the province, government required an on-site official to maintain peace, order and government. Hence the government agent.

During the early days and prior to gender balance, the government agent was a jack of all trades, doing whatever was required on behalf of government. In some cases, he was a police officer, magistrate or jailer. Over the years government agents have been water recorders, coroners, district registrars of births, deaths and marriages, official administrators, assessors, licensing commissioners, land commissioners, dispensers of social assistance during the Depression, registrars of voters, and insurers for ICBC. The branch has no program of its own but acts totally as an agent of other ministries.

Today government agents and their staff necessarily continue to be generalists. Their duties, however, have changed constantly over time, as new government ministries have been created and technology has advanced, and as the branch has responded to the needs of the people. They do this through superior service, empowered staff and a cost-effective delivery program.

We have one office meeting this mission in Kitimat. It is headed by a government agent, Gordon Fox, and he and his staff are working with dedication to do the crucial job of bringing the services of the government to the people of Kitimat. I was pleased to participate in the official opening of the new government agent office in Kitimat on April 10. It was attended by local citizens and business people. On behalf of the Attorney General, I presented a cheque in the amount of $245,386 to Mayor Rick Wozney, under the disaster financial assistance program, to assist in repair of the water system destroyed by flooding. The new office has been relocated to an improved, convenient location in the heart of Kitimat, resulting in a dramatic increase in activity and excellent, positive comments from the public. Accessibility for the disabled was a special concern in the site. The design and layout of the office and an electric front door at ground level allows for ease of entry, and a convenient table-level counter is comfortable for wheelchair and seated service.

Open, good government lets people in the regions know what they are doing. The government agent's office has over 100 pamphlets and other literature from the different ministries on the many services of government. With modern technology, the office is connected to many provincial databases, allowing the government agent's office to provide quick and accurate information on a wide variety of services to the average British Columbian in Kitimat. Some of these services include access to the Medical Services Plan. Many of our residents are still not covered by medical insurance. Either they have not considered the consequences, or they have considered the cost prohibitive, until a government agent makes them aware that financial assistance is available, with premiums as low as $1.75 a month. In addition, people new to the province or those coming off their parents' coverage are looking for information and assistance. There are always lots of questions and concerns on moving, lost cards, understanding the billing and making payments. The government agent's office in Kitimat is there to assist.

On-line access to the personal property registry at the local level allows for the average person or financial institution to receive quick and accurate service. If you are purchasing your friend's car and wish to do a lien check or register a financial lien, the office in Kitimat can easily accommodate the request.

The closest safety engineering office is in Terrace, some 70 kilometres away, so the government agent's office issues the gas and electric permits to contractors and householders. When inspectors come to Kitimat, they are able to work out of the local office, thereby supplying the service to the public at a convenient location and low cost.

Access to services of the residential tenancy branch, debtor assistance branch and employment standards branch is available through the Kitimat government agent's office. Assistance is given by having the necessary forms, phones, photocopiers and fax machines locally available. The office also accepts payments owed to the provincial government such as traffic fines, Crown land taxes and leases, and the social service tax.

[ Page 1561 ]

In addition, the office provides assistance to other ministries by distribution of government mail and by lending office space for meetings with the public and for supervision of exams, such as pesticide exams for the Ministry of Environment.

[10:45]

In our society, recognizing that different levels of government can be very confusing, the Kitimat office has many people looking for forms, information and assistance in such areas as passports, pensions, family allowance, citizenship and other federal programs. A problem at this time of year is the loss of those receiving the guaranteed income supplement, which must be applied for each year. These problems and concerns are looked after from the office in Kitimat by having many of the forms available and by contacting the necessary federal office to solve problems our population encounters.

In addition, contact with the community is enhanced through active participation by the staff in the chamber of commerce, downtown revitalization, library board, commission on the environment and various clubs and community activities.

In many communities throughout the province, the government agents are the only local providers of access to the myriad of government services. I am pleased with the new office in Kitimat, allowing for improved access and cost-effective service to the people of Kitimat. To those who work in government agent offices across the province, I salute them.

L. Stephens: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and respond to the member for Skeena's statement regarding the government agents branch of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The role of the government agents has indeed changed over the years, with agents' offices becoming the centre for information to the public on behalf of the ministry and the other agencies of government throughout the 60 field offices in the province.

A former member of this House from Burnaby-Willingdon and one of the ministers responsible for agents, Mr. Elwood Veitch, likes to tell the story about an Atlin agent who, as a gold commissioner, sold some mining permits to two fellows and then some whisky because he was also the liquor vendor. A little later he had to arrest them as a peace officer, and the next day he arraigned them as a justice of the peace, fined them and then sent the money on to Victoria.

So these government agents ensure that local residents in regions of the province have a convenient access to services they require from government. This is particularly important for areas outside the lower mainland. So on behalf of the official opposition, it gives me great pleasure to join with members opposite and congratulate the men and women of the government agents branch for their dedication and professionalism of service to all citizens of British Columbia.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, I was pleased to note the member opposite respond to the remarks in terms of the value of government agents' offices in remote areas. For my constituency, particularly, which stretches about 200 miles from one end to the other -- I'm still working on the old system of measurement -- it's an important advantage for community members to be able to go to government agents' offices without travelling a great distance. The kinds of services that they provide really do supplement what we provide in our constituency office. We deal with a lot of the bureaucracies and a lot of the difficulties that constituencies encounter, but it's the government agents that do an awful lot of the groundwork and the basic work that's necessary to give constituents and the public that information that they so readily need.

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN

C. Serwa: The most valuable resource in any community, province or country is the people. As such, our children are the resource of the future. Our children initially depend solely upon parents, but as they grow older more and more people enter their lives -- people who are charged with a high level of public trust and people who work in the public or private sectors or in volunteer organizations. We expect that our youngsters will become productive and contributing members of our society. Children as they grow older -- who may go to day care then to school -- work to support themselves and then potentially a family. This is what parents want for their children: a better life than what they themselves may have experienced.

Throughout their formative years children must be protected and nurtured not just by their parents but by society as a whole. Each one of us has an individual responsibility as well as a collective responsibility to ensure that all children enjoy a safe, secure and protected environment. However, there are obstacles and barriers that must be overcome if we are to not only protect and nurture our children but enable and encourage them to reach their full potential.

One of these barriers is the sexual abuse of children. It is an extremely unfortunate reality that child sexual abuse is a rapidly escalating problem in society today. Parents throughout British Columbia share a deep commitment to their children's safety and well-being. I know that every person in this chamber is shocked to learn of new cases of children being sexually abused. Knowledge of this type of exploitation requires all responsible adults in all levels of government and society to take positive steps to address this human tragedy.

Child sexual abuse is indeed a great problem. A recent Ministry of Health report stated that more than 2,500 British Columbia children were sexually abused by 45 child molesters between 1988 and 1991. A study of 30 of the molesters in that period showed that most multiple abusers offended for an average of almost ten years while they were in positions of trust. Please consider what children subjected to that kind of abuse and indignity feel when told that the rights of convicted offenders are given more weight than their own safety. What incredible and unforgettable monsters we must appear to them.

During the 1991 spring session of the Legislature a bill was introduced governing the prohibition of convicted sex offenders from teaching in British Columbia classrooms. This bill was too restrictive as it only covered teachers in classrooms, and as such the bill was rightfully allowed to die on the order paper. It is my firm belief that this government must introduce legislation that would intercept all potential sexual abuse situations involving children. This legislation should ensure that a convicted sex offender would be prevented from attaining a position of trust and authority directly involving children.

In every situation where a child is placed at risk in a private, public or volunteer environment, a convicted sex offender should not be permitted to directly interact with children. It is necessary that we protect children in every environment because children inherently trust adults who are in positions of authority. The introduction of legislation is a necessary step that we, as legislators, must make. With little or no exposure to 

[ Page 1562 ]

children, abusers will be able to make an effective contribution to society without being placed at risk of re-offending.

Many British Columbians, including myself, are working towards the goal of seeing legislation introduced. In fact, this coming Tuesday, May 19, at 1 p.m. on the steps of the parliament buildings the Teddy Bear March will occur. The central Okanagan CACE group, Citizens Against Child Exploitation, an organization initiated by a constituent of mine, Ms. Monica Rainey, is spearheading this campaign for the introduction of legislation. Groups of concerned citizens are working in several cities throughout British Columbia to see that this march is a success. The collection of teddy bears is taking place in Nanaimo, Duncan, Salmon Arm, Vernon, Armstrong, Lumby, Vancouver, Ladysmith, Port McNeill, Victoria and Kelowna. Each bear, representing an abused child, will be placed along the steps of the Legislature.

MLAs do care about the protection of children. I ask members to show their support by meeting on the front steps of the Legislature at 1 p.m. next Tuesday. I urge MLAs from all three political parties to work towards the objective of encouraging this government to introduce legislation that will provide better protection for our children. This issue is not a partisan political matter; it is a common and shared objective of all members of this Legislature. We must do what is best for the children, and we also must do what is best for those who have been convicted of the sexual abuse of children. Protecting our children is the key to their future.

The Speaker: I will recognize the member for Burnaby North, recognizing also that, if time is available, the member for Vancouver-Langara would like to comment.

B. Jones: Thank you very much to the member for Okanagan West for bringing forward this serious, sensitive and complex matter to the Legislature. Thank you, too, to the citizens, particularly the Citizens Against Child Exploitation Society, for raising the profile of this very important matter. Their efforts in this cause are very important. We all care very deeply about the children who add so much to our lives and, as so eloquently expressed by the member opposite, deserve the kind of protection that he was talking about.

I understand the Citizens Against Child Exploitation will be here to cover the steps of the Legislature with teddy bears, petitions, cards and letters next Tuesday. These are citizens from 14 communities across British Columbia. I understand they are meeting with the Minister of Social Services on that day, who today is in Charlottetown meeting with her counterparts from across Canada. As I said, the citizens' concerns are shared by all members of this Legislature; we do desire to protect our children from abuse by known child abusers and sexual offenders, particularly those in positions of trust in society.

We all know about this issue. We've read about this issue for years now from Newfoundland to British Columbia -- all across this country. As the member mentioned, the Ministry of Health recently released a study that showed there was a high incidence of abuse by people in positions of trust and authority. The government of British Columbia recognizes this problem, is concerned about it and is working on it, but it is not a simple issue.

I make the following comment to show the complexity, not as a partisan comment, because this is a non-partisan issue. The previous government had many years -- in my view, too many years -- to work on this problem. Today we are still faced with that problem. It is not simple. It does not involve one ministry. Efforts are being made at this time by the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministries of Health and Education to look at ways of dealing with this problem. Efforts are underway by those ministries to determine effective strategies to deal with it. But it is complex. The introduction very shortly of freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation will impact heavily on the options for legislation and for policy in this area. It does not even involve just one province; we don't just solve the problem in British Columbia. The problem has to be dealt with in a cooperative way by all provinces in Canada.

[11:00]

There are many questions. For example, are we using existing systems to the greatest degree possible? I understand that we have a national registry of criminal records. I assume that those records include records of child sexual offenders, that those records are available to prospective employers and other interested parties and that they can access those records at the time of someone seeking employment or occupying a position of trust and authority. If this system is in place and if it's not working effectively, and if it's not being used to the degree it should, then perhaps that's one option that we should be looking at in terms of solving this problem.

I think we all agree that it's a serious concern. I thank the member for bringing the issue forward and for raising the profile of it. The government does recognize the problem, is concerned about the problem and is working on it, because we all recognize the seriousness of this important matter.

The Speaker: There is about one minute remaining, hon. member.

V. Anderson: We also would affirm the seriousness of this situation, but in this brief time we'd also say that we need to use this to remind ourselves that sexual abuse is not the only abuse that children have. A lot of the abuse that they gather, sexual and otherwise, comes because families do not have the background and support they need. I would hope, in looking at this issue and responding to it, that we will look at preventive measures, so that children are not placed in a circumstance and situation where these unfortunate things, which should not happen, do happen to them, and that not only do we blame the perpetrators we have identified in numbers, but we look at ourselves who are responsible that our children do not have families in 

[ Page 1563 ]

which there is a lack of food, clothing, housing -- the necessities of life -- out of which most abuse does come.

C. Serwa: It's always very gratifying, especially on a morning like this of private members' statements, that all members recognize their obligation to society as a whole. It's particularly gratifying to hear the member on the government side and the member from the official opposition join me in expressing their particular concerns. That augurs well for the future, for children.

I'm always reminded at times like this of the words Mother Teresa uttered: "We can do no great things -- only small things with great love." It is particularly important to recognize that concept and that theme in our future deliberations on this most important matter. We cannot be indifferent to the well-being of our children. We must act now to ensure that convicted -- and I repeat: convicted -- sexual offenders of children are not permitted to work in positions of authority or trust when dealing with children. It has become unpleasantly clear that significant improvements in our laws are needed to protect our children. Legislation would protect children. Legislation would reassure parents and families that the children are in a safe and secure environment, protected from exposure to sexual abuse.

The member for Burnaby North stated that it is a complex issue, and it is indeed complex. Nevertheless, resolution must be made. This Legislature is charged with the responsibility of resolving this challenging situation in British Columbia.

ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND-LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

S. Hammell: I would like to address the House today on a particular program that assists new Canadians to adjust and accommodate to this great province, their new home. In particular I want to talk a little bit about the ESL program, or English as a second language, in British Columbia -- an investment in human potential, our greatest natural resource. I want to talk about the enormous benefits these programs provide, not only for making new Canadians fully participating members of our society but for the economic good these new Canadians bring to our communities.

My constituency, Surrey-Green Timbers, is the fastest-growing municipality in the province, the third-fastest-growing municipality in all of Canada. Many of these new residents have a first language other than English. In fact, at Senator Reid Elementary School one of every two students speaks a primary language at home that is not English. The economic potential that these young people bring to our community, now and in the future, is vast and must be recognized. But this resource can only be tapped -- people allowed to realize their full potential -- if they are functionally literate in English.

Illiteracy is a form of disfranchisement in a society with a knowledge-based economy, in which the quality of personal life choices depends on having certain skills. Empowerment, both personally and economically, begins with knowing how to read and write, how to analyze and express ideas and feelings. Our new Canadians need to know the language to communicate with their neighbours, so that they may be made to feel at home and part of the community. They need to know English to be able to work and make a positive contribution to society and to become fully participating citizens of this country quickly.

There is a great demand for ESL services in Surrey. Today there are 3,724 pupils enrolled in ESL programs. By September this number is projected to rise to nearly 5,000 -- a 32 percent increase.

The New Democratic Party has heralded the importance of promptly and fully accommodating new Canadians. We recognize the systemic barriers that impede opportunities for so many of our new citizens. We believe that true equality of access demands that we address the special needs of children who start school behind their peers, either because of a disadvantaged home situation or because of a lack of skill in English. We must support early intervention programs to remediate verbal and cognitive skills so that those initially disadvantaged aren't condemned to a marginal existence. It means a further development and extension of ESL programs to ensure that ESL children have the language skills to tackle regular school programs. Although English conversational skills may be acquired rapidly by ESL students, upwards of five years may be required for ESL students to reach a level of written proficiency in English comparable to that of their native English-speaking peers. We must approach ESL programs as a provincewide challenge, not merely confined to Vancouver or the lower mainland. A comprehensive ESL strategy will benefit all of British Columbia.

We recognize the value of ESL programs as a vehicle to attaining these goals. Our government's first budget contained a 9.1 percent increase for education, among the most generous increases to any line item of any budget in Canada in recent years. For British Columbians this translates into $300 million more for education this year than last year.

I want to take the opportunity to commend our government for increasing ESL funding. Despite the financial mess we have inherited and the lack of any federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements for ESL programs, this government has allocated an additional $3.7 million in target grants to provide further support to districts experiencing rapid growth in ESL enrolments, such as Surrey. These target grants are over and above the funding for ESL programs currently in the block-funding allocation. The whole community benefits from ESL spending.

The Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, are working closely together to ensure that our ESL dollars are spent as wisely as possible to provide services to both children and older students. For ESL to be a success it must involve the whole family, particularly women, who may have fewer opportunities than other family members to practise speaking English. At the provincial level we are focusing on the needs of 

[ Page 1564 ]

children and students, but it is essential that the federal government does its part in assisting adults who need language instruction.

I encourage the minister and our government to continue in this direction of providing sound, innovative leadership in providing and expanding future ESL programs to meet the needs of new British Columbians and to make them feel welcome as productive members of our community.

J. Dalton: I am pleased to respond to the remarks of the member for Surrey-Green Timbers. She certainly hit upon a very important issue within both the education system and, of course, society in general. The member has made some very good points. She mentioned the investment feature of proper ESL training. I might add that the whole question of education is an investment -- I'm sure the member would recognize that -- and ESL is certainly a very important component of that.

This province and of course this country in general have been built on an excellent immigration program. We welcome new Canadians. The member has touched upon a very important aspect of introducing new Canadians to our society. We have to recognize that they come from countries with different cultures and, of course, bring different experiences. Certainly many of them come with no exposure, as such, to English training. So there is no question that we all have to address the whole question of how these people can be properly assimilated into our society. ESL, without doubt, is an extremely important component of that.

I might add that I think we're indirectly touching upon a question of literacy, which all members of this House know is not just exclusive to new Canadians. The problem of literacy is one we all have to address. That's one that the education system and job-training efforts have to deal with.

But coming back to ESL and the assimilation of our new Canadians, I certainly welcome the remarks that I've heard this morning. I think we all have to go on addressing the question of funding for such important programs as ESL. We might think for a moment of the responsibility of our federal government, which of course deals with all the policies of immigration.

We have heard many times in this House -- and I'm sure we will continue to hear again -- the criticism directed at the federal government for downloading their problems on the provinces. This is one area where we have to keep that in mind. Our education system suffers a lot of problems and pressures by what the federal government does in the way of policy, yet they don't recognize that these issues are being placed upon the provinces and even the municipalities. It's very important that we all recognize the worth of ESL. All of us certainly welcome new Canadians into our society. What the hon. member has addressed is an important component of that and how we will properly allow these people to have the excellent education that our system allows. Of course, funding is an ongoing problem.

I thank the member for her remarks. I think she's touched upon issues shared by all of us who are involved in and concerned about the education system in British Columbia.

C. Serwa: I see that there are a few moments left. I couldn't help but get up and advise the member of some of the realities of the current budget and their commitment to education. She made it a little bit political.

I will advise that particular member that this current government has made the smallest commitment to education in the past six years, and the smallest increase to the Ministry of Education. That's point number one.

Point number two. It is the smallest increase in block funding, and in order to get that small increase, a number of elements that were funded outside of block funding were brought in.

Point three. The smallest percentage of the gross provincial budget this year is dedicated to public school education.

Point four. In order to reduce the portable classrooms, the commitment this year is $585 million; last year it was $650 million.

[11:15]

Overall, I agree and applaud wholeheartedly your commitment to the expanded English-as-a-second-language program.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Proceed, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I also encourage that the concept of English as a second language be made available to adults, to nationals from other countries and especially to women, who often stay in the home and do not have the opportunity to learn English and to move freely in our community. On the whole, I thank the member for her delivery.

S. Hammell: I'd like to thank the member for West Vancouver-Capilano for the support. Although we will dispute the numbers, I would like to thank the member for Okanagan West for his support of the ESL programs.

I want to reiterate how important it is for all of us to support the ESL programs needed by our new Canadians. Last night I was a guest at Senator Reid for a grade 5, 6, and 7 production of "Rats." Children of all nationalities worked together to produce a wonderful hour of song and verse for their parents and guests to enjoy. This is a school with a strong ESL program. One parent told me of a new student from Asia who began school in September with little command of the English language. With immersion into an English-speaking environment and the support of the ESL instruction, this child's command of English would now astonish all of us. This is how we build a strong community with well-prepared students ready to take their part in society.

I again thank all the members for their support of these programs.

[ Page 1565 ]

The Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, when this House opened, each of us was allowed to invite a couple of people to the opening. The people whom I invited, unfortunately, were unable to attend because of illness. They have come today.

I just want to say that every progressive movement of social democracy in this country has been assisted by these people. These are the people who built everything from our party to the labour movement to the co-op movement. Allow me to introduce Jean and Tom Mackenzie: fine people, fine parents and the kind of people who make British Columbia what it is.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In section A today will be the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In section B it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing.

The House in Committee of Supply B; R. Kasper in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING

On vote 53: minister's office, $360,891.

A. Cowie: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude for this opportunity to reply to the minister's statement which was made last week. In order to give some kind of structure to the short time we have this morning, I thought I would give an initial general address, and then I would give time for the member from the third party to also deal with the general address today, so we can get that over with. Then we can proceed on Tuesday with a detailed, step-by-step examination. Essentially I'm responding to vote 53, and then we'll proceed next week with the examination of 54 and the other parts of the ministry, dealing with housing and recreation in particular.

First of all, since he has a couple of additional staff members available today, perhaps the hon. minister would like to take this opportunity to introduce them.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you to my colleague for that courtesy. Yes, indeed, I would be very pleased to introduce critical staff that are very much a part of this ministry. To my right is Mr. Ken MacLeod, who is the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. Mr. Larry Seminiuk is the executive director of finances, administration, systems and all those wonderful things that keep the ministry ticking over. Mr. Gary Harkness is our Assistant Deputy Minister in the very important section that deals with safety and standards, firefighter training and the various other things that we do for local government.

A. Cowie: I've known Ken MacLeod for about 25 years, and I've certainly known Gary Harkness for an equal time. I haven't met Mr. Seminiuk before, but I trust we'll get to know him.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: He deals with the dollars, so we'll probably get to know him.

I want to congratulate the minister for becoming the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. It's a very important ministry. It's a wide-ranging ministry, as the minister said in his initial address. It's a ministry where he's dealing with front-line issues, right down to helping out with the volunteer firefighters' organization, inspection services and that sort of thing -- the very fundamental services that make our municipalities work.

The importance of this ministry is its relationship with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I'd like to say at this time that the reason the minister can function so well throughout the province with many of the aspects of this ministry is through an ongoing relationship with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It's very important that the linkages with the municipalities are kept. I see the minister at different places around the province, most recently in Merritt. The minister does go to these conferences and give speeches, which will over time give me a little more detail as he gets further into the year. I haven't been able to get a lot of detail out of the speeches to date, but I'm sure I will be able to do that.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: I have copies, thank you. I'm still looking for the detail.

I know that the minister has excellent staff and that that staff is continually working throughout the province on important matters in liaising with different municipalities. I also recognize that it's a very frugal ministry. The minister has one of the smallest office expenditures, and I note that he's kept it down to $360,000, which is only some $10,000 more than last year. I must compliment him, for I take it that there's no additional staff, no consultant studies and no patronage -- nothing like that going on in his ministry -- because of the frugal budget that he's been able to keep to.

There is a minor shift. This year the budget, as the Minister mentioned in his initial address, has a shift. That shift is toward environmental infrastructure, if I could put it that way. I recognize that it's an important shift. It's a very small amount of money. A cynic would say it's okay to come up with that money; since the municipalities would have a hard time scrambling to get it spent by the end of the year, maybe it wouldn't be spent, and therefore it's a good budget item to increase. But I'm not a cynic. I'm sure that the municipalities are in there with their applications, and the money will be spent to improve the sewer and water systems that are so badly in need.

It's very important that we don't have a situation like the one recently in Chicago, where the municipality did not repair a $10,000 item and ended up with a $1 

[ Page 1566 ]

billion problem with flooding. It's very important that our municipalities not be squeezed during these difficult times with very essential infrastructure. I'm sure that the minister will make sure that that doesn't happen and will respond to applications.

I'm sure that out of this fund small municipalities that are having problems with such things as fluoride treatment.... It's now 20 years or so since many municipalities, especially small ones, came in with fluoride treatment. Those small facilities now need to be updated. I have heard of at least two municipalities -- apart from the argument over fluoride -- that have not redone their fluoride facility simply because of budget. I'm sure the minister will respond to those sorts of things, if and when they come up, and not get caught in the fluoride debate. I was at a dental executive meeting this week. It was emphasized to me that there are a number of municipalities in that situation right now, and we would not want the situation to be such that they cannot repair those facilities because of tight budgets.

It was very good in the address to hear the minister speak on the importance of regional districts. Like me, the minister has recognized that regional districts are very important in this province, especially in areas of high growth: the Okanagan; the Kootenays; the GVRD, of course, which has the highest rate of growth -- including Surrey, which is probably the greatest area of growth right now; Nanaimo and Victoria. Those are areas where a great deal of growth is taking place, and a lot of the issues surrounding their growth cannot be resolved through individual municipalities. There is a need for cooperation on a regional basis. The minister mentioned air as one item that has no boundaries. There are other items that don't have boundaries, and the minister recognizes that.

There are other areas in the province which, as I'm sure the minister realizes, don't have as much interest in the regional district movement or strengthening the regional districts; and that's in our areas to the north, the less populated areas, the Peace River. While there is a regional district operating there, I have heard personally from the mayors and from representatives that they want to see a number of the resolutions resolved surrounding their municipality.

Taylor-Fort St. John is an example, where Taylor doesn't really make much sense. It would be better that the minister take some very firm leadership and make sure that's one municipality. I'm pretty sure that both municipalities, if it was properly negotiated, would agree with that. There are a number of other areas in the lower mainland where we have similar situations.

I wanted to make sure that I complimented the minister for his initiative on regional districts. He will probably be bringing back new legislation so that the regional districts can make decisions on land use. Our third party, which is absent this morning, eliminated the ability of regional districts to do land use planning, and they did that for a number of reasons. First of all, I think the regional districts were becoming a fourth level of government, which was irritating them at the time. When they did away with the lower mainland regional district -- which one of your staff behind you was the assistant director of at the time, as I remember -- there was a great debate. Simply because the lower mainland regional district showed a bit of gumption and fought the Roberts Bank situation, where they wanted to put industry on the backup lands, they were summarily dismissed.

We then had four regional districts which worked for a while but now need to be reunited, because the problems of growth are going up the valley. They're greater than the Greater Vancouver Regional District can deal with. I think we have to very seriously look at reuniting them. Maybe your staff member might like to go back there and become the director of planning or whatever. I would think that there's a need for that.

[11:30]

I also wanted to recognize that the building industry -- if I can put it that way -- in this province, which we rely on to build housing and commercial and industrial, largely through the Urban Development Institute.... They support regionalization, the strengthening of the regional district. The Greater Vancouver Regional District, of course, endorses it and has taken the leadership on that. The various real estate boards throughout the province have endorsed it. The UBCM have endorsed it. The professionals throughout the province -- the planners, the members of the Planning Institute of British Columbia -- have endorsed it.

So I suggest, Mr. Minister, you have absolutely no problems in moving directly on this and showing the leadership that's absolutely necessary to get the strengthened regional districts going in this province. I assure you that I'd like you to do that in the next four years. You can take a bit of time, but please don't leave it till the fifth.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: Absolutely. I'll be right behind him -- at a safe distance, but right behind him. I do know that the minister has those organizations solidly behind him. There have been studies at the University of British Columbia that also endorse it. There are many people, so he really needn't worry.

I think the problems come in this area because people fear we might be leading to a fourth level of government, which people don't want. So what's going to happen? It's going to have to be done in such a way that the regional districts get strengthened gradually and some of the powers of the municipalities get lessened, as the people recognize that sewer, water and all of the major services that the municipalities receive are actually regional. As they gradually recognize this and the shift of power leads to the regional district, they will demand direct representation. That's when the crunch will come. Then you're going to find the mayors and aldermen from a number of municipalities not wanting to give up their power. That's where the delicate issue lies.

There are a number of municipalities that I could mention, and I suppose I will. I'll take the risk. There's White Rock, for example, with which the minister is familiar because the Liberal representatives on my side have talked to the minister on that. I believe that White 

[ Page 1567 ]

Rock would like to rationalize their municipality by including south Surrey. I'm sure that Surrey wouldn't like that, but we have to look at those various options realistically.

Lions Bay. At a great risk also, I'll say that's a ridiculous municipality. They simply can't staff it properly; they just can't do it. It should be part of a re-organized North Shore, which could perhaps include the city of North Vancouver and the district of North Vancouver as one community.

An Hon. Member: What about Coquitlam?

A. Cowie: Coquitlam, absolutely. Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam should be one. That's no problem at all, as far as I'm concerned. I've said this before publicly, so I'm not worried about saying it again.

I really want the minister to show a great deal of leadership in this government and to move on it through the UBCM, which is the proper place to deal with this, so that it can be dealt with in a not-so-partisan, rational way. The UBCM is the minister's best means for making any major decisions that are awkward, because it's a good organization to deal with detail, where the minister can sit down with his staff and work out appropriate solutions.

The reason that we have to move quickly on this is that there's a great deal of growth in this province. The minister mentioned 30,000 people coming into the province -- net. I used to use the term 60,000 people coming into the province, but if your figures are correct, I guess there must be some people leaving. Many of these people are coming from elsewhere in Canada. It has nothing to do with immigration. People are coming from Ontario, for example, and going to Kelowna, or going to Vancouver Island to retire. Essentially, because of our wonderful climate, we have this problem of people wanting to come and live here. There are areas they zero in on. We have some imaginative solutions -- almost new communities developing, because this particular group of people have funds. They want good-quality housing and the various community services that can be provided.

The Chair: Hon. member, your time has expired.

J. Dalton: I'm quite prepared to allow our lead critic to continue with his address.

A. Cowie: I'll try to make it reasonably brief. We have time to deal with these later, so I'll go through it very quickly.

I'd like to deal generally with the situation of housing. The minister and I have discussed this briefly. I recognize that the federal government is downloading, and we will undoubtedly, as the minister referred to earlier, lose 7,000 units over the next five years that would otherwise have been financed through the federal government; that amounts to $460 million worth of construction. We're going to have to find other ways that we can deal with this. We're in tight, difficult times. I personally believe that we won't be building a great number of social units, so we have to rely on private industry, which I would prefer to rely on in any case.

This is where the minister really has to take leadership. There are many municipalities that have the NIMBY syndrome: they agree with innovative building solutions, but they don't want it in their back yard. The minister has got to use incentives in some way and encourage the municipalities to use infill -- convert older housing -- such as Vancouver is allowing and even encourage Vancouver to do it more. Right now we get two people living in a great big house. They live in a single-family zone; they can't do anything about it. They're doing this in the States; they've been doing it for years in Europe. There's no reason why those big houses can't be divided into three units or so and recycled; the overall community wouldn't look that much different, provided the gardens, the landscaping and the parking are well looked after.

I'm sorry we're a little late with this, but when I first came to Victoria as part of this House I wrote every municipality about infill housing and innovative housing solutions. I asked what they were doing. I have some responses, which I will pass on to the minister next week. It's a non-political thing. We all have to solve this. I did get some very interesting replies from some of the smaller and larger municipalities, both on policy and what they are allowing at the present time.

As to municipal revenue-sharing, I think this is the solution. For years this has been a pass-through ministry. As I mentioned before, it's like my bank account. Again talking generally about municipal revenue-sharing.... I know it's on vote 55; that's where the bulk of this ministry's funds are. If the minister were to use the incentive methods.... I would endorse the old policy that used to be under the Social Credit government at one time till they got chicken. They required municipalities to have official community plans.

Hon. R. Blencoe: They still do.

A. Cowie: Official community plans are required, but every community plan is different. I would encourage the minister to consider tying the grants to a business plan that the municipalities have and an official community plan that is up to date. Many official community plans are nothing but wishy-washy policies and don't give any direction at all. I think the ministry has to really get back and look at those official community plans. In the last few years the funding hasn't been available, because the Social Credit government took that funding away and moved it to economic development, then moved it to social development -- moved it everywhere but into doing official community plans properly. While we're doing that, we need to assure the municipalities that we're doing this in true partnership.

Also, with the agricultural land reserve, I think the minister has to deal with the edge conditions around municipalities, where there is first-class agricultural land. The Minister of Agriculture agrees with that. I don't agree with his philosophy that every developer or every golf course owner is speculating. I don't agree with that at all, but I'm sure that's just exaggeration on 

[ Page 1568 ]

his part. Many municipalities should, in fact, incorporate golf courses, playing-fields and parks around the edges of their municipality in such a way that the municipalities can't expand -- or development can't expand -- into the agricultural area.

A brief point at this time on recreation, physical fitness and the amateur sports fund. I note in the budget that the fund has not gone up. That's rather disturbing to some people in that field whom I've talked to. I will deal with that more as we go through the estimates in detail.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca.

An Hon. Member: Boo!

L. Fox: It's a pleasure to stand up before you in this House to give my comments and opening comments with respect to the Municipal Affairs estimates. I welcome the boo from my basketball opponent across the way, whom we have great fun with every Tuesday evening.

An Hon. Member: Your lip isn't preventing you from talking.

L. Fox: No, my lip won't prevent me from talking. For the members of the House, I should point out that it's as a result of conflict between myself and the Forests critic of the Liberal Party. He's much bigger than I, and I suffered, of course, the benefits of his elbow.

[11:45]

[M. Lord in the chair.]

In my opening statement I want to talk about the role, as I see it, of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As the minister is well aware, I have quite an extensive background in municipal government as well as being, two years past, first vice-president of the UBCM. I differ to some degree on many points that my Liberal friend has been making over the past half an hour. I'm really disappointed, however, in the lack of advocacy role that you as a minister have played during the formation of the budget. Certainly, you did not -- in my view -- represent the best interests of the municipalities in the forming of that budget.

Before I go on, I would like to credit your staff for their work over the years. I too have had personal relationships with some of them and have grown to value their input. However, I believe, with respect to this budget, that they weren't really allowed to give much input. I draw to your attention some of the issues that have arisen through speeches by the UBCM president, as well as through discussions I've had with some mayors of the province.

While this minister and other ministers have continually talked about the mess left by the previous administration and the fact that they, and particularly this minister, had no choice but to unload some of the provincial responsibilities onto municipalities, I submit that there were choices. This government, in fact, chose this direction purposely.

The reduction with respect the supplementary homeowner's grant, for instance, which we will get to extensively throughout the estimates, is a real indication of the fact that this minister really felt that the municipalities should receive more of the costs for education. I was somewhat appalled by the minister's statement in a recent broadcast on a local cable network when he suggested that municipalities should feel good about coming to the table and accepting some of this responsibility. I submit to this House that that responsibility.... The supplementary homeowner's grant was instituted to relieve pressure put on taxpayers for school purposes. It had nothing at all to do with municipalities. However, this budget has now put a substantial expense onto municipalities for school purposes. I believe that's something he will regret when some of the tax notices come out at the end of June and when the others come out at the end of July.

I noted that in his opening address he talked a bit about lottery programs. The minister is well aware that if it had not been not for the access to lottery programs by many small communities throughout this province over the last ten years, we would not be enjoying the recreational facilities that we presently enjoy. There is now a lessening of that and a tight constraint with respect to the formula, which in the past has been allowed to vary a little depending on the community's or the area's ability to pay. Recognizing that sport is important to the physical fitness of people in this province and to a positive attitude within a community.... That has been severely handicapped by this budget and by what the minister now has available to him in order to improve recreational facilities throughout the province.

In his opening discussions the minister also talked about public housing for the poor and disabled, and I really do appreciate those comments. But I want to point out that that is not only an issue in the lower mainland. In the Prince George community itself, we presently have 40 individuals of a handicapped nature who are presently on the GAIN program and who cannot find homes which fit their particular handicap. I would urge the minister to work extremely hard with those communities to come up with some innovative programs as to how we might involve the private sector in this development.

I spoke just recently to Vivian Candy, who is a handicapped person herself and is playing a lead role in this issue in the city of Prince George. Something that she identified to me -- and I think it makes good sense and certainly is something that we should do some follow-up on -- is that in order to make land available for this kind of housing, we may look at government land in an area and add some incentives to the private sector to meet the challenge of social housing.

I note that this government is looking at asking municipalities to include affordable housing areas or zones in their OCPs. That may very well work out in some cases, but in other cases I have a lot of concerns. Unlike my Liberal counterpart, I am convinced that OCPs are being done in this province. While we as 

[ Page 1569 ]

individuals may believe that a community is not responding in its best interests, I believe strongly in local autonomy. Those individuals are elected in those communities to develop their OCPs, and I do not believe that it's right for the province to say to them: "You must do this; you must do that." The electorate of those communities will look after those issues if they're not done the way they should be done.

Let me talk a little bit about the revenue-sharing that you mentioned in your opening speech. You so proudly talked about the fact that because you reduced revenue-sharing, you're able to increase the amounts going into the infrastructure program. Those increases go from $97 million to $128 million respectively. While some smaller communities received a small increase in their revenue-sharing -- and I think that's commendable, because I have argued in the past that the smaller communities should receive more dollars -- by and large the larger communities lost a substantial amount of money. Between that and what they're losing with wiping out the supplementary homeowner's grant, I submit to the minister that there will be a lot of communities out there that won't be able to afford to pay the 75 percent share that is required by the municipalities for the infrastructure programs. You've already picked their pockets, Mr. minister, and now they're not going to be able to afford the 75 percent that they have to put forward.

I believe very strongly -- and I've spoken to the minister about it -- that we should look at a diversification of that particular program. For communities under 10,000, that program should be on a fifty-fifty basis. Most of those communities are attempting to identify economic opportunities and diversify their economies. One of the limits to doing that, as the minister well knows, is a lack of infrastructure. It would be a very good long-term plan if this minister and this government looked at increasing the opportunities for communities under 10,000 to diversify their economies by making it possible for them to increase their infrastructure network through a fifty-fifty program rather than a 75 percent municipal contribution and a 25 percent provincial contribution.

Let's talk just a little bit about the off-loading and the consultative process that I seem to read into the minister's statements. I had to look very hard to find anything that identified that, but I did notice in the last paragraph of his statement that he paid homage and gave thanks to the UBCM and the many other agencies that have delivered services in co-operation with his ministry over the past years. I want to say that if this last budget and its impact on the municipalities are any indication of what this government means by consultation, then we're in for real problems. We have seen this government off-load onto municipalities in huge proportions in almost every area of their budgets, whether through increasing local school taxes on the business sector, increasing the rural homeowner's tax, doing away with the supplementary homeowner's grant, or decreasing the revenue-sharing grant. And the final straw to break the camel's back was the freezing of the revenue-sharing stabilization fund on the day before the budget came out.

The UBCM, in consultation with the previous administration, had identified a long while back that we need the ability to stabilize what they can expect out of the provincial government in terms of revenue sharing. The previous administration agreed that in order to stop the peaks and valleys, there was a need to create a fund in the good years of provincial revenue that could be utilized to soften the poor years. What did this minister and this government do? In a bad year, when the economy and the revenues were down, it limited that fund. It was not this province's fund, in my view. That fund was really the property of the municipalities, because they chose not to take those additional revenues in the good years when the economy was strong.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's the property of the taxpayer.

L. Fox: Certainly it's the property of the taxpayer, and the taxpayer pays not only municipal taxes but also provincial taxes. But the municipalities chose not to take those dollars in the years when provincial revenues were up. They chose to create a fund so it would lessen the burden on this province in the years when the revenues were down. This minister chose to wipe out that fund, which was really the municipal fund because they chose to be accountable and credible in spending taxpayers' money. I found that extremely distasteful and a clear indication of the lack of co-operation and communication with local municipalities, who have provided extremely strong leadership through the UBCM.

Another issue that has not been addressed and that was certainly not addressed in your opening statements, but that is of the utmost importance to municipalities, is the request by the UBCM, and through the UBCM by the municipalities, to have observer status in negotiations with the aboriginal peoples in the land claim issues. This government has yet to recognize that these particular negotiations are of huge importance to municipalities. This government, I'm sure, wants to know what the feelings of municipalities are on a provincewide basis in order that it can represent their interests at the negotiating table. I submit to you that the only way this can be achieved in real form is by the UBCM being present at those negotiations in an observer status, so that it can make this government aware of concerns that it has with respect to the ongoing negotiations.

We will go to considerable length over the next few days on specifics in terms of your budget. I can only reiterate that I hope the communication that will happen within this Legislature over the next few days of this minister's estimates will point out the importance of communication, so that he can begin to communicate in a way that he has not yet done with the UBCM and the municipalities of this province.

[12:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Because those comments were given in a general sense, I'll just comment and respond in a general sense also. Before I do that, one more staff member has joined us today -- Dr. Lee Southern, who is 

[ Page 1570 ]

the executive director of the sport and recreation division for the ministry.

First I'll respond to my Liberal critic in the official opposition. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena talked about the infrastructure that we need to maintain and said that any good government would do that. I agree with him in total. We obviously have all the evidence from other jurisdictions, particularly south of the line. When senior governments don't help local governments maintain infrastructure, the costs rise dramatically and the economic generation of industry doesn't continue. The leaders of industry always look to see which communities are healthy and safe and have good infrastructure for establishing new industry or for expanding.

It's not only health and environment but also infrastructure that's important to the economy of the province. That is one of the basic reasons that our government, under my ministry, made the decision to quite dramatically increase the sewer and water component of revenue-sharing.

In a minute I'll get to the third party opposition member's comments about infrastructure and all the issues he raised. We had to make some tough decisions on where we were going to allocate the funds for this year. Despite what the member from the third party -- the Social Credit member for Prince George-Omineca -- had to say, there's only so much money to go around, quite frankly. Revenue-sharing is dependent upon the economic growth of the province. When that fund drops, when the economy reaches some trouble, a good government has to take a look at the longevity, stability and integrity of the program. In our estimation and in the estimation of those who advise this government, there was a clear indication that spending out of revenue-sharing for unconditional grants in 1990-91 was way beyond the economic growth of this province. In two pre-election years, $130 million and $135 million did not meet the standards of good fiscal management, did jeopardize the fund and could not be sustained. Yes, it was a tough decision by this member and this government to say to local government: "Instead of $135 million in unconditional, you're only going to get $120 million."

We don't welcome doing that. I know from seven years on local government what it means to have unconditional amounts of money. I know it's flexibility. But this is a government that is having to make some tough decisions. We have, quite frankly, talked to the Finance minister about how we have to cut government.

We've made some tough decisions, but at the same time -- to both hon. members -- we dramatically increased the environmental and the sewer, the health and the water grants to the highest level in the history of this province to ensure that, as my good colleague the Liberal critic quite rightly maintains, we maintain the infrastructure. We made a conscious decision. Despite that, we did not reduce expenditures from revenue-sharing; we increased them by 10 percent -- in a very difficult year, I might add.

I might also say that on the unconditional portion, the average over the last ten years has been about $110 million. In the last two years it was raised in pre-election time to an astronomical amount of $135 million. We went back to $120 million -- still beyond the ten-year average, still the third largest in ten years in difficult times.

Let me answer on the revenue stabilization fund. I think you made a statement that we froze the revenue-sharing fund; that we wiped out the fund. That's not correct. Many local governments are now doing.... I think you have to be very careful who you're listening to from UBCM. If there is a feeling, and I think it's valid, that the mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Campbell, has a viewpoint that isn't necessarily shared by the rank and file of local government....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think you'll find if you do some discussions there that they realize there is some other agenda afoot in terms of representing UBCM. I have said categorically -- I think UBCM understands this now, despite what some members, particularly the Vancouver mayor, said -- that the revenue stabilization fund is intact; there is currently $35 million included in that fund, if I'm correct; and the interest is growing every day.

That fund, though, is for difficult times. That fund, as you know, is for when the economy drops. We try to use those funds to maintain levels. We had to bring back the overall scheme -- the overall revenue-sharing -- to some reality in terms of sustainability. That money will be there. Quite frankly, if the economy continues to do what it does today, it may very well be that we will have to utilize that fund in some way in future years.

Our objective is to be fiscally prudent; it is to be wise and not use the fund beyond the capability to be sustained. That's really very important. We have done our utmost to ensure that those communities who are looking for sewer and water grants or water quality grants to ensure that they continue to build the infrastructure.... We are in the process now of announcing stage 1 on sewer and water; the good news will be coming to members whose communities have applications. We are trying to help those local communities maintain their infrastructure. It clearly comes down to the ability of government to meet the difficult times, and we are doing that.

Let me comment on this UBCM statement. I think the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca mentioned that we changed the rules prior to budget. There's a little bit of a difference between that member and certainly this member across here. He said revenue-sharing is owned by local government; a sense of ownership by local government. Yes, revenue-sharing is for local government. We maintain it for them and try to protect and enhance it and make sure its integrity is maintained. However, I've got to tell you that taxpayers own that fund. I would remind members that we were elected, on behalf of the citizens of the province, to make sure that the funds at the disposal of local government -- on behalf of all taxpayers -- are protected and used wisely. It was not....

Interjection.

[ Page 1571 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: There was no breaking of an agreement. Let me tell you what your government did in 1990 in terms of unconditional grants. They passed a regulation that basically said that unconditional grants could never go down and have to be maintained at the level they were given the prior year. Think about that in terms of fiscal prudence. That's like saying you've got a bank account and you can continue to spend as much as you want out of it, no matter how much is in it. That's what the regulation basically said. We changed it, because if the money isn't there, if the fund is in trouble, if the economy is dropping and if you haven't got the money, what do you do? You spend. You cut your costs to what you've got.

This government was responsible. We want to maintain that fund. We want to make sure it's available to local government in perpetuity over the years. I can assure you that we're not going to have a regulation that says that the fund must never go down, that it must be maintained at.... For instance, if the economy is up and you increase your unconditional grants to a good level and the next year it drops, you have to spend the same amount of money. I can assure you that the citizens of the province of British Columbia would love to have a bank account like that. They'd love it. No, we won't spend like that. We are going to maintain the integrity of that fund, but -- and I am quite forthright and open about it -- we did reduce unconditional grants by $15 million, which is about 11 percent over last year. We shifted. We put it from $97 million last year for sewer and water to $128 million. We increase expenditures from revenue-sharing by 10 percent. The response I'm getting from local government now that they're getting some accurate numbers -- and it's time to reflect on some of the initial reactions, particularly from the Mayor of Vancouver -- is that many municipalities are beginning to realize what we did. They begin to realize that we took the finances and revenue-sharing seriously.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I just wanted to make that point. Let me make quite clear to that member across the way that our way of operating will be to ensure that revenue-sharing is maintained. We will do our best to enhance unconditional grants and to enhance money for various important grant programs that are required by local government, but it will be done based on the ability that the fund will be able to sustain spending.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena talked about small municipalities, as did the member for Prince George-Omineca. He talked about the need for, I think he mentioned, fluoride treatment programs in water. We will continue to move grants along in those areas. He talked about regional districts, and I think he made some subjective comments about some that could be amalgamated or put together -- Taylor, Fort St. John. Normally the guiding principle is that local communities try and reach these kinds of arrangement on their own. They try to achieve a consensus when rationalization, if you will, is required. Over the years I think we will achieve some rationalization.

I'm very pleased that the members supported regional planning. Yes, we are moving ahead. Yes, we are moving slower than some would like. There is a consensus that we need regional planning, but I can assure you that there's no consensus on the style and the formula. We will be showing leadership in terms of the provincial interest in this issue, but we will also be asking local government to participate with us in the final form that regional planning will take. I'll get in on this topic later on in estimates in terms of some ideas we have on that kind of scope.

Housing. The member referred to UDI and that they are on board and want gradual regional planning. The consensus has to be achieved on what type of regional planning we achieve.

The member mentioned White Rock and Lions Bay. Yes, I have met with some of those members from the opposition. It's not an easy issue, of course. I noted that the member was quite prepared to have me lead on the issue, but he would be behind. It's a tough one. I recognize the issues of White Rock, but they won't be resolved overnight. They have been caught by urban growth. The situation has changed dramatically. We are prepared to work on it in consultation with your members and with our government members who come from the area.

In terms of housing and social units and relying on private industry, yes, we will be. I've already said many times that we're going to rely on consultation with the private sector. Quite frankly, we're going to need their partnership. The federal government is removing itself from the field quite dramatically. We will be looking for partnership and help. There will be a process very soon to allow the private sector to give us their ideas of what partnership with the private sector means in terms of social housing -- not another study; what ideas?

You mentioned, hon. member, the question of NIMBY. NIMBY is an unfortunate circumstance, and it does happen. In terms of neighbourhoods getting upset, part of the answer is to have better design and better consultation and for people to understand what the issues are in their neighborhoods. I think we can overcome a lot of those things. There have to be incentives, though; you're quite correct. There have to be incentives to local government in terms of secondary suites -- a major issue. Many communities could legalize secondary suites. We could resolve a lot of our housing problems if we had a lot more legalized secondary suites.

The member mentioned municipal sharing. Tie grants to performance. That's an issue we can look at. Local governments tend to resent senior government telling them what they do with their grants -- no question about that. That goes back to my colleague for Prince George-Omineca, who talks about the autonomy of local government. But there is a trade-off. There has to be some realization that when we've got these finite resources for local governments in terms of dollars, there has to be some performance.

[12:15]

What are the critical issues we're trying to address in our communities in our province? One of the things we have done in this legislation is that in the official 

[ Page 1572 ]

community plans, we request local government to participate in devising plans and policies for affordable housing. We're not saying that they've got to do it without resources. I will be announcing a program very shortly whereby there will be dollars associated with that to give them a hand to proceed. Where we can, working with local government, we have to provide ways that we can deal with some of these critical issues. The grants can be utilized in a fashion that could tackle some of the issues local governments are facing.

The member mentioned some of the official community plans in the province. I agree with him. I don't want to have many regional districts saying that the minister is taking them on. I happen to believe that if you have a community plan, it should be a plan and it should be adhered to, although things aren't always etched in stone; there have to be changes. Sometimes official community plans can get changed so quickly. Rather than a community plan that shows some vision and objectivity of the future for that region, it can get changed overnight and become like a zoning map. I think that's unfortunate. As we move ahead in terms of discussions with local governments, we can really start, in a consensus form, to see why community plans are useful and why regional planning, in the context of official community plans, is also very useful.

The member talked about recreation and sport, but I won't get into that right now. He may have some specific questions.

The Social Credit member for Prince George-Omineca was concerned about the role of adequacy in the formation of the budget -- defending local government. I think I've answered that. We are the guardians, if you will, of provincial resources, the provincial dollars. We are given a mandate to ensure that the dollars are spent wisely. I can assure that member that, coming from local government, I am working with them. But there will be times when the local government has its ground and the provincial government has its ground. There will be times of differences. We do have provincial interests that aren't always coterminous with municipal interests. Hon. member, you know that, and I don't have to tell you that. The key issue is how we work out those differences.

But in terms of the budget process, the provincial government has a budget to deliver. We have to assess what we view as the priorities and the abilities of the taxpayers to pay, including revenue-sharing. We did that. A budget by the provincial government is this government determining, as wisely as possible, what the priorities are. Therefore I'm saying that we cannot consult on every single thing. There has to be some leadership in terms of where the government is going in its spending, and I think we've shown that -- not to everyone's liking, and I don't disagree with that. But that's what governments are elected to do.

I have discussed with the UBCM a number of ways that we can share with them the things we're doing in this ministry. I've talked to the president, Mrs. Joyce Harder, on a number of occasions. We have our disagreements, but I think we have a good relationship. But there will be differences. There will be times when we have to ascertain what we think are the fiscal priorities in terms of revenue sharing -- and again, what we think the fund can sustain.

Interestingly enough, I actually have some letters of support from local governments about what we're doing which I think are extremely useful. Many communities, such as the district of Port Hardy, are very thankful for the funding and for the municipal infrastructure that we're providing, recognizing that we're trying to make tough decisions and that we're trying to support their requirements in infrastructure. You know that many communities have those requirements: the city of Kamloops supporting the province's recognition of the need to improve and expand municipal water and sewer systems and the city of Rossland congratulating us on "your decision to focus the limited financial resources at your disposal on the high-priority areas of municipal water and sewer systems."

As I said, I think when local government -- and they're doing this now -- take a look at what their objectives are, where we are spending the money, and that many of them will be able to enhance their programs and their infrastructure, they will recognize that we are going to make some tough decisions but that we are recognizing they have critical needs.

A. Cowie: I would like to appeal to the minister to try to put a little structure to this. We're staying general today and maybe even first thing on Tuesday, but I'm hoping we can move through regional government, or even look at a structural plan for the province. I have a question there on how we relate with our cities to the south. I'll perhaps be able to get that question through today, and then talk about some leadership issues on community plans, development control measures, and that sort of thing. If everybody can do that, we then can move into your operations, and we can move along smoothly. I have a sense that we can be all over the place with this particular subject. Because it's such an interesting subject to a lot of people who have had municipal experience, I'm afraid that's exactly what will happen.

Then we can move into housing and some technical aspects, and then last of all we could perhaps deal with recreation; so Dr. Southern needn't worry for at least a day or so, as far as I'm concerned. The members of our caucus have agreed basically to that structure, so I can assure you from this side anyway, he needn't worry.

I'd like to ask a broad question. I want to get off supplemental homeowner grants and stabilization funds, because we could be ranting and raving for a long time on that, and we have a bill before us to deal with that. Maybe the minister can simply tell people to shut up on that issue until the bill comes. That would be very helpful if he would do that. As for social housing, we have a bill on that, and maybe the minister can tell the members to be very brief on that subject, and we'll deal with it in the bills where we can get into a lot of argument.

An Hon. Member: You control the agenda on this one.

A. Cowie: I am trying, but I'll need the minister's cooperation.

[ Page 1573 ]

I'd like to ask the minister if he's had any opinions on the Stephen Owen commission report, which is going to be looking at resources and the environment as that commission works through approximately 90 percent of the province -- as the Minister of Agriculture reminds me that he only has 5 percent; the rest of it's urban. I'd like to know whether the minister has any mechanisms available to him, or has any studies in mind, or whether his staff is working on a plan to look at urban structure in the province so that we have a plan of where we would like growth to go, how we're going to deal with resource towns and how we're going to deal mainly with the land issue that is not resource-oriented and is not agriculture. We very much need leadership on this particular issue, Mr. Minister.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Now we get on to the specific details and questions. I want to thank the member for laying out his approach in a logical sequence. It allows our staff to prepare when we know what's coming. Quite frankly, it saves the taxpayers' money, because then we don't have staff waiting for days, not knowing when it is coming. I mention that to the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca so that he may consider that it's taxpayers' money that we're utilizing here by having staff waiting. Of course, you control the agenda, hon. member. It's up to you.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Oh, we're always saving taxpayers' money.

Let me comment on the member's good questions. First, of course, I support Mr. Owen and his objectives and the Commission on Resources and Environment -- CORE. He faces an incredible challenge. My understanding is that Mr. Owen will not be looking at settlement plans and community plans. That's not within his terms of reference. It is my understanding, though, that my ministry is represented on the advisory process to the commission. There is no question that the issues you raise will be touched upon by Mr. Owen, and we will be there to advise and participate.

In terms of the urbanization issues and the questions that the member raised -- all very good ones -- I'll let the member know that this ministry is extremely active in urban research and urban policy development. Much work is going on now, particularly through Mr. Brian Walisser and his policy division within the ministry. He has staff taking a look at other jurisdictions and their municipal and planning acts. All jurisdictions are facing the issues of urbanization and growth. All are trying to tackle them in a forthright way. We in this province are sharing with them what we are doing, and we're taking a look at how they're coping with it. I think it's a good process that is going on. Within the confines of that urbanization work, we are very much concentrating on regional governance and regional planning as a way to integrate our work on urbanization. Perhaps in the days ahead I can talk more about...

An Hon. Member: Months ahead.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Indeed it will be months ahead. ...some of the specifics in regional planning and governance that we want to take a look at to give you, hon. member, some ideas vis-�-vis the leadership role that you talked about, in terms of some of the definitions and specifics that we think we can be doing in urbanization and regional planning research. But that may very well be for another day.

My indication from the House Leader is that there has been an arrangement made that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, first let me wish all members of the House a very enjoyable and relaxing long weekend. When we arrive back on Tuesday, by agreement the House will sit at 2 o'clock -- Monday hours. However, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House and people employed in the precincts that the House will sit till 10 o'clock on Tuesday -- from 2 to 6 for estimates, and from 6 to 10 for bills. That will be the only night sitting that week, and hopefully we can minimize those in the future.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:31 p.m.

[ Page 1574 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 11:26 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, I would like to table -- or at least pass to the member; whatever is required -- a report that.... He was asking for a number of figures, and many of the ones he may want will be in this Price Waterhouse report: Mining in British Columbia -- 1990 I might again make a request to the member that if he has a particular direction for his questions, it's certainly.... I'm sure that some of my staff would be glad to come later, when he's going to question them.

The Chair: Hon. minister, clarification on two points. You've passed it over, so I guess you weren't tabling a document. And before we begin the debate, you must move the motion on the estimates.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm sorry. I didn't know I had to move the motion.

I move vote 28: be it resolved that a sum not exceeding $296,000 be approved by the committee.

D. Jarvis: Just some general questions, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister tell me whether she intends to use the Energy Council to build on the policies and directions initiated by this government, or whether she intends to have the council make reports to provide just a starting point for the government?

Hon. A. Edwards: The intent of the Energy Council is contained in the bill that is currently before the House. I believe that we should be debating it when the bill comes forward.

D. Jarvis: Certainly some instructions were given to the council. How will the topics for the debate be decided?

Hon. A. Edwards: I would be pleased to expand on it when we debate the bill. I have made public statements that I think are fairly clear. It's not that I am reluctant to debate the Energy Council, because I think it's an excellent idea; but I do believe that this is not the appropriate forum for so doing. As a matter of fact, I believe it contravenes the rules. Therefore the only thing that we could answer in relation to the Energy Council is spending that might be included in the estimates.

[11:30]

The Chair: Hon. member, before the Chair recognizes you, I would offer the caution of standing order 61 that future legislation is not open for debate under the examination of the minister's estimates. Could we concentrate the questions on those areas pertaining to the administration of the minister's office.

D. Jarvis: There was money allowed for the Energy Council in the budget. What is the agenda for this council? Is it going to be set by the minister, according to her needs or the government's needs?

Hon. A. Edwards: Basically it is a $10 vote, as we've said before. The subvote in the blue book provides for the operation of the council, which provides public consultation and input into energy decision-making, and encourages long-term comprehensive energy planning in British Columbia.

A major part of the expenditures for the council, if the amount in the estimates is approved, is for the establishment of a small secretariat for the Energy Council chair, who would also be the chief executive officer. Public consultation would be one of the functions of that council, and that would be what the money would be expended for.

D. Jarvis: I really wasn't too worried about the actual dollars and cents. What I wanted to know about was the agenda. How is it going to be set? Will the council or Mr. Gathercole be setting the agenda? Or is the public in general...? What is their interest?

Hon. A. Edwards: I repeat that this is a subject for discussion during legislation. As much as I would love to talk about the B.C. Energy Council, I think it is inappropriate.

The Chair: Hon. member, again, it's a bill coming before the House, and it is not a subject for examination in these estimates. Could you please continue with questions pertinent to the vote before us, vote 28 -- those areas under the administration of the minister's office. New question, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: I would again say that....

The Chair: Order, please. Cautions from the Chair are not debatable. Standing order 61 is very clear. If you have a new question, we will entertain it through the Chair to the minister. Different topic, please.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chair, in a situation where the council is holding hearings on issues of a technical nature, which the minister herself has agreed is beyond the ability of the average citizen to have a meaningful....

U. Dosanjh: Point of order. I see the member again entering into debate with the Chair, and I think that is out of order. I would ask the Chair to remind the member that that's not to be done.

The Chair: Your point of order is well taken, hon. member. Again, to all of the hon. members of Committee A: the appearances of the room would lead us to 

[ Page 1575 ]

believe that we are in a less formal atmosphere and situation than the House, but that's not the case. This is a transposed committee from the House, and all the standing rules that apply in the House are in effect here, although we are a little closer and more comfortable here. I would ask that all the hon. members familiarize themselves with the standing orders, and that we all respect the standing orders when in Committee of Supply A.

D. Jarvis: I find it interesting that the minister would choose to spend $2 million to create an entirely new level of bureaucracy to listen to concerned citizens in this province on issues of a general nature. Now she's placing yet another layer of bureaucracy between herself and those interested people of this province who want to communicate with her. My concern is this: will the minister still be available to those people who wish to approach her regarding energy matters? Or will that task now be handled exclusively by Mr. Gathercole and the Energy Council?

Hon. A. Edwards: I believe the member asked whether I will be available to the people of British Columbia for their input on energy issues. I assure the member that that is the case. I will continue to be available to the people of British Columbia on matters of energy policy and on any subject about which the people of British Columbia want to contact me. I try very hard to be an open minister. This ministry is very supportive of public process, and we certainly expect that continuing dialogue will take place.

D. Jarvis: Well, doesn't the minister feel that it is a duplication of services and a waste of money to hire a commission to do things she claims she will be involving herself with?

Hon. A. Edwards: As to the spending of money for the Energy Council, we hope that this model will be in place so that we can spend the budgeted dollars.... It's certainly a well-recognized model. It will allow a degree -- shall I say an extent -- of public consultation on energy issues that has not been in place in British Columbia up until now.

D. Jarvis: The minister has made it clear that no final decision will be made before public consultation, presumably through the council. Can the minister tell us whether she has established a timetable as to when she will complete and communicate her decisions to the Canadian and international interests who will be very heavily impacted by those decisions?

U. Dosanjh: I rise on a point of order. I think that the Chair has cautioned this member that the legislation is not enacted yet. It's before the House. It may never be passed; it may be amended. This line of question is abstract and impinges on areas that are currently before the House.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chair, I was waiting to hear whether you were going to make a statement on the point of order.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. It's necessary for members to be recognized by the Chair before they speak.

The point of order is well taken. Questioning on future legislation is out of order in Committee of Supply. There will be ample opportunity for examination of the legislation. I would ask for a new line of questioning from the hon. member, or we will move on to a new questioner.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister a question in regard to the Columbia River Treaty. In a similar vein, one issue which does have a definite time-limit imposed on it is the Columbia River Treaty. While in opposition, the minister and her colleagues pursued the government of the day and attempted to gain an answer. They had some definite opinions of their own. Can the minister advise this committee as to the precise date that treaty is due for a decision by the government of B.C.? What is her intention for the future of that energy resource? Does she intend to go along with the previous Socred government and seek repatriation of our power? Will that power be sold to B.C. Hydro?

Hon. A. Edwards: I believe the member is talking about the downstream benefits part of the Columbia River Treaty. The treaty itself goes on until the year 2024, I believe. The downstream benefits become available in 1998, 1999 and 2003. This government is currently preparing our strategy to deal with that, and we expect to deal with it. We recognize that the government of British Columbia has told the Americans that we will take the downstream benefits ourselves. Certainly that is the position that we are currently at. What we have to do is look at the implications of that. There are several implications, if in fact we take delivery of electricity at the border. We are looking at how we will deal with that; it's a very complex issue.

D. Jarvis: Would the minister advise us if there are any discussions going on now with the Americans on that aspect?

Hon. A. Edwards: There are no formal discussions going on with the Americans right now.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister at least outline what options are open to us at this time?

Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly there are a number of options, as the member seems to recognize. But for strategic reasons, obviously it would not be particularly wise to lead them all out right now in a public place, on record. I am going to suggest to the member that we are considering a number of options. We are involving as many of the people as we can who have expertise and experience to offer us. We will, we expect, very soon begin negotiating with the Americans on a formal basis.

[ Page 1576 ]

D. Jarvis: When the minister spent her time in opposition, she had some pretty strong convictions. What personal preference does she have now? Could she tell us her personal opinion on what the best choice is?

Hon. A. Edwards: My personal preference is for the downstream benefits to be used for the greatest benefit of British Columbia. We expect to look at as many options as we can and to work it through to that goal.

D. Jarvis: It's going to be necessary for us to become a world leader in new environmental technology. I wonder if the minister has any incentive programs in place to promote exploration and research and development in the following areas: atomic energy, solar power, wind power, hydrogen fuel.

Hon. A. Edwards: You lead into an area of great interest to us: research and development, and looking to alternative generation of power and alternative fuels. No, we've done no work on atomic energy, as you probably know. We are not currently involved in any research efforts in solar power, although that's being considered, and we have certainly looked at a number of things. One of the projects in which we take great pride involves a hydrogen-powered bus, which will be used at the Commonwealth Games. It's a $5 million project. It uses technology developed in British Columbia. It is technology that is right at the forefront of what's going on. It's one of the things in which we are involved.

[11:45]

D. Jarvis: Could the minister tell us the status of the electrical cogeneration facilities in this province? How many locations are there, and what is their status?

D. Schreck: The prospects of cogeneration on the North Shore are being pursued by lobbyists on behalf of Tenneco Gas, I believe, which has a proposal for which they are actively lobbying North Shore politicians: my friend from North Vancouver-Seymour, myself from North Vancouver-Lonsdale, and the local mayors. They are proposing to establish a gas-driven electrical generation facility next to their property near the Maplewood mudflats, near the north end of the Lions Gate Bridge, for the purpose of generating electrical supplies and replacing energy that would otherwise be supplied by B.C. Hydro. This matter is under study by all the local politicians on the North Shore and will no doubt be coming forward to the minister and some of her officials in the near future. I know that my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour and I have both had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the gas company based in Texas. They tell me they are currently in contact with the Minister of Environment. It could well be that the Minister of Environment is the most appropriate person to deal with questions from my friend the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

As I understand the cogeneration facility right now, the proposal on the North Shore has nothing to do with feeding into the B.C. Hydro grid. What the cogeneration facility for the North Shore would amount to, if it were to go ahead and receive necessary environmental approvals, would be relieving pressure on the Hydro grid, and they would become a consumer of natural gas.

I do not quite understand the line of questioning from my neighbour to this minister. However, I am sure we will both enjoy putting some of these questions to the Minister of Environment during the estimates.

Hon. A. Edwards: We seem to have a bit of a problem with understanding the word; we thought the member said code, and couldn't figure out what he was talking about. I believe he was talking about cogeneration. If so, he has certainly come to the right place. I would like to thank you very much, and through you the member for North Vancouver as well. He is certainly welcome to question the Minister of Environment too, but we do have a good handle on what proposals are made for cogeneration in the province.

We have at present a co-gen plant under construction at Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Ltd. The Celgar pulp mill project in Castlegar will be a cogeneration project. We all know that the Crowsnest Pass project -- the natural gas project proposed there -- which has gone fairly well into its planning, would be a cogeneration if it were approved. We have probably at least a dozen in the ministry that are heading towards applications for certificates. I can give you the names of a few the ministry is currently reviewing. There is Weyerhaeuser at Kamloops, a 50-megawatt wood co-gen plant; Pacific Electric Corp. at Port Alberni is proposing a 212-megawatt natural gas co-gen plant; the Duke Point project -- you may have heard of it -- in Nanaimo is a 60-megawatt natural gas co-gen project; Fletcher Challenge is proposing a 60-megawatt natural gas co-gen at Elk Falls; and A&W in North Vancouver, an 80- to 150-megawatt natural gas co-gen project. I mentioned the Crowsnest one; it would be 135 megawatts. It's natural gas and combined cycle. T-PAC, which is Energy America and Westinghouse-Westpac Banking, is proposing one at either, or both, Savona and Kamloops. There are basically two proposals: 220 megawatts and/or 240 megawatts. Those are the main ones currently in process.

It's possible that B.C. Hydro might be reviewing some projects too, because they might review some before they come to us. We can't tell you how many there are.

Before go further, I did want to complete an answer that I gave the member before. The member was asking about research and support of projects. We have been involved in a proposal for an integrated gas/combined-cycle project in Saskatchewan. It would be a western Canadian initiative with the federal government. It may be that we will participate in that. We're still in talks.

D. Jarvis: Does the ministry give any incentives to encourage cogeneration plants throughout the province? By the way, I'm glad you clarified your worry over that, because I was beginning to wonder too when I looked at all your staffers saying: "Never heard of it."

[ Page 1577 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: I have to confess that this is another fuzzy one. The previous government announced an environmental premium policy, which we are examining at the moment. I'm sure it could be used by cogeneration projects. So far it has only been used by a project at Williams Lake, which is not a cogeneration project.

D. Jarvis: Does the ministry subsidize, on the basis of the benefit to the environment, the use of, say, generators as opposed to simply burning waste products, like in beehives?

Hon. A. Edwards: Basically, the only subsidy that has even been considered was the 15 percent -- or 25 percent, depending on what time you looked at it -- proposal for environmental premium. In calculating how that would be assigned, all of those things -- all the environmental benefits -- would be included.

D. Jarvis: Going again into the beehive aspect of burners, I assume that the minister has been contacted by representatives of the town of Houston. Could you tell us what the status of that operation is?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, I have been contacted by representatives of the town of Houston. Right now the problem for these plants is that there is smaller growth in demand for domestic power in British Columbia than was expected by B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro has not put out its request for proposals at the rate that it was expecting to. So a number of projects that thought they might be able to sell to B.C. Hydro are waiting, and Hydro has not put out a request for proposals.

On projects for export, we have said that we are going to examine the issue of exporting electricity before we make any decisions. So right now I confess that those projects are looking for markets. It's just not in the cards immediately.

D. Jarvis: Is that the same situation with Williams Lake, then? Or is Williams Lake actually on-line now?

Hon. A. Edwards: Williams Lake is under construction. The project responded to a 1989 call for proposals that B.C. Hydro put out, and was accepted under that call.

D. Jarvis: On that Houston-Bulkley Valley situation, is there viability in it, in the sense that it's going to be on hold for one year, two years, five years? Is there any hope for them? What is the situation?

Hon. A. Edwards: Obviously we have been trying to get the Energy Council in place to consider the issue of electricity exports, so that we can make a policy decision. Certainly it will depend on the B.C. Hydro demand curve.

D. Jarvis: What role does the minister anticipate the Commission on Resources and Environment playing with regard to the mining industry in this province?

Hon. A. Edwards: The Commission on Resources and Environment will involve all of the resource ministries, in the sense that when we come to land use planning, all of the resource ministries and resource users have to be there. When the commissioner puts together his proposals for ways to do land use planning, for ways to work with the process, certainly we will have input into that. We will be using the process as we proceed.

D. Jarvis: I would like to yield to the member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: I have a few questions that revolve around my interest, highways and roads, and the resource road act, which has some implications for the minister in access to various resource developments in the province. I wonder how many kilometres of roads are under the control of your ministry. I wouldn't mind taking that on notice, if that would be easier.

Hon. A. Edwards: We believe there are probably between 100 and 150 kilometres of road for mines and approximately 75 kilometres for petroleum.

D. Symons: Are there any roads currently under the responsibility of your ministry that are planned to be changed to the Ministry of Highways? I gather that it can occur that they change jurisdictions at times. Will any be changed back to the Ministry of Highways?

Hon. A. Edwards: We have a road that delights me because of its name; it's called the Sierra-Desan-Yoyo road. We are currently negotiating with the Ministry of Highways to get it to take over the maintenance of that road. It is possible, as well, that the Cheni mine road might go to Highways, but we're not in formal discussion on that yet.

D. Symons: I've had some concerns expressed to me by people who say it goes the other way; it has gone from the Ministry of Highways to one of the other ministries. They somehow feel that maybe things haven't been kept up too well. That's my second question: are there any roads that your ministry might be taking over that will move out of the Ministry of Highways?

Hon. A. Edwards: No, we're not going far.

D. Symons: I guess that is partly in response to the sorry state of the mining industry in the province due to the economic downturn at this particular time.

I have another question revolving around the Highway Act. The act provides for the appointment of an inspecting engineer to inspect and report on the condition of the road, to see that it has been kept up both for safety and meeting the requirements of the act. How many inspectors have been appointed under that portion of the act during your term of office?

[12:00]

[ Page 1578 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: We have one inspector of mining roads. He is assisted, as I understand, by other mines inspectors, who might be in a better geographical position to help out on occasion. In fact, with the petroleum road that we participate in the management of, we ask Highways inspectors to do occasional inspections.

D. Symons: That question is prompted by a concern that I have over the liability. Often these roads are used not only by the company that's doing the resource extraction but also by people, to access lakes for fishing, hunting and other things. The general public often has access. I'm wondering what coverage your ministry might take for the liability that may occur if somebody is injured on one of these roads.

Hon. A. Edwards: Under the Mining Right of Way Act the liability to the ministry is limited to gross negligence. That is why there is no automatic access to members of the public. Access is limited, and the limitations are clearly laid out and posted for anybody who goes on one of those roads.

With the petroleum roads, the liability remains with the Ministry of Highways.

W. Hurd: Just a few questions regarding the situation with the Trail smelter, Cominco Resources. Have any funds been devoted to studying the ongoing situation with the smelter in Trail, and specifically the impact of the water resources tax on that particular smelter on a long-term basis?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm sure the member is going to be anxious to see what the special job protection commissioner reports on the Trail plant. The commissioner has not yet made his report. I'm sure that he will be examining all the questions that the member brings up, plus a few more.

W. Hurd: Is there any intention on the part of the ministry during the current fiscal year to study the impact of the water tax on the operations of not only Cominco but other mining operations in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Edwards: There are a number of aspects to the question. It might have sounded simple, but it's not as simple as that. Certainly the job protection commissioner is studying, as I said before, the issue of water tax as it applies to Cominco and its plant at Trail.

I'm sure the member is aware that the water tax is administered by the Ministry of Environment. This ministry, with other Mines ministers throughout the country and with the federal Mines minister, is doing a study on the competitiveness of the mining industry in Canada. We will, in that sense, look at water taxes as well as at other taxes and fees. Soon we hope we'll have a better idea of our competitive position in British Columbia.

W. Hurd: With regard to the study you've just outlined, is this a joint effort of the province of British Columbia and the federal government?

Hon. A. Edwards: It was agreed to at the Mines ministers' meeting last year, which all of the provincial Mines ministers, the federal Mines minister and the two territories' Mines ministers attended. All of those entities are involved in the study.

W. Hurd: Can the minister advise the committee what financial commitment the province has made to providing statistics or data for this study? Is there a responsibility for the ministry to provide information to this joint study on mine competitiveness in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Edwards: Most of the work that goes into this comes from internal staff time and internal staff work. We are probably spending up to $75,000 on work that will go into that study.

W. Hurd: To the knowledge of the minister, are those the only funds being expended for a review of the competitive situation of British Columbia mining during the current fiscal year?

Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the ministry keeps a very close eye on the competitive situation in the mines industry in British Columbia, so it's difficult to say that's the only money we're spending looking at the mines industry. We have people in the mineral part of the ministry who do a lot of looking at it, and a lot of that work is there so that they know what we're talking about.

I might also say that we are doing a coal strategy for British Columbia. I have outlined that one on a number of occasions. It involved working with a study that was put to the government early last December by Mr. Dick Marshall. We have used that study to go into the coal-mining communities, consult with the companies, unions, communities and suppliers, and talk about a coal strategy for B.C. That gives us a good sense of the competitiveness of our coal-mining industry.

W. Hurd: Returning briefly to the joint study on the competitive situation of our mines, is the $75,000 that's being spent primarily research money and staff time to provide the data to this particular study group?

Hon. A. Edwards: No, it is not staff time, as I said before. The $75,000 would be anything external to what the staff is doing. What sometimes happens is that the staff needs some research questions answered on such things as taxes in different jurisdictions and any number of things that we need to know in order to contribute our part to this study. Basically it's external research.

W. Hurd: This might be asking a question that doesn't show up in the estimates for the current year. Is there anything about the data that would be provided for this study that might change during the current year 

[ Page 1579 ]

in terms of British Columbia's competitive position in mining? Would there be a necessity to devote more resources to providing data for this study? Is the minister at all concerned that a review of many provinces and territories might not provide an accurate snapshot of the situation within the mining industry in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Edwards: I have no concern that what happens with this study is going to overshadow British Columbia's place and that our own information will not be good. Our ministry is contributing to that study. We are contributing our part, and whatever will happen with the study will enhance what we know. We're hoping, of course, that the study will be greater than the sum of its parts. About your suggestion of what happens as times change, that's the way it is in the mining industry. It is constantly changing. As a matter of fact, we're hoping for some considerable changes that will do us some good in the mining industry within the near future.

W. Hurd: In reviewing the competitive position of the mining industry in British Columbia, would it be within the parameters of your ministry to examine any changes in environmental regulations and in fees for environmental consultations or assessments? Are they just in mines and smelters in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Edwards: We recognize that one of the problems for the mining industry has been the review process. A lot of that review involves how a mining project would impact on the environment. So in that sense the environmental aspect of our reviews is involved. What we're looking to in that is streamlining the process. We're looking to try and make it as efficient and timely as possible. We've said that clearly, and we're working to have that happen.

Now if you're talking about increased fees, I can't tell you anywhere that we're saying there is an increased fee. We are hoping to consult more broadly with the industry. Frequently, by the way, we consult with the industries within our mandate on environmental measures brought in by the Ministry of Environment, for example. But I'm not sure that I can give you any answers. I'm not saying that there will be no fee increases at all, but within our ministry we try to keep fee increases as close to cost as we can.

[12:15]

W. Hurd: Further to the joint study, is it the intention of the province to provide information about the impact that any changes in environmental fees and regulations might have on the competitive position of the province vis-�-vis other provinces and other parts of the world -- particularly South America, where there's been a great deal of mining activity?

Hon. A. Edwards: Obviously I can't make blanket statements on fees that come from a different ministry. But I do assure the member that part of the cabinet process is to ensure that we take a look at impacts and how they fit with other impacts, and that kind of thing. So if that answers your question, that's fine; otherwise I can try and look further.

W. Hurd: I just have a couple of questions on the effect of royalties or taxes on the mining industry. Is it the intention of the minister during the coming year to assess the impact of any increased royalties, in particular the impact on existing mines with respect to the amount of lower-grade ore that is not mined? Is the minister aware of a correlation between the royalties charged and the amount of ore that's left behind? Is there such a correlation?

Hon. A. Edwards: The member may not realize that mine taxes are profit-based; they're not royalty taxes. They wouldn't force that kind of thing, that I can see.

W. Hurd: With respect to the profit taxes, then, would they have the impact of leaving more mineral or ore in the ground if in fact they were released?

Hon. A. Edwards: No, they wouldn't. Obviously if the mine is making a profit, it will probably be paying taxes; if it's not making a profit, it won't be paying taxes. If the mining company is going to be making a profit, they'll be there; and if not, they may still be there for a while, but they probably won't be there in the long term.

W. Hurd: Is it the intention of the ministry during the coming year to assess the impact of the corporation capital tax on the mining industry in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, the competitive impact of the corporation capital tax will definitely be reflected in the study. Certainly we've already indicated to you our estimate of what the impact will be on the industry in general. I think that's very clear.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:21 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada