1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 3, Number 7
[ Page 1581 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the gallery today there are 48 grade 11 students from Centennial School in Coquitlam, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Nancy Lutke. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.
D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Richard Balfe. He's a member of the European Parliament, and he's here visiting with the NATO parliament of North America. Mr. Balfe is a member of the Labour Party. I bid the House make him welcome.
J. Tyabji: It is my pleasure to point out the members of CACE, including Monica Rainey, who have come from Kelowna to make a point with regard to child exploitation and the rights of children. I congratulate them on their demonstration today. Would the House please make them welcome.
S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce to the House Nelly and Martin Bruin. They are visitors to our beautiful city from Oakville, Ontario. They are here enjoying our spring weather and our laid-back way of life. Would the House please welcome them.
C. Serwa: I have two introductions to make today. The first is to introduce to the Legislature -- sitting in your gallery, Hon. Speaker -- Mr. Jim Hubay, vice president of the Okanagan zone of the Kootenay-Okanagan Electrical Consumers' Association. He's here to witness the thrust and parry of question period. Would the House please make him welcome.
Just before making the second introduction, I would like to compliment all the hon. members of this House of all three parties who were out in front of the Legislature indicating their support for child protection legislation. I really commend all of those members who took part.
The introduction is of a group here from the Citizens Against Child Exploitation: as my colleague for Okanagan East indicated, Monica Rainey, the president and founder of CACE; Marion Bremner, a director of CACE and councillor of the city of Kelowna; Maureen Parker, Wendy Alcroft and Gail Sneddon, representatives from Nanaimo; Carolyn Ogilvie, director of CACE from Kelowna; and Helen Harlow, president of the Tennis Shoe Brigade in Washington State. Would the House please make them all welcome.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUMS
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the Premier. On Friday the Mulroney government tabled their Bill C81, which is An Act to Provide for Referendums on the Constitution of Canada. The Premier has committed that the province of British Columbia will vote on a made-in-B.C. provincial referendum. So would the Premier tell us today which of the two referendums he will be bound by: the made-in-B.C. referendum put to the people by the people of British Columbia or the referendum put to them by the Mulroney government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have said for quite a few months now, and I'll repeat it for the Leader of the Opposition, that we are committed to a referendum in British Columbia that the people of British Columbia will have a chance to vote on. Hopefully, over the next few months we can bring before the people of British Columbia a package of constitutional reform that they can vote on, and vote on positively, to bring about unity and a positive change in Canada.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the Premier's response, but my question is with respect to the binding nature of that referendum. Given that we are likely to have two referendums -- one federal and one provincial -- and that the results may be different if the question is not the same, could the Premier tell us which of the two his government will be bound by?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand that the people of British Columbia are going to have their own referendum. That is the one that we are going to be bound by.
When the Prime Minister states, as he did a few weeks ago, that there will be a national referendum if the Premiers can't get their acts together, quite frankly, I find that offensive, because the first ministers have never met on the constitution. To prejudge the goodwill among Canadians across Canada, after very extensive dialogue to start to sort out what changes we want, whether it be through parliamentary committees, our own legislative committee or other means.... For the Prime Minister to say that we're going to have a referendum if the Premiers cannot reach a decision is premature, first of all, and secondly, it puts a taint of bad faith on the first ministers who happen to be Premiers.
We are going to have a referendum in British Columbia that will bind British Columbians. I've already said that a federal referendum here in British Columbia is unnecessary. It will just cost federal taxpayers extra money.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
G. Wilson: We have learned today that the government will be bound by a referendum. That's news, and we appreciate that.
A final supplementary with respect to this binding provincial referendum. Would the Premier tell us who is eligible to vote in such a referendum? By what criteria will the recommendation be made to this House with respect to eligibility to vote, given that there are two different ages of majority for normal elections: 18 on a federal question and 19 on a provincial question? Could the Premier comment on eligibility?
[2:15]
[ Page 1582 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition had a number of members of his caucus who were part of the legislative committee that recently went around the province. Quite frankly, that would have been the proper place to bring that up, rather than bringing up a matter of future policy here. It is a matter that will....
D. Mitchell: What's your answer?
Hon. M. Harcourt: My answer is that this is something we should discuss as members of this Legislature, rather than do it in an adversarial manner.... I sense from the Leader of the Opposition and from the comments of the members of his caucus that there seems to be a distinct lack of goodwill in trying to bring this matter before British Columbians in as non-political a way as possible. I'm prepared to do it that way. If the opposition wants to turn this into political cannon fodder, when it should be a matter of grave importance where we try to have this Legislature prepare such a question and prepare around those sorts of things.... I'm quite prepared to sit down with the members of this Legislature and develop just those questions.
HIRING OF CONSULTANT
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier as well. Can the Premier advise the House whether longtime resource management and environmental consultant Alistair Crerar has been hired by Bob Williams through the Crown corporations secretariat? If so, can he tell us for what purpose he was hired, and how much the taxpayers are paying for his services?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, that question can quite properly be answered by the Minister of Finance, who chairs the Cabinet Committee on Crown Corporations. I'll take it on notice.
The Speaker: Is there a new question, leader of the third party?
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
J. Weisgerber: Yes, hon. Speaker, a new question to the Minister of Women's Equality. Can the minister confirm that it is the government's policy to pay equal pay for equal work to women and men hired by OIC -- the same policy, as stated by the government, that applies to other employees of the provincial government?
Hon. P. Priddy: In part, I will take the specific question on notice. But I think the leader of the third party also knows that....
The Speaker: Minister, you're taking a portion on notice? You can't take a question on notice and answer it as well.
Hon. P. Priddy: Then I will take the whole thing on notice.
ICBC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, my question is much simpler, so hopefully we will get an answer to it. It's to the Premier regarding the Friday afternoon St. Bob Williams Day Massacre of the ICBC board. In view of the fact that Mr. Bob Williams was appointed by the Minister of Labour a month ago to review all aspects of ICBC, what role did Mr. Williams play in the sacking of the entire board?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member who asked that question is aware that the minister responsible for ICBC is the Minister of Labour, who is not here today. He is busy working on a constitutional package that can be put before the first ministers and before the people of British Columbia. I think it would be important for the minister to be able to answer. I will say that I am pleased....
The Speaker: Premier, I regret....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...but I'm taking the question on notice.
The Speaker: On behalf of the minister. Does the member have a new question?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I do, hon. Speaker. We might as well just give the written questions to the government. Maybe they'll get back to us, but we all know they won't.
Hon. Speaker, the question to the Premier again is: the opposition understands that the deputy minister of everything, Mr. Bob Williams, is supposed to be continuing with his independent review of ICBC. However, why would an independent investigator choose to fire the entire board of a Crown corporation before having the opportunity to work with them during that review? Was Mr. Williams's mandate to work with the ICBC board or to appoint a board he could work with?
The Speaker: I'll go on to the member for Richmond-Steveston.
MEDICARE
A. Warnke: I haven't had a chance to talk to the Premier since a couple of Thursdays ago. I hope his office is in order and that he can find his mail. I have a question for the Premier on the subject of medicare which emerged from last week's western Premiers' conference. In fact, the Premier is quoted: "There's a tremendous amount of willpower and agreement to move on with medicare II." I'd like to ask the Premier: what is medicare II, and would Tommy Douglas have approved of it?
[ Page 1583 ]
The Speaker: The Premier for as brief an answer as possible, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, hon. Speaker. I was just going to ask how many minutes we have left in question period.
One of the innovations of which New Democrats are justly proud is the pioneering of medicare in Saskatchewan. Yes, Tommy Douglas made it very clear when medicare was introduced: we had the basic protection for Canadian citizens to have universal accessibility, and it should be affordable and available throughout Canada -- all of the basic principles that were established in the first 20 years. Tommy Douglas said that after establishing protection for our citizens with medicare, we would have to move beyond providing them with doctors' care, hospital services, high tech and drugs to prevention, community-based health care and wellness -- to move to the next stage of medicare.
If the member would like to know what that means, he could read the royal commission report by Mr. Justice Seaton, for example. He could read the communiqué that came out of the western Premiers' meeting, which was unanimous, that we are going to move in this new direction to provide better health and better-quality health care for our citizens.
A. Warnke: I find it interesting that the Premier said, "Read a report," when he was the one to suggest in the campaign that all we have to do is read the American Express card.
At any rate, I would also like to suggest that from what the Premier is saying.... Is the capping of physicians' fees really just the first salvo in this medicare II strategy?
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not a salvo at all; it's a question of making sure.... The taxpayers can only pay so much. We have to set a budget, and the taxpayers' representatives do that. We're aware that in the United States a revolution was fought on the issue of no taxation without representation. We're the taxpayers' representatives, and we're the ones who should set the budget for health care. Whether it be in health care, education or highways, it's important that this is where the budget is set. If we're going to be able to afford to shift to community-based health to deal with some of the underlying causes of ill health, such as poverty, we're going to have to have the funds to do that. There is only so much tax money to go around. We want to see that shift of tax money to the community, to wellness.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
A. Warnke: I take it from that that the Premier wants to scrap the legally constituted plan. So that's the second salvo.
I would like to ask the Premier: why are the doctors bearing the brunt of this government's medicare II strategy?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't call an increase of over $400 million in the health care budget, an increase of over 7 percent, a salvo. I say that that is maintaining basic services while we're cleaning up the mess from the previous government and dealing with the off-loading from the federal government. If that's not enough spending for the opposition, it's enough for the people of British Columbia, I can tell you.
SOFTWOOD LUMBER TARIFF
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minster of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The opposition notes the government has paid at least $36,000 to U.S. lobbyist Neil Goldschmidt and $4 million in total to a variety of U.S. lobbyists and lawyers in connection with the softwood lumber case. In light of Friday's decision by the U.S. commerce department, how much bang did we get for our buck?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm glad you asked the question. I would say that there is a substantial reduction from the 14 percent to the 6.5 percent, and that is worth millions of dollars. We're not happy with that, and we continue to work extremely hard on it. As you know, this has been a matter of considerable urgency between this government, several ministers, the Premier, the Forests minister, myself, the Trade minister and members of the federal Parliament. I would say that the money we've spent on Neil Goldschmidt has been well worth it. We have raised the issue of log exports, which is clearly on the agenda. While they have penalized us for log export controls, I assure you this government will do everything in its power to ensure that we never export more logs than we already have.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Madam Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have over 20,000 signatures and over 2,000 letters petitioning this government to draft legislation to prohibit any person who has been convicted of a sexual offence with a minor from holding positions of trust or authority, or working with minors.
KAMLOOPS BLAZERS
Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to say that Sunday, May 17, was a great day for sports in British Columbia. On a nifty breakaway pass from Scott Niedermayer, with just 14 seconds left in a tied game, Zac Boyer scored a clutch goal to make the Kamloops Blazers the supreme junior hockey club in North America and, arguably, the world. This is the first time that the Memorial Cup has come to British Columbia since "Punch" McLean's New Westminster Bruins won it in 1978. In bringing this cup back to British Columbia, the Kamloops Blazers provided us with a lot of exciting moments, not just during the regular season with their
[ Page 1584 ]
inspirational play but, of course, during the tournament itself.
Kamloops fans and those of us who follow hockey in British Columbia will remember the players who rose to the challenge to bring this cup back home. Names that emerged this season were: Boyer, of course; Niedermayer, who was selected the Memorial Cup's most valuable player; Mike Mathers, who led the championship tournament in scoring; and, of course, the Blazers goalie Corey Hirsch, who was elected to the Memorial Cup all-star team. Those are the names that I am sure many of us who enjoy hockey will hear more of in the future, and hopefully they will be in Canuck uniforms so that we get our cup sometime in the near future.
Along with each player on the Blazers, special congratulations must also go to coach Tom Renney and his coaching staff. It is said that coaching is what makes a good team great, and certainly this year's Blazers team is a great one.
Of course, recognition must go to the great Blazers fans from Kamloops, as many as 2,000 of whom travelled to Seattle to be there for the cup and to provide the team with the support and the noise that put them over the top. I think the importance of a new facility being built right now in Kamloops will become apparent next year, when the Blazers will play in the new 5,000-seat Riverside stadium. I can think of no better way to go into this new facility than as champions.
[2:30]
On behalf of the government, the people and the hockey fans of B.C., I have this morning written a letter of warm congratulations to an exceptional hockey team, the Kamloops Blazers. On behalf of the Legislature to the Blazers players, the team organization, the fans and the city of Kamloops, the government of B.C. has this message: enjoy your championship; you've earned it.
G. Wilson: In response, this has indeed been a great year for hockey in the province of British Columbia not only for the Kamloops Blazers, who have done so well, but for the Vancouver Canucks, who won their division and gave a great deal of excitement through the playoffs -- although they didn't go as far as many of us would have liked to have seen them go.
I can tell you that as someone who has spent a fair bit of time in goal in playing hockey, it's a sport that I enjoy a great deal and one which I think many British Columbians get behind in terms of their support. It is always good to see a winner in the province of British Columbia, and a team such as the Kamloops Blazers has indeed brought great pride to its community. All of us in the Liberal opposition offer our congratulations not only to this fine team, but also to the fine people of Kamloops who have supported them.
J. Weisgerber: Certainly we'd like to join in extending our congratulations to the people of Kamloops and to the Kamloops Blazers. I suspect the good citizens of Kamloops were starting to feel a bit neglected by this government, but I'm sure that now they have the Premier behind their hockey team they'll feel that that has equalled everything out and they will be able to forget about the cancer clinic. There are issues of relative importance in this province. Certainly winning a hockey championship is an important achievement for any community, and we're delighted that the Kamloops Blazers were successful in Seattle.
F. Jackson: I beg leave to respond to the Premier and the members opposite.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member, with a brief statement.
F. Jackson: I will be brief, hon. Speaker.
I was at a charity slow-pitch tournament in Kamloops yesterday when these young men made their first public appearance with the Memorial Cup. It was really great to be there to share in the pride and the pleasure expressed not only by people from the city of Kamloops but by other slow-pitch teams visiting from Burnaby, from Jasper, from Clearwater. They all shared in our pride and our pleasure. I would like to add, for the consolation of the leader of the third party, that in no way has Kamloops been neglected by this government -- no way at all.
Hon. D. Miller: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING
On vote 53: minister's office, $360,891 (continued).
A. Cowie: I take it that the minister's staff, Ken MacLeod and others, will be here shortly, so I'll ask a general question to review where we were when we last met on Friday. On Friday we were discussing the need for regional planning, and various aspects of community plans. Rather than go into detail at this time, since we're waiting for the staff, I would like to ask how the minister feels about a provincial strategy plan for urban development. We have the Stephen Owen report, which is dealing with resources and the environment. What we badly need -- which I sense throughout the province -- is some direction as to where the province would like to see growth directed.
It's very important to have a good transportation network, a good highway network, both for the resource industry and for urban growth. In the more urban areas of Vancouver and Victoria, it's very important to have a good transit system. Basically, what we need is some form of provincial direction of where growth is going over the next ten, 20 or 50 years. Would the minister like to start by giving us a general background on that?
[ Page 1585 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member mentions a very good topic: the whole question of growth, particularly in the lower mainland and Victoria -- the Capital Regional District. I can assure the member that this ministry is very active in urban initiatives, urban policy and urban review. We have a section in the ministry that does research pertaining to that area. Of course, there are a number of areas that we are looking at. We are taking a look at the Municipal Act and whether it really deals with the regions of the province and the urban problems of today and whether we have to change it to reflect what is happening in British Columbia in terms of where the growth is.
As the member is aware, we're dealing with the whole question of regional governments and regional planning. That has a remarkable impact on what happens in terms of growth strategies. We are continuing to highlight that as an issue with the UBCM, who continue to hold special meetings, seminars and conferences on the question, particularly in the lower mainland in terms of urban growth management.
I have to say that it is a priority of ours, but as the member is aware, it is an incredibly complex, difficult issue, one that hasn't been grappled with properly over the last few years. Because it is so overwhelming, there has been a tendency to try and avoid it if one can. This government is quite prepared to take on these issues, recognizing that there will be incremental improvements in terms of management of growth. There's no question that we have to have far better urban planning, urban growth strategies and management, particularly in the lower mainland and the Capital Regional District -- and in the Okanagan, of course, which is growing very fast.
One of the things that I know the member has talked to me about is the whole question of grants and incentives to do good planning and to coordinate provincial policy and infrastructure decisions that tie into where we put our dollars in terms of our granting procedures. These things are controversial to some degree. Local government feels that if you put too many stipulations on why they get grants, it reflects on their autonomy.
There's no question that the province is changing. It is far more sophisticated than it was even ten or 15 years ago. We have to be prepared to deal with the growth problems that are facing many of our regions.
A. Cowie: I'd like to pursue this just a bit longer to get a little more flavour. I agree with you that the last administration ignored this subject entirely for the last ten years. It's a subject that people want to hear about. They really need some sort of guidance and leadership. I also recognize that it's extremely complex, and that one will not please everybody by tackling it. It's very important, as the minister says, to work with the UBCM in solving this.
One of the things that I noted, going around the province recently and visiting UBCM sub-meetings, was that in the lower mainland people talk regional planning; in the Victoria area people talk regional planning; and in some outlying areas or even further up Vancouver Island people resist it. They feel there's a need to strengthen municipal planning because there are small municipalities surrounding.... Take Comox, for instance. There are a number of small municipalities. I think it's necessary to perhaps clean that up before one can really go into regional planning. It's the same in the Okanagan. It might be necessary to go one further step with stronger municipal planning.
I have a question regarding that. As we move toward more strength in regional planning.... The way we have it set up at the present time, we do not have direct representation on regional planning boards. As more and more power incrementally -- if that's the way we're going.... I believe we have to go faster than that. We have to have lots of seminars, educational programs, and move more directly on that. To that extent, I wonder if the minister has put any of his $48,000 of resources, the way I break it down, into some professional services to help with that. That's item 20 in the estimates. I take it that that's where the funding would be for any assistance -- not very much. In fact, it costs between $100,000 and $200,000 to do a community plan for any sizeable municipality. I just wonder, as far as funds go, what allocation we are putting on this if we're really taking it seriously.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member will probably be very pleased that in the very near future I will be making some announcements on how we apply the planning grants and making some shifts that I think will recognize the issues that he's talking about today in terms of the rapid urbanization of key areas. We have to do some of the preliminary work in allowing those....
I might say that many of those regions are now starting to grapple, finally, with their own growth problems. I'm very pleased with what is happening in Vancouver, in terms of the livable region; they're doing a lot of good regional planning and making some incremental moves. The capital region is doing some work on transportation and liquid and solid waste management. I'm pleased to say that Kelowna has now started to do some preliminary work recognizing that integrated regional planning and consensus on those issues is very important.
We will be making some changes to reflect the needs that the member is bringing up. These are horrendous issues that know no municipal boundaries -- as members have heard me say many times. We have to have the ability to integrate our planning methodologies in those particular areas. I think you'll be pleased with some of the changes that are going to be made in the near future to reflect these urbanization issues that are before us.
[2:45]
A. Cowie: I'm certainly looking forward to that, and I'm glad that the minister is addressing it at the beginning of his term.
As we deal with things on a regional basis, I have some questions on some key issues. It takes an enormous amount of time and energy, and a number of people are involved -- many aldermen and mayors. In Winnipeg and Edmonton, just as examples, they went through this. I think they had 120 representatives in
[ Page 1586 ]
Edmonton, and they finally got that down to somewhere between 15 and 20. The council is now represented by people who are voted directly to the metro council. If we're going to move slowly on this, I guess we'll move to regional and then move to some form of metropolitan government in Victoria and in Vancouver, mainly to overcome the problem of just more and more government. People don't want more and more government; they want less government, more efficiency, and they want to go through this process openly. They want lots of public participation, but they want less government. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This afternoon we are talking about issues that we are probably not going to resolve in our time in this House. It's going to take quite some time in terms of the growth and the change and the sophistication, particularly in our urban areas in the lower mainland, capital region and, to some degree, the Okanagan.
People have the feeling that efficiencies can be brought about by the regionalization of certain services. It was talked about in your community in terms of essential services -- police and fire departments. It's been talked about in the capital region for many years. We have a number of police and fire and other kinds of departments. On the surface it looks like there are some efficiencies to be created by amalgamating, or putting some of those essential services together. It's like regional planning, though. Everyone agrees that we need to do something, but when it comes to putting them all together, you get many communities that feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that they're going to get swallowed up by the big city. In Vancouver it's the smaller communities that feel that the city of Vancouver will dictate the entire agenda. Here in Victoria it's the same way.
We really have to find some ways of finding out what the people want to see. On the surface, when you ask them, they say: "Why don't you put them together?" But I'm not sure that they know all the implications. Big is not always necessarily best in terms of these kinds of services. That's been documented in other jurisdictions, particularly south of the line.
We as a government are prepared, in concert with local government, to take a look at some effective, efficient kinds of regional services. I sometimes think that the member leans more towards the provincial government saying it should happen rather than finding some way for the local authorities to achieve their own consensus on these kinds of issues. I agree that provincial leadership is required. We will be providing that in a number of things in the next year or two. I happen to be of the view that forced change can happen, but if it's going to be meaningful and constructive and lasting, the local level also has to believe in it, and it has to be required.
The short answer to you is that there are some things we can be doing. In the next year or two you'll see some of those studies come about and some of these commonsense approaches looked at very seriously.
A. Cowie: The reason that people look to the provincial government for leadership is that the provincial government can fund and take on certain studies. For instance, a number of years ago they did the infrastructure study. That helped a lot of municipalities -- at least the more urban ones -- deal with the question of duplication. For instance, I think there are 120 different types of fire hydrants available. It did get it down, but maybe we should get it down to six or something. That study also indicated that you really weren't going to save a great deal of money on your infrastructure if you wanted your standards to be set high. The way to produce less costly housing or whatever is to look at density. That's what the study dealt with. I was part of that study, as your members were. I mentioned that.
I only know of one municipality that threw it in the garbage. That was a little one up-Island somewhere, and I won't mention the name of it. They essentially wanted some more sprawl and some more provincial money to go on the way they were going. Then we'll have to help them with provincial funding to upgrade their services, I guess, sometime in the future when it breaks down.
If the minister knows municipal government as I do, as far as employees go, it's one of the fastest-growing areas in the province. It's the best sector to get involved with. If you're a professional or a building inspector, get a job with the municipalities. While it might not be all that secure, it is relatively secure. It's a fast-growing sector of our society. If the minister were to look at each municipality and provide studies where he could coordinate certain activities, such as on the North Shore and in Vancouver.... I think each municipality has looked at tree retention on slopes rather than doing it together. Port Moody and West Vancouver have looked at it. Some of them may have gotten together. I think it is important to encourage them to look at some of these studies as one -- parking standards for instance, except in Oak Bay, where they need very large parking bays. Most municipalities can do with a standard. Also, with the question of social housing, rather than each individual responding to the bill that's coming up, it would be good if the minister were to put some funding into that and give some guidance on how municipalities can provide social housing. I'm sure he's probably thinking about that now, and we will discuss that during the bill.
I'd like to move back to this provincial strategy plan as it affects tourism. As you go through the Okanagan, for example, and start to see north of Kelowna, it used to be a nice area that was all open and very attractive. Then you have a steady sprawl going up the Okanagan. I guess the solution is to put a new road on the other side of the lake and have some restrictions on it, so that it won't go the way the highway does at the present time. In the early seventies the Highways department used to sponsor a roadside development conference. It was very good, and we haven't had that in fifteen years or so. I wonder how the minister sees transportation -- the design of roads and that whole transportation network -- fitting into land use planning. We talk about it being necessary to integrate both. But where is
[ Page 1587 ]
Highways in this? Where's the Minister of Highways when we talk about land use planning? Are we fully on the same course?
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, before I answer the transportation questions, we do indeed have joint planning with local government, provincial and municipal. If a proposal comes forward from local government, we do that, and we encourage it. I don't think there's any hindrance on the part of this ministry in terms of doing joint planning.
Let me go back again to the question that the member's talking about -- these regional services -- and give you an example of something that may perhaps happen in our time. In police and fire, as we all know, the level of equipment today and the approach to those very important issues in our society are highly sophisticated, complex and technical. Of course, when you have a multitude of departments and jurisdictions, they all tend to duplicate their equipment. Quite frankly, we have to deal with it. It's costing us too much money, and some efficiencies can be brought about.
This kind of thing is, and has been, contentious. In my community, police and fire departments have talked about putting their services together. We never seem to achieve that, because it's controversial. Now there is a window of opportunity. Because of the technology that's available today, it doesn't make sense. We should be starting to look at efficiencies in terms of sharing the technology that they all have to use. By that, we might incrementally move to a greater regionalization of police departments in terms of staff, or whatever. That will come in time, certainly in my region, whereby they will be using incredibly sophisticated technological equipment and it really won't make any sense for all of them to be using it.
In terms of the organizational research that the member mentioned, I failed to mention that we are expanding our organization through the budget process. My colleagues on Treasury Board agree that this is a major issue. We had a substantial increase in organizational research to allow us to consult and work with the multitude of groups out there. We are developing what we might call a mutually acceptable agenda with local governments and regional districts to find out exactly where we're going to go in the next few years to develop this.
Of course, the whole question of regional governments, amalgamation and efficiencies comes down, again, to: which services at which level, who pays, to whom are you going to be accountable, and is it practical and efficient? As we get more and more into these kinds of issues, which, at the moment, we all agree we should be working towards, the bumps will become more evident, and -- I don't want to say controversy -- some disagreements in terms of approach will become far more evident. It won't be easy. But please be assured that this government is not afraid to tackle these important issues.
Back to your last question, hon. member. I want to answer your questions as directly as I can. On the question of transportation integration, again, the member is quite correct. We have tended to compartmentalize our various ministries and approaches. It seems to happen naturally. As a new minister, I often find that there's a natural inclination towards that happening. We all get so busy in our jobs. When making a decision, to suddenly flag in your mind, "I wonder where my colleagues the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Forests are on this issue," in terms of hoping to deal with the issue of tree-cutting legislation, for instance, at the municipal level.... We tend to get compartmentalized.
There's no question that transportation planning, strategies and growth are all part of what we have to do. My colleague the Minister of Transportation is very aware of that. He and I have had a number of discussions, in a generic sense, about where we're going. Of course we consult. For instance, something comes to my mind right away. We are just about to announce highway grants and improvements, which are done through my ministry and his ministry. They're done on a consultative approach. They're done in line with our ministry taking a look at where the growth is happening, which communities are going through sewer and infrastructure problems and where, as much as possible, we're trying to encourage growth. It's very much on our minds. But I have to say that it can get better -- no question, and I hope it will get better.
D. Symons: I do have a concern, and I'm glad you admitted at the end that it can get better, because that is indeed my concern: things have to get a lot better. We need a coordinated long-term planning situation with an integration of our highways, our ferries and our municipal affairs. All these departments have to get together much better than they have in the past. We need planning -- urban, interurban, regional and provincial -- and this has not always been the case in our province.
[3:00]
If we take our past history, it has not been good. We had cases in the past, going back quite far, where communities simply built along the Fraser River as a communication system and dumped their sewage in the river. The people farther down the river reaped the benefits of that in their drinking water. This has been the history of our province for a long time. It has been only recently that we have realized the interdependency of one community with the other and that one has to be considerate of what's happening farther down the river or the road or whatever the case may be. Those days are past now. Our pioneer days are over, and we must have long-term planning. I hope your government will be dedicated to that purpose.
We've had a hodgepodge of development -- a residential development here, an industrial park over there -- and after these things are built, then we worry about the sewage and the transportation to connect them and relate them to each other. This has been addressed after the fact in the past -- not only the distant past, but all too often the recent past.
I would like to know what interministerial planning organization -- you mentioned some communication there -- your government has in place already to
[ Page 1588 ]
coordinate planning of highways, ferries and municipal affairs.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is good discussion. I am personally encouraged that the opposition is supporting and is a part of the growing awareness at many levels that we have to have greater integration and better lines of communication with local government and senior government and within provincial and federal government, which is one of the biggest challenges we face -- without getting into any heavy editorials on that.
There are a number of methods currently used for integration. I know, for instance -- I don't have all the details of this -- that the various key deputy ministers in some of these social, economic and planning areas meet on a regular basis to ensure they know where the various ministries are going in terms of these critical paths. That is being highlighted even more. This government is making a point of ensuring that ministries are connected and that deputy ministers share.
We also have a Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, which will be linking up these kinds of issues more and more. Not a day goes by when we don't meet in cabinet, recognize and make a decision on transportation. That relates to housing and regional economic development. We are aware of it, but as I have said already, we can improve.
In terms of planning -- the member mentions what has happened in his community and wonders how it happened -- there is always this tentative relationship between local and provincial government. I must admit there are times, in travelling the province, when I say: "How did that ever happen? How did that community allow that to happen? Why is that growth happening there, which really doesn't make some sense?"
We've always had this belief -- to some degree, quite correctly -- that local government is the purveyor of land use, zoning regulations and public hearings, and they make the decisions. I also think, though, that good planning is our responsibility in terms of setting up expectations and methodologies and through various ways of encouraging that official community plans in certain parts of the province are not used like zoning maps that are suddenly changed overnight. Residents think that their community plan at least gives them some semblance of order.
I think we have to try and find some way to create stability and incentives -- financial or otherwise. I think we have to take a look at how we encourage local governments and regional districts to plan well, and see what the rewards are for that. That's back to your critic's position of grants and tying them in some fashion. These are all things that we've known about and talked about, but obviously when you move in new areas and when you've done something for a certain period of time, a lot of people don't want to change. Why change? Consequently you risk alienation and you risk confrontation, but for the sake of the province in the long term we have to do some of these things. Some toes may get stepped on, but we have to move in these kinds of directions.
D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I beg leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: Visiting me today in the galleries is part of the future of the province of British Columbia, a class of students with their teacher, Mr. Dan Hughes, from Duriel Elementary School in Hatzic Prairie -- just outside of my constituency. I beg the House make them welcome.
The Chair: The member for Richmond Centre continues on vote 53.
D. Symons: I'm glad to hear you mention community plans, having come from a community which, when I lived there, had three official community plans. And each time, almost as soon as the ink is dried, there seem to be some revisions or changes made to that plan. It becomes very disconcerting when people want to plan for something or feel that you have a plan for the community and something else comes up and they change the plan rather rapidly.
I'm concerned about this long-term planning and this integration, as you may gather from the thrust of my questions. As a matter of fact, one instance that happened rather recently under the mandate of this particular government is the Ferry Corporation indicating a change in the ferry schedules -- all-night sailings. This is the situation which is now occurring in Nanaimo. The city didn't seem to be too involved in the decision-making and the Highways ministry didn't seem to make any provisions for the change in traffic patterns that are going on there. This impinges upon that municipality. It seems incredible that in this day when we should be having a lot more consultation, this does not seem to be talking place. In that community there also seems to be a duel going on between two possible ferry terminals, either of Duke Point or having it remain at Departure Bay. The community, the highways that are going to supply the transportation for that ferry terminal and the local transportation within the city of Nanaimo are all involved.
What sort of consultation is taking place so that these decisions will be done in a way that will suit the needs of that community and the needs of the travelling public? What I see doesn't seem to indicate that that communication is good enough.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not one for doing this often, but I think many of the questions that you're asking could be addressed to the Minister of Transportation, and I suspect they were.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, that's not to say I don't have some answers, or I don't have some comments to make. First I should point out to that member that Highways is a major sponsor of a study right now called Transport 2021, which is currently going on in the GVRD, and my colleague the Minister of Transportation and his ministry is a major sponsor of that initiative.
[ Page 1589 ]
The member is right again. I don't have the magical answers for him to make sure the various ministries connect and that we have proper transportation planning. My ministry is working towards what we hope will be the model for regional planning and governments. We are currently working on that. We think that will have a lot to do with the various issues you're talking about, because under regional planning, regional government's general parameters, the issues you're talking about will have to be done on a regional basis. One of the reasons we've got ourselves in trouble is that in 1983 -- I don't have to give you the background -- that requirement was eliminated by the former government. Quite frankly, it's left a vacuum. It's left some of the issues you're talking about in limbo, which have to be dealt with properly in a regional context.
I've said many times that the issues facing particularly your community or the Greater Vancouver Regional District community, the issues that are faced by those citizens, don't know the boundaries that we have created by these smaller municipalities. They go way beyond. Transportation is one of them. Air quality management is another one that I and the Ministry of Environment are working on with a number of regional districts in the lower mainland, trying to have enhanced coordination of air quality management. Again, incremental. Maybe not as fast as some would like, but in the early days of our administration we are trying to give the right signals that we are not going to avoid these issues. We want to coordinate, and we want to do more to bring these issues together.
My staff point out that you're talking about the externalities. These are all components of an overall problem in an urban area. Another very good reason why we are encouraging regional planning and improvement of regional governments, particularly in your community.
D. Symons: Just a brief final question to the minister. Following up on your answer, could you give me some assurance then that you, through your ministry, will encourage some sort of formal method of vetting at least any development you're planning within your ministry that would impinge upon the others? We will then hope that the other ministries will also join in on this; that you would vet it through them and have some formal organization where this would happen so that there will be this connection between them, and we won't have a Ferry Corporation changing something without the other ministries knowing about it, without them notifying the municipalities about it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: As much as we can, we will do that. We have learned that there are some things that can be done better, and you mention the ferry one as a good example. Again, you can have all the best consultation and communication between ministries and local government, whoever you want, but in the end sometimes a decision will have to be made that not everyone agrees to. That will happen at times.
A. Cowie: The debate we're getting into right now is simply this: what is planning? And I'd like the minister's brief comment on whether he agrees or not. Since we seem to be agreeing on an awful lot of things, we might as well keep on going this way.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: My colleague may be very good in his own right, but the previous administration just didn't understand this subject. So I'd like to get your opinion of it.
At UBC, Waterloo or the universities where there is planning now -- or at Harvard or whatever -- basically what planning is doing is looking at the overall. Land use, transportation, environment, social planning, economic planning are all coming together and have been for a number of years. So it would be nice to see the provincial government also taking that model of planning and plugging in transportation when it's needed, rather than having a road going off in some direction to service some area simply because it's necessary from a road point of view. So I'm looking for the minister to tell me that he sees his function as a coordinating function, one that brings all of these disciplines together, and to give us a road map of where the province is going. I trust the minister probably agrees with this, but I'd like to hear him tell me.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That member is showing his professional background of planning, and he immediately wants...
An Hon. Member: It's a good background.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a good background. Would I say it was otherwise?
He really wants a map -- the plan, the components and the flow charts laid out -- all set for the next two years, five years, ten years and 20 years. I agree; that would be nice. But unfortunately, as you know, certain things get in the way: politics of the day, community interests of the day, and special needs of the day. I don't think I have to say any more. But the intent is there, hon. member. I think we will get better at integration. I know that in the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development that I am part of, when we have key issues before us, many times we will have the key staff or the deputy minister from various ministries there, relating to this issue in a multidiscipline approach.
[3:15]
This member asked and a former member talked about grants we're giving for planning that are not always recognized but that fit within the parameters those members are talking about under transportation. Let me just give you details of some of the grants that we're giving out this year. Matsqui, for instance: official community plan update -- transportation study. Our ministry is working with Abbotsford. Also in Matsqui we're helping with a strategic plan implementation. Logan Lake: planning grants for a complete inventory of infrastructures and assets. So I don't think that our perceptions are sometimes just the traditional ones of what planning is all about.
[ Page 1590 ]
Nanaimo: there's one here for an extensive land use study that we are providing some funds for. Parksville: a major one for an official community plan for waterfront development -- obviously very sensitive in Parksville. The community there wants to ensure that they're doing good planning for waterfront and waterfront enhancement. There's one I'm sure the member would like here: the community of Oliver wants to do a computer mapping database for better coordination of their activities. We, as a ministry, are providing some funds for that project. There's one here in Saanich: a grant for an environmental strategy project. That's perhaps not seen as a traditional kind of planning grant, but it's an area that we're trying to move into.
So in partnership with local government, we're starting to have more extensive planning and integration of our programs in partnership with local government.
A. Cowie: I could comment on grants, but I'll keep those opinions private.
Staying with Transportation and Highways for a while, I'd like to have the minister's opinion on why we still have technical people from Highways -- as fine as they are -- giving subdivision approvals in regional districts and in unorganized areas. Why do we still have Highways' technicians making decisions on subdivisions?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I must admit that this issue comes up a number of times. I've often thought that that process had outlived its time. It's a complex issue. It has been reviewed in the past and no changes have been made. The issue, of course, when it comes down to it, relates to who pays for the roads, and of course the whole question of the sewer, water and drainage factors come into it, and Highways often has a major say in that. I'm not necessarily giving you the answer that you'd like to hear. Suffice to say, I am certainly aware of the issue, but it's not as straightforward as the member might think. I know a number of my colleagues have certain views on that particular issue.
A. Cowie: The Minister of Forests is here and has indicated, I think, through his interjections that he would like to say something. One of my members would like to deal with a forestry topic on communities.
W. Hurd: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has thrown a bit of a curve into my proposal here, because I didn't intend to ask a specific forestry question of the minister in estimates. I just have a couple of quick questions about the area I represent, the municipality of Surrey. The two opposition MLAs from Surrey-White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale joined the three other government members and private members in several liaison meetings with the municipality of Surrey. One issue that they identified as being a critical problem for their municipality, which is one of the fastest-growing in Canada, is the gap between the time when they apply for development cost charges from the government and the time they are actually in receipt of the funds. Very often the projects for which they've applied have gone up in cost from the time that they actually apply for the funds to the time they receive them. I'm just asking on behalf of Mayor Bose and the council in Surrey whether the minister has identified in any of his operations funds for a study which might highlight or illustrate this problem in the municipality of Surrey and other fast-growing districts with respect to development cost charges.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The provincial government does not pay development cost charges; it's established at the local level and the bylaw is established. I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure how you think I or the provincial government can improve that. I could say that the generic issue of development cost charges is one that's always coming to our attention. If I'm correct, we have been doing some work around that as an issue. In terms of the application and collection of the charges, it's a local issue. I stand to be corrected. Maybe you could clarify it for me, hon. member.
W. Hurd: I might not have it straight in my mind. I was led to understand that there were funds that the municipality received from the province for certain types of....
Hon. R. Blencoe: Grants.
W. Hurd: Maybe I'm confusing the terminology. The point that was made by the municipal government in Surrey was that there was a gap in the funds that they should have received from the province for certain development costs. Maybe that's not the term. They were eligible for certain grants for projects that they are undertaking.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I know what the member is getting at now. He's probably referring to the sewer and water grants that might be related to a new project. The municipalities make an application. Sometimes they're fairly extensive applications. Unless this is something new, I think we're fairly prompt when we get the application. There's a fairly sophisticated review of the applications. Once we've made it.... For instance, just this morning I've been signing stage one of extensive sewer and water grants to many municipalities, saying that they're being okayed for the project. It may well be that there's a lag between completion and when we finally send the money out. According to staff, payment is generally made on completion of the project. There may be a lag or two. Let's put it this way: we are aware of the financial limitations of local government, and we try and get the dollars to them as quickly as possible.
If there are some specific problems in Surrey that you or the mayor can bring to my attention, we would be very glad to review them and see if we have been in error or slow. We obviously want to hear about that and make sure that it doesn't happen again.
W. Hurd: I believe the problem lies more with the pressures that the local government in Surrey is facing with the rapid growth. The minister may be correct that
[ Page 1591 ]
because of the pressure that their planning and engineering departments are under, there is a delay between the point where the municipality applies for these water and sewer grants and the point where the work is actually completed. I was questioning whether the ministry was aware of the difficulties being faced by fast-growing municipalities, whether the grant system that's in place is being studied for possible modifications and whether any other mayors or municipal councils -- besides the one in Surrey -- have brought this problem to the attention of the ministry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We get a tonne of correspondence every day and every week. I don't recall.... In these first few months I've tried to see everything, as much as possible, so I can get a handle on what's happening. The complaint I get about grants, of course, is that there are not enough. They want more in each grant and more of them. Of course they do. They've all got all sorts of projects that they want to do in their communities. If there is a specific problem or hindrance in Surrey, we will certainly take a look at it.
One of the issues that I just mentioned to you, though, is that we do have growth-related grants. We try and look at a scale of priority in terms of where we're going to put our money. We're not hiding the fact that this year, as it has been in the past few years, a good portion of the conditional grants has gone to sewer and water, which means that the growth-related grants have perhaps come down on the priority list.
The bottom line is that there is only so much. You've got to assess the priorities, and there's never enough. I happen to be of the view.... This member is certainly indicating that growth-related grants are important. I think my critic is also saying that as well. But again, it's where you cut it, what your priorities are. You've only got so much money in the pot per year, and you have to divvy it up according to what appears to be the priorities from local government of the day.
W. Hurd: Just another quick question on an issue of importance to my own riding, but also a generic issue to municipal governments in the province, that being the difficulties they are facing with municipal infrastructure and the expected increase in fines and assessments for pollution offences in the province.
It does pertain to the city of White Rock, which is experiencing difficulty with sewage runoff into Georgia Strait. In light of the fact that roughly 25 percent of all pollution violations in British Columbia are the result of infrastructure problems with municipal governments, has his ministry identified funds for studies to identify which municipalities may be vulnerable to dramatic increases in pollution fines and/or assessments by another ministry of his government, namely Environment, Lands and Parks?
[3:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have funds that are available for dealing with infrastructure problems or the environmental problems that the member raises. I am aware of the White Rock situation. I know we have had some discussions on that, and that's not an easy issue. I should let you know, hon. member, that I have asked my staff to do some extensive crunching of the numbers in terms of what has happened in the last ten or 15 years in White Rock. If we can do some projections in terms of what could be expected in.... The concern in White Rock is the viability of that community as a community, so we have taken that under advisement, and we will take a look at it. There are no easy answers. Some suggestions that White Rock take over parts of Surrey, of course, would not be welcome by certain members of Surrey. However, we will continue to look at these and work with the members affected, like yourself.
W. Hurd: A more general question regarding the impact of increases in fines and assessments for pollution-related problems.... I would assume that these increased costs will be borne or faced by municipal government as well as corporations in this province. Are there any funds available in the ministry operations that would enable the ministry to identify some of these rather critical problems in the province so that at least the municipal governments aren't facing dramatic increases should citizens' groups choose to take them to court over problems that might result from failures of municipal infrastructures? I know from experience that corporations in the province have already been advised that they will have to take steps to deal with these new regulations.
In light of the considerable problems in municipal infrastructures with respect to sewage, is the minister concerned about municipalities facing considerable problems not only from governments -- from a lack of grants -- but also from the possibility that citizens' groups may pursue redress through the courts for some of their infrastructure problems?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member may be quite correct, but I'm not going to deal in possibilities. Obviously the infrastructure is a problem; it's a major issue. I'm the first to admit there aren't the dollars to go around, which are required particularly in the lower mainland. I know what the lower mainland -- the GVRD -- is facing in the next five to ten years. It's substantial. Some might say it's astronomical in terms of the sewer and water and treatment facilities that will be required.
Our ministry deals with infrastructure grants. The formula currently is 25 percent from the province, but if there are health or environmental issues at stake, it can go to 50 percent of the cost of the program. I am very aware that, although I got a substantial increase this year, we still have a long way to go. This government is aware of it, and we are going to tackle it in the years ahead.
There are the costs of growth, of people just living in the lower mainland and of the environmental considerations. Sustainability issues are there. That's one of the reasons why we are taking a look at the whole question of the Georgia Basin. When my critic talks about integration of planning and services, obviously we go beyond just the GVRD. There is this whole Georgia Basin or Fraser-Cheam or whatever we want to call it; some call it Fraser-Pacific.
[ Page 1592 ]
There are major issues we have to tackle, and this minister is well aware of them. Our commitment this year was to raising the infrastructure availability to the highest level in the history of the province. But I am the first to admit that we will need further dollars in the years ahead, and that will have to be tackled.
W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, I will now get into the question that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena was interested in my asking in the first place -- namely the possibility of community forests controlled at least partially by municipalities in the province of British Columbia.
First, a question regarding the environmental endowment fund. Will the ministry have access to any funding from that $10 million for fostering the growth of community forests in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. R. Blencoe: A number of the questions the member is asking touch upon forestry issues, and my good colleague was wondering why those issues didn't come up during the Forests estimates. I'm sure you will have every opportunity to discuss those further.
In terms of the endowment fund, I am not aware.... I said it nicer than I think you might have. I'm not aware that my ministry will be drawing on those funds. That's the message I'm getting at this time.
W. Hurd: Just one final question, and it pertains to affordable housing in British Columbia. I was wondering whether the ministry, in the current budget year, had identified funds to assess the impact of the corporation capital tax on any private companies that may be involved in providing affordable housing in the province. This is of particular concern to certain people in my own riding who are somewhat interested in this issue of providing affordable housing.
Hon. R. Blencoe: At this time that is not part of our research package, but it could very well be added to it. As you may or may not be aware, much work has been done on the housing front in the social housing and affordability area. I'll take that on notice or advisement in terms of adding that to the many issues that we are studying these days.
A. Cowie: According to my little road map here, we're 25 percent through by content, but that doesn't mean by time. Since we are going rather general, I want to get into some more specific things so we can roll along.
Regarding development permit legislation, how far does the minister think development permit controls should be handled by the municipalities? For example, a municipality that has an official community plan is allowed to have development permit areas. If you've got a development permit area, then you can require developers to have a development permit that spells out the design and general character of the buildings. Sometimes that system can be broken down. Once they've got their building permit, the planning department has little to do with the actual administration and loses control over many of the design aspects. I've seen many people disappointed in the results. There are other means, such as covenants, that you can require. I want to find out how strongly the minister believes in design control where there's a willingness to agree on a particular approach, at least in the beginning, between the developer and the community.
Hon. R. Blencoe: An area of importance, one I certainly have some personal interest in.... I'm sure the member recalls when the province had land use contracts. There were some wrinkles that people didn't like, but generally, they allowed local government to sit down with a developer and work out -- some would say deal making. I didn't see it that way. I think it was getting the best for the community and the developer being allowed some flexibility to make his project more worthwhile or more financially viable.
Without getting into too many details, we are looking at the whole question of development permits, comprehensive development zones, better abilities for local government to enter into negotiation with developers. One of the difficulties, of course, of the Municipal Act and the zoning rules is that they tend to be universal and inflexible. They don't always fit, particularly communities in unique circumstances. I think there has to be a return to some flexibility.
So we have it under review. It may very well be the subject of legislation in the next session, but we will also be having consultation through the housing process that we'll be announcing very soon, plus consultation with UBCM, which, as I'm sure you know, hon. member, has done a lot of work in this area.
But the quick answer is....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Consulted. The land use contract concept, I think, was very worthwhile; and we want to take a look again.
A. Cowie: I certainly welcome that, and I take it that the minister will also contact UDI and the Canadian builders' association and that sort of thing. I think the reason the land use contracts failed is that some municipalities, in fact -- not always the development industry -- misused them. I can remember one case where a fence was negotiated through a land use contract in Nanaimo. Although Nanaimo does a few crazy things, I think that was going to the absolute sublime.
Getting down to downtown revitalization, because I think that throughout the province the previous administration.... I must give them credit: they at least did spend some money. Whether or not it was properly directed in some cases is debatable, but they did spend some money on revitalization of downtown streets. Where those plans fitted in with a proper economic plan, a proper community plan, those revitalization programs worked quite well. Many of them were simply planting trees, putting in new light standards, a little bit of paving and a bench or two; but essentially if it was the right thing to do to an area, and then that started a stimulus of improving buildings and everything else.
[ Page 1593 ]
I wouldn't criticize the program at all. I'd just like to be assured that we are going to continue with that. And I must compliment your staff member, who I think has the correct attitude regarding that. He's almost private enterprise in some of his approaches. I particularly liked one comment he made one time -- in public, so I can say it -- that first of all you decide your concepts, you get your designers in there, you leave the engineers and the Highways department out of the process until they've decided what the concept is, and then it works. Would the minister like to comment?
Hon. R. Blencoe: On the previous question about the development process, I'll let the member know that there is what's called the development process advisory committee, which looks at these kinds of issues; one that our ministry is heavily involved in, I'm told. It includes the UDI and UBCM and those kinds of agencies that the member's referring to.
Downtown revitalization. Well, I tell you, it is a great program, it really is. And the staff member you're referring to is Mr. Martin Thomas, who in his own right is probably the greatest promoter of that program we could see. It has been a remarkable program. It's been going 12 years. Programs like this usually have a life of five or six years, and people lose interest. But this program seems to carry on. Right now, as a matter of fact, there's even greater interest in downtown revitalization. We are genuinely proud of the program. I think it does a good job; it builds spirit for not a lot of money. I mean, it's a good investment. It often brings back the heart of the community, the fabric, the heritage, the business aspects. It provides capital work loans, planning money, strategy money, facade design. I know the business improvement areas are now using it and tapping into it.
The short answer is that this minister believes it's a good program, and as much as possible it will continue.
[3:45]
L. Fox: I'll take a slightly different tack than my colleague the Liberal critic. I'm not a planner, as he is, so perhaps I see things from a different perspective. It's not that I want to take a whole lot of issue with what he said, but I have to defend the integrity of free enterprise to some degree. I believe that the tool for planning should be economics. I also believe that a community plan is a philosophical statement by a community at that point in time and should be revisited on a regular schedule. Unlike my planning friend, I don't have a crystal ball, and most councils don't have a crystal ball, in order to identify how communities might change on an ongoing basis.
My Liberal counterpart consistently suggests that this government should mandate its programs down on the local communities. I believe that planning is best kept in the hands of the local communities. Certainly the act must suggest on what basis and how often planning should take place and what the principles of planning are, and so on. But the values of the community are stated within that plan, and they are best identified by the community itself.
I agree with the process that is presently in place. However, I would like to see the zoning opportunities expanded within both the regional districts and municipalities so that we could control the forestry codes, for instance, within municipal development areas. I'm not suggesting that private people should not have the opportunity to sell that resource, but that the loggers of that resource should have to follow the same logging practices presently enforced in municipalities and regional districts by the Ministry of Forests. I look forward to your response to that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's more of a philosophical statement than anything else. In his own way, the member really points out the differences in approaches to planning and the regional concept. My Liberal critic is more supportive of regional integration, to the point where -- and I'm hopefully not putting words in your mouth -- the province can show more leadership and direction; whereas my colleague from Prince George-Omineca is sharing the more traditional view that if it's not wanted at the local level...and that the municipality's autonomy should protect it.... That shows that there is a dichotomy in this debate.
I've already said many times that everyone is in favour of regional planning, better regional governments and integration. But the difficulty, of course, will be: what's the formula and what's the model? How do we protect the interests that you're talking about as well as dealing with...? My Liberal critic, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, is just as correct: there has to be greater regional integration. How do you pull those competing interests together? We are building the blocks incrementally. Many regional districts are starting to do the work themselves on a voluntary basis. We're trying to provide grants to them and to encourage them and nudge them forward. At the moment the process is incentives -- financial grants or otherwise.
I've already said that we want to recognize in our granting processes those regions or communities that are moving ahead in a progressive way on the issues that we talked about this afternoon. Planning is a shared concept. It's local, regional and provincial. Whether we have the right balance now or we need a new one is what this debate is all about -- here, out there and in all the members' communities.
I know the bottom line is that this province is growing and becoming far more sophisticated. We have a whole new global economy and new technologies that require different approaches to our communities and industrial bases and to managing the economy. This ministry is going to be a very major player in terms of how our communities will develop in the years ahead. It's better to plan and be prepared for them, rather than to deal with the problems after the fact, which to some degree we've tended to do. It costs a lot more money and a lot more hardship. If we can build into our processes being prepared for those changes, I think we will be far better off. It's not always going to be easy; I think the member knows what I'm talking about.
L. Fox: I agree that I made a philosophical statement with respect to my position on planning, but I also
[ Page 1594 ]
asked a question. I will let you get to that later. That question was specifically whether or not the zoning mandate of municipalities and regional districts could be expanded to incorporate the control of logging practices on private land. Before I go on, perhaps you would answer that one.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm approaching these estimates as openly and candidly as possible, but the member is reflecting on what could be future policy. Let me put it this way: we're aware of it and are working on it, and hopefully we will have some signs that will help in this endeavour. Whether it will go far enough or go too far, I await your reaction to the legislation. Obviously there is a change coming.
As you know, a number of municipalities -- Vancouver and others -- have asked for some ability to deal with tree-cutting in their municipalities. We're endeavouring to help out in that, but I don't want to go any further than that. We will leave it there for now.
L. Fox: I want to talk basically about the need to integrate community planning among communities, regional districts, highways networks and everything covered earlier by members of the official opposition. I can only suggest to you that in my experience the development regions were a tool to do that. In fact, the process started, to a degree. However, this government looks on that process as being less than desirable. Most of those development regions were made up of municipal and regional district leaders. There were educational leaders as well as community health leaders. All had an excellent understanding of their own development plans, transportation networks, and their educational, health and infrastructure needs. We saw the first real initiative come out of that. It involved the public as well as all of those community leaders. It was called, I recall, the Freedom to Move program. Although that specifically dealt with highways and Highways' responsibilities, it did understand the developments in different areas.
One of the major problems, particularly in the rural parts of this province, is that our resource-based communities are so sensitive to the price of those commodities on a day-to-day basis that it makes it extremely difficult to plan which community is going to grow and which community is going to end up like Cassiar over any period of time. Perhaps the minister might indicate to me if he sees these development regions as a planning tool and something that may help to achieve everything that has been identified thus far.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to go over the history of what was, for some period in this House, a fairly contentious issue. The ministers of state and the unfortunate terminology that we used was created by.... I forget. I think it was Mr. David Poole who called it the United States of British Columbia at the time. Rightly or wrongly, the perception left was that this was going to be another level of government, another level of bureaucracy. There was a thread of.... The concept wasn't necessarily bad; I think it was tied up in too many other images.
I don't think there's any question, though, that some of those regional development areas have done very well. One in particular, I believe, is Cariboo. I understand that it has worked quite well. Others have been a problem. Let's leave it at that.
The simple answer to you is that yes, there are regional disparities; yes, there are regional economies. The province is more than just downtown British Columbia or downtown Vancouver Island. There are unique regions, and we have to build on those regions. We have to develop proper strategies that emphasize their strengths and uniqueness. Some good things have been done in terms of the former administration's program that the member talked about. There are a lot of advantages in pulling the players together, as was attempted under their program.
I should say that in the months and years ahead -- months, I hope -- there will be announcements, not by this minister but by other ministers, on this issue of regional programs, integration and strategies. I think the member will be pleased that we take what he.... I know where that member comes from. He comes from smaller, more rural communities that feel isolated, left out of the decision-making. Rightly or wrongly, that's the perception. It's a reality we have to deal with. There will be changes by this government in the months ahead that will address that -- not create an image of more bureaucracy or the millions of dollars that were used on the former program -- and build on that program, learning from its mistakes and utilizing the talents in the regions. The member mentioned those. Some of the elected officials and leading entrepreneurs have the ability to help this government develop those strategies for the regions.
L. Fox: I hate to go back to this, but I was never satisfied with your answer during question period so I have to go back to it. You will recall my question with respect to your fair wage policy and the impacts on municipalities. You suggested to me that there had been a number of studies done. It's funny, when I called the UBCM they weren't aware of any of them; in fact, it had only got one telephone call from the Minister of Labour after the first question was asked. Perhaps you could make me aware of the names of these studies. I would like very much to have a personal look at them, so that I might examine exactly what the impacts are going to be, specific to projects which are going to include, as I understand the policy, more than $500,000 of provincial money or be of higher value than $1.5 million. Perhaps you could comment on that.
[4:00]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm glad to report -- and I'm sure my good colleague the Minister of Labour will report this -- that four out of the five projects have all come in under budget and have all done well. I think that the scare tactics that were being used by the opposition about fair wages haven't proven to be fact.
Interjection.
[ Page 1595 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: You were blowing in the wind as usual, as the opposition does. I hope the reality is setting in.
You're hoping, I know, for some problem. It hasn't happened. The first one was the Commonwealth Games. The aquatic centre is coming under projected budget, and it hasn't been the problem that you all talked about. Now that I've got you all riled up and excited.... You realize that you've got nothing to talk about when it comes to this because everything's working out very nicely.
When the member goes back and reads Hansard.... I was very careful in my words. I did not say this ministry had done the studies or gathered the information. I said: "A number of information and impact studies have been done." This government makes decisions based on rational, intelligent information. I think the member inferred from that that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs had done the studies. I can assure you that the work was done. I think I said to him before that he should address that question in terms of fair wages impact assessments -- done by my good colleague the Minister of Labour, who unfortunately is not here today to give you the answers that you require. I can tell you -- and you know this -- that the policy thus far has had minimal or no impact on local government.
L. Fox: I'm really concerned that you weren't more objective in your consideration of what this would do to municipalities. You put your head in the sand. Your Finance minister himself has made the statement publicly: "Yes, this could cost us one building." That was a public statement printed in the press. So he obviously disagrees that there isn't going to be an impact. Combined with this fair wage policy is the fact that you now have cut in half, at least in half, the availability of lottery funds for municipalities to build their recreational facilities. We'll get into the specifics of your vote, because I would like to know exactly what dollars you do have. You put those two things together, and I would suggest that the recreational part of this ministry suffered a huge blow in terms of what it can do to help deliver those very needed recreational facilities throughout the province.
With respect to the six projects that have been so-called underbudget, it's very easy to set a budget which is better than optimistic. You could quite easily set an unrealistic budget in order to bring your project in under budget. I suggest to you that if we had a really close look at all those initiatives, we might be able to identify that. Perhaps that's something I'll do in my spare time, because I firmly believe that is the case.
With respect to the lotteries that have been given to your ministry for you to allocate, could you give us a summary of how many dollars you expect, how many applications you previously had and the total number of the applications in terms of dollars?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We've shifted gears here a bit, I think, so let me....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's fine. I don't mind at all. In terms of the fair wage policy, infrastructure is exempted, public housing is exempted, and we have realistic limits of $500,000 to $1.5 million. Again, local government is minimally, if at all, affected by this legislation. Thus far, according to the world of the opposition, the world would collapse when we had fair wage legislation. The world hasn't collapsed. Indeed, the projects are doing well, and everything is just fine. I know what you're trying to do, the fear that you're trying to create, but it's just not happening.
In terms of recreation, the member makes good points. I think it's way, way back when this ministry and the recreation division had capital funds for sport and recreation. We do not have.... If the member is thinking that I allocate moneys to build recreation facilities, that's not accurate. We don't have that. We have funds for helping sports organizations, recreational facilities and games people -- support their operating -- but we don't have capital funds, if I'm correct, for sport and recreation. I'm not sure if that's what the member's exact question was.
L. Fox: Perhaps for clarification, when I read the press release as to how the lottery funds were going to be allocated, it stated that 50 percent went to Health, and the balance went into other ministries, one of which was yours. Am I to assume that you're not endorsing any projects?
Hon. R. Blencoe: A portion of our sport and recreation division is funded out of lottery funds. Between $27 million and $30 million is allocated for sport and recreation programs and organizations. I don't know whether we have the actual percentage breakdown in terms of whether all that money comes from lottery funds. I don't believe so. Some of it is direct-line vote, I believe.
My staff says it's all lottery funds.
L. Fox: Is there a line in the budget that identifies that sum? Further to that, do they now come to your ministry for capital projects that used to be funded up to one-third by lotteries? Where are you spending your lotteries money, if it's not going out there into the communities?
Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that we never had lottery funds specifically for capital projects. Those capital projects went directly to the old GO B.C. and those kinds of programs. Over the last five years, when I take a look at old sport and recreation applications for capital projects, I think about $41 million has been spent on capital projects. But we've never had lottery funds for capital; our share of lottery funds was just for operating capital.
L. Fox: Where does a municipality apply, then, if it's got a complex moving forward? We're told by Government Services that they no longer handle it and that it's disbursed in the respective ministries. So where does a municipality apply?
[ Page 1596 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: The municipalities used to apply to GO B.C., but now, as you know, that's all under review. You may wish to ask your question of my colleague the Minister of Government Services, who is now working on that. I understand there will be community consultation on that particular aspect. I don't know the time-frame or when my colleague will be bringing down the new guidelines for those particular programs.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, are we also dealing with votes 54 and 55 with this? Or are we only dealing at this point...?
The Chair: This is the minister's office only.
F. Gingell: We haven't amalgamated them all as we have done in previous cases.
The Chair: No, unless there was an agreement I'm not aware of. I have no knowledge of that, hon. member.
F. Gingell: Well, let me ask my questions, and if I'm out of order, we can deal with it.
During the course of various debates and questions relative to the use of lottery funds, we have been led to understand that 50 percent or $100 million of the $200-odd million net income of the Lottery Fund has been allocated for the year 1992-1993 into a new fund to do with health, and that the remainder of the lottery funds, instead of being disbursed by GO B.C. and other lottery grant forms, will now be going through the various ministries, and if you look at this year's estimates you will see that the whole of the $200 million from lottery funds was brought into the general consolidated revenue fund as revenues, and only the $100 million for the health fund was shown as a separate and distinct item. We were therefore led to understand that sports organizations, cultural organizations and other such organizations would in this year, and in future, be applying to the various ministries that deal with the particular subject matter. So if you were a sports organization that had received either capital or operating grants from lottery funds, you would at this point be expecting to apply to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, because it says "Recreation." Could the minister show us in his budget where these specific types of grants will be paid from?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There's great interest in the Lottery Fund and the lottery program and what's going to happen in the future. I do have to beg off, though, as most of the questions are not this minister's responsibility -- for developing the programs or the new initiatives or where it's going -- and your questions are much better directed to the Minister of Government Services. All I can tell you is that traditionally my ministry, in terms of the sport and recreation division, has been allocated a portion of lottery funds. However, that is actually not technically the way it is done now because, as you know, all lottery funds are going into general revenue, and the idea is we will set up special programs for these grants and community grants. We now actually get a general revenue, line item allocation of money to run sport and recreation, which this year is close to $25 million, out of which libraries get $835,000. I think there's probably some more money in terms of other kinds of programs, like the Commonwealth Games or something like that. No, that's separate.
[4:15]
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Where is that shown in the estimates book? It's under "Local Government and Community Services, Total Grants and Contributions." These numbers are fascinating. Vote 54, ministry operations, total grants and contributions, indicates $37,204,145, out of which comes part of the sport and recreation division, totalling $24.21 million -- if that helps.
The Chair: Hon. member for Delta South, before you continue I just want to reflect on your question with respect to the minister's office in the votes. By custom, it has been the practice to permit a wide range of debate on all of the votes under the minister's office without specifically having to refer to that vote, unless the minister objects. That's been the practice. Technically it's not in order, but it has been the custom to do that. So you would be free to raise those items under this vote if you wish.
F. Gingell: I would like, if I may, to move forward to the revenue-sharing fund just for clarification so I can understand this. I note from the description in this particular document, which is the estimates, where it describes the transfer from voted appropriation of $363.7 million under the revenue-sharing fund with municipalities, that this particular amount is made up of a series of appropriations from other forms of revenue that the provincial government receives. It indicates that it is one point of both the provincial personal taxes and the provincial corporate tax. It's 6 percent of the provincial social services tax and 6 percent of the renewable and non-renewable resource revenues, plus or minus some adjustments. Do you happen to have those numbers handy? I tried to work them out, and I didn't get up to $363 million.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't have those figures available, but I'm told by staff that they are quite complex and adjustments are always being made. I will take that on notice from you and see what we can provide you to give you a greater insight into this fund.
F. Gingell: On the same subject, one looks at this fund and there's a balance of $213 million in it at the beginning of the year and it has these additional funds come in -- some interest, which I presume is on the $35 million grant stabilization account, and then expenditures, and it shows an amount at the end of $245 million. In looking at the balance of the committed but undisbursed grants at the start of the period, indicated at the bottom of the page as $168 million.... Were there actually agreements signed with various municipalities that covered that amount? Has the amount been allocated? Are there projects in progress that will in fact cover all of that sum, and is each year's calculation
[ Page 1597 ]
carefully calculated so that each municipality gets its own share of that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we can try and answer some of these questions for you, but it may be very useful for you as the Finance critic to have a full briefing by my staff. I will make that available to you. The revenue-sharing is quite complicated. It works well, but within this environment I think it's really hard to get into it. So I make that available to you. It might be very useful for you to see how it all works.
The direct answer to your question right now is that offers are made, or dollars are reserved for future commitments. This is obviously one of the difficulties with revenue-sharing. We put out what money is available in one year, but how quickly they take it up or how they move with their project is always up to the municipalities. We're always having to account for it. I don't know how far back we go. I suspect that we're still finalizing payments on projects that were approved in '86-87. In accounting, it's sometimes very difficult.
F. Gingell: I certainly will take you up on that offer. Before I leave this particular subject, do I take it that there is a formula that allocates the $363,700,000 -- or the $366 million if the interest is included -- to specific municipalities, and only they can apply projects against those funds?
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is where I think a briefing would be useful. The cash flow, the money actually coming into the fund, is $363,700,000; the member is right. The actual expenditure that we anticipate in terms of the money coming into the fund will be approximately $335 million this year. The rest is in abeyance.
Further down that page, you'll note an issue that has been remarked on before by the members of the opposition: the question of the stabilization account. Some $35 million dollars is noted in the blue book. It's currently in the stabilization account. Money for local government is kept there. If things get tougher, if grants start to drop dramatically or whatever, we can utilize those funds. That money is there. It's gaining interest.
A question was: is there a quota for each municipality? There is a formula for unconditional grants and for the basic per capita grant. There are a number of other components to the formula, which we can go over with you. Conditional grants are based on need. The conditional grants this year are focused primarily on sewer and water. If you are interested, our staff can go over the extensive ways we assess needs -- as fairly as possible. I have given instructions.... To their credit, I think former governments have tried to take the politics out of sewer and water and these kinds of grants. It has got to be based on need, not on what area or region or riding it is.
F. Gingell: If I may, Mr. Minister, I will just slip to two local issues. The first one is whether or not this minister would be prepared to clarify the legislation in the Municipal Act to allow local municipalities to develop irrigation programs for agriculture in just the same way that they can presently develop drainage programs. Coming from Delta, you can appreciate the question.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's not an issue that I am particularly aware of, but I suspect it may be one that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has on his agenda. It may very well be that it should be addressed by that other ministry. Again it comes down to competing interests and calls for the money, and right now sewer, water treatment and those kinds of requests are predominant and are taking the lion's share of the funds that we have available.
Did I misunderstand your question?
F. Gingell: I understand that under the Municipal Act, the way it is presently written, a municipality can enter into arrangements to improve drainage facilities within its area, whether the drainage problems be caused by new subdivisions, new developments or whatever. The way I understand it is that although they can enter into arrangements that will allow improvements in the drainage systems, they cannot enter into arrangements that will allow improvement to the irrigation systems for agriculture, and it requires an amendment to the Municipal Act to allow them to do so.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Excellent question. We'll take a look at it and get back to you.
F. Gingell: Thank you.
There is one other issue I would like to deal with, if I may. As I drove home on Sunday night, the whole of the south side of the causeway extending from South Delta out to the ferry terminal was covered cheek by jowl with campers and holiday-makers. It was a lovely weekend. The cars were thick there. There were all kinds of families having a nice weekend out. It is a very important regional area that is just a mess. It is not within the municipality or the responsibility of the municipality of Delta. It is clearly a provincial issue.
What we're talking about here is the opportunity to put in a major recreational facility for the people of British Columbia. It seems to me that what it would take is a little cooperation from the minister responsible for recreation and our friends at B.C. Ferries, because the causeway is B.C. Ferries land. My question to the minister is: would he please look into this question -- look into what would be necessary to get proper development of that south side of the causeway? Can I ask him to do something about it on behalf of the people of the lower mainland?
[4:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will certainly pass that on to the various ministers or Crown corporations responsible. The member probably has some good ideas, but I'm sure he's aware that when you develop what might be considered delicate foreshore, beach area or whatever, of course there is environmental impact and other considerations. Those issues would have to be taken into consideration. But I will pass on your comments, and perhaps the appropriate minister or Crown corporation will get back to you.
[ Page 1598 ]
A. Cowie: On that particular issue, I might help the minister. The minister might wish to go to the regional districts who have a plan: the Tsawwassen Business Association, who have a plan; and the municipality of Delta, which has approved a plan. Everybody wants to do it. All it needs is some leadership to guide some of these other ministries together, to knock their heads together and to go ahead and do it.
We went ahead a little bit with some of these recreation questions, which we hadn't planned, but I felt the particular members were here. We got a little off track with our third party moving into that area, unfortunately. But I want to go back to some general questions -- environmental planning -- on broader issues. So I'm going to ask our critic for Environment to come forward next.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to start from generalities and work to specifics and if possible to hear from the minister where he is collaborating with the Minister of Environment as to new initiatives in his portfolio with regard to waste management, management of growth, management of transportation and any other initiatives he may have introduced in conjunction with the Minister of Environment.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm tempted to say to the hon. member that I'll send you the Hansard that's already been.... We've already had some discussions this afternoon on some of the issues. But let me go over for you a couple of areas that we are emphasizing. The one area that is exciting and a major issue for our ministry and the Ministry of Environment is dealing with air-quality management in the lower mainland. A number of regional districts have asked us, with themselves and the Ministry of Environment, to develop a formula, a strategy and a management concept that will allow us to manage the air-quality issue in the lower mainland. That is moving ahead. I know that our ministry is heavily involved in that research and that process.
Most of our work with the Environment ministry on environmental issues of sustainable development or transportation is related to revenue-sharing funds. I know there's sometimes a feeling that this ministry does a lot of stuff; it is certainly a multifaceted ministry. But in terms of the issues that the member is referring to, our contribution is in revenue sharing. This year we're contributing $128 million just for this year to sewer and clean water projects and to treatment processes. That's a significant contribution. Obviously we work with the Ministry of Environment, because to get the maximum funds...have to have environmental significance. The Ministry of Environment is involved in that and assessing that with us to determine if they are eligible. I'm sorry, the Ministry of Health is also involved, of course. My colleague is no longer here.
Earlier we had a good discussion about transportation and integration. More and more ministries are integrating their efforts in terms of trying to manage these kinds of major issues before us. Of course, now at the regional level and certainly in your particular part of British Columbia, I think there's a growing awareness that there has to be greater regional integration, regional planning on regional government issues. I'm very pleased that in Kelowna they're moving ahead now. A very good conference was held -- I think a couple of months ago -- to start to deal with these issues. I've already said that my ministry is open and available with resources to help the Okanagan to start dealing with these very important issues that don't know the traditional boundaries of local government. I will leave it there.
J. Tyabji: When I was referring to these issues, I was referring to sustainable cities. If I can ask some more specific questions now, the first question would be with regard to waste treatment. We have in the past traditionally relied on either septic fields or sewer lines. There is a lot of technology available that I would say is arguably better and much cheaper. In terms of having a closed system within a house, we have things like destroilets which have been piloted in the United States. This reduces or virtually eliminates the need for these expensive sewer trunk lines and underground systems. I think it is not only much more environmentally sound but also a much more economically sound way of approaching things. I was wondering, first of all, if you're exploring alternatives to sewer, when you see at least a pilot project or perhaps an implementation of some viable alternative.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, good question. What it comes down to though is: should we be totally directing local government in terms of where they're going or do we provide the incentives? In our study grants, we reward those municipalities or regional districts that are seeking cost-effective innovations and the alternatives that you're talking about. There are incentives to do that. We get our advisers to help us in that endeavor. We may very well be doing more of that in the months and years ahead. The overall issue is that when we're investing -- and we are investing major dollars in these programs, particularly in the big, big projects -- we tend to rely, I suppose, on proven methods. I'm not saying that we won't try anything new, but we tend to rely on things that have a track record.
When you're putting up literally millions and millions of dollars into projects, it's sometimes very difficult to start having test runs or trying new innovations. When municipalities are starting at the beginning of the process and want study grants to take a look at what's required, we suggest being creative and innovative and looking at alternatives. We may be able to improve that too.
J. Tyabji: If you are funding these kinds of waste-management systems, I would suggest that you should definitely encourage that either by putting the funding into areas that are alternatives to the very expensive and, I would say, regressive methods currently in place.... Put into place some of the effective systems that are being used in the United States. Getting to the point of sustainable cities, I would point out an article by Mark Roseland, which was in a magazine called Ecodecision. I don't know if the minister has seen it. It
[ Page 1599 ]
really focuses on sustainable cities and the expense that's related to sprawl and the fact that urban sprawl is one of the most expensive things and, of course, the least environmentally sound -- urban sprawl being something you end up paying for regressively.
What I'd like to have from the minister -- and this might require a fairly detailed reply -- is for him to walk me through his version of a sustainable city in terms of mapping it out, whether there be nodes that are connected by other lines. I know there are some with regard to several little villages on the outside of a main city with main transportation trunk lines in a small infrastructure within the villages.
In Europe, a lot of the things they're doing have the small village concept, where the majority of transportation within that village is pedestrian; there are no roads and you can actually walk to the market. This has been very effective in promoting a sense of community and in reducing some of the social costs that go along with people feeling that their neighbourhoods are dysfunctional. It reduces the amount of crime, and of course it's extremely good for the environment.
I guess what I'm looking for from the minister is his view of what a sustainable city is in terms of making provision for the environment, ensuring that waste is more or less self-contained so that any problems can be dealt with by that village or community. Does he have any idea of perhaps guiding the municipalities or the regional districts toward that view of a sustainable city in the future?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There's reams and reams of literature and studies and models -- European, Swedish, Norwegian, U.S. -- in terms of what's sustainable, what's the ideal community. There's no question, in terms of where the North American city of the fifties, the sixties and, to some degree, the seventies, was going and how it developed, that we've learned some lessons, and they've all been bad. Coming out of the environmental movement and now sustainable development, sustainable communities, we realize that we have legalized sprawl. We've legalized bad planning and ribbon developments, and it's very costly energy-wise, transportation-wise, and socially.
It's hard for me to lay out our model of a sustainable community, and I won't do it. I think many communities are starting to do that for themselves. In my community in Victoria, our model is pedestrian and heritage and small-scale, not large, corporate business towers; it's small neighbourhoods, walking, neighbourhood plans developed. That's our sustainable area. But that model is not necessarily transferable. In Fort Nelson or Fort James they have a different view. It's a whole different reality in those northern communities, where in the wintertime there's not the ambiance and the heritage and whatever you call nice for downtown British Columbia. Their model and their views on sustainability may be a little different.
Those of us down here in the lower mainland and downtown British Columbia have to be very careful, quite frankly, in approaching certain things with our values of what I think is very nice. I've learned that when you get up in other parts of British Columbia, there are different perspectives, although recognizing that the bottom line is that we have to do things a little differently. Our resources are not finite. We have environmental problems of enormous proportions, and we're all part of it. Local government is part of it.
I think many communities are starting to achieve their own sense of what they can do in terms of the issues that you're raising. We'll be encouraging that in the years ahead by how we allocate our resources, grants and programs.
J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that when the minister said our resources are not finite, he meant they're not infinite.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Infinite. Sorry.
J. Tyabji: Just to clarify that.
I will get to more of a prelude to the question. The bottom line is that you did indicate that perhaps in the future you will be putting forward programs to encourage municipalities to develop towards sustainability. What I really want from the minister is a sense of what the broad definition of sustainability is, because I recognize that around B.C. we have different parameters. Being from Kelowna, we have very different parameters than does Victoria. Having said that, there are certain bottom lines that we put toward anything we do. Given those bottom lines, I would say that the way.... For example, with Victoria's sewage treatment and the way in which they deal with their sewage, is that the minister's version of sustainable?
[4:45]
The minister said that we have legalized bad planning. Is the minister going to do something to reverse that? Is the minister going to develop guidelines for municipalities? Ultimately the provincial government is responsible for paying for it, so it's not good enough, I think, to say to the municipalities: "Okay, go ahead and develop a plan." Then they come back and say: "Well, here's our plan; pay for half of it." If it's a bad plan, we should have the ability to say: "No, that's a bad plan." I'm getting a little bit partisan, but I keep thinking, jeez, in four years I'll be on that side of the House worrying about how to deal with traffic problems in Kelowna. I am looking to the minister and saying that we have to look at planning problems as soon as possible and say: "Please put together a plan that really justifies 50 percent funding from the provincial government." If it's bad planning, I think there should be an option where you say: "That's bad planning; that's going to cost us a lot more money."
Finally, before giving it back to the minister, I know that in our own community there have been a lot of discussions about the ways in which we develop neighbourhood plans, and the fact that a lot of neighbourhood plans are just advertised in the newspaper where people might not see the advertisement. They don't participate in the process that sets up the neighbourhood plan, and then when they do go to put something in for the community, they're told that there's a neighbourhood plan in place that doesn't conform with it, so you're not allowed to put it in. I have seen that example come up numerous times myself. If
[ Page 1600 ]
the ministry is going to say that it's up to the municipalities and the neighbourhood plans to put something in place that we can all live with in terms of how you develop a neighbourhood plan, what are the limits to planning within the municipalities and, fundamentally, a definition of sustainable cities from the ministry so that we don't have problems that are ten times more expensive in a couple of years?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I'm not going to satisfy the member in terms of citing what our model or our description of a sustainable city or village or town is. I think the member is aware that in terms of these issues, we are really still very much grappling with them. I think a lot of people are trying to come up with those terms and descriptions. We have an agenda for sustainability. I think all of us, at all levels of government, need to seek consensus on what the basic principles are. There isn't consensus there; it depends on the region you go to. There's consensus that we should do the research on the range of possible changes, and we need to produce the right process for achieving change.
We don't reward bad planning. Sometimes, agreed, a project comes forward that hasn't been done very well and may fit that description of being badly planned, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the problem they have should be abandoned and not looked at or dealt with. In this ministry we still have to deal with the issues facing those communities, and we have to give them the opportunity or give them the hand to solve their problems. That is one of the reasons we have what's called a Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development. It's out of this committee, and in consultation with others in this province and other parts of the world, that I think you'll see in time a greater consensus on the very issues that this member is asking about today.
We don't have it etched in stone, that's for sure. I think that compared to five years ago, we're much better off in the things we want to try to develop and in what we think our principles and priorities are.
J. Tyabji: I'm happy to hear the minister say that perhaps they have an agenda for sustainability, and perhaps later on we can get into what that agenda would contain with regard to sewer systems, composting and landfills.
The last of the general questions I'd like to ask the minister is with regard to limits to growth. Coming from an area like Kelowna, where obviously there are limits to growth such as water, land and a very expensive infrastructure, given the layout of the terrain.... If we continue to grow at the current rate, what does the minister see as the limits to growth, and what will he do with regard to water quantity and quality in terms of delivering it to the residents of Kelowna, if the area continues to grow at its current rate?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think that Kelowna and the Okanagan are starting to recognize the issue that you raise -- that there has been in that area a feeling that growth could grow exponentially. Anything could happen -- you know, it's wonderful that people would come here; let's just build up the houses and the infrastructure. But we're realizing now, of course, that there are natural impediments to that kind of growth, and I'm very encouraged by what I think is a change of attitude and approach by the elected officials in that area.
You're the elected member for that area; hopefully you are encouraging them to continue the insights that you seem to have on these issues, hon. member. I think there is a recognition that growth cannot continue indefinitely -- that there are consequences to that. In your region, of course, the major one is water availability, and we are very conscious of the fact that the Okanagan and Kelowna area have some problems. We are prepared to give sound advice on how much growth they should handle and what they should do to minimize the impact.
Part of it, of course -- and again I go back to it -- is that we need to have greater regional integration of growth in that area. I think we need to have official community plans in that area that aren't changed sometimes overnight, with people not knowing what the long-term direction is. So we're available. We are moving ahead on our agenda and our provincial interests, at the same time working with those areas that you represent at the local level and encouraging them to participate with us.
J. Tyabji: One of the specifics of the riding that comes to mind is with regard to the Bennett home. It is a heritage home, and I'm sure the minister understands that all three parties have come out supporting this being preserved as a historic or heritage site, including the hon. Premier during the election campaign when he said that he felt this was of great value, that two Premiers had lived in this home. What is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs planning to do with regard to the Bennett home and similar heritage sites?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Nothing. It's not in this ministry.
J. Tyabji: The recent Mount Boucherie fire saw a very grave problem with regard to the interfacing of forested lands and homes -- urban development that was encroaching on the forests. Is the ministry considering making tougher regulations to prevent this kind of danger in the future -- for example, the use of fireproof roofing materials and regulations on the distance between forests and housing?
Hon. R. Blencoe: This ministry is not planning anything. It's the Ministry of Forests' issue.
J. Tyabji: I would say that with regard to the planning of where homes should be, I don't think that would be under the Ministry of Forests. If there are building codes that would say that.... In the event of a home being built adjacent to a forest, there should be some kind of fire retardant with regard to the roofing. Even if there is some overlap with the Ministry of Forests, I would urge this minister not to pass the buck and to recognize that there are homes being built interfacing the forest. Perhaps he should get together
[ Page 1601 ]
with the Minister of Forests and do something so that we don't have this kind of potential problem in the future.
Hon. R. Blencoe: If the member wishes to give me the details, her recommendations for change and what we can do in the ministry, I'll gladly take that under advisement and see what can be done. I'm not aware of the area that she's referring to. I suspect it's more of an unorganized rural area that.... No? Then tell me some more.
J. Tyabji: The area in question actually is within a couple of minutes of Kelowna. What we have a lot happening in Kelowna is....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: It's not in the city boundaries per se. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of the city. Within the city boundary there is exactly the same setup. In fact, just a stone's throw from where I live we have the exact same setup, where within the city boundary you have a subdivision located right in the middle of a forest. That happens all over Kelowna. There has been a lot of talk over the years that there's.... People in the forest industry have mentioned this as a potential hazard, and the planning hasn't taken this into account. The recommendation that I would make to the minister is that there should probably be some guidelines as to how far a forest boundary goes, or at least some emergency measures in place so that in the event of a subdivision being located that close to a forest, there would be some kind of boundary or there would be bulldozers available to push sand -- whatever the specifics are. I wouldn't figure out the specifics myself, but I think that should be taken care of.
With regard to the developing cost charges, obviously in Kelowna DCCs have been a very hot topic lately. I'm just wondering if the minister is reviewing it, or if he has any thoughts with regard to developer cost charges.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We had a discussion on this a little earlier in terms of the generic issue of development costs. We are doing extensive work on development costs and areas for improvement. But in terms of the specific area that the member brings to my attention, I'm not aware that it has come to my desk or that I've been asked to do anything. Staff tell me they are not aware of it either.
J. Tyabji: My understanding from discussions between my staff and the staff of city hall is that the ministry is currently reviewing DCCs in general, and that this would have some specific relevance to Kelowna and the rate of growth. I'm just wondering if I could communicate something like that to them.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I indicated that, in general, we are doing that along with the UBCM. A number of recommendations have been around for some time, and hopefully we will be coming forward, maybe in the next session, with some changes.
J. Tyabji: There seems to be an overall need for an integration of planning among ministries with regard to municipalities. In Kelowna we have 43 percent of our land base still in the ALR, with a lot of pressure on that land; obviously there's an overlap with the Ministry of Agriculture. I'm just wondering if Municipal Affairs is planning to take a leading role with regard to land use conflicts within the urban centres, where you have conflicting ministries and levels of government all competing for a land use strategy.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We had a discussion about coordinating ministries and interministry activity, and I think we had a good discussion with your critic. The ministry obviously is involved in those kinds of competing interests and conflicts. I wouldn't say that we will be the lead ministry or the facilitator, but we certainly have a perception or an approach to these issues that is sometimes useful to ministries that are really honing in on one specific issue that they think is important. We can play a facilitating role. We have in the past, and we will continue to do so.
[5:00]
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, on a different subject, we have a downtown revitalization program in Kelowna that has been very successful in helping small businesses in Kelowna. Of course, with the pressure of cross-border shopping and a tough economy, this is something that we'd really like to see kept in place. I'm just wondering if the minister is planning to continue to assist with the downtown revitalization program.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, we had a discussion about this half an hour ago. The program is alive and well; it's successful. We will continue to expand it, and I know it's well received by your community. Many of the opposition members' communities will be receiving grants in the next few weeks for important projects in their communities.
Actually, I should make this offer to all of you. If you would like to get a listing of where the money is going, I'm sure that Martin Thomas in my ministry will be only too glad to let you know exactly the status of the applications, if any of your communities have applied. The simple answer is that it's a good program; it works well and it's well supported. It brings lots of good spirit to those communities.
G. Wilson: I understand there has been a fairly extensive discussion on regional planning and your approach to it, and I was delighted to hear some of your responses.
I'd like to be a little bit more specific, if I might, with respect to the removal of duplication of services in the local government area. Could we focus on a situation in my own riding? This is a unique regional district. It provides a number of services and is almost more akin to a municipality. It is essentially providing those services in an area that is separated from West Vancouver by a ferry and from Powell River by another ferry. Therefore it is isolated in that sense. I wonder what the minister's views are with respect to the proposition of realigning municipal jurisdictions and regional district
[ Page 1602 ]
jurisdictions into new, single, one-government entities to remove duplication. Could you give me some thoughts on how your ministry might approach such a proposition?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I thank the opposition leader for his comments. I know of his interest in this topic. There are a number of models that have been looked and thought about. Fort Nelson-Liard is requesting that we take a look at their unique and novel ways of wanting to integrate into one government for a fairly extensive area.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
There are pros and cons, obviously. I think the bottom line, of course, is to ensure that we provide the best services effectively and efficiently and get a good return. I'm certainly open to taking a look at alternative ways of doing things. I can just hear the letters being written and the phone calls being made now. There has to be some kind of local consensus on what kind of model they want. I'm sure, hon. member, that you'd be the first to say: "There goes that provincial government telling local government what to do." I don't have to say more. Be that as it may, I think we have the obligation to take a look at different structures. Actually I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this topic.
G. Wilson: Most municipal officers and a lot of the residents of the area would be interested to hear your comments and thoughts on this matter. It really is driven not so much by a political demand as it is by an increasing recognition that there can be a more efficient delivery of services at this level, given that we have, as I say, a unique situation with respect to the regional district.
There is a history of two restructuring propositions that were put forward. One created the district municipality of Sechelt, and the other one was a failed attempt to create a similar district municipality for Gibsons. I know that the minister has been very actively involved in various municipal conventions: AVIM, UBCM. In fact, he's one of the few ministers who has been a dedicated attendee. He would be familiar with those problems.
What is this ministry's policy for dealing with restructuring? What kind of balloting would take place? Who would be eligible to vote on the proposition? Those in, those out, those who will be included, or only those that are currently affected by the tax base? Do you have any thoughts that you can share with us?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I can tell you that we have a number of good public servants in my ministry who have become the restructure experts. They have all learned how to survive what can be very difficult boundary extensions and restructuring, when not everybody is happy with these kinds of expansions.
The way it works is that if an area is concerned or considering some different approaches or restructuring, they come to us for a study grant to take a look at the possibilities, to be able to talk to all the affected parties. Then a local committee is struck -- it can be representatives of local government, or often it has no local government at all; it's community-based -- so that it can give a direction. We set them up financially to take a look at all the various things they might want to put into a restructure concept.
If they achieve consensus -- and this is the key -- on what the right question is and therefore the right boundaries.... I have already noticed, hon. member, that I get many of these requests where they do this study and do their work, but consensus is not always achieved. In the end, the minister has to take a look and listen to all the various parties. You obviously can't please everybody, and in the end you just have to make a boundary, make a decision, and this is what you go with. As much as possible, though, my attempt is to try and reflect the requests of the study committee. If they've got partial consensus, I try to take that into account. When they've got that and when the boundaries are set, there's a vote.
Some of the toughest politics, if you will, is in those restructure times, because people see their communities being changed. Right now, I'm dealing with Gibsons and Elphinstone. Do you know those...?
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Only too well. Exactly. So you know of what I speak, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Conflicts do exist, and the Gibsons and Elphinstone question is one that I do know extremely well. The bid, for example, to share water systems or to have Gibsons included in a regional district water system is something that's underway now.
Is there any proposition within the ministry to actually set down some new guidelines with respect to the voting procedure? It seems that the question of who votes is what sticks most communities on this issue of restructuring. Is it going to be only those that are in the current municipality, or will it include those that are likely to be affected?
In the case of Gibsons, for example, there was a considerable amount of controversy with respect to who got Port Mellon, which is one of the largest pulp mills in the region and therefore a substantial portion of the tax base. Presumably that will have an effect on the entire region. To what extent does the region have a say in the loss or potential loss of that tax base? I wonder if the minister can elaborate a little bit on whether or not we're looking at some new guidelines to try and get around some of these conflicts.
Hon. R. Blencoe: To some degree. I'm not wanting to appear to be trying to avoid the question, hon. member, but a lot of the question is somewhat hypothetical. I don't want to reflect on what might happen in the future, but in the voting procedure there is flexibility in how they vote. The restructure committee could recommend that it be done within the overall area. They could have a ward vote if they so desired, or an overall vote. They can make that recommendation to me. Primarily, my way of dealing with this is to allow the local committee and local groups to try to find the
[ Page 1603 ]
solutions and consensus themselves. I think we've had experience in the past where it has been imposed by the provincial government, and it's still talked about.
I think we can be advisers. We can help. We can be arbitrators or mediators when sometimes, in these restructures, there are warring parties. They really get quite intense. I think we can try and help calm the waters, not always successfully. I also find though, in these restructure votes, that the controversy can be intense. The committee sticks to its guns, the vote goes through and within months it's forgotten. If it has been achieved at the local level, there has been a high degree of consensus. I'm of the view that if the provincial government is called upon to make impositions, usually those kinds of restructures have problems for years because the people have not brought it about themselves.
G. Wilson: The minister suggested that there was some money available for these committees to do their work. In terms of restructuring, I think the minister indicated that some dollars were available. How much, how much is left, how much hasn't been claimed and how does one go about getting it?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Maybe staff could find the exact amount, though the answer is that there's lots of money available for this year.
I have the exact amounts. We have $6 million available for restructure grants this year. It's a considerable amount of money. An annual maximum of $60,000 will be available to the municipalities for restructure purposes. Grants of up to $40,000 for studies, preparation of information, material presentation for the public and interim administration are available to a municipality or regional district in any fiscal year.
G. Wilson: Not wanting to be hypothetical, but could I put to the minister that if two municipalities and one regional district thought there might be some proposition to integrate some service toward a one-government system for that region, that means they would be eligible for $120,000 to do it? Could they each get $40,000?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Good try. Very good. My answer is: not necessarily, but we would take a look at the terms of reference, and who knows what we could come up with?
[5:15]
G. Wilson: On a completely different topic... And now for something completely different, as has been said before by a different group. The proposition that's now before the federal constitutional committee speaks about the implementation of a third order of government -- I think those are the terms that have been agreed to by the federal minister. That third order of government is essentially self-government for aboriginal people, something that I think most Canadians support and one that I don't have too much difficulty with as a concept. I wonder to what extent the Minister of Municipal Affairs is involved in the negotiation of the B.C. position with respect to this. Insofar as we already have a third order of government, which is municipal government, and the municipal government is getting no recognition in terms of a formal statement or status within the constitution, we have some considerable potential for conflict if we don't have clearly delineated jurisdictions and shared obligations and responsibilities. I wonder if the minister could address that question as to whether or not he's involved, and if so, to what extent?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Obviously I am involved to the extent that my colleague the Minister of Labour, who is also the minister for the constitutional discussions, briefs us regularly. I have input in terms of impact on local government. I am well aware of the UBCM's request for a place at the table, and they continue to advocate their position. There are, of course, a number of others who would also like to have a position at the table. The UBCM has, I believe, consulted widely on this issue. If they have a grievance that they're not being part of it to the degree.... I cannot make a statement one way or the other in terms of their being at the table. What I can do, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, is.... Up to that level, if they feel they're not getting the attention they should, or being listened to or consulted by whomever, then they should bring that to my attention. Thus far the only comment has been that they want to be at the table. My understanding is that the Premier has said no to that request, in terms of being at the constitutional discussion.
In terms of local government, obviously it is a level of government, de facto though it is. There's no question about that; I've always said that, all the years I've been here. That's where I came from. But the question particularly at this time -- and you're referring to it -- is whether it is the appropriate time, and whether it would complicate the constitutional process at this time, given that we have a number of items on the agenda in those constitutional discussions. Now we lead into the whole question of a municipal bill of rights and all that stuff that's on the agenda -- constitutionally being recognized as a level of government. There are two schools of thought: yes, we do it now, or wait till we get through this very difficult period in terms of the rest of Canada and then put this back on the agenda. That's the current thinking.
G. Wilson: If I could follow on this line for a couple more questions. I should preface my remarks by saying that I'm not suggesting that there should not be an order of government that provides for aboriginal self-government. I'm saying that there should be some provision for the inherent right to self-government. I think most of us would argue that. I come from a municipality in which there is a successful model, I think the first aboriginal self-government in Canada, the Sechelts, which is a municipal model and works very well. There's no animosity and no hard feeling and no barbed-wire fences; people are able to interact and relate well together. It's not a model that is going to be used, I suspect, by very many other groups.
My concern, and my question to the minister, has to do more specifically with the administration and fi-
[ Page 1604 ]
nancing of that third order of government in relation to what is an existing order of government, be it third, fourth or fifth -- municipalities, which require taxing authority, financing and the ability to put in place infrastructure, services, housing and those kinds of things -- and to what extent those municipalities, given the complexity of the finalization of land claims, might be able to work with a level of government that may in fact be, through this round of constitutional discussions, given a status closer to provincial rather than municipal authority.
I recognize that it's a complex question, but it's a very important question, and it has to be dealt with. Otherwise it would strike me that we're going to put this ministry and those who are trying to deal effectively with the disbursement of taxpayers' money into a serious straitjacket potentially -- not necessarily, but potentially -- where you have overlapping jurisdictions as a result of municipal boundaries overlapping with the boundaries of these new negotiated self-governments. I wonder if we could have that explained.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We are very aware of this issue, I can assure you. We have specific staff assigned to this, working on it, monitoring it, doing special research. I think we all agree that we're into a whole new area that we have to be very careful with and think through and make sure we all understand where we're going. I don't think anyone pretends to have the answers or the solutions. We're all going to work hard to try and find the best ways to deal with it.
I should point out one of the things -- I can't remember the specifics -- we're working on now. There are tax-sharing legislation arrangements that can be done now in terms of municipalities. Where's the one we're working on? Is it Westbank in Kelowna? It's a major one that we're involved with now. I think we're very close to an arrangement. And Kamloops. There are half a dozen of them that we are putting in quite an amount of time, trying to find.... Local governments, of course, wanting to have a tax share and have some access to those taxes, and quite rightly so.... I think we'll continue.
The Indian Taxation Advisory Board is very active. Our ministry is working with it. I think we've already had some successes, and we'll have some more. But in terms of the overall, I don't disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. We are into some very interesting ground that is going to take a lot of thought and a lot of understanding, quite frankly.
G. Wilson: I'd like to thank the minister for his direct and forthright responses to my questions. It's nice to see this kind of exchange possible in the Legislature of British Columbia. I'm sure that the applications for the $120,000 will be coming shortly.
A. Cowie: Could I inquire from the Chair how much time we've got?
Interjection.
A. Cowie: We have four to six hours of questions. I would like to accommodate my associate behind me.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: Go till 6? I would like to accommodate one more of my colleagues, and then I'll get back into some general planning.
V. Anderson: I wanted to ask about the housing programs. As I understand, there were three housing programs that had previously been under Social Services and have been transferred into this ministry as of this year. I wanted to confirm that all three went to this ministry. They did go out of Social Services. One was at the at-home program and the other was the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, the SAFER program. The third one was the housing program. Confirm that all three of them went into this ministry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Sorry, I didn't catch the first one.
V. Anderson: The at-home program.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The others I will confirm came into this ministry. Yes, you're correct. I'll check out this at-home program.
An Hon. Member: Wrong ministry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Wrong ministry? Thank you.
V. Anderson: No, two of them went here. I wasn't sure about that one.
Regarding the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, could you comment on that and explain how it's operating within the ministry at this point?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's operating very well. It's transferred nicely. The 12 staff came from Social Services. They're doing a good job. We've budgeted about $17 to $18 million for the program this year. What more can I say? If you have any specific questions about the program, please go ahead. I might say, though, it does make sense to have this program in the Housing portfolio. There are a number of other programs where, in time, it might make sense to do that.
V. Anderson: Yes, I do agree that it makes sense to transfer it into this program.
Seniors are wondering whether the program has been increased or decreased in benefits this year and what has happened to their security under this program with the change.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the security is as strong as ever, but in this budget year there haven't been any budget increases. Let me give you the rate ceilings to the SAFER program as they are now. The rate ceiling for singles is $520, for couples it's $575 and for those who are sharing it's $885. The last SAFER rent ceiling was in July of 1990.
I can't add anything else. I don't know if we have a total number of people who are actually benefiting from the program. Do we have that? Yes, the average benefits
[ Page 1605 ]
paid: $10,200 for singles; number of recipients, 760 couples; 302 sharers, interestingly enough.
Also to the member, maybe I can just give you an example of how it works. It might give you a help here. To ensure that the low-income elderly renters receive proportionally greater assistance, for instance, a single renter with $1,000 a month income paying $625 a month rent received $172. A couple with $1,250 a month income paying $750 rent received $136.
V. Anderson: One of the concerns that I have is whether all of the seniors who are eligible are actually aware of this program and of their eligibility. Is there a manner in which this information is conveyed to them on a regular basis so that they might know to apply and how to apply?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have an extensive communication system to those who are already on the program, to reapply, for those who might think they are eligible. We do newspaper advertising. I suspect we work with Social Services people in terms of those they might see who would be eligible. We have a toll-free telephone line, I'm being told here. It's a program that we're quite rightly proud of, and if we can, we make sure that people know about it. In my work as an MLA I've found people who don't know about it, who didn't know they were eligible. We're always trying to find ways to make sure people understand their eligibility.
[5:30]
V. Anderson: Most of these people probably are receiving pension cheques through Canada Pension one way or the other. Is there a possibility that information might go out with those cheques, to make sure that they're aware of it?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We'll take a look at ways to inform through our mailing system, our cheques, maybe through GAIN.
I'd like to introduce a member of staff who has joined us, Mr. Gary Paget, who these days is the executive officer in charge of the various housing programs within the ministry.
V. Anderson: I'm shifting for a moment, and then I'll introduce it back to Art Cowie.
Could you describe briefly what is being done under the housing program that you have taken over into this ministry as well?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have already outlined the SAFER component of the ministry. The B.C. Housing Management Commission administers the social housing program that we cost-share with the federal government and the various unit allocations that we develop in partnership with the federal government. We also, of course, do rent supplements as well, and we're expanding that this year to do more rent supplements in cooperative housing. Our legislative mandate works with the National Housing Act, the social services and housing act, and, as I've already said, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters.
Although we are still somewhat under a cloud in terms of the federal government's contribution to social housing in this province, we will be moving ahead with what we know and building as many units as we can this year. We are continuing to complete the goal of 6,400 units of additional private rental units under the British Columbia rental supply program, which was commenced by the old government. I believe there are about 2,000 more units, if I'm correct, to complete in that area.
It will be announced very soon.... One of the difficulties in this province is that we've never really had any document that tells what the housing policy of British Columbia is, and we're going to be working on a consultation process with all the stakeholders to develop a housing policy for the province so that we can clearly articulate where we're going in housing. That will be forthcoming in the very near future.
One of the surprising things is that within the ministry there was little or no capacity for policy development. We will be trying to improve that in this budget year in terms of bringing on people who can help us develop this policy for British Columbia.
We have the B.C. Housing Management Commission, of which I'm sure the member is aware, but they're basically our development arm. They basically carry out the mandate of building and working with the private and the non-profit sectors.
We are developing housing adaptations and new programs for seniors. We'll be making some announcements in that area in the very near future. The Provincial Rental Housing Corporation, which basically is the financial arm of B.C. Housing, acquires the land; they purchase the sites. The Provincial Rental Housing Corporation is our development arm. It deals with the money side of B.C. Housing.
What else do we do? A number of other programs: matching start-up grants, housing start-up grants, study grants to housing societies. We will be doing some more in terms of planning grants for local government as well. Most of our programs for housing -- about $81 million, by the way, hon. member -- are for the social housing component. I expect that in years ahead we'll be expanding the type of programs. Quite frankly, we've not been diversified enough. We need to do a lot more. This ministry will be trying to get local government to do a lot more, working with their zoning and community plans. We'll take a look, for example, at legalizing more secondary suites, which will help us go a long way toward resolving some of our housing crises.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that expansive response, because it indicates greatly what the minister is interested in and what will be forthcoming. We'll look forward to that with anticipation.
One specific group I would ask about is those in the 50 to 60 age range. This is a group of low-income people that are caught in between. When you get older you can get into housing, but what about those in the 50 to 60 age range?
[ Page 1606 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sorry, hon. member, could you repeat your question?
V. Anderson: First of all, I was complimenting you on the expansion of that program; it's very much needed. Then I was asking particularly about the 50 to 60 age range, because many of those people are just below where there are opportunities, and they have a great need of it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Are you talking about eligibility for social housing?
V. Anderson: Yes.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's an issue that's been brought to my attention, particularly for single parents, who sometimes feel discriminated against in our allocations. There are also certain age groups; the group from about 55 to 65 are hard to house. We are adjusting and taking a look.... If I recall, we made some shifts in policy this time to try and find some ways to help that age group a little more. We have to be very careful, of course, in terms of the Charter and not favouring one or the other. It has to be approached in an equal fashion.
My deputy minister tells me that we did reduce the single women's age, to 45, I believe. That was done in consultation with a number of organizations who have been asking government for some time to do that.
Let me just say that the difficulty we've got, hon. member, is that we don't have anywhere near the units that we require to deal with these issues. We're really just scratching the surface in terms of the need.
A. Cowie: I'd like to get off social housing for the rest of today, but we will come back tomorrow and deal generally with housing, affordable housing, innovation and the zoning that's necessary. I'd like to hear your opinions, so we'll deal with that tomorrow.
I'd like to get back to some of this crystal ball gazing that my friend from the third party refers to me as wishing to do all the time. First of all, I'd like to say that as far as planning goes, as far as I'm concerned, one starts with a very general community plan and then gets more specific through area plans down to action plans, where you can get more detail. I want to make sure the zoning is in conformity with those. The problem in the past has been that the lawyers have insisted that these community plans become too specific. They're meant to be guidelines. They're meant to be flexible. They're meant to be updated every five years. I want to make it absolutely clear for the member of the third party, so he recognizes that we're not asking for something that's written in stone. But it has to be specific; otherwise, the poor old developer can't respond properly.
With the limited time left, I think we could probably deal with the Islands Trust and get that over with, although the member for Saanich North and the Islands has one specific question he'd like to ask tomorrow. I've met with the Islands Trust, so it won't take too long.
I've always considered that the islands covered by the Islands Trust are such a unique area that it has to be looked at as something with a unique quality from a North American point of view, at least from a Canadian point of view. And I've often thought that the Islands Trust, which is looking after the area, didn't have a very clear mandate of what it was all about. Basically, there's one clear mandate: they want to stop development. That's clear. But what's needed is to recognize that this area is unique and that a lot of people want to visit the islands. Another thing that is absolutely clear is that you have to get the Highways department clear out of the Islands Trust, if you want to preserve its integrity, because of their policy of having 66-foot road rights-of-way, which is absolutely decimating the islands.
But I'd like to perhaps ask the....
Interjection.
A. Cowie: I wish I had property on the islands. It takes too long to get there. I decided to have property on the mainland.
I notice that the Islands Trust is now going to have an additional planner, and that's of course all very nice. But I would like to know if the minister has some opinion on where we're going in this provincial plan that we talk about -- the strategy for preserving this unique area and making it possible for us to visit it occasionally, enjoy it, and not be detrimental to its unique environmental quality.
Now that's a nice general question for the minister to go on with for a few minutes.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The Islands Trust actually is about to launch a review of where they're going in the future. They are doing a considerable amount of work. I attended one of their meetings recently, and they were going through a study session of what the Islands Trust was all about: where is it going, what is its vision. I think it's been around a long time -- 1972-75, during those interesting years. Now I think it's come to a point where -- and I think the Trust agrees -- it's looking at itself: what is its objective; what is it going to do in the next 20 years. Of course there is a perception, and I think the member... I think there was a tone from the member that he feels sometimes the Trust is a little exclusive, shall we say. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but they do feel strongly about their islands. There's no question about that. They are remarkable.
There are some real development problems on the islands. It may very well be that the islanders sometimes are protective -- overprotective, some would say. There are some real limits to further growth in development. I think the Islands Trust is aware of the perception. I don't think they're anti-development. I think they just want to make sure they can control it properly. They want to manage it properly.
[5:45]
I'm not going to comment on the Galiano situation right now. Suffice it to say it's in the courts, but I think that is significant in terms of where I think the Trust is going to take a look at its agenda. In the next year or so, if I'm right, there will be a lot more work in this area by the Trust. We will have an active role. We won't just be bystanders. Whoever is minister or government of the
[ Page 1607 ]
day, the province will have to approve any changes to the Islands Trust. So it's a balancing act.
A. Cowie: I want to make it absolutely clear that I want to see the islands absolutely protected, but I want the people of this province to be able to visit and enjoy this unique resource. The delicate balance that the minister talks about is terribly important, and I'm glad the minister recognizes that.
Perhaps there's time for the minister to respond to one island in particular.
An Hon. Member: Bowen Island.
A. Cowie: How did you know?
One would almost say that Bowen Island is part of the mainland. It's certainly almost part of West Vancouver. Bowen Island has reached the stage where a lot of people live there for three or four days, and they commute. There is definitely a problem in resolving the direction of that island. As a matter of fact, it was Bowen Island that first started the whole idea of the Islands Trust in 1972. It started right there. Julie Glover was hired as the result of a workshop done on that island. The parents of one member of your staff live there. They have a great dedication to the island as well. As a matter of fact, they have a really good sense of it in order to protect it.
There are some large land parcels. The time has now come where they either have to be developed, or there has to be some method of dealing with where they're going to go. They just can't keep spending money and not getting an answer. It's not fair.
Perhaps the minister could tell me if he thinks that Bowen Island belongs to the mainland or whether it should be part of West Vancouver or not. A nice, easy question to end the day.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I know that this is not allowed, as I am the one being asked the questions, but maybe you'd give me your answer first. What do you think, hon. member?
A. Cowie: You're the minister.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm the minister; right.
I knew the question on Bowen Island was coming, because I get a lot of letters on Bowen Island. There's a lot of emotion and feeling about the island and where it should go. There's no consensus, though, on where the island should be in terms of municipal status. My understanding is that the GVRD doesn't want Bowen Island as part of the GVRD. I guess we'll continue to look at it. Hopefully consensus will be achieved in terms of whether they stay within the Trust or become their own municipality, or whether they belong to the mainland, Vancouver Island or the Gulf Islands. These issues are ongoing. If there's no consensus on the island, I don't think the provincial government is going to sort of parachute in and say: "This is what you should be and where you should go."
A. Cowie: That answer was a little shorter than I thought, so maybe I can deal with process. One might want to take some leadership here, from the minister's point of view. Rather than letting this development issue swell up -- arguments, going to court and all that sort of thing -- would the minister feel like implementing some kind of arbitration process where they actually have to go into a room and come out with an answer?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's not just on Bowen Island. The member has raised an issue that I think is quite important. There are a number of contentious issues around the province, whereby the tendency has been to say: "You resolve it. You have your dispute. Don't bother us. When you've figured it out, come back and see us." I happen to be of the view that we can do a little more in terms of being mediators or facilitators. Indeed, I've asked some staff to actually put themselves in that position. It's somewhat dangerous ground sometimes, but sometimes they have success. My answer to you, in a generic sense, is that I think the ministry can have a role to play in terms of trying to bring the parties together.
In terms of leadership on Bowen Island, there may be a time when we have to achieve that, but I don't think we're there yet. I would like to see if consensus can be achieved on Bowen Island.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
A. Cowie: I've finished my questions for today. We'll be adjourning again on Thursday, unless the minister wants to make more comments.
The Chair: Are you making a motion?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee 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: First of all, I'd like to advise the House that the House will be sitting tomorrow afternoon. Secondly, I'd like to move that this House stand adjourned until 6 p.m. this evening, and upon resumption of the sitting, the House continue to sit no later than 10 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
[ Page 1608 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:41 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
On vote 28: minister's office, $296,000 (continued).
R. Chisholm: I want to talk about CORE and some of the energy hot spots -- which the minister is aware of -- that are supposed to be addressed by CORE in the near future. For instance, the contention and delays that currently plague Windy Craggy -- which I have brought up before -- or the small garnet proposal at Apex Alpine: will these be addressed? Are there others like them that we are going to see in the future?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member may know we made a ministerial statement indicating that there will be an announcement in the fairly near future about how we will deal with Windy Craggy. Perhaps he knows that the garnet mine at the Apex project, as he referred to it, has been referred to Mr. Youds, who is currently conducting further consultations with the people in the community. I believe he has a deadline and will come back with a recommendation in a couple of weeks.
R. Chisholm: The review of Windy Craggy, the international environment review and the parks review, which have also been announced.... Will these be separate from each other on the Windy Craggy issue, for instance? Will they be co-done? Will they be talking to each other? Is there a simpler method to this?
Hon. A. Edwards: As you know, the Windy Craggy mine is already into the mine development process. We will go through the Parks and Wilderness for the 90s discussions with Windy Craggy. In other words, it will be that process.
R. Chisholm: Then all three of these reviews will be coordinated with each other over that proposal?
[2:45]
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically, yes.
R. Chisholm: Is there a timetable for resolving the contentious mining and energy disputes in B.C.? When CORE was announced, they set out a very definite timetable to deal with the logging situation here on Vancouver Island and in a few other areas around the province. It seems as though the emphasis of CORE has been, for the most part, on forestry issues. I am curious as to whether it will play the same role for mining and energy. If so, what is its timetable and agenda? Won't much of its mandate overlap with that of the B.C. Energy Council? Will we have two commissions travelling the province at the same time, asking people for their input and opinions on the future of our resources? How will these committees fit together and coordinate?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Commission on Resources and Environment is on process. It has some particular areas where it will work with communities to make sure that the process is involved and that it's followed appropriately, so that some conclusion comes to some conflicts that were particularly troublesome. Beyond that, the commission will deal with process. It is not project-directed; it is process-directed. It is to come in with some processes that will be used by groups and communities that will help us to reach some decisions on land use, to deal with some conflicts that already exist and to avoid conflicts that don't already exist. Basically CORE is looking at processes that we can use in British Columbia to achieve good land use.
The B.C. Energy Council, which is looking specifically at energy policy, should have very little overlap, I would think.
R. Chisholm: What is the time-line for the B.C. Energy Council? If we understand it correctly, it has a mandate to review past judgments on some very important issues which will have major implications for British Columbia's development. First and foremost among these is the issue of power exports. I will start off from the assumption that as of now, this government officially has no policy on power exports. Is that correct, or is it a poor assumption?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: I would repeat that the B.C. Energy Council is currently under legislation. Bill 18 will be debated in the House, and the issues of policy and the issues that come up around the council and its workings should properly be debated there. As much as I would like to discuss it here, I'm afraid it would be inappropriate.
R. Chisholm: I understand that it is under legislation, Madam Minister, but money has been allotted out of the budget for this purpose.
I'll leave that for the time being and go to my last question, which is on Burrard Thermal. I'm talking about power exports. Does this power export extend to that generating plant? The Minister for Labour and Constitutional Affairs and various other things seems to have come out quite openly in support of the application to export energy. This would seem to be in opposition to the GVRD. I am aware that the minister cannot be asked to speak for another minister. However, I'm curious as to whether the member does speak for this ministry. Does the minister share the opinion of the other member? What are her plans for the Burrard Thermal generating project? How will it be affected by CORE or the Energy Council?
Hon. A. Edwards: I believe the member was referring to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. That minister has written a letter about the Burrard Thermal plant, which is a B.C. Hydro facility. He was
[ Page 1609 ]
representing B.C. Hydro's interests in a hearing currently before the Utilities Commission. That hearing is looking into short-term interruptible power export which would not require new dedicated facilities for that kind of export. The decision of the Utilities Commission will come in, I believe, at the end of June.
There are other issues concerning the Burrard Thermal plant. Some of them have to do with the GVRD, which is responsible for the air emission standards in that area.
R. Chisholm: Madam Minister, I spoke to that same commission. What I want to know is how it will be affected by CORE. Will it be affected at all? What is your opinion?
Hon. A. Edwards: As far as I know, this situation is fairly well defined. It's an issue for the B.C. Utilities Commission. I can't think how the Commission on Resources and Environment would be involved in any way.
G. Wilson: I have only a few questions, but they all specifically have to do with what are generally classified as alternative sources of energy and the production of electric-specific energy as well as the potential for the production of fuels from alternative energy sources. I wonder if the minister could outline what moneys, if any, have been earmarked, dedicated or currently put toward research and development of such alternative sources of energy supply in British Columbia. What kind of projections can we expect with respect to the kind of research that may be ongoing?
Hon. A. Edwards: We have in the province an experimental bus that is using an alternative fuel source, which is of course hydrogen. The technology for that bus has been developed in North Vancouver, and it's top of the line, right at the head of the line, as far as modern front-line research goes. We have $4.7 million in that experimental bus. It will be used, as I said to the member last week, at the Commonwealth Games.
The government has done several other things as far as alternative fuels are concerned, and one of them is that we do not tax methanol/ethanol natural gas as fuels for vehicles.
G. Wilson: My question actually was more broad in nature, rather than about a specific prototype of a bus. Perhaps I could ask if the minister believes that it's within the mandate of this ministry to start to move us from a fossil-fuel-based economy to an economy based on alternate sources of fuel production that are less damaging to the environment and will be less finite in terms of their supply. Does the minister see that there is a need for dollars to go into research to get us off a fossil-fuel-based economy? If so, what would be the focus of any new research that would be done in that regard?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm trying to answer at the level on which the question was asked.
We have a fairly broad-based approach to alternate fuels within the ministry. We have a Fuel Smart program where we keep an eye on what's going on. We make some suggestions; we have some experimental fuel-saving projects, and so on. Basically, we have to depend on CANMET and the Science Council of B.C. for most of the research that is done. A lot of the research in B.C. is done in the universities. Whether or not that means we're going to ultimately get beyond fossil fuels, I'm not too sure. Certainly we are looking at all forms of fuels and the most efficient use of fuels that we can determine.
G. Wilson: I think the minister would agree -- if not, perhaps she could say so -- that there are really three broad categories in which energy production in the province is consumed. One is electric-specific energy, which generally is not considered a fuel; the second is consumptive fuels that are used to fuel automobiles and to run internal-combustion engines and those sorts of things; the third is the production of heat energy in industrial complexes, as well as in residential areas. Of the largest component of that, clearly the heat energy demand is the greatest, and the demand for fossil fuel is the most substantial. Yet as an efficiency on the use of those fuels, the burning of coal or oil tends to be less efficient on a cost-recoverable basis. Certainly research would indicate that to be so. If not, maybe you could outline where I could find that not to be correct.
It would appear then that British Columbia should be -- if we're to try and move toward a society that has more effective and efficient use of energy supply -- enhancing the electric-specific demand, whether it's for heat energy or to run electric motors. We should be moving away from the heavy dependency that we have on fossil fuels in the heat demand as well as in the fuel demand for such things as automobiles.
To crystallize my questions to you: I'm anxious to know whether or not your ministry sees this as a mandate. If it does see it as a mandate, what are we doing to try and move away from fossil fuels?
Let me give you a very specific example. There has been considerable research done in other parts of the world on the production of methane gas as a usable fuel off solid waste and municipal waste disposal through anaerobic digestive processes. There are some environmental fallouts to methane, quite clearly, but that is one example.
In British Columbia we have a fairly significant geothermal potential. Is there any research into doing something to enhance that potential in B.C.? There's a good deal of research that has been undertaken in Ottawa, although I would point out that the Science Council has undergone some substantial financial cuts, as I'm sure you're aware. There is a good deal of research that went into photovoltaics and the potential for the use of photovoltaics in terms of electric production -- particularly in relation to small electrical demand that doesn't require too high a generating capacity.
These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. I'm anxious to know whether or not you see this as a mandate, and whether or not there's money being put i
[ Page 1610 ]
nto research to assist getting these alternate systems up and running.
Hon. A. Edwards: I have a plethora of information for the Leader of the Opposition. I'll certainly try to put it together in a way that gives him an answer to his question.
We do see it as the mandate of the ministry to look at conservation and most efficient use. Those two things are not necessarily the same thing. I might mention that B.C.'s share of energy consumption is 35 percent oil. That's down 10 percent from 1980, when it was 45 percent; it's declining about one percentage point a year. That's because of the efficiency of programs, basically.
We have done a couple of projects related to the methane from garbage; we did two in 1988, but we haven't had the money to fund them again. There is probably going to be a significant abundance of coal-bed methane that may be developed in the province. It's basically then natural gas, and that, I suppose, is a fossil fuel. I'm not sure whether that's what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about or not. It's a large part of what natural gas is anyway, so there it is.
We have some work going on in the province on geothermal. We let a contract earlier this year or late last year to a researcher/operator who wanted to start work on geothermal resources in B.C. It was near Lillooet. It's not the first project in place in the province. We have a number of other projects for energy conservation and energy efficiency. I'm not sure if I'm going in the right direction or if you want more information. If you do, perhaps you could point your questions.
[3:00]
G. Wilson: We are going in exactly the right direction. My questions come from my fundamental belief, which I think members of my caucus share, that if we are to be world leaders, we have to commit a great deal more research toward finding alternate systems of fuel if we're not to be constantly tied to the petroleum industry and coal. If you look at the budgets currently being spent in Southeast Asian countries, Japan, notably, is spending roughly 40 times what Canada is on seeking alternate systems of energy production. If we aren't leaders, we'll be followers, and it seems to me that we simply cannot afford that.
What I'm driving at is whether a high priority is being placed on the development of these alternate systems, and whether your ministry is really getting behind this drive and assisting the people who are researching alternate systems of production -- recognizing that conservation is a big part of it just in terms of heating homes. I think home design alone can be a very important part of it. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when there was a perceived shortage of fuel world-wide, a great deal of emphasis was put on conservation and alternate systems. Solar energy was the "in" thing. It seems that we have lost sight of what we were attempting to do then, although the need for it has not diminished, in my view. If anything, given the problems that we face environmentally, the need has escalated substantially.
If we could again focus on the question of research dollars assistance and programs.... When I say assistance, I'm not necessarily talking about spending more money, but providing the necessary direction toward people involved in these alternate energy sources -- whether or not your ministry is actively promoting, sponsoring and pushing these programs -- so we can change the thinking of British Columbians and move away from a heavy dependence on petroleum and coal and toward new and cleaner sources of energy.
Hon. A. Edwards: We have limited amounts of money, as the leader must know. We have put a large amount into the bus project, which we believe is really at the forefront of technology, and we're hoping that this hydrogen technology will work very well. Aside from that large pot of money we have worked with, we do depend on CANMET. We've put some money into the CANMET research projects and into the Science Council projects. We do have a fairly modest program within the ministry that promotes energy efficiency.
I know you may not be talking about it, but we and B.C. Hydro participated in an interesting project where we had students doing work on car engines and doing road tests and discovering how they could -- just with work on the engines we have -- conserve the use of petroleum gasoline. Between that and our encouragement of alternate fuels -- natural gas as a fuel and so on.... And that, again, is a fossil fuel. We're not yet talking about electrical cars. I'm not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition has decided that electricity is the preferred fuel. You have to figure out where electricity comes from. It has to be generated too. I'm not sure that we're clear enough on all of these issues to be able to say: "This is better than this."
G. Wilson: I appreciate the response from the minister. I don't think there is one fuel for everything. For example, photovoltaics is potentially good for some things. Electric-specific demand is going to have to be met by new and better ways of generating electricity than hydroelectric dams, although it's a very efficient method if measured on a cost-effective and cost-efficient manner. There's a limit to how much potential we have.
Let me come more specifically to how this not-directly-financial support can be given. The government is a very large consumer of fuels. We have a large fleet of vehicles, a great deal of real estate that we heat, a fairly substantial number of users that are connected directly to government, a ferry fleet that runs, and so on. Is there any direction now being taken to try to increase efficiency in the government's own consumption of, and demand for, energy? Would the minister see that direction as a valuable one for her ministry to be taking?
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, I would like to say that B.C. Buildings Corporation, through our encouragement, has managed to cut energy consumption in government buildings by about 50 percent. I don't know what time frame that is, whether it's over the last year or over the last ten years. It took a while to do it.
[ Page 1611 ]
But we have encouraged B.C. Buildings Corporation to do that.
I'd like to talk for a minute about another building, the Jack Davis Building, which is being built for this ministry. It also has an energy consumption target of 50 percent of what a normal building uses -- I presume that would be 50 percent of the level of normal buildings which are now 50 percent down. So we certainly do have a very ambitious target. It's going to have windows that open, which is interesting, but it will be a very energy efficient building. It's going to have a display area where we will lead people to recognize what kinds of features the building has and how it works so well as an energy efficient building. The public will be able to see that, and use some of the things that we have used to create energy efficiency as ideas for their own use.
G. Wilson: I wonder if a cost analysis has been done. I obviously don't expect that the minister will be able to give me a detailed explanation of it now, but if it could be provided, I would appreciate it in written form later. Is there a cost analysis that could be shared with other ministries and other British Columbians with respect to the cost of putting in these additional energy savers on the Jack Davis Building? What is the extent to which we can now start to institute design changes to be able to reduce energy demand overall? Is there a budget that shows the dollar-saved for dollar-invested in these? If so, what kind of money are we talking about?
[Mr. Streifel in the chair]
Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, last year we released a study -- which was funded three ways: $50,000 from our ministry; $50,000 from B.C. Hydro; and $50,000, I believe, from BCBC -- which has a number of the figures about the costs of energy-efficient commercial buildings, as well as how it can work, what it saves and a number of other things. It is available publicly. I don't know whether there's a cost for it or not, but it is available, and it was done last year and released.
G. Wilson: I didn't quite catch whether or not that was.... So that's not specific to the Jack Davis Building, but concerns buildings in general.
I wonder, then, if I could move to an area that's tangential to this question of alternative energy and ask, specifically, whether or not the ministry sees, as part of its mandate with respect to the energy component, the movement toward integrating waste management systems with energy production municipally. I'm not necessarily talking about simple incineration and heat generation through incineration, or some kind of boiler system through incineration. I am most interested in the potential for biodegradation of waste as a means of removing the burden that municipalities have with respect to getting rid of waste.
I know some work has been done in Australia quite successfully, although it's experimental. I understand the Scandinavian countries have for some time now had solid waste management systems that have been integrated into building design for heat generation.
Is the ministry involved in promotion, or any kind of work, that would be done with respect to a joint shared relationship, financial or otherwise, with the municipalities on this question?
Hon. A. Edwards: No. Actually, we're not involved in any projects on biodegradable waste right now. We had sponsored a couple of conferences on the issue several years ago. Then there were some major concerns about the toxins involved in this process, and our work in that area has not continued.
I would like, just for your information, to show you that we have these reports. These are the reports that were produced -- they came out late in 1991: "Advanced Energy Efficient Buildings"; then three studies, "Energy Standards for New Low-Rise Buildings in British Columbia: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis"; "Energy Standards for New Commercial Buildings in British Columbia", and a second volume of that; and this one, "Economic and Environmental Cost of Electricity and Natural Gas in B.C. Lower Mainland Space and Water Heating Applications." Basically we have put out these publications, and they're available.
G. Wilson: I'm sure I should be aware of those publications. I am not. When were they published and when were they released? Do you have dates on them?
Hon. A. Edwards: The two that I mentioned first are: the life cycle cost analysis, published in September 1991; and the cost of electricity and natural gas, space and water-heating applications, published in December 1991. This general one -- Advanced Energy-Efficient Buildings -- was in April 1991.
G. Wilson: So these were all done by the former government, rather than the current government. That's why I haven't.... I thought that we were referring to new studies that had been commissioned since October.
My final question to the minister, with respect to this whole question of energy conservation, has to do with the potential for a substantial reduction in terms of fuel demand for private automobiles, in the lower mainland in particular. Quite clear to any who have travelled here, especially if you fly by helijet or by Air B.C., is the incredible level of pollution that exists in the lower mainland, and it tends to drift into the Fraser Valley.
Is the minister currently working with the GVRD in terms of its concept plan for transportation on an energy-saving component of that plan that might really start to promote cleaner rapid transit systems, and reduce the demand for private automobiles in the lower mainland, to potentially remove the amount of toxic waste put into the atmosphere?
[3:15]
I think it's fair to say to all of the people who complain about things like the Burrard Thermal plant, for example, that it's a fraction of the problem that the private automobile is, despite the fact that we now have new and stricter pollution control. It's a problem that we have to deal with, and I wonder if there is anything in the works that we can look forward to.
[ Page 1612 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically we have a number of committees with the Ministry of Environment as well as the GVRD. We are working on transportation demand management programs with the other ministry and with the regional district. We have a number of Fuel Smart programs, some of which are involved in that, which include car-pooling, van-pooling, alternative transportation fuels, ride-sharing programs and driver training. I've mentioned these before. We have been involved in a number of those kinds of projects.
G. Wilson: A final supplementary to that question. There are some programs for promotion, but there's nothing physically in the works in terms of a five-or ten-year plan or longer with respect to the provision of cleaner rapid transit systems, or the potential for rapid transit, as a mandate of government. I don't want to get into future policy. But in terms of the commitment that we see in these estimates this year, in working with the GVRD, which is putting together a regional transport plan -- as I'm sure the minister is aware of -- if we're to be on top of or ahead of the issue, it seems to me that we need to have some people working on this now.
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically we are working with a number of ministries -- not just the Ministry of Environment, which I mentioned in a number of programs that we have with the GVRD, but also the Ministry of Transportation -- on a clean air strategy which includes all of these things. We have done a considerable amount of work toward our goals for a clean air strategy, and that continues. We've looked at fuel use and vehicle testing, and that work continues. As you probably know, we're looking at work for the whole Georgia basin air shed, which is a government initiative. I can't give you any more specifics right now. We are doing joint work, so there are a number of things involved.
G. Wilson: I'd like to thank the minister for her responses and say that the Liberal opposition is most anxious to work constructively with the government on any measures that would implement a strategy toward the removal of fossil fuels as a primary base of fuel supply, and toward alternative and cleaner systems of energy. We'd be most anxious to work constructively and cooperatively in that manner.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could yield now to the member for Chilliwack.
R. Chisholm: My question for you, Madam Minister, is with reference to natural gas. We know that natural gas is 60 percent cleaner than the fossil fuel we use right now, and cars that are single fuel natural gas are in California right now. General Motors has brought them out, Dodge has brought them out, and now Ford has. I'm just wondering if there are any plans in the future for all government vehicles to go to the single fuel natural gas, and possibly start to help clean up our environment, and possibly incentives for the public at large.
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically, our major incentive to people to move to alternative fuels is the fact that we don't tax alternative fuels as a vehicle fuel. That, basically, has saved the people in British Columbia $100 million in taxation over the last ten years. It's a significant amount of money. As people move more to alternative fuels, they will save even more, so it becomes more and more of an incentive. Certainly now that manufacturers are having cars come off the assembly line that use alternative fuels, that makes a significant difference. We have been very careful to ensure that we don't favour one alternative fuel over another, because there are a number of them. They have different advantages and different disadvantages. We have tried to make sure that the public has an option to choose from a variety of alternative fuels, and to have an incentive to do so.
R. Chisholm: With the pollution in the valley, for instance, at 85 percent from automobiles, and right now we're losing crops and all the rest, would it not be advantageous now for the government to maybe push a certain type of fuel or any other alternative in an educational program for the population? It seems to me that the problem is that we're giving tax breaks, but the general population is not receiving them.
Hon. A. Edwards: First off, there really is no particular scientific guarantee that alternative transportation fuels reduce pollution. The key is that there are well-tuned engines. That is one of the most important things that happen. We have also found that there's no particular need to subsidize conversions when we have vehicles coming off the assembly line for alternative fuels. Those are two things that we're expecting the manufacturers.... It will make a big difference. By the way, we have consulted with manufacturers who are bringing vehicles off the assembly line to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place in British Columbia. As I say, I don't think you can reach more to the common person, the ordinary British Columbian, than by reducing the tax. We don't put a tax on, so basically it is open to everyone to benefit from that.
Again, I might remind you that in the 1992 budget introduced in March the exemption on motor fuel tax was extended to include all the alcohol-based fuels. There are now vehicles coming off the assembly line that use largely alcohol-based mixes -- a mix of alcohol-based fuel and normal petroleum gasoline.
The government itself has a procurement policy that alternatively-fuelled vehicles will account for one-third of all the government fleet vehicles purchased. This policy is currently under review, but I can't imagine it going anywhere but up.
R. Chisholm: As far as the testing, Ford came out and claimed 60 percent less than the normal fossil fuel of gasoline on the natural gas. GM and Dodge have also come out.... UBC has a report out right now which states the levels of the different components of pollution, and natural gas is much less than the normal gas. I'm wondering if we have the time to wait to make up our mind what we're going to push for a fuel, considering the shape the valley is in, and the amount of pollution that is in that valley right now. It has to be
[ Page 1613 ]
addressed. It cannot go on continuously. It is affecting people's health; it is affecting the crops; it's affecting where we live.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'd just like to suggest that there are some problems with just deciding that we're going to have an alternative fuel and that it will necessarily give us what we want. There are some tests on tailpipe emissions from alternative transportation fuels that indicate that natural gas has a considerably higher emission in nitrogen-oxides, and also more hydrocarbons -- more than petroleum gasoline. These things may be affected by research and further technology, but basically it's not a given, yet.
R. Chisholm: I realize it's not a given, but I'd advise you to check the UBC tests; you might find some more information there. I'm just trying to say that maybe we should be educating the general public as to alternatives that could possibly help us in the valley and throughout this province.
Hon. A. Edwards: I refer back to Fuel Smart, a program the ministry runs. We put out publications and spread the word on what we can do about the better use of fuels. The objectives of the Fuel Smart program include the maintenance and fuel efficiency of B.C. vehicles, increasing the awareness and use of cleaner-burning fuels and fuel-efficient technology, increasing awareness and practice of fuel-efficient driving techniques, reducing the growth of vehicle miles travelled, and reducing the growth of single-occupancy vehicle use. These things may, in fact, clean our air better than almost anything else we can do at the moment.
R. Neufeld: I don't have very many questions. You may have answered some of them previously to some of the other members. I beg your indulgence. We're spread a little thin, so I can't sit in here and listen to all the questions.
A couple of questions on the '92-93 budget document. Natural resource revenues on petroleum, natural gas and minerals are up 4 percent, or $10 million. Your explanation is that it is due to higher royalties in the natural gas and petroleum sector. Does that mean that you are raising the royalties? What's going to happen there?
Hon. A. Edwards: The increase is basically because of an anticipation of a greater amount of exports. It's the volume that's likely to increase. As the member knows, the royalties are based on price. The price right now is very low, and we're not anticipating an increase in the royalty structure. Basically it's an increase in export amounts.
R. Neufeld: The second question: water and other is up $38 million, or 14 percent. Can you tell me approximately what part of that is water tax?
Hon. A. Edwards: As far as I can understand, the member's question is directed towards water resource revenue, which is forecast to be $289 million. As far as I know, that is only a water rental increase.
R. Neufeld: In your budget forecast it's $305 million, so the balance is for "other," I assume.
[3:30]
With the increase in the water tax, the acts that are coming into place -- the Energy Council Act, the Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act and the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act -- the environmental changes that are expected, the corporate tax increase and the new capital tax that's coming into effect, has there been any kind of summary or forecast done by your ministry as to what effect this is going to have on the petroleum and natural gas industry and also on the mining industry in the next number of years? I think we're all aware of the information we get from everyone in the mining and petroleum industries, saying that they're hard-pressed and that these taxes are going to affect them. That's a normal procedure, and I accept that. But have you as government made any projections as to what will really happen within the next five to ten years and what effect this will have on those corporations and companies?
Hon. A. Edwards: Before I go on to answer this most recent question, I would like to clarify.... I wasn't sure if the member had another question. We don't make the estimates on water revenue taxation. As you know, we don't collect it. We sometimes like to know what it is, because it impacts on some of our clients, but we don't make that prediction. It's a water revenue estimate that's there, and the water tax is imposed by the Ministry of Environment. It's not this ministry.
The impact of various taxation measures on the mining industry and the petroleum industry.... What we have tried to do for one year is predict what the various increases will mean to the mining industry. What we came up with is that it probably means $6 million to the coal industry and $6 million to the metals industry. We tried to do a prediction for B.C. Hydro as well, and it probably means $27 million for the corporate capital tax. We are going further on that, but we can't give you anything more right now.
As you know, it is very difficult to estimate revenue in the petroleum industry, because it's based largely in Calgary, it balances out its own company business, and it depends on how much actual tax its production attracts. We have a very difficult time making predictions on that basis.
R. Neufeld: The petroleum industry being based in Calgary should have no bearing on whether you can predict whether they're going to make money or not, because a lot of the mining corporations are not based directly here in British Columbia either. I find that interesting.
Your expenditure side this year, '92-93, is $30 million less than last year. An explanation in the budget manual is the Vancouver Island pipeline and reduced subsidies for conversion to natural gas. Are we not providing any assistance in conversions to natural gas now that the pipeline is in place?
Hon. A. Edwards: I might just say to the member, before I go ahead to the next question, that the basing in Alberta is a question of capital assets. It's difficult to
[ Page 1614 ]
calculate that. We are in direct competition with Alberta as far as sales of natural gas are concerned. Our royalty regime and the whole thing is designed to be competitive, but it's very difficult to do a prediction.
As for the conversions on the Vancouver Island pipeline project, we have $4.5 million budgeted for that program. It provides $500 to $700 for anyone who wants to convert to natural gas from another approved heating system. I believe most of them are approved. They have to do that within three years of when the gas is available within their community. What we do with the budget is predict how much demand there will be for that program, and that's our estimate.
R. Neufeld: Is the $30 million a reduction in your expenditures, then? Is that totally attributable to the pipeline?
Hon. A. Edwards: I can explain if the member will look at the special account on page 112, which is the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline assistance special account. If that's what he's looking at, then I would suggest that he look at the $30 million figure. That is what's left in the account. What will be spent this year is not $4.5 million, as I said; it's $4.8 million. Those figures are not last year's and this year's; it's not a direct correlation. It's $30 million that's left in the account.
R. Neufeld: I'll go on to an area in Fort Nelson; it's the Desan road. It's not a very long part of the road, but it's under your ministry to maintain it. It's been battered around for quite a number of years. It's nothing new, but I had heard that it was maybe going to the Ministry of Highways for administration and looking after. I questioned the Minister of Highways, and he wasn't too sure about it. Can you shed any light on it, because the people up there would like to know?
Hon. A. Edwards: Isn't it the Sierra-Desan-Yoyo road?
R. Neufeld: Yes.
Hon. A. Edwards: It has a lovely name. We spend $255,000 on maintaining that road every year. It's around 200 kilometres, and we provide half of the maintenance cost. We are currently working with the oil companies and the Ministry of Highways to work out some arrangement that we can all agree is fair for the maintenance of that road.
R. Neufeld: The next one is Carbon Creek, the Amoco drilling licence at Beattie Peaks, and how they're going along there. Have you got any information on that?
Hon. A. Edwards: The application by Amoco.... Its drilling licence has been extended so that they will have the opportunity to continue some meetings with the aboriginal people in the area. We have met with Chetwynd Council and other local people, and we will be going up again to continue meetings with various interested people. We had a meeting with the Treaty 8 Indian band to finalize the terms of reference for a government-funded impact study for that. All of this work that's gone on.... As I say, to offset the time problem that Amoco would have faced with that, we've extended their licence.
R. Neufeld: I have a question about Site C. When you were in Fort St. John -- and I'm only going by the newspaper; I wasn't there -- I read that you had made a statement that Site C was not required. By putting the Energy Council in place, which I would think would have something to do with that.... I wonder if you're pre-empting what they should be doing. Is it a position of the minister that Site C is not needed at this time or in the future?
Hon. A. Edwards: It is my firm belief that we do not need Site C in the energy mix right now in British Columbia. That is something that the ministry and B.C. Hydro will agree with me on. I hate to be leading on this when I am not the expert, but anything that I have heard indicates that to be true. I said that when I was in Fort St. John. Over the years, there has obviously been a lot of concern about Site C both ways: whether we will have the project or whether we won't have the project. Looking at the mix right now in B.C., the demand doesn't justify that particular project.
R. Neufeld: The other question I have is on the storage and drilling of natural gas on the lower mainland. Can you tell me where that's at? That's critical to British Columbia: either we store it on the lower mainland -- or we have to drill in the lower mainland -- or else we build larger pipelines and more of them from the north to the south, which could be very difficult given today's environment. Can you -- I'm not asking you to be definite -- provide some light on how the ministry is going about it?
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically, it's a policy decision that we're going to have to make. You indicated that you recognize what a difficult decision it is. I'm sure that, being from the northeastern part of the province, you recognize it as well as anyone. It's an announcement that we're going to have to make as to whether there are two sites still there that were there several years ago when the whole business of Fraser Valley drilling came up. Right now we're considering what we're going to do with the application to drill when it's put forward. Also, we will be looking toward making some policy on the storage of natural gas.
R. Neufeld: What time-frame are we looking at for policy in that direction?
Hon. A. Edwards: Conoco would like to drill this summer. They have told us that. We're trying to reach a decision so that we can let them know what they can do.
R. Neufeld: What kind of time-frame are we looking at if you go to storage in the lower mainland?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are no applications for gas storage at the moment. As I said, we hope to be developing policy before such time as we need it. It's
[ Page 1615 ]
better to work ahead. Right now there are no applications for it. If there were, they would have to go through the Utilities Commission.
[3:45]
R. Neufeld: Then right now the ministry is not developing any kind of strategy to use storage in the lower mainland of any kind. I guess that's the question I'm asking. Do we have a time-frame when we're going to set up how we would handle storage in the lower mainland? How would we do it? What processes would we go through? Is none of that happening, or is there something happening and in what time-frame?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's obviously not the easiest question in the world. How do I lay out the kinds of difficulties that we see? The member has already indicated that he sees this in the context of providing natural gas to the lower mainland. There is going to be a higher and higher demand for natural gas in the lower mainland. So basically, whatever we decide to do will have to be looked at in the context of how to supply gas to the lower mainland; if there were an application for gas storage, how there could be an increase in the capacity for bringing in gas from the major supply area, which is northeastern British Columbia; and what's going to happen with the possibilities of the exact-same geological structure on the U.S. side, which is another issue. All of those issues have to be put together and considered, and we are trying to put them together and look at some of the options.
R. Neufeld: I assume from that that your ministry is actively working on the regulation for gas storage and how you're going to go about it.
Another item near and dear to the north is rural gasification. As I understand it, there is nothing in the budget this year for rural gasification. Coming from the north with all the gas that everyone down here so readily uses and enjoys.... And it's so clean for the environment. There are lots of people in the north, I might add, whose heating costs are tremendous compared to what they are in the south. In the community I lived in, I don't think my furnace ever quit year-round. I would say that our heavy heating was anywhere from the 1st of September till the end of April, and the rest of the time it still went off and on. People in the north would like to enjoy the use of natural gas. It was always difficult, even under the previous administration, to get that recognition and get the dollars back there to get natural gas out to the rural parts of British Columbia. But there was always X amount of dollars in the budget for it. I just wonder if there is some money in the budget for it; I'm talking specifically about Peace River North -- Fort St. John and area.
Hon. A. Edwards: If there's one unifying thing is this Legislature, it must be PGEP. I've been a great supporter of the program over the years, and that feeling has been shared by members of every party in the Legislature. We would like to see service to everybody in British Columbia who could possibly be served by this fuel, because it has some very good qualities. Unfortunately, the budget constraints this year meant that the program had to go out of the budget. So we do not have the power and gas extension program as it had been set up and had operated fairly effectively for some years.
We are working on a project with the Fraser-Fort George Regional District to find a way for them to basically subsidize the distribution of gas to some of the people within the regional district who otherwise could not be served by the distribution company. I believe that's B.C. Gas, which is a distribution company. If they find a way to do it, other municipalities and regional districts are telling us they would like to do that as well. So it may be that we can find some other ways to subsidize the kind of distribution to homes that are otherwise uneconomic under a regulated utility.
R. Neufeld: Mr. Chairman, the municipalities where I come from are pretty well all served by natural gas already and have been for quite a number of years, because it was economically feasible. But I'm talking about some rural communities in the farming areas around Fort St. John. You have $4.5 million for conversions on the Island, and what I hear back all the time is that we always have the money available for the Island, even if it maybe isn't as much as the Island wants. But again, we don't have the money available for the north, which is where the natural gas originates. Is there any way the minister could see clear to put some money in this year to get some natural gas out to some of those users in the rural areas?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have to assure the member again that I tried to get this in my budget. If it were not for the constraints of this year's budget and if we had more choices.... We certainly had that as one of the popular choices.
I have to say also that the conversion grants under the Vancouver Island pipeline agreement are in the agreement. Basically, they're there to attempt to increase the consumption of natural gas on Vancouver Island, which otherwise wasn't there, and to help us with our rate stabilization fund, all of which was in that agreement. So the Vancouver Island pipeline agreement is unique. I'm with you: I hope that we can very soon get the PGEP back in place and at work again with natural gas for the benefit of the people in the interior of British Columbia.
R. Neufeld: One other question that affects people in the north quite a bit is propane-powered vehicles. There are an awful lot of them, specifically because propane is readily available in the north. We have lots of it, and it's quite a bit cheaper. In the budget your government has chosen to tax propane in the next five years, I believe. Although you said earlier that you don't favour one over the other, I guess in the next five years you're going to favour one over the other.
When you take the price of regular unleaded gasoline of around 60 or 61 cents a litre in Fort Nelson, and people having to use a tremendous amount more gasoline because of the distances they live from work and the type of country they live in -- like I say, it's cold an awful lot longer in the north than it is here -- their
[ Page 1616 ]
usage of fuel for their cars is greater than it would be for someone down here. Is there any way the minister could see fit to lobby the government not to put a tax on propane specifically from the Peace River north, just to give the people in the Peace River a break since they use a fair amount of it, rather than discouraging them from changing over?
Hon. A. Edwards: I don't think the member's talking about fuel conservancy. I might say that you may drive a long way, but it's such a benefit to live in that beautiful part of B.C. that I'm sure you don't mind.
Propane is basically less expensive than petroleum gasoline anyway, so I think that people will find that a benefit. There is no tax currently on propane or natural gas. What we've done is given notice to people who use it that within five years we may phase out the no-tax situation; in other words, we may start taxing it. I think you must recognize that ultimately governments have to get some taxes. If in fact we have encouraged the changeover to a different fuel, then we will have achieved that. We will have clearer air and cheaper fuel for most people, and we may have to do that. That is certainly something we gave notice that we may do. It will depend on what happens in the next five years; it will depend on a lot of things.
R. Neufeld: One final question -- I guess it's a statement more than anything. I would dearly like to know if the minister could see her way clear sometime in the near future to putting some money into the budget for rural gasification in northern British Columbia. I know the people up there would really appreciate it, as they have in the past. I noticed some questions about air quality in the lower mainland earlier because of the use of fossil fuels and that type of thing. I also sat through some of the Highways ministry hearings where some members were asking for a lot more highways down here in the lower mainland, so we're going to encourage more cars. I can tell the minister that if she just convinces the Minister of Highways to quit building highways in the south and start building a few more in the north, with a few more benefits for rural gasification and that type of thing, we'll all be a lot better off. Thank you very much for answering those questions for me.
Hon. A. Edwards: I wish I could take credit for having told the Minister of Highways this year not to build so many highways, but we did our best.
You can be assured that we are working toward getting the power and gas extension program back in place as soon as we can, because we believe it was good.
D. Mitchell: I understand that the issue of research and development was canvassed earlier in the committee. I have a question that I would like to ask along that vein. I know that research and development is important, and I know that the ministry has done some work in this area as well. It's an important area, because we believe that there is a future for the mining industry in British Columbia and, of course, that therefore there must be a future for exploration as well. Yet in the current economic environment in the industry, a lot of the exploration work is really not being done here -- it seems to be done in other parts of North America and other parts of the world. I worry about the long-term impact that's going to have on our mining industry in British Columbia.
Some of the best consulting geologists and geological engineers, some of very best and brightest minds working in the mining industry, cannot find work in British Columbia right now because of the lack of projects on the books, the lack of exploration being done in British Columbia, and are leaving the province. In fact, I worry that this is part of the brain drain south that we're witnessing that we hear so much about in so many other fields. I worry that we in British Columbia are perhaps speeding up the brain drain south, where our best and brightest engineers are leaving the province and going elsewhere to find work. If we lose them, do we lose a whole generation of expertise? If we lose that expertise, will it ever come back to British Columbia? I wonder if the minister would make just a general comment as to whether or not any special efforts are being made by her ministry to retain the expertise here in British Columbia. Are any special programs being considered or being implemented in this year's budget that will help retain some of that expertise here in British Columbia so that we don't simply accelerate the brain drain south?
[4:00]
Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly share the opposition House Leader's concern that the mining industry is going through some tough times. I've said a number of times that one of the major problems is the price of commodities. As long as you have very low prices for the commodities that we mine and sell, we're going to have a difficult time right around the world. Mining is a global industry. The capital is very fluid; so is mining expertise, as you've just pointed out.
What we have to point out is that the federal government has had some basic impact on what's happened. They cancelled the flow-through shares. Not only did the federal government do that a few years ago, but now we have some South American and Central American countries and Mexico opening up their investment opportunities. We have a number of things happening globally that are making a real impact on the industry here.
What we have to remember in British Columbia is that the resource remains here. In fact, many of the best experts in the world are based here now. We may not be able to hold them, because the exploration is not happening, but they are from here, and I believe they consider this their home base. We have to expect to go through tough times.
We can also expect, because this is a cyclical industry, that after tough times come better times. I think the price of metals is probably going to go up fairly soon, and that with an abundant and healthy resource, the kind of technology that's here, and the kind of experts that are here, our mining industry will weather the storm.
[ Page 1617 ]
D. Mitchell: I wish I could agree with the minister's optimism in this area. Yes, it is a cyclical industry, and yes, it is a worldwide industry; but the problem I think we're confronting in British Columbia is that the expertise we're losing is leaving our province and our country to build the future of industries in other parts of the world. That expertise isn't building the future of British Columbia.
We have the mining industry. We do not believe it is a dying industry or that the exploration industry has had its day in British Columbia, but that it does have a future. But in order to indicate that to people who work in the industry, particularly those people in the exploration industry -- the geologists, the other experts, the engineers -- we need to send a strong signal that there is a future. In the present period of declining exploration, there's less funding. There's less competition here in British Columbia. The competition is elsewhere.
I had representation from a number of people who were leaving the country simply because there's no work for exploration. They're leaving to help build the future of American states, South American countries, places elsewhere. I fear they'll never come back. These are British Columbians, trained in British Columbia in many cases, who have built careers here and are now leaving. I think that's a tragedy.
I wonder if there are some activities or programs that might be implemented by this ministry to retain that talent and expertise here, rather than just to wait for good times to return. Is there any way we can accelerate the possibility of exploration taking place?
I fear that the reason they're leaving is not simply because of world markets or the cyclical nature of the business, because that cycle is affecting all other parts of the world right now. It's a worldwide business, and the downward cycle for markets for particular minerals is affecting everyone in the same way. I fear that it's the tax structure. Certainly I've been told it's the tax regime that's really driving exploration out of British Columbia and elsewhere.
In order to encourage exploration, it's not just a matter of retaining the expertise here; it's coming up with policies to encourage exploration activities in British Columbia. That will keep the talent here; that will keep the very best and brightest minds in the industry here.
So are there any specific initiatives that are being considered? I take it from what the minister said earlier that there are not. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the House Leader makes a good point. What we're doing now is sending our experts out to establish healthy economies in other countries. It's interesting to note that that's how British Columbia was developed in the first place, and I guess this goes on from generation to generation.
Certainly we wish we had enough mining exploration right now to keep all of our people busy. We would appreciate it if we could.
What we have in British Columbia is a difficult economic time. The most important thing we can do to address that, as far as we can see, is to assure investors -- mining and other investors -- that British Columbia has a stable economic climate, a stable fiscal base. I believe we have done that with the greatest success of any province in Canada. It is crucial to continuing investment in British Columbia, and we've been able to do that.
In more specific ways we have addressed some of the particular problems of the mining industry. We are currently addressing the issue of environmental review and the whole process that leads up to developing a mine. We are committed to making sure that the review process is efficient, that it doesn't take any longer than it needs to, that it isn't any more expensive than it needs to be, and that it includes all the members of the public and the stakeholders who need to be involved. We're working at that right now.
We're also looking at a comparative study of the tax situation for the mining industry across Canada. The mines ministers across the country are cooperating on that kind of study. We will have an idea of the comparative situation for mining within the various provinces. We believe that that will make a big difference.
D. Mitchell: I don't disagree with the minister that the various reviews that have been initiated by the government have created a lot of jobs; they've created jobs for consultants. But they're not productive jobs or ones that are likely to go to exploration geologists. That's what I was referring to in terms of the kinds of people who are leaving British Columbia. Exploration geologists, who are trained and have worked in the B.C. industry, are leaving because there's no work. There is no exploration taking place now. A lot of the work will not wait for years while the industry is under review, while we're doing an autopsy to see if the industry is still alive. Certainly we must try to keep the industry alive.
This relates to the area of research and development, which I believe was canvassed earlier in the committee. Research is needed; development is needed; exploration is needed. The minister, when she was an opposition member of the House, recognized that very well. She said that we do have to look ahead in terms of research and development. These are words that the minister said when she was an opposition member. I agree strongly with the sentiments that she expressed in debates in the House on May 14, 1991 -- only a year ago. She said: "Research brings huge returns. It's amazing to me that we do not have some plans for doing some research" in British Columbia. She went on to bemoan the fact that we buy our technology from foreign countries, which we do. Here's a quote: "'Here's a real opportunity for us to create new jobs and new ventures, and we're blowing it'." We're blowing it here in British Columbia. I fear that not only in this area of research and development, which the minister talked about only a year ago in the House, but now specifically because of policies initiated by the new government -- the tax regime and things like the corporate capital tax that are being implemented -- we are having a dampening effect on the mining industry, which is, or has been, the second industry in British Columbia.
[ Page 1618 ]
D. Lovick: Third.
D. Mitchell: We're now worried that it's becoming third, as one member of the committee points out -- perhaps fourth if we leave it much longer, or perhaps it won't even be an industry at all. We don't want to believe that, and I hope that members of this committee want to see the mining industry survive, thrive, grow and be prosperous. We're not going to do that if we lose the very best and brightest minds who are working in the industry -- people like the consulting geologists and the exploration geologists, those who have built the industry and are now leaving. Tragically, they're leaving the province.
How do we score this, hon. minister? How do we work together to ensure that these people do not continue to leave and simply become part of the brain drain to other parts of the world, building the economies of other parts of the world? How do we keep them here in British Columbia? I think the answer might lie in the fact that we need to encourage more exploration activities.
Just a final question to the minister: can you commit that you will initiate programs, policies and activities that will encourage exploration, rather than discourage exploration -- provide incentives for exploration, not disincentives for exploration -- so that we can keep some of these people here in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are different ways of measuring which industry is the largest in the province. We all know forestry takes the cake as the first one in almost every way. I used to be critic for Tourism, and I used to say that tourism was the second-largest industry. Then I became critic for Energy and Mines, so I decided that mining was. Certainly it's a significant and large industry, and it's important to the province.
I'm not quite sure that we should be talking about research and development right in the same breath with exploration, because you approach those things in different ways. I'm going to talk, first of all, about exploration. I would like to go back to the issue of the federal flow-through shares, because we have pressed the federal government strongly to take tax measures that more accurately reflect the kind of risk that mining companies take. Provincial measures on their own do not have the effect that you need, because they don't have federal tax impact. It's very expensive to put in a provincial program that will give the impact that you can get with a federal program. I assure you that we will continue to press the federal government.
I don't know whether you are suggesting that the provincial government put more money into exploration. If you are, I might suggest that you revise your estimate of how much exploration is going on in B.C. this year. You suggested there is none. In fact, the government and the Mining Association are estimating approximately $80 million of exploration work this year. Certainly we wish it were more. As I say, we are working to make that happen.
As for research, I agree with you. I believe that the more we can support the industry with research and development, the better the industry will thrive, and the better it will be for all of British Columbia. I do put to you that within our budget this year, which had significant cuts, we still have managed to support the industry with mapping and engineering and our projects under the mine development agreement of $14.3 million. So we are working that way. We are attempting to ensure that we tell the mining industry that it is an important industry, and that we know it's an important industry. It is a particularly important industry to the province because it reaches into every small community, because it is one that a lot of people identify with, and for any number of other reasons. Basically we are working to ensure that the mining industry continues to have a future in B.C.
D. Lovick: I listen with interest to the comments from the member from the opposition bench who is asking questions of the minister. I perceive that, alas, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is too modest. Given her reluctance, apparently, to blow her ministry's own horn, I'm going to do so for just a moment, apropos precisely the questions that were raised by the member opposite.
D. Mitchell: Can we get up and blow horns too?
D. Lovick: Well, you've certainly blown hot and cold, I can tell you that, Mr. Member, so take note of that.
D. Mitchell: Do you have a question? You're taking up the time of the committee.
D. Lovick: If you want to understand how the committee works, Mr. Member, you might like to pay attention for a little bit before you stand up and engage entirely in self-congratulatory and flaccid remarks that aren't based on any knowledge of the situation. Let me see if I can clarify a few things for you.
The reality is that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has earmarked and gambled on a very gutsy process indeed that will go a very long way to ensuring stability and growth in the mining industry in this province. That's the reality. Sadly, the member opposite can't stand that, I gather, and therefore seems to be running for cover. The simple truth is that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has cooperated directly with the Ministry of Environment to see about consolidating, streamlining and making more efficient the process of opening....
D. Jarvis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, he is now talking about the energy review. You told me that I cannot discuss it; henceforth you should tell him that he cannot discuss it.
The Chair: Hon. member for Nanaimo, would you just offer a clarification.
[4:15]
D. Lovick: I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. For the edification of members opposite, there is something called an energy review process. There is also a statute governing energy project reviews in this
[ Page 1619 ]
province. Further, there is mine development assessment legislation. The energy review comes under the utilities act. I'm not asking about changes to the act or anything; therefore what I'm talking about is entirely in order, with all due deference to the member opposite. What I'm trying to do is remind people of the initiative that this government is taking, with a view to giving the minister an opportunity to respond to some particular questions once I establish that context. I hope members opposite now understand that point.
The point I was making is essentially that the ministry has embarked on a very significant initiative that I think contains within itself the possibility of a new and brighter future for the mining industry in this province. One of the difficulties we have is that a considerable amount of development is reluctant to come in because it contends it doesn't know the rules under which it should operate. What we, as a government, thanks to a significant degree to the initiatives of this minister, are trying to do is make sure that the rules of the game are indeed clearly spelled out.
The other problem, the other obstacle to development, of course, has to do with all the environmental questions. Many people in this province contend that mining is intrinsically incompatible with sustainability. What the government is trying to do, again thanks largely to the initiative of this minister, is establish clearly what is allowed, what is accepted, what we as a province -- what we as a provincial ecology, let alone a planetary ecology -- can indeed live with.
I think it's absolutely crucial to recognize as well -- and I just throw this in en passant -- that this government is also committed to a full-scale and complete resource inventory map of the province. The point I'm ultimately making is that until such time as we do that, we are going to continue to have all the battles over every mine development and energy development project known.
I see that the members opposite seem to be fidgeting, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder if it's only because they perhaps understand what estimates are really about. Estimates aren't necessarily a matter of only opposition members being allowed to speak. I don't say that to be inflammatory; I'm merely advising you of that. Frequently opposition members learn a great deal by simply listening for a while. Based on what I've heard so far, they could do well do listen a little more often.
In any event, the message I'm offering, because the minister didn't, is that in terms of the mining industry there are some very significant initiatives underway that are going to help the industry by grappling with two of the most fundamental questions governing development. That's desirable; it's good. I commend the minister for doing so, and I wonder if she might like to offer a comment in terms of how she sees the process unfolding, given that, as she well knows, a committee has travelled throughout the province and has met with all of the major organizations governing the energy and mining industry in the province. I'm wondering if she has any thoughts about how the process is unfolding and suggestions for how it might be better.
Hon. A. Edwards: I thank my colleague for that lead-in, because in fact so many things are happening that....
Interjection.
Hon. A. Edwards: My colleague is leading a number of public meetings that are addressing some of the problems I talked about before -- in particular the problem of uncertainty, which is anathema to the mining industry. If the mining industry needs to do its exploration work, it needs to know what it can do, where it can do it, when it can do it and what the rules are.
One of the issues that has been a matter of major concern to the industry....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, order, hon. members.
Hon. A. Edwards: One of the major concerns of the mining industry is the environmental assessment process. We are leaders in that in Canada. We began a mining development review process in the late seventies and early 1980s for the coal mines in the Elk Valley. That expanded to the other mines in the province, and any time that a mine is developed in British Columbia, it goes through a process. This process, unfortunately, has got to be a longer process; it has included more things. We are looking at ways to address the concerns of the industry. They cannot afford to have it go increasingly longer. That becomes more expensive.
So basically there has been input across the province. I would hope that the members of the opposition have attended some of those meetings, that they have had input, particularly if they have some major concerns about the mining industry, because we hope to get from it a reformed environmental assessment process.
I can't hold up visual aids -- it's against the rules to do that in debate -- but I might say that we have a publication, which is a legislation discussion paper, and I know that some of the members opposite have seen it. We are looking forward to a considerable improvement in our process and a way that we can go ahead with improved cooperation between government, industry and the public.
D. Jarvis: First of all, the aids that she was talking about that she can't hold up.... She was holding up a few of them before. Most of them were printed by the Social Credit government before she came in, so she shouldn't take credit for them.
Secondly, obviously the member over there doesn't really understand how to make money. If you're going to have development in this country, you're going to have some exploration development. You're going to have to encourage them to come into the country. So far you're trying to get away with the fact that you say that it's the world mineral market that's causing the development not to come into Canada. Over $1 billion left this country last year and went south -- not because of the mineral market. They went back down south because that's where they think the future is. It's not in
[ Page 1620 ]
B.C., because of the indecisiveness and the taxation policies here. That's the reason why development research is not in this country.
I've been quite patient all afternoon, because we've had a lot of speakers, so I have been trying to edit some of the things that I meant to ask the minister. I may be a little bit slow at different times trying to research rather than repeat the same question.
Last time we were talking about Fraser Valley gas and what the ministry's position was on exploration and development in the Fraser Valley. I want to know, first of all, what studies have been conducted or planned regarding the safety of such a development in a relatively populated area.
Hon. A. Edwards: As I said before, there is no current project in process. However, I would like to tell the member opposite that when the well in Delta.... Am I correct in that? One of three wells was drilled last year, there was a citizen's advisory committee struck, and it worked with the company. They put together some very stringent rules for drilling that well. I believe we only had one phone call on that whole process. The whole project went very carefully. In fact, it was not successful in finding gas. There were environmental, agricultural, biological and water-quality studies done around that project. It was done in a short time; I believe it was a month. And after a month it closed down and was reclaimed. Basically, that sort of process was what we put in place for that particular well.
D. Jarvis: Is there any current technology that you are aware of that allows us to safely extract any resources from this area, Madam Minister?
Hon. A. Edwards: I puzzled a bit over that question, because I'm not sure what the member was asking. If he is asking whether I think it would be a safe situation to drill gas in, certainly. A number of other communities around the world have considered it to be a safe activity very close to habitation. The possibility of an explosion is extremely remote for natural gas drilling. One of the dangers sometimes with gas drilling is when you have sour gas wells. The gas, if it were found in the Fraser Valley, would not be sour gas, it's been determined. So the dangers that might be attached to sour gas wells would not obtain in this case.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to yield to two members who are here, because they sit right on those wells.
L. Stephens: I'm sure the minister is well aware that the Fraser Valley is having great difficulty over the question of gas drilling and, particularly, storage. Underground storage is simply not acceptable to the residents of Langley, Fort Langley and the Aldergrove area. This is something that they feel very strongly about. I'm sure the minister is aware of the demonstrations that were held last summer over this particular issue. It's one that just isn't going to go away.
I would like to ask the minister if, with the decision to allow drilling, it would also follow that there would be a decision to allow storage. Or are they two separate issues? How you intend to deal with each of them?
Hon. A. Edwards: The two issues are separate. I don't want to try and overstate that case, because I'm sure the member is aware that if it's the right geology.... The geology is connected, but the issues are separate. I want to make it very clear that that's the case.
We will be considering applications to drill for gas in two sites where they have been allowed leases. I might say that despite the fact that we recognize an extremely strong lobby and an extremely strong commitment among many people to oppose drilling and gas storage -- the major problem is storage -- we also get input that is strongly in favour of drilling and of ensuring that people who own property have the right to allow people to drill. It is not overwhelming; it is not totally one-sided.
However, I would like to say that we are trying to consider the issue of applications for drilling, and we are trying.... As I said earlier, we expect to try and look at the whole issue in the context of supplying natural gas to the lower mainland. The lower mainland needs natural gas; it wants natural gas. There are a number of ways in which that can happen. One of the ways that has been suggested is natural gas storage; it has to be considered as one of the options. As always when considering an option, you may discard it or you may do what you like with it. But within the option of how to supply the lower mainland, we are trying to reach some kind of policy direction.
[4:30]
L. Stephens: You have some ongoing studies. I would just like to know how close you are to a decision. You did mention that there was an application for drilling to begin this summer. I know one of the other members asked you what the time-line was. I would like to press you a little harder on that and find out a little more specifically when we could expect an answer on the drilling.
Hon. A. Edwards: I should clarify that there are no applications currently for drilling, but Conoco has told us they would like to drill by summer. Obviously, as I said, cabinet hopes to be able to come to some conclusion, to let them know so that they can have an answer.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. As the minister knows, I have discussed this with her a number of times before and will continue to bring this topic up.
I apologize that I wasn't here earlier in the day. Perhaps I could have a reintroduction of some of the staff members, particularly the ones that I'll be dealing with on this issue -- just so I know who I'm talking to.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's a pleasure to reintroduce my deputy minister, John Allan, and Peter Ostergaard, who is ADM of Energy. I can introduce the other members of the staff who are here, but since we're dealing with energy, maybe that will be adequate for you.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. I apologize that I wasn't here earlier; I had other business. But I
[ Page 1621 ]
appreciate the introduction. I haven't had the opportunity of meeting either of these gentlemen.
Again, I come back to the question of gas drilling and, particularly, if we can focus on it for a moment, gas storage. It's perhaps a little naive on behalf of anyone to really think that the two issues are inseparable. In fact, they're intertwined incredibly closely, and one is very much dependent upon the other. I think that fact is recognized in the industry. That's why both the exploration corporations and the potential storage corporations have been working as a consortium on this project in both lobbying and in practical means.
I heard the minister state just a few moments ago that the issue of gas storage was being looked at in the vein of an overall concept of supplying natural gas to the lower mainland. I wonder what environmental and land use considerations are being taken into consideration in this development. Is the minister working with the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Lands and the various other sectors that will be involved with the land use decisions that come into play, should the minister decide to go ahead with gas drilling or storage?
Hon. A. Edwards: We should perhaps clarify that drilling for gas is an activity, not a land use per se. What I'm trying to say is that there are fine distinctions around a number of things. What we did in Delta was to consult with the local council. If we decide to allow the company to proceed with drilling, it would be in concert with consultation with Langley. There is no question that the local government would want to have a say about that activity within their particular boundaries.
To go a little further, we are working in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment in this matter. There are a number of environmental concerns that come into play, because alternatives to gas drilling and/or gas storage also have their impacts. I certainly would like the member to think about that, because there are a number of different environmental impacts for different activities, considering the lifestyle and desires of the people in the Fraser Valley, and considering, in that mix, their desire to have an ample supply of natural gas and their desire to maintain a rural lifestyle -- except that it's sort of a semi-rural lifestyle. All of these things have impacts, all of these things have to be put together, and we intend to continue to look at these when we look at our policy for responding to the applications.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister mentioned the consultations that took place with the Delta municipality, and the consultation that will take place with the Langley municipality and the local -- and duly elected, I might add -- mayor and council in the township of Langley, and certainly the city of Langley. To what extent will that consultation be a factor in the ultimate determination of whether or not these drilling projects go ahead?
Hon. A. Edwards: We work with the municipality. The ultimate decision rests with the provincial government, as you probably know. But all the issues pertaining to what a municipality attempts to do within its jurisdiction are important. The local governments need to know; they need to be involved. They would be there with a citizen advisory committee -- the whole business. Basically, they would have a very strong voice.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the voice, I guess, of these municipalities.... Again I stress that they also are duly elected and have a responsibility to account to the people that elected them. If those municipalities were to come out and say, in a very resounding fashion -- unanimous, for that matter -- that they were strongly in favour of a total ban on drilling and storage activity within the boundaries of their municipality, would the minister see fit to override those duly elected councils and mayors and impose this type of a project despite the objections of that municipality?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's an interesting political question, isn't it? It's obviously a question. If you get everybody against you and they say they want that, are you going to overrule them? Marvellous question. In the Fraser Valley we are attempting to work with as many people as possible to reach reasonable conclusions. We want people to be involved and to look at all parts of the decisions that are going to be made there. There's no question that we want public involvement and that, ultimately, the responsibility rests with the elected officials of the provincial government.
G. Farrell-Collins: In short, you're telling me that it would be up to your ministry -- the executive council -- to impose a decision, despite the objections of a local government. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think there's an assumption there -- a number of assumptions, in fact. What we're trying to say, over and over again to the member, is that in the Fraser Valley, where we have a very difficult situation with people with opposing views, and with legal situations and legalities involving different governments, we are attempting -- with, I would suggest, the greatest sincerity -- to involve as many people as possible and reach the conclusion that will achieve the most for the public good.
G. Farrell-Collins: I take that as a yes. In the final analysis, I assume that's a yes. I asked that question because some time ago both the Langley municipality and Langley township issued unanimous motions, which were sent to the UBCM, calling for a ban on the exploration for and storage of natural gas in their organized municipalities, and furthered that motion on to other municipalities for consideration. Given that the local governments have made the move in a unanimous way and that there has been extensive professional polling done in the area that shows a vast majority -- I believe 78 percent are opposed and 91 percent either very opposed or moderately opposed to the project.... It will be interesting to see the government deny the wishes of the people who live there and are raising their families there, and go ahead with the project anyway.
[ Page 1622 ]
We can move off that for a minute and talk about process. The minister talked a little about the environmental review process when referring to the mining industry. She talked about an extensive environmental review process that's in place. All the mines are analyzed and the environmental impact is analyzed, etc. Could she advise me, and through me the people who live in the area, if the same process applies to drilling and storage for natural gas?
Hon. A. Edwards: No, the drilling for natural gas comes under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and is not subject to Utilities Commission review. However, if there were a proposal to drill for storage, that would come under the Utilities Commission. It would require that there were a regulated project.
G. Farrell-Collins: If I can just clarify, what we're saying is that if a company were drilling for exploratory purposes they would not fall under that act nor that review process. However, if they were drilling with the intent to eventually construct a storage facility -- i.e., doing exploratory drilling not to find a commercial source, but to find a location where natural gas could be stored -- that would fall under a different act and a different review process. That's correct? That is interesting.
If I can just take a moment, I do have a question in light of those remarks the minister just made. I assume there have been a number of mines and mining exploration proposals turned down because of the review process. Have there ever been natural gas wells in this province turned down and vetoed by the ministry for environmental reasons -- similar to something done for a mine, for example?
Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, we have never said no to an application, but that needs some context. In fact, frequently when companies have been discussing with us where they would do their drilling, they have changed their location and discovered that they could make an application for a different place, where they probably would have -- and have had it approved.
I find the line of questioning from the member quite interesting. He strongly suggests that we encourage investor confidence in the mining industry and then suggests that, having two companies with leases, we work against investor confidence in these cases. I also find it interesting that the viewpoint about civic government and whether municipal or regional governments' views should be paramount contrasts with the party's view on the Crystal Peak proposal. We are searching for consistency. I think it's important to remember that there are a number of aspects involved in any of these problems.
[4:45]
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I can enlighten the minister a bit as to why that apparent -- in her mind -- inconsistency may appear. There's something unusual about the new opposition in this province, and it's that we don't all come out of the same cookie cutter. We answer questions independently; we ask questions independently. We are members responsible to our various constituencies. We intend to respond to those constituents, as opposed to the method being used by the current government, where there are 34 backbenchers who merely do what they're told. I know that's very confusing for the government and for this old type of politics that has been practised in this province for so long and which the minister is a party to. I know that tends to disorient the government and perhaps disorient some people in this province. But I think it's a movement that is growing and that the constituents of this province would like to see.
There may be concerns in some cases that a mine should not go ahead. There may even be some local concerns. What we're talking about here -- and the minister has been unable to answer that question; perhaps I haven't asked it clearly enough, and I'll do so now -- is this whole question about natural gas storage and drilling for exploration in the Fraser Valley. It isn't just a question about exploration and whether or not we drill a well or develop a storage facility. It's not that easy a question. If the question is taken in isolation from all the other factors, then of course we're going to come up with a very simplistic answer and a very simplistic policy statement and a very simplistic position. That's what I feel I'm getting. Lots of other issues come into play. It's a land use question. It's a question of whether we use the land in the Fraser Valley for agriculture at this point and perhaps in the future for residences, or whether we are going to use an area that has some of the best farmland in British Columbia -- if not in the world; certainly in the country -- for exploration for natural gas or a storage facility and whether there are effects on the agriculture there. There have been a number of instances, and the Illinois field is a concern. While I know it's a shallow gas storage facility, there has certainly been a huge effect on the agriculture sector there.
The question here is a land use question. It's a question of what we are going to use the Fraser Valley resource for. Are we going to use it for agriculture? Sometime in the future, as the population inevitably grows in this area, are we going to end up using it as a residential area? If we go in now....
I know the minister will probably stand up and talk to us -- as I've heard many proponents of this proposal talk -- about the $500,000 homes that are being built over top of a storage facility outside of Los Angeles. That's well and good. First of all, they're being stored in a depleted oil-well area, an area where oil exploration took place, the wells are dry and now they're pumping natural gas back down for storage. That's number one on the list of preferable places to store natural gas. The Fraser Valley instance would be an aquifer storage, which I believe is number three or four on the list of preferable sites. I'm not sure which position that is.
It's a question of what we are going to do with the land that's there. What is going to be the use of that land? If we need to put a gas storage facility in somewhere, or if we need to expand the supply to the lower mainland, why are there not alternatives that we should be looking at more aggressively? It seems that all the money, all the focus and all the attention for the last several years has been into developing gas storage
[ Page 1623 ]
or into developing a local supply of natural gas. I would like to ask the minister why all these other considerations are not taking place. Why aren't we looking at the ultimate long-term land use of the area where this proposal is going in, instead of just today, tomorrow or two years from now?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member's idea of consistency is interesting. I kind of wonder whether he is saying that the Liberal Party doesn't intend to be consistent: you intend to come from all directions anytime you choose, and there is no need to be consistent about your demands for the mining industry and your demands for the petroleum industry, and there's no need to be consistent as a party on what you believe the provincial government should do vis-�-vis municipal governments. I believe that that's a pretty loose and foolish position, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest that the Liberal Party should maybe put some of their minds to putting it together. If they have any intention of operating fairly well in this environment, they're going to have to be a little more consistent.
There are certainly a number of things about drilling for natural gas in the Fraser Valley that should be observed. I put this forward with the proviso that what I'm saying are some of the things we're thinking about and some of the things that are there and things that we should be aware of.
Certainly both of the wells that are left for which Conoco would make an application are on private land. The member has to know that there would be no drilling without the consent of the landowner. The whole issue of the landowner and whether or not the landowner can do that.... Part of that falls under municipal jurisdiction.
The member also talked about long-term use. He suggests that we're going to go for a small agricultural development in the long term and then probably what I and some people would call urban sprawl. Certainly a number of people in the Fraser Valley see it as urban sprawl, and they don't want urban sprawl in there. That's interesting. It's a long-term thing. It's not something that we're going to tackle at the moment, but we are going to suggest that if there were going to be drilling for natural gas, the rig would be in and out within three months. That is not a long-term use, but it does fit into an integrated use for the valley. It does fit into what private landowners choose to do with their land.
The member has done a very good job of setting it up so that the minister is here making the case against where he sits with the majority of owners there. That's not where the minister wants to be, Mr. Chairman. That is not where the minister is. We are considering what is the best public use. We are considering a broad range of issues, a broad range of applications of land and land use here and a particular project, a particular activity for which there will be an application if the decision goes that way.
G. Farrell-Collins: The latter comments of the minister.... Let me first say that I came here seeking information, and unfortunately, during the last set of questions it became confrontational. That wasn't instigated by me; it was rather the minister who brought that up. But that's neither here nor there. I prefer to be in a more consultative mode for this line of questioning, because it's merely information that I want to seek, and I'm seeking it on behalf of my constituents. When the minister is addressing me, she is in fact addressing my constituents, and they will, of course, have copies of this so that they can see what the position of the government is.
Some interesting things are being said, and I'm curious. First, let me just ask a really quick question: has the minister visited the Murrayville site, the proposal for one of the next two drill sites that may be going into Langley?
Hon. A. Edwards: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not visited the site of any of the three proposals -- the one drilled already or the other two. But I would like to also put to the member that he wants to ignore the fact that it is an inconsistency, I believe, to want to encourage investor confidence within the mining industry, and now with this situation there is the risk of threatening investor confidence. I think that's important. I think your party has very clearly said that the province should do certain things vis-�-vis the municipal government in the Crystal Peak application, and you're saying something quite different here. I would like to know whether the member thinks that that is consistent and that it is appropriate to be inconsistent like that.
G. Farrell-Collins: I might remind the minister that she is the minister, and I am the opposition critic. In four years it may well be the other way around, but for now, she's the government, and I'm seeking answers and information from her and not the other way around. But I'd be glad to discuss this with her any time.
We are looking at a number of important issues here. I find it incredible that the minister hasn't visited these sites, given the fact that she was the critic for this portfolio for some length of time while the whole debate flourished, that she did not take the time to go and visit these sites and walk the sites and see what's there. It's very enlightening and very eye-opening to see that. Perhaps the comment that the minister made that both sites are on private land would not give her a lot of solace. The fact that it's on a piece of private property makes no difference to the person who happens to be next to it, a hundred metres away, on the other piece of private property or the public property.
A survey has been done, and there are 400 people living within half a mile of the proposed Murrayville site. I would ask the minister if she's taken time to look at some of the media coverage, perhaps visually through the television. I would be glad to provide her with videotape copies of some of the news coverage that was done during the Lodgepole blowout outside Edmonton. Yes, that was a sour gas well, and I'm not dealing with the sour gas aspect of it, because she's already addressed that. But I'm dealing with the effect that that type of explosion in an exploratory well had upon the surrounding area. It was out in the middle of
[ Page 1624 ]
a wilderness, a treed area. They'd cleared out an area where they drilled the well. The explosion went off, and if she could imagine in her mind putting 400 people and their homes, their farms and their schools within half a mile of that drillsite and then just imagine what would be going on at that point in time, I think she would feel a little differently about this issue than perhaps she does.
I know the minister hasn't made up her mind on this; I know she's still consulting and finding out information for herself. I am not trying to put you in the negative position and me in the positive position at all. That's not what I'm trying to do; I'm trying to find information. I'm also trying to persuade you.
Another important thing to recognize about the Murrayville site.... Mind you, it was during the election, but I took a group of people, and I managed to get some of the media there too, which I thought was good, because it allowed people to see from the air where the Murrayville site is and the surrounding area, what is going on in that area and the numbers of people that live there.
I think the Murrayville site is within a mile of the Langley Memorial Hospital. It may even be closer, but I'd have to confirm my facts on that. I believe it's within a mile of the only emergency response centre in the area. It's right on the Fraser Highway, which is a main thoroughfare for emergency response teams back and forth if there ever were to be an accident. Evacuation of that area, if there were to be a disaster.... I'm not saying there's going to be, but I'm saying if there were to be a disaster, evacuation of that area and evacuation of the injured would be incredibly difficult.
When the minister talks about this site.... I was amazed to hear her say that a wellhead goes in, they're there, three months later they're gone, and it's all over. Well, that's not necessarily true. If they find a source of natural gas, then you have the extraction well, the lines that connect it, the compressor stations and all the infrastructure that goes with a fully operating natural gas field. And that in itself disrupts and adds danger to the lives of the people living there.
The reality is that the people who live there and close to these sites are adamant, are almost unanimous, that they do not want those facilities there. All you have to do is go there and take a walk. Park your car and walk for half an hour. Or stay in your car and drive around for half an hour and see the signs on these people's homes. They do not want this project to go ahead. They're very concerned, and I think they have legitimate concerns.
We talked a little about the process in place for the mining industry in this province, and there may be some happy medium there. Maybe there is too much environmental review, too much red tape for these mining companies to jump through in order to finally come to a fully developed project. That may well be the case. But it appears to me -- when it comes to gas drilling, anyway -- that there is no red tape. There are no hoops that these companies have to jump through to ensure that the people in the area are satisfied. Maybe there's a happy medium. Could the minister tell us if she has any intentions to try and balance that out and to see if there's a more equitable playing-field for the industries in both sectors?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm well aware of the fact that there is very strong local feeling that does not want any drilling there. I certainly agree. The statement that the drills would be in and out makes an assumption that no gas would be found. If gas is found, there will be something different.
[5:00]
However, I would like to suggest that a considerable amount of public process has gone into this issue. There has been consultation; there have been all sorts of meetings between the ministry.... There was the Anderson commission inquiry; there was the whole thing.
As I say, I am well aware that the people in the area.... There is a very strong lobby against it. I am also aware that there are people who are in favour it. There are other reasons why it is not an easy decision to make; there has to be a considerable amount of balancing. I, too, would hope that every elected official in the area would attempt to consider all of the aspects involved in this decision and to participate in looking at as clear a balance as we can find.
G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to having the local elected people evaluate all the other concerns, perhaps the minister could tell us what other concerns she is evaluating and involved in in trying to come up with a decision on this project and others similar to it.
Hon. A. Edwards: I won't have an exhaustive list. I know that cabinet will want to look at all of the environmental issues concerned, and there are a number of environmental issues concerned with this. I know that cabinet will want to look at investor confidence. I know that the cabinet will want to ensure that the local people who have made a very clear attempt to make sure their point of view is known.... I know that will be evaluated as well. I would put those in place, at any rate.
G. Farrell-Collins: We talked a little bit about the concerns of the people who live in the areas. These concerns, you say, will be part of the package used in determining whether or not these two well sites are allowed to go ahead. Does the minister anticipate these applications coming forward in the near future? Is the recent appointment of Dick Gathercole...? Will he be involved in some form of public consultation with regard to the applications for these two wells?
Hon. A. Edwards: No.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume Mr. Gathercole will not be involved in any form of public consultation with regard to these two well sites. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Edwards: We certainly don't anticipate that Mr. Gathercole, who is not yet officially in place.... He is a chairman-designate. We are trying to work toward a decision which will allow us to know what we're doing before summer; basically it's a cabinet
[ Page 1625 ]
decision. When he is in place, Mr. Gathercole has a number of other assignments on his plate.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that he will not be dealing with this one. The minister did state in the House at some time in the past when we had a mini-debate -- I made a member's statement on this very issue -- that there would be a process for public consultation on this issue. She wasn't sure at that time what that process would be. Does the minister have any further indication or feeling as to what that public process will be prior to these two well applications being approved or disapproved?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly we'll be consulting, in any public input process, with local government and with the proponents. Certainly, as I say, we will have to make a decision as an executive council.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I could get a clean answer on that one that's little harder and faster. Is there any formalized consultative process planned for public input to be given by the people who live in the area with regard to the applications that may come forward in the near future, which we all assume will happen? Is that going to be formalized? Is it going to be a public process? Will there be public hearings? What will be the process? Are we just going to have ad hoc meetings here and there to discuss it?
Hon. A. Edwards: Public consultation is a requirement of well authorization programs. Now how that will take place is not yet being determined, because we don't have applications yet.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand, then, that there's no hard and fast process that's necessarily followed. There's merely a requirement under the application that some public process take place. Is there a plan in your ministry to formalize it any way, so that people living in the various areas...? Other wells may come some other time in other regions of the province. Is there any attempt to formalize a process and put that into the form of regulations or some sort of guidelines so that the investors and the people who live in the area know what they're up against when these types of projects come forward?
Hon. A. Edwards: We would like to respond as well as we can to a particular application. Certainly there's been a lot of.... Rather than suggesting that we want to put some kind of process into legislation, right now we talk about responding as well as we can to the situation that we see. There is a requirement for a public process, and certainly we will have a plan laid out for that public process. We will make sure that it's clear to those who want to participate. That wouldn't be limited.
G. Farrell-Collins: The reason for that question, and perhaps the reason why that answer isn't very comforting to me and to the people who live in the area, is that in the lead-up to this last round of Fraser Valley gas confrontation, there was an order-in-council issued by the previous government -- I'm sure the deputy and the assistant deputy minister are familiar with it -- that did away with the ability of the Utilities Commission and virtually anyone to oversee the responsibilities of these corporations. That was of great concern to the people who lived there, because they felt that the executive council just stepped in and wiped away any sort of regulation that was there in the past to protect them. They're not very comforted when they hear comments coming from government that there will be a process: "We don't know exactly what it is, but we'll be able to come up with something." I certainly hope there aren't any plans to follow processes that are similar to what the last government did within the ministry. Perhaps the minister herself did not, but has she been addressed by her staff or ministry at all to re-enact that order-in-council that was eventually overridden by Mr. Weisgerber when he was minister?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: What the member probably refers to relates to the fact that B.C. Gas was one of the members of the consortium that was applying to drill. B.C. Gas at the time, as the member will know, was being regulated by the executive council -- by cabinet. Therefore it required an order-in-council for B.C. Gas to be able to participate. Since that time, regulation of B.C. Gas has passed back to the Utilities Commission. So if B.C. Gas were involved as one of the members of the consortium, and it were to apply to do something like this, it would have to have an order from the Utilities Commission to be allowed to do it, because it's a regulated utility.
G. Farrell-Collins: One of the other means of storing natural gas is in depleted oil wells. There are a number of ways of doing this. Aquifer storage is only one of them. Are there any considerations for storage of natural gas in any other facilities in the lower mainland, as opposed to aquifer storage?
Hon. A. Edwards: As I've said, we hope to have some policy developed for gas storage in the province, despite the fact that there is already one gas storage area in British Columbia at Aitken Creek, in the northeast. It was developed by Unocal.
G. Farrell-Collins: I mentioned briefly what I've heard to be a ranking of the preferability of sites to store natural gas, which is somewhat different depending upon whom you're speaking to. I am wondering if the ministry has a ranking of facilities or locations or sites in order of preference -- i.e., starting with one type of natural gas underground storage, and then followed by other types. Is there some sort of ranking that this ministry follows?
Hon. A. Edwards: No, we haven't done that within the ministry. We haven't got the geological database to make those kinds of decisions for the province. We basically look at any proposal as it comes forward.
[ Page 1626 ]
The Aitken Creek storage area is an aquifer. There are other ways to store natural gas -- as liquid natural gas, as you know, and things like that. There are a number of ways that we talk about, but we do not rank geological structures.
G. Farrell-Collins: I was under the impression that Aitken Creek was storage in a depleted oil well, but perhaps I'm wrong on those facts. I may well be; I will check. I guess the reason for this line of questioning is that there is a great deal of concern over the use of aquifer storage, certainly by the people in the area, for a number of reasons. First, they're not convinced that the geological structure there is going to be safe. Of course, we don't know that until the drilling is done, I suppose. The other reason, of course, is that we are in an area that we are continually being told -- certainly by the Ministry of Education; certainly our children are being told anyway -- is very earthquake-prone. That may be of concern as far as shattered cap rock goes.
I would ask the minister if she has any way of determining.... Or perhaps she could comment on why Alberta, a province that has a vast system of natural gas and is very well known as a leader in the petroleum industry, does not allow aquifer storage. Yet it seems perfectly reasonable to occur in British Columbia.
[5:15]
Hon. A. Edwards: I feel that we have gone pretty far astray, but I will give a couple of answers. First of all, Alberta has a very sophisticated pipeline network. They haven't needed to look to anything except their pipelines until recently. Now the ERCB is currently looking at aquifer storage in Alberta, near Calgary and Edmonton, so I'm informed. I don't talk for Alberta, and I simply tell you that's some information that we have.
I would also say again that we are not looking at gas storage. There is not currently an application for it. We hope to look in a fairly sophisticated way at a policy that will stand us in good stead when that issue comes up or before it comes up. A lot of speculation right now is simply that -- speculation -- and is certainly not informed by the kind of information that we would want to have before we made any decision.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the reason for this line of questioning is that there are lots of alternative methods for supplying a peak need for the the lower mainland, not strictly natural gas storage or a local site. I'm well aware of the Anderson commission; I'm quite familiar with the report and the recommendations that were made. I don't have the confidence in it that perhaps some people do, but that's fine.
There are a couple of other issues. Our caucus has talked, as I imagine your caucus has, with the concerned parties -- i.e., the industry and the people in the area that are opposed to it. There seems to be a great deal of concentration and focus on the drilling and storage, and the provision of a better supply of natural gas. I'm wondering if the ministry has any plans, or has received applications, or has had extensive interest -- or at least an equivalent amount of interest -- expressed in the expansion of our pipeline facilities, to head toward perhaps a little more advanced system, similar to what they have in Alberta. I understand the geography is a little different, but I'm wondering if there has been as much interest expressed in some of the alternative methods -- e.g., increased pipeline capacity.
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly we're doing quite a bit of work with both Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd. and B.C. Gas to find the best options for serving our customers where the peak loads are. That does include more work with Westcoast's line, and certainly, as I understand it, that line is getting to the point where there would have to be a major addition in order to increase the amount there. There is the opportunity to complete the link from the East Kootenay, before the Kingsgate exit, to further over.... I believe it's Oliver -- somewhere in that area -- or maybe it's only Trail or Castlegar. I'm not sure, but further west. If that line were completed, it would mean an import of natural gas from Alberta or an exchange, tripping it around through Alberta. That line comes in from Alberta, but it's the Nova line. That is a possibility.
There is the possibility, as you've no doubt heard, of importing gas from the U.S. There is the possibility, I suppose, of increased storage in the U.S., using gas storage if that could be efficient. A number of options are available for dealing with the issues that are there. We could do some peak shaving on the demand load. We could, as I said before, perhaps look at liquid natural gas, which is another way of storing that kind of energy.
There are a number of options for dealing with the increased demand that we foresee. We are hoping that within that, and with a number of people having input and giving us information, we'll be able to come to a conclusion, to arrive at the best decision.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister talked about storage policy and developing a comprehensive policy for natural gas storage in this province. Will that policy be developed within the ministry, or will that be a public process?
Hon. A. Edwards: We would anticipate that the discussion would be led by the ministry, probably through a discussion paper, and then through input and involvement of stakeholders and the public. Probably the first thing we should do is put out a discussion paper.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm seeking some ballpark figure. Are we looking at a year, six months, two years, three months or three years? I'm just wondering how long that process will take, and when we might have some idea of what those guidelines are.
Hon. A. Edwards: If we are looking ahead, we would hope by the end of the year.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that's by the end of the calendar year. We're in the ballpark, anyway; it's not five years.
[ Page 1627 ]
I would then assume that any decision on storage facilities, or exploration for a storage facility, would be postponed until after that policy was set.
Hon. A. Edwards: I have to repeat that we have no applications for storage. We would anticipate that we would have a policy in place, because we're dealing with a whole context in which that would only be a part. I can't imagine that there would even be an application, but definitely we'd like the policy before we make decisions.
G. Farrell-Collins: I do realize there are no applications. Perhaps we're arguing semantics. We know there is a huge interest in a storage facility going in on behalf of the corporations, but whether or not there's actually an application sitting on your desk doesn't really matter, I guess. Given that there's this need, as you said, for policy before an application would be approved or disapproved, is the same overall policy guideline going to be set for exploration for gas as for gas storage?
Hon. A. Edwards: We already have policy on exploration.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I thought I heard the minister say that each proposal for an exploration well will be dealt with on its own merit, and the process -- whatever that public review would be -- would be dealt with on its own merit. Which is it? Is it an ad hoc way of developing or dealing with an application? Or is there some real policy within the ministry that directs it?
Hon. A. Edwards: We deal with more than 200 well authorization applications a year. Within that framework, we try to respond to some when they demand a special response. The wells that would be applied for in the Fraser Valley would certainly demand a special response.
G. Farrell-Collins: One last question with regard to drilling and storage in particular, and then I'd like to spend a little time -- very briefly, because I know my colleague is anxious to get in here before the day wraps up -- on some of the alternatives: e.g., conservation and some of the plans for the ministry. I understand the minister spoke a couple of times at the Energy Forum '92 a short time ago.
It's not very comforting to the people in the area, and it's not very comforting to me when I look at the record. As the minister stated earlier, there has never been a gas well turned down in this province. Once the application is there, it's there, and one has never been turned down. That concerns me, because that would lead me to think that once these applications come in, that's it. It seems to me that if the past is any indication, as the minister said, then the consultation and moral suasion that goes on takes place before the application has to be approved or disapproved. I'm concerned. We're expecting the application in the next few months. Is that moral suasion going on now, or is it going to go on afterwards?
P. Ramsey: It's all due process.
G. Farrell-Collins: What process? That's what I've been trying to determine. There hasn't been any so far. I'm trying to find out if there is a due process.
Hon. A. Edwards: The whole issue of drilling wells is different than, for example, exploring and finding and getting yourself some mineral rights and finding a mine. I wonder if you had that in mind. What we do is decide what parcels will be let for petroleum leases. Basically it's a different system, and there are a number of processes that we go through before we determine that certain lots will be auctioned for sale for petroleum leases. So there is a degree of control at that point that means it's more likely that it's going to be approved than if it were wide open across the province. If anybody could apply to drill a well anywhere they liked, it would be a different thing than the fact that we've already done a process before we let the land out for bid.
G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister is saying that the moral suasion and the consultation that goes on takes place before the rights to drill, before these sites are even put out to bid. That would really upset me, because that would mean that somehow there was a process in place that took place some years ago, prior to these drill sites even being leased. If that was the process, then the public certainly had no indication at all that this plan to lease these sites was made evident. If that's the process, then how does the public even have a say in that? That's certainly not, as the member said, due process for the people who live there.
Hon. A. Edwards: With regard to the leases that are held in the Fraser Valley, before the land was put up for bid for drilling, the ministry consulted with the GVRD, Langley, Delta Council, Coquitlam, Surrey, all of the councils. We met with them and discussed it before the land was ever put up for lease. It was advertised in newspapers. There was a full public process before those leases were ever put up for bid. Now our disposition process is more formalized. Before we put up the leases, it is required.... We have put out a process that everybody knows: we are required to go through those public functions. We have to advertise; we have to take it to municipal and regional councils. We do that before the land is ever put up for bid.
[5:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand it wasn't the minister's government that did this process. I'm certainly not trying to crucify the minister. I'm new at this, and I'm trying to learn as much about this issue as I can. You're the best resource I have.
I've seen some of the ads. I'll tell you, I don't consider myself brilliant, but I don't consider myself a blithering idiot either -- although some members on the opposite sometimes think that. I find it very difficult to understand what those ads are even talking about. I've seen some of the ads that have been put forward, and I have no clue as to what they're talking about. I guess a citizen would have to see the ad in the paper
[ Page 1628 ]
and contact the ministry to find out what it was all about. Is the minister comfortable that those ads are clear enough, and that that's a sufficient public process -- I'm not talking about the past; I'm talking about the future -- to fairly consider the concerns of the people who may be affected by a project?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member must recognize that we're dealing with land. If the member has ever done any dealing with land, he knows how it's described. Maybe it's difficult to know what a district lot is and where the parameters are that we lay out. We are certainly open to any suggestions. I know that saying that the prospective lease will be between Old Macdonald's Farm and Jack Gerow's Garage is not going to be adequate; it is not going to stand up legally. It may be very descriptive, and maybe we will put it in when it is useful, as well as "district lot," etc. I have to put that in this context: is there a practical alternative? When you are suggesting that you are going to do something with a piece of land, you must put up a legal description; you have to advertise at certain places. If the member has other suggestions, we'd be glad to have them.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll work on it and see what I can come up with.
I'll leave that topic briefly for a minute and take, perhaps, a slightly different tack. Of course, one of the alternatives to natural gas storage and drilling in the valley would be conservation. There's a lot of talk of conserving energy; people are mindful of that and are making efforts to do that. One of the other motivating factors to have people switch to natural gas, which would increase the demand, is that of air pollution.
I had an interesting report brought to my attention; I don't know if the minister had it brought to her attention yet. I'm sure it will be and, if not, I'll certainly be glad to pass it on. The report was done by the Environmental Protection Agency in California, on a study done after natural gas conversions and emission testing. Some of the results were, to my mind, quite staggering. I'm wondering if the minister or some of her deputies have had an opportunity to review any of those studies.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, the ministry has seen that report, summarized and reviewed it. It shows a lot of interesting things and directions that could be taken. It also shows something that we all know: the more you know about something, the more you have to recognize that there's an impact to every one of the alternatives that come forward. What we have to do is balance the least negative impact with the choices we make in conservation, alternative fuels and all those sorts of things. We are constantly trying to do that and to make the most intelligent choices that we can -- and yes, we're constantly reading that kind of literature.
G. Farrell-Collins: Has the ministry changed its mind on the viability of natural gas as an alternative fuel for automobiles? Or is it just one other thing that has been logged as some information that was interesting? Has it had an effect upon the policies of this government or upon the direction we may be headed in?
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically no. We want to look at alternative fuels that give us some benefit. We have done what we can to ensure that individual citizens have some initiative to do that, and we continue to do that mainly through the absence of taxation on alternative fuels, which, as I said earlier today, has saved consumers in British Columbia $100 million in the last ten years. I expect that that level will go up with the increasing use of alternative fuels.
We are also looking at the fact that no matter which fuel you switch to, there are different impacts. That's certainly very clear in that report.
K. Jones: I've been following this discussion. I'll try and continue with some of that because of the interest of my area in this subject.
We have, as you're aware, an aquifer that extends from the Langley-Aldergrove area right through under the Surrey area, and out to White Rock and the Delta area. It is a series of water passages, or clay barrier levels with gravel between them that all have perforations that allow water to go through. It ultimately becomes a water reservoir for many of our water supplies. Both the city of White Rock, which gets its entire water supply from these aquifer wells, and also many of the homes on private wells in the Surrey, Aldergrove and Langley areas, are being supplied through these wells. Their water supply is totally dependent upon what goes on in that area. It could be a factor.
Perhaps the minister wasn't aware of it, but the federal government has done an intensive study of the water supply patterns. There's been a lot of documentation of the records over the last 20 or maybe 50 years. They have a record of every well drilled in the Fraser Valley, actually. That documentation does indicate how they are interconnected and how it has a great impact on all of us if there's drilling in that area.
I think that should be a primary concern. It was one that your government took into consideration in 1973 in choosing not to proceed with an oil refinery in the eastern part of Surrey, at 24th-32nd Avenue near the Langley border, property that was purchased by the Crown for industrial development and actually had a proposal for an oil refinery. I think there was a lot of interest in trying to do that originally, until the public rose up in arms to oppose it. After that, ten years ago, there was a proposal and attempts were brought forward to drill for gas storage in the Semiahmoo peninsula. Seismic testing was done throughout the Cloverdale area right through to White Rock to try to identify the necessary requirement for gas testing at that time. The people rose up in arms at that time, totally opposing any attempt, and forced the government to withdraw its approval.
Again, we see the oil companies, the gas companies and the exploration companies trying to come back and disturb the stated desire of the people of the Fraser
[ Page 1629 ]
Valley year after year after year, opposing any gas storage, opposing any drilling that would be exploring for gas or oil in the valley. Those people have to be listened to. I hope the minister will come out to the valley. Come and find out what those people are concerned about. See it for yourself. I think it could have a real big impact on your decision, and I think the ministry should be out there also. Don't just rely on the Anderson commission position, because it was isolated in some aspects. Certainly it was not responsive to the community.
Are you aware of how much storage time or supply to the lower mainland could be generated by what's predicted for Fraser Valley storage?
Hon. A. Edwards: I would like to say again to this member that we're well aware of the strong opposition to storage of natural gas in that aquifer, which, as you said, extends a great distance within British Columbia and also down to the U.S., where drilling is taking place. It's an extensive aquifer. However, there is no application for drilling for gas storage. It is not something that has come up, and we are not making estimates on that kind of thing.
K. Jones: Do you mean there has been no projection put forward by the companies making proposals in order to make a justification for the drilling for storage? Do you mean the ministry has no idea why they're drilling? There must be some measure of how much they are expecting to find to justify the expenditure for the drilling.
Hon. A. Edwards: There has been no drilling so far, except for gas. That is what the companies have applied for, and that is what they've been allowed to do. However, I might say that as far as I know the technicalities of the issue, you wouldn't know how much storage there is there until you drilled. That would be why the companies would want to drill. You don't want to drill to store; what they would drill for is to determine the geological structure, and they would know if they did some drilling. They have not done so. There are no applications currently to do so, so that is not something I can answer for you.
K. Jones: Madam Minister, I'm really surprised that you would make that statement when you should be aware that before any drilling is done, seismic testing is done in order to identify prospective locations for drilling. It's very expensive to go drilling without having a fairly good impression from geological records -- and that's done by seismic measurement -- as to a suitable location for storage. They basically have a very good idea of where there's potential storage before they ever start to drill. The money has been expended in that regard by B.C. Gas and the consortium. They did participate in the seismic work, and I believe some government money was provided.
[5:45]
Hon. A. Edwards: As I understand it, seismic will tell you where to drill; it cannot tell you volumes. You do seismic work to determine the basic structure, but you have to drill in order to find out what the volume might be.
K. Jones: I won't get into a protracted technical discussion on that aspect. In the past I've worked with people in the Peace River district who would have disputed what you're saying. They say that they are very capable, through seismic measurement, of identifying the expected volume and capacity, and that they just have to drill to physically confirm the extent of the fields, and things like that.
Does the minister have the geological data from the existing Delta well and the two wells drilled in Washington State? Has that information been brought to the minister's attention?
Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member is aware that we don't automatically get information from Washington State. I guess we could ask for it, and it may well be that we will find that we want that at some time.
As far as the Delta well is concerned, that information will come to us eventually, but there are rules of confidentiality and a time-frame on that. We have to live within the rules that apply.
K. Jones: Could you tell us what that time-limit is so that we have some idea when that information will be available?
Hon. A. Edwards: Different classifications of wells are drilled. There are exploratory wells, outpost wells and production wells. This was an exploratory well. I'm not exactly sure how long the period is for the confidentiality to expire. I believe it's two years, but we could certainly clarify it if you would like to know that for sure.
K. Jones: I certainly would like to know what that is, and as soon as possible. It's very important to the planning of the communities and to how they respond to this. They should have that information; we should all have that information available to us. You should have that information in making your decision. You say you don't have the information on the Washington State wells, yet they were part of the defining process for this.
They are now proposing to come back to you for additional wells in the Aldergrove and Langley areas. On what basis would you make the judgment on the additional wells, when you don't have the information as to whether it's worthwhile for them to proceed to the other wells here in Canada?
Hon. A. Edwards: We do not make a decision based on our estimate of whether it will be a valuable drill site. We make our decision based on environmental and social issues. It really is up to the companies to decide whether it's worth it for them to do the drilling.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm dumbfounded by the responses to the last few questions, because the people in Langley were told by this ministry -- mind you, under a different minister and a different government -- that the reason for the Delta well going ahead was
[ Page 1630 ]
that it was a test case to determine whether or not the two Langley wells could go ahead. Now we find out that the ministry does not even have access to the drill results of the Delta well. How can the decision on the Langley well be made when we don't even know what happened in the Delta site?
Hon. A. Edwards: It was basically the process that we were following in Langley. Again, we can't make determinations based on whether it's going to be an economic success or not; that's not the basis for us to make our decision. Mr. Chairman, I am going to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada