1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MAY 25, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 3, Number 13
[ Page 1751 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. T. Perry: I'd like to presume upon members of the Legislature to acknowledge the tenth birthday of the B.C. Children's Hospital and the Grace Hospital. Many of us have enjoyed the services of those two hospitals -- sometimes "enjoyed" isn't exactly the right word, but we've certainly appreciated the service that they give to the entire province. I'd just like to invite members to acknowledge that. While I'm on my feet, I would note that this being the tenth anniversary of those two institutions, they have two years on my wife and I, who have eight years together today.
Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today are the members of the advisory committee of the Queen Elizabeth II B.C. Centennial Scholarship: Dr. David Williams, a physics professor at the University of British Columbia; Mr. Vern Loewen, the director of financial aid and awards at Simon Fraser University; and Mrs. Mary Browning, the director of the student services branch of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. This prestigious scholarship committee is administered by my ministry for postgraduate study in the United Kingdom. Would the members please welcome them.
D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce my wife of 22 years, Linda, to the House -- it's the first opportunity I've had. She's in the gallery today with her parents, Willi and Audrey Cziborr from Sirdar, B.C., constituents of our eloquent friend across the way. I bid the House make them welcome.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today Kathleen Costello, who is the B.C. government's first businesswomen's advocate and who is sitting in the gallery. I'm introducing her today as she was recently named Victoria's businesswoman of the year by the Victoria Business and Professional Women's Club. In her year with our ministry, Kathleen has worked hard to encourage women entrepreneurs to overcome obstacles to success and play a larger role in the business community. Kathleen's work has included organizing a series of regional conferences across B.C. aimed at improving women's business skills. She is also looking for ways to improve government and private sector programs so they will meet the particular needs of women in business.
Prior to joining the ministry, Kathleen worked as manager of community programs for the Ministry of Government Management Services. Before that, she coordinated regional projects for the ministry's women's programs. She worked for Petro-Canada in Calgary for eight years, including as director of employment and planning in the human resources division, and she worked with John Deere Ltd. as a territory manager.
Kathleen's volunteer jobs have included fund-raising for the 1988 Calgary Olympic Games. She was also a member of the organizing committee for Olympic volunteers.
I'd like to pass on to Kathleen the congratulations of the House, and I'm sure the opposition will join me in congratulating her as well.
D. Schreck: In the precincts today -- and I hope they've found their way to the gallery -- are Bill and Barbara Kessel from North Vancouver. Will the House join me in making them welcome.
Hon. R. Blencoe: In the gallery today are two members of my family: my wife, Victoria MacPherson Blencoe, and my aunt Jean Ensor visiting from the United Kingdom. Will the House please make them both welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statute Revision Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am pleased to introduce Bill 44, the Statute Revision Act. The purpose of this bill is to provide legislative authority to revise and publish the revised statutes of British Columbia. It replaces the Statute Revision Act which was enacted in 1966 and reflects the government's plain language policy. The new act transfers responsibility for statute revisions from a separate commissioner to the chief legislative counsel. It specifies what types of revisions may be made to the statutes and adds a power to make limited revisions so that frequently used acts may be revised and consolidated regularly.
I commend this bill for consideration of the House and urge its passage.
Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
STATUTE REVISION MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statute Revision Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 45, the Statute Revision Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 1992. The purpose of this bill is to update several statutes by making minor amendments to them. These amendments are part of the statute revision process. The changes are being made by amendment of the statutes, because they are beyond the powers provided to legislative counsel to revise the statutes.
Some of these amendments are required to introduce plain language reforms. Another group of amend-
[ Page 1752 ]
ments will facilitate revisions of forms and rules. The bills amended include the Land Title Act, the Agrologists Act, the Interpretation Act, the Land Survey Act, the Library Act and the Unclaimed Money Act.
Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND SECURITY
AGENCIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Private Investigators and Security Agencies Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 43, the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Amendment Act, 1992.
The province currently regulates the security industry through a licensing program established by the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act. Security industries include security patrols, alarm services, locksmiths, private investigators, security consultants and armored car services.
The dramatic growth in the security industry, particularly in the area of security patrols and alarm services, has caused renewed concerns from within the industry that the province is not effectively regulating the industry and that there are increasing occurrences of businesses and employees operating without a licence.
This bill will improve the province's ability to regulate the industry and will provide a licensing system that is more responsive to industry needs. The amendments include a temporary licence which will allow licensing for special functions and a quicker licensing process to respond to short-term, urgent security demands. Also included in the bill are provisions for inspection of businesses, expansion of the role of the advisory board to include advising on training standards, and several housekeeping measures to improve the regulations to the act.
Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after day.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY
W. Hurd: My question is for the Attorney General, the minister responsible for gaming in British Columbia. It relates to the serious charges levelled at the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society over sloppy accounting and their failure to ensure that an appropriate amount of money raised from bingo activities in fact went to pay for charitable activities. In view of the fact that most of the money appears to have been used to pay off debts rather than for charitable purposes, would the Attorney General agree that this society should be the subject of an independent financial audit, to put the public concern at rest?
[2:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: British Columbia has in place a Gaming Commission which is independent of government and which has integrity -- and I believe that all members of this House would agree with that statement. As I say, the Gaming Commission is independent of my office and is charged with dealing with issues that may arise in this kind of situation.
W. Hurd: Is the Attorney General aware of a 1988 report by the Gaming Commission ordering the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to forward more of its revenues to charity? As the minister in charge of gaming in this province, is he satisfied that the society has complied with that order?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is my understanding that that order was complied with.
The Speaker: A final supplemental.
W. Hurd: The response from the Attorney General was very disappointing. Is he sensitive to the fact that this society has strong links to the New Democratic Party and that it stands accused of creaming off money to charity? Again, for the sake of the reputation of his party and the charities involved, would the Attorney General commit to an independent financial audit of this particular society in Nanaimo?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Such a review would be within the purview of the Gaming Commission, and they are independent.
FAIR WAGE POLICY
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Advanced Education. According to the Minister of Labour, the new fixed-wage policy is not intended to restrict public sector construction projects to unionized firms. Is this the minister's understanding of this new policy, and can he assure this House that all capital construction projects under his purview will be open to unionized and non-unionized contractors, provided they meet the necessary criteria?
Hon. T. Perry: Yes.
L. Fox: Supplementary. Can the minister then confirm that all capital construction undertaken at the University of Northern British Columbia will be open to union and non-union firms, provided that they meet the fixed-wage policy?
Hon. T. Perry: Provided that contractors meet the guidelines of the government's policy, any contractor may bid on a tender.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
[ Page 1753 ]
L. Fox: Perhaps the minister can explain why the UNBC tender on a laboratory building exterior, dated May 15, 1992, specifically says: "All work covered by this contract which requires on-site installation will be carried out by B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council union labour."
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not familiar with the document in question. If the member would like to table it or forward it to me, I'd be happy to bring back an answer to the House.
I can take the opportunity to inform members that when I was privileged to attend the installation of the chancellor, Iona Campagnolo, at UNBC on Saturday, I was informed that so far all UNBC projects tendered are coming in under budget and that they're doing an excellent job.
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier as leader of the government. We note with interest that last Friday the Attorney General tabled in this House a freedom-of-information act; yet we have a problem, because within this House we do not have freedom of information as members. I refer the Premier to the order paper of this House, the written questions on that order paper and the fact that the government hasn't answered them.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Would the member state his question, please.
D. Mitchell: I refer, of course, to the questions dealing with the government's hiring of consultants and contractors which have been on the order paper since day one of the session. These questions have been on the order paper for 11 weeks now. Clearly it is hypocrisy for this government...
The Speaker: Your question, please, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: ...which claims to be an open government not to answer these questions. My question to the Premier is: will he instruct his colleagues in cabinet to finally come clean and answer these questions today?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the opposition House Leader receives instructions, particularly in the last few weeks, from his leader about certain things. I don't have to deal with my colleagues that way. I know that they receive these questions in good faith and that they will answer in good time.
D. Mitchell: Supplementary. I thank the Premier for that very convincing impersonation of Elwood Veitch. All members of this House know what happened to that minister and that government that took that kind of attitude towards the procedure of this House. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Tourism would never have had their integrity questioned if the government had simply come clean and answered the questions on the order paper. My question today to the Premier, as government leader, is: why not come clean today and answer the questions on the order paper?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The House Leader of the opposition does know how to strike a low blow, I can tell you, with that remark comparing me to Elwood Veitch. I'm glad it was at least convincing for the hon. House Leader for the opposition.
As I said, our ministers have received the questions. They were complicated questions that asked for a lot of detailed information. I can say that the ministers will respond in due course.
I'm pleased that the House Leader for the official opposition has recognized the best freedom-of-information act in North America; we agree with that.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: I don't know what this government has to hide. The questions are very simple, and they have been on the order paper for 11 weeks now. The Premier, the leader of the government, must live up to the promise of open government -- the promise he made. They should stop with the excellent impersonation of the former government, which was disgraced by the people of this province. They should stop impersonating that government and answer the questions. I would ask the Premier one more time: will you commit today to answer the questions on the order paper?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Hon. members, in order to have some decorum in this House during question period, we must be able to hear the questions and hear the answers. Would the member briefly state his final supplemental, please?
D. Mitchell: Would the Premier, as leader of the government, cease and desist with the excellent impersonation of the previous disgraced administration and instruct his cabinet colleagues today to answer the questions on the order paper before any of his other colleagues in cabinet have their integrity questioned.
SABATINO LETTER
A. Warnke: My question today is for the Minister of Tourism. I also want to extend to her greetings after her stay away for a little while.
On May 8, just before 12:30 p.m., the Minister of Tourism read in the Legislature a letter to the Leader of the Opposition marked "Personal and Confidential" that she had received at 12:19 from Mr. Paul Sabatino. However, the Leader of the Opposition had not received this letter when the minister read it into Hansard. Since the letter did not have a "cc" at the end, could the minister tell us how, as a minister of the Crown, she got possession of this letter to which she was not entitled,
[ Page 1754 ]
since it was to be sent only to the Leader of the Opposition?
Hon. D. Marzari: Thank you for greeting me from my trip to Ottawa, from where I hope I successfully brought home some federal dollars for tourism and culture.
Mr. Sabatino's letter, which was a letter expressing outrage at your caucus's inability to pull together a non-libellous letter, was not the property of the Leader of the Opposition. It was basically the property of the sender. I gather Mr. Sabatino couriered the letter to the Leader of the Opposition and then later in the morning faxed the letter to me, to be assured that it would be made public record. That is my understanding of the situation. There was no "cc," since there's no legal requirement to put a "cc" on a letter that is of your own possession. I regard the letter as the property of Mr. Sabatino, and I regard the anger that Mr. Sabatino expressed as the property that belongs to the Liberal opposition.
A. Warnke: Could the same Minister of Tourism also tell us how, as a minister of the Crown, she saw fit to release a letter marked "Personal and Confidential," when the minister knew the Leader of the Opposition had not received this letter?
Hon. D. Marzari: I must say that when I received the letter, which was sent in to me by my staff, I assumed that it must have been received by your side, since it was sent to you. But I discovered afterwards that it was couriered. I have no idea of the time that it arrived by courier to the leader of the official opposition, but let me assure you that I read it into the House record within minutes of the moment your leader's letter arrived. The opinions that it expressed and the anger that it expressed.... It was appropriate to read it into the record of this House to let the province, Hansard and the opposition know that basically you were playing with items that outside this House would have been libellous.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
A. Warnke: Usually I just ask two questions, but I do want to ask a final supplemental in this particular case. This is to the Premier: how does the Premier find it acceptable that a minister of the Crown can intercept and then use for partisan purposes in this chamber mail to another member marked "Personal and Confidential"
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought that the minister's explanation was quite self-explanatory. The only puzzle here is how the opposition, after a weekend to come up with some questions, can only deal with which electronic impulse is slower, a fax machine or a courier.
The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.
The Attorney General is answering a question taken on notice.
[2:30]
NATIVE POLICE
Hon. C. Gabelmann: On the 20th and 21st of this month the hon. leader of the third party asked me a series of questions regarding the native peacekeeping program in Lillooet. The questions specifically related to the jurisdiction of tribal peacekeepers, their training, commitment of funds by my ministry and public education about the program.
The jurisdiction of the native peacekeepers is set out in a protocol with the RCMP. It includes limited policing responsibilities on reserves within the Stl'atl'imx nation reserves in the area extending from Pemberton to Lillooet. For travelling between reserves, the protocol requires that the peacekeepers respond to any evident lawbreaking, or to an individual in trouble, as we would expect of any citizen. The basic police recruit training they receive is the same as that received by municipal police officers. As well, they receive additional training in aboriginal culture and in dealing with abuse issues that they may face. The training is administered by the B.C. Justice Institute police academy.
In fiscal year 1991-92 my ministry provided $60,000 to fund in part the development of a community policing infrastructure. In terms of additional funds, the government has been working closely with the Stl'atl'imx nation, the federal Solicitor-General, the Department of Indian Affairs and the RCMP, with a view to establishing a tribal police service in Lillooet with the same powers and immunities as other police officers in the province.
My colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I are currently examining a policy proposal for aboriginal policing on a basis of both senior levels of government sharing costs. Details concerning these proposals will be brought to the attention of the House in the very near future.
With respect to public education, a public meeting was held May 11 to respond to public concerns. Mayor Joyce Harder was one of about 300 people in attendance. Information was provided by representatives of my ministry, the RCMP, the federal Solicitor-General, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Justice Institute and the B.C. Police Commission.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the program is sound, that it is generally understood in the community, and is accepted by the mainstream in the community.
L. Fox: I request leave to table a document.
The Speaker: Can you briefly describe the document?
L. Fox: The document contains the quote within the question that I asked earlier in question period.
[ Page 1755 ]
Leave granted.
A. Cowie: I request leave to table a study on affordable housing. The minister has a copy and it was mentioned during the estimates last week.
Leave granted.
N. Lortie: I rise to present a petition to the House, a petition of 2,355 names collected by the Canadian Search Centre for Missing Children. I would like to read the last, short paragraph of the petition: "The petition of the undersigned supports the 'Garden of Hope' and all parents of missing children. We are requesting May 25 be proclaimed International Missing Children's Day."
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In Section A will be heard the Ministry of Energy estimates and in Section B the Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates.
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 notice the minister has his staff here. I would like to finish this today, if at all possible. I expect that if I keep my questions short, the minister will keep his answers short. If we're lucky, the third party won't return, and we'll get through today -- although they've indicated that they are going to cooperate.
I'm going to leave the homeowner's grant, so we won't have to deal with that. It would be quite lengthy.
Regarding safety standards, I have one question about electrical-inspector services. I wonder why the minister would not encourage municipalities to take on this function, since I believe it pays for itself. In other words, the recovery covers the cost.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That is actually a detailed question that requires some explanation. While staff think about that, I'll give you some initial reactions.
One of the concerns of local government that is raised in a number of these kinds of areas -- and this Legislature has tried to address them -- is the whole question of liability. If you set up local government to inspect everything -- every house, all wiring, everything, which is an impossible situation -- and you lay that out in legislative authority, you will raise incredible liability concerns for local government. We have tried over the years to address that, to minimize liability exposure for local government. At the same time there is the issue of public safety, which I'm sure your question very much revolves around. The initial reaction is the issue of liability concerns.
A. Cowie: The problem I have with that is that the municipality is already inspecting almost everything else. It would seem to me that rather than having provincial employees, these employees -- since they are talented and qualified -- should simply be taken over by the various municipalities.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Staff tell me that we've never actually aggressively pursued the concept of municipal involvement. These days, if you suggest municipal involvement in anything, local government gets concerned in terms of the financial implications.
The other issue -- which is a very good one, as staff relate to me -- is the issue of competence in terms of electrical inspection. Simply, many smaller municipalities -- villages and towns -- simply don't have or cannot afford the expertise required to do the things that you're suggesting.
But we will take that question to some degree on notice. We'll go back to staff and look at it to see if there are some things we're missing that we could address.
A. Cowie: I've got some technical questions, but I want to go back now to a couple of general questions since there is a member in the House who has a question on a specific to do with the Islands Trust.
First of all, I want to ask the minister's philosophy on the Islands Trust. We all fly over the Gulf Islands regularly. Over the weekend in Vancouver, at a workshop put on by the GVRD, the Premier referred to a possibility of doubling the population in the Vancouver-Nanaimo-Victoria-Washington area to some ten million people in the next 30 to 50 years. I don't want to alarm anybody, but that is only double the present population. It looks like that's the way we are going to go.
These Gulf Islands are unique. Many people want to see them preserved as much as possible. We have an Islands Trust. Since that budget is going to be increased slightly, does the minister still intend to see the Islands Trust as an autonomous group, or is the ministry going to take more of a leadership role in it when one considers this future that the Premier referred to?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Just to go back to your original question on the electrical inspection, one other thing noted by staff would be that in 1987 there was a fairly extensive conference on decentralization and devolution and what local government could be doing and not doing. At that time there was no interest by local government to take over this function, even though I suspect they knew there may be some revenue generation that could be a component of it. We haven't had that interest expressed.
As to the Islands Trust, I think a general statement is that this government supports the intent: the concept of preserving and protecting this particularly unique part of British Columbia. In many ways it's a micro-ecosystem that is looked at by other jurisdictions in terms of how we manage it, how we preserve it and how we enhance it for the future. There are at times conflicts not only on the islands but also conflicts from those who don't live on the islands. There are feelings of over-
[ Page 1756 ]
protection; feelings that the islands could encompass or take more development. That issue raises itself on numerous occasions.
We believe there is a balance to be achieved. I think the Islands Trust are not opposed to growth or development, but it has to be controlled and carefully done and has to be within the objectives of the Trust in terms of their community plans and the islands' plans and the general belief by the Islands Trust that they have a particularly unique area.
My understanding is that the Trust, which was established in the mid-seventies, is currently looking at itself and its future and having a useful discussion with itself and others about where it's going in the next ten to 15 years. As you know, the current legislation, which was amended some years ago, permits the islands to move to a different level of government and to look at the regional district concept if they so desire. This minister has already met a number of times with the Islands Trust. They are looking at their future. We look forward to working with them, as we move ahead to preserve what is considered by all British Columbians to be a particularly unique area of the province.
[2:45]
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I have three specific questions on the Islands Trust. First of all, let me tell you that being a representative of the Gulf Islands for the last six months has been an interesting experience. My constituency consists of most of the peninsula and five major Gulf Islands, and I get far more work from the Gulf Islands than they do, I suspect, from all the other constituencies in the lower end of the Island -- the large island.
Could the minister explain to the House the thinking of his ministry prior to the signing of the Galiano bylaws, 1981-85, controlling forest lands in private hands?
Hon. R. Blencoe: That was a difficult issue that I spent a number of weeks thinking about, consulting with the interested parties and looking at alternatives and options. As you know, there is a court case pending, so I don't wish to go too far on the issue.
In my estimation, the conclusion was -- I was looking for compelling reasons not to sign the bylaws and didn't find any other than the concerns on the other side -- that this was something that the islanders, the Islands Trust and the local committee had made a decision that they wanted to do. They had gone through the procedures and the process. This minister was being asked to endorse something that hadn't been fully scrutinized at the local level. Consequently, as you know, I signed the bylaws.
C. Tanner: The minister really didn't tell me anything I didn't know; I could have gotten that from virtually anywhere else. I would like to know how the minister arrived at a decision of such magnitude to the people living on Galiano Island. In particular, did he have legal advice?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know what more I can say, and I really don't want to say much because there is a court case pending, as you know, hon. member. If I appear to you to be obtuse and general, there is a very good reason for that.
But let me say that I took a long time to sign those bylaws. I consulted widely with many parties in government and out of government. I did not rush the decision. I recognized that it was a controversial decision, and I weighed all sides. In the end, having listened to everybody, I made a judgment call. In these kinds of issues, the government is called on in the end for the final say. I made a judgment call that the bylaws had gone through the process. The islands have the mandate, and assigned the bylaws. I really don't want to say much more, hon. member, because, as you know, there are some outstanding issues on this question.
C. Tanner: I realize it must be a delicate matter for the minister, but perhaps he could tell us whether the decision was entirely within his own discretion; did he take it to cabinet, or did he take it to a cabinet committee?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I did not take it to cabinet, but I can assure you that I consulted with many of my colleagues, who may be affected, or who may be perceived to be affected by this decision. It was a decision by this minister to make a decision on land use zoning. The decision was made by this minister.
Let me say that there was a dilemma, obviously, which in this ministry I deal with on a daily basis. You have on the one hand the pursuit of purely local objectives versus the limitations of existing law. There's no question that the issue of private logging is a controversial one. It's on the agenda. It's one the former government had prepared -- in my understanding, there was some legislation to deal with it -- but they backed off.
In this case on Galiano, I think it's quite clear that the islanders felt that they had to have some mechanism to have a degree of control over what they perceived to be a major problem in terms of a large company selling off large tracts of land; therefore wanting the ability to have some say in terms of land use and zoning.... And the member knows the other things that are involved. I signed them also, hon. member, because to reject them would have required proof that the bylaws contravened the provincial interest. Again, that was done, and I consulted widely with many of my colleagues on that very issue.
But there is a broader issue at stake here; there's no question. That is the who, what, when and where by which we should have some control or say over private lands and private logging. As you know, we have little or no control over such issues. The difficulty, of course, is that you run into the whole question of public interest versus private interest. That raises its head in this Legislature many, many times. On this issue we're going to have to take it on; we're going to have to challenge it. We're going to have to find some balance, because there's no question that while there are lands like Galiano that are indeed private, there are public
[ Page 1757 ]
interests, or common interests. Common sense would require that there should be some say by those who protect the public interest -- or whether government should have some say in terms of how logging is conducted on private lands.
This government is currently tackling that issue. When we will deal with it in a legislative form I cannot say at this time.
C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, you didn't specifically answer my question whether you signed it within your discretion, and if you did, did you seek and take advice? And specifically, did you seek advice from your colleagues the Attorney General and the Minister of Forests?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer to the question is yes. I consulted widely with many of my colleagues, particularly the Minister of Forests and the Attorney General. This bylaw was on the agenda. I think it had been on the former minister's desk since early summer of, I believe, '91. My understanding is that the solicitors and legal advisers for my ministry had consulted widely with the Attorney General's department and solicitors. That was extensive.
C. Tanner: One last question to the minister. His department, I'm sure, understands the very serious ramifications of any decision made on Galiano, vis-�-vis the court case, with the rest of the southern end of Vancouver Island. Could he comment on that to some extent?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As the member knows, there are many problems in the province. This government is trying to tackle many of them as quickly as possible, but currently the law is the law. We will move as quickly as we can to try and bring some balance to this issue that I know the member is quite rightly sincerely concerned about.
Until then we will try to work within the current mandates, policy and legislation -- and so will local government -- to try and protect as best possible. Obviously there will have to be changes if we are to deal with the issues in the long term that the member refers to. At the moment the law, as it is written, makes it difficult in some cases.
C. Tanner: I have two other smaller questions. One is the request that I have had from a group of single-home and own-home builders on Galiano, by coincidence. I get a lot of questions from Galiano, I should tell you. It's not an unreasonable one. At first blush, while it might sound unreasonable, when you think about it, it probably isn't. What these single-home builders are requesting is exemption from the National Building Code for two reasons: one is that they don't necessarily want to conform; and two is that they can use on-island and reusable materials. If it was acceptable to the ministry or to the Capital Regional District inspectors, it would save your department some time and money, and the builders would expect that there would be a caveat on their registration notifying any subsequent purchaser of the home that they didn't comply with the National Building Code. Could the minister comment on that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, staff cannot provide the subjective comments required for this kind of question. The building code is always controversial. I constantly get letters and phone calls from builders, contractors and others who feel that it's too onerous and has no flexibility. People want changes. Some of your constituents obviously want to be exempt or have some greater flexibility. Sometimes there is some validity, in terms of the rigidity of the code.
In the last few years there have been some moves to look at alternatives. For instance, in building construction, rather than insisting that you have the best material for a fire situation, you might allow some flexibility by saying: "We'll allow you to sprinkler instead." You might give options under the code. Am I correct? The staff are nodding, yes. There's some room there.
[3:00]
The difficulty, of course, comes with where you allow reasonableness and where you move against public safety. I guess that's where we come in, in terms of the government. The question I have to ask you and those members is: in the long run, are their requests in the interests of consumers and in the interest of public safety? Trade-offs are just fine as long as safety is not compromised. Trying to achieve that, particularly with a building code, can be extremely.... In my short experience with it at the provincial level, being the minister responsible, I constantly come up against that from people, in terms of what I read. Trade-offs are fine, but you've got to be careful that you don't compromise public safety.
There are, of course, practitioners and contractors in the industry who feel that it's often too tight. I think we're always open. We do have processes whereby those in the professional field can let us know. We have review committees and panels that look at these issues.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just discovered another note. Perhaps he'd like to give us the benefit of that intelligence at the same time as I ask him the next question.
The minister is aware, of course, that Hornby Island and Denman Island do not conform to the building code. Those two islands, for some reason best known to themselves, were exempt from the building code, and they don't conform. By the sheerest of coincidences, the gentleman who owned the house that I've recently purchased moved to Hornby, built a house there and won an award, which was nationally recognized.
These small builders are not saying that they want to be exempt from the health code or from any building standards that are necessary in a house; they're just talking about some of the more onerous stipulations under the building code. From what these builders told me, I was convinced that they have a good case.
The minister wasn't listening to me when I mentioned that Hornby and Denman are presently exempt
[ Page 1758 ]
from the building code. Why should we choose those two islands and not a beautiful island like Galiano?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm going to do something that often happens in public life. It is quite permissible in this case. Although we are involved in the building code in the way of amendments, changes, looking at it, making recommendations and participating in a national process, the issues that the member is referring to are really local decisions. My understanding is that the CRD has jurisdiction over bylaws. I suspect that the reason that Hornby and Denman are outside the building code is because the regional district in that area gave them the ability to do so. If the capital region wishes to do that for Galiano, I assume that they could do so.
Not wanting to avoid your question, hon. member, you may wish, as a local MLA, to take up the issue with the regional district.
C. Tanner: You did rather nicely lead into my next question. Thank you.
I have on file a pile of probably 100 letters and phone messages telling me that the people who live on the islands, particularly Saltspring, Galiano and Pender, are getting the runaround between the Islands Trust, the Ministry of Highways, the CRD, the Ministry of Environment and your department. In many cases it's one department passing the buck to another. In one case, which I had in my office this morning, the gentleman had been trying for ten years to get a decision as to whether or not he could subdivide what was already in the community plan as a subdivided piece of land.
Mr. Minister, I think there is an obligation on the part of your department, being Municipal Affairs, which has responsibility for the Trust islands, to sort this out. There is no doubt at all in my mind that in the six months that I've been the member representing the Gulf Islands, people living on the Gulf Islands are subjected to very many more restrictions than the rest of us who are living on the mainland or over on this Island. While I know that we want to protect what we have there, it sometimes gets to the point of absurdity when somebody is trying to get a decision from one of these various bodies that they live under. Could the minister comment on that, please?
Hon. R. Blencoe: My experience with the islands, and I think it's also probably the member's experience, is that because of the intense feelings on both sides of issues, sometimes there's a perception that any particular issue is more intense or there is special treatment or the problem is exaggerated on the islands. I don't think that's necessarily true. I don't think the rules or the regulations or the building code are any stronger for the islands than they are for Victoria or for any other community. There are those on the island, though, who are fairly articulate and sophisticated at expressing themselves and getting their point across, and they make their points extremely well.
We could go on all afternoon about the issues you raise. The member raises some good issues. If he, along with his constituents, wishes to raise those with my staff and with my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Harkness, who is responsible for the building code, I suggest and offer to you that you put that before us. We can take a look at the issues you raise.
A. Cowie: We know that over the next ten to 20 years we are going to have considerable growth, and that growth is probably going to be directed mainly toward the existing municipalities and their fringe areas. We also know that there's a great deal of concern in these municipalities, often expressed by a term called NIMBY. Over the weekend I heard of a new term called BAANNA -- build anything anywhere but not near anything.
An Hon. Member: Not in my term of office.
A. Cowie: Right. That's NIMTO. With the new ombudsman legislation coming in, I believe the intention is that there would be some form of appeal. Has the minister considered an appeal process? Because in some municipalities there is obviously a great deal of conflict. It doesn't seem to get resolved in a meaningful way in many municipalities, except perhaps at election time. Is the minister considering any form of arbitration or means of appeal? Perhaps not like they have in Ontario within a proper provincial appeal board, but a way that the minister can either go in and send someone to arbitrate or have an independent body do some arbitration that isn't so costly as the present system.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I know what the member talks about. This issue comes up intermittently at the local level. There should be some appeal procedure set up outside local government so that when they -- particularly developers and contractors and the private sector -- feel aggrieved by a decision by a local government, particularly in land use and zoning, they have some way that they could have it appealed.
In Ontario I believe it's the Ontario Municipal Board. We have never had that experience in British Columbia. We've never gone that route. I have to say, and I'll put it fairly straight: I certainly as one member of this Legislature and as the minister in this period of time would have to be convinced that we need that kind of appeal procedure. However, that doesn't mean that the provincial government should remove itself and in the future should not be helping more with dispute resolution. If I may say so, one of the frustrations that I sometimes run into is that in our office we average three to four hundred letters per week, and many of the letters are from people who are having some kind of dispute at the local level or with the council or regional district -- numerous issues. Often because of the letter of the law, lack of legislation, different approaches, different interpretations or nuances of the issue, some of these disputes -- not just between individuals and local government but between institutions and local government -- can simmer and fester for years. One of my frustrations when I write back is that I often have to say that I don't have any jurisdiction in that area, blah,
[ Page 1759 ]
blah; I hope local government can resolve it. In a way, I walk away from trying to help with the issue.
It seems to me that there's a role to play in terms of a far greater dispute resolution system. One of the things that I'm particularly interested in is that if there's a problem, we tend, with local and provincial government, to look to legislation first; let's legislate it out, let's legislate the problem away. Of course, that's time consuming, and when you bring in legislation, there are invariably ways to get around legislation. Everyone starts looking for ways around it. I don't have to tell you, hon. member.
One thing I am particularly interested in -- and I think that many are -- is looking at alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for government. There's an opening here, particularly with my ministry, to take a look at that. You have to tread very carefully and lightly. It has to be particularly thought out, because local government might ask why you are moving into this area. It comes from a feeling that too often issues are just left hanging, and there needs to be a friendly arbitrator or mediator who can try and bring the parties back together.
A. Cowie: The ministry has an investigations section. I realize that's probably limited to particular situations. I wonder if the minister wants to let us know basically what he sees the investigation department doing.
Hon. R. Blencoe: You're referring to a gentleman who is the deputy inspector of municipalities. I'm actually sitting next to the inspector of municipalities right here. But the gentleman in question deals with hundreds of complaints, usually from citizens who, in some way, feel aggrieved by their local council or feel that something is not being done. My colleague from Prince George-Omineca, who has had extensive experience at the local level, knows what I'm talking about.
Mr. Thompson, who is the deputy inspector of municipalities, gets many cases where citizens ask for a review. But so many times it comes down to us getting back to them and saying: "It is a dispute between you and your local government." Of course, the traditional language is: "The local government is elected, they are accountable and they make that decision. I sympathize, but get back to local government." That's where I refer again to.... Sometimes these issues simmer for years, because there's a difference of opinion at the local level. That's where, in terms of the provincial government, I think there can be some carefully thought-out ways and not always saying: "Leave it alone, and hopefully it will all go away."
The ombudsman, of course, coming into this area, will.... That's something that we are actually still looking at the implications of, and we'll be working out. That's going to be a whole new era for us all, of course, because that section of the act, in terms of reviewing municipal actions, hasn't been done; that's new. It will probably mean some changes in terms of our operation.
In terms of how we deal with complaints -- this is a very general statement -- we usually deal with procedures rather than policy. Clearly, local government is elected to set policy, obviously within the confines of the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter or whatever. It's not our job, or my job, to question local policy unless it has an impact on the provincial perspective, provincial interests. That does happen, of course, and then a dialogue goes back and forth. But generally we deal with procedures: whether the thing was carried out properly; whether they followed the laws, the legislation, the acts or whatever; whether they conducted a public hearing properly -- all those various things. Then a decision is made by the deputy inspector of municipalities.
[3:15]
A. Cowie: I have an example of one such case that one might want to look at, if the owner of the land were to ask you: Hy-Line Kennels in the Aldergrove area. The owner referred me to section 962 of the Municipal Act. In 1987 the Municipal Act was changed to allow an addition to a non-conforming use. It seems to me that in that particular case, it was quite unjustified to allow a large addition to a small facility. I inquired and found that the board of variance indeed allowed it, and that the board of variance is allowed to make what amounts to, in my opinion, rezoning decisions, because when you've got a small kennel, and you're allowed to build a big one.... That was not allowed prior to 1987. I wonder if the minister has any point of view on this, since it seems to be a loophole where boards of variance can deal with zoning.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I hope it's not a telltale sign that we're looking at kennels and dogs or anything at this point. Board of variance: yes, an area that I get lots of questions about. Yes, because people think they go beyond their terms of reference. Invariably, it's again because someone is aggrieved by the board of variance. They are quasi-independent, for very good reasons, because they're kind of an appeal procedure, which you were sort of referring to, at the local level. Sometimes, genuinely, there's a feeling that they take on certain roles they shouldn't. That's when we will take a look at it. Again, the inspector of municipalities has the power to, and does, take a look at it, and we can make some recommendations. But most times it's because the board has made a decision that someone doesn't particularly like.
A. Cowie: I won't ask any more questions along that line, but I will make the remark that I talked with a number of planners in different municipalities, and they think that the legislation goes beyond what it should, and that it actually conflicts with good zoning practices. I'll just point that out, and I'm sure the minister agrees, so we won't continue with that.
I'd like to move into housing for just a little while. We all know, from the various conferences we've been attending -- and there's one coming up now on infill housing -- that we have to be much more innovative. I don't imagine we're going to change the National Building Code of Canada. That's not the problem. We have to change the minds of some municipalities and the minds of people who live in the municipalities, so
[ Page 1760 ]
that they will be more flexible and allow different forms of housing that are as good as what we live in now, if not better.
Before I move on to some of the technical aspects of housing, though, I would like to mention that the minister, I believe in the next two weeks or so, is probably going to bring in some legislation to help people purchase homes in the area of the middle income: the $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 range would be my guess. There have been no leaks; I'm just guessing. I may be embarrassed in two or three weeks if you don't, but my guess is that's what we're going to be dealing with, because that's the easiest way of dealing with some of the housing problems. I would suggest that should be done by private enterprise, and you need very little government interference other than to persuade municipalities to change their zoning, sway some of the ways in which things are done, and encourage more security on behalf of banks and that sort of thing.
I'd like to hear about that, but I guess I may be hearing about it in the next two or three weeks. The minister may want to talk about what he is doing in that area, and then give me a little idea about the area that he should be concentrating his efforts in, and that's social housing for the poor, without giving us the reason that the federal government are downloading. I really believe the provincial government has to take some leadership here. We know the federal government is downloading. What is this ministry going to do about it?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to discourage or throw cold water on my critic's speculation on legislation or great innovations this government will bring in this or next year. Suffice it to say that housing is an important issue, and we will be bringing forward changes and, hopefully, innovations as we proceed in our mandate.
Let me say that I don't disagree with the member's comments about the private sector. Quite frankly, the member may be seeing and hearing something in the next two weeks on something he hasn't referred to yet -- an announcement of a process that will allow the private sector to have greater participation with their provincial government, because it belongs to everybody, of course. I think there will be, as we move ahead, lots of room for creative and innovative partnerships between the provincial government and the private sector. We haven't hidden the fact that we will require those partnerships.... There obviously has to be a benefit to both sides. One of the difficulties in the past -- and I'm not going to go into details or name programs -- was that when the private and public sectors got together on partnership, there was a perception sometimes that the public sector didn't get as much benefit as it should. That is always controversial and a judgment call. Without going too much into that, my ministry has been instructed to work with the private sector: the Canadian Homebuilders' Association, the UDI and the contractors. We will be doing some innovative things with the Canadian Homebuilders' Association in the months and years ahead. We will be participating -- and I think the members also would be -- in the conferences coming up, such as the conference in Victoria in terms of creative ideas in urban areas for infill housing. I suspect, though, that that conference is on more than just infill housing; it's looking at growth-management strategies -- how to manage urbanized areas.
In terms of social housing, I won't give the member the federal government speech or the concerns we have, although they are genuine and are being voiced by all my housing colleagues across the country. Suffice it to say that we won't let people down. We are committed to the money we put into the budget for social housing this year. The federal government, of course, has withdrawn its components; therefore we have provincial moneys allocated that currently we don't have a partner for. We are looking at how we can utilize those dollars in a creative way. The bottom line is, politics aside, that we will have to make some decisions whereby those who are in need of housing are not caught up in the federal-provincial politics of the day in terms of who's right or who's wrong. The issue is that people need housing. This doesn't mean to say we will not continue to advocate with the federal government that they are removing themselves significantly from a national, traditional responsibility of the last 50 or 60 years -- a break with their partners that we've never seen before. We will continue to advocate with the federal government that housing is a national responsibility, that the federal government is part of the solution and that the government of British Columbia is leaving its money on the table for the federal government to come back in good faith to bring back their money, so that we can construct for this year probably 500 more units than we currently are going to be able to construct because of the cutbacks.
We are looking at alternatives. I'm going to show you, hon. member, that as you're probably aware, in my budget this year there has been generous support for the creation of a housing unit within my ministry. The member may not be aware that there's never really been any policy capacity within government to do housing policy, which is unbelievable. That's history. We're looking to the future. We're going to be building the ability of the public sector in a very efficient but highly innovative and intelligent way to develop public policy for housing, a multifaceted housing program and housing policy that will be clear and will be done in consultation with the stakeholders. Till that consultation is complete we won't be making major precipitate moves in the housing field. There will be some things we can do, some programs we can announce, but we want to get a sense -- because we've never really ever done this in this province -- of what a housing policy should look like in British Columbia. I invite all members of the Legislature, including my colleague the hon. opposition member. Your party has done a piece of work; I haven't read it yet. I invite everyone to participate in the process we will announce very soon.
The bottom line is that this government is very interested in housing. We are raising it on the agenda. We have some difficulty, of course, again because of the federal removal.... But we will have to get extremely creative with those who know the industry well -- the
[ Page 1761 ]
private sector. In the months ahead I'm hoping that there will be some good announcements in terms of partnerships in housing programs for British Columbians.
A. Cowie: Approximately a year ago Mr. Thomas resigned from the B.C. Housing Commission, and before that there hadn't been a meeting for about a year. Since B.C. Housing was set up to be an independent board to advise the minister.... I don't know why Mr. Thomas resigned. The minister may have some clue. It was before his time, but he might be able to give me some reasons or at least some vision as to what he sees the B.C. Housing Commission....
I believe they look after 60,000 units in the province. Obviously they've got some built projects that are underutilized. I can mention a few where they could very easily double, triple or quadruple the density and be within the vision of the municipality that those projects are in. That would mean that in those areas this land would cost nothing. In fact, it would just be the cost of the building. The minister could go in and look at some of those situations.
Maybe he can give me a few short words as to what B.C. Housing is up to.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, it's no secret that this government and this minister have not moved ahead in a precipitate or fast fashion to reappoint an advisory board to B.C. Housing Management Commission.
Mr. Thomas's -- how should I put it -- abdication from the chair was complete prior to the new government taking over. I don't know the reasons for that. I suspect he got very busy in the private sector. I recall some debates in this Legislature where the opposition of the day and this member were looking for Mr. Thomas, wondering where he was, actually, as chairperson of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. The nature of his business has changed, from my understanding, and he's doing a lot more south of the line, and his time was not available, as it was, to the public sector.
I have left the concept of a new advisory body to the B.C. Housing Management Commission in limbo, I suppose. We haven't made any changes, basically because it may very well be that there will be some changes in terms of how B.C. Housing relates to the provincial government. I have to share with you that for various reasons the B.C. Housing Management Commission has virtually become the de facto Housing ministry. Much of this happened because the former government really didn't have much interest in a lot of these areas, so they let B.C. Housing do it, but no one was guiding the ship. In time, you will see B.C. Housing being advised a lot more by government; it is government, but many people see it as a organization distinct from government. I think we have to bring the two closer together.
During this consultation process -- which the member will be hearing about shortly-there will be every opportunity for people to come forward in terms of how they think B.C. Housing could work better. What should its relationship to government be? What should the operation look like? How should it report to government? I'm of the view that the minister and B.C. Housing should have a community-based advisory concept built into it. But at this point, I'm not of the view that there should be Ministry of Housing staff here, and then a whole independent organization based in Vancouver that doesn't connect well to the ministry. We have to bring those two together. That is all being looked at.
It would have been very easy for me to make some major changes without finding out what people thought first -- and we will be doing that. It's my understanding that the operation is running well. It's ticking over. It's doing the allocations -- short as they may be, because of the federal cutbacks. As you know, we don't have as many allocations, but it's carrying out its delivery capacity. We on this side, of course -- the ministry -- continue to build up our portfolio and our ministry and our staff and our policy unit. In time, of course, there will be some changes that will be to the benefit of all concerned about housing.
[3:30]
A. Cowie: Well, Mr. Minister, I wonder if there's a message there or not. There's no board. They haven't met for three years. They have a very good staff, and they seem to be operating quite well without too much interference. So maybe there's a message. But I take it that you're looking at it, and through the ministry itself.... Maybe we won't need any appointments. If those appointments are made, they'll be made on the basis of quality and ability, and that sort of thing.
I want to turn now, for a minute.... And shortly, to give myself a tea break, I'm going to move it over to the third party. I could go on here for two or three days. I have to say that that was a tea break.
I want to deal with technology a little bit. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on a number of innovations that have been tried out recently and how important they are. I'd like to get his views on how important they are. There is the Quality Plus project that B.C. Hydro and the government were sponsoring last year through the Canadian Home Builders' Association, so that one can get a higher-quality home -- better insulation; it's using the R2000 technology, plus using HRV system, etc. to recirculate the air. Essentially, you're living in a plastic bag now, if you build a house to those standards, and you have to have all of the technology to make sure there's enough air. But I can assure you that in some of the houses I've visited, even multiple houses in Vancouver, it substantially lowers the cost of heating, and therefore it's a good conservation method. The Canadian Home Builders certainly support it. I wonder if the minister is aware of that project and supports it in a financial way.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We do indeed support the innovations and the concepts that are coming out of that project. In the weeks ahead -- not necessarily with B.C. Hydro -- we'll be announcing some closer relationships to certain private sector institutions in terms of encouraging some of the things that you're talking about.
[ Page 1762 ]
One of the concerns, of course, is that perhaps we're going a little bit too far, overengineering our houses. That's an area that I don't profess to have particular expertise in, but I do note that. Our ministry and our staff work regularly with all the various components in the energy conservation field; we have regular contact, and will do so more as we develop the housing capacity within the ministry in the policy unit. This is just another important area for our housing sector to come up to speed on, to work with and to develop relationships with the private sector, so that we in the public sector can share the latest opportunities.
I don't know the details, but I'm told that we do have concerns about the totally engineered home that is about these days. I'm not aware of all the concerns, but staff have told me that there are some professional concerns about those things. There is staff contact between this ministry and the Ministry of Energy, in my understanding. The bottom line is that there is trade-off between energy conservation and other Building Code objectives. I got into that discussion earlier in terms of the Building Code -- always trying to achieve a balance, hon. member.
A. Cowie: In any innovation you're going to have differences of opinion. Close architect friends of mine have told me they don't believe in this concept of airtightness, and in some municipalities you have to have it. My answer to that is: build it airtight, try and save the money, see if you like it. It seems to help out with allergies. If in five years' time, for some reason or another, we find that it's the wrong thing to do, just bang a few holes in the side of the building and you've got the good old air from the outside coming in, and that can be controlled. So I'd be inclined to go with the innovation.
Hon. R. Blencoe: What often happens is that we get concerned about issues and we all work dutifully on it and we react and we bring in changes, and the pendulum, which used to be over here, suddenly goes all the way over here. We go too far, and it has to come back. I'm told that, for instance, it was the Victoria Home Builders who raised the issue of engineered heating and ventilation systems and some of the concerns that you're expressing today. The provincial government amended the Code to accommodate their concerns. It was the industry itself who brought that to our attention.
Back to whoever was asking the question earlier about building codes and flexibility, I think this is the point where we are open. If it seems reasonable and doesn't compromise safety, we are open to suggestions and amendments.
A. Cowie: Just like airtight stoves and that sort of thing, with airtight buildings you have to make sure that you've got enough oxygen to live, or you could not wake up in the morning. All these innovations have to be balanced. I think that's getting a little too technical and a little beyond the ministry as it's set up at the present time, but it is going in the direction of taking over a lot more housing. Undoubtedly that side of the ministry will be built up over the years. I'll ask questions next year or the year after that.
What I'd like to do now is ask a question that generally relates to taxation. It relates to a specific, but I'd still like to ask it, since it's dealing with Vancouver and my riding. Specifically, does the minister consider the powers under section 290 of the Municipal Act to be sufficient to cap tax increases, as Vancouver city has done? Could that be applicable generally?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to get into whether it's adequate or whether we should have more apples or more oranges. If the member is referring to the third year of a three-year capping program, Vancouver and, in particular, Mayor Campbell requested that the government and my ministry introduce capping for the third and final year. We took a look at it closely, as Vancouver did, in terms of whether we really wanted to do that. As you know, there is genuine and incredible opposition to capping. When you tinker dramatically with markets and assessments.... When you hold it down here, you create a problem over there. However, there was no overwhelming or compelling reason that we shouldn't endorse it for this year.
I did make it quite clear that it was interim, and that this government would be introducing probably the most creative piece of legislation that's been seen in this country for a long time in terms of dealing with rapidly increasing assessments, which create problems for people's homes. We said in the throne speech that we will be introducing changes that will give local governments great flexibility with these issues when they're faced with them. Time will show the hon. member the legislation. Hopefully it will be on the floor of this House in the very near future.
A. Cowie: I take it, then, that at the present time there really isn't proper legislation in the Municipal Act to deal with capping, so some new legislation will be coming in shortly that may help this subject.
We also learned over the weekend, just on that subject, that there was a mention at the conference -- at least as far as my riding and Point Grey area go -- that real estate values have pretty well taken off. We should probably just split the west side of Vancouver off from all reality. There has to be some way of controlling not only the prices of land but also the taxes. It's just getting totally unrealistic. It doesn't make any sense when you compare it to other parts of the province. The minister may want to comment on that before I take him off into another area.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Very quickly, taxation, in whatever form, is never popular. I happen to be of the view, though, that municipal taxes are probably the best value -- dollar for dollar. I think that in studies that have been done in terms of levels of government and where people think they get the most value, often it's in municipal government. I guess that's partly because you can see what local government pays for -- most obviously police and fire departments, roads and lights and swimming pools.
[ Page 1763 ]
We are not pretending that in this legislation we will control land prices. We won't be controlling land prices. There are no magical answers to that question. If the member has some, please send them over. We will only stabilize the tax burden and try and minimize what sometimes happens in those very hot markets where people who have no intention of selling and who just want to live a quiet life are affected by those hot markets. Come tax time, because their assessments have jumped a couple of hundred thousand dollars or whatever can happen -- nothing to do with them.... We'll give the local government the opportunity to try and moderate that. But let me make it quite clear: no pretence to control land prices. That's a far more sophisticated issue, one that is fraught with minefields.
[3:45]
I know what the member refers to, and that's why rather than trying to tinker directly with the price of land, I think we have to try -- as I think you've come to the conclusion -- to make sure there's a greater supply of land at the local level for affordable housing, whether it be Crown land or private land. How can one encourage local government to zone more quickly and move applications through the process, thereby trying to take out this incredible cost of land?
I make no pretence: there are no easy answers, and we have no magical answers on this side.
A. Cowie: It's certainly good to hear this because the NDP government has changed since they were in last time in the seventies, when they actually did try to control the price of land, and built more projects on their own. They now realize that the free enterprise way is the best way, at least the more liberal way.
Where it's appropriate and where there's a proper plan, the answer is to release more land and increase the density. I think the real answer for the next short while is more infill and more innovation. I'm really, really happy to have this free enterprise flow that's going on right now.
To get into one other area, I believe that the ministry should in some way help technology. I think that technology is very important because there are other benefits. We want to have manufacturing in B.C., and through such things as manufactured homes.... I do not consider trailers to be manufactured homes. They aren't really solutions. However, with such things as last year's and this year's PNE prize home, it would be interesting -- and I'm not too sure if the ministry takes part in that program -- to see the ministry either sponsor programs or get into this area, because these homes in fact don't look like trailers. They are manufactured, and, at least with component houses rather than manufacturing whole sections and transporting them, I think it's an area that we could actually export technology. In fact, Panabode and a number of other manufacturing companies do export to Japan now, and there's great potential elsewhere in the world if we develop the right technology. We're looking for jobs, we're looking for industry, and I think government programs that show leadership in this way would be very beneficial not only to our own residents but also to those people who want to find new jobs.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member has been reading my speeches and my news releases.
A. Cowie: You must have a leak.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Did we have a leak, or the fax machine worked, or did we release it before we were supposed to release it, or did we send it to you? Given question period today, I am not quite sure how we should be doing that with your caucus. A little fun.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Just that? Just faxes.
I don't know if the member is aware that we do have a fairly sophisticated manufacturers study going on right now.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: You weren't aware of that? I will endeavour to let you have all the details on what we're doing. One of the first things I wanted to do on behalf of the government was to make moves in the manufactured-home industry and the concept of manufactured homes as greater and improved use of them. Standards and architectural design could really do a lot for affordability, and I have been spending a lot of time with the manufactured-home owners and associations and the manufacturers, and in this study, taking a look at what we have to do to expand the industry.
There are some incredibly good examples in other jurisdictions in other parts of the world where you can't tell the difference, quite frankly, between a manufactured home and a traditionally-built home. We in British Columbia, though, have had a perception problem, quite frankly. Most people, when you talk about a manufactured home, think of mobile homes or trailers. However, the industry has moved far beyond that. We have to deal with that perception. We have to educate particularly local government because sometimes local government are really averse to this concept of living, and reports back to those consultants who are handling the study for us have been quite surprised by local government saying: "Well, yes, we haven't looked at this for 20 or 30 years. We're still thinking trailers." But now they see the sophisticated product that's on the market -- which anybody, I think quite frankly, would be pleased to see in their municipality -- and the costs, of course, are substantially reduced.
They are beginning to realize that they also have to serve their constituents at the local level and not just shut down by saying: "Well, it's a trailer or it's a mobile home; we don't want anything to do it. They're just nothing but problems." We are trying to change that, and I think we're going to be successful.
Most of the studies on manufactured homes in the past have been dealing with the problems of ownership: pad rental, dealing with the tenure questions. Those are all important things and things that come up in this House. This study is taking a look at how manufactured homes can help us with affordability, home ownership,
[ Page 1764 ]
starter homes, and will be an important part of our housing strategy in the years ahead.
I would be pleased to put you in touch, hon. member, with the consultant and the various people working on the program -- UBCM is part of it, the private sector and our ministry. We're looking forward to a good response and a good study.
A. Cowie: One more question, and I'll hand it over for a while to the hon. member of the third party for some questions.
I would like to know who the consultant is, and I hope that I'll get that information soon. I would also hope that the ministry has consulted with well-known people in this area. For instance, I attended an architectural conference in Whistler last year, and they had an architect by the name of Donald MacDonald there who had shown how he had blazed the way in some cities in the United States with some very inexpensive but imaginative housing. So I would hope that the ministry is looking at solutions such as the one he put forward. They were a little mind-boggling in the context of B.C., but well worth looking at.
Another architect by the name of Barry Berkus is well known for innovative smaller and manufactured housing in the United States. There are also architects, of course, here in Canada and in B.C. who have dealt with this subject. I'm looking forward to getting more information along those lines, but first, maybe the minister will just give me the name of the consultant.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The name of the consultant is Kennedy community planning consultants. I have met with the principal; I believe her name is Sharon Kennedy. My staff can put you in touch with her, and I'm sure she would be very pleased to meet with you and update you on how it's all going.
If that is satisfactory on that, hon. member, can I just update you? B.C. Housing staff have sent in a note on the issue of energy conservation. B.C. Housing has had an ongoing cooperative program with B.C. Hydro in energy conservation for the past five years. Hydro expenses in social housing buildings have been drastically reduced because of the consultation and the work we do with B.C. Hydro.
C. Evans: Could I ask leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
C. Evans: In the absence of the member for Cowichan, I'd like to introduce 44 students in grade 9 from the Queen of Angels School. They are in the company of their teacher Ms. Murphy. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Fox: It seems like so long ago that we adjourned these particular estimates, it's hard to get my mind in focus back to where we left off. I appreciate the difficulty that the minister has doing the same.
As I'm sure the minister appreciates, when there are two sets of estimates going on, one finds oneself, in our particular situation, running in and out of both sessions; and there are other factors.
There is one thing that I was concerned about; I've heard you make reference to the fact that you are addressing the concern to some degree. It is the lack of consultation with the UBCM and the municipalities that has been evident earlier in the ministry. You appear now to have.... You suggested a few moments ago that you are involving the UBCM in the study of manufactured homes. What are the terms of reference for that study? Was the UBCM involved in the setting of the terms of reference?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Before I give a definitive answer on the manufactured homes study, I want to make it quite clear that I've always believed in consultation with local government and the UBCM. Nothing has changed. There are many things on which we're working with them and consulting them. Some things, though, we won't be able to consult on. There will be budget items, decisions by government that are financial. We have our turf and they have their turf, and there are going to be differences of opinion. That has never been hidden from them. We will continue to consult with local government and the UBCM. Right now, as I talk, there are a number of things being looked at by UBCM that pertain to this ministry.
In terms of the manufactured-home study, the UBCM sits on the steering committee. I understand they did have some involvement with the terms of reference, but I don't think they were heavily involved. I do know the staff members who were involved in those initial days, and they were working with staff. I remember them telling me that they had some meetings with UBCM to continue going over the terms of reference, so I think that happened. I haven't heard, to the contrary, that UBCM is not happy; indeed they are participating as a full partner.
L. Fox: With respect to that, you made reference earlier that you're bringing forth -- I don't want to discuss the actual legislation -- legislation that may help to deal with issues like the capping issue. I was very fortunate to have been on the executive of the UBCM back when we had the financing of local governments committee. That was a very worthwhile structure chaired by a very capable person, who was then the UBCM president, and it came back with a consensus on how we might address some of the issues. One of those, by the way, was the supplementary homeowner's grant, which you have suggested, and which your government has done away with.
In terms of this legislation change, should you not be having some dialogue, even in confidence, with the table officers of the UBCM so that you have the benefit of their support rather than, once again, a confrontational approach when it moves forward?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member is reaching. I will not presume who, within the UBCM organization, should take a look at or be consulted on legislation. We provide information, and I assume the organization is sophisticated enough to decide among themselves who
[ Page 1765 ]
should be consulted. In this consultation business, in terms of legislation, one has to be extremely careful. There are obviously confidentialities and risks to some degree. I can assure you, on this critical legislation and others, that key UBCM people are being consulted.
[4:00]
L. Fox: Thank you; I'll accept that.
Earlier today you were discussing this new role the ombudsman -- or the ombuddy or whatever we're going to end up calling him -- would play. What do you perceive his role to be? Given that, what is going to be the new role for the inspector of municipalities?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I said earlier to your colleague in the official opposition that we are working this through with the ombuds office, because it's a whole new area and era for us as well. Discussions are ongoing to work out the relationship between the ministry and the ombuds office. I don't want to mislead, but I assume we will continue to do investigations or reviews of issues that come to our attention through citizens.
I would assume that if a person feels aggrieved and goes to the ombuds office before they come to our ministry, it might very well be that the ombuds office will ask our opinion first or ask us to conduct an initial review. Again, those issues are being talked about. Suffice it to say, though, in terms of reviews and the inspector and the deputy inspector of municipalities, we will have no shortage of work. We will have a new partner, I think, in improving service to the people of the province.
L. Fox: The minister, obviously, once again got on his soapbox. I'm a bit concerned about what this new role of the ombuds is. I have seen some of the investigative processes by the inspector of municipalities over the years. They are charged with making sure that municipalities follow the act, that they meet and comply with the deadlines and so on as required by the act, and that each individual municipal taxpayer is given total rights under the act. What more can the ombudsman do than that particular role, unless he gets into the policy area?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm somewhat puzzled by the critic's position. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I hope -- I assume -- that the member is not being critical of the ombuds office having a role in reviewing municipal matters or issues. It's not for me to ask the questions, I realize that, but if that's his position, it's certainly not my position. I don't see it as a threat. I think the ombuds office and those who have served it -- particularly the former person in charge, Mr. Stephen Owen -- have gained incredible respect in this province and in this country. People come here to study it, to take a look at it, how it's done.
I don't think there's any question that there are issues outstanding that we don't resolve in our ministry, issues that I referred to in terms of.... Because of the constraints, we work under the law. We let fester sometimes.... I think it will be useful to have a third party -- if that's what the member's worried about -- review some of these issues, because there are many disputes between local government and citizens that aren't resolved quickly but may require someone to take another look.
In terms of your concern about going into policy, I suppose when you take on an issue or take a look at an ombuds office or any of us, the inspector of municipalities office.... When you take a look at an issue, it invariably may have some bearing on policy, particularly if you're making recommendations for change. I think we're really talking about nuances here and sort of nebulous distinctions. The bottom line is that we want to ensure that when British Columbians are having disputes with local government, if the ombuds office is a part of resolving it and if that can be done, then that's the area we want to move into. I think people want disputes resolved.
L. Fox: Contrary to the minister's statement, I do have the utmost respect for the role of an ombudsperson. But why I mentioned it and why I'm concerned is that I see here an opportunity for the process to happen twice. The inspector of municipalities gets involved, does his investigation -- goes through a lot of taxpayer expense and time in order to go through the process of investigation -- and then it's turned over. The individual is not happy with that, requests the ombudsman to get involved, and we go back through the whole process again. Perhaps you could satisfy me if you were suggesting that the role of the municipal inspector is in fact going to be reduced and that we're going to have one particular investigation done through the ombudsman's title.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will get to those direct questions, but first, my understanding -- and I stand to be corrected -- is that the UBCM has asked for the declaration of the section of the Ombudsman Act that would cover municipalities. Secondly, I don't want to misinterpret the member, but I want to let him know that the nature of the ombuds office role has not changed and won't change. It's merely extended to cover municipal issues -- as they cover a myriad of other issues -- giving the citizen, I suppose in some respects, a court of last resort in terms of resolving concerns.
In terms of your very last questions -- I think they are all good questions, hon. member -- obviously we have to work out a division of labour; we all have to know who's going to do what. We must for sure avoid duplication of service. We are concerned about that, and my deputy tells me that that's very much front and centre. We will work fastidiously to avoid duplication. We will work out the division of labour, and that's in hand.
L. Fox: I don't remember now at what point we talked about unconditional grants and the stabilization fund -- whether it was at the bill stage or estimates stage. It was perhaps during my opening statements with respect to these estimates, if I remember correctly. You mentioned earlier, Mr. Minister, that the municipal
[ Page 1766 ]
politicians in fact are among the most credible politicians with respect to the image they have with their electorate. Given that particular kind of responsibility and that attitude towards responsibility, they decided back in 1985, in conjunction with the UBCM, to say: "We're going to face some lean years. Rather than assuming all that's due to us through the revenue-sharing, let's in fact set aside a pot of money that would allow us, in years when the economy is not as good as it is today, to cap and shore up the shortages in revenue so that we can be consistent with the programs that we put forward to our taxpayers and keep the peaks and valleys out of the revenue-sharing grants."
In 1985 the government of the day agreed with that, and they collectively put $25 million into this fund. In 1986 they put $3.9 million into the fund. You suggest that these are taxpayers' dollars, and I totally concur. They are indeed taxpayers' dollars, but had they not had the agreement with the provincial government, the municipalities would have been able to take those particular dollars into their incomes and plan for a rainy day themselves. Instead they chose to put it into one pot, where it could bear good interest and somewhere down the road benefit the municipalities.
In 1987, a bit of a leaner year, $250,000 was all that went into the pot. In 1988 there wasn't any. In 1989, $2.1 million went in. In 1990, $3.75 million went in -- again, money that the municipalities could have utilized and put in their reserves to look after years like this particular year. There was none in 1991.
All in all, $35 million has been attributed to that account over those seven years. Would the minister please tell me whether or not there is any future in this account with respect to municipal interest, and whether or not this government has decided that it's their money and they're no longer going to share it with the municipalities? What is going to happen with respect to this fund?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I've made it quite clear. I'll do it again for the member. Yes, there is a book entry of $35 million. Yes, it is gathering interest on a daily basis.
An. Hon. Member: What rate?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Quarterly adjustment to the provincial rate. How about that? Yes, it is there for local government and has not been confiscated, despite certain statements that can be attributed to certain mayors. But government of the day -- again a judgment call if you will -- has to take a look at the economy and the circumstances before us. You know how revenue-sharing works, hon. member. I guess the question is, I suppose, could we have this year brought back the $15 million for unconditional and kept it at last year's level. As I've said to you before, we had clear indications from treasury staff, treasury analysts and financial people who advised that there was real concern about that level of spending out of the unconditional, given what was happening to the economy of British Columbia. The question is: when is the right time to utilize that fund?
[4:15]
I think we did send a message this year, one I don't relish, I can tell you, because I know what unconditional grants mean to local government. An 11 percent reduction in the total amount; it could very well be that next year will be worse. All indications are that the economy in British Columbia is, in terms of the lag time for revenue-sharing, not recovering as quickly as we'd like. Timing, judgment, prudence and maintaining the integrity of that fund is the question. This year we applied a minor reduction. We have protected that revenue-stabilization fund. It could very well be that we'll have to use it in the years ahead in terms of protecting local government from what could get worse in terms of the economies and the revenues that come into the provincial coffers.
L. Fox: Perhaps, the minister has listened to the many times the argument has been put forward by the third party with respect to how it might have invested its dollars in order to bring a long-term return back to this province. He's making the argument for exactly that right now.
When I look at some of the impacts on the industry-based communities, I submit to you that this year they're going to have a double whammy. Let's take Kimberley, a community hit extremely hard by the downturn in the minerals prices and the whole economy of mining. That particular community will be impacted by the supplementary homeowner grant reduction; it was done away with by $100,415. You take the same community with respect to the unconditional grant decrease; it was $42,411. Here you have a community that is full of unemployment -- it does not have a good picture -- and you impact them negatively with this budget by $142,000. I submit to you that perhaps this was the year that we should have shared in those resources so that they would not feel to this magnitude the double whammy this ministry has given them.
Take my own little community of Vanderhoof, which has also felt the loss of jobs in the forest sector. It's certainly not enjoying a growth scenario, as many small communities are not. The double whammy and the negative impact to that community is $89,000. I could go on and on. I've got virtually every community in the province, some of which have been hit by up to 27 percent, others around 14 percent, just in the unconditional grants area. I will give you this: there are a few small communities who benefited this year from the formula. But by and large, most larger communities of over 3,000 to 4,000 population were impacted negatively.
This particular signal does not, and will not, do a lot to provide public confidence in any level of government come this June, when individuals get their tax notices. I am extremely concerned about the message that this government is sending out through your ministry, Mr. Minister, with respect to having increasing taxation costs on local taxpayers. Irrespective of whether or not it's going into income tax, capital tax or increased school tax, the fact of the matter is that the total taxes requested are climbing substantially. This budget, in
[ Page 1767 ]
fact, impacts the local taxpayer extremely hard. I am extremely concerned.
Perhaps I'll give you, at this point in time, the opportunity to stand up and tell us why you accepted such a big mess. You have to look after it, and everybody has to come to the party. The big factor in this, though, is that for the first time in several years you're asking municipal taxpayers to pick up an additional burden with respect to school taxes, when you did away with the supplementary homeowner's grant. It was agreed back in '89 that when the block-funding formula was provided, the province, because they were providing that particular formula, should look after the bulk of it. The supplementary homeowner's grant was, in fact, put forward to be sure to soften the blow on middle-and lower-income people with respect to school taxes. This put the impact right back on those middle-and lower-income people, including seniors.
I'll let you comment.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is the second time that we're going over this question with the hon. member. I make no bones about it. Our government makes no bones about it. We had to make some tough decisions. The supplementary homeowner grant was one of the programs -- it had only been in existence for two years -- where we made a judgment call, a decision, that in many ways it was unequal. The member knows that the more your house was worth, the more supplementary homeowner grant you got. It's a $90 million saving for the people of the province. We had to try to eliminate and reduce.
I'll refrain from going over your party's role in what we've inherited. I'll refrain from that, hon. member. That won't serve any of us. But we have an issue before us called a sizeable deficit. We tried to approach it in a reasonable, balanced way. We tried to find the sectors that could most afford to help us deal with the deficit. We make no bones about it; we are sharing the load. Absolutely. If you take a look at some of the numbers....
I see that the Vancouver Sun has been doing some excellent research, basically saying that there's another story behind those that have been screaming about the provincial government, and that the homeowner grant is only part of the problem as certain taxes climb. All levels of government have to be responsible and recognize that the taxpayer has limited resources and abilities. We are trying to share the burdens and deal with them as effectively as we can.
Hon. member, I have to say that you talked about wanting more money for this and more unconditional money here. All of your suggestions really would add to the deficit. This government has determined that you are right; there are those who are feeling it. But I can assure you, hon. member, that if we don't tackle the deficit, get a handle on it, they'll feel it even more. That's the longer-term problem that we face. This government is determined. In fairness, and in trying to stick to and maintain the issues that we believe are important, we're also trying to balance the books of this province over the long term. It's not easy. There have been some cuts. We think we've done it as fairly as possible. Obviously there are those who would second-guess what we have done.
I'd like to just add that we continue to finance local government substantially. Despite what the member says and the reports that you get from certain selected members of local government, we have increased revenue-sharing for local government. I've said this before, and I don't have to repeat it, but we are putting considerable funds into servicing local government and will continue to do so. Some $335 million this year went to local government -- up 10 percent in expenditures.
Your job is to find what you can, to make suggestions or to take the constructive opposition role. I recognize that. When you look at the shifts, and when you look closely at what's happening, I think you'll find that there are other stories happening at the local level.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Quite frankly, I think local government came to rely very quickly on the supplementary homeowner grant, in terms of the money being delivered at the local level. Yes, it's a hardship to some degree, but all British Columbians are being asked to share in the responsibility as we tackle a very serious problem that we all face.
L. Fox: First of all, let me suggest, for the record, that if this minister can find anywhere in Hansard where I have asked -- in estimates or in any area -- that we increase spending, I would be prepared to eat that page.
The only thing I have ever suggested is that the reserved funds set up by the UBCM and this government or the previous government should be allowed to be tapped. We have stated repeatedly that this government made some choices with this budget, and one was primarily to increase the size of this government. Had they been serious about the deficit and the impact on the municipal taxpayers, they would not have hired the 1,549 extra full-time equivalents. You, Mr. Minister, would not have added the 12 individuals to your ministry, and others would have looked at ways and means to cut the size of this government, rather than increase the size of this government.
The minister is giggling to himself over there, because I mentioned the increase of 12 full-time employees in his ministry. I'm sure he will have a comeback for that.
I am concerned -- and my party is concerned -- about the deficit. We are joined by the official opposition in suggesting that this Legislature should have been called earlier to deal with the deficit that was climbing in last year's budget. This government was in office for five months and chose not to take action to limit that particular deficit, and that is a concern. I don't think it's right, Mr. Minister, for you to put this back on the municipal taxpayers: your government's decision not to take action earlier and more appropriately.
Let me just say -- then I will conclude and let you have your shot at me -- that with respect to housing, there are many issues out there that deserve a whole lot of input from across this province. I would respectfully ask the minister to turn this issue over to the standing
[ Page 1768 ]
committee with respect to that and allow all parties to be involved in dealing with this very severe issue in the province.
When we travel to rural parts of the province, I think we will see that while perhaps it hasn't achieved the kind of attention it has achieved in the major centres of this province, we do indeed have a crisis with respect to the disabled and to those on social assistance.
Prince George, for instance, has identified 40 individuals who are in need of housing, which they cannot find at this time. So I ask the minister once again to refer this issue -- I know he's working on some aspects of it -- and some recommendations from his ministry to the select standing committee. Let them go out there and gain public input throughout the province and come back with a consensus as to how we might involve the private sector, how we can lobby the federal government, perhaps from a new perspective rather than screaming that we want our fair share, and how we may address the quality and type of housing that we should be helping these individuals to acquire.
[4:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't think I need to spend much longer. We've got a difference of opinion. The member is saying what he believes in, and we're saying what we believe in. The bottom line is that a deficit is a deficit is a deficit. You can call it what you want. If we do what you had wanted us to do in terms of the stabilization account, we would have added to the deficit of the province. If you want us to continue to add to the deficit of the province -- and you are on record as saying that -- we have decided we cannot. We have to deal with the deficit in a real way. A deficit is a deficit, and we must tackle it.
As a matter of fact, I have to say that in a public discussion I had with the mayor of Vancouver, this issue came up. "How would you have tackled this very difficult financial situation? What options would you have looked at?" He said he thinks we should take a look at income tax, and doing things with income tax. Canadians, and British Columbians, are tired of people talking about their income and income tax. They want us to look at other ways to deal with the problems of finance; so we are doing that. We are trying to do that as best we can.
I'm not sure there's much more I can add to your discussions.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The select standing committee, thank you.
I have been considering this and have made some suggestions to what the Select Standing Committee on Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing could look at. However, I should say -- as I was saying to your hon. colleague and mine, the opposition critic for the Liberal Party -- that we will be embarking on a very extensive consultation process on the issue of housing. We're all stakeholders. We'll all be involved and be asked to participate: UBCM, everybody, homebuilders, private and public sector. There will be announcements on that. It could very well be, after consultation is concluded and recommendations are made to government, that government may wish to use the standing committee to consider this consultation report that will come. One of the things that we haven't done in this province for a long time is to develop a housing policy so British Columbians know where we're going. I think it might very well be useful for the standing committee to take those recommendations in a bipartisan or all-party committee, and make recommendations to government as to where we should be going. That certainly will be open, as far as I'm concerned.
J. Tyabji: I would assume that the minister is familiar with the walled communities that we have growing up around the province. We have quite a proliferation of them in Kelowna. It's my understanding that you must have some familiarity with them. First of all, I'd like to find out what the minister's opinion is of the walled communities and whether or not he thinks they're a functional part of the community.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I must admit I have sympathy if the member is suggesting that she has concerns. I certainly do too, as an individual, when I see them. There are a number on the Island that I've looked at. They leave a lot to be desired in terms of aesthetics and appearance. All that's missing are the guard dogs and the towers. I'm going to get myself in trouble, I suspect, from some of those communities. However, municipal councils have land use and zoning regulations. They can set them up. I presume they are responding to requests for this kind of walled community. I think it's very sad, quite frankly, that people feel they have to live inside a walled community. The council decides the degree of social and economic integration. What my views are, as a provincial politician or the minister, has little bearing, although I would like to ask local government to consider and reflect on what they're doing in terms of that approach to land use and zoning.
J. Tyabji: With regard to one specific walled community in Kelowna, I'm sure the minister has received correspondence from Sandstone strata committee. What they're writing about is with regard to the level of services that are provided internally, and the fact that they are being subjected to duplicate taxation, wherein they are their own strata committee within the structures of Sandstone. They are taking care of the costs of the infrastructure; yet they are also paying taxes to the municipality to pay for services that are provided internally. Basically it's a form of duplicate taxation. One of the few things they do expect and need from the municipality is fire protection, but they don't need a lot of the things that they are currently paying taxes for.
What I'd like to know from the minister is: has he received the correspondence and has he given consideration to a separate assessment for these kinds of communities?
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is an issue that comes up all the time, and not just in the area that the member is
[ Page 1769 ]
most familiar with. You get the case for those who say they no longer have children at school, or they don't have a family that has children, or they're at an age where school is no longer important to them or what happens to children. I guess when you start applying or withdrawing taxation based on time of life or position of life, we support basically that we all participate, we all contribute. For instance, schooling is the responsibility of all of us, despite our age. Quite frankly, I think most people are pleased to contribute. They may not like the level sometimes, but they're pleased to contribute to education.
The simple answer is that you really cannot opt out of municipal taxation when you feel like. If you started that procedure and that process, where would you end with it? What would be left? You can't opt out of the tax system even if you don't consume all the services. It could very well be that those of us in this chamber contribute heavily to the tax system, which goes towards health care. We, at this point of our lives, may not be utilizing health care as much as others. Consequently, the point can be made: should we not contribute universally and all be part of the solution? It's an ongoing debate, and you could do it not just over the issue of the bare land strata case that you're referring to; you could do it all through society.
A good analogy has been provided to me here: even if you never borrow a book, you still pay for the librarian.
J. Tyabji: The question actually is not with regard to opting out. We recognize that we certainly cannot allow people to opt out of taxation. That would result in all kinds of chaos, because there would be a lot of people saying: "I don't need this service, therefore I won't pay for it." The ultimate question is in terms of fairness. We already recognize that there are different levels of taxation depending on your property value. In these instances, a lot of seniors don't have a choice about where they purchase their retirement community. Retirement communities are often built in the middle of a city or somewhere where the property values are relatively high. What I'm saying is that because we already recognize that property values are based to some extent in terms of fairness....
Let me read something to you. It's a letter from a man named Ross Hamilton. He's with the Sandstone strata committee, the group that I was talking to you about. They have spent quite a bit a time on this, because they do feel it's an issue of fairness. It's one that is quite critical, in their minds, in terms of reassessment of the role of taxation for these small internal communities. He says here:
"The municipal tax people are...not...interested in our cause, inasmuch as they appear to be terrified that we are attempting to avoid paying taxes. This is, of course, total nonsense. Our position is that we...pay for all services under the strata law, even to the water usage throughout, which is fully metered for this purpose within the community, and therefore make no demands upon the city of Kelowna for any service except for fire protection."
It goes on to talk about his work with the B.C. Assessment Authority and how they are advised that there's no process in place for an appeal outside of writing a letter, which they have done repeatedly. They have met with all the local representatives on this issue. He goes on to say:
"Unfortunately, these people have little interest in the human aspect. They are unable to compute the fact that most residents here are retired seniors on fixed incomes, and while the assessed value of the home may reflect market value, none of these people plan to realize that value by selling their homes. At this point in life, just having a home to live out one's days in is about all that matters. Unfortunately, there are some, such as widows on fixed incomes from inadequate and long-ago pensions, who just cannot cope with annual increases in taxation...."
He goes on from there, and he's not particular generous as to the spending of the money.
If there is any way in which the minister can communicate to these people, through this debate, some method with which they can appeal an unfair -- in their minds -- tax assessment, would he please share it with us?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We could spend the next day and a half or two days talking about the implications of and alternatives to property tax and income tax and what would happen if you started shifting around. But I don't think we want to do that.
Any person who owns a home and has an assessment -- the assessment is applied by the B.C. Assessment Authority -- has every right to appeal that assessment. By the way, the Assessment Authority comes under my ministry, so it's a responsibility that I have. In the last few years they have improved their communication and public relations, in terms of actually helping people with what they have to do. It's very complicated, very difficult, very threatening and very scary to many people; they don't understand this stuff. I'm the first to admit that. We will make further improvements in terms of demystifying the process.
The short answer is: you can appeal your assessment, and you may be successful. But the only way you can appeal the taxes you pay is on the third Saturday in November 1993 -- when the next municipal election is due -- and if you feel that the local government has gone a little further than the assessment should be and has put the taxes up, then you can deal with it accordingly.
Hon. T. Perry: Let democracy reign.
Hon. R. Blencoe: "Let democracy reign," says my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education.
There's no easy answer to this question. As I answered earlier, though, in all the studies, reports and analyses that I have looked at over the years in terms of dollars raised for local government, citizens overwhelming report -- and for a number of reasons -- that they get the most value for their municipal taxes. Although no one likes to see an increase in municipal taxes, or any kind of tax, I suspect that when you take a close look at how much people are paying in taxes and at the array of services provided for those taxes, they are good value.
[ Page 1770 ]
People are always surprised, particularly when they get those huge take-offs in assessments. The last one was in '88-89 -- particularly in Vancouver and Victoria; I'm not aware of your community -- where homes in Vancouver went from $150,000 to $400,000 overnight. Their assessments reflected that, and consequently their taxes reflected that. If the member is not aware, I will be bringing in legislation that deals with that issue and gives local councils the ability to deal with those sudden spirals in assessments. Hopefully that will be before this House very soon.
The bottom line, though, is that unless we change the whole system, the appeal mechanism for the taxes you pay at the local level is on the third Saturday in November 1993.
[4:45]
W. Hurd: Just a couple of quick questions to the minister pertaining to an issue that I know we've discussed before: municipal boundaries. Particularly for communities in British Columbia that are essentially single-industry towns or communities, has the minister identified any funds or strategy in his budget to assess the impact of multiple municipal jurisdictions in certain areas of the province and what impact they might have on the industrial competitiveness of the large company? I'm thinking specifically of the area around Trail, where the Cominco smelter pays something like 62 percent, I believe, of the municipal budget in Trail. In that particular region, I believe that there are something in the vicinity of six municipal governments for about 23,000 people. My understanding is that it's having a negative impact on a particularly large company, which is essentially carrying the costs of some municipalities in this area. Has the minister identified any funds to work with the Ministry of Economic Development to assess the impact of municipal taxation in these small municipalities and the ability of these companies to compete?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The straightforward and straight answer is that we have restructure money available in my ministry. Obviously we don't walk into an area where there isn't consensus. I can assure you that these restructures, annexations and amalgamations -- whatever you want to call them -- can be very hot issues. My advice to any of you who have not been involved in those is that if you think you can walk in to be the saviour of the day, be careful where you tread, because there's a lot of emotion and feelings. People generally get very concerned that they may be taken over by another community or be added to.
I think the member mentioned the Trail area -- a number of municipalities serving 26,000 people. I think that was the figure, or it was somewhere around there. The member's comments are intelligent and rational, and on the surface it makes sense for that area to achieve consensus. I have said to the area, in correspondence and in discussions with the local active people, that I'm sympathetic: you achieve consensus and come back with a lasting framework or formula that your communities can accept, because if you're looking for me to force it, that's not the answer. Achieve consensus, find what you can do, and we'll be very pleased to sit down and find the funding to move ahead.
I'm sympathetic to areas rationalizing their service areas, to integrating or eliminating duplications. Quite frankly, I think our citizens are calling for it. We cannot afford to duplicate services. Like everything, when you've done something a certain way for a certain period of time, change is not always easy. People don't always understand. So rather than doing it overnight or over two nights, we accept certain building blocks, certain incremental movements, the advice of the local MLAs if that's required -- who have great wisdom in many of these areas -- and we move as quickly as we can. This ministry has money available, and we're there to help when consensus is achieved.
[ Page 1771 ]
W. Hurd: Again on this subject of municipal governments and single-industry towns, my question relates to the possible strategy of the companies involved that feel their competitive position is being affected by the amount of municipal taxation they pay. It's quite understandable, because they occupy such a prominent role in the community, that they feel it somewhat difficult to be seen recommending the rationalization of municipal services in their communities. As I can assure the minister, it's already dangerous enough to be a company representative in some town in the province without, from a position of high-handedness, suggesting to the local residents that they're overgoverned and that their municipal structure is not altogether efficient.
My question to the minister is: what advice would he give companies which feel that there are opportunities to rationalize municipal services but are somewhat reluctant to tackle the hornet's nest that he's identified in his previous remarks?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Often what happens in these kinds of disputes is that in the end the local people are looking, out of frustration, for someone to resolve it for them. Invariably I hear suggestions from some of those disputed areas, such as: "Why doesn't the provincial government just come in and order certain things, make certain things happen or force amalgamation, and do what in some circumstances is probably the correct thing, in terms of rationalizing some of these areas?"
Certainly, in my role, I don't see this as being the level of government that uses the hammer or uses threats to make communities do things that they, quite frankly, sometimes aren't ready to do. If they haven't got their acts together and haven't achieved some consensus on the issues confronting them.... I have said many a time that if it comes to the point that communities are at war with each other in some of these contentious areas -- and that sometimes happens; citizens really get quite agitated and things come to a grinding halt -- then I think there may very well be room for the provincial government, in the role of trying to end gridlock, to help find the consensus that's required.
W. Hurd: Again on this matter of municipal boundaries, would the minister consider it to be of value if the funds available for looking at municipal efficiencies were available to fund studies on efficiencies rather than rationalizing municipal boundaries or taking that type of unilateral action?
The concern I have, not just in Trail but in other areas of the province, is that there could be a lot of light shed on this particular problem if there was an opportunity for municipal governments -- or companies, for that matter -- to make direct representation to the minister, asking him to at least provide funds for a study to identify that there would be some major cost savings in municipal taxes to the large corporations or businesses operating in the communities. Would he agree that that type of action by the minister, to at least provide funds for studies on efficiencies, wouldn't necessarily be seen as trampling on the toes of the municipalities, yet might speed up the process of encouraging municipal governments to identify that there could be a substantial amount of money saved -- they hadn't identified that opportunity before and might, therefore, consider approaching the ministry to undertake a referendum or some other means of achieving that objective?
I'm concerned. We have a problem here whereby if it has to be driven by these small communities, they can make very compelling arguments about the efficiencies they're achieving, forgetting the broader picture, when it involves corporate taxation and municipal taxation. They're not really concerned about the competitive efficiencies of the company that might be servicing a large percentage of their tax base. Therefore, they would not really want to come to the ministry and upset the applecart, because they do such a great job of selling their citizens on how efficient they are. That's a natural predilection of most governments.
Has there been any thought given by the minister to streamlining the procedures by which a company like Cominco in Trail, for example, or other companies in single-industry towns come to the minister and suggest that there are more efficient ways of delivering municipal services? And could the minister make study dollars available to achieve that without necessarily having to wait for every municipality to line up at the door of his ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I get the drift of the member now. I suspect this is a representation on behalf of Cominco that I'm hearing this afternoon.
This government listens to the private sector. We listen to Cominco. We listen to all affected parties. But we also listen to those who are elected to represent citizens as well as Cominco. If Cominco has a viewpoint or if the local officials have viewpoints and they make some recommendations to me for a study that wouldn't just back up one particular stakeholder, yes, I would agree to it. But I can tell you, hon. member, I'm not into just listening to one particular stakeholder, and I assume you're not either. If I have misinterpreted you in terms of just going to bat for Cominco this afternoon, I'm sure I'm wrong in that assumption.
W. Hurd: I know that his government has talked at length about the need for B.C. companies to compete, and certainly he would agree that the burden of municipal taxation is one of the major tax issues faced by British Columbia corporations and that he would willingly and enthusiastically embrace anything that could be done to ease the tax burden and deliver better local government services. So I don't think that it's a situation where we're arguing in favour of the rights of one stakeholder as much as we are in favour of improving industrial competitiveness in the province, which his government commissioned a study on recently. I have to admit that I intend to plow through it at length to determine what impact municipal taxation might have, but I guess my concern continues to be that when you're dealing with six or seven municipal governments for such a small area, consensus is somewhat difficult to achieve, as I am sure the minister would agree. I hope that his ministry will give consideration to a streamlined method of dealing with some of these municipal boundaries.
Perhaps I could just ask a brief question about a remark the minister made earlier with respect to manufactured and mobile homes and, in particular, the pad rental issue that he raised. I would assume that this particular issue is part of the ongoing study that the ministry is conducting -- the rather significant and onerous rates of increases in pad rentals experienced by some municipalities in the lower mainland, where there's a limited amount of land available for mobile-home park expansion and where the law of supply and demand has taken over and the increase in pad rentals is actually having a negative impact on this type of housing. I wonder if the minister has identified that as a major component of his study.
[5:00]
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, before I get to the manufactured-home issue, I have just a little more information on this issue of Trail and the Cominco situation. If I didn't make it clear, I want to make it clear that moneys are available for studies that relate to efficiencies or innovations. Also, my understanding is that there are indeed discussions currently taking place in the Trail area to see how the tax burden on industry can be reduced. One of the areas of concern that our government has had, of course -- and we have a commissioner that's responsible for taking a look at these kinds of things to save jobs -- is all impacts on industry and business. I want to say that we will do our best to minimize taxes, but we will try and have fairness in the tax system. But what is fair? I mean, it's very subjective. What's fair? Who is going to determine what's fair? That's always the question. Some would like not to pay anything. Well, obviously there are services to pay for. If you're a large industry you are part of a community, and I presume you want to see that community expand and improve. Fairness is always the question. In Trail, my understanding is that there are discussions going on.
The pad issue is not under study right now. That issue was looked at two or three years ago, I think.
[ Page 1772 ]
There was a task force on manufactured homes looking at the issues of tenure and land questions and protection and moving costs. We're taking a look at the issue of manufactured homes as a viable alternative in housing -- architecture, jurisdiction, local government, those sorts of things. The hon. Minister of Labour and Consumer Services would answer your questions on pad rental in his estimates.
W. Hurd: Just one final question, Mr. Chairman. I note that some municipalities have sent out what amounts to disclaimer notices with their tax notices with respect to the difference in their taxes from last year to this year, based on the reduction in the supplementary homeowner's grant. I assume that the minister encourages that type of open communication between the municipalities and their taxpayers with regard to where the appropriate burden lies, and I assume that you're satisfied that the message is getting out there and that every municipality should give serious consideration to sending out such an explanation with the tax notices in 1992.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have no objection to local government communicating with their constituents as they see fit, as long as the information is correct. As the Vancouver Sun has pointed out in a recently noted story on May 20, there are all sorts of interesting things going on at the local level these days that we didn't hear about at first. I hope local government doesn't try and blame the province for everything, and at the same time use these difficult times for the province to make changes to their tax structure that would also have a bearing on their local taxpayers' ability to pay, if you know my drift.
H. De Jong: I'd like to speak briefly on the homeowner grant, and particularly on those who do not qualify for that grant. I know that, ever since it was instituted by the late W.A.C. Bennett many years ago, people in British Columbia have been very proud of that homeowner grant being available to them, because it does help them own a home and retain the ownership of a home. There are, within the overall population of British Columbia, a small number of people who do not qualify for a homeowner grant. These are particularly in rural communities, on farms. It could be the hired man's home, which is provided by the farm, but the value of that home is considered part of his wages. The cost of the taxation on that home is a total package, because there is no homeowner grant available for that hired man's home on the farm. Obviously the person who lives and works on a farm is at a disadvantage compared to those who work on a farm and live in town.
Secondly, in the early fifties not too many farms were incorporated, for one reason or another. Mainly because farms were smaller, I think, it was easier for young people to take over the farm from their fathers or to buy another farm. Many of the family farms are now being incorporated for that very reason -- easy transferral to the son or sons of the farmer. These homes are on legal parcels. There is usually one legal parcel for the size of the farm -- or perhaps two -- but the majority of the buildings are usually on the same legal parcel. Yet these people cannot apply for the homeowner grant, even though they work 365 days a year on that particular farm, because it's on one legal parcel and under the name of a corporation.
The government and, I think, most politicians have talked about a good way of retaining family farms. It has been suggested by municipal councils that the only way to get relief, to get the privilege of using the homeowner grant, is that perhaps the family farm home, and homes used by other family members who are connected to the family operation or by their hired men, be on legal parcels separate from the farm. This interferes with the Agricultural Land Commission, which basically says that there shall be no subdivision of farmland in the farming community. It's for the preservation of farmland. I don't disagree with that concept. But these farmers are really put in a difficult position and for all these years have not been able to get the benefit which every other British Columbian who owns a home is able to get. I would like to have the minister comment on whether he is prepared to make a change in that situation so that farmers who are in the categories I mentioned, as well as their farmworkers, could take part in the benefit which has been bestowed upon British Columbians by Social Credit governments for many years past.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's not an issue in the farming community that I'm well versed in, but I will take the time to get up to speed a little more on it. It seems to me at first glance, as you speak to me, that you are suggesting that the corporation structure for income tax purposes is as a corporation, and therefore they can do all sorts of write-offs under that act in terms of.... There are a number of things they can write off. On the one hand, you want to maintain that structure, but on the other hand, you want to allow the corporation to be perceived as an individual when it comes to a homeowner-grant situation. I don't think you can have it both ways, but I hear you in terms of trying to preserve the family farm. I understand that. I suspect this issue has been looked at a number of times over the years, and at this point, we along with others are taking a look at the homeowner grant. There's a review going on in terms of eligibility, so we can visit it. I suspect we will be revisiting this issue, because I think it has come up before.
H. De Jong: I have a follow-up question on the comments the minister made. I have difficulty understanding what benefits accrue to incorporated farms versus those that are not incorporated. Perhaps the minister knows more than I do in that respect, and I would be pleased to hear from him which benefits accrue to incorporated farms that are not available to unincorporated farms.
Again, I would like to get the minister's assurance that, while a review is being done, this specific situation is going to be seriously looked at and possibly rectified before the next tax bill comes around for 1993.
[ Page 1773 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Maybe the member could tell me why they bother to incorporate if there aren't some benefits. I think the member knows there are benefits to that procedure.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, it's a nice term for.... Your accountant, I presume, advises you to incorporate for benefits. Or why bother doing it? So I'm suggesting that you can't have it both ways. But I don't want to be difficult or not be understanding. We will look at it. We are reviewing it, and we will see what we can do. I don't know if the member wants to answer me, but why would a farm incorporate if there aren't some benefits?
H. De Jong: It is a bit unusual for a member from the government side to ask the opposition to clarify a point, but I'm pleased to stand up and do this, because I think there are a number of reasons why a farmer decides to incorporate. One of those is specifically so that....
Interjection.
H. De Jong: No, it's not taxes, Mr. Minister. The main reason is that it is the only way that a farmer's son or sons can carry on the business that the father has started in past years.
The other point is that in many cases there is a consolidation of smaller parcels where a larger farm -- an economically viable unit -- is established, and the only way to get a credit from the banks to facilitate the mortgages is to incorporate.
It's not because of tax breaks. Many farmers would gladly do without the incorporation aspect, because it's not a cheap procedure; it's a very costly procedure. I certainly believe those farmers work the same hours 365 days a year, as others do, and I simply cannot see why they should be denied the privilege of a homeowner grant, like the hired people who are working for other farmers and perhaps live off the farm. Yet they can benefit from it, while those who live on the farm cannot.
It's not what I can call fairness in that aspect of taxation. Please, Mr. Minister, give it serious consideration.
[5:15]
Hon. R. Blencoe: We'll look at it to see whether eligibility is consistent with the spirit of ownership. I want to give that to the member. We'll take a look at it. I suspect it's not as straightforward as the member purports today. If it is, I'll be the first to admit it.
H. De Jong: It is.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, it's an area you know well in terms of the farming community, but when you're dealing with home ownership and eligibility and fairness, I can assure you, I'm dealing with it now in terms of those who wish us to expand it. What seems very logical and commonsensical in terms of a minor change in one part has incredible implications in other areas -- and cost implications. I'm not one to make excuses, but this area is not always as easy as it looks. But I will undertake to take a look at that.
D. Symons: I'd like to continue with a thought that I brought up before. I guess it wasn't just yesterday, but the last time we were in the Municipal Affairs estimates. That's dealing with the need for long-term planning coordinated between different ministries. As you may remember, I brought up the problem in Nanaimo with the ferries and the highways and the municipality and the interaction of those in that particular example. We really need that. I was at a Greater Vancouver Regional District meeting this weekend in Vancouver called Shaping our Communities. One of the comments that came out of one of the workshops -- this was the person giving the results of their workshop -- was: "Each time we discussed housing, and we discussed industrial or commercial growth in our communities, we always came back to the problem of transportation." Each of these lead back to that. I'm wondering what your ministry's priority on transportation is. Where do you put your priorities as far as transportation is concerned?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's very easy -- I guess I'm getting tired -- for a question like that from the opposition: where's your priority on transportation? The member is not aware that as a minister of the Crown I can't just openly say: here is the priority. Obviously transportation is an important part of our regional planning process, our regional governance issue. Growth studies and growth-related issues relate to transportation. It will be an integral part of our work. More and more, as we proceed in government, we're recognizing that the concept of interministry disciplines will grow, because these issues aren't resolved by just one ministry. We will continue to plan in an overall conceptual way, and obviously transportation will be a key ingredient of that process.
D. Symons: I'd like to move up to the city of Kelowna as my example for the next concern that I have, in that Kelowna is experiencing a great deal of trouble right now because when the bridge was put across 30 years ago, the city thought that it would be very nice for it to come down the main street to bring business into this community. They're finding now that having the highway down that main area and, pretty well, ribbon development along the highway has not worked in the best interests of the community. I'm wondering what the ministry is doing to see that this sort of thing isn't duplicated in communities that maybe 20 or 30 years down the line will have the same development problem. What looks good now may not be good in the long term. How is your ministry addressing those problems of present development and its future impact?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Are you referring specifically to the Kelowna area?
[ Page 1774 ]
D. Symons: I am referring to Kelowna as an example of something where maybe the planning wasn't so good, and now we find the problems. Those cities that are now where Kelowna was 30 years ago.... How are we avoiding those problems in the future?
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a good question. Hopefully we've learned from the past. I recently met with the Kelowna council. They are very aware that some of the decisions made in the past really weren't good planning decisions and probably subscribed to the old theory that planning means frustration of development. I think we've all learned that planning is an integral part of development and growth and has to be done. Our ministry has planning grants available. I've offered those and will be continuing to work with Kelowna and those kinds of communities that are experiencing growth and haven't got the plans they should have. Quite frankly, I'm encouraged by the awakening interest in good planning. Much of our agenda in the next year or so will be taken up with the concept of regional planning and how that impacts on local government. We will have more dollars available for this kind of exercise. The bottom line is that this is a ministry that is interested in planning: helping communities to deal with growth, to look to the future and to learn from communities that have not planned very well.
C. Evans: I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Evans: Those of us who work here make laws, and then we enforce them with police and various institutions. To get people to live in a kind society, the bottom line is good people, people who like to help their neighbours solve problems. I'd like to introduce such a person. Beryl Clayton is here. She specializes in helping my community to get along. All of us need people like Beryl. Please welcome her.
D. Symons: One last question of the minister, dealing again with the problem of consultation. We saw recently that Nanaimo and West Vancouver were quite upset with the introduction of all-night sailings without being -- they felt -- consulted beforehand. I had some concerns about B.C. Ferries and the Highways ministry not seeming to get together and coordinate their activities with the municipalities. I'm wondering what role you see for your ministry in acting as a coordinator, or a clearinghouse, and taking responsibility for interministerial consultation with the municipalities. They might consult with yours first. Then you could make the announcement and be responsible if somebody says that consultation hasn't taken place. Right now one ministry does, the other doesn't, and somebody's left out. Maybe your ministry could take over the role of the consultative group so we can point to somebody and say: "You're the one who didn't do it; the consultation didn't take place."
Hon. R. Blencoe: This ministry is large. We do many things. We have many responsibilities, and I assume that we may have more in the years ahead. I don't anticipate taking over the Ferries portfolio or the Highways portfolio or the linkages. But the member makes a good point in terms of communication. I think we all have to work on that. The bottom line is that you can have the best communication in the world, but when you're making changes, somebody won't like that change and will complain. That will always happen, but that doesn't mean we can't have good communication. I will try and help minimize some of these confrontations or these impacts on behalf of the ministry I serve -- and therefore local government -- but I suspect we're still going to have some of them, whatever we do.
K. Jones: On Friday last the Attorney General tabled Bill 50, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. I wanted to ask you a question with regard to the implementation aspects of it. Where in your budget for this year do you have funding to involve the preparations for implementation of tier 2, which includes the municipalities, and the preparation of the municipal administrations to be able to meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Funding for this year for implications of freedom of information is in the Government Services section of the budget. Future years have yet to be determined, but for this year it's Government Services.
K. Jones: You're talking about the $6 million that's allocated to Government Services for government training.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, Ministry of Government Services.
K. Jones: In the presentation we received I understood that that was intended for the training of government staff, not municipal level staff. There also appears to be a need to do the preparation of the municipal people and the municipalities -- to be able to deal with these questions, these demands.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Obviously we have brought down very significant legislation, but we are the first to suggest that some of the questions you asked are still to be worked out -- future consideration and future legislation, if required. But for this year, funds for the implications are in the Ministry of Government Services; future years will be worked out. I presume our ministry will be involved, but that's about as far as I can take it for now.
K. Jones: I just want to clarify. You're saying that there is no funding within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist the municipalities in preparing themselves for this. I was asking that question, not what your ministry was going to be able to use for their freedom of information, but what preparation you are doing within your ministry to assist the municipalities in being able to meet the requirement of fall 1993, when the act will be proclaimed.
[ Page 1775 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sure the member knows that we only budget for expenditures in the current year.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, you're referring to future.... It's not a budget implication for this year.
A. Cowie: We're prepared to close votes 54 and 53, should the minister wish to do it at this time. We will need another hour or so with recreation on another day, at the minister's pleasure.
Vote 53 approved.
Vote 54: ministry operations, $145,808,109 -- approved.
A. Cowie: If the minister wishes to proceed, how much time do I have, Mr. Chair? I understood you had some business you wanted to do.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's up to you. Whatever you want to do.
A. Cowie: I would just as soon proceed with vote 55, which recreation is part of, on the next day.
[5:30]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: I understand that under our sessional order there is a resolution to be reported from Committee A. According to our sessional order provisions, that means we will have a 15-minute summation period beginning with five minutes by a member of the third party. Could one of the ministers advise me which resolution...?
Hon. A. Edwards: I was told that we were to do resolution on Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, votes 28 to 31. I'm not sure where the hon. critics are. They may appear in the next two minutes.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I understand that we are now in a position to begin the process of summation for the estimates for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
D. Jarvis: We found that the information we obtained in the committee was very informative; somewhat limited, in view of all the studies, reviews, commissions and councils. On what we were able to ask, the minister was very co-operative with us, and over the next year we shall bear in mind the information received. I found the committee to be very comfortable, but somewhat protracted in view of the time-limits given to us and the delays over the last few weeks. Other than that, we support the minister on this.
The Speaker: Is there a member from the third party who would like to speak in summation to these estimates? I would then ask that the minister have a maximum of ten minutes to report on her estimates.
Hon. A. Edwards: It was certainly an exciting time to do our estimates. I'm sure that the opposition members will agree that it was an exciting time to talk about our energy future in this province and the future of the mining industry. I was very happy that we were able to discuss a number of topics and some of the issues that are of concern to the people of British Columbia.
First of all, I might say that we had some discussion of the alternative energy future for British Columbia. British Columbia is a leader in natural gas vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell technology, and we discussed some of the initiatives that have taken place in those directions.
We talked a bit about Fuel Smart, which is a key program to get off oil and an oil efficiency program in British Columbia, and we certainly talked about British Columbia's ability to be sure that we have a sustainable future in energy in this province because of the many resources that we have -- abundant resources of natural gas and electricity and certainly of wood residue sources for power.
We did not have the opportunity.... I will now suggest that we are looking forward as well to an articulation of the province's position on research and development and the kinds of things the ministry will be doing with the Science Council. We will be consulting with council people, energy companies and universities on that. It is an initiative that we have just sort of got into our minds and are working toward, but I want particularly the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to know that and to be aware that we would like him to be interested and involved in asking questions, because we think it's an exciting initiative.
We discussed the Fraser Valley gas drilling somewhat, and I must say that since we began the estimates I have visited the sites and am able to say now in this House that I have visited the proposed sites for two new gas wells. The decisions that are going to be made are going to be very difficult, and certainly the members in opposition made that very clear. We have put to them that, although the conclusions of the Anderson inquiry indicated that technically the risks were extremely slight and the benefits significant for gas drilling in the Fraser Valley, the decision is still going to be very difficult.
I was able to talk a bit about energy efficiency, and that is another of the exciting things that we deal with in my ministry. We know that the consumption of energy in British Columbia is high. That's partly due to the fact that the industry we have is energy-intensive, and a lot of the reason that we have that kind of industry here is the abundant energy resource.
[ Page 1776 ]
British Columbia is a leader in Canada in having an Energy Efficiency Act. I believe there are three provinces with such acts. We were among the first, and we are proud of having that act and its help to us in going forward to a more efficient energy future. We talked about a few ways energy consumption can be reduced through such things as incentive programs, correct pricing and various regulations.
Hon. Speaker, what we spent a lot of our time talking about was the mining industry and the fact that it is at the bottom of one of its cycles. As I have said, and I said during the other estimates, we are very hopeful that being at the bottom means that we are going to move up fairly soon.
Before I finish our discussions in the chamber, I want to talk a bit about the mining industry and the situation we're in. There are some fairly clear reasons for the state the industry is in right now. I want to talk about those and about the future prospects, because you never forget the future when you're talking about the present and the past. I want to talk a bit about some of the measures we're taking to ensure the ongoing health of the industry.
The reasons for the state of crisis, if you like, right now are basically two. One is that a number of mines that have been scheduled for a number of years to close, because their reserves are exhausted, are now beginning to close. We have to face up to the fact of those closures. It is not easy for communities or for our provincial economy, but it is there. It is something we can't avoid.
Secondly, there are not enough new discoveries to replace the closures. That is a concern to us; it is obviously a concern to every member of this Legislature. If that situation continues -- and it could continue or it could change -- the future of the mining industry will be much darker than we would like it to be.
Mining is our second leading industry in British Columbia, and it is extremely important to all of the regional centres in the province. We're well aware of that, and we want to see the industry continue as a healthy one. We need to understand the causes in order to do that, and we need to know why exploration has been declining and why some of our companies have been moving offshore. Some of them have made very loud statements that that is what they are doing. We believe it; let me put it that way, hon. Speaker.
There are basically four key factors here. One is the market conditions; I repeat that the world market prices for commodities are down. The whole matter of commodity pricing is driven by gold, and a lot of the exploration and mine development in British Columbia was driven by gold. The price of gold is down and, basically, that means the search for everything is down. A lot of the other minerals come as a by-product of the search for gold. The flowthrough tax treatment that was allowed by the federal government was given up by the federal government. At approximately the same time, a number of countries, particularly in South and Central America, decided to try to attract foreign investment to their countries by changing rules already there, opening up for the global mining community areas that hadn't previously been explored. The fourth factor, I believe, is issues related to land use and aboriginal claims. Those issues are very specific to British Columbia. I don't mean that nobody else has them, I mean that within the province they are very much our issues. They are within the province. They are issues that we're looking at, and we expect to deal with them within the context that we're looking at them.
I might say that, if we look at these four factors, we have to admit that we can do very little if anything on a provincial level to deal with world market prices. We can't stop other countries from trying to attract investment. We are wondering if the members opposite are suggesting that we open huge spending schemes in order to attract exploration as well. I might say that, although we oppose the federal government shutdown of the flowthrough treatment for mining companies, we do think that there could be some other incentives that would be very useful. We're looking at that.
We also intend, as a government, to ensure that our budgeting is safe and stable, and that we indicate that British Columbia is a safe place to invest. We are doing an analysis of all the provinces across the country, and the Canadian government is participating in an analysis of the competitiveness of our tax structures. We are reforming our environmental assessment process, so it works much more efficiently. We are, as a ministry, actively participating in the protected areas strategy. We have active involvement in aboriginal affairs issues. We are still working hard to get a signature on the mineral development agreement, which would give us the opportunity to make moves in geoscience and in technology. We are continuing on our strategy for the coal industry in British Columbia. We believe these things can work. We have to recognize that we continue to have $80 million in exploration, and that there is a future for the coal industry. We intend to see that there is a stable investment climate and, despite the fact that we admit that we are new, we are making changes. We are nevertheless committed to and determined that we shall have an environment and climate of trust and stability in British Columbia for the mining industry.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
[ Page 1777 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
The committee met at 2:42 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
On vote 28: minister's office, $296,000 (continued).
D. Jarvis: Firstly, I would like to ask the minister -- and I appreciate where she stands, from previous discussions -- about Bill 18, and if Mr. Gathercole has started hiring staff.
Hon. A. Edwards: No staff have been hired for any purpose so far.
D. Jarvis: Very quickly back to the Vancouver Island pipeline, if you wouldn't mind.... Once the line is complete, what will be, if any, the difference in the charges versus the comparable price paid by other B.C. natural gas users? Is there any agreement between the people on Vancouver Island that they might be getting gas for less than normal?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, the pipeline is complete, as you know. The price of gas that consumers are paying is set according to a formula, which is basically 85 percent of the price of oil. It is different from the price that people throughout the rest of the province will be paying for natural gas.
D. Jarvis: Are there going to be any government funds or provisions to offset this cost?
Hon. A. Edwards: As the member may know, the rate stabilization fund is in place. Again, it's a formula where, depending on how the rates go, there is a fund which allows the company to recover its costs. It's a loan fund; it ultimately will be paid back. Depending on what the price of gas and oil are.... That is certainly what the rate stabilization fund is there to do.
D. Jarvis: This is only short-term. It's not a long-term commitment or anything like that.
Hon. A. Edwards: The fund is in place for 20 years, whatever happens. We are estimating at the present time that there will begin to be some payback from the companies involved in approximately ten years.
D. Jarvis: It was announced on April 11 that a contract for part of the Vancouver Island pipeline was provided to the status Indians. That was done for a specific purpose, I understand. This purpose seems to be somewhat less than ideal, in my opinion. Apparently they have decided to pay the native workers between 30 and 50 percent less than they would pay unionized labour. Under the justification that these workers do not pay taxes and they could probably work for substantially lower wages, the wage is less.
It appears to me that this issue has the potential to open quite a few cans of worms. Given that this contract was provided for our government contract, and given the government's strong support for fair wages, as we discussed this afternoon -- the fair wage legislation for construction workers -- what is the minister's opinion of this transaction, which has been worked out on a project within the ministry?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member must remember that this is a private contract. A private company, Centra Gas, made the contract with the Cowichan Indian band. It was freely entered into by both parties. It is simply part of how Centra Gas built its distribution system.
D. Jarvis: I seem to be jumping around here. I hope I'm not re-asking some of these questions, but it's been a rather protracted session. The other day, being the gentleman that I am, I let everyone speak, and I didn't realize they were going to go on with the rhetoric they did.
Are there any other gas extension programs planned in the province?
Hon. A. Edwards: The only gas extension programs that will probably be going on in the province in the near future are ones that the distribution companies themselves will be funding. The ministry had to cut out the power and gas extension program, so there will not be a provincial subsidy for extension of gas lines in the province this year. There are a number of areas -- I would say primarily the Fraser-Fort George regional district -- looking at ways to get gas extensions with some kind of help from regional government. Other municipalities may be looking at that kind of thing.
D. Jarvis: There's nothing going into the Kootenays, I assume.
What I wanted to go into further was that recently B.C. Hydro made an application for permission to change their current rate structures to more accurately reflect the market costs of providing additional units of electricity and encourage more energy conservation. While the ministry seemed to agree with the principle of the restructuring plan and energy conservation, the proposal was nonetheless rejected, as you're aware. I'm aware that you are not specifically responsible for the Crown corporation, but certainly the general principles involved in the rate hearings have implications for other energy sources. Could the minister advise us of her opinion on this issue -- whether she agrees with the objectives of Hydro's proposal, and whether there will be any similar changes, or considerations of changes, in the ministry?
Hon. A. Edwards: It is, again, another of those rather complex issues. The rate restructuring, which was approved.... The direction of the Utilities Com-
[ Page 1778 ]
mission, as you are probably saying, was not put into effect for the simple reason that there was no application from B.C. Hydro for a rate increase; because there was no application for a rate increase, there was no place to apply the changes, according to the direction of the Utilities Commission. But because we agreed with the goals of increased conservation, and we have been working.... Last week we began meetings with the Utilities Commission and B.C. Hydro. Our ministry and the Ministry of Labour are meeting to look at ways we can begin to achieve the goals that were laid out within the confines of the directive that came from the Utilities Commission.
D. Jarvis: I appear to be jumping around, in that I tried to.... So many questions were asked the other day that I was going to ask you. You mentioned that the value of the coal export was around $1 billion per year. Of that, how much is currently for the Japanese market, and what is the profit margin?
Hon. A. Edwards: Approximately two-thirds of the export coal market is Japanese. Of course, if you are talking about the profit margin for the companies that operate in British Columbia, it varies from company to company. None of them, I might add, have as good a profit margin as is probably healthy.
D. Jarvis: How does that profit margin relate to what it was five or six years ago?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's considerably less.
D. Jarvis: Does the minister have any plans to try and change the situation -- i.e., by opening new markets?
Hon. A. Edwards: I am delighted to talk again about the coal strategy the ministry is directing for the province. We are concerned about the situation of the coal industry in British Columbia. We want to have a coal policy and a coal strategy for the province. It is driven partly by the fact that the coal-mines are good, but they've been having some kind of difficulty with the market we're dealing with right now. Yes, we are doing something positive and direct. We believe it will be very effective in doing what can be done for the coal industry in British Columbia.
D. Jarvis: Is there any specific research and development being done?
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically most of the things we've talked about before.... I mentioned the coking study. It was mentioned in the Marshall report. We have taken some steps to go ahead with that before we come to the final strategy that we put together. I have mentioned before that we have been interested participants in the discussions leading up to an IGCC coal generation plant, about which the three western provinces and Ontario have been talking with the federal government. We can expect to continue to participate in that, and to see that that research and development is done and that the benefits of it pertain to British Columbia. As well, we expect that if the mineral development agreement is signed, we will be doing some research into effective use of our mills and improved efficiency at them.
D. Jarvis: Some days ago you made a reference to an independent report on the future of the province's industry involving all the shareholders. Coal and mining companies in the communities and environmental groups are all contributing to our coal strategy through an ongoing process. I'm curious, as I was unaware that this was going on. What independent report were you referring to at that time?
Hon. A. Edwards: I was referring to the coal strategy. If I was talking about an independent report, it was probably the Marshall report, which was the basis for our activities in developing a coal strategy. Again, when it comes to the coal industry, right now we are doing a lot of work. We are focusing very carefully on a coal strategy for British Columbia, and we have high hopes that that will be effective for the industry and for everyone who has an interest in the coal industry in B.C.
D. Jarvis: What process involved the shareholders?
Hon. A. Edwards: I believe I use the term stakeholders fairly often. If it was reported somewhere as shareholders, it was either my tongue slipping or a slip somewhere else. We are trying to involve all the stakeholders; I am sure that the shareholders of all of the companies involved had their opportunity to talk as well.
D. Jarvis: In our last discussion about two weeks ago, you said: "In our discussions with the federal government, we are hoping to persuade the federal government to help rather than hinder us and, in fact, to do some of the things that will coordinate the programs within Canada and not set one province against the other." What sorts of programs and initiatives were you referring to in this instance? Could you give us a few examples?
[3:00]
Hon. A. Edwards: The member doesn't give me the context of my remarks, but as I recall.... I certainly am concerned about the federal government having removed its flow-through provisions, which allowed considerable funding of exploration in the country. We opposed the pullback of that legislation. What happens when individual provinces try to work out plans that will be substitutes for that federal flow-through is that we have one province competing with another. We believe that is not as effective a way to deal with financing exploration as if there were a federal plan. I would also say to the member that we expect to bring up this issue at the Mines ministers' meeting in September in Whitehorse.
[ Page 1779 ]
D. Jarvis: Jumping back onto the coal market, you were mentioning the coal strategies which are underway. Could you give us an example? What options are being considered?
Hon. A. Edwards: We have suggested in our update on the coal report, which came after a considerable amount of public input.... Before we went around to actual meetings throughout the community, we talked about the coking coal study; we talked about the IGCC project; and we talked about a number of other things since our discussions, which include a look at labour-management relations. That's come up in our public meetings. Certainly we've talked about better communication between communities and the industry itself.
The Minister of Labour, of course, has just established the review panel to develop a long-term strategy for stable and cooperative labour relations. Under that, we may be able to be more specific about some of the proposals that have been made in our meetings by the people within the industry. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has recognized the thrust of the round-table findings and will be looking at the recommendations with his counterparts.
We are doing a study across the country, as I have said before, to deal with the taxation issues and to see what the competitive position of British Columbia is on taxation of mines. There are a number of initiatives on a number of fronts across the government -- from within the ministry and from other ministries -- which have already begun the process. We hope, as we come to a conclusion and put together a specific strategy with some other moves, that other things may be there as well.
D. Jarvis: Approximately two weeks ago you were talking about looking into full-cost energy pricing -- taking into account, for example, the economic, social and environmental costs. I'd like to know whether or not a move towards this type of evaluation would result in higher or lower energy costs, and what effect will this have on our industry.
Hon. A. Edwards: I think that one of the most important things about this kind of initiative is that the relative values of different kinds of energy will be different. Probably the cost of energy will be higher. I have no doubt about that, because if you do good costing, you include all of the elements, and that would include social and environmental costs. That would mean that some of the costs will be up. But what will happen, we expect -- and we don't know where this will go -- is that relative costs will.... The scale will vary from where it is now.
D. Jarvis: I would like to turn now to the subject of independent power production. As the minister is aware, there was an attempt underway to launch a 150-megawatt electrical cogeneration facility near the community of Sparwood. This is one of the three communities that are presently being threatened by difficulties with Westar's Balmer mine, etc.
The project -- a cooperative venture between Transalta Resources and the Alberta Natural Gas Co. Ltd. -- would be worth approximately $2 billion over the next 30 years. There's been a letter of intent signed by the municipality of Sacramento to purchase all the power produced. However, they do require a decision on the part of the government this year. I assume you're aware of all of this. There have already been two contracts lost to the Puget Sound utility, because of a lack of policy by the government. What action has this government taken regarding the present situation in the Sparwood community?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have gone over this one a number of times, too, and told the member that I met with the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, which is the other party to the letter of understanding that the two companies in the Crowsnest Pass have had on providing power.
I was very clear to them when I first met with them, which was while we were still in opposition, that if we got into power we would definitely be looking at exporting energy, because we felt that the people in British Columbia had not had an opportunity to have input into the broad comprehensive decision. At that time, they had shortlisted a number of companies, and it was subsequent to that that they got down to choosing the Crowsnest Pass project. We think they made a very good decision. It could be a very good project if the people of British Columbia are interested in exporting electricity to the United States.
I have met with the people from the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District three times -- once fairly recently, since I have been minister -- and I have made the case very clearly to them. I would make the point to the member that the reason that that particular project has not been able to go ahead as quickly as the proponents would like certainly does not depend on lack of policy. It's a very clear policy. It's a policy that we have stated for some continuous length of time; it's a policy on which we have been consistent; it's a policy on which both the prospective customer and the proponent are very clear. I would like to put that to the member as far as that particular project is concerned.
The member must know that, as the MLA for the area in which it would be established, I obviously have some interest in the project. I represent a lot of people who have made representations on its behalf. I would also like to say that we have not lost projects from Puget Sound. In fact, the companies that had applied were not shortlisted by the Puget Sound Power and Light Co.
D. Jarvis: You may have an energy policy, but I don't think it's clear to everyone what's going on. Everything's under review, and that's why we can't talk about it. You keep saying that we're not allowed to talk about your policy, because it's all under review. Everyone in this province is wondering what's going on. Don't try to say that you have a policy. You don't have a policy, or else you'd spill it out to the people in the province.
[ Page 1780 ]
Could the minister say how -- if at all -- the Energy Council impacts on the process? What kind of impact will it have on it?
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, yes, you're right: we don't have a policy on the export of electricity. I said we had a very clear policy on where we are going to go. It's a very clear policy on consultation and how we reach energy policy in this province. We do it after consulting, after there's been a comprehensive look at it, and after all the people in the province have the opportunity to talk about it. Certainly I've never told anybody that they shouldn't talk about it. I think they should talk about it more frequently, direct their remarks and put them into the process. The sooner we do that, and the better we do that, the better the policy we will have.
D. Jarvis: Is the minister then saying that I am allowed to ask her questions on the Energy Council?
Hon. A. Edwards: I try to keep telling the member that I would love to talk. I'm anxious and eager to talk about the policies and structure of the Energy Council. Since it's in a bill, which will be debated in the House very soon, I hope, I don't believe that we can discuss it. What we can discuss at this time is anything related to the funding in the budget papers. The member, I believe, wants to talk about the council itself: how it will work and those kinds of questions.
D. Jarvis: How long is the consultation? What is the time-frame of the Energy Council? Is there a time-frame?
The Chair: I would submit that that has to do with the legislation. It's probably not in order in Committee of Supply.
D. Jarvis: Can the minister assure the people of Sparwood and that area that our government will render a decision within the time-frame allotted?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member is asking about our energy policy. I would say that there has not been an absolute time allotted for energy policy. In fact, we are attempting to assure the independent power producers in the province that we will reach a conclusion and a policy position as soon as we can. We are very well aware of the constraints that they are under.
D. Jarvis: Would the minister care to venture a ballpark figure? Are we talking one year, two year, six months or five years?
Hon. A. Edwards: As I have said before, we are attempting to do it as quickly as possible. When we were elected, we put out the hope that it would be a year. I have currently stopped making specific statements, because I expect that the chair of the council will consult with the independent power producers, come to a decision with them and make a recommendation to me about that time-frame.
D. Jarvis: I hope a decision will come down from the government while this situation is still relevant.
Seeing that we are on Sparwood, I wanted to ask.... I know I'm jumping, Mr. Chairman. The job protection commissioner has made his report. I understand that it has gone through the various ministries -- Environment, etc. -- and that the minister has been briefed on it. I wonder if she would tell us why this report hasn't been released. I don't feel that the labour negotiations going on will impair this report.
Hon. A. Edwards: Of course, I've been talking to the job protection commissioner within the last week. He has outlined to me that his report, which was about to be put out at the time of the labour dispute, could not be.... Things have changed in the Elk Valley. Let me put it that way. Basically two things have happened since he was nearly ready to send his report on. Those two things are that there has been a labour dispute and that the company has applied for court protection against its creditors. Those two things being in place, obviously the ground rules are different.
D. Jarvis: Of course, a number of things have changed. Don't you think that this report will assist the combatants, if you want to put it in that way -- the union and the company?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member uses the term "combatants." I'm reluctant to use that term, for the simple reason that the problem in the Elk Valley goes very deep. It cuts very deep and very broad. There are community councils there; there are other employees; there are service industries; there are transportation workers; there are terminal workers out on the coast. The problem is broad; it cuts deep into the British Columbia economy. We can't simply talk about two combatants. That does not recognize the breadth and the depth of the problem.
[3:15]
I believe that when the job protection commissioner reports, that report could be very helpful. I myself have been working in the Elk Valley, talking to various stakeholders and members of the community. I hope we will be able to work toward a solution, which is needed very soon.
D. Jarvis: You say you are working with the people there, but I keep getting calls from people -- the union members, the company members, the chamber of commerce and the small businessmen that are being affected. There are 1,300 men that are not working, and another 1,000 in Elkford. Surely the job commissioner had some recommendations in his report that would assist the two parties that are trying to negotiate a settlement, so that the workers could get back to work and the small businesses could do what they're supposed to be doing -- selling products and keeping their businesses alive.
Hon. A. Edwards: This time I will deal mainly with the fact that the company has applied to the courts for protection against its creditors. By doing that, the job protection commissioner's work has gone out of date. I think the member should recognize that. All of a sudden the relationship with the banks, the credit situation.... The whole balance, such as it was, is different. Obviously the
[ Page 1781 ]
job protection commissioner's report, which was nearly ready, is not consistent with what is there now.
D. Jarvis: Could the minister tell me what her ministry is going do about it? Are we just going to sit back and wait for the situation to change again?
Hon. A. Edwards: The labour dispute is still central to what happens there. The Minister of Labour met with the president of the union and the president of the company and found that an intervention at this time would not be appropriate or useful. Is the member suggesting that the Minister of Mines should intervene?
D. Jarvis: I've come up with a good solution. I would suggest that probably she should do it.
Anyway, I'll change the subject and get back to power. Are there any plans within the ministry to adjust the power rates to more accurately reflect the true market prices? There was an attempt made recently by Hydro, as you know, which was rejected. I'm curious as to whether your ministry will proceed along these lines regarding energy pricing for all of the producers.
Hon. A. Edwards: I wonder if the member would clarify that. We're not sure if he's talking about all forms of energy or one form of energy, and what his question is.
D. Jarvis: We'll forget that subject for the moment. I'll go on to another one.
This is an ongoing situation. You made a comment the other day on mining -- that it was in a down cycle. Does this mean that you see no role for the ministry in minimizing these downturns?
Hon. A. Edwards: The role of the ministry, which I've been outlining for the last several days in estimates, and as well to various mining groups throughout the province.... I have spoken to mining groups across the province and have been able to say that one of the most crucial things that we, as a government, can do for the mining industry is to ensure that British Columbia is a sound place in which to put your investment money. We have, in fact, shown the greatest fiscal achievement in Canada, by being the province whose credit rating was not downgraded at all. We had the best credit rating, and it did not get a downgrade after our budget. The budget, of course, meant that there was some difficulty and some hardship that every citizen of British Columbia was going to have to face in order to deal with the extremely difficult deficit we were looking at. But we did it, and that, of couse, is central to what we're doing for the mining industry in British Columbia -- which says that this is a stable place to invest. Besides that, we are carrying out studies with other provinces, talking about tax competitiveness.
We are hearing what the industry is saying. We are attempting to ensure that our assessment processes are efficient and thorough. We are working with the mining industry, as we can.
D. Jarvis: Well, the investors and developers really don't care how fiscally sound the province is. What they're interested in....
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: Yes, they are. They're interested in what it is going to do for them. Now, you have done nothing, except to raise taxes. Did you mention to the Finance minister earlier in the year any thought whatsoever of reducing taxes to the investors, or giving them any tax credits?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think we have discussed this. It almost seems to be an echo of the member's discussion of Bill 6 the other day. Obviously in our government we are not doing what we do because we like to increase taxes. We did it because we saw a situation that had to be addressed. We made our taxation regime as fair as we could make it. We attempted to make sure that whoever bore the tax burden was doing so on as equitable a basis as possible. Certainly, as advocates of the mining industry, we looked at the possibilities of tax reduction. But I am sorry to say that we didn't make much progress that way; we did end up with some tax increases. Basically we believe we have looked at every possible way of ensuring that we, as a province, are contributing to the continuing health of the mining industry, and that that health comes along with the health of all of our resources and our environment.
D. Jarvis: We discussed this aspect before, but I was wondering if the minister could tell me whether, since in the last few weeks you got your triple-A credit rating that the Minister of Finance has been talking about, there has been any interest or investment in this province -- people wanting to develop in the mines. Before, there was none. Has this changed?
Hon A. Edwards: No, that's not how investment works; it doesn't usually work all that fast. I do caution the member that it doesn't help this province for the official opposition party to be running around throwing their hands in the air and yelling that the sky is falling, saying there is no exploration investment in this province; it's no good to be here, and everybody is going to go to Chile; let's look at the end of the mining industry; you can start weeping now. I would suggest that the mining industry is very optimistic. It is able to bounce back and has done so before. It's a very resourceful industry. I'm not only talking about the resources that the province has for the industry. The industry itself has imagination and expertise, and it's able to bounce back. I look at those things and I see, as the Minister of Environment said the other day, that this cup is half full.
[ Page 1782 ]
D. Jarvis: The cup isn't half full.
What are you doing, then, to help encourage any type of investment in this province? How many of the mines under the mine development assessment program are you prepared at this point to say will be coming on stream within the next year, in six months, or in five years, if they meet all the requirements that the government has now laid out in front of us -- for example, the review of Apex?
Hon. A. Edwards: All the mining proposals that are under the review process -- the ones that meet the environmental requirements, which is the member's question, as I understand it.... If they do so and they are there, I am sure that they will be in progress as soon as their economic benefit is proven by the company.
D. Jarvis: Could the minister tell me what mines are in the mine development assessment program?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'll read it into Hansard again. The projects that are active in the pre-application prospective phase include the Bodie Creek expansion of the Balmer operation in the Elk Valley; the Hedley gold-tailings project, where the prospectus review has been completed; and the Kemess copper-gold project, where a prospectus is under review.
There are eight projects active in the application phase: the Falcon 2 Greenhills operation, which is an extension of a coal-mine in the Elk Valley; Windy Craggy copper-gold project, where we are looking to a special extension of the mine development process; the Eskay Creek gold project; the Moose Creek magnetite project; the Crystal Peak garnet project; the Mount Milligan copper-gold project; the Stronsay lead-zinc-silver project and the Mount Polley copper-gold project.
D. Jarvis: Are any of those that she mentioned expected to come on during 1992 or 1993?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's probable that by or during 1993 we could have the Bodie Creek extension of the Balmer operation, if we are successful, with all of us ensuring that that mine continues. The Falcon 2 Greenhills operation and the Crystal Peak garnet project.... Now, there are three other projects that could well be there technically, but the economics may not be there. It's up to the companies that owns them, and that includes Mount Milligan, Stronsay and Mount Polley.
D. Jarvis: Have there been any applications in the last eight months?
[3:30]
Hon. A. Edwards: I should have added Eskay Creek to that, because basically the economics are holding that one back as well, within that time-frame.
Within the last eight months, the Bodie Creek extension of the Balmer operation, the Hedley gold-tailings project and the Kemess copper-gold project have made their applications.
D. Jarvis: The minister stated the other day that she expects to come up with a strategy for coal, and for other energy and mining matters. Do we understand from this that there is currently a strategy in the ministry? If so, what is it for these areas?
Hon. A. Edwards: I said, in going through the coal strategy process, that if we can get a response that indicates that that kind of process would be useful for the metals mining industry, we could do the same sort of process for that. Currently we are looking very closely within the ministry at what we are going to do and whether that's the kind of process we will go through, or what other way we will work toward a concrete strategy.
As far as energy is concerned, I think I've gone through this a number of times. I don't know whether the member wants me to again outline how I expect that we will have broad involvement by the public in energy policy development, how we are very pleased that we have a process for going ahead and having the public involved, and how much more solid and reliable we hope our energy policy will be when it has that kind of broad public input.
D. Jarvis: The minister talked about the benefits to us and to Ontario if we had a low-cost method of transporting coal to the industrial market. Has the ministry considered any steps, or discussed such ideas with the Ontario and federal governments, in pursuit of such an objective?
Hon. A. Edwards: Since the 1950s, there have been discussions between B.C., Ontario, the federal government, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
D. Jarvis: The other day the minister was asked not about the internal work in B.C. Hydro, but about its relationship to her ministry and how she felt about it. Her response was that the ministry already controls the B.C. Utilities Commission, which sets the standards for Hydro, and that this move therefore reduced the perception of conflict of interests -- or at least that the two entities were at arm's length. Yet the other day the minister responsible for Hydro made a very clear presentation to the B.C. Utilities Commission on a rather contentious matter. Can the minister explain how this does not represent a conflict of interest?
Hon. A. Edwards: Until you've had experience with some of these electricity issues, it's hard to recognize how the Utilities Commission works. It is not controlled by the ministry; it operates under the ministry's aegis. We report to the Legislature on how it operates and how it's funded. In other words, we are responsible for it. We do not control the Utilities Commission. It is an independent commission that makes decisions based on terms of reference put to it by the minister. It has to deal with the distribution system -- the Crown corporation that distributes the electrical energy in British Columbia as well as other distributors. I don't know how the member sees the application or presentation to the Utilities Commission by the Crown
[ Page 1783 ]
corporation that distributes electricity as a conflict of interest. If he has any more concrete idea of that, maybe he could explain it to me, and I would be glad to respond.
D. Jarvis: There is a feeling, therefore, that there is no difference between conflict of interest and arm's length. I think she was trying to say that there is no difference; I believe there is. Both terms connote undue and unfair interference. Does the minister not agree with that?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's awkward. Most of the time that we've been in estimates, the member has been putting questions that indicate that he sees no difference between conflict of interest and the lack of an arm's-length relationship. I believe the terms have very distinct meanings; they are not synonymous. What I'm saying is that there are situations, when considering other issues, where you avoid the possibility of interests that are in the wrong place. I don't know if that clarifies it very well. I did talk about B.C. Hydro going to a different ministry, and that does create an arm's-length relationship. I think what the member is suggesting -- that B.C. Hydro shouldn't make presentations to the Utilities Commission -- would be defeating the whole function of what's going on. What is done in front of the Utilities Commission is open and public. As far as I know, it continues to be open, public and proper.
D. Jarvis: Under the current compensation freeze and then the Schwindt commission, an interesting question arises. Could the minister tell me whether a company which entered into this process -- or entered into the process under the old rules, and is now frozen -- will be allowed to complete the process under the same rule they started under or will be forced to start over again under the new system?
Hon. A. Edwards: There is a bill on the order paper. It is the Attorney General's bill, so I'm going to suggest that the member question the Attorney General.
D. Jarvis: I wonder sometimes. Everything seems to be under a new bill or a new order paper or someone else's....
D. Schreck: You'll learn how it works eventually.
D. Jarvis: That is exactly what is wrong with the people who are trying to invest money in this province. They are going elsewhere. They can't figure it out. This government seems to have it all figured out, but they are not prepared to give any answers. The indecisiveness.... They're going to fall back on the fact that they feel this province is fiscally in order. That's going to be the answer to everything.
I asked a question earlier about environmental subsidies for a company re-opening abandoned mines with new technology. It was saddled with cleanup costs. You stated that your ministry would negotiate with this company. Have there been any such negotiations to date? What would the process involve?
The Chair: Before the minister answers, I should point out that some time ago we were advised by Hansard that, because these microphones are not selective, they pick up extraneous noise very easily, particularly heckling. I would caution the members on that. Also, the size of the room doesn't lend itself to cross-banter. If we could just keep order, we could make some progress.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm really delighted that the member recognizes that this new government has taken over the mandate the electorate gave it and is putting all sorts of new things in place. That is the difficulty. There are always disruptions when you're attempting to move to the new and exciting. I believe that we have responded to exactly what we were asked to do when we became government and were given the confidence of the people to come in and bring something new to this province. So I don't take what the member says as any criticism whatsoever. There is no question that we are doing a lot of new things. That is what we intended to do, and that is what we are going to do.
If the member is talking about abandoned mines, there is one example of a specific case that I may have talked about and that he is now referring to, if you will allow me to drop a preposition. In the Tulsequah mine, there is a private sale in process. Cominco is discussing selling that mine to Redfern, and in doing so they are trying to determine the terms of the sale -- which, as I say, is a private deal. In coming to some agreement on that, they have to deal with the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Environment on the liability for the reclamation bond and on the environmental cleanup. In that case, our ministry and the Ministry of the Environment are involved in assuring that both parties know what has to be done and what the liability is, so that they can structure a deal around that.
D. Jarvis: Has the ministry ascertained which mineral mines currently in production are likely to close down?
Hon. A. Edwards: It is tempting to say to the member that all of them will eventually close down; I presume he meant in the relatively near future. We do look at that; we have information that will give us a fairly clear idea of what mines are coming to the end of the economic process for that ore body.
Certainly there are some threats, as you probably know, to the Balmer mine that we've been talking about. It may well close, but the ore body is not completely mined. The Byron Creek coal-mine in my riding is looking at difficult times. Those are a couple of the coal-mines that we are talking about.
As for the metal mines, in my experience the situation sometimes happens over.... I may be absolutely wrong on this. The statistics may show something different, but they seem to have shorter lives. You have to have a huge volume to do coal, so by the time you have a huge volume to make it economic to even develop the coal-mine, you have to have quite an operation. With metal mines, sometimes you don't need a huge amount. You may start up and stop within
[ Page 1784 ]
months, in fact; I believe there are a number of examples of that.
[3:45]
There is the McDame asbestos mine, which, as you know, is currently on the route to closure but may be rescued. That mine is included as one that may be closed in the near future. Equity Silver is certainly planning to close this summer -- I believe July is the date. Lawyers mine -- that's the Cheni gold-mine -- is expected to close in July of this year as well. Premier gold-mine has announced that that one will be closed sometime this year, probably in June. The Bell mine, which is a copper-gold-mine in the Granisle area, will close in June as well. Samatosum is expected to close by October. There is a gold-silver-mine called the Nickel Plate mine which will probably close in 1993. Those are the metal mines, and the industrial metals, too.
D. Jarvis: With regard to the increase in the recording fees, could the minister tell me what her rationale is behind this? Along the same line, why was the notice-of-work filing fee increased as much as it was? Do you think that this increase will benefit or discourage the recording work in this province?
Hon. A. Edwards: Both of those fees hadn't been changed for some considerable time. The recording fee hadn't been changed since 1964, and the Treasury Board told us that they thought.... When they make requests, it's a little more than a request, but I'll use that term. They said that the cost of Titles 2000, which puts information into computers in every government agent's office in B.C., needed to be recovered. So we increased the fee. It hadn't been increased since 1964, and our increase still leaves it proportionately lower than in 1964, in today's dollars.
The notice-of-work fee is offset by some changes in the resource management fee. The resource management fee was put in by the previous government, and it generated so much paperwork that there were huge costs. We tried to balance the two, to put them together and come out with something better than we had before.
D. Jarvis: But don't you think the increased fees will discourage the recording work and the maintenance of the title? The end result will be the destruction of all that data, or the collecting mechanism previous governments established.
Hon. A. Edwards: The cost of recording, as a percentage of the exploration that goes on in British Columbia, is extremely small. I might say also that you cannot run an orderly system -- and I believe all the prospectors understand this -- without having effective and efficient recording. There is nothing but trouble if you don't have an efficient system. British Columbia has had a very efficient system, and I believe that the value of it is appreciated. Certainly I'm not saying that anybody wants more fees, but the cost of all sorts of things, including the cost of living, goes up. These reflect in part the increased costs of living.
D. Jarvis: Have there been any re-employment schemes through, for example, the Advanced Education ministry, with regard to all the semi-skilled workers being laid off in the different mines?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think it's common practice that, where there is a mine closure or a reduction of a significant number, there is an industrial adjustment program. Industrial adjustment programs involve the Ministry of Advanced Education. Training programs are used extensively, I believe -- certainly by any experience I have had personally, and frequently that's all the information I'm given. Certainly it's been used in Cassiar; it's been used in the Cominco closure; it is currently on the books for Trail, and so on. Yes, they are involved.
D. Jarvis: I'm down to a few short questions, then we can all go home.
The Chair: The Chair will hold you to that promise.
D. Jarvis: I'm not quite sure whether I asked the minister this before. We've gone on for so many days, over a protracted period of time.... With regard to environmental issues such as acid rock drainage, is there any research being done by the ministry? If so, how much money is allocated?
Hon. A. Edwards: We've been working at Mount Washington and Britannia on this, and beyond that the straight research is being done through the MEND program, which is a federal program in which we participate to the extent of approximately $200,000 a year. Our work in that area will be expanded when we get a signature on the MDA.
D. Jarvis: Just one last question on NDP policy. I believe that at one time the NDP policy was to preserve the Tatshenshini River as a wilderness area. Is this still their policy? If so, why all the reviews and discussions that we're having?
Hon. A. Edwards: The members of the party agreed at one time to designate the river as a heritage river, and I believe that is the policy the member refers to.
L. Stephens: I have just a few questions for the minister, again about gas drilling and gas storage in the Fraser Valley. On July 5, 1991, Mr. Harcourt, our now Premier, wrote a letter to Mr. Vickers, the chairman of the Friends of the Fraser Valley. In it he stated: "I want a moratorium on natural gas exploration and storage in the Fraser Valley. I also want David Anderson's 59 recommendations brought back to Fraser Valley residents for full public consultation so all questions can be answered about the environmental and economic impact of drilling and storage." Is this something that your government is going to be doing?
[ Page 1785 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: By the way, I would like to tell the member for Langley that I did take the opportunity on Friday to visit the sites that are proposed for gas wells. I don't want to have to say anymore: "No, I haven't seen the sites." I would like to say that the ministry has asked for input into the Anderson recommendations from all of the stakeholders. Any who had an interest in doing so have responded. However, I think that the member will recognize -- certainly we recognize it -- that the report is highly technical. A lot of the responses are being dealt with within our ministry on a technical level and also have been referred to the Ministry of Environment on a technical level. Basically that kind of input into the Anderson report has taken place to probably a more limited extent than some people thought would happen; but it has been open.
L. Stephens: Have there been public meetings held in the area? I'm not aware if there were any public meetings with the residents of the area.
Hon. A. Edwards: The request to stakeholders to respond to the report didn't come at a public meeting. The ministry has had a number of consultative meetings with people in the area, but a public meeting was held -- I believe by the proponents -- with various people. The ministry held an open house in Delta to explain the regulatory process related to drilling back in August 1991. That was in conjunction with the time-frame that.... The ministry had set up the citizens' advisory committee. They began to work and were soliciting public input when the Delta well was drilled.
L. Stephens: Does the ministry have plans to hold similar public informational meetings in Langley-Aldergrove?
Hon. A. Edwards: If we were to decide to go ahead with the drilling at the two sites where the company wants to drill, we would definitely have public meetings. We would host public meetings in the Langley area. They would deal with the regulatory process; environmental, public and aboriginal concerns, to make sure that they were addressed; and the safety of the public. Then the ministry would also hold discussions with Langley Council to again address and identify concerns, and to make sure that those were out. Then, following the same process as in Delta, we would establish a community advisory committee, which again would allow public input into the way the site construction would occur and how the drilling would proceed. Then, of course, we would ensure that the proponent would be required to resolve any of the legitimate public concerns that had come up -- ones that hadn't been previously addressed or ones that had come up before. That was the process we followed in Delta. We would expect that if we decided to allow the application of Conoco to do the drilling, that is the process that would be followed again.
[4:00]
L. Stephens: So the decision would be made by the ministry to allow the drilling, and then it would go to the municipalities and the cities for public input. If some valid reasons and arguments were put forward at that public process, would that necessitate a cancellation of the drilling leases? If not, would it be possible to exchange the leases for some other area of the province?
Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Chair, we would expect that these processes are open, and they would hear what the concerns are. As I said, we are determined that those concerns would be addressed.
You've discussed the possibility of exchanging sites. It has to be recognized that those sites have been chosen as preferred sites by the proponent, not only because of the geology -- because of what the seismic exploration told the companies -- but also because of the servicing benefits that would be there for the company. Those kinds of things would have to be considered in any of the balancing that goes on.
L. Stephens: Should the drilling go ahead, and should there be a gas find, how is the ministry prepared to handle that?
Hon. A. Edwards: If the exploratory wells were drilled, and if gas were discovered, obviously what we would need to know immediately is what the volumes are, and what the possibilities are. Of course, they are numerous. As far as whether you, in fact, cap the well and let it sit until certain things happen, or whether you could tie it into the distribution system easily, or how you would do that.... It's very difficult to say right now how anybody would want to go, because you don't know what the volumes are and you don't know where it's going to be, or what's going to happen.
I have to say that it is highly hypothetical, and it's difficult to say what the next step would be, specifically. What I can assure you of is that we would be consistent in assuring the public that they would have input into public safety issues.
L. Stephens: Madam Minister, I can tell you that the public in Langley and Aldergrove -- and Fort Langley, for that matter -- have very little faith in the ministry when it comes to this particular issue of gas exploration and drilling. To say to them after the fact that their concerns will be addressed simply isn't good enough.
Again, I would like to have a commitment, or at some point I would like to know whether or not a moratorium on gas drilling and storage is something that this government would consider.
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, I've said that we are looking into the whole issue of gas storage; it's a matter of new policy, as your colleague has pointed out. That is definitely, anyway, a matter for our consideration. What we're looking at is how we would deal with the proposals for gas storage, and how we would deal with it across the province. We would look at that in the context of how best to serve the energy needs, and
[ Page 1786 ]
particularly the natural gas needs, of the people in the lower mainland.
As for a moratorium on drilling, I believe you're quite aware that we are considering what we are going to do with these two sites that have these two leases that have been sold and are owned by the Fraser Valley Gas Project. At the moment, we have not put out any further leases.
L. Stephens: For those of us in the Langley area, I'll just reiterate that providing gas to the lower mainland is not something that we are that concerned about. What we're concerned about is our quality of life, our property values and our safety. I would just like to make very clear that this is a subject that is extremely fraught with peril in our area. The fact that natural gas is needed in the lower mainland is a concern to your ministry, and I would suggest that you perhaps look elsewhere for a storage site or for drilling. The past indications of drilling in the area have not been favourable; that has been proven time and again. The Delta well certainly proves that, and so have the others that have been drilled in Langley in the past. However, I do want to thank the minister for her answers.
Hon. A. Edwards: I wanted to respond to your suggestion that the people in the valley do not have any faith in the ministry. I would like to suggest that the ministry did carry out extensive consultations in the Fraser Valley. There were, in fact, approximately five phases to the consultation. The ministry was involved from August 1988 to April 1989 in general information on petroleum and natural gas and underground storage, and provincial resource management information. The people were there. The ministry put out information and accepted responses.
The second phase began in April 1989. There was an announcement that a competition would be held for the leases; there were letters, and question-and-answer sheets. The Fraser Valley MLAs were consulted; the Fraser Valley municipalities were consulted.
The third phase, by August 1989, was consultation to select the areas for the competition. Basically there were meetings again with municipal and provincial officials in Delta, Matsqui, Surrey and Langley, and consultations with the Ministry of Environment. There was an announcement on October 25, 1989, of the competition; again, there were letters, question-and-answer sheets, senior provincial government officials, and Fraser Valley municipalities. Senior provincial officials were there, and they consulted with Fraser Valley municipalities and the MLAs. There were newspaper ads in the Chilliwack Times, the Delta Optimist, the Langley Times, Surrey Now, and in trade journals. There was a competition notice in the industry mailing-list. When the competition was complete, results were announced in October 1989. The municipalities were consulted again, and various provincial ministries.
There may be, as you say, a feeling that the ministry is not doing its job, but the ministry certainly has been there consulting. I lay that out for you as part of the history of what has gone on.
However, I also would like to respond to your statement that the people in the Fraser Valley don't care about the supply of natural gas to the area. It does not conform to my idea of what the people in the Fraser Valley are telling me about how they want to expand and how they expect that there will be expansion in the area. There have even been discussions about property values, what they want to do with property and why they want their property values to be there. You may tell me differently, and you may be correct, but from what I have heard, there are a number of people who expect a considerable expansion of population in the Fraser Valley. That, of course, means that they want their gas, and I've heard no indication that they don't want it. So I put that to you as part of what goes into the mix. As I say, you may be able to convince me differently, but right now I am not convinced that there is any plan to stop population growth in the Fraser Valley.
L. Stephens: That is exactly my point. Langley is a growing community. There are real dangers, and that is not going to go away. I am from Saskatchewan. There are a number of oil wells and gas wells on our property and on others surrounding it, so I am very well aware of gas and oil exploration, leases and so on. When we are talking about Saskatchewan, there are miles and miles of empty land. But we are talking here about the Fraser Valley, where the increased population which is projected is just outstanding. For many of us -- most of us -- there.... Again, I would suggest that the numbers you were talking about in the studies that were done and in the informational meetings that were held.... They were done two, three, four years ago. Since then, many things have come to light, which I'm sure you are aware of. If not, I would be happy to provide you with a lot of the incidents that have happened. With all of these things, combined with the increase in population that we expect, we feel that it should not even be a consideration at this time, particularly for the future of the Fraser Valley.
D. Jarvis: I have no more questions. I would just like to thank the minister and her staff.
Vote 28 approved.
Vote 29: ministry operations, $37,293,990 -- approved.
Vote 30: British Columbia Utilities Commission and Energy Council, $10 -- approved.
Vote 31: Fort Nelson Indian band mineral revenue sharing agreement, $300,000 -- approved.
Hon. A. Edwards: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:16 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada