Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1992

Volume 3, Number 22

[ Page 1997 ]

The House met at 6:09 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 18, hon. Speaker.

ENERGY COUNCIL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; E. Barnes in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Weisgerber: Section 2(2)(b) suggests that temporary councillors are appointed under subsection (3)3. The intent of the legislation, as I read it, is to establish a permanent Energy Council consisting of six members plus a chairman. When this act refers to the appointment of temporary councillors, are there more than the six councillors and the chairman? Are there councillors who might serve for a short period of time? Does the minister anticipate seven full-time councillors? I'm confused by the notion of a temporary councillor.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'd like to introduce my deputy, John Allan, to those of you who don't know him.

The idea is that there will be one permanent chair of the council and up to six temporary councillors -- certainly not more than that. That's what we anticipate we would have in order to meet as a council. We don't anticipate that they would have to be full-time, because a lot of the public work that they do will be consultation among themselves and won't be full-time work, as we see it.

J. Weisgerber: So my understanding from that would be that it would be your intention initially not to appoint six councillors along with the chair to serve on this council.

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, the idea is that we will probably appoint six people. We certainly have had a lot of input from people across the province; we've already had 104 nominations for those six positions. But those people will be paid on a per diem basis for the work that they do. We don't expect that they will be working full-time. They will be working on various consultations with the public and also in consultation among themselves after meeting with the public for recommendations. But we don't anticipate that they will be needed full-time.

J. Weisgerber: Is it my understanding, then, that the only constant official will be the chair, that there will be councillors appointed, that there won't be a council as such but that there will be a number of temporary part-time or short-term councillors appointed with a chair who in fact becomes the council?

Hon. A. Edwards: The council will be the chair plus up to six -- probably six -- councillors. It's just that the six that will be named, beyond those who will be the so-called temporary councillors, will not work full-time. There will be a small secretariat who works for the chair, but basically the members of the council will be called to work on a temporary basis -- an ad hoc basis, although not ad hoc as far as subject is concerned. When there are consultations to be done with the public, they will sit for those days; when they meet afterwards to decide what they're going to do, they will be sitting and they will work for those days. They will not be full-time councillors.

J. Weisgerber: So it's fair to suggest then that the council will operate perhaps like a board of directors -- perhaps like the board of B.C. Rail or Hydro or one of those Crown corporations -- where the directors, if you like, meet once or twice a month, and the chairperson in this case is a full-time employee? I'm trying to understand whether the council, as a group, will have some long-range process whereby they examine issues and alternatives and, at the end of the day, come up with a recommendation. I'm just trying to get a sense that the council will be an entity. There will be some decision-making among a fixed group of people.

[6:15]

Hon. A. Edwards: Basically your description is relatively fair. These will be people who are appointed for a term, so they won't be ad hoc in the sense that they come in and go out. They will see the long-term view and, as I say, they will be there for particular meetings and consultations that will carry on. Certainly they will meet on a regular basis, but we don't anticipate that it will be full-time.

J. Weisgerber: From your answer I would suggest that you may be making these appointments as you would with a Crown corporation -- for one, two or three years. You would anticipate people serving for five or six years on this council. Is that the kind of time-frame that you would anticipate?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think the anticipation is that the terms may even be staggered, so that we have people moving along. But they will be given a term of appointment, and while they won't be full-time, they will have an appointment for that length of time.

J. Weisgerber: My final question on this section would be: could you tell me the term of Mr. Gathercole's appointment, which has attracted a lot of attention over the last while?

Hon. A. Edwards: We expect that we would appoint the person to that position for five years. That's what we anticipate.

J. Weisgerber: Just so I'm clear, members of the council will be appointed for various terms. You said that the person would be appointed. I understood that Mr. Gathercole had already been appointed, with a 

[ Page 1998 ]

salary of around $100,000 a year. Are you telling me now that the term of his appointment is yet to be fixed, or that Mr. Gathercole perhaps isn't the person who's going to have the five-year appointment?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm certainly not saying that Mr. Gathercole is not the person who will have the appointment. I have named him as the designate for the chair, but of course we can't appoint a chair until we have the legislation, so what we would see happening is that Mr. Gathercole would be named for a five-year term. I expect that the other members of council would have three-year terms, which would overlap in some way. That's what we see right now.

J. Weisgerber: Given that there has been some considerable controversy around Mr. Gathercole's appointment, and given that there have been some questions as to whether or not he was the most suitable person to chair this particular council, and given the fact that the government appeared to be rushing to make this appointment, as the minister suggests, before there is even legislation created to justify the creation of the position, I'm worried that should you or some successor government decide that Mr. Gathercole is not the appropriate person, we would find the government again faced with a situation where someone has a contract that obligates the taxpayer to pay for five years at this salary. What I'm suggesting -- and what I'm hoping to hear -- is that the minister is anticipating a contract that requires performance, that has some measures, as would anyone employed by the government, that there would be some period of time -- a six-month period of time -- in which the government could decide whether or not Mr. Gathercole was the appropriate person and, if not, perhaps then be able to make a change without incurring a significant public expense.

Hon. A. Edwards: It is an order-in-council appointment, so it doesn't operate like all.... You're probably well aware of how order-in-council appointments work. Certainly anybody who is appointed by an order-in-council and is not doing a good job can be replaced; there's no question about that.

I would like to comment on the fact that one of the reasons that we attempted to name Mr. Gathercole and be sure that we had everything in place is the issue -- and the first issue that I am going to refer to the council -- of the export of electricity. That is a matter that we want to get going. It's important, and we wanted to indicate that we are ready to go on that issue.

I perhaps could repeat that I think that we have had a whole lot of support for the naming of Mr. Gathercole to this position. It has come broadly; it has come from a lot of people. Obviously there's been opposition that has been very influential on the opposition party. Basically Mr. Gathercole is extremely well suited to serve. He has dealt with people from all sectors of society and has done a lot of very good public work. That is one of the reasons that we thought that he would be particularly suitable for this position. He has worked with low-income people, he's worked with the federal government and he's worked with the whole area of people who have been involved. He was involved in the most recent B.C. Hydro collaborative committee, which was a new way of consulting with people across the province. Because of that experience, we named him. As I say, we have suggested a five-year period for his appointment. It's an order-in-council appointment, and if he doesn't do a good job, his appointment can be rescinded.

J. Weisgerber: Just to clarify, certainly an order-in-council appointment can be rescinded. If the person named in the order-in-council has a contract of employment, the OIC can be rescinded, but you then wind up negotiating some kind of severance, and that can be expensive. So if you're telling me that Mr. Gathercole will be appointed on an open-ended OIC, with the anticipation that he might serve for up to five years, I'd have no trouble with that. If you can assure me that you're not hiring Mr. Gathercole on a five-year contract, then I'll be satisfied.

D. Jarvis: On the same subject, I was just wondering about Mr. Gathercole. Would the minister be able to explain to me what Mr. Gathercole's experience with the poor people of this province has to add to this energy policy regarding export of electricity?

The Chair: The hon. member continues?

D. Jarvis: Yes, the minister didn't seem to understand what I was referring to. She mentioned that Mr. Gathercole's experience was partly due to the fact that he has worked with the poor people, people in need. I want to know what that has to do with the export policy of energy to this province -- the fact that he has worked with the poor people in this province.

Hon. A. Edwards: I think it must be an important issue to your party. I thought it was when the Social Services critic brought it up. I've forgotten what his constituency is, but it seemed to me that it was a matter of some concern to your party as well. I think it's important that energy export policy is policy that suits all of the people of the province. I believe that low-income and fixed-income people have as much right and should have as much opportunity to benefit from our policy decisions as anyone.

J. Weisgerber: My question was looking for confirmation that in fact Mr. Gathercole's appointment would be an open-ended OIC.

Hon. A. Edwards: We don't see that it would be an open-ended order-in-council, which would mean that it could go on for any length of time. It would be a five-year order-in-council appointment.

J. Weisgerber: Am I to understand that there would be no contract of employment that went with the order-in-council?

[ Page 1999 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: We are currently negotiating some of the terms and conditions of the appointment. So we expect it will be an order-in-council appointment for five years and will be, as I've said already, at the deputy minister level.

J. Weisgerber: The only thing I can ask, I suppose, is that as you negotiate this arrangement you give consideration to the points that have been raised. Perhaps the minister would undertake to table the document in regard to your arrangement with Mr. Gathercole at the time that it's finalized.

Hon. A. Edwards: I will certainly take that under advisement.

D. Symons: Hon. Chairman, I want to follow through a little with the questioning and what I think the leader of the third party was hinting at in regard to these particular appointments. I'm somewhat concerned about the authority that is going to be left in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and that it does not come back to this body in the House at various times for the appointment of people, for the length of time they're in office or for the remuneration they will be receiving later on in pensions. All that is taken outside of here and can be changed at will by order-in-council, and that bothers me a great deal.

I imagine that the government is doing this as a favour to the Liberal opposition, so that when we're government shortly, we won't be bothered with all the nitty-gritty of bringing things back before the House. I do think that when you're sitting on the opposition side a few years from now, you will probably object to the sort of thing in a bill that allows orders-in-council to make decisions and takes away from the authority of the elected Legislative Assembly. That is where I think the problem with this section of the bill lies. In many of the bills this government is bringing forth, they are taking away from the authority of the House and leaving it to order-in-council, where these decisions are made behind closed doors. That concerns me a great deal.

I think the leader of the third party was hinting that this could have the appearance of being a patronage plum. I don't think you really want that appearance to be there. I'm wondering why it was done in this way, rather than having these things come back before the House on a regular basis, and why it's not going to be appointed in such a way that there will not have to be severance packages paid and this sort of thing. It seems to be set up in such a way that the word "patronage" could have the appearance of being there.

Hon. A. Edwards: I do assure the member for Richmond Centre that I have a little experience in opposition. I don't remember ever really objecting to the fact that appointments such as these were made by order-in-council. They are always open to comment by anybody, because they're public orders-in-council. If you choose to debate them, you can debate them annually in estimates once these people are in place, and this is the standard way to make appointments. It's the same way we make appointments to the Utilities Commission; it's the same way we make appointments as any government makes. I'm saying that in the broadest general sense any government makes these appointments, and this is one of the appointments that are to be made.

[6:30]

I certainly have done what I can to assure that Mr. Gathercole is well-suited to the position. I believe he will do a good job for the province. I believe that he has an excellent background as an advocate, and he certainly has an excellent background as a person who has done consulting of the public and dealing with regulatory matters in all aspects of the energy area, not just electricity.

I was pleased the other day to have a question brought to me about whether or not we'll deal with other aspects of energy besides electricity. That's true; we will deal with all forms of energy in the policy that we have for the province. I believe that he has the background to do that, and particularly the background to consult with ordinary people in British Columbia, as well as the people who have the expertise. I believe he will be able to put that together into good policy advice. So that's where he is. His appointment should be viewed in the sense of what he is going to do within the job for the people of B.C., and I believe he will do a good job.

L. Fox: With respect to Mr. Gathercole, you outlined a bit of background, which obviously appears to me to be a socialist background. Does he have any background or expertise in the fields of energy, business or economics? Does he have any background or expertise in terms of cross-border negotiations? Does he have any background or expertise in any area at all that he'll specifically be dealing with, like creating new policy with respect to economic development within this province?

Hon. A. Edwards: I don't remember saying anything about his background that indicated that he would be socialist or of any other particular political stripe, but we do like people who consult with people. We do have in this party many lawyers, who have that kind of background, or who are good advocates and "consulters." However, I would like to suggest to you, as I have said a number of times, that he has a good background in energy areas. He is certainly not an economist or a businessman or those kinds of things, but he knows how to get advice in those areas. That's the important thing that we need here. I don't know of anybody who is all of the things that you laid out, and I don't suppose there is anyone who has the total expertise right across the board in all of those. Maybe there is. If there is, give us a nomination. The important thing is that we need to have someone who has the experience and the ability to call in the advice that he or she needs. I believe Mr. Gathercole has that ability.

L. Fox: If he'd have fit into one of the five categories, it would have perhaps been pretty good. It's my understanding that he spent his involvement in energy 

[ Page 2000 ]

as an advocate for those people advocating lower costs of energy to homes. That's his expertise.

However, let me get back to the running of the board. As the minister well knows, the third party supported the structure, but we had some difficulty with this particular appointment and its process. My concern here is that you have one full-time employee who is going to put his thoughts and his philosophical approach behind the initiatives and then put them forward, as I understand it, to this part-time board that would be called not necessarily on a regular basis but on an as-needed basis, as the chair or the CEO -- whichever handle you wish to give him -- sees fit to call this group together. Would these other six advisers, board members or temporary councillors -- whatever we want to call them -- then be just overseeing his recommendations, or would they literally be able to get in on the ground floor of an issue and be part and parcel of the directions of the Energy Council?

Hon. A. Edwards: I think it's very clear -- and I keep repeating it -- that the kind of expertise that Mr. Gathercole has is in consulting with people, bringing together people's ideas and making sure that those ideas are articulated. You suggest that he needs a different kind of expertise. You deny his expertise in energy. I don't think it would be useful to do that. He has dealt with many issues on energy. He has dealt with many regulatory issues. He deals right across the board. However, I put to you that what he will be is one member, obviously the leading member, of probably seven, who make recommendations and do work under the terms of reference given to the council by the government through the Minister of Energy.

L. Fox: Given that the minister has suggested he has expertise in the consultative process and in bringing people together, I'd be interested to hear of one success story that this individual has that you're aware of that allows you to categorize him as an expert. Could the minister relate to me one success story?

Hon. A. Edwards: It's difficult to pick one. He has worked for many years with the public advocacy centre, which as you know means that he works for groups. He has had to put together what groups want, and sometimes what collections of groups want, and taken....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Edwards: These are success stories. There are any number of success stories in which he has done that and taken what the groups want to the Utilities Commission, made that point and had the rulings. Also, I would like to suggest that what I consider to be a great success is his participation in the collaborative process that B.C. Hydro has been working with for the past two years. That was a different process that was directed out of B.C. Hydro, but Mr. Gathercole was a central player in that process. Through this process a number of groups across British Columbia worked to put together a policy statement. Actually, what they did was a project on conservation. That kind of work is the basis for a broader type of public consultation than we normally see.

L. Fox: I think it's clear to say that the success story of Mr. Gathercole is that he is a failed NDP candidate, and you fail to identify any really singular success story that he achieved which would give me confidence that we are putting the energy and the future of British Columbia into the hands of somebody who would have the ability to deal with it in a very positive way, in the best interests of all British Columbians.

That, hon. minister, is of extreme concern to me. Knowing full well that there's not much we can do about this appointment, because your government has its agenda and is obviously not prepared to listen too carefully to even those of us who support the process, I would hope that the other six part-time individuals have a few successes behind them and an understanding so that we can indeed see this process gain something for the province in terms of a positive energy policy.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not quite sure what the member thinks is a success story. If he doesn't think that Mr. Gathercole's representations at the Utilities Commission, for example, represented a considerable difference in what many of those decisions were.... I find your absolute rejection of what I put forward a bit puzzling. If you have some suggestion of what you thought of as a success story, I'd be interested to hear.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Edwards: That's right.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

J. Weisgerber: I'm seeking, firstly, some clarification. Section 5 would indicate that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that the pension apply to one or more councillors named under the act. We've heard that we're going to have a chair who is an OIC appointment for an indefinite term, but probably not one to exceed five years, and that the remaining six are going to be part-time, permanent councillors on a rotation basis. The example I used was of appointments of one, two, three or perhaps as many as six years. The minister seemed to believe that was the way things would go. I'm trying to imagine how you would enrol one of these people into the pension scheme, unless you were looking to make this a more permanent position than we've been led to believe. Certainly qualification under the pension takes away from the earlier description that we had of someone who was there at the goodwill or at the calling of the Crown and who could be replaced if he failed to meet the expectations of the people of British Columbia. Unfortunately, the comfort we got in discussion of section 2 doesn't seem to flow with section 5. I'm wondering if you can tell me how we might be using this section.

[ Page 2001 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: The advice we got was that it could prove in future years that we needed.... If you go back to section 2(7) -- if we're allowed to refer back -- if in the chair's absence or inability to act, or if there's a vacancy in the office, etc., it looked as though there might be a decision at some time that there would be another full-time councillor. If that were the case, that person should have access to pension. At the moment, we don't see that happening, but this would enable that to happen if that were decided as a good idea.

[6:45]

F. Gingell: This question of pensions: we are talking about clearly defined, short-term appointments. We're not talking about people coming into the civil service on a career basis. We're talking about other councillors being appointed, who will only be part-time and paid on a per diem basis. I think that the provision for pensions -- the ability to put one or more councillors under the government pension plan, Bill 18 -- is most inappropriate. It's exactly the kind of thing that all political parties talked about as being inappropriate. Surely if circumstances change in the future and this council changes from being a part-time body to becoming another major organization -- as governments are wont to create -- then we could discuss pensions at that time. But it has been made to sound as though appointment to this body would be something like being appointed to the college board or that kind of position, and I really do believe that to provide within this act the ability for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, without coming back to this Legislature, to make the Pension (Public Service) Act apply to the appointees is most inappropriate.

Hon. A. Edwards: It will not apply to part-time councillors; they will not be given a pension. It would require legislation to move to the step that I anticipated could happen, so it's not something that will happen in the near future unless there are changes.

F. Gingell: I was listening with interest when the minister was earlier responding to the questions of the type of arrangement that might be entered into with the chairman of this council, and at that time I didn't hear any mention of pensions. Is the question of a provincial government pension part of the package that the named chairman designate, Mr. Gathercole, might receive?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, hon. Chair.

J. Weisgerber: I take it, then, that what we have here is Mr. Gathercole with a pay package that has already been negotiated, which includes a pension that the government was unwilling to talk to us about. If that's the case, it's an outrage, and I don't overstate it when I say that. We've been led to believe that negotiations were underway with Mr. Gathercole and that no firm arrangements had been made regarding his employment. Now we find that he has in fact negotiated even an inclusion in the pension plan, and I think that that's absolutely unacceptable.

The defence that I've made for the appointment of this Energy Council, rather than the use of ministry staff.... You have 390 people working in your ministry, and the question has been put: why couldn't one of those 390 people, or seven of those 390 people, develop a recommended energy policy for this province?

The Chair: Hon. member, I must remind you that we're on section 5, pensions, and you're getting very close to second reading debate.

J. Weisgerber: Okay. I'll try and focus more closely.

Clearly someone working on an OIC and eligible for pension is much more aligned with or similar to a deputy minister than they are to a third party, who is in a position to give independent advice, independently sought advice, to government, and I suspect that this destroys the whole notion of an independent arm's-length council and in fact makes Mr. Gathercole a public servant. If you're going to have Mr. Gathercole, the chair, as a public servant, then let's have some more public servants on the board with him, and we will understand the recommendations coming forward -- and they may be excellent recommendations -- as coming from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and we will deal with them as such.

Hon. A. Edwards: We put together an appointment of a body that does planning and public consultation. In doing that, we looked at a number of models. One of the models -- a similar sort of thing -- was the Utilities Commission in B.C. That was one of the bodies in B.C. that the apppointments were similar to, so basically the chair of the council is to be treated similarly to the chair of the Utilities Commission, in the terms of his appointment.

I didn't mean to mislead you about the fact that we are still discussing the terms of his appointment. But it is fair to say that his salary would be, as we suggested, around $100,000, and that a pension is part of that discussion.

V. Anderson: Just to follow up on the question of the pension, I understand that some of those people who have come onto pension with the government have been able to bring forward their previous job opportunities, activities and credits into the pension plan. Would that mean that this appointment also would be able to bring forward previous appointments, opportunities or work plans to add to this pension, so that it would be far more than just what he earns during government employment?

Hon. A. Edwards: We are not discussing that with Mr. Gathercole. It's not a matter of discussion, no.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

D. Jarvis: I still find the whole thing incredible that this bill would even be considered. It is being set up for 

[ Page 2002 ]

public involvement, yet the subject matter in section 6 is being determined by the minister. I don't feel the minister in actual fact should have full control over which issues come before this commission. Therefore I want to propose an amendment to section 6.

Under the "council's mandate," I move that subsection (1)(c) be renumbered to (1)(d), and that subsection (1)(c) now read as follows: "consult the public about energy issues determined by publicly circulated petitions with signatures in excess of 1,000." If you truly believe in public involvement, let's get public involvement in it.

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Edwards: Speaking to the amendment, the object of appointing the council is so the council will deal as fully as possible with issues that the public has interest in and needs to have a say in. This amendment is fairly arbitrary. We wouldn't limit the kinds of issues that the council wants to deal with. If more than 1,000 people in the public want to make a presentation and a petition to the government, it's very likely they would have access to the council. There's no question about it, and it might well be that we would refer it to them.

The object of the council is to involve the public -- not to keep the public out. As far as I can see it, there is no reason that the requirement that the member puts forward would be eliminated from what the council would do. As a matter of fact, if you look under 6(1)(a), it says: "It is the duty of the council to...prepare, with public involvement, and submit a provincial plan...to be established by the minister in consultation with the chair...to assist in developing British Columbia energy policies." It's a very broad clause that includes all things that the public might want brought to the council. It's simply not a necessary clause, so I oppose the amendment.

F. Gingell: If I may, I will speak to this. Section 6(1)(a) clearly deals with an energy plan, an overall requirement for this body to "prepare...and submit a provincial energy plan, at intervals to be established by the minister." Item (b) requires this council to "consult the public about energy issues at the request and on the subject matter determined by the minister."

There has been a great deal of talk about public involvement. This council at the moment, through section 6(1), is only required or able to deal with matters brought forward by the minister. The amendment allows the public to bring forward an issue that they believe should be dealt with that hasn't been brought forward by the minister, either because the minister doesn't wish to have it considered or because the minister hasn't thought about it. It can't be done on the basis of just one or two persons; the amendment requires a petition signed by 1,000 people. That gives the minister the assurance that the matters brought forward are important matters of concern to the public in British Columbia, matters that clearly should be considered by this council if the purpose of the council is to listen to and deal with the concerns of British Columbians about energy.

D. Jarvis: Just a clarification. This is an addition to (b). In the event that the public has something to bring forward, this entitles them to bring it forward. Other than that, they have no way of bringing it forward. You can decide what is going to be discussed.

Hon. A. Edwards: I think you're misreading section 6(1)(a) if you're suggesting that the council cannot hear anything that the public chooses to put to it. They are to consult with the public. What they are to establish with the minister is the interval. When the report has to come in is to be established between the council and the minister. What you're doing is putting limits on what the public can bring to the council. I don't want to put limits on it. In a sense, putting parameters in one clause could act as a limiting factor rather than an enabling clause. There's no particular reason that I can see, unless you suggest why there should be 1,000 names on a petition. I don't know that we've heard 1,000 people tell us specifically about electricity exports, but I know that it's a matter of considerable concern. Certainly we haven't had a petition on it. There is no need to have any parameters in this section on whether they can get to the council, because they can get to the council. The council must prepare with public involvement and submit an energy plan.

[7:00]

An Hon. Member: What is the content of that report?

Hon. A. Edwards: The content is not what the minister says; the content is what the council says. The council is to advise the minister on energy matters. That is not restrictive. It doesn't restrict who can make presentations to the council. The only restriction in 6(1)(a) is the interval, which will be decided between the minister and council chair. Basically, if the minister decides on a particular area of interest and refers that to the council, the council again will be consulting with the public. There is no limit on what the public can bring to the council.

F. Gingell: It seems to me (a) talks about an energy plan and (b) talks about energy issues. Dealing with the question of energy issues, (b) allows this council to deal with any energy issue brought forward and determined by the minister. Only those issues are determined by the minister. I'm not talking about the energy plan under (1)(a); I'm talking about the issues under (b). What the proposed (c) would do is allow, not only the minister to bring forward these issues for the council to consider, but the public as well. Of course, there would be no limitation on public involvement in energy issues you brought forward. There would be no limitation on public involvement in the energy plan. There is a limitation on issues outside the energy plan or issues to be considered at a different time. The limitation is only issues brought forward by the minister.

Having recognized that nobody's right or opportunity has been diminished under 6(1)(a) or 6(1)(b), obviously the proposed 6(1)(c) allows new issues to be 

[ Page 2003 ]

brought forward, not by you.... Rather than having it a completely open situation where one or two individuals can bring forward some pet project that may be without merit, there is a provision that you would have to have a thousand people sign a petition. The intent, I'm sure, would not limit public involvement under 6(1)(a) or (b) in any way. This new (c) will allow new issues to be brought forward.

Hon. A. Edwards: Obviously a continuous planning process involves issues. There is no way that we're going to get a recommendation on a plan presented to the minister that will not cover issues. Any issue that will come to the council can be brought to it in its ongoing planning process. The member for Delta South talks about projects. It is not projects that will come to the Energy Council. Issues will come to the Energy Council, because they will be part of the planning process. If the public wants to bring them, that's fine.

Section 6(1)(b) is there so that if the minister sees that there is an issue so overwhelming that it needs to have a report on it before such time as we have a regular plan report, we can do that. Obviously I talk about this legislation in its broadest form, because it means any minister. As you know, it means whoever is the minister. I can't imagine that if it were an issue of great importance, an issue that had a thousand signatures on a petition, the minister might not want to deal with it, unless there were some other more reasonable way to deal with it. Obviously it's a public issue at that point, so the minister may well refer it. I'm not saying that that's the only way an issue can get to the council, because it isn't the only way an issue can get to the council. The council will be doing ongoing public consultation on a plan that will include any issues that the public wants to bring to it.

Amendment negatived.

J. Weisgerber: I'm hoping that perhaps at this point we can get some sense of the direction that the minister's going to give the council as it sets out to prepare plans. She said that the issue of electricity exports is an urgent matter, and that it's going to be dealt with early by the council. There are other pressing energy issues in this province, and the Columbia downstream benefits certainly is one of them. I'm wondering if the minister can give us a sense of the scope of issues that will be put in front of or will challenge the council once it's been created.

Hon. A. Edwards: As I've said before, electricity exports is a very pressing issue, for the reasons that I've given a number of times. But once that issue is brought.... I expect that most issues, if we can deal with them, would be.... If they're going to be dealt with by the council, the council will certainly put in whatever issues it thinks are relevant to the energy plan they are going to put forward.

The Columbia River Treaty is a highly technical issue that would be dealt with within the ministry in large part. I expect that it has to be dealt with as part of the energy plan as well. But there is no particular rush right now to have a response on the Columbia River Treaty, whereas there is a big rush on electricity export. We expect to have public input on the Columbia River Treaty. How we'll deal with that will be part of how we deal with the Columbia River Treaty, because, as you know, a large part of the Columbia River Treaty is highly technical. Until that's put together, we would want to deal that way with it.

J. Weisgerber: I'm surprised at the answer. As a matter of fact, I'm very much surprised. If the government set about to create an Energy Council, and the only issue it has on its plate that it considers pressing is the export of electricity, then I would be amazed that we would create an act, a structure, a full-time councillor, six or seven other councillors.... Electricity exports are important, I would agree, but there are a whole.... My concept of an Energy Council was something that would weigh a whole range of various options and issues in this province and come back to the government with a comprehensive recommendation to do with energy.

If the minister says the only important thing, the only thing that has any urgency at all to it, is electricity exports, I would disagree with her. If she says there is no urgency in the changes to the Columbia treaty, I would disagree with her. I think time is fast running out for the government to change its mind on its decision to have the downstream benefits from the Columbia returned to British Columbia. There is real urgency. The decision that the government takes, whether it decides to support the previous decision to have the downstream benefits returned to British Columbia or decides to extend the contracts for ten or 20 years, will be a focal decision around which a lot of other electricity issues will be determined. There are independent power producers; there is a whole host of issues. I'm amazed that the minister would say we really only have one issue to put before this elaborate board. If so, you would have been far better off to have created a commission of inquiry and gone out and held public hearings on electricity exports and come back and said people like or don't like exports; we recommend you do or you don't. I'm taken aback that there wasn't some real strategy behind the creation of this council.

Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the export of electricity was the only urgent issue. What I said was that it was an urgent issue. It stood out. We need a decision on it before such time as we think the council is going to be in place. We want a decision on that first, before we get a presentation of advice on an energy plan. As you can well imagine, we're already working hard within the ministry and with the various partners that have to be consulted over the Columbia River Treaty on dealing with that. It certainly has some urgency. But as I said, we're dealing with that within the ministry and working with other bodies that have to be involved in what we're doing with that. That is simply far too complex to be involved with the council, which isn't going yet.

What I'm trying to suggest is that since the council is a planning council, it is a public consultation body. It is 

[ Page 2004 ]

there to consult with the public and to talk about planning advice to be given to the minister for the pronouncement of policy.

J. Weisgerber: If I'm to understand correctly, then, the intent of the council is not that it would study in detail, not that it would attract some experts who could help formulate recommendations based on, in part, their knowledge and wisdom in dealing with these interacting issues. The purpose of the council is to get, apparently on a regular and ongoing basis, public opinion on energy issues and to report back to the government so that the government can develop an energy policy. Is that what I heard the minister say?

[7:15]

Hon. A. Edwards: The council will consult with experts on energy policy. The council will work with B.C. Hydro, B.C. Gas -- the utilities -- on their energy planning processes. They will bring together information and data that is already available and the ideas of people already involved in the field. They will put together a proposal for an energy plan, which involves public participation and input. The council will shape information for the public as well. It's sometimes very difficult to find information, so information will be put together by the council to help the public. Part of the information that the council will get is going to be from the bodies that already exist and operate in the energy field. They will work with those experts to suggest to the minister, who is responsible for policy, a proposed plan, an advisory plan.

Basically that's what the council will do. It will work with expertise that is already available in many places. Where it isn't available, the council will have the ability to gather that expertise to help put together a plan, which will be advice based on good, solid public consultation for the energy policy of the province.

J. Weisgerber: From my limited knowledge of these issues, there are people in the ministry who have a good deal of knowledge and expertise. B.C. Hydro has some very capable people who have a lot of information about B.C. Hydro and all aspects of that business, as do B.C. Gas, Kootenay Power, etc. What seems to be needed in British Columbia is somebody to bring all of that information together in a comprehensive, strategic long-term plan for the use of energy. The minister nods, but I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe that that's what this council is going to do. We've heard that the chairman has tremendous skills at consulting with people, but admittedly, I think, very little knowledge of these issues.

I don't get any sense at all that we're gathering together the best and the brightest people to put together a strategy that will take this province, which is so focused on energy issues, through the foreseeable future. I voted in support of the intent of this legislation, but I find myself becoming sorely disillusioned, given what I had expected from it. I'm not at all reassured. What I thought the intent of this legislation was, and what the reality of this council is, are considerably different. This is a disappointment. I'm not hearing what I expected to hear as we talk about these issues and the mechanisms of this council.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm surprised you didn't hear what I just said. It was what I thought you said. What I said was that we have these bodies working in the energy industry, in the energy field in British Columbia. Hydro has its energy-planning arm; B.C. Gas has its energy-planning arm; West Kootenay Power has its energy-planning arm. We don't want to reinvent the wheel. What we want is to ensure that the directions they say they are going in are put together by a group of people -- the Energy Council -- who will look at those things and at the directions in which the people of British Columbia tell them they want them to go. They will be putting that together so that the people of B.C. can have access to that information and so that they can have input into that information.

We don't suggest that the work that is done by those companies and those planners should be dismissed and done over again. What we expect is to have a coordinating body that will deal with the comprehensive look at energy in British Columbia, so that there is a broad, general sense of what's going on, not only in the council itself but among the people of British Columbia, who should feel that they are having a say in a broad, general policy where we look at different fuels and different ways of providing what we need in energy. All of those things are going to go together in a plan for B.C.

V. Anderson: I think some of us are having difficulty with the generalization that we're going to bring everything together. Let me be specific for a moment in a couple of areas. Does this mean that this council will engage in research? Will it work with the universities for new forms of energy? Will it be undertaking study on nuclear energy and its pros and cons? Will it be doing studies on wind energy and its pros and cons? Will it be studying new methods of gas energy and coal energy? Are there specific things that this council will be doing that are not already being done by somebody else, besides just bringing together the heads of the already existing energy bodies, who could be got together in a panel very quickly to share their ideas even as it is?

Hon. A. Edwards: The idea is that the council will integrate the ideas, plans, numbers and so on that are already in the province. I would suggest to you that the council will probably be well aware of what energy research is going on in this province. By familiarizing itself with what's going on in research in B.C., it will be better able to have that information available for the public and also to deal with the proposals that are put to the council. It's important that the council have access to knowledge of what's going on, that they integrate these things into possibilities and that they are able to deal with where the people of British Columbia might have some idea of going. Certainly the council is not there to direct research.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

[ Page 2005 ]

On section 9.

L. Stephens: In the regulations here, section 9(2) says: "...the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, for the purpose of recovering expenses related to the operation of the council, may make regulations (a) fixing, and authorizing the council to collect, fees, levies or other charges from public utilities or a class of public utility." Could the minister please explain that.

Hon. A. Edwards: What it does is allow the council to recover its costs from the utilities, as it says. That means there will be a levy on the utilities, so any regulated utility in B.C. will pay a share of that cost. I imagine that your next question is going to be: how do you control that expense? It's not unlimited. We pass it with a $10 vote in estimates and then the expenditure.... We don't put the $10 vote in until we have a budget that has been put forward, and that budget has to be approved by Treasury Board the same as any other part of anybody's budget. Then the council has to work to that budget.

L. Stephens: Regarding recovering expenses related to operation of the council, could you tell me what kind of expenses would be incurred?

Hon. A. Edwards: Basically it's for salaries and operating costs and the costs, of course, of public consultation. The public meetings and all the costs of consulting with the people of British Columbia are included in this initial budget.

L. Stephens: I'm probably confused, Madam Minister. This is a council that's established by the ministry, paid by the province, and is now going out to consult with energy producers and the general public. It will be assessing levies, fees and other charges on the public utilities to pay for its expenses. Is that what I understand the minister to say?

Hon. A. Edwards: All of the expenses of the council will be recovered from the utilities. That's why it's passed as a $10 vote in the provincial budgeting process. It's simply there to allow control.

L. Stephens: Going down to (c), it says "exempting a public utility." What kind of public utility or class would be exempted from payment of a fee, levy or other charge?

Hon. A. Edwards: We don't anticipate any utility or class being exempted, but I believe we were advised that it should be there in case of, probably, bankruptcy of the utility or something like that.

V. Anderson: My estimate to the minister is that the initial budget of this would be $2 million. It would be $2 million to begin with. I say "to begin with," because if it does what she's indicating it will do, it will grow. There'll be more consultations, more meetings, and it will go beyond that. As I understand it, the cost of that $2 million is being added to the cost of electricity and gas bills and the utilities. So the cost is another tax on the taxpayers, especially on the homeowners and on the low-income people, which is a priority concern of mine because they pay this tax -- as does everyone else -- disproportionately according to their income. What we have presented here is a fairly hefty increase in the basic utilities that everybody must use and which they cannot do without, whether you're using natural gas, oil, hydro or whatever kind of energy. This tax for this, beginning with $2 million.... Then we say that the government does not have money to raise the income of those living in poverty. I cannot accept the increase of this expenditure at the same time that the government is not willing to meet the bread, butter and milk issues -- literally -- of the children of this province.

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, what you say is very true. The utility customer pays the costs of this. This is a fairly well-recognized model for bodies of this sort. In this case the budget is $2.2 million for the first year. I assure you that if it isn't working, every one of us should be looking at it. If it's expanding beyond where it should be, we should all be making our point. I believe that the utility customers will be well repaid for this amount. It will cost them approximately $1 per year. I know you'll say that doesn't seem much but it adds up. Nevertheless, we believe that this council is a necessary body and that it will repay the customers well -- about $1 a year on average.

[7:30]

L. Fox: This is the one area -- I had problems with the other and I spoke to it -- that bothers me substantially. This is another hit on the British Columbia taxpayers, and it will be a direct and a disproportionate hit on the northern people of this province -- because of the climate, we use more power in our homes than in other parts of this province. We will feel a disproportionate share of this. On Friday morning our leader spoke very well on the fact that there has to be, and there should be, consideration given to regional power rates. This is another way that we're handicapping those very regions that are putting that energy back into the well-being of this province. It's once again going to feel the impact, disproportionately, of a levy placed on their power bills by the province of British Columbia. I oppose this section. I think it's wrong that it should be funded in that way. I don't feel that it's right that the very providers of that hydro -- and those power authorities -- are going to feel the most of this particular formula. It's going to hurt them by a large amount, more severely than it will hurt the lesser users of homeowner electricity.

Hon. A. Edwards: I would say again that I believe not only that the council and the kind of approach that it can make to efficient planning of energy in the province will be beneficial to every consumer but that most consumers will support the council and will support the kind of opportunity to look at the planning that's going to go on and see that they have the opportunity to have a say. We have a body that is going to contribute a considerable amount to the 

[ Page 2006 ]

integration of energy use, energy supply and energy demand in the province.

L. Fox: I would have hoped that some of the dividends that are going to be paid and budgeted for by B.C. Hydro, given that it's a Crown corporation, could have sponsored this, rather than once again reaching into the taxpayers' pockets. This is probably the worst form of patronization I've seen thus far. Here it's not only coming directly out of government and indirectly out of the taxpayer. Here it goes directly onto the taxpayer, and that's something I will oppose in opposing this bill.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

D. Jarvis: If this is not just another duplication of bureaucracy, or if it's not just another outlet for your friends and insiders, etc..... I'm incredulous. I can't understand how it's going through. As I said, if it's not another level of bureaucracy.... Is it going on forever? Will it ever end? There's nothing in this bill to say that there is a sunset clause, such as in other bills you've put through. On that premise, I'd like to put forward an amendment, a sunset clause: "10(1) This act is repealed on the earlier of a date that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe or July 1, 1994."

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Edwards: Speaking of what I find difficult to believe, and what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour finds difficult to believe, he must be.... I don't know. I find it incredible that the official opposition has opposed the establishment of this council. There are a number of reasons. The West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation put out a questionnaire before the 1991 election in which it asked all the parties a number of questions. One of the questions they asked was: do you support legislation and policies to establish a provincial energy council, similar to the U.S. Northwest Power Planning Council, with a broad mandate to develop comprehensive, long-range energy supply and conservation policies? Interestingly enough, the answers came back, according to the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation, that the New Democrats said yes, the Green Party said yes, and the Liberals said yes. That question doesn't admit of doubt, as I can see it. It's a very clear question: do you support the establishment of a provincial energy council with a broad mandate to develop comprehensive, long-range energy supply and conservation policies? The Liberals said yes.

What we have is an Energy Council that is very modest. It has a chairman who will have a modest staff. It will have ten part-time councillors working with it. We have had 104 nominations for those six positions that we may name. It's a very modest council to do a job that we believe should be done. The Liberal Party publicly said it should be done, and now they want to limit it. They want to suggest that it's a good idea for only about ten months, 12 months or 18 months.

The idea of the council is to be a body that will allow for ongoing public participation and for continuous planning and to ensure that the planning is done in a comprehensive way -- not in an ad hoc way wherein we deal with things issue by issue and project by project. This council is very clearly laid out to do that. In terms of other councils and bodies of this type, it will cost a modest amount of money. We are putting it forward because that is exactly what the public in British Columbia asked for. I would very strongly oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 10 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Edwards: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[7:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Energy Council Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. A. Edwards: I call committee on Bill 39.

[ Page 2007 ]

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 39; E. Barnes in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Edwards: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 39, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. A. Edwards: I call second reading on Bill 26.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. E. Cull: This bill amends the Marriage Act to provide for more appropriate recognition of religious practices in our multicultural society and to modernize certain obsolete provisions of this act.

The wording of the act assumes the existence of leaders and practices that may not be part of the doctrines of many religions in the province. There's a tendency to treat non-Christian religions as exceptions, with wording that is exclusionary at best and which, in some instances, has posed real difficulties for individuals seeking to have their marriages recognized according to the tenets of their faith. Accordingly, the terms "clergyman" and "minister" are being dropped from the act and are being replaced by the more general term "religious representative." This is the person authorized by the practices of that religious body to solemnize marriages. I wish to be very clear that we're not dictating to any church or religion what titles they may call such persons. They're completely at liberty to use the term "clergyman" or "minister" if they wish to do so. For the purposes of legislation, however, it's best that a more generic term be used.

Not all religions have practices that authorize a specific person to perform marriages. In some, marriages are recognized by a formal gathering of members. In order to recognize such practices while still ensuring that there is an individual designated to perform the duties under the Marriage Act, an amendment is being made to section 2 that will permit the director of vital statistics to register such a designated representative.

A new section, 37.1, provides for the validity of such a marriage when it is performed according to the practices of the religious body and the registered representative carries out the necessary duties under the act. These duties include requirements as to witnesses, the public ceremony and the registration of the marriage. A statement must also be filed with the division of vital statistics in a marriage register.

Section 10 of the Marriage Act previously made special provisions for the marriages of those practicing the Quaker or Jewish faiths. We have consulted representatives of these religions, and they agree that with the above amendments, there is no need to have specific mention in the act. Accordingly this section is being repealed.

A second area in which the Marriage Act is being amended relates to the imposition of a statutory two-day waiting-period between the issuance of a marriage licence and the solemnization of a marriage. The act presently provides for this waiting-period but authorizes the director of vital statistics to waive the waiting-period in certain circumstances set out in sections 14.4 and 14.5. Both the waiting-period and the provisions for its waiver are being repealed. There's no evidence that the waiting-period serves any socially beneficial purpose. Rather, a large volume of requests for waivers are generated. Interestingly, a number of these come from visitors to the province who wish to be married here. There's no waiting-period in a number of Canadian provinces. Repealing this obsolete provision will considerably simplify the administration of the act.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure to rise this evening on Bill 26, Marriage Amendment Act, 1992. In the words of a noted American scholar, marriage is responsibility; marriage is commitment; marriage is all those things that people need to take seriously in society. My personal feeling is that we need to look carefully at expanding the definition of who can solemnize or officiate at a marriage. In terms of being a multicultural society, I think we need to expand the notion. So I support the basic premise of this bill. I believe, quite honestly, that marriage is a very personal exercise, and I think that people should have very broad choices about who officiates at their marriage.

My reading on this bill, in terms of removing the references to clergy and ministers and replacing them with "religious representative," is that that's an interesting thing to be doing. I certainly don't think it is offensive to anyone. In fact, I see the majority of the amendments to the act as housekeeping amendments.

[8:00]

The overall premise of the bill, in terms of removing discrimination as to who can marry other folks, is something I believe this House supports very strongly. That was represented in the debate we had in this House on the head tax -- that it was very important to remove all levels of discrimination. In fact, if it did exist in this bill, it truly needs to be removed. The current Marriage Act defines "minister" and "clergyman" as including priests, rabbis, elders, evangelists, missionaries and commissioned officers. To expand the definition of who may be included in that definition makes perfect sense to me.

One of the most interesting aspects of this bill is its attempt to increase the multicultural nature of an official marriage ceremony. I think that is absolutely the 

[ Page 2008 ]

direction we wish to go in. It is very important that, if we're going to call ourselves a multicultural society, we ensure that ceremonies which are very important to society -- if you think about historical reference, you have routines, rituals and ceremonies -- reflect the culture of the society in which one was raised. I have no difficulty with that, and I think that's the way we wish to go.

In closing, this bill has my support, and I anticipate that we will move very quickly through the debate this evening.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the objective of the bill is extremely well appreciated, I'm sure, by all the members. While the terms "clergyman" or "minister" in common parlance do refer to and include officials of religions other than Christian religions, it's an important step in actually concretizing recognition of the widening scope of the multi-ethnic character of British Columbia as a province.

I commend the minister and our government in that regard. It's really important because, while many of us may know that the words "clergyman" or "minister" may include references to other religions, many people out there may not realize that and may believe that the terms are restrictive and not inclusive. Therefore it's an important step in clarification of that issue, and it's also an inclusive step to bring into the gambit of this legislation in an open and forthright manner the reality of British Columbia, which is increasingly multi-ethnic. I support the bill.

V. Anderson: In this particular area I probably have more experience than anyone in this House, although there is one on the government side who has not quite as many years of experience in the same regard. So I rise in support of the intent of this bill, because it has been long overdue and it clarifies an issue that has been very complicated over recent years. Actually, it has always been complicated, but over recent years we've been more aware of its complications. People have had to interpret its meaning and purposes in a variety of different ways.

One of the questions that still remains and will have to be dealt with perhaps at some time is: what is a religious organization that makes this representation? That also is left to interpretation, and it probably needs to be looked at and thought through at another time. Regardless of whether the act was changed or not changed, that question would still be there before us to look at.

Another question that I would raise in commending the word change is the change that took place by regulation prior to this, of which many people are not aware and of which I just take the occasion to remind people. It is now possible and quite legal for a female in getting married to take her spouse's name, and it is legal for the spouse to take the female's name on marriage. One of the toughest questions that I put to couples when they come for a marriage is that of whose name they are going to use. The inevitable response is: "Why? Can we do both?" They don't realize that you can't hyphenate, but there are many other things that you can do in the wedding ceremony. Also, you are then legally able -- if you do make it a choice -- to use either name interchangeably, and they're both legal. This is an interesting opportunity for us as well. These changes have made the act -- from my point of view -- not less meaningful, but more meaningful.

One question I would raise is on the time limit, which used to be a month, then was two weeks, and is now down to two days. It used to be that you had to go and apply for your certificate. You had to go away and come back a week later and get it. Then it was changed so you applied for it, you got it right then, but you couldn't use it for three days; it wasn't valid for three days. My assumption is -- and I just want to make sure we're clear on this -- that this will be like a driver's licence. As soon as you get it in your hot little hand, you're eligible right then and there, in that second, to get married. That has certain advantages for many people, but it doesn't have the sober second thought that has been very necessary on occasion.

Let me just give you one illustration of a friend of mine, who had a wedding, and everybody was there -- the bride and groom. The wedding march started, the groom and the attendants came, they stood in place, the bride came, she stood at the door, and that's as far as she ever came. She looked down there, and she had her sober second thought. She turned around and went in the other direction. She had had her wedding certificate for some time, so it wasn't that that caused it. But there are times when that very fact that you've gone and made a decision, and you walk away from it, does make a difference to people. That sober second thought has had its advantages in some cases, but that's probably not the reason to maintain it. I would be very much in favour of the direction of this and commend the government for moving in this direction.

Hon. E. Cull: I must say that I, too, have had some concerns about that, and at some moments thought that maybe a two-year waiting-period might be appropriate in some circumstances. It certainly would do a lot for our divorce rate.

I move second reading of the act.

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Marriage Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 26; R. Kasper in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

H. De Jong: I'm just wondering why the words "minister" and "clergyman" have to be replaced. Why couldn't they be left in place and in addition mention other religious representatives?

[ Page 2009 ]

Hon. E. Cull: As the member for Vancouver-Kensington said quite well in the second reading debate, the terms "minister" and "clergyman" have the connotation that they just apply to the Christian religions. Also "clergyman" appears to refer only to men and not to women, and of course we have many women who perform marriages. The intent is to try to broaden this and to use the most general term that we could find. The alternative would have been to try to get every last label possible for someone who does have that authority in their religion. We thought it would be best just to go to a very general, generic term -- religious representative.

H. De Jong: Further to that, if the words "minister," "clergymen" or "clergy" are not satisfactory, what then is the description of "religious representative"? If it doesn't refer to someone appointed or accepted by a congregation of whatever kind as a leader who is allowed to perform these duties within the church or the temple or whatever religion, again it matters to.... Your "religious representative" is so wide open that it could almost refer to anyone belonging to that religion.

Hon. E. Cull: The definition of religious representative is in section 1, which we have passed by too quickly for this member, but the section does say that it's "a person duly authorized to solemnize a marriage according to the rites and usages of the religious body to which the person belongs and includes a person registered under 2(6)." I'll just give two examples: some native cultures and the Baha'i faith, which do not have people specifically designated to solemnize a marriage. The marriage is solemnized by the gathering of the people in the religious community, and in that case one individual can be designated and then registered by the director of vital statistics.

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; R. Kasper in the chair.

Bill 26, Marriage Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[8:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 29, hon. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
(continued)

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I'm just in the midst of swallowing the last of my cookie.

On this bill, I did elaborate in some detail what my position was. I don't think it would really help a lot to get wound up all over again and say the same thing.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Unless my hon. friend over there, who wants to heckle me.... That's when we can have some fun.

Maybe to encourage that hon. member and other hon. members I ought to begin with this. In my view, this bill is a pretty cute bill. This bill contains some provisions within it that I find unacceptable. At the same time, I think it is very fair to say that not only I, but a number of my colleagues have found a lot of provisions within this particular bill most acceptable, especially when we got into the discussion about certain programs that the government wants to introduce. Any sort of expansion of the blue box program, it would be very fair to say, is something we and in fact all members would encourage. I know my friend from Okanagan West was very positive about it. My colleague from Richmond East is still most enthusiastic about the blue box program, and that's what we like to see. Not only that, the introduction by the minister of the recycling program pertaining to containers, especially tin, glass and that sort of thing, is what we really do support very strongly in this particular bill. Naturally I think it would be very fair to say -- and this is what we essentially want to put on the record and I certainly would want to see entered on the record here -- that we accept these provisions, the expansion of the blue box programs and any program with regard to expansion of the recycling of materials, for waste management. In fact, this is the direction to go for proper waste management.

But, as I pointed out last time I spoke on this, if the government really wants to claim that they are doing so much with regard to air pollution and soil contamination, which are two aspects of waste management that appear in this particular bill, then I have to emphasize in the strongest terms that when it comes to air pollution -- and it's referred to here in this particular bill -- I would say it has not been addressed. Similarly, soil contamination, which I elaborated on extensively last day. It's referred to here, but in my view it's not really addressed. What I'm pointing out, hon. Speaker, is that if this bill was really intended to address questions of air pollution and soil contamination in addition to some of the positive features of the bill, then I would say it certainly doesn't go far enough.

In another way, when I say it is cute, it's a cute bill because in some ways it could be misleading. It could be interpreted as being deceitful. Now I'm not saying that the minister or the government, in putting forth this bill, may be deceitful; I hope not. But if it is a bill designed to say we'll have some nice features built into it that the opposition has to support, but meanwhile we're not really addressing some of these other concerns, then I have to express this aloud and for the record. This has to be stated, hon. Speaker.

I essentially want to close by referring to last day. When I saw certain provisions in here that referred to 

[ Page 2010 ]

soil contamination and air pollution, yet it was not really addressed, then I had some extreme reservations about this. As for the reference to the waste management with regard to the expansion of the blue box programs and so forth, these we endorse on this side. What I'd like to see in the minister's closing remarks -- because, to be quite honest, I'm in the middle and I'm very open -- is perhaps addressing some of the concerns here with regard to proper waste management. If the minister suggests that this is not an elaborate bill, and the bill is meant to focus specifically on those provisions which I've outlined that are most acceptable, this would be most interesting. But along the lines of some of the concerns I have addressed, I'd appreciate it very much if the minister could address those, and perhaps spell out some of the intentions. This is extremely important. These kinds of remarks would be most important in terms of coming to some sort of conclusion from our side.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's good to see that the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has calmed down considerably since he took my advice about asking someone to prepare him milk and cookies, a recommendation that came from the venerable Mark Rose, longtime member of this Legislature and of the House of Commons. Not only would I say that the markrosean cure worked wonders, I find almost a complete reversal from that being expressed during the filibustering bombast of his final comments at the conclusion of that speech the other day.

I do appreciate that the hon. member has some concerns, and I invite him to raise those concerns during the committee stage, when we'll be able to get at some of those points a little more definitively.

I want to make a a few comments with regard to the debate that has taken place on this bill. It's very interesting to note the contrast in approach between the official opposition and the third party. I would say that the approach the third party took was, in my view, reasoned, an approach seeking to achieve the best that we possibly can achieve in legislation. There were some wise suggestions in the comments that the hon. member for Okanagan West made.

With regard to the issue of gypsum, I hope the hon. critic from Okanagan East is listening, because I know she raised the issue of gypsum, indicating that the official opposition would be bringing forward an amendment. Again, I would think that adequate research would have indicated that the gypsum part of the definition is already covered pursuant to a regulation carried forward several weeks previously. That regulation is a matter of public record. There is a provision that through order-in-council the definitions can be expanded. Therefore, hon. member, there's be no need to have an amendment; it's already covered.

I do want to get onto some points made with regard to the enabling part of this legislation, dealing with the issue of beverage container strategy. I just wanted to set the record straight. To some extent, that record has been set straight along the lines of the comments made by the hon. member for Okanagan West when he spoke on this last week.

First of all, it seemed to me that in that filibuster -- and it was a filibuster that took place; there's no question about that -- we heard the same lines being parroted over and over and over again. Hon. Speaker, I strongly suspect that these lines were not crafted by anybody working in the research department but were given to them by a very narrow portion of the anti-deposit lobby that was going from office to office in the parliament buildings about two weeks ago. We see their ads in the newspapers, and we see a very concerted effort to try to avoid dealing effectively....

I have just been advised that there are a couple of further speakers that wish to comment at this time. I will give up the floor so that I may wrap up at the end.

G. Wilson: In the Liberal opposition we've watched and listened with great interest to discussion and debate on Bill 29. As with some of the bills that have been brought forward by this government, the difficulty is that there is an intent that is honourable, but a procedure to acquire and to put in place a proposition to make that intent reality that is not desirable. The Liberal opposition finds itself in a position where, on second reading, we are to be speaking philosophically about whether or not we support this. In principle, do we support a Waste Management Act that has recycling as a component part of it? Clearly the Liberal opposition is very much in favour of recycling and is very much in favour of an act that would facilitate an adequate and proper disposal of solid waste. The difficulty we have with this bill -- and what we have indicated with respect to the provisions of this bill also -- speaks to a philosophical position within the government opposite that says that whenever they introduce legislation and there must be some form of tax or price levied against the cost of doing business, that somehow has to be borne by the consumer. In this bill there is somehow a proposition that British Columbians are going to accept: there will be a tax levied against the containers within which milk, juice and other products are sold.

What we are opposed to in this bill is not recycling. It is shameful, quite frankly, for the government opposite to try to characterize opposition comment and discussion with respect to such an important matter as waste management -- to characterize our opposition as being opposed to a more progressive, more sensible way to try and manage the waste product that is generated through the sale of commodities in the province of British Columbia.

There are very real issues here that need to be addressed. Philosophically, does this government believe -- and the question goes directly to the minister -- that the cost of waste management should be borne virtually in exclusivity by the consumer and the taxpayer? Or should there be some proposition -- as has been done very successfully in Europe and in other North American jurisdictions -- in legislation that says that the producer of a commodity must be responsible not only for its content but also for the packaging, from the point of production to the point at which it leaves the economic stream and gets into the waste stream?

[8:30]

[ Page 2011 ]

What we are saying in our opposition to Bill 29 is not that we are opposed in principle to recycling. We're not saying that we're opposed to a proper and adequate management of the waste system, because that is not what this bill addresses. What this bill does talk about is putting on an additional cost and directing that cost against the consumers, and we say that that is not a sensible way to proceed. There are better ways. We used the European model that has been put in place with respect to regulation on packaging and the production of containers that can be successfully taken out of the waste stream in a recycling program. Apply that cost against the producer of the commodity and not those who are forced to consume it and certainly not on basic goods like milk and juice, where a lot of British Columbians have a hard time even affording to buy the content, let alone having to pay what will now be an additional price for the container.

The other problem with this Bill 29 is that in the proposition for adequate management of waste within regional districts, we have to assume -- I would assume that the minister has given adequate and proper thought to this -- that in areas and jurisdictions under regional government there is now an existing facility or facilities that can be adequately managed within the tax base available to local government to allow the kind of requirements that Bill 29 is going to put towards regional government to take place.

I can tell you right now that what this government should have thought about before they introduced Bill 29 was maintaining the existing Waste Management Corporation, which was going to look at the management of hazardous waste, and they should have modelled a more comprehensive waste management strategy that would have allowed British Columbians to have confidence that not only was material being removed from the waste stream, but that the cost of removing it was going to be borne at least in part, if not equally -- or, if not in its entirety, in some instances -- by those who produce and put that product into the waste stream, and not simply by those who consume.

This is a shortsighted bill, in our view, because it does not look to the larger issue with respect to an adequate and properly managed system that removes waste and puts it into a recycling program or a packaging system that will allow for long-term benefit to the community. It simply says that we're going to put a deposit levy in one section of this bill against a product that's going to be passed on down to the consumer, and we suggest that that is not the proper way to go.

I would also suggest that within Bill 29 there must be some serious consideration with respect to the proposition that looks at certain hazardous goods and materials that are to be adequately and properly dealt with in coastal and rural communities in British Columbia. I can tell you it was hoped by most people in local government that within the proposition of Bill 29 there would be some form of assistance to local government, where the adequate maintenance of a waste management program was going to take into account isolation, lack of a transportation facility and a problem of collection and disposal within rural regions of the province. They did not simply want to see this government assess a greater levy against those people who find themselves already in a very difficult position with respect to adequate and proper waste management.

"If a waste management plan is approved by the minister, a manager may" -- as Bill 29 says -- "(a) issue an operational certificate to a municipality or to any person who is the owner of a site or facility covered by the waste management plan, and (b) attach conditions to the operational certificate," and operate the certificate in the form of a waste management plan. When we get into committee, we're going to have some interest in making sure that we get this issue dealt with. That one segment does not undertake to make greater provision in municipalities where, in fact, they're trying to move away from a landfill waste management program into a recycling program. There will be many commodities, notwithstanding whatever deposit is placed against them, that simply will not be able to be accommodated under the provisions of Bill 29.

I want to make it very clear, because the members of the Liberal opposition understand the strategy of the members opposite when they introduce a bill that has as a fundamental and underlying principle something that we would want to support, only to introduce the method by which they are going to make that principle a reality in a manner that we cannot support. Later we will be accused of being the Liberals who were essentially apologists for industry, who are opposed to recycling and who don't have a progressive view. Hon. Speaker, we do have a progressive view with respect to waste management, and I can tell you that Bill 29 is not it. This does not do what has been done in many other more progressive jurisdictions -- in particular, European jurisdictions. They have recognized that there has to be a provision whereby those who are producing must be participants and partners in the production of a commodity from the time it leaves their factory to the time it ends up in a recycling program to go back to the factory and be reused or to be reused by some other industry.

Hon. Speaker, this doesn't do it; it's that simple. That's why we're opposed to it. In our opposition to Bill 29 and in looking at what it is going to mean in terms of the cost to the average British Columbian, I hope the people of this province, who will hear and read what I say, will recognize that we have their interests at heart not only in terms of an adequate and proper waste management strategy, but also by trying to put that in place without placing an additional financial burden on the consumers of British Columbia, and in particular low-income consumers, who will find themselves having to pay an additional cost where they already have difficulty even being able to purchase the commodity itself.

This is an unfortunate attempt at a good idea; that's what it is. We hope, if this should pass second reading and when it gets into committee stage, that this government will listen to amendments that will make this act far more palatable and far more affordable for British Columbians and will, I think, put us on a much more progressive route.

[ Page 2012 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: The words of the Leader of the Opposition are a real disappointment. Just as he seeks to craft his comments in such a way that would look like there's somehow a contradiction, he will have to recognize that he was skating in two directions at the same time. He's saying on the one hand that it's a good intent, and on the other hand that it doesn't deliver it.

As I was saying a few moments ago, if you listened carefully to the comments that were made during the Liberal filibuster, we were hearing over and over again the same phrases, as written by the particular lobby group that was lobbying these hallowed halls and the offices of people of all parties. That basically was the research that was used by the Liberal Party, as they sought to participate in a process that was being brought forward by a particular lobby.

All I have to say to that, hon. Speaker, is that it's really unfortunate that the Liberal Party would suspend its ability to use its own critical consciousness when it comes to analyzing anything. When you suspend your critical consciousness, hon. members, it is amazing. I thought a few times during the debate that we might be able to sell a few bridges to certain hon. members.

I just want to refer to one of the points that was made frequently: the point about consultation, a point that they had swallowed hook, line and sinker. But I would point out, as I pointed out this afternoon -- and as the former Minister of Environment, the hon. member for Okanagan West, knows -- that a consultation process has been going on in this province for over ten years. Again, I am not embarrassed about the fact that our predecessors in the previous administration had a role that was very significant, and that we, in our role in opposition, encouraged them and gave them very constructive criticism, which in many instances was constructive criticism that they used.

G. Farrell-Collins: Old party, old process.

Hon. J. Cashore: You know, hon. Speaker, I find this very interesting, this comment coming from the Liberal benches. It was this Liberal Party that said, as they were going into the election campaign, that they were going to be a kinder, gentler opposition. It was this very Liberal Party that said this, hon. speaker: a kinder, gentler opposition. Yes, that's right. But what do we find? We find that when we're dealing with an issue....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. J. Cashore: We find that when we're dealing with an issue where there's very strong consent among the public that it's time for government to act decisively -- the studies have gone on long enough; it's time to act -- here we have the official opposition making statements that many of us will be delighted to mail out to the B.C. Environmental Network, the Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition, the Recycling Council of British Columbia.... It used to be that I wanted to mail out my own speeches, and now I'm finally at a point where I want to mail out their speeches, so that the people of British Columbia will know that their Environment critic is actually an advocate for polluters. Shame!

They said there was no consultation. Let's deal with that right now. After ten years of consultation, there was the James Rabbitt report. James Rabbitt hopped around the province, consulting with people in various sectors of the province. When he came to Coquitlam, I made a submission. He came forward with a recommendation that was moving in the direction of an expanded deposit return system. I was quick to point out to the members of the government at that time that I had a private member's bill on the order paper, which had gone beyond the recommendations that were being made and had recommended a further expansion of the system that they finally, upon our advice, caught up with. But that is the way that a creative, kinder, gentler process in this Legislature should work.

It was interesting to outline some other things that happened during that previous government's time. During the time Bruce Strachan was the minister, that process continued. Then during the time that the Hon. John Reynolds was the minister, that process continued. One of the things that I pointed out that happened during a stakeholder group that was held by John Reynolds.... He held a meeting of stakeholders from all over the province, and environmental groups were in attendance at this meeting. Everybody thought that Mr. Reynolds, knowing his reputation, would go there and capitulate to that narrow portion of the industry, to which the Liberal Party has capitulated, and that he would back off the deposit return system. That's what everybody expected. But they broke up into focus groups, and they went into a very thorough process of discussion. When the groups reported back, it was overwhelming: extend the deposit return system. That was the overwhelming result. Then there was a small portion of those who were present who asked the minister if he would back down. He said: "No, I have come here, and I have listened." At that time, fairness prevailed in that context, and to his credit he followed through on that process.

[8:45]

When the official opposition have been around this House a little bit longer, they will realize -- reflecting on their rhetoric about being a kinder, gentler opposition -- that there are times when it does make sense for the members of this House to work together to come forward with the best possible result.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I pointed out that the member for Okanagan West came forward with a reasoned, well-researched, unscripted response to the legislation. He had some good suggestions. He cautioned us not to move too quickly. He mentioned a concern with regard to the agriculture industry and the impacts that there could be on them. He gave a reasoned critique, and that was appreciated. I don't think that we should be partisan about these things when we don't have to be.

I would point out that the Liberal opposition has to ask itself how committed it is, not only to the rheto-

[ Page 2013 ]

ric.... They say they want to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the waste stream, but are they willing to take steps to see that happen, or do they really want to play it out of both sides of their mouth the way they're doing today? I would point out that Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick have all moved in the direction that we are moving in, and Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are already there.

I would point out, with regard to consultation, that our most recent meeting with the stakeholders was May 15, and there's one coming up on June 8. Included in this process are representatives of the brewery industry, the soft drink industry, the wineries, the distilleries, the milk industry, the juice industry, the unions, the environmental groups, the Recycling Council of B.C., the Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition, the municipalities and the UBCM. The vast majority of the groups participating in that process are very supportive of this enabling legislation.

Let me point out that the legislation we see here today does not outline what the program will eventually be. It's interesting, again, that the Liberal opposition has accepted the interpretation of just a few of those who oppose it, and they've accepted that interpretation as being the program that will eventually result, but it ain't necessarily so.

I think it is important -- and yes, there have been a great many studies done -- for the official opposition to hear that Ontario accepted a program for the blue box when there was a Liberal government....

An Hon. Member: What happened to them?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, what happened to them? That's a good question.

And it is true, as they have said, that the soft drink industry put millions of dollars into paying for that blue box system. That is one of the points that has been made by the official opposition: why don't we accept those millions of dollars that the industry is willing to pay so that we will expand the blue box system and get out of the deposit system?

Now I'd like to point out with regard to Ontario that there's a sunset clause in that -- if the opposition had done their research -- and it means that when you accept that gift horse and fail to look it in the mouth, you end up with a sunset clause that leaves the municipality paying the bill. That's what happens. This is the fact with regard to Ontario: the municipalities are going to be left paying for the cost of that system. I see the hon. critic shaking her head. She hasn't done her research. That is a fact, and I challenge her to check that out. Why don't you phone Mr. Peterson -- he's not doing much these days -- and ask him if that is not the truth? What we're interested in here is truth, and I'm sure the Liberals want the truth. The truth is that the process in Ontario has a sunset clause. The municipalities are ending up paying for that entire system to the tune of millions of dollars. It's very expensive, and I don't think they want to see that happen.

The strategy that we are going to be coming forward with will be phased in, and funds generated will be used to collect and market the materials. Also, the focus groups that we have talked to with regard to this issue indicate that the public is very clearly ready for an expansion of the deposit-return system.

You'll have to ask yourself, and I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to ask himself.... Is he really saying that he does not want to see an expansion of the deposit-return system? If he's saying that, then he should say that very clearly so that the people of British Columbia know indeed what he stands for.

We're dealing with 1.4 billion containers here in British Columbia. We're dealing with a process in which the waste management planning is involved in the 1989 enabling legislation requiring regions to prepare their solid waste management plans and to have them completed by the year 1995. This legislation gives authority to regional districts to prepare those plans, and it's very clear that the consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities staff is ongoing in this process. The regional districts are involved; the municipalities are involved. Another thing we're looking at is up to one-third of the capital cost of the implementation of these programs being covered by the provincial government.

I think the members of the House should know that prior to this bill coming forward, I reached out to the official opposition and the third party and offered a briefing, so that members of those parties could come and be briefed by our staff with regard to this legislation. I thought that was a very worthwhile gesture which could help result in a more informed and incisive debate in the House. What happened was kind of shocking. Here we reached out, and the response that we got from the Liberal Party was to insist that they have a separate briefing so that the third party wouldn't know their strategy and wouldn't hear the kinds of questions they were going to ask. I find that absolutely shameful, that you would reach out and try to help, and that they would turn this into such a partisan, political dynamic, which was absolutely unnecessary. No need for that whatsoever.

So they decided that to punish us they would enter into what I would call a futile gesture -- the futile gesture of the filibuster, where they all read the same set of notes. Our poor friend over here almost had some sort of a heart attack while he was doing it, and we had to take measures to try to calm him down. I have to say to the member for Okanagan East, the Liberal Environment critic: I think that you should learn early on here that you should not suspend your sense of critical consciousness when you're dealing with issues coming before the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I guess it proves that there's no worth in the bill when the minister has to engage in personal attacks on various members of the House. If he'd like to stick to the gist of the bill, we'd be glad to debate it with him.

The Speaker: As members well know, we normally allow fairly wide range in second reading debate, but I'm sure that the minister will take your comments under consideration.

[ Page 2014 ]

D. Lovick: Go and sin no more.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, sin boldly.

Hon. Chair, I would certainly suggest that that member review Hansard. If he wants to see some personal remarks that were made during that debate, he'll find them over on the Liberal side.

In conclusion, I have one last thing to say before we get into the committee stage of this bill, and that is to reiterate the point that it's going to be with great delight that we gather together the selected comments of the Liberal opposition -- especially the comments of the Environment critic -- so that the B.C. Environmental Network, the Recycling Council of B.C., the Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition and several other environmental groups will know the quality of the environmental advocacy that they're getting from the opposition in this House.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 29, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Cashore: Committee on Bill 24, hon. Speaker.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Barnes in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 1, in the proposed definition of "engineer" by adding ", and includes a regional water manager" after "as an engineer".]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Water Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. J. Cashore: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 24, Water Amendment Act, 1992, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Cashore: Committee on Bill 34, hon. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 34; E. Barnes in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Cashore: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 34, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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