1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 13
[ Page 7711 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Joy and Erich Jensen, residents of Squamish. I make this introduction on behalf of their son John, one of our legislative interns. I bid the House make these folks very welcome.
N. Lortie: It is with great pleasure that I introduce a visitor from our neighbouring province of Alberta, that hotbed of social democracy. This visitor is a veteran of the Gainers wars in the labour scene in Alberta, a friend and my son, Lance Lortie. He is accompanied by my wife, who has been introduced before. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Pullinger: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce some very special people from the community of Lake Cowichan. Marie Bergstrom, who, along with her sister, was chosen citizen of the year for that community, is here today. Accompanying her are three young women who were recently chosen in the Lake Days celebration to represent the community of Lake Cowichan. Those young women are Nicole Bonenfant, Karen Reid and Kari Lingren. Would the House please help me make these people very welcome.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: On behalf of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, I would like to welcome to the assembly some visiting members of the Kamloops Indian band, including some members of the council of the band: Dennis Coates, Marny McGuire, Shane Gottfriedson, Colleen Anderson and Evelyn Gottfriedson. I would ask all members to make them welcome.
F. Randall: In the precinct today are a group of 18 students from John Knox Christian School in Burnaby-Edmonds. They are accompanied by a teacher from the school, Janice Vandergraaf. Would the House please make them welcome.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act passed one year ago today covers the ministries, Crown corporations, agencies, boards and commissions of the provincial government. The bill before the House extends the same principles of freedom of information and protection of privacy to municipalities, school boards, hospitals, police, universities, colleges and self-governing professional bodies.
Bill 62 contains provisions which address a range of issues unique to local public bodies. The bill also contains a number of housekeeping amendments for provincial public bodies.
Bill 62 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PHARMACISTS, PHARMACY OPERATIONS AND DRUG SCHEDULING ACT, 1993
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, 1993.
Hon. E. Cull: This bill repeals and replaces the existing Pharmacists Act, a statute which has become outdated and inadequate particularly in the provisions that authorize the College of Pharmacists of B.C. to investigate and deal with complaints relating to pharmacy services.
Under this bill, the college continues to have the authority to regulate the professional practice of pharmacy, the operation of pharmacies and the terms and conditions under which drugs may be sold to the public. In addition, the bill authorizes my colleague the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to regulate the manufacture and sale of medicated feed and veterinary drugs.
The overriding intent throughout this bill is to protect the public from the harm that could result from, for example, a pharmacist who is incompetent, a pharmacy that lacks essential equipment or an animal feed dealer who is selling substances that are detrimental to human or animal health. The bill therefore provides for setting the qualifications required for registration as a pharmacist, establishing high standards of practice which must be maintained, monitoring the continuing competence of pharmacists, investigating complaints and disciplining those who contravene the legislation. In very serious cases the college has the authority to suspend the registration of a pharmacist or the licence of a pharmacy if the action is believed to be necessary to ensure public safety. In order to maintain high standards of operation, both pharmacies and outlets selling medicated feed or veterinary drugs must be licensed, and the licence may be revoked if the requirements of the legislation are not met.
I'd also like to point out that the bill is consistent with the Health Professions Act, which significantly advanced the legislative framework for self-regulating professions in B.C., and includes many public accountability measures, in particular the requirement that one third of the college council be public representatives. This is consistent with the ratios that will be established for all health professions.
The bill is also consistent with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and will
[ Page 7712 ]
ensure that personal and other information in a pharmacist's records is protected from disclosure.
Bill 61 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation gives local governments new powers to increase the supply of affordable housing. It constitutes the most significant measures ever taken in our province to support the role of local government in the provision of housing. Bill 57 contains amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter that give local governments clear authority to provide density bonuses to developers in exchange for meeting specified conditions for affordable housing, customized comprehensive development zoning arrangements for large projects, and legally enforceable housing agreements to ensure that affordable housing commitments are carried out.
[2:15]
The legislation also offers local governments optional powers through regulations that will allow them to lease land for affordable housing units at below market value, to establish housing reserve funds for housing purposes and to enforce standards of maintenance for rental housing within their communities. This makes the legislation flexible and responsive to the unique circumstances and needs of individual local governments.
These amendments implement seven more recommendations of the Provincial Commission on Housing Options. This brings to 15 the number of provisions that have been implemented in the five months since the report was released. Work has been completed or is underway on 38 of the 57 recommendations made by the commission.
Hon. Speaker, these changes are practical and specific. The legislation provides much-needed flexibility and allows local governments and developers to craft win-win trade-offs. The result will be more affordable housing for British Columbians.
Bill 57 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation, as well as one amendment to the Assessment Act. The amendments are a continuation of our government's initiative to modernize all the legislation administered by my ministry. This modernization program involves ongoing consultation with the stakeholders in local government, particularly, of course, the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
The amendments relating to the Municipal Act in this bill give local governments more authority to protect, from local development, environmentally sensitive areas which have been designated in their official community plans. It gives authority to all regional districts to provide more services, including transit and 9-1-1 emergency telephone service, rather than requiring each district to apply individually for these services. It clarifies and updates the rules governing the way local governments provide remuneration, expenses and benefits for councillors while at the same time requiring that local council members' remuneration and expenses be reported annually in an open meeting. In keeping with one of our goals of modernization, it increases local autonomy in decision-making by eliminating or modifying numerous requirements for ministers' approval in relation to land use planning by local government.
The amendment to the Assessment Act clarifies the definition of industrial improvement in order to preserve the stability in the tax base of local governments.
Bill 58 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation contains a number of amendments to the Vancouver Charter that were requested by the city of Vancouver and that are part of my ministry's ongoing program to modernize all of the legislation that it administers. This modernization program has three goals: to empower local governments with the authority they need to deal with today's challenges, to streamline the legislation that governs their day-to-day operations, and, of course, to update obsolete provisions.
The Vancouver Charter governs the administration of the city of Vancouver, and it parallels the Municipal Act, which applies to all local governments in the province. The proposed amendments ensure consistency between the charter and the provisions of the Municipal Act; they also provide additional powers to the city to deal with issues of particular concern in this large metropolitan area. For example, they will enable the city to manage its debt in a more fiscally prudent
[ Page 7713 ]
way by being able to refinance it over a longer term, thereby receiving more favourable rates. They will give more flexibility to the city in regulating the subdivision of land where a heritage building is located. They also give council the authority to hold a property manager, rather than just a property owner, responsible for complying with building bylaws.
Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
WINDY CRAGGY DECISION AND MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PROCESS
D. Jarvis: Windy Craggy was stalled for over three years at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers and investors of this province. It became a symbol of the future to the mining industry of British Columbia. This government has ignored the rules and bypassed its own assessment process to make a politically expedient decision. My question is to the Minister of Mines: did she herself participate in this final decision, and does she accept responsibility for it?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, this is a government decision to set aside this portion of British Columbia, the Haines triangle, as a preserved wilderness area. Yes, it was a government decision, and every member of the cabinet was right there.
I would like to suggest that government has made an excellent decision. It was a very difficult decision, particularly for those of us who appreciate the value of the mineral body there. But I would like to remind the questioner that the Liberal Party itself made a promise during the last election. The promise was: "We will set aside at least 12 percent of our province as parks, wilderness areas and ecological reserves, including the Tatshenshini River watershed." I am pleased to know that the questioner also agreed with us previously.
D. Jarvis: In the Liberal Party, we actually believe that you can mine in parks in a responsible manner.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
D. Jarvis: The minister has made a decision to bypass the proper process, which she knew full well would seal the fate of the mining industry in this province. She has also destroyed her own ministry. She no longer has claim to represent the mining industry; she is not an advocate of the mining industry. She has lost the confidence of the mining companies and the people in her own riding. I would ask her at this time to do the honourable thing and resign.
COMPENSATION FOR MINERAL CLAIMS
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Does she accept the principle that mineral companies should be entitled to recover at least their costs of exploration when their mineral claims are expropriated?
Hon. A. Edwards: We accept that there should be fair compensation to the holders of claims when government does the taking.
W. Hurd: In light of the wide discrepancy in compensation claims between the Minister of Finance and Geddes Resources, has the minister actually sat down with the companies that are having their claims expropriated to discuss fair compensation?
Hon. A. Edwards: The government will be in touch immediately with the holders of the claims in order to achieve some agreement on a process to reach fair compensation. We're certainly not going to be bargaining in the Legislature or in the media.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: How can the minister expect the mining industry to have faith in the mine development assessment process when she won't accept the principle in one of the most important mining areas of the province? Is she prepared to defend the mine development assessment process, or does she accept the fact that it's out the window in this province?
Hon. A. Edwards: We accept the principle of fair compensation. We will meet with the claim holders, and we will achieve the goal of fair compensation.
TOURISM IN THE TATSHENSHINI
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Can that minister tell us how many tourists visited the Tatshenshini area last year and how much revenue that raised for the province? Can she tell us how many jobs she expects to be created by the new park in that area?
Hon. D. Marzari: I cannot give the hon. member specific numbers as to the number of tourists that frequented the area, but I can tell the member that there is a very active river rafting program that is licensed by British Columbia in the area.
The Tatshenshini decision, which was arrived at by cabinet and by government, was not made on the basis of the number of dollars that are spent now or might be spent by tourists in the region. It is not a reasonable place to hang any argument about the preservation of the Tatshenshini watershed, that very fragile ecosystem in the Haines triangle. So if the member is attempting to hang a decision based on tourism revenues, I do not believe the quantity of tourists in the Tatshenshini area is any argument for the decision that was made, with some difficulty, by this cabinet.
R. Neufeld: Does the minister have any idea of what it costs to charter an aircraft to get into the Tatshenshini area? Doesn't the minister understand that
[ Page 7714 ]
the area is only accessible by the super-rich? Or is this park supposed to be the private domain of the Clintons, the Kennedys and the Gores?
Hon. D. Marzari: I am delighted that the third party would be so interested in equity within the tourism business or interested in bringing in the full spectrum of tourists to this province. In fact, Tourism is attempting to do everything it can to reach the richest possible tourists who will leave in this province the most money possible. However, that begs the question of whether the decision around the Tatshenshini was based upon the number of tourists, rich or poor. I will repeat the answer to his previous question: the number and wealth of tourists was not one of the determining factors in the decision that was made.
NOMINATION OF TATSHENSHINI AS WORLD HERITAGE SITE
A. Warnke: In the absence of the Premier, I want to address my question to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday the Premier announced that the Tatshenshini region will be nominated as a world heritage site, the Premier announced that the Tatshenshini region will be nominated as a world heritage site to be known as the St. Elias-Tatshenshini World Wilderness Reserve. To qualify as a world heritage site, the region must be linked to parks in the United States. What negotiations are taking place between this government, the Canadian government and especially the American government to achieve a successful nomination?
[2:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: Yesterday the Premier announced that he was nominating the area as a world heritage site and that he was seeking to nominate a very competent and high-profile committee to address that issue on an international basis, given the international aspects of the dedication of that area as a park.
Given the tone of some of the comments being made by the opposition, let us remember that several generations ago there were people who had a role in setting aside Yellowstone National Park and Banff National Park. This generation is thanking those people for having had the courage and the foresight to consider future generations. That's what this decision is about.
A. Warnke: My supplementary question is also to the Minister of Environment. The Premier also announced that he wants a special international advisory body to manage this area, a concept identical to Vice-President Gore's call for a stewardship council, a supranational organization to control and manage such a region that will obviously be run by the United States and obviously could still be in charge of economic development in this area. Why is this government giving up control and management of this region, including possible future economic development, to such an organization run by the United States?
Hon. J. Cashore: This member should be ashamed of himself for besmirching the concept of international cooperation. There is no....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: Settle down.
There is no question that this is a B.C. park, and it will be managed by British Columbia. But the international opportunity to foster goodwill on a global scale is something for which the Liberal Party should at least have some basis of understanding.
WARD SYSTEM FOR VANCOUVER
J. Macphail: My question today is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On three separate occasions over the last 15 years, the voters of Vancouver have cast majority ballots in favour of the ward system.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would call for order in the House while an hon. member is asking a question. Please proceed.
J. Macphail: If a ward system is to be in place for the 1993 civic election, the city of Vancouver is going to have start planning for the implementation of that now. Has the mayor of Vancouver approached your ministry about the feasibility of establishing a ward system for Vancouver under the new local government reforms?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As you know, under Bill 35, we brought Vancouver into the sphere of the rest of the province, and with a bylaw the Vancouver council can, of course, adopt a ward system now. It's my understanding that Mayor Campbell has on occasion said he is in support of it. But I have to say that Mayor Campbell has never approached me to discuss....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would call the House to order and ask the minister to conclude his reply.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Mayor Campbell has not approached me about implementation; he has never approached me on this issue. If Mayor Campbell were to approach, my ministry would assist. We believe that there is time and that the citizens of Vancouver would like to see a ward system. We will help where we can.
BRITISH COLUMBIA MINING INDUSTRY
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Mines. The mining industry has been twice betrayed by this minister: first, when she abandoned her responsibility for the mine review process; and now, when she has destroyed the multi-use option for the Tatshenshini.
[ Page 7715 ]
Bad news comes in threes. What else have you got planned for the beleaguered mining industry?
Hon. A. Edwards: The mining industry has the support of this government. This government has moved quickly to bring certainty to land use in this province so that it is sure where the boundaries are -- so that we know where mining activity can occur, and where it can't. The mining industry has asked for that. We have moved on a number of other areas. Most particularly, all of those things are wound into our mineral strategy, on which we are working with the mining industry. The president of the Mining Association of B.C. has been most moderate in his response on the Tatshenshini. We know they are disappointed that the Windy Craggy mine and other mines can't go ahead, but certainly it is not the end of the mining industry.
J. Weisgerber: I suppose the energy and petroleum industries will be praying that they don't get your support as well.
The decision on the Tatshenshini was made before the ink was dry on the Clayoquot decision. This is simply a sellout of the mining industry to pay off the preservationists. How does the minister possibly square her decision to kill Windy Craggy with her so-called strategy to promote mining in B.C.?
Hon. A. Edwards: The decision on the Tatshenshini-Alsek area was a land use decision. It was a decision that this government took in order to protect a unique area in the world ecosystem. That is an area of specifically important biodiversity. It is unusual, it is different, it is very special in that regard. It is global. This government followed the recommendation of Stephen Owen, who said that he believed consensus was not possible on this area. He gave us three choices, and this government chose one.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In the House I call second reading of Bill 45.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES ACT, 1993
Hon. E. Cull: The Health Authorities Act plays an essential part in enabling communities and regions to move in new directions in health care. It has been four and a half months since I announced the government's response to the Royal Commission on Health Care entitled "New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia."
Since that day in early February we have seen some exciting steps forward. As our health system has begun the gradual process of change, the new directions are all around. Many British Columbians now have a good idea of the need to change the province's health system to keep pace with our changing needs. They know about the work of the royal commission: how it concluded that our excellent health care system has to change if it's going to be financially sustainable in the future. They know that we need to bring health care services closer to home, and that we have to make sure that everyone who lives in this province has fair access to health services and a fair chance to be healthy. They recognize the benefits of adjusting our system so that it places more emphasis on promoting good health, and on the prevention of illness and injury. They are looking forward to more local decision-making for health care. That's what this bill is all about. The Health Authorities Act provides the means by which health decision-making and service delivery can be decentralized all over British Columbia. The legislation establishes the framework necessary to begin the transfer of authority to new agencies at the regional and community levels.
It is important to note, however, that this is transitional legislation which is to be replaced with comprehensive legislation by 1995. We are into a period of three and a half years of transition. Community health councils and regional health boards will be formed at different times over this transition period. Those councils and boards, which start out early -- and there are a number of them already underway -- will provide very valuable lessons to those communities that will be following along later. We intend to learn from those lessons and make sure that the permanent legislation reflects the lessons that we learn.
Consistent with the New Directions strategy, the bill provides for the establishment of community health councils and regional health boards. Let me talk about each, in turn.
A community health council has a number of purposes. Firstly, community health councils will develop a community health plan that will specify the terms to provide health services in the community and to set out reporting and accountability provisions and coordinate and integrate the delivery of health services at the community level either through direct employment or contracted services, but predominantly on a not-for-profit basis as in the current health care system. They will also operate hospitals and other designated facilities; undertake various planning, priority and budgeting responsibilities; develop and implement community standards for health service delivery; and monitor, evaluate and comply with the applicable health service standards established at the regional and provincial levels. Community health councils will be the key mechanism for increasing local decision-making and will play an essential role in bringing health care services closer to home.
The regional health boards, which will be composed of people from the community health councils within the region, will be responsible for developing and implementing a regional health plan that specifies health services to be provided in the region. It will set out the particulars of the facilities in the region, program delivery issues, human resource requirements and reporting and accountability features. The regional health board will also develop policies and set priorities, allocate resources for the delivery of health services and allocate and administer grants to community health councils within their region.
[ Page 7716 ]
Regional health boards will have the power to deliver regional services and also to exercise the power of a council in those parts of a region which are not served by a community health council. Regional health boards will implement regional standards for health service delivery, and they too will be required to monitor and evaluate their services and to comply with service standards set at the provincial level. Regional health boards will bring together the community councils to ensure that there is a rational and coordinated set of services in a region and to make sure that there is a fair and sensible distribution of health resources throughout the region.
In most cases -- but not all -- community health councils will be established in an area before the corresponding health board is formed. Initial appointments to councils will be made by the minister, in the absence of any other practical short-term method of selection. However, in the longer term, one-third of the council members will be elected directly by the community, in the same manner that school trustees or municipal councillors are now. Another third will be appointed from persons who have been elected to that community at the regional district board, municipal council or school board levels, as the union boards of health are now. The final third will be appointed by the minister. As I said a moment ago, regional health boards will be made up of people appointed from the community health councils to go to the board level, from the membership of the councils within the region.
[2:45]
Consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Act, under this legislation board and council meetings will be open to the public, except in specific circumstances which will require an in-camera session. The intent is that the vast majority of the business of these councils will be public and available to members of the community to come in and observe what is happening.
The authority of boards and councils to exercise statutory powers will be set out in the regulations under the legislation. Powers and duties that are currently assigned to such bodies, such as the local board of health or a hospital board, will be assumed by the health board or the council as they are formed. This means that there will need to be full and active cooperation between these agencies during the transition period, while the board or council gradually takes over full responsibilities in the various areas. Eventually there will have to be substantial amendments to legislation such as the Health Act, the Hospital Act, the Hospital District Act and the Mental Health Act, to clarify that a board or council will have then assumed the complete responsibility. I should also note at this point that there will be a regulation under the Ombudsman Act that will confer jurisdiction of the ombudsman with respect to health boards and health councils.
During the consultation process that preceded the release of the New Directions initiatives, there was considerable interest in the impact of this legislation on people who are employed in the health sector. The legislation states that the Public Service Act does not apply to a board or council unless specifically ordered by cabinet. That means that people currently employed by the Ministry of Health, such as public health nurses, dental hygienists, audiologists or others who are employed directly by the ministry, will in future be employed by a council or a board. Under labour laws governing successorship, existing collective bargaining arrangements will simply be assumed by the new employer. Existing unions will continue to represent the employees who will be transferred.
With respect to pension benefits, these employees will be governed by the Pension (Municipal) Act. The pensions are fully reciprocal, and there are only very minor differences between the existing pension scheme for Health ministry employees and the new plan.
I'd like to take a few minutes to emphasize a few additional provisions of the legislation. Section 3 sets out the minister's authority to establish standards and specify health services and requires that the minister ensure that the health system continue to operate on a basis that is predominantly not for profit and one that is consistent with the principles of the Canada Health Act.
I should also clarify again at this time -- because there has been a fair amount of misinformation on this issue -- that neither a board nor a council will have any additional taxation authority beyond that which is currently held by the bodies whose responsibilities they will be assuming. What I mean by that is that regional hospital districts right now do have a taxation authority for capital projects. If the work currently underway with the Union of B.C. Municipalities concludes that regional health boards should assume that responsibility, they will do so. The decision has not yet been finally made, so it may remain with the regional districts. In any event, there is no additional taxation authority accorded to either of these bodies.
Also, consistent with the provisions that cover the hospitals and the community care facilities, the act provides for the appointment of a public administrator if it is necessary to do so in the public interest.
Members may be aware that considerable progress has been made in the last number of months toward establishing community health councils and boards. It's indeed encouraging. When we originally released the New Directions strategy in February, we thought modestly that six to ten councils or boards might be underway in the first year. We have well over 30 communities actively forming health councils and boards right now. Communities, such as those in the Regional District of Mount Waddington on Vancouver Island, have joined together to plan cooperatively for their health future. These five different communities have been meeting since last fall to develop a model for an integrated health system, and they've reached consensus on the forum they would like for local decision-making, on the consolidation of management functions, rationalization and coordination of the services. They've begun planning for five community health centres and have settled on an efficient management structure that will employ a single chief executive officer to oversee the operations of all five centres. They've also reached consensus on an interim governing structure and have already forwarded to me the names of nominees for appointment to an interim
[ Page 7717 ]
council. So the people of Mount Waddington are certainly ready for this legislation.
The same is true in Port Alberni. Their health service providers, agencies, community representatives and others have been meeting since 1991 to develop a model for an integrated health system. They've developed a community health profile, reached consensus on the governance structure and put in place a planning group. I think if there were any question about the community interest in Port Alberni for this approach, it was answered with an information and planning conference that I had the privilege of attending. Over 200 members of the community came out for this full-day workshop to discuss how they would move into the formation of a health centre and a community health council.
There's also lots of progress in other areas of the province. Planning has been underway for a year now in Bella Coola, where a cross-section of providers, elected representatives and local residents have been meeting regularly to develop a model and an integrated health service delivery system. The current planning group has 22 members. It includes people from the first nations, the school board, hospital board and municipal councils. Planning is also underway there for a community health centre.
In Lytton a steering committee has been in place for some time, and the local government and service providers are committed to participating in a process to establish a community health council based on a unique perspective that integrates mainstream health care with traditional aboriginal approaches to healing.
In Abbotsford, Matsqui, Langley, Hope and Richmond, committees have been formed to ensure broad community representation in the formation of their health councils. Issues such as governance and integration of services are being evaluated, decisions are being made and community health plans developed. In Vancouver, eight local communities are planning meetings. At the regional level there is also plenty of progress to report on.
Here in greater Victoria, the Capital Health Council is planning to take over mental health services by 1994. In Burnaby a major regional operation is involving seniors, youth and multicultural representatives as well as school boards and municipal councils. In the West Kootenays nine communities are involved in developing community health councils and a board. In the Simon Fraser region, two major town hall meetings have been held to determine how they are going to take over responsibility for their health services.
I could list many more communities all over the province, but I think I've made my point. Communities are ready to assume responsibility for delivering and managing their own health services, and they need the powers of this legislation to be able to take the next step. This legislation is the first step in helping communities -- not telling them how to deliver health services and how to set their priorities but giving them the tools they need to be able to find their own answer. Communities are looking to this legislation. They need it if they are to move forward. They are waiting for us in this Legislature to give them the tools they need to take control of health needs and health services in their own region.
I encourage all hon. members to assist these communities throughout British Columbia through thoughtful debate and prompt passage of this legislation. I move second reading of the bill.
L. Reid: I rise today in debate on Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act. We finally see the plan. Two years after a royal commission, after months of speculation on the Closer to Home strategy, Bill 45 is brought before this House as a plan to make it all work.
As a planning document, it fails on the fundamentals. It fails to pass the most elementary, basic tests of a viable plan; it is a planner's folly. It doesn't set clear lines of authority, it doesn't include any results measurement, and it doesn't get near the main objective of better health care. What does this bill do? It moves political risk for health care down to the communities. It creates expectations in communities that will not be met. It entrenches centralization in layers upon layers of new bureaucracy.
The minister will undoubtedly say that any opposition to this bill is opposition to the concept of Closer to Home. This has been the strategy of this government. It finds some universal truism, some cliche that makes a great bumper sticker, and uses it to enact sloppy, ill-conceived, disruptive, doctrinaire legislation. Then, if the opposition, the media, or even the general public objects, the government points to the bumper sticker and asks: "How can you possibly object?" Well, the opposition does not object to the concept of moving health care closer to home. This bill does not accomplish that.
Let me touch briefly on some flaws in this legislation. These are not technical imperfections; they are, as the saying goes, deal-breakers. The legislation purports to give planning authority to regions and to communities, but the minister retains the absolute authority to define the types of health services, where they will be delivered, by whom and for how much. Not only has the minister the right to define health services, but the legislation establishes that as much as possible such services should be offered on a not-for-profit basis. That opens an interesting door.
The minister can also determine the geographic boundaries of regions and communities for the purposes of this act. Communities, to be defined by the minister, can make appointments to regional boards. But guess who can determine how these appointments are made? Are we beginning to get the sense that this bill may not be the great egalitarian exercise of power-sharing as it's described? Regional boards can allocate grants to community health councils, but since the eligibility criteria will ultimately be determined by the minister, this is hollow authority.
It is interesting to note that among the so-called powers granted to a community council is the power to report to a minister. That in itself is a statement that would do a sun king proud. Since when is the requirement to submit something called a power? The act also confers on community health councils the power to integrate and coordinate health services at the
[ Page 7718 ]
community level. I'm not sure if that's planning language, but in politics, "coordinate" and "integrate" are called weasel words.
The act will give us a plethora of health standards. Every community and region will have the power to create them, with provincial standards having the final authority. Nobody would argue with the need for provincial standards, but the question is: why set up this production line for health standards if only one set is going to apply? It's called appeasement. This act makes only a cursory reference to accountability -- meaning cost. Here again the format and frequency of accounting are to be determined right here in Victoria.
In conclusion, we have a badly flawed attempt to make communities believe that the promises of the Royal Commission on Health Care will be met. The minister has consistently evaded the real issues in debate, and now we have another instalment of health care charades.
The opposition will continue to insist that real, meaningful actions be taken to unclutter decision-making in health care. We will insist that adequate resources are brought to pressing needs in our community, and we will insist that health care be given the priority and serious attention it deserves, as the most important value of British Columbians. This bill fails on all counts.
In the field, the response to this piece of legislation has not been promising. A number of individuals refer to it as strictly smoke and mirrors. It's an opportunity to download the responsibility -- and conceivably the blame -- but not any of the decision-making authority. There is a suggestion that it will have no impact on outcome. Regionalization -- what it is, what it isn't, what it could be -- is the intent of the Health Authorities Act. To move in that direction without an adequate cost accounting is foolhardy, at best. It is wrong to do so without reasonable research in place to suggest that this will work. At the end of the day, this has not worked to the satisfaction of a great many communities in different parts of this country, in different parts of North America and in different countries. This is not the panacea that this government would have us believe.
As applied to health services, regionalization has been variously compared to decentralization, delegation, devolution and rationalization. At the end of the day, we are simply playing with terminology. We are not ensuring that health outcomes will improve as a result of this move to regionalization. This legislation cannot be defended at this particular time. It alarms me that every person on the government bench will stand up and suggest that this is the answer to improving health care in this province. I will say again and again: show me the research that defends this move to regionalization. It's not cheaper. It's not going to be more effective. There is nothing to support that it is improved health care. We are not at that stage.
I have some real issues, and I am supported in this by an article which says that regionalization, in whatever form, is not uniformly successful in other jurisdictions. We are looking to sell this to British Columbians as something that is going to improve their access to health care and improve the cost of health care for British Columbians. It is not supportable. All the fine words in the world and all the people who are prepared to say yes cannot provide the documentation or any cost-benefit analysis to support that.
When the New Directions document was released, this minister rose many times and said: "This is a cost-efficient way to deliver health care." I'm not buying it, hon. Speaker. There is nothing to suggest this will be cost-effective. There is a great deal to suggest that this will simply add another layer of bureaucracy. This is not a grass-roots movement in health care. At the end of the day, it is only a top-down government initiative.
Let's take two examples. Let's take the committee currently looking at the Mental Health Act: that's a top-down government initiative, and it's not working. Let's take the committee that looked at the questions surrounding adult guardianship. That was a grass-roots initiative, a movement of community groups that said: "This is where we'd like to be." There is some success around that initiative.
[3:00]
This government did not learn from the disasters of the mental health restructuring committee. They are simply not able to reach consensus. This Bill 45 is an actualization of the New Directions regionalization model. It's not well supported, and it doesn't make sense. The minister's comments were that it is the framework. It's the architecture that is going to allow New Directions to go forward. But at the end of the day, British Columbians have to ask themselves if this is what they want their health care system to look like. They are not being given any information upon which to base that decision. We have smoke and mirrors and lots of glitz, but very little promise.
Is this an opportunity to put health care in the regions in a cost-effective manner? Will it be credible? This government is asking us to take a stab at it. But for my tax dollars, for my health and the health of my family and constituents, I want more than just a walk in the park for this legislation. If we're going to make significant changes, I and all British Columbians need to see that this is in fact going to make a positive difference -- not just make any difference but a positive difference. I'm not convinced, hon. Speaker.
I state again that Bill 45 demonstrates an abominable lack of planning expertise. None of the issues I have brought forward are reconciled in this legislation or receive any kind of accountability or authority. That's the mark of a well-planned document. We talked for many weeks about the Seaton royal commission being a discussion document. No one took issue with that. It was a discussion document. It was a good read. This was supposed to be the implementation. This was supposed to be the next step. There are more unanswered questions and more muddle in this than there were in the original document.
Let me take a moment to share some of the concerns of other communities that have been in touch with my office. They have talked about the balkanization of health care. They look at this and see an opportunity for communities to receive an envelope of funding at some point in the future, and to have two tiers of health care
[ Page 7719 ]
in place. The minister will stand up and somehow defend that saying: "No, we don't currently have two tiers of health care." We absolutely do. Is this going to improve that situation, or cause more problems for British Columbians? The discussion in the communities is that this is not going to help. This is going to create more problems in communities around this province.
Under Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act, 1993, we will have different levels of health care depending on the regions' ability to fund it. That is what this minister would like to see: each community receiving their envelope and spending it as they see fit. We will have communities in this province with different health care needs. We cannot pursue this direction at the same time that we stand up and talk about accessibility and universality of health care. They're contradictory terms. It doesn't make sense; it's not a defensible position.
There are individuals in this province who have remarkably come to the conclusion that this is another opportunity for this government to hammer the taxpayer one more time; to hit on property owners one more time; and to download increased taxation on some municipal levels of government. That is a huge concern. The minister's comments have not addressed their concerns. If the minister would stand up and address them, I would welcome her comments.
We're talking a lot about whether or not we can maintain universality and equal access in health care. We have to ask whether this piece of legislation aids or deters us in that endeavour. My thinking, and the thinking of a great many British Columbians, is that it's smoke and mirrors; we're clouding the issues one more time. We're not addressing surgical wait-lists. We're not addressing urgent medical priorities. Frankly, I have to agree with them. There are issues in here that are unresolved. There are definitions that are wide open to interpretation. If you're going to rise in this House and present something that you suggest will somehow improve a service-delivery model -- and let's take the health care system in our province as a service-delivery model -- then you had better be in a position to back it up. We've seen nothing to back it up, save for glossy brochures delivered to every single door in this province, again at taxpayers' expense. Some glossy brochures, a lot of rhetoric, smoke and mirrors, but not a lot of research and planning.
And this is not an issue just for members of the opposition. It's an issue for British Columbians. It's an issue for individuals in small communities around this province who do not believe they will be provided with the resources to make reasonable health care decisions for their community members. This government has left them high and dry more than once. Your trust ratio is not great at this time, so the fact that they have cause for concern is understandable. It makes sense, because there are issues that remain unresolved. People would look carefully at a new direction if there was some cost-benefit analysis in place and an ability to examine outcomes. People would look at this if it was defensible and they could ask whether it will improve the level of health care and what the costs attached to it are.
This is not contained; it is flinging open the barn door and somehow suggesting that we may or may not be able to improve the situation. If it's our tax base, we want an assurance that it will make a difference. Otherwise, what we have now can be improved upon without creating a second, third or fourth layer of bureaucracy where no definitions have been reworked. There are communities out there that believe this government talks a good line in repeatedly denying downloading onto municipalities. In fact, it treats the municipalities in the same way that the province believes they've been treated by the federal government. They see this as just an evolution of bad planning all the way down the line, and there's no opportunity to evaluate it. That's a huge issue, and one that has not been addressed today with any sincerity. It is a tremendously large issue when we're talking about something as fundamentally important as the health care of British Columbians.
We all have an interest in this. We all have a stake in it. The majority of us are healthy most of the time, but we are investing in this health care system on a daily basis. We have to ensure that some standards and definitions are in place. We've looked many a time at this bill in terms of a definition of region, of service, of the powers of this minister to make appointments. All of that is unsettling to the average British Columbian who wants to know what they're buying before they put their dollars down. That's the issue. If members on the government bench can stand up and tell us what it is we're investing in -- against our will at this point, I believe -- I think people will take a second look at it. But as it stands today, it's not a saleable commodity. Quite honestly, I think if this government were in a position to take it on the road and attempt to sell it, there would be no buyers. People don't like buying the unknown. This is not the great grab-bag of health care. It's okay at a country fair, but it's not okay when you're talking about somebody's health care.
I'm sure every member of this House has individuals who come to their constituency office and say: "What about my urgent health care priority? Where do I sit on the list?" And they say: "I understand New Directions is coming. Is that going to help? Am I going to get service in an efficient manner? Am I going to receive improved service as a result of Bill 45?" No, because it's not defensible. You might, if you happen to be in the right community with the right envelope, but there's no guarantee. There's not even any assurance. I'm willing to concede that we're not looking for guarantees; we're looking for some reasonable cost-effectiveness.
We have seen this minister more times than not stand up and talk about dollars and health care and say, "there's no more money," and then come back and say: "No, we just haven't allocated it appropriately." It's not a high confidence ratio. Either there are dollars that we're going to spend appropriately.... Again, people will invest if they believe in what they're getting. There's not a strong basis for what they're getting here today, because they have no idea what may or may not evolve.
Could this be fantasy legislation? Absolutely. The definition section leaves much to be desired; provision and evaluation of service leaves a tremendous amount to be desired. Frankly, it's in the hands of one person.
[ Page 7720 ]
I'm not comfortable seeing any one person make decisions that determine what's going to happen with this legislation until 1996. That is a number of years off. This government hasn't made tremendous headway reassuring the general populace that this is not just another patronage plum floating out there.
If we are going to see layer upon layer of bureaucracy added.... Is anything being taken away? No. Are we saving any administration dollars? No. We are simply adding to our cost, and that is a huge issue for British Columbians, because they are being asked on a daily basis: "Keep those dollars. Reduce your service. Reduce your expectations of this government." It's shocking. This government has never once said: "We're providing fewer services; we'll reduce your taxation level." We're taxing British Columbians to death under the guise of responsible management by this government. It doesn't make sense. I'm frankly surprised that they believe they can sell this. This is a numbers game, and it will pass in here because of a certain number of individuals on the government bench -- not because it's decent legislation, not because it's well thought out. It's a huge issue for me.
Let's take the issue of the ratio of bureaucrats to direct service providers. We're well off the mark in this province. There is definitely a trend across this country in terms of how many people you can put in place without providing any direct service. How many people can you possibly put in place without examining who provides direct service? That's an issue for me, it's an issue for members of the opposition and, frankly, it is an issue for people of the province. This is top-down legislation. This is not a grass-roots initiative; this is not well-thought-out legislation.
This government and all members on the government bench will stand up and talk about the importance of communities generating ideas. We have today legislation that will determine whether or not communities can fit into these boxes without any authority or money, but all of the responsibility and, frankly, all of the blame. At the end of the day, this does not address someone who has an urgent health care priority. This doesn't address what we perceive as health care. If this minister wants very much to change, we need to do some things in education. Frankly, we could start the education on the government benches, because there's a sad void in terms of understanding what British Columbians believe they're paying for when they pay for health care. It's a huge issue, and this government has not addressed it. This government has gone back and done the patronizing thing: "We know what's best for you. We will put it in place. You fill in the slots underneath. Somehow we'll have two or three more levels of bureaucracy, and we'll all be happier for it." I don't buy it, and British Columbians don't buy it.
If this is going to be reasonable -- and I'm prepared to take a look at it -- I need to see a cost-benefit analysis. What are we spending, and what are we getting for it? This government is prepared to suggest that they know something about business. It's not evident in this bill. We have a health care industry in this province. Let's recognize it as that. Let's do the business plan and the cost-benefit analysis. Let's ensure that people who invest in this health care system get some reasonable return for their dollars. That's not happening under this piece of legislation, and it needs to happen. If it doesn't, we are not doing anything about improving health care. We are simply rejiggering the pieces. It's smoke and mirrors -- don't look too closely, because you won't find anything underneath that -- and it's not acceptable.
[3:15]
Frankly, if this were to become the government's next road show, if they were to take this on the road and try to sell this, they would be hard-pressed to sell it to anybody but potential NDP patronage appointments who are coming to this province looking for work. I suggest we will see a number of people travelling from the province of Alberta and seeking jobs, because they now find themselves unemployed. There will not be an opportunity to sell this to thinking British Columbians. The majority of people will not support a carte blanche approach to reforming health care without a cost-benefit analysis. Think business; think of health care as a health care industry. Come back to the table with a cost-benefit analysis. It hasn't happened, and it needs to happen. I can only trust that members of this government are capable of generating some dollar numbers and a framework that makes business sense. This has to be more than a walk in the park. This has to provide some concrete answers to how we are going to improve health care and what it will cost British Columbians. That's not been provided. Frankly, it's distressing that it hasn't been provided, because we are now 13 or 14 weeks into this legislative session; we've had ample opportunity.
Since November 1991 this government has had the Seaton royal commission report in their hands, and they've looked at it as a bible. If that's the case, if they believe fundamentally in what that document has to say, they should cost it out. That is all the opposition is asking for today: an opportunity to look at a cost-benefit analysis. No matter what you buy in this province, no matter where you go to purchase a service or a product, you want to know what it costs and you want to know what you're getting for your money. It's not happening under this piece of legislation. It's a concern for me because there is no research. There are no examples from other countries where regionalization has worked particularly well. We haven't learned from what has gone wrong in other jurisdictions. Why not? Why does this government have to fall into the same huge traps? Other people have looked at this and evaluated it. They've said the best way to proceed on an issue such as this is to analyze it in some detail. Why don't we see that today?
This government has been here more than a year and a half. Why don't we see some opportunity to evaluate? If indeed they're looking at this as a program, why don't we see some incentive, some cost accounting, so that people might understand it a little better and wish to buy in? I think that is what the average British Columbian is looking for. I know that's what the communities that have come to me have been looking for. What does it cost? What are we going to get for those dollars? Two very basic questions -- and surely,
[ Page 7721 ]
with 50 members in this House, somebody can find the answers to those two questions. I'll leave it with them for their future consideration.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak on the principles of Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act. Upon reading this, one thing became evident to me, and it's a theme that I think has been fairly consistent in the legislation brought forward by this government: it is drafted quickly, it is ill thought out, and it is brought forward quickly without the opportunity for input from all of the stakeholders. This legislation is no exception. In fact, in speaking to the BCMA this morning, who had been trying to get a copy of Bill 45.... One thing that I think both opposition parties do is involve the stake-holders in their investigation and interpretation of what the impact will be of any piece of legislation. I don't apologize for that. I assume that part of my role as an opposition member is to discuss prospective legislation with those who will be affected by it, but to my knowledge, nobody involved in the delivery of health care and who will be affected by this particular act has had the opportunity to peruse it. The BCMA had not even received a copy until we faxed one to them this morning. I think that's appalling but certainly typical of this government.
There are many issues that I want to speak on, and I certainly agree with most of what the Liberal critic has said, but the number one issue is the fact that we are talking about instituting the Closer to Home concept in B.C. The government seems to take this concept as outlined in the Seaton royal commission to be something that is feasible and affordable and something that will in fact deliver the health care that British Columbians want. But it's not proven. This government has done no evaluation in different jurisdictions around the province to see whether or not they can meet two objectives, one of which is to deliver a universal, top-quality health care product for less cost. They have done no examination of that. They are endorsing the process without knowing whether or not it's going to work in all regions of the province.
The minister said in her opening statements that 30 communities were involved in endorsing the process. I commend those well-meaning individuals; there's no question in my mind that they believe they're doing the right thing within their respective communities to help in delivering this product. But one of the problems is that each of them has a different idea of what it is they're trying to deliver, and there's no way, other than by the iron hand of the minister, that there can be any consistency in that process. The other thing that really concerns me is that the bill contains no process to evaluate on an ongoing basis whether or not there's any accountability in the delivery of health care through the Closer to Home process. That has to be a concern, because any time we put together a new initiative we also should put into that framework the opportunity to evaluate it from time to time and examine whether or not it is achieving what we wish it to. That's missing from this document. In saying that, I recognize that this is an interim document to structure the process.
An Hon. Member: How interim is interim?
L. Fox: That's a good question. I guess we could only know that by looking at the history of the government, where we see amendments to the amendments introduced almost in the same sitting of the Legislature. We know one thing: this government is not afraid to bring more legislation forward, especially in the dying days of the Legislature, when there's so much pressure being placed on all individuals to go home and look after their respective constituencies. We see a trend that all this legislation is brought in after the 60 days are up in order that it might be looked over very briefly and passed in a great hurry. But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that we in the Social Credit Party are prepared to stay here until September. We don't have a problem doing that just to make sure that we go through the legislation in the way it should be dealt with: to the fullest possible extent.
I want to suggest that we support the objectives of the Seaton commission. After all, it was the Social Credit government that started that process. We certainly support the concepts, but we feel very strongly that we have to protect ourselves from a rather embarrassing situation, in my point of view: another Year 2000 initiative, which came out of another royal commission. Everybody endorsed it as being the thing to do, when on examination -- and certainly as time goes by -- we're finding more problems with not only the implementation of the program but also with what it is going to produce. I'm concerned that the minister has put more emphasis on these concepts and more speed into the process than what is really right for British Columbia.
We see this bill creating two more levels of bureaucracy, and any time we do that we have to be extremely concerned about how many of our health dollars we spend in the administration area versus what we spend on actual treatment. I know that there is a lot of concern within the Health ministry and around the province about those ratios. The administration costs for delivery of our health care has risen dramatically in the last ten years, making fewer dollars available for the actual treatment of patients. I'm concerned that we're going to have even more dollars going to administration, even though it may not be the intent of the minister. I'm sure it isn't, but I'm quite sure, having some experience in local bureaucracies, that we will see that as a result of this legislation. That is a concern to me and to most British Columbians, because they would like to see most of the dollars going into direct care of the patients rather than into the administration.
Let me expand upon that, because there's another issue here that a lot of British Columbians, certainly rural British Columbians, are extremely concerned about. Presently, when we look at the budget for treatment of cancer, for instance, it's a global provincial budget. We have a budget within the Health ministry as well that is allocated for.... I don't think that these are segmented, but obviously it's all part of a global budget for heart patients, treatments for bypass or whatever. All of these are presently global budgets. With the advent of regionalization, I'm concerned -- and I know
[ Page 7722 ]
the regions are concerned -- that we are now going to split those budgets into regional segments. In Vancouver and in the large metro areas, that's not a problem. Because of their size, there are some economies of scale and the variances won't be that high. But if you put that into a less populated region, what will happen is that there will either have to be a trust fund or an amount set aside to allow us to look after those peaks and valleys in the needs for treatment on a year-to-year basis, or else individuals will have to be refused health care because that particular region won't have the ability to pay.
That's a real fear out there, and I haven't heard anything from the minister, either here today or at any other point, that dispels that fear. If this process is going to work, there has to be some assurances in it that there will not be different levels of health care in the respective regions based on the size or population of that region. Those are legitimate concerns, and I don't see them addressed here.
There's another issue here that deserves pointing out and some discussion. Even though we have these two new bureaucracies -- for the sake of another word -- or administrative associations or assemblies, they have all the structure to make the decisions but in fact the decisions will be made by the minister. The minister clearly points out that she will directly or indirectly appoint all the members on the new regional health boards and community health councils. She has the ability to dictate what services they will provide. So if new initiatives come up from the grass roots of the community, and the minister of the day does not believe that the concept is workable or affordable, she has the opportunity to nix it. In this legislation she has such authority that she can virtually direct those regional boards and community boards.
[3:30]
Another thing -- and I'm thankful for this one, hon. Speaker, and I think the Liberal member missed it a bit -- under this legislation at this time these authorities do not have any taxing authority. So the minister has autonomy over the funding of these districts. That appears to be enshrined within this legislation. Now that we have this new thrust, if this regional hospital board takes over the responsibilities of the existing regional hospital board, which has the ability to raise dollars not just for capital projects but also for small repairs and small capital projects, in some areas it will be quite significant. I sat as vice-chairman of that council for eight years in the regional district that I'm most familiar with. Collectively, we annually solicited over $200,000 within that regional district from our taxpayers in order to contribute to small equipment purchases and minor repairs. Given that they'll have that kind of authority, it really isn't much of a shift to become a taxing authority for operating purposes.
There's a real fear out there that what the member from the Liberal Party just stated will become a reality as the pressures are on this government for funds for the delivery of health care. We'll see more of what we've seen in the last two years, where they've looked at other jurisdictions below them to contribute and assume more of what was traditionally a provincial expense. Those kinds of concerns certainly haven't been addressed, primarily because this legislation comes through too quickly and without all the stakeholders, whether it be regional districts, existing hospital boards or municipalities, having an opportunity, collectively, to give input on this particular act.
Interjection.
L. Fox: The minister is talking to me directly from across the floor, and I appreciate the input. I know that the UBCM and the association of boards have had some opportunity to give input on this concept.
If in fact this legislation was seen in its finished form by us in the Legislature before any other group had seen it.... It was only tabled some three or four days ago, and I don't think that's adequate time for any group or association to give you legitimate comment on the finished product, as we see it here. That is one of the things we consistently find with regard to the legislation from this government.
The other concern I have -- and I think back to what this minister did to the Vernon and Shaughnessy hospital boards -- is that the minister has discretionary powers. If she doesn't like what this new regional board is doing, or for that matter what the community board is doing, she has the discretionary power to fire them. Given that some of these people are elected locally, she has the autonomy to go against the wishes of that area, because she can even fire individuals who were elected. I don't know of any other jurisdiction....
When I was elected as a municipal councillor, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs could not oust me from office, irrespective of what I had done, unless it was for an illegal act. The only people who could oust me from office were those who elected me. This minister has autonomy over and above that. If her autonomy pertained to the individuals she appointed, I could live with that. If the public elects individuals -- based on a slate that I'm sure they will run -- and they do not comply with the minister's wishes, she can axe them. I just don't understand how this government can have the autonomy to literally fire a locally elected individual under this new structure.
Interjections.
L. Fox: We're getting choruses from all over. I'm going to start singing pretty soon, and everybody can chime in. It's great.
With all this ministerial power, we wonder why we even have local boards. I think I have a good idea as to why. On the one side, the minister is stating that we're going to have local autonomy, have the decisions made locally; and on the other side, the minister actually has more power -- not less -- under this process than under the previous process.
Why all this process? Well, I'll tell you. It may even be easier for MLAs, because my phone rings when there's a problem with respect to constituents receiving a hip replacement or if they want to talk about the closure of beds or the long waiting lists. Presently they can go directly to the ministry and receive some kind of
[ Page 7723 ]
answer. Under this new bureaucracy, they will have at least two steps to take before their own MLA will even deal with him. His first line of approach will be: "Have you been to the community board, and have you sought advice from the regional board? And on and on it goes. I believe it will filter a lot of the sad concerns that are out there -- and will be out there -- under this process.
One of the largest concerns that I have -- and I talked about it very briefly earlier -- is that this particular structure will not offer consistent health care around the province. In saying that, I don't expect that there to be heart or liver transplants in Prince George. I recognize that we have to have some of those special services in the larger metro areas where we have the technological facilities and the expertise of doctors. I don't expect that we will ever see many of these specialized services in the rural parts of the province. But people do expect consistency with respect to what should be given in Prince George versus what is given in Kamloops versus what is given in Kelowna. They are relatively the same size and should be able to offer similar services.
The other concern is that of regions. If the minister has the powers to draft those regions all on her own and implant them over the provincial map, should she incorporate the smaller communities such as Valemount, McBride, Mackenzie, Vanderhooof, Fort St. James and Fraser Lake in this new regional structure? There is a lot of concern from the smaller communities that all the autonomy will sit in Prince George; similarly elsewhere in the province, where there is a major centre and a bunch of smaller centres. I have heard from two of my communities which have very small hospitals whose occupancy rate hasn't been very high. They are concerned that this new process will see them lose those facilities or downgrade them to D and T centres, because the emphasis will be on regional development rather than on the community.
I can put forward none of these things with hard facts, just as the minister can't deny them in hard facts, because she hasn't done any models. She hasn't done any tests to examine whether this whole Closer to Home process is going to work in all regions of the province. What I'm saying in this very long dissertation is that we in the Social Credit Party agree with the principle of Closer to Home, but we're concerned that the minister hasn't done her homework. She is not able to dispute all the concerns.
While there are 30 communities involved -- I think that's commendable and I'm sure they're all well-meaning people -- there are about 180 communities in the province. We are concerned about how these communities are going to differ in what health care they deliver, because no model is supplied as an example of what should follow. I'm not sure of their exact name, but we have all these individuals who are trying to facilitate the development of this process, and each one of them has a different concept of what the finished Closer to Home product is going to look like.
I believe that one thing the minister should do -- and she hasn't done, unfortunately -- is involve the medical profession. I know she has difficulty talking to doctors; that's been pretty evident.
Interjection.
L. Fox: The minister says that she met with them yesterday, and I appreciate that. But usually what happens after a meeting is that they each come out of the room with a different idea of what went on. Perhaps she has been able to overcome that; I'm not so sure. But I think that all these individuals -- whether it's doctors, nurses or the health care professionals who work for the union boards of health -- should be front and centre in this process.
Hon. E. Cull: They are.
L. Fox: The minister suggests that they are. I don't see any evidence of an endorsement -- certainly not from the doctors -- of this process. All I've seen is that they have drawn up a lot of concerns about the delivery of health care under the Closer to Home process.
I will sit, and I look forward to the minister allaying the many concerns I have put forward. I look forward to committee stage of this bill, when we can deal specifically on a clause-to-clause basis.
D. Schreck: I am pleased to rise in second reading debate today in support of the Health Authorities Act. This legislation reaches out a hand to the people of British Columbia to work in cooperation in a process of fundamental health care reform -- reform that will assure the preservation and extension of medicare; reform that makes me proud to be part of a government caucus, working side by side with the Minister of Health; reform that has finally moved us out of the fifties and into the nineties and beyond. It is reform that stands side by side with the move to legalize midwifery and side by side with reform that allows for the comanagement of our Medical Services Plan by physicians, chiropractors, podiatrists and other health care providers; reform that significantly increases our commitment to mental health services and mental health group homes; reform that moves medicare beyond an insurance principle and on to a principle of good health care outcomes, working with people, beyond a needle in the arm and on to quality of life.
[3:45]
The opposition has offered little by way of alternatives. It gives me particular pleasure to follow the Health critics from both opposition parties, for we would have hoped that out of those two speeches we would have seen some alternative vision. This province went through a process by the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which made the recommendations from which this legislation directly flows. One of the most extensive consultative processes on health care that this province has ever seen was started under the former government, completed under this government and tabled at almost the same moment that this Minister of Health was sworn into office. It was not rejected by this government as a product of a commission established under a previous administration; it was embraced as a true community consultation process upon which we had the challenge to build. That challenge has resulted in a change to our health care
[ Page 7724 ]
system from being an insurance-based model to being a community-based, health-outcome, quality-of-care model.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
What's the Liberal's alternative? I will never be able to forget the imagery of a bunch of Liberal MLAs stuck in a broken-down elevator in a hospital that's closing. That broken-down image of defending the status quo and special interests, and of throwing money at problems rather than working with people, is the alternative offered by the Liberal opposition. I say shame!
I came here to represent my constituents, not to represent special interests. I came here to be part of change, not to move backwards, not to defend the status quo. I'm proud to be part of a government that seizes the challenge of reforming, preserving and extending medicare rather than looking after the income levels of a few providers who want to whine and milk the taxpayer. We must work with all interested parties in the health care system, but they must understand that the system does not operate or exist in order to first and foremost line their pockets. It exists primarily to serve the needs of over three million British Columbians. When we forget that the system operates to serve British Columbians rather than having British Columbians exist to pay taxes to service the providers, then we have the cart before the horse. When I go through the opposition speeches, I do not hear concern for over three million British Columbians; I hear concern for special interests. I hear naysayers out to preserve the status quo. I see no vision. I see a broken-down elevator with a bunch of Liberal critics stuck in a hospital about to close, saying: "Take me back to the past."
It's useful to go over the history of how we got here. Medicare began in Saskatchewan. It actually began long before Tommy Douglas, dating back to the World War I period around 1910 to 1912. Communities in Saskatchewan which could not get medical services any other way pulled together to organize their own delivery of health care with community-organized hospitals and community-organized schemes to pay physicians. Over the years, that long history, dating back to the World War I period, led to pressure for a proper provincewide medicare scheme. That scheme was introduced under Tommy Douglas. It was fought every step of the way by the health care establishment to the point of shutting the system down with a strike.
I regret that medicare was born in conflict, but it is a fact of history that it was. The fact that vested interests will always resist change should not deter us from implementing it and looking after the interests of our constituents. We are not here to look after special interests; we are here to look after the public interest.
The medicare scheme implemented in the late sixties and early seventies reflected a time when the fundamental public concern was how to get health insurance, because the private health insurance market wouldn't insure you if you were elderly, if you had a chronic illness or if you were poor. So Canadians, starting in Saskatchewan, recognized the fundamental failure of the private insurance market and gave us universal public health insurance, which we came to call medicare.
That had its advantages and disadvantages. We can look to the United States where many people involved in health care reform say that they should adopt the Canadian model and they only wish they could have a system as good as ours.
W. Hurd: Why change?
D. Schreck: I'm about to explain that.
Universal public health insurance solved the failures of the health insurance market. It solved the fundamental problem that they have in the United States, where 40 million residents are uninsured; it solved the problem they have in the United States, where you can be denied care because you can't pay for it. But what it did not do is implement any change in health care organization or delivery systems. In fact, it's somewhat ironic that in some respects, because of the insurance side, emphasis of our medicare system on universal public health insurance, we froze our health care delivery system in a model of the 1950s and 1960s. While our health care delivery organization was frozen without any significant change for the last 25 or 30 years, in the United States, because they were pressured by the failures of their private insurance market -- which is an incredibly powerful lobby standing in the way of reform and providing universal public health insurance in the United States -- they looked for other solutions. They found those other solutions not by solving the enormous inequities of private health insurance but by looking at health care reform on the delivery side. Hence they developed health maintenance organizations in the United States. They developed community health centres. They developed the Kaiser community plans.
Members can take a short drive or ferry ride from here and see the Puget Sound Group Health Cooperative in Seattle. It's an excellent model that has existed since the 1940s but demonstrates community control and integration of health care delivery. Those different experiments throughout the United States show that even while money is being wasted on inefficient private health insurance, enormous savings of health care dollars and improvements in health outcomes can be achieved by a more effective organization and control of health care delivery through the integration of decision-making and the integration of service delivery.
The hon. members opposite turn to this legislation and say: where is the proof that this will work? I say: take an hour's drive; go to the Puget Sound health cooperative and see what's been done there. That's but one example. The hon. members opposite say we are forcing one model on the entire province. Not so. Again I say: open your eyes, look at the alternatives that exist throughout the United States and the world. Every place that an attempt has been made to improve health outcomes and health delivery and to save dollars -- not by reforming the insurance system but by going after a more efficient delivery system -- the solution has been
[ Page 7725 ]
localized and has reflected local needs. The one point that comes clear through any review of the literature on reform and alternative models of health care is that each model is unique to the community it serves. Gone are the days when in Victoria we decide what is best in Williams Lake. Gone are the days when in Victoria we decide how to implement a solution in Prince George.
This legislation says that the health care system exists to serve the people, and that the people should have more say in the design, the delivery and the planning of the health care system. This legislation completes the health care reform that began in 1910 in Saskatchewan. It returns the power to the people that existed in 1910 in Saskatchewan and that is being seized by communities throughout the United States when they reorganize their own health care delivery systems in a variety of alternative models.
If the opposition members are looking for an imposed solution in this legislation, they will never find it, because this legislation offers a hand of cooperation and opportunity. This legislation says to communities throughout British Columbia: "If you want to work to improve access to health care, health care outcomes and health care planning in your community, we will work with you. But if you are concerned about the concept, if you are listening too much to the naysayers on the opposition benches, if you have unique local problems, there's no rush. Let the other communities show the leadership. See what they learn and see where they make mistakes that may need to be fixed, and we will work with you in the next year or the year after." True health care reform comes not top down but bottom up, and this is the legislation that provides the foundation for the community to solve its own problems.
I hear the heckling opposite, and I understand why those members can't understand this concept. I listened carefully to their speeches to hear what alternative they had to offer, and what is that alternative? The official opposition Health critic said: "Get out of the way, and throw more money to the providers. What about the interests of the industry -- we'll ignore the interests of the people." I saw a shameful apology for the status quo, for moving backwards and for wasting tax dollars.
The one clear message out of the royal commission report is that we do spend enough money on health care; the trick is to spend it more wisely. What wisdom did we hear from those benches opposite? We heard that giving people power will somehow clutter decision-making. I'll trust my constituents over Victoria bureaucrats any day. From those benches opposite we heard a call for spending more money. Where is the money going to come from, and how many hundreds of millions will they throw at the problem before managing it and trusting people? We heard from those benches opposite that what is necessary is to give priority to health care. I'm proud to say that no government has given such attention and importance to health care as has this government. No government has taken the challenge and shown the leadership to bring health care into the 1990s as this government has done.
It is easy to hide from change, easy to bury your head in the 1950s, but it takes courage and leadership to face the challenges of the nineties and to make the changes that will preserve the fundamental principles of medicare. I don't know if it has been adequately noticed, but this legislation makes B.C. the first province in Canada to explicitly recognize the five fundamental principles of medicare and the legislation that will see community planning in health care delivery. Universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and non-profit administration are written into this legislation. Do we hear those benches opposite defending those principles? Do we hear those benches opposite saying: "Bravo! The very essence of medicare is guaranteed in this legislation." No. What we hear those naysayers saying is: "Let's throw more money out the back of the truck. Let's preserve the status quo. Let's resist change. Let's design our health care system for the 1950s rather than the 1990s." Shame! People voted for change, and they are getting the reform that health care desperately needs.
[4:00]
This legislation provides for consistent standards of health care throughout the province while giving local health councils the authority they need to see that those provincewide standards are implemented in their community. One point that came through very clearly in the Liberal opposition speeches is that they do not understand the enormous regional inequalities in health service access and outcome in this province. The lower mainland urban domination of the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus was clear in the opposition analysis of this legislation. The fact is, if you live in Williams Lake, Prince Rupert, Burns Lake or Merritt, you do not have the same access to health care that you have in North Vancouver-Lonsdale, the constituency that I represent. It's about time in this province that we say that if you live outside of an urban area you are not a second-class citizen. It's about time in this province that we say that those five principles of medicare are as important to you if you live in the north, in the Kootenays or in the interior as if you live in the urban parts of this province. This bill gives people the power to plan their own access to health care, allocate resources in their communities and address the inequities that have been inherent in what was basically an insurance system designed for the fifties and sixties.
I am proud to see legislation that empowers the people, provides for process and offers opportunity to work with the community. I only wish those opposition benches would provide a constructive alternative. Going back to the fifties, defending special interests and ignoring constituents is not the way for reform. I'm happy that I'm on this side, hon. Speaker, and I support this legislation.
W. Hurd: It seems to be my fate to follow the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale in a debate about health care and health care legislation in the province.
I just want to talk a minute about that elevator incident at Shaughnessy Hospital, because I was one of the fortunate few to have been on that elevator. I had the opportunity to do something that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale has apparently failed to do these many months, which is to actually talk to a health
[ Page 7726 ]
care provider in British Columbia. We had ample opportunity on that occasion to do just that. The closure of Shaughnessy is a relevant point to raise during this debate, because this is the kind of thing that we're going to see occur as a result of this changeover from the system we have now to a community-based health care model.
The opposition fully understands the intent of this legislation. We understand that we have to move some decisions on health care into the communities. We understand that community-based health care has some advantage and that there are communities -- because of the nature of their demographics and the fact that they have more seniors than other areas of the province -- that need to make some of these decisions at the community level. We understand the costs of maintaining people in acute care beds when other models of care in the community would be beneficial. We understand all that. Then we look at this legislation and try to extrapolate how passage of this bill will in any way immediately meet the goals that have been identified in the principle. It clearly won't. This is another bill rushed in at the end of the session, which we on this side of the House call a fill-in-the-blanks bill. It's an enabling legislation rushed in during the dying days to try to get some legal authority for community-based health care initiatives in the province.
This is an ill-thought-out piece of legislation, hon. Speaker. It contains more blanks than hard facts. It is another example of legislation that just hasn't been costed out or thought through. The members on the government side expect that by virtue of its late arrival in the legislative session, somehow it is going to proceed through in an orderly and normal fashion with a minimal amount of debate. Well, it just isn't going to happen. It can't happen, because this is clearly a bill that the government has not adequately costed out.
The closure of the Shaughnessy Hospital and all the disruption and confusion it caused is the kind of thing that we're going to start seeing at the community level, because we have a system that functions at a certain level, and the government is attempting to shift over to a new system. So we have these parallel systems which in some ways will compete with one another and cause overlap and duplication of cost, initially. The government has not identified those costs; it has not identified those pitfalls. The people of the province have to realize that this government is embarking on a radical change in the way health care is delivered in our province that will affect patients, health care providers -- as the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is likely to claim -- and also communities. This is a radical change of direction which has no example of fact anywhere in the country. It does not exist anywhere in the country. For that reason alone we should be concerned about the pace of change. We should be concerned that this is only a model. Other than a clinic in Seattle, the government has not offered a single example of where this particular concept is up and functioning and providing the kind of health care that's needed. It's a bureaucratic model that we are debating in the House today. The government side is saying that this is going to enhance the provision of health care in our province, but there's not one shred of evidence that that is in fact going to happen as quickly as anticipated.
Like many members of the Liberal side of the House, I received a lot of calls during the Shaughnessy closure. I can honestly tell you that I followed the directions from the Ministry of Health to the letter. I referred the callers down the bureaucratic chain, to have explained to them what happened to their out-patient services and where they might be going. I had calls from my local hospital, asking me to check and find out where their beds were, because they were advised that they were getting beds transferred from the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. It was a paper trail. It was a vacuum. There was no information available to these people, and they phoned back and said: "I'm going in for therapy at Shaughnessy Hospital as an out-patient, and I have no idea where I'm going to be going in six months' time."
What we're talking about with this transition is fundamentally changing the way health care services are provided to people. The change will be dictated at the community level -- and that's to be lauded -- but change has to occur at a gradual rate. Instead, we have a government rushing forward with a piece of legislation designed to set up these community boards without any idea of how these changes are going to be managed. It's a bureaucratic change and a bureaucratic model. I suspect we're going to see a duplication of costs. There's no evidence of a cost-benefit analysis, as the hon. critic for the Liberal opposition has stated. There's no evidence that there's going to be money saved in the interim.
I've debated with the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale who, the House should know, is the chairman of the House legislative committee on health care. I would dare say that if we were to put forth a motion to refer this bill to his committee, as we have done on other occasions, he would be the first one to oppose it. It's a fundamental change of direction for health care in this province, and in the past that hon. member, as chairman of a select standing committee of this House, has opposed changes that would have accepted a role for his committee. Instead, he stands up and talks about the Liberals opposing meaningful change. Well, I can tell you what the Liberal opposition does support: we support consultation. If that means getting stuck in an elevator for 45 minutes and actually talking to health care providers, then it's the most useful 45 minutes that the opposition has ever spent. I would advise that hon. member and the Minister of Health to try it some time.
I'd like to ask that hon. member how many tours of Shaughnessy Hospital he has been on. As the chairman of a select standing committee of this House on health, how many times has he visited Shaughnessy Hospital? How many calls has he received in his riding office from people who were receiving care through Shaughnessy Hospital? I wonder if they followed the paper trail that I sent some of my constituents on and whether they called him back a little while later, wondering what kind of new transition in health care we have in this province.
[ Page 7727 ]
There is no way in the world that this bill should have been rushed in as quickly and as thoughtlessly as it has been this late in the session. This is a bill you could drive a truck through; this is a bill that will create mass confusion by the very haste with which it was drawn and put forward in this House. Yet it is a bill that will fundamentally affect every British Columbian who has to gain access to health care in this province; it's a bill that will fundamentally affect the regions of the province, as the members opposite have stated. It will affect the quality of health care in Williams Lake, in Prince George and in small outlying regional hospitals -- a fact pointed out by the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca, who I'm sure has some experience with small regional hospitals in this province.
We are involved in a system that needs change. There's no argument that the system we have now, with an aging population and the cost of acute care facilities, needs to change. Nobody's arguing about that. What we have to address, however, is the pace of change. The population isn't going to age by the end of this session; it's a process that has to evolve. This hastily contrived legislation will simply cause more confusion than it has already caused.
We are continually amazed by the kind of fundamental change proposed by this government, based on the bills we're seeing and the open-ended pieces of legislation that simply will put in place health boards and regional health councils -- with the public at large having a minimal grasp of what changes will result. The majority of the public, I suppose, takes the provision of health care service for granted. They assume that those services will be available at their regional hospital because they've always been there. But they are going to find, as this process evolves over the next few months and even over the next few years, that some services may not be available any longer.
The level of consultation and communication on this particular concept has been absolutely abysmal. That failure was evidenced by the confusion over patient services with the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. It was a shining example of what can go wrong when you apply a bureaucratic model, eliminate an acute care hospital and say you're going to transfer the beds to the regions where the population growth is expected. You have the spectacle of administrators of these hospitals calling their MLA and asking: "Where are my beds?" And you make the inquiry and find out they're already there.
As members of this assembly, we have to deal with this kind of ad hoc decision-making every day. I have no doubts that with the passage of this legislation and the setting up of these regional boards, we'll be doing the job of the Ministry of Health -- trying to explain exactly what they mean. Based on the level of debate that I've heard in this assembly today, most of us will be no further enlightened as to exactly what changes will result.
The opposition certainly accepts the principles of community-based health care and the principles of moving people out of acute care beds into differing models of medium- and long-term health care, and that will vary from region to region depending on the relative age of the population. We understand the need to control costs. But what we will have with this legislation is a level of overlapping bureaucracy without a cost-benefit analysis attached to it. We'll have this transitional period of confusion. We'll have this model being imposed on health care in this province, without the government being able to look at jurisdictions elsewhere -- other than some clinic in metro Seattle that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale claims to have visited. We will have no idea of exactly what the impact will be.
[4:15]
Given the fact that this government is running a $1.5 billion deficit, which it claims it is running to preserve health care -- to preserve that institution, that social safety net that we hold dear -- that in itself should dictate the need for prudence in bringing forth this legislation. You would think that the government would have taken steps -- even zealous steps -- to bring forth a bill which really spells out the costs, advantages and nature of the structure of these community boards. Given that the government is running this deficit and says it's committed to health care, we should have seen a bill with far more detail and cost attached to it than this. But no, in the true cynical nature of this government, they have brought forth this legislation in the dying days of a session -- without that kind of cost-benefit analysis attached to it, without having the loopholes closed, without explaining to the people of the province exactly what it's going to mean in the provision of health care -- and expect swift passage in this House. I can tell you that it's not going to happen.
The opposition looks forward to committee, when we can address the specific elements of this plan and pose the hard questions that will be asked: not by the doctors who have been attacked by the government as being people with greedy aspirations, avaricious people who want to bankrupt the health care system; not questions on behalf of the doctors who have never enjoyed the support of this government; but on behalf of the people in my riding, for example, who found that they were no longer going to receive care at Shaughnessy Hospital and wanted to know where it was going to be transferred. Those people are just as concerned and confused about this legislative direction as are the health care providers and other people in our community. I welcome that debate in committee. At least then we will hopefully be able to get some answers, and we can do our job as opposition MLAs and try to communicate some of those answers to the people of the province.
G. Wilson: I rise to speak against Bill 45, but not because we as the Liberal opposition don't think that the Closer to Home concept has some merit. We do believe that we should start to move toward that Closer to Home and the provision of Closer to Home services. I speak against this bill because it is so badly drafted, it is so badly thought through, it is so poorly conceptualized, and it is so devoid of any substantive information as to provide the people of British Columbia with no comfort whatsoever. What we have created is nothing more than a blank cheque to this minister to set up
[ Page 7728 ]
whatever kind of new bureaucracy and bureaucratic system of administration of health care that she decides is necessary.
I don't put this to you in simple, idle rhetoric. I put this concept to you with a view to going back and looking at the last time a government in British Columbia introduced a new regional system of administration of services in the province. I go back to an elected member in this House who was then serving under the Social Credit government; someone who has proven himself through his years of service in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I am referring to Mr. Dan Campbell, who introduced the concept of regional districts -- a brand-new concept of governing unorganized territory.
The late Dan Campbell had a vision for how we could change the nature of regional municipal delivery -- if I can use that term -- or regional planning to unorganized areas in British Columbia. I would like to use this, because if we look at the principle under which this ministry is now starting to look at the development of this new regional health care system, I would like to compare what was put before the people in 1965 under a municipal amendment with respect to the introduction of regional districts. I would like to demonstrate what the people of British Columbia had before them by way of statute to debate in that introduction, and compare it directly to what the people of British Columbia are being asked to accept now.
The other reason this is an interesting comparison, in terms of the principle of what we're debating here, is that we can look at and acknowledge what was conceptualized in regional districts when Mr. Dan Campbell first introduced the concept in the legislation he brought forward. We can look today at the aggregated debenture debt of roughly $4.3 billion that that level of government has now incurred on behalf of the taxpayers of B.C. It's important for us to make this comparison, because there has been no cost analysis done of the long-term or even short-term cost effect of what this government is introducing with this health care bill.
The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale said that this bill introduces a bottom-up administration and influence in health care delivery. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, let us attack that notion in principle, because this is one of the reasons why I and the members of the Liberal opposition cannot support this in principle. This bill essentially creates two new authorities in the province. The first authority that it creates is a community health council. What it also does is establish regional health boards over that community health council.
The reason I used the 1965 amendment was because the minister of the day, when introducing the concept of regional districts, had a notion that municipalities needed to have some other mechanism to be able to assist in the provision of services to unorganized areas. This is not, I submit, dissimilar to what the Health minister is arguing is necessary today if we are to provide additional health services to the areas and regions of B.C.
But look at the difference in terms of what we are being asked to do now and what was being asked then. When that regional plan came down, the incorporation of regional districts -- that is, the regional model of administration -- was defined in the statute under section 766(1), where it states quite clearly that the division or distinction of those areas was tied to school districts or districts or any part thereof and the residents within them, and was tied into a regional district. There was no ambiguity back in 1965 as to how these regions were going to work. In 1965 when that introduction was brought in place, the minister wasn't saying: "This is what we're asking you do, but trust us, we'll figure out what the regions will be later. We haven't thought that one through yet." They had decided, rightly or wrongly -- and I'm sure that was a subject of vigorous debate at that time, and Hansard would tell us what that debate was -- that the school districts and those regions were the areas that were in fact the appropriate districts.
There is no such provision in this bill. We have no understanding or knowledge of what the minister and those proposing Bill 45 have in mind with respect to the distinction in the division of regions. As a result, that is something that will effectively be put in place by the minister -- through consultation, we're told. We have seen time and again that consultation with this government means: "We go out and we ask for a lot of opinions, we bring them in and see how they jive with our government opinion, and if it doesn't jive with our opinion, we dismiss the opinion we've received, and we move forward and do what we want to do." That is unacceptable in the province of British Columbia.
We also see that these new regional health boards will have, by regulation and designation from the ministry, a series of powers that will be provided to a prescribed number of members appointed by each council in the region, and among them members to that council. The prescribed number is not stated. We know that the prescribed numbers will be appointed by the minister, and we understand that the makeup of this prescription is something that will be determined by the ministry. This is not grass-roots politics; this is not democracy at its finest at work. This is top-down administration in the delivery of health care. In her opening remarks, the minister talked about the need to try to build greater community input and involvement in the health care system. I'm sure the minister would agree that the definition and distinction of these new districts that are going to be developed would best be done through regional mandates rather than by the heavy hand of the ministry.
We have to look at how it was done in the past. What other examples of regional development might we draw upon to gain some experience? We look back again to Dan Campbell's bill in 1965, when the new regional district model was brought in. It says there that before making the recommendation under subsection (1), the council or trustees in each municipality, as the case may be, upon receiving the recommendation of a bylaw -- I will now quote -- provide by obtaining "by referendum within 60 days the opinions of the owner-electors of the municipality or the owners of
[ Page 7729 ]
land if the municipality is an improvement district." What that tells us is that in 1965, when we went to a model of regional development, a referendum and community involvement through the basic form of democracy was acceptable -- that is, the right to vote yes or no. But in 1993, in the days of great democracy, it now will be done through the edict of the minister and through this government from on high. This is not democracy; this is not a democratic process. This is simply the invoking of a recommendation that this minister has deemed is in the public interest.
Let's also recognize that the purposes of this board are enormous. The regional health board has a number of very important purposes under this act. It is to provide essentially the type, size and location of the facilities in the region. Think about that: the type, size and location of facilities are now going to be controlled by this board. It is also there to provide for the prioritization of programs for the delivery of health services to the region. Then it says that this regional board is going to determine the human resource requirements. Those are the people you hire to provide health care. It's a fancy way of saying: "We're going to determine who you do and do not have working within the regional health plan." It goes on to say that it will develop policies and set priorities. It will prepare and submit budgets to the minister, and it will allocate resources for the delivery of health care services. This is a very powerful regional board.
[4:30]
We go back and ask: how did they do this before? What kind of authority or mandate was there before? In the bill that was brought down in 1965.... Of course, the government of the day introduced a letters patent section, incorporating these districts and specifying the name and boundaries of the district and the member municipalities that would be included. It talked about the population deemed to be within the voting unit and therefore to have some right of control. It talked about the date by which municipalities would appoint representatives. It talked about the time and manner of the first election. It didn't talk about making appointments until some subsequent municipal election years down the road, which this one does. It talked -- and this is the critical point in a whole series of provisions in the 1965 legislation -- about the sums that may be borrowed to meet the current lawful expenditures of that regional district in the year of incorporation and, if deemed expedient, for the year following. It set it out; it put in some restriction and control. It provided comfort to the people that there would be some control so that these new regions didn't simply have a blank cheque.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
It also spelled out the voting powers of the regional board members and how they would cast their votes. It was set out in section 717 of the 1965 act, where sections (a) through (d) talked about the voting powers, about how the director may not cast a vote against it in terms of partiality and separate voting. It talked about vote entitlement with respect to functions. This is a clear and detailed presentation of how the system is supposed to work. We come back to Bill 45 and ask ourselves: where is such detail? No detail is spelled out in this bill. It talks about development of policies, administering and allocating regional grants among councils, delivery of regional services, exercise of powers, implementation of regional standards and ensuring compliance with provincial and regional standards. But it doesn't say how this is going to be done. It doesn't say how the region is going to work or function or where the people in the community are going to have a vote.
There's a very strange little paragraph in here, which in principle is one of the reasons we have to say that we can't support this: "In carrying out its purposes, a board must have due regard to (a) the Provincial standards and specified services, and (b) the community health plans for the communities in the region." That takes us to the community health councils. You can't look at this bill and just go after the regional councils; you have to look at the community health councils. We're being asked to vote on this bill that introduces regional health councils without understanding how these councils are going to function. How will directors be appointed or elected? That kind of detail is not spelled out -- voting powers and the kinds of things that are important in a democratic process to understand how the functioning region is going to work.
The bill says that the minister may designate by regulation. We understand that ultimately the authority always lies with the minister. We're saying that a community health council and an area of British Columbia that constitutes the community for the council may be designated by regulation. The minister will determine those areas. This is not a prescription in the bill, as in 1965 when we set up regional districts under Dan Campbell's bill. In looking at the amendment to the Municipal Act in 1965, it was clearly spelled out how those regional districts were going to work. We understood what the nature of that jurisdiction was going to be. We understood who was to be elected to them. We understood how they were going to be elected. We understood what the powers were going to be. We understood what their expenditures were going to be. We have no such assurance here.
There's nothing in this bill to give us any assurance that this is going to be a democratic process. Indeed, what it does say is that a prescribed number of members will be appointed -- and appointed is the critical word -- by the minister as follows: "(a) 1/3 of the members chosen to represent the residents in the community; (b) 1/3 of the members chosen from persons elected or appointed to, and nominated by, the boards of the regional districts, the municipal councils or the school boards in the community;" -- we recognize that people involved in municipal government, regional districts and school boards have some understanding of the community and may be good candidates -- "(c) 1/3 of the members nominated by the minister." So we have until the next election. We're not talking about the municipal elections of this year but in 1996. The minister is choosing the entire board.
[ Page 7730 ]
Where does it tell us what the voting weights and strengths of those people are going to be? For example, will those from a municipal council who may represent within their municipal council an electorate of a larger number than the people from, for example, an unorganized area where the population may be less have a greater weighted vote? Is it going to be one person, one vote?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes.
G. Wilson: The minister says that it will be one person, one vote. Why doesn't it say so? Why doesn't it stipulate what the voting weights are going to be? Why don't we know from the act exactly how this thing is going to be structured? This is the problem. This is why we have such difficulty with the legislation that this government brings forward. We hear that yes, this has been thought through, but no, they haven't stipulated what it's going to be. They haven't told the people what it's going to be. They're asking the members of the opposition to stand up and say we're going to support this in principle, even if we don't know what the detail is. We go on to see that under the purposes of this council, we're going to be developing health plans; delivering, coordinating and integrating that health care service to the community; and operating hospitals and other facilities. The purpose of this council is to set out the criteria by which the operation of hospitals and other facilities is going to happen. This is not a simple advisory board to government. This is a new layer of government at the regional level. When they were going to bring this in, why did they not go back and take a page from the introduction to the regional districts and understand how that was going to work? I want to come back to that, hon. Speaker, cognizant of the time, to talk about how the cost analysis might even be done with respect to that procedure, as we now look at this procedure.
There is something else that is really quite staggering. It comes back to the verbal commentary of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who talked about how this is grass roots and bottom-up. Hon. Speaker, I want you to hear that in terms of the powers and procedures, this council is going to be dealing with millions of taxpayers' dollars. I read this only because in principle it is one of the fundamental reasons why we can't support this bill. Let all British Columbians hear this in light of last night's debate in terms of freedom. Listen to this:
"Meetings of a board or council are open to the public but the board or council may exclude the public from a meeting if the board or council considers that, in order to protect the interests of a person or the public interest" -- now listen to this, hon. Speaker; let all British Columbia hear that this is where this government is coming from -- "the desirability of avoiding disclosure of information to be presented outweighs the desirability of public disclosure of the information."
You can have a closed meeting. Hon. Speaker, we're talking about some fundamental principles of open democracy. This is supposed to be an open government. These new boards and councils that are being established are supposed to be open to public scrutiny. We recognize that in the past if there were difficulties in resolving problems with these boards.... Again, I go back to the procedures enacted when regional districts came in, because it's a perfect parallel in terms of what we're trying to create here. It's a brand-new level of bureaucratic administration of health care that is going to be enormously expensive -- and I'll use some figures to prove that in just a minute.
Let's talk about procedure. When Dan Campbell introduced his bill, it was a new concept that was grown in the province. Some would argue that the regional districts have grown far too big, powerful and expensive. That's another debate. He set out what the procedures would be with respect to quorum, majority vote and how there would be a reconciliation if there was an impasse or irreconcilable position vis-�-vis this new region and the province. In Campbell's bill there was a process for local control and local conflict resolution. In this particular bill, how will they resolve the differences over priorities? One line says the regulation of the minister prevails. That's how you do it -- if the minister doesn't like it, the minister says: "We regulate it and it's gone." This isn't grass-roots democracy, hon. Speaker. This isn't turning health care back to the regions and the community. It says that they will prevail. Hear this: we're saying that in the financial administration of this, there has to be an accounting and a record set out. It talks about the records being satisfactory to the ministry. It talks about the fact that there has to be an audit, and they are at all times open to inspection. By whom? By the public? By public accounting? No, they are open to inspection by the minister or the person designated by the minister.
We come back to recognizing here that the procedures of this particular bill that are set out are so vague and lacking in substance and detail that we are simply being asked to provide a blank cheque. Let's look at some of the concerns of some of the people -- and these are not just doctors. We're talking about the concerns of health administrators. We're talking about the concerns of people that are involved in the nursing profession and in a whole series of ancillary kinds of issues. Their concerns are that core services are unknown at this time, that we don't know how they're going to be established, and that this will only be established by regulation.
They are saying that this bill does nothing to provide the freedom for those residents that are being selected from the communities to be freely elected with a weighted vote. Don't you think that there should be a weighted vote provided to those that are freely elected from the community at large, rather than those that are appointed by government? Don't you think, with the record of patronage we've seen over the last two years, that people of British Columbia have a right to be concerned that the entire board up until 1996 is going to be appointed by the minister? Who is this minister going to appoint? I think that is a most unfortunate oversight in this bill, and one that we really hope the minister will recognize needs to be amended.
Then we talk about the question of hospital boards owning property. We talk about how the societies of the
[ Page 7731 ]
board are going to be handled with respect to their legal authority and right over the properties that are owned. There's nothing in here -- nothing at all -- that tells us how this government is going to deal with that particular legal problem. There are legal entitlements on those properties to those societies. The hospital boards as duly constituted now and the regional district hospital boards as constituted now have legal authority and weight in the statutes of the province of British Columbia. There is nothing in this bill that tells us what the government is going to do about that. Nothing at all.
What we have to say is that until such time as that's been thought through, and until those amendments are included in the back of this bill as consequential amendments -- and they're going to have to be at some point -- it is premature for us to move this bill forward at this time. It isn't finished.
Let me just conclude my remarks -- I see that my time is running out -- by saying that the people in British Columbia hold their health care system dear to them. There's no question that the people in British Columbia support universal health care. But they don't need another layer of bureaucracy, another level of government, another level of authority coming down -- with the minister at the top, a regional health council and then the districts underneath them. This is a new tiering and layering, a level of government that is going to take ever-increasing amounts of money into the administration of health care. Wherever a dollar is spent on a system that is set up for administration, that dollar is not going to the patient that needs it. That is something that this minister has to account for.
Even where the local autonomy is in place, those people involved in the regional administration of health care today know that they are hired from the community regional boards that sat there. It was very clear that the regional districts under this legislation in 1965 had authority and autonomy to be able to hire their staff and put their staff in place. What does it say about the appointment of a public administrator? Even the appointment of a public administrator, with duties to discharge powers, duties and functions of the board or councils under this act, is an appointment of this minister and this government.
The boards don't even have the right to hire their own administrator. It goes on to say what the staff and authorities are going to be. The one thing that this government hasn't missed, however, is the section that talks about how they're going to be able to set up the remuneration for staff, under "Staff and benefits." That section is pretty clear, because we're going to look after the staff and benefits -- cost benefits and the cost to the public in these new boards.
The reason that I used the 1965 regional district legislation wasn't because I was somehow trying to scuttle what is an attempt to decentralize the health care system into the communities. On this side of the House, we believe that we need to do that. This bill really doesn't do that. This bill centralizes authority in the hands of the minister under the guise of providing new, tiered layers of authority that the minister has absolute control over. It's like bringing somebody into a puppet show and making them believe that the puppets on the strings of the puppeteer are somehow free and act as they do in an improvisational way. Of course they can't, because the puppeteer has the strings and makes the puppet do as it should do. That is exactly what's going on in this bill, where the puppeteer is the Ministry of Health dictating how these authorities are going to go. It is just an illusion that there's any kind of consultation underway with this particular bill.
[4:45]
The other reason I introduced this parallel with the regional districts -- and I think it's important -- is that when Dan Campbell put forth his idea in 1965, and if you look at the reasons and statements for setting them up then.... I realize, hon. Speaker, that I can't stray too far in this direction without being called out of order, so I'm going to read it quickly, before you have a chance to. The reason they wanted to incorporate this was in order to provide for an organized area local government that would provide authority to expand the unit of the municipality and therefore provide, by bylaw, services for those unorganized territories. It says really quite clearly here that: "...on the recommendation of the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by letters patent, we will incorporate any area of land within the school district or districts or any part thereof and the residents therein into a regional district with such powers, obligations and duties as provided in the letters patent by this act." And you come back and look at the letters patent in this act, and they stipulate exactly what the purposes are for that regional district. It was a good idea at the time.
Let us look at the cost of what regional districts have done in the last little while. When we talk about needing to do a cost analysis on this particular system of health care delivery, we have to recognize that the overall debenture debt of regional districts as of December 31, 1989 -- and that's the last regional district and municipal report that we have, which in itself is a disgrace that this government should not have those reports available to us -- was $4.3 billion. With the recognition that these districts will have the right to acquire and distribute property and maintain this new bureaucratic system, this is going to be an expensive system. It might look like it's going to be reasonably inexpensive today as we set it up, but look at what happened to Dan Campbell's idea of regional districts in B.C. If we don't think this bill mirrors the image of what we saw in that bill, my suggestion is that we examine this and examine it carefully.
Hon. Speaker, I realize you've been generous allowing me to speak for some time with the red light on. Therefore I'm going to thank you very kindly for letting me complete my thought, and with that I will sit down.
The Speaker: Thank you for your assistance, hon. member.
M. Lord: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act. I'm very proud to be part of this government. I'm very proud to be a colleague of the hon. Minister of Health. I am proud of a government
[ Page 7732 ]
and a minister that have the courage to make the kinds of changes in health care that the people of B.C. have told us very clearly that they want and that they are ready for.
In November 1991, the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs tabled their report entitled Closer to Home. Within that report they praised our health care system in B.C. In fact, they said: "We are unanimous in our opinion that the system of health care in this province is one of the best, and quite possibly the best in the world." But they go on to tell us that medicare in this province is under severe financial pressure. Health care now costs British Columbians $850,000 every hour of every day. The 1991-92 taxes for health care costs cost every man, woman and child in B.C. $1,700 per year. Government health care costs have increased an average of 10.2 percent every year over the past five years. In addition to these financial pressures, the commission told us clearly that the health care system is not equitable, that it's not equally accessible to all British Columbians, and that if the medicare system as we know it in this province is to survive, we must make changes. In my view, Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act, is part of the changes that this government is making in health care.
I'm rising today to speak not in a bid for the leadership for my party, not to take refuge in political rhetoric or naysaying, but to speak to this assembly on behalf of my community, a duty that I think we all have as members of this Legislative Assembly. My community is very excited and enthusiastic about these new directions in health care. After three or four months of planning by the Comox Valley health planning council and the Comox Valley social planning council, last week we sponsored our first large community meeting to discuss community health care and the directions that we would take in our community. Over 150 community members from the Comox Valley came to that meeting, individuals representing a wide range of groups and institutions in my community. There were orthopedic surgeons, herbalists, acupuncturists, nurses and doctors of all sorts, as well as over 100 community individuals who were simply interested in what we were doing. It was a wonderful meeting. I would suggest to the members of the opposition that they get out into their communities and speak to their constituents about how they feel about these new initiatives.
Interestingly enough, when the New Directions was announced, the board chairman of the Richmond hospital in the ridings of the members for Richmond East and Richmond-Steveston was very enthusiastic about it. He thought that Richmond would be an ideal place to test the government's new health care policy. In fact, Richmond is one of the New Directions Good Start regions. They have done a number of things in their community. They've developed terms of reference for a steering and planning committee to include representation from the community. They've included multicultural groups, labour and service groups. They're well on their way in these New Directions. Yet two MLAs from that community are standing up here carping and criticizing the New Directions in health care. Are they here representing their constituents? No, they're here to criticize the government.
The meeting held in my community, which was sponsored, as I say, by a wide variety of community groups, shows me clearly that my community is not stuck in a broken elevator going nowhere in a health care institution badly in need of modernization. My community is ready to take control of its health care; it is ready to steer health care in a new direction. My community is ready to say: "We want comprehensive delivery of services in our community. We want to save money by bringing administrative and purchasing structures together. We want to fill the holes in the delivery of the health care system. We are ready to bring health care into our community." After all, it's not just health care professionals or health ministry bureaucrats who depend upon the health care system. It's all of us. The system is meant to take care of us in illness, to prevent illness and to take care of a wide variety of people in our community whether they are healthy or ill.
I'm proud to report to this House that my community has made a very important first step in our journey toward establishing a health care council and a regional health care board. I'm proud to be part of that process in my community and part of this government that has enabled that to happen.
J. Tyabji: I rise to speak against this bill. Many of the reasons have been outlined earlier, and I'd like to spend some time taking a step back from some of the specifics and financial costs, and looking at the objective, the problems with the existing health care system and where this bill will take us. As everyone in this House knows, the Liberal Party campaigned in the last election in favour of the decentralization of the health care system and in favour of regionally delivered health care. So when we stand up in principle and talk about the objective, this party's objective is very similar to the stated objective of this bill. The question is: how do we do it? What is an acceptable way of doing it based on our perspective, as opposed to the perspective that is outlined in this bill? Why do we have a problem with the way the government is trying to do it? Considering that the objective is regionally delivered health care, what is the difference between that objective and what is set out in this bill? The bottom line, and the very simple answer, is that in this bill it's not the regional delivery of health care, it's the regional administration of health care. This bill is effectively going to create more government and bureaucracy. Whether that's the objective of the minister, I'm not sure, because I think that the minister's intentions are very similar to the intentions that we have, and all of us would like to deal with some of the problems in the health care system in terms of the costs. In effect, it will reduce the ability of the taxpayers to pay for continued effective delivery of service, because we'll be paying so much in fee administration and the new government that we won't have enough money to put into effective delivery of health care. The bill is doing that by outlining health government -- government through the Ministry of Health -- that will account for one-third general
[ Page 7733 ]
election boards similar to school boards and what we have in the Ministry of Education. We will have boards, and we will have regional boards.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, as the leader of the party, is actually the person responsible for developing much of our policy on the community-based delivery of health care. The model that has been used to a large extent is what was in effect in Kenya when that member was growing up. They had the ministry of community development, which was an integration of the delivery of the services, such as education, social services and health care. The difference between the delivery and the administration is a very important one, because if we in effect put all our investment into administration, as this bill is outlining, then we're not going to have the money necessary for the delivery. If we dismantle the existing Ministry of Health and put those structures into the regions.... To give you an illustration, the model that is outlined in this bill wouldn't necessarily be a problem if we were dismantling the existing Ministry of Health and cutting some of the ties to the minister herself. Then we could have a better and more effective delivery of health care, because we would have regional control and municipal control of that delivery.
[5:00]
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the leader of the party, in developing the party's policy for community-based delivery, used the model from Kenya for the ministry of community development. The emphasis there was the emphasis that we've outlined, where you don't have a centralized administration with tentacles, if you will, out to the regions and then those tentacles out to the municipalities -- or communities, in this case. It was in effect a grass-roots delivery of community health, education and social services. That's where the concept of the ministry of community development comes from. It's very important.
I know that members of the government have said: "Well, what is your position? Where are you coming from? Aren't you in favour of this?" We are in favour in principle. In fact, the model that we put out in the last election is very similar in principle to this, but the administration is completely different. It's in the administrative structure that this bill falls short. The way that it falls short is something that is going to have a drastic impact on the people of this province.
If there is one comment that we hear repeatedly from the people of the province, it is that they cannot continue to afford the level of taxes that they have right now. We have to remember that all of us are here by virtue of taxation. Every penny that each and every one of us earns, we get by virtue of the taxpayer. But one of the greatest burdens on those tax dollars is the cost of government.
So additionally we hear repeatedly that we're overgoverned. We have too much government right now. We have too many municipalities. We have too many MLAs; we don't need 75 MLAs. We don't need 75 school districts. We don't need the regional districts that we have right now. We don't need them. We simply don't need the levels of government and the incredible duplication and numbers of government boards that we have today.
What does this bill do? It's an enabling bill. Basically, it's opening us up to an entirely new system of government, in addition to all the government we have right now. Step back a little bit and look at it in theory, in terms of the regions of the province and the community, as it's referred to in the bill.
As a novice to B.C. politics, one thing that I found staggering in how we do business here is that when you look at a map of the province and consider regions -- whether we say the north, the Peace River country, the North Coast or the Kootenays -- there is no one regional reference for us, whether it be through the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Health. Every single ministry has arbitrarily designated the regions of the province. So if we're dealing with the Ministry of Forests, there could be 13; if with the Ministry of Environment, six.
Depending on which part of that ministry you go to, there is a different designation for regions. Some are designated by bioregions, some by geographical divisions, some by forestry districts. Then we've got municipal districts, regional districts and school districts. Now we're going to have hospital districts. So who determines the regions in this bill? The minister does. The minister, by regulation, will be determining the regions.
Aren't we at the point now where we're ready to say "enough"? We must have one map that says: here are the regions; it's not arbitrary; they're based on this set of parameters. I would argue that what we want to do is look at the geographic, commonsense designation of regions that the people in the community can feel comfortable with, because the natural boundaries exist, whether that be a mountain range or certain other physical characteristics. But we should do it for every single ministry so that we don't end up reinventing the wheel every time we move forward. I don't want to leave out the Minister of Transportation and Highways; he also has a set of regions. I don't want him to feel like he's left out of the debate. He, too, should have his regions coordinated with the other ministries.
When I look at this bill, right away I say: if we're not even starting from an understanding that there are already too many boards and too many levels of government, if we haven't decided by now that there shouldn't be an arbitrary designation of regions and that the regions should once and for all be mapped out by someone.... Somebody, please, stand up and take responsibility for designating the regions, and then allow an appeal process for the communities that are designated in those regions. Let's start it today and have it over in a year. Then we've got one map. We can say that those are the regions and the communities that fall within those regions. Then the ministries responsible can designate their activities accordingly. I think we're at that stage; I think we're ready for that.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I encourage the member to get in on the debate, because I can't possibly hear what's being said.
[ Page 7734 ]
I would hope that we can also realign some of our ridings that way. I'm not sure about the rest of the members, but in my case the way my riding is set up doesn't make any sense based on the needs of the public. Right away, when I find out that the regions in this bill are going to be arbitrarily designated by the minister, without input or appeal processes or a referencing to other ministries, I know without question that there's going to be interministerial bickering at the regional level over who's got jurisdiction over what: the regional hospital district happens to be this far over on the map, and the school district goes this way, and then we've got the regional offices of the Ministry of Social Services, and so on. We know that there's a crying need right now to eliminate the overlapping jurisdictions of ministries as they exist. We need an automatic alignment of maps that is determined not arbitrarily by the minister but in some way we can take comfort in and say: "Okay, now we know where the lines are drawn."
These are going to be governing districts. These districts will have the ability to enact bylaws. So it's not like in Social Services or Highways where they might have a regional district but it's not necessarily a governing district. These are districts that will have legislative jurisdiction to enact bylaws. Now the question that comes up when we're saying we're putting together a new order of government.... I shouldn't use "new order," because we know that's been more or less designated for the aboriginal discussions. So let's say a new level of government and bureaucracy. De facto, that new level of government and bureaucracy is going to incur a great cost. How do we know the level of costs that will be incurred? From reading this bill, we know that the council and board meetings must be public meetings. Now they're not going to take place in a meadow. They're going to have to take place in a building, which means that there will necessarily be a chamber involved. There will have to be an adequate public chamber for the public meetings of this new level of government and bureaucracy.
Hon. E. Cull: They already exist.
J. Tyabji: I don't see in this act that they're designated in any specific place, unless we're going to use the existing municipal or regional district infrastructure.
Hon. E. Cull: Hospital boardrooms....
J. Tyabji: I disagree. From my reading of this -- the scope of this bill, the level of authority that they're going to have and the public input that is being outlined here -- with a new level of government and a new level of bureaucracy, you won't be using a hospital boardroom for a public meeting. It won't happen. You're going to have to set up a model similar to a regional district, at the very least, and more likely along the lines of a city council. If that happens -- and we know we've got the capability in here for property and taxation exemption and all the other trappings that come with being a different order of government -- where are the budgetary restrictions? How do we have any comfort with this? We have no idea how much it's going to cost.
We have an idea of what kind of structure we have to set up. But if we don't know where the jurisdictions are, where the regions and communities are.... There's no appeal process if a community feels that they more likely belong with another region -- because, as I said before, we've got arbitrary designation ministry by ministry. For example, a community in a regional district could be in one region and in another region in this new health district. That is very unfortunate but typical of the frustrations and inadequacies of the system as it's set up right now.
What we really should have had was a complete reform of all the existing government structures. We should have limited the number of existing government structures and amalgamated them with the minister's attempts to decentralize the delivery of the services. This administration is going to swallow up so much of the budget that there's going to be nothing left. By the time that they've got the structure in place for the public meetings, the elections, the board and their council, there's going to be little money left over to achieve the objective, which is proper community-level delivery of health care services.
When the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was talking about the way that this has been structured, the comment came from the other side: "Where are the people, and how do we allow for public input?" The answer to that question is that the people are being crushed by another level of government and bureaucracy that will not be answering needs that have been crying out for some time. When the people came forward to the Minister of Health, I don't think they said: "We need another level of government and bureaucracy." What they probably said was: "Please eliminate the administrative costs in Victoria and free up more money so we can have delivery of services at the community level." That's more likely what they said.
We know that we have hospital boards in place. We have community-level groups willing to get together and work with the Minister of Health to establish priorities in the communities. The model that's been outlined by the Liberal Party is for the complete decentralization of the ministry to allow local autonomy and development of initiatives. Even if the Minister of Health didn't want to go that route, at least she could have streamlined the administration in Victoria and freed up some money to allow local groups -- whether they be the hospital board, the CNIB, groups working with people who are disabled or groups working with her ministry -- to take some initiative.
Since there hasn't been a cost-benefit analysis, and since we also know that in the short-term, as the minister said, all of the people who are supposed to be representing the public will be appointed by the minister. For some reason which hasn't been outlined, there's no way on earth that we can get a proper election constituted by this fall. So in the short term, which takes us to 1996, we're going to have straight appointments of
[ Page 7735 ]
the minister. This new level of government and bureaucracy is an appointment of the Minister of Health, which is a little disturbing.
L. Reid: Democracy is not working terribly well.
J. Tyabji: As our Health critic said -- and very effectively, I think -- democracy has not worked that well. We were here until one in the morning talking about some of our rights that are being abrogated by the legislation before the House.
How can anyone feel any comfort when we've come to the minister and said: "Please reduce the cost of administration so we'll have more money to deliver health care." An overwhelming level of bureaucracy and government has been delivered instead -- with appointed people for the next three and a half years to carry out the instructions of this Minister of Health.
Of course, we can anticipate a change in government, and then there will be a change in those appointees. That shows that the system is open for abuse, that these local levels of government and bureaucracy are basically partisan vehicles subject to the whim of the party in power -- and that's wrong. That's very wrong in that it's not going to serve the people. When the people of the province asked for decentralization and closer-to-home delivery of service, they didn't ask for a partisan vehicle of government and bureaucracy. They didn't ask for appointees of the Minister of Health to drive the agenda in their communities. They want control of the agenda in their communities. They want control of regionally coordinated health care priorities. They want to be able to establish that, because only the people have enough wisdom to analyze their local situation. Unfortunately, I think all of us have fallen victim to the arrogance of assuming that as elected officials we know more than our constituents what should be done. Clearly we don't. It's been proven again and again that the best solutions to problems come from the people themselves. All we have to do is empower them to have the budget to deliver the services, and the priorities will be set very effectively at the community level. They don't need to have some kind of gridlock system and board of appointees to determine what is in their best interests. Only the people in the community can determine what is in their best interests.
[5:15]
The Minister of Health has control over the establishment of this machinery. We have to be very clear that as an enabling piece of legislation, Bill 45 just sets up the mechanism by which these boards will come together; the regulations and the particulars of what will actually be done will be established later on. But the fact that the minister is given so much power and arbitrary control in the enabling bill is, I think, a serious concern. That's not what the people asked for. In fact, the people would like a little more control in their communities. They would like to see some representation that as a region they can coordinate it -- not as a partisan coordinating group, not as a branch of the government in a partisan way, but allowing that group to have enough autonomy to work with their own communities in a council as they constitute it in order to determine what is in their best interests.
In the municipalities and the regional districts we have general elections. How is it that we have these councils with some elected and some appointed coming together to determine something that will affect all of the people in the region? Is this supposed to be an attempt to move toward democracy? There's no way that it can be, because for at least the next three and a half years we've got 100 percent partisan appointments. That's not in the best interests of the public. And what are they going to be working with? They'll be working without budgetary restrictions. We know that we have Build B.C. and B.C. 21 to amortize capital costs. If they choose to build a new building, they might say: "We need public chambers for our debate. We're mandated to have public meetings; therefore we must go to the Minister of Health and say that we need a brand-new building. We need a building that really shows the importance of what we're doing. We need a building with non-reflective glass, two storeys and high ceilings to show how incredibly important this initiative is to the community."
The Minister of Health is looking at me quizzically. I happen to have in my community a brand-new health unit. So much money went into the construction of the unit that they didn't have money for furniture when they were finished. That health unit that was just opened -- and this Minister of Health opened it, although much of the construction was done during the former administration -- does exactly the same job as a health unit in my riding that has been there for many years.
This bill mandates public meetings, and you cannot hold public meetings in a hospital boardroom, as the minister tried to suggest. It's perfectly feasible that this will develop into a kind of budgetary monster. The demands it will place on the system just to meet the mandates of the enabling bill are going to be enormous. Other than just the budgetary constraints that are tabled in the House, now we have Build B.C. So we actually have an avenue for the communities to come forward and say: "If you really have a commitment to our community, you will build this building."
The Minister of Health was saying that I'm not a good representative for my riding because I'm actually advocating against large capital construction. That's true, because I don't believe I'm an advocate for the construction companies. I happen to believe that I'm responsible to the taxpayers and that it's not in the taxpayers' best interest to have a partisan group -- which was appointed by this ministry in an effort to show a commitment to decentralization -- come forward with a proposal for a very expensive building and have that proposal met, because they have to continue to show publicly some kind of commitment to this supposed decentralization of health care.
When we talk about decentralization of health care, what do we mean? This bill is a form of decentralization, because it moves a lot of the administrative jurisdiction into the regions. So you can argue, in that way, that it's a decentralization.
[ Page 7736 ]
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member over there for Nelson-Creston says that that's good. He doesn't realize that it doesn't decentralize in terms of the proper delivery of these health care services. The priority in this bill is the administration, and that's what we have been saying has been wrong with the health care system for the last few years. Two things are extremely costly in health care: one is the administration, and the other is the new technological toys that end up taking up so much of the budget that standard costs for health care delivery aren't met. The administrative costs will go through the roof with this bill, and they are going to eat up a lot of the budget for delivery, de facto.
If we want to decentralize health care, we should be decentralizing the delivery of health care, not the administration; that's not in the public interest. That's the central point why the Liberal Party -- and we've been arguing, and I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast missed the part about the community development ministry and the fact that we have been advocating that for five years under his leadership.... That is the proper method for modelling the delivery of health care into the communities, and you have to allow some autonomy to the regions. It goes back to the first point that I was making. What are the regions, and how are we defining these regions? On what basis are we defining them, and why is there a different definition, depending on which ministry you go to?
We will be opposing this bill, not because the intent is wrong, since the stated intent of decentralization is one that we have been advocating since 1987. The method and the mechanism is flawed, because the priority is still the administration. In setting the priority of administration, it is also setting out a three-and-ahalf-year patronage machine that we can't support, because that will not be in the public interest.
That patronage machine is gridlocked into the office of the Minister of Health. That's a serious problem. I find it really upsetting that in this day and age, when we know that the public is crying out for lowering the cost of government -- not the delivery of government services, but the cost of government, the machinery of government and the incredible octopus of government that continues to go into their pockets, take their tax dollars and deliver less and less and expand more and more -- we have a bill like this before us that has missed the point.
I am even willing to extend to the Minister of Health the benefit of the doubt that she believes this is the best way of meeting the demands of the people. But I would say that this would need serious amendment. In addition to the serious amendment, there would have to be a restructuring of the ministry in order to allow the true intent -- the true intent being adequate decentralization of the delivery of health care and autonomous decision-making in setting priorities for the communities and the regions. That's what we've been fighting for since 1987 under our leader, and that's what this government should have been fighting for in this bill and should have been laying out in his bill, rather than what we see here, which is in effect a black hole to suck in more tax dollars and to set up a new administration, a new bureaucracy, and to move in a partisan direction.
L. Hanson: It's interesting to hear all the comments from various members who have so many opinions about what this bill is going to do. I think that all of the members who have expressed concern with things that this bill is going to accomplish.... It seems to me to be a bit of dreaming, because when I read the bill, I read that it has all sorts of opportunities for the Minister of Health to do things by regulation if she chooses, but there is very little meat that says this is what's going to happen.
What I see here is that the minister can create regional health boards, but we don't know if she will. She can create a specified region that that board will serve, but we don't know if she will, or what it is. She can create a community health council, and she can designate what that community health council should be responsible for. The minister can vary the responsibilities of the various communities. It says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can, by regulation, make an order that would have reference to one board or council, a class of boards or councils or all boards or councils, and can make different provisions for each board or council or for different classes of boards or councils. How can the Legislative Assembly intelligently debate issues like this when everything is left to the discretion of the minister?
I suspect that the minister has brought this forward with the best of intentions, but when I look at the vagueness of what the bill actually does as far as specifics are concerned, I also suspect that the minister is experimenting. With those empowering sections of the bill, it's obvious that the minister doesn't really know what she wants to do in every region or community in the province. It seems to me you could assume quite nicely that the minister may choose to establish a region and a regional council somewhere in the Cariboo, and then may establish a hospital board in terms of a regional health board somewhere else to experiment to see how it works here or how it works there, for the purpose of trying to find a better system for allocating our health dollars to the actual provision of health service. It seems to me that the purpose of the legislation, the purpose of this Legislature and the purpose of electing people to come here to discuss issues that are of importance to the province, is truly to discuss those issues. It is not to give authority to a select group -- in this case, the executive council -- to do things without the knowledge or endorsement of the House.
Certain things obviously have to be delegated to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from time to time, but generally the purpose of this Legislature is to debate the legislation and its impact on the people of British Columbia. That's almost impossible with this bill, despite what I have heard from both sides about what this is going to do and what that's going to do. How can you assess what it's going to do when it doesn't say what it's going to do? It says the minister can do it, but
[ Page 7737 ]
it doesn't tell us what is going to happen. It says the minister doesn't necessarily have to do the same all over. She can make different rules for different parts of the province, according to the regulations.
I think that is really a serious problem with this government. As the various pieces of legislation come forward, we see more and more vagueness in bills. They simply say: "Trust us; we'll tell you later what the rules are." That's not democracy. The purpose of democracy in this Legislature is to give fair and reasonable debate by the elected members on the effects of the legislation that's brought forward on the people of British Columbia.
How can you intelligently deal with that when you don't know what the result is going to be? There are no specifics in any of the bills that I've seen come in recently. In this bill it says this is an interim measure. How interim is interim? Is it...?
Interjection.
L. Hanson: I hear a member on the other side saying that "it's this long," but it sounds like the guy who caught the fish. It keeps getting longer and longer, depending on how many times the story is told.
But seriously, hon. Speaker, it may be an interim bill, and I don't dispute that the minister is straightforward with us and is dedicated to what the bill says, if I could only tell what the bill says. I suspect that most of the measures and legislation that have been brought before the Legislature in the past are usually based on a time period. I believe we were called back on a Sunday to bring in legislation that would put teachers who were on strike in a couple of school districts back to work. Even that piece of legislation had a date. It was interim too, but it said that it had a date.
The only inference we can draw from the vagueness of the expression "interim" is that the minister is not absolutely certain of what she would like to do. Therefore the bill is an enabling bill, and it says: "Trust me. I'll let you know later what I'm going to do with this." I think that's a subversion of the democratic process that all of us in this country support so vigorously. Because it's an interim measure, maybe it's fair for the minister to be able to say to these boards or councils, again by regulation.... But we don't know what it's going to be.
[5:30]
The minister may by regulation establish provincial standards for the provision of health care. I think that the minister, the cabinet and this government should establish the standards for health care, but I don't think it should be subject to change by the simple procedure of going before cabinet. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Health and the cabinet should be establishing those standards; I wouldn't give you any argument about that at all. But those standards are too important to have a discretionary provision in the bill saying that from time to time they can be established. It also says that the minister may by regulation specify a health service, or a level or extent of health service, that must be provided in a region or a community.
So now we have that the minister may or may not appoint a regional health council and a community health council. She may by regulation decide how big or small the region should be and what communities would be covered by the community health board. She then can establish the required standards for provincial health services. She can decide by regulation what services each of those regions or communities must provide. She has the authority to appoint the people who sit on those boards and the authority to fire them all and replace them with an administrator.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
If we knew what the regulations were going to say, all of that might be quite acceptable. We might consider the process the minister is going through to be a reasonable one. I think we all understand and recognize that our health care system has been severely tested in this period of time. The question of whether it is being delivered adequately has been raised a number of times. We recognize that there have to be some changes to the system.
But the changes that are going to be made should be the subject of debate. When we see a bill like this, we don't know what those changes are going to be. We see that this bill gives the minister all sorts of power. I heard the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale suggest that this was a bottom-up, grass-roots reorganization of the health care system. It seems to me that it's a top-down reorganization of the health care system, because all of the authority rests with the minister.
I don't have any personal reason not to trust the minister with that authority. But the fact is that health care is so important to all of our communities that we should know what we are talking about here. We should know what kind of legislation we're discussing; we should know specifically what is going to happen in the various communities we live in. That's what's so important to us, and that's what's missing from this legislation.
I give the minister full marks for her courage to bring forward changes. But again, I don't know what the changes are. I can see a vague concept there. But what we really should be talking about is the importance of all these regulatory things that are going to come forward after the bill is passed -- not about some vague ideas. I'm not sure that, in her own mind, the minister has concluded exactly what her vision of this health care system is. I suspect that the minister is experimenting a bit with that problem. There is another section in the bill where the minister can decide which other members she is going to appoint should at some time be elected. I suspect that most communities -- as a matter of fact, I know most communities -- would prefer to have their hospitals or health care systems in the hands of locally elected people. I recognize that this is an interim bill, and I recognize that the minister has in the past said that at some point she would go to an election type of system for these hospital boards. Again I ask the question: how interim is interim? Maybe when the minister sums up at second reading she will give us some idea of those things.
[ Page 7738 ]
Another concern that I believe has been expressed by other members -- and which I would like to emphasize -- is that this process seems to be building a bureaucracy that will have a harmful effect on the amount of health care funds that actually go to the provision of health care. I can use the example of when we were sending aid to Biafra during their crisis. The concern was how much of what we were sending would actually get to the people who needed it. I think that is what is being expressed by the members I have heard speak so far. How much of the money we are dedicating to the health care system will get down to the provision of health care at that very basic level that the people of British Columbia need?
I have great difficulty in supporting this bill, not because the bill has a bunch of things in it that I don't like, but because it doesn't have anything in it that I can like. Therefore I have to oppose the bill.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act, 1993. In rising to speak to this, I would like to take a little different tack in putting into context what we are discussing here today, and that is the question of health.
I'm surprised at the nature of the bill that's coming forward. It seems to be not a forward-looking bill but a backward-looking bill. I was interested to hear the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale comment about the beginning of medicare in Saskatchewan. I'm not sure that he is old enough to have lived in Saskatchewan when medicare began, but unfortunately -- or fortunately -- I did have the opportunity. So I do realize how it became a part of something that all of the people of Saskatchewan, in due course, were very proud of. It came from the people themselves and it was a bottom-up process, as the minister rightly mentioned. It was a bottom-up process, and as long as it maintained that focus its strength and its vitality continued to grow.
But in later years the bureaucracy began to take over, and there was a conflict between the bottom-up community process and the top-down government bureaucracy interference. In this present bill we have the latter, the top-down approach, trying to force upon communities a particular vision. Even if that vision was clear, it would be helpful. But it is trying to force not a particular vision so much as a structure.
In the opening comments that come along with the bill, it says: "This bill creates the framework within which this transition process will proceed until 1995." It has built a process as a framework to put in the boundaries, and within the boundaries which this process has created the community is expected to be free to develop what they feel is responsible health care in their community. But the bounds have already been put there. It's like the minister trying to talk with the medical profession about a cooperative approach when the minister has already put in the boundaries. That seems to be the pattern: again and again, this ministry and all other ministries of this government go out, listen to the people and ask what they would like, as they did in the health care and the social services studies. But when the people have spoken, the ministry takes it and puts it in a framework, and in so doing loses the communities' message that they want an open process they can continue to participate in and build from the ground up, not a framework that's laid down upon them.
Another of the realities that came from the CCF government in Saskatchewan, which this government could have learned from not only in theory but also in practice, was a group of studies called the rural life commission studies. That commission looked at how the people of Saskatchewan lived and the community interactions that were part of their life. Out of this they drew a sociological map, if you like, of the interactions that took place with people in the community -- where they lived, worked and shopped and where they went for their hospital care, education and recreation. Then they began to develop a plan for the services that the government would participate in, which took into account what was already there within the wholeness of community life. They did not want to lay a framework on it that did not fit. As my hon. colleague before me has said, you have to have a context in which this is to move.
I'm also surprised that the ministry has put forth this kind of health project. Again I say it is old-fashioned, because alongside the activities that the Health ministry has been engaged in, there has been the Healthy Communities project which has become very well known across B.C. Interestingly enough, what has come out of that project, which has been promoted and encouraged by this government, and what has come out of the minister's Health Authorities Act are totally opposite in character and undertaking. Perhaps it's instructive that the very title is the Health Authorities Act. Here is the authority of the government which is going to be imposed upon the people.
[5:45]
In March 1990 the UBC Centre for Human Settlements produced a paper called "Healthy Communities: What They Are, How They're Made." It pointed out that, particularly among health care professionals, community planners and citizens active in community issues, the idea of healthy communities is a growing concept and there's a growing awareness of what a healthy community is taken to be. They begin by saying that the notion of health has been an individual notion dealing with an individual's sickness being treated by an individual health care giver. That was the concept of health. The laypersons had very little involvement in that. They were spectators in this field.
They go on to say that from that individual perspective, thought has grown toward a more holistic system which takes into account not only the health of the individual but the relationship of that individual to others, and the relationship of these individuals to the environment. So there was a new, broader concept of holistic health which brought in the environmental factors which impinge upon a person as they live within a community. As they looked at this undertaking it moved beyond that individual environmental concern to undertake that we have the opportunity....
Am I getting an indication that we should recess at this moment and come back within a half-hour time period? If so, I would move that we adjourn debate.
[ Page 7739 ]
V. Anderson moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for ten minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:50 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:05 p.m.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call Committee of Supply A on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
I also call second reading of Bill 35.
LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Hon. R. Blencoe: It gives me great pleasure to begin second reading of Bill 35. We are all aware that it is a substantial piece of legislation, quite a weighty document, but we all recognize that it has been many, many years since local elections were reformed or changed. Most of the current legislation for local government is steeped in the nineteenth century, and in 1957 there were some adjustments and changes and amendments. It is a package that is designed to make local government elections in this province more open, fair and accessible and, of course, to meet the challenges of the nineties.
The act modernizes an antiquated local election process designed, as I said, in the nineteenth century. It includes significant consequential rewrites of portions of the School Act and the Vancouver Charter and makes a number of small amendments to other acts. It is vital that we bring our elections legislation into the nineties and come up to the standards of fairness, openness and accessibility expected by all British Columbians.
Specifically, the amendments increase access by lowering the voting age to 18, making it mandatory for local governments to offer at least two days of advanced voting, making voting places more accessible to people with disabilities, allowing curbside voting for people who cannot enter a voting place and providing local governments the option of using mail ballots for people unable to reach the voting place due to illness, injury or physical disability. What this means is that for anyone in this province who has any kind of disability, if they have in the past been unable to attend the voting place of their choice in a municipal election, there is now no reason why they cannot do that. We virtually guarantee that if someone with a disability of any sort wishes to vote, this act will accommodate them.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
The act allows another person to assist an elector who is unable to mark his or her own ballot. It accepts tick marks as well as cross marks on ballots. This is a significant change -- it may not seem big, but significant. As you know, hon. Speaker, there's always controversy over ballots and whether a mark is an actual indication of one's preference. We now are recognizing that you can tick....
L. Fox: Exciting stuff.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member, my hon. critic, is quite correct: this is very important stuff. I can assure you that many citizens take their voting, and the legislation that governs their voting, extremely seriously. I'm sure my hon. colleague does the same. Also, in keeping with the spirit of reforms, the new act has been drafted using the principles of plain language. So all those candidates, workers, returning officers and people interested in the act will now have a document they can actually use on a daily basis during the campaign, and hopefully they will find it easy to understand.
Bill 35 creates a fairer and more open voting system by requiring candidates, and electoral organizations endorsing candidates, to record and disclose campaign contributions and election expenses. Campaign disclosure statements must show the source and amount of all contributions of $100 or more. All anonymous contributions in excess of $50 must be turned over to the local government.
The bill also eliminates the vote for corporations and tenants in occupation. This removes the possibility, for example, of people simply leasing parking spots and storage lockers to vote. It disallows the practice of stating candidates' occupations, titles or degrees on the ballot. It ensures that non-resident property owners have the right to vote, one vote per property. As hon. members know, we received much comment on that issue, particularly from those owning residential property -- say, in Whistler -- or from business people who own properties or businesses in other jurisdictions and wish to have a say by voting in those jurisdictions. We have accommodated that concern.
The legislation also provides greater efficiency and protection by letting all municipalities choose to adopt the provincial voters list as their list of electors. It also gives small communities the option to register all voters on the day of the election. They don't necessarily have to create a voters list. If the jurisdiction wishes, it allows automated voting machines. It requires tie votes to go to a judge for automatic recount. Starting in 1996, it initiates formal cost-sharing between school districts and municipal governments. It sets tougher penalties to protect the integrity of the democratic system: for example, fines of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to one year for offences such as unfair electioneering practices or making a misleading statement when applying to vote; and fines of up to $10,000 or two years in prison for such serious offences as bribery and intimidation.
Many of these reforms were requested by local governments. All were developed through extensive
[ Page 7740 ]
consultation with both local governments and the general public across the province, and I can attest to that. I talked to and had letters from hundreds of people, organizations and institutions. The 6,500 copies of the discussion document we put out were well read, and many responses came in.
Many of the changes were outlined in the discussion paper that our ministry released last fall. In that paper we asked the public to tell us what they thought about these proposals; we listened, and I think we compromised. For example, we modified our proposal on non-resident property owners. The discussion paper proposed that only community residents be able to vote in local elections, and that non-resident property owners -- people who live in one jurisdiction and own property in another -- not be entitled to vote. In modern society, certainly Canadian democratic society, I think we have accepted the principle that residency and citizenship is the general rule on the opportunity to vote. Most of us endorse that. But with municipal or local elections, an issue was raised that businesses, property owners or cottage owners have an investment in another community, and that only because a border breaks them off -- they pay taxes elsewhere -- they made the case that they should have some say in that jurisdiction. So we heard from the business community and recreational property owners on this issue. As a result, we have balanced the interests of residents with the interests of non-resident property owners. Indeed, I think we have balanced the interests, and I want to spend just an extra minute on this because it really is very important.
Personally, I happen to endorse residency and citizenship as the prime reasons for voting, but when I heard and listened and met and talked -- in this place and with what we do -- I saw that we have to balance the interests and make compromises. There are other viewpoints on these issues. So we have allowed for some adjustments and changes.
[6:15]
The new legislation allows one resident property owner per property to vote, which removes the possibility of multiple, non-resident votes from a single piece of property. It was in the past -- and UBCM has brought this to my attention -- that if you had numerous people on the title of one piece of property, the one piece of property could generate multiple ballots.
I've made the case for the non-resident getting the vote, but what I heard from people who are resident permanently in a community was: "Where are our interests if you allow the balance to be unbalanced?" The non-residents' interests are different from the full-time residents. As you can imagine, the full-time resident is interested in taxes but is also interested in services, schools, parks, roads, policing and highway improvement -- in general, the social fabric of the community. But the non-residents are paying taxes but are living elsewhere permanently and therefore are probably interested in the social amenities in their own community. They are not necessarily interested in those other amenities in a community where they don't live.
So the residents say to me that they live there full-time, and they think they should have decision-making based on full-time residency, because if the non-residents were allowed, they'd probably never get any of the amenities they require to make their community safe and habitable and a sustainable and pleasant environment. So we had to balance.
This act is balancing those interests. I think it is, in a way, that classic compromise and balancing, particularly when it comes to voting. I hope we've achieved that. So far the responses from the business community and the non-resident property owners have been supportive. They recognize that there have been some moves to try and accommodate those interests.
But there is another side to it, when the chambers of commerce, the business community or the non-resident property owners say that they want to have their voice. But you also have the concern of the full-time resident being able to have their voice and having to live with the decisions of the non-residents, who could make an imbalance in the local decision-making system.
The discussion paper suggested removing the requirement for a minimum residency period in the jurisdiction. In response to concerns on that issue, we instituted a 30-day requirement; we used to have a 90-day requirement. There was no real rhyme or reason for 90 days. We agree that there should be some residency. There was some concern that if we didn't have residency, there might be some problems about people not having a full-time stake in the community and there might be some abuses. So we brought back a 30-day residency. For instance, you can't move into a community and vote on the same day; you've got to have a 30-day residency. That takes care of some of the concerns about transients and the other concern that was raised. Both resident and non-resident property owners must now have resided or owned a property in the community for 30 days prior to the election.
I will close by saying that this bill is the product of a process of consultation with local governments and British Columbians across the province. I hope it represents a major reform of the local elections process and is proof of our ongoing commitment to legislative modernization, community empowerment and open and balanced government. I recognize, from my colleagues across the way, that some parts may be contentious. I fully expect that. Of course, that's the way the system works. But we have tried to balance the interests. I personally have spent a lot of time with this bill and a lot of time with the stakeholders -- I hate that term, but that's the term that's around -- to try to find a reasonable balance between the competing interests, because at this local level there are incredible competing interests.
I look forward to hearing my colleagues across the way.
A. Cowie: I recognize that Bill 35, the Local Elections Reform Act, has gone through considerable debate in the community. The minister, as he says, has put it through reasonable public participation, and the minister has listened.
[ Page 7741 ]
The opposition and recreation property owners had one concern in particular, in that they were going to lose the vote. The people of Whistler for example, where the majority of people are in fact recreation property or condominium owners, were going to lose their franchise. After a while the minister did listen. It took some time, but I give the minister credit for finally realizing that was wrong. He has come up with a compromise that there will be one vote per property. I trust that means, for those people who own condominiums within a property, that each condominium is interpreted as a property. We should make that very clear, and the minister recognizes that by stating it across the floor.
Bill 35 has gone through the UBCM. I have to recognize that many of the amendments were put forward by the UBCM over the last four, five or even ten years of inaction by the previous government. Finally, some changes have been recognized.
It has finally been put into simple language, and I recognize that's a trend. It's also something the Liberals would do if they were in power. We would put many of these bills into simple language so ordinary folk like ourselves can understand them.
As the minister mentions, there are a number of changes that we agree with. The voting age has been lowered to 18, and campaign contributions of $100 or more have to be declared. Many people who run in the future may regret that, but we think that is probably a fair level. The UBCM has recognized that and in fact recommended it, so we agree with it.
There is a major flaw, however, that the opposition would like to examine more thoroughly during committee stage. I hope it's covered by section 87(1)(e), where perhaps the door could be closed on flow-through contributions. Often NDP members or their supporters contribute to federal or provincial campaigns to get a tax write-off, and then those moneys are returned back to the municipal level. There is only one party that can benefit from that in this province and that's the NDP. Clearly the Liberals would not want to see Liberal parties at the municipal level. We feel that they should be non-partisan. They should be people elected on their best merits. That is what we believe in. Clearly only the NDP that can benefit from this. We would like to see that thoroughly debated when we go through committee stage.
We also think that the sections regarding the ballots, candidate's endorsement, having to have organizations registered and this sort of thing are a bit bureaucratic. Hopefully over a period of time it can be simplified. What it means is that individuals will have a hard time running under this bill because of the complicated bureaucratic disclosures that single people will have to make when they're running in small communities. So we have some concerns in that area, although we agree with it in principle.
As far as the financial agent goes, can you imagine somebody in Horsefly having to have a financial agent? I think it's ridiculous. It's hard enough to get people to run in some of these communities. Now they'll have to register through the municipal clerk, which is probably fair enough, but this could burden the municipal clerk if it's not handled in a very simple way. I would hope that there wouldn't be a lot of challenges in these small communities, so it can be handled very simply. Sometimes in larger municipalities where you have parties and people get a little vicious, you could have challenges. It could add a lot of work to the municipal bureaucracy. There is no appeal process -- at least, we can't see any. Maybe the minister will want to address that in the committee stage.
I just want to spend a couple of minutes on the ward system. It has to be decided at the local level, and this bill does allow that. But one thing I would caution is that even money matters should have to be declared on a two-thirds majority basis. The two-thirds majority would be better than making it just over 50 percent in allowing for the ward system. That's the problem with the city of Vancouver trying to move to a ward system for this coming election. I don't think any civic party -- they're called organizations in this bill -- will want to do that, because there's simply not enough time to reorganize. There's no agreement on how many wards -- whether you're going to have ten or 12 -- and that's going to take some time. I would suggest that the city will want to go back to referendum before they enact that. However, we'll see what they decide; that's up to them.
It's good to see the candidate's occupation taken off the ballot. I know of at least two members in Vancouver who were elected on the basis that they were an environmental whatsit -- a lawyer, technician or something -- because the environment is an important thing right now. It probably always will be, I hope. But to have the name environment there did help them over someone else. Having my landscape architect occupation there certainly never helped me to get elected to the parks board. I assure you it would never have helped. It is better to get rid of that. People running at the municipal level will be able to have their party affiliation on the ballot -- a non-partisan sort of party, I hope, or whatever party it is.
I have one final comment, because I am looking forward to the committee stage rather than debating this at great length here. I want to give the minister credit for eliminating the one vote per property and realizing that in a democratic society we have rights. There are some complications when it comes to a condominium or a strata unit owned by ten people; they'll have to decide. I imagine some husbands and wives may even have problems deciding who's going to vote. But I would hope that they would be able to do that with ease, and we can move on to do that. With that, I look forward to later when we debate at committee stage.
L. Fox: Before I get into the principles of the bill, I want to commend the minister on the process. I really believe that the process used in this instance is something the rest of the cabinet ministers could learn from. Producing the discussion paper and making it available some seven or eight months ago not only allowed the municipal and school boards and other elected bodies to give the minister their input but also allowed the average taxpayer time to consume it and
[ Page 7742 ]
give written concerns on specific issues. Beyond that, it allowed the respective critics -- and certainly I know the minister is well aware of how many letters I wrote seeking input into the bill -- to do our homework so that we could come prepared when the bill came to be and react, hopefully, in a very positive way to Bill 35.
[6:30]
I take issue a little bit with a statement that was made by the previous speaker with respect to the previous government not acting on the need to reform the local election act. Having been on the UBCM executive for five years prior to this government coming into power, I know the difficulty that that association had in coming up with some appropriate directions to reform the act. In fact, I had the privilege to sit on a couple of committees of the UBCM that were dealing with assessment, financial impacts and so on, and which groped with great difficulty with the many issues -- non-resident voters being one.
As the minister pointed out, there were many communities where a non-resident voter, according to those community leaders, was indeed a negative influence on the development of the community. On the other hand, we had a community such as Whistler that wanted, because of their particular situation, the non-resident voter to have the ability to be part of their election process. So the issues were not easy to resolve, even with the UBCM to bring forth a resolution that would in fact request change. So there were some difficulties.
I think the process that the minister has gone through has helped us to identify the concerns on a global basis, not just on a very small, locally elected basis. In fact, it was from a residential taxpayer perspective, as well as from an elected perspective.
There are a couple of issues in this bill that really concern me and concern the people I've spoken to about it. One is the removal of the corporation vote. I think, given the significant portion of taxes paid by corporations.... If you look at Victoria or Vancouver, there are two very good examples there. There are people who own businesses within those jurisdictions but live outside, yet cannot be part of the election process or cannot vote in a referendum, for instance, which may in fact impact their business negatively. I think that those individuals deserve exactly the same right as a non-resident voter. The decision made by that elected body or by the referendum impacts directly on their ability to do business, and that business should be able to have the same one vote as a non-resident voter.
I'm disappointed, but I shouldn't be surprised -- given this government's attack on business -- that it doesn't respect the fact that the business community should have some say in who is elected and who's going to spend their tax dollars -- whether or not they should support a particular referendum. I'm sure we'll get into that at some length later. But I'm truly disappointed, given some of the other concessions that the minister made through the discussion time frame and the consultation that he's had, that there wasn't just a little feeling for the interests of the business community.
There's another issue there that has not been addressed, and I think it's unfortunate because it's been on the horizon for some time. Now that the native reserves have taxation rights, many of them are developing their taxation bylaws and a process for collecting taxes. On those native reserves that have residential properties, up until this point the reserve has, I believe -- at least in the ones that I'm familiar with -- collected the lease on the land for the property. But in actual fact the taxation of the home, or the improvements on that land, have gone to the provincial government or to a municipal jurisdiction.
With the taxation rates being expanded, we now have a situation where individuals who happen to live on short-term tenures within a native reserve and whose taxes will now be going to a native band really fall between the cracks of this legislation. They don't qualify as a resident, and they don't qualify as a non-resident. People who have historically had a vote in a regional district or a municipality will now, by virtue of the way this legislation is drafted, be excluded from voting. I think that's unfortunate. I'm sure it's a new phenomenon and one that perhaps hadn't been considered, but it's something that's going to become more and more of a concern for individuals who happen to live on land leased from a reserve.
On the ability of an individual to be a non-resident voter, the act suggests that where you have a recreational property or an improvement on Crown land and your lease is something less than 99 years -- and I believe that 99 percent of them are less than 99 years -- you do not qualify under this act to have a vote. In fact, with any agreement less than a 99-year lease you're not considered a non-residential voter. Under this legislation, all of those people who have improvements located on Crown lands no longer have a vote, whereas previously they did. I think and hope that this is an oversight. I tabled some amendments today that will deal with some of these concerns, and I made them available to the minister verbally over the last few evenings. That is an extreme concern.
Another significant concern here is one that I think we saw evidence of when the House had to have a Sunday sitting in order to legislate teachers back to work. Over the years there has been a huge problem with conflict on school boards when teachers run for the office of the school board in a district in which they're not teaching. We saw evidence of that in the Vancouver situation, where some school board members who were teaching in neighbouring school districts found themselves in conflict over a bargaining issue. We saw a very similar circumstance a few years back in Nanaimo. This legislation does absolutely nothing about that. It still permits teachers to run for the school board in any district other than their own. I think that's a major mistake. It reared its head only recently, and I would have thought it might have triggered some thought by the minister and this government that there was a need for change and a need to recognize that this circumstance is not in the best interests of the B.C. taxpayer.
The other concern that I have goes back to the municipal part of the bill. There are actually six parts to this legislation. Previously, if you held a contract with a municipality beyond $1,200 a year or had earned that
[ Page 7743 ]
much over the previous year, you were not allowed to run for office. What we have in this particular legislation is a tandeming, if you will, of the problem in the school district legislation. Now you can run for office if you're a contractor with the municipality, as long as you exempt yourself from decisions at council which may affect your welfare directly. What I learned during my term of office in municipal politics was that if you perceive that there's a conflict, there probably is one, so you should step out.
Let me give you a scenario to try to make my point: if I have a contract even to collect garbage in the municipality, by virtue of that I would have to exempt myself from the budgeting process of the municipality and from policy issues around cleanliness in the municipality. I could go on and on. As an elected council member, I would virtually not be able to sit on any issue around money or the cleanliness of the community. I could expand that into the parks issue. If a new park was created which had more garbage cans in it, and it would increase my revenue, I would literally be in conflict.
I think we've gone backward with respect to that rather than forward. I think we've left ourselves open to more conflicts rather than fewer conflicts. I don't believe that's in the best interest of any municipal council, given that many councils around the province have four members and a mayor. If you get one or two individuals excluded because of conflicts on a particular issue, you're not having fair representation of council deciding on that issue. It's a very similar phenomenon to what we found in Vancouver recently. The school board had a number of trustees who had to exempt themselves from the decision-making process and left it in the hands of five who were split, and therefore caused this Legislature and the Minister of Labour a great amount of embarrassment and grief. He had to bring in legislation to force those people back to school.
I firmly believe that this legislation, given that it's in the local election format, would have reinforced and dealt with those kinds of concerns. It fails to do that; I think it only enhances them.
We now see a situation as well that gives me some concern, and I really have some difficulty understanding why it's in here. As of now a municipal employee takes a leave of absence for the term of an election, runs for office.... He could do it totally out of spite because he's got some argument with the administration over a decision made; it might very well be any decision. He could take a leave of absence and enter the race with no intent in winning it, but only the intent of embarrassing council members or the mayor. I've been on the receiving end of one of those elections. While I didn't have any difficulty with it, it didn't serve the best interests of the public.
This kind of concern is very genuine. If he had to resign from work in order to run, I wouldn't have a problem with it, because then he would have to make a commitment which would mean more than taking a month off work and trying to embarrass the council. I think those kinds of concerns will rear their heads.
Another concern I have is that in the previous legislation the nominations used to close on the last Monday of October at 12 o'clock. The elections were held on the third Saturday of November, and those two dates were enshrined within the act. In this act we have extended the so-called writ period -- the period between the closing of nominations and the date the election is called -- to 36 days; eight days longer than it takes for a provincial election. I don't understand the rationale for this particular move, and I can't see where a mandatory 36 days is going to be in the best interests of a small community.
Large communities such as Victoria, Vancouver and Surrey and those communities down here which have organization, have party-line candidates. Those people historically start campaigning well before the closure of nominations. There is nothing to prevent them in the previous act or in this act from doing that, as I understand the amendment. But for the smaller community, we have changed the time frame for the election process from a historical 24 to 21 days, depending on the calendar, to 36 days. I don't think that that's in the best interests of the smaller communities, and I hope that the minister is going to look kindly upon the friendly amendment I tabled today, which would alleviate that pressure somewhat.
[6:45]
The final comment I want to make on the legislation -- and then we will go through a clause-by-clause committee stage -- is that the minister failed once again. The Liberal opposition critic talked very briefly about this. I don't want to point fingers at any particular party or any particular individual, but the act says very clearly -- and the previous act did as well -- that if you make a donation to a municipal campaign or school board campaign, it's not considered a legitimate write-off for income tax purposes. This bill should have dealt with that issue very specifically, making it a criminal offence for any candidate to accept contributions funneled through a British Columbia or federal party -- any party. It should have been a criminal offence.
The minister made reference to some of the new moves. It's a criminal offence if you bribe individuals to vote. It's a criminal offence for other avenues of attacking people who are misusing and fraudulently using the system. This area raised its head very visibly only a year ago in a constituency not far from this Legislature -- just across the pond, so to speak. Yet this legislation failed to deal with that very significant fact, and that disappoints me. I could mention the situation; the minister looks quizzical, wondering where it was. I have an article here that expressed it very well. It came out of the Surrey electorate group. An investigation was held to examine whether or not it had truly happened. As far as I know, the investigation suggested it didn't happen, but there was some evidence in the receipt book that suggest that it may have happened.
Once again, I want to suggest that I'm not condemning that individual or that group. But the minister obviously had the opportunity within this legislation to be sure and put regulations in force that would have substantially penalized any individual who
[ Page 7744 ]
misused that process. He failed to do it, and that disappoints me.
I don't want to end on a negative note, because I truly appreciate the process that has gone through. I hope the minister will listen and cooperate when we put forward our amendments. I'm sure he will recognize that they are friendly amendments and that we endorse the principle of the bill. It looks very large. Is it in quad? It's very simple reading, which I commend the minister for. Previously I tried to read the Election Act to find out whether I was legally able to run for office locally, and I had a very difficult time determining that. In fact, I had to phone the inspector of municipalities and lay my cards on the table in order to get that determination. Without question, this does read a lot easier than the previous act.
Unfortunately, it fails to deal with all the issues. Native reserve land is going to be a real issue because through this legislation we have basically put those people in no man's land. For the House's information, up to this point they have been able to partake in specified initiatives at the regional district level. There may still be that opportunity, providing there's an agreement between the reserve and the regional district. But I think the autonomy will now go to the native band rather than to those individuals who pay taxes and end up paying for the service.
I hope that whenever the minister makes his closing remarks -- I'm sure more people are going to speak -- he will give us some indication about these issues and the concerns that I have raised with respect to this bill.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to take my place in the debate on Bill 35. I didn't intend to speak long on the bill because I recognize, as the two previous speakers indicated, that it represents a broad consensus on the part of the municipal organizations.
However, as a member of the assembly for Surrey-White Rock, I thought I should follow up on the comments of the hon. members for Vancouver-Quilchena and Prince George-Omineca. They raised the concern that was expressed in my constituency about the possibilities of tax-receipted funds being donated to a federal-provincial political party, which would have the effect of finding their way into the municipal process. When we get into committee stage, I certainly will welcome debate on that section of the bill to receive the assurance of the minister that that cannot happen. Because, clearly, if it can, it confers a significant benefit on a municipal organization that can indirectly receive funds and issue tax receipts, whereas a non-partisan or non-aligned civic organization is not only forced to report any donations over $100 but is not able to issue any tax receipts. It clearly places some inhibitions on the ability to raise funds for local elections. This issue wouldn't affect a small jurisdiction, but it is a concern in municipalities like Surrey, Victoria and Vancouver, where such partisan political organizations exist.
I can mention that I did attend an excellent briefing by the minister's staff on this particular bill. I rushed forward with great interest on sections 1 to 3 of the bill, which talk about the votes required for the incorporation of a new municipality and extension of municipal boundaries. Reductions of the area of municipalities, as the minister well knows, is an area in which I have a passionate interest. You can imagine my disappointment when the staff advised me that in fact there had been no significant changes, if any, to this particular section of the bill. I certainly would have welcomed changes, and I look forward to raising a few questions in committee about those sections of the bill, even though they have not been altered. In fact, I look forward to the day when sections 1 to 3 of this particular bill receive the same kind of attention and reform. We have talked before on this particular issue. I think it's an important one in areas of the province where local residents have clearly communicated their desire to at least examine new municipal boundaries and new incorporations in order to determine if the delivery of services can be streamlined.
Having made those brief remarks, I'll say that I won't be voting against the bill in second reading but do look forward to examining some of these issues in committee.
A. Warnke: I, too, like the member for Surrey-White Rock, do not intend to speak at length on Bill 35, but I do have concerns about it. Actually, it is an opportunity to address a few problems concerning local elections generally and certainly as they pertain to the act. I don't mean to get so general that it's beyond what we're talking about. The Local Elections Reform Act is a fairly comprehensive act, and there are specific items in it that I'd certainly like to address both in principle and in detail.
In doing so, I have to mention at the outset that I will probably have to disagree with my distinguished colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena. There are some improvements in this particular bill that I would like to see. Indeed, one of my concerns was actually raised by the member for Prince George-Omineca. I think the hon. member has actually raised several good points, which I paid close attention to, especially as they pertained to how campaigns at the local level are funded.
Let me back up a moment. As one who has run in local elections, I did not want to run with any particular slate or local political party, and I deliberately avoided doing so for a very good reason. I operate from the premise that at least one level of government must, as much as possible, encourage individuals in representing their neighbourhood and local community without having the backing of any organized faction, political party or, as this bill puts forward, elector organization. I have to be candid at the outset: I'm not in favour of elector organizations or political parties at the local level. As a matter of fact, I find that the most responsible individual at the local level is the person who can represent the interests of their immediate neighbourhood, whether it's on the school board or on council. Indeed, it is the one level of government -- perhaps the only level of government, unfortunately -- where an individual can express the local interests of their community and their neighbourhood. That, to me, is something that has to be encouraged. It's extremely difficult for other levels to promote independent
[ Page 7745 ]
candidates. It has happened, although very rarely, that independents are elected at either the provincial or federal level. It is a rare occurrence because on a national or provincial scale obviously there has to be some sort of an organization. Commonsense tells you that there are enough political elements to stimulate the growth of factions, organizations and political parties.
[7:00]
It's very difficult to imagine a national or a provincial system operating in the absence of political parties, but the Canadian tradition has been to avoid the development of political parties at the local level. To a certain extent I think that has served people very well. There is nothing but the individual to express himself or herself and to represent the interests of the neighbourhood and the immediate community. Therefore the candidate is endorsed by the people of the neighbourhood and the community. In my view, that has to be encouraged, at least at that one remaining level of government, so that individual candidates can express themselves to represent the people in their neighbourhoods.
Reflecting on the evolution of elector organizations and political parties at the local level, I would suggest that candidates having the backing of electoral organizations is a rather new development in municipal and city politics. I would say that in some ways -- and this is my own premise; it's not necessarily shared even by my own caucus members, I'm sure -- it is a regrettable development, but nonetheless a development. It's regrettable that elector organizations and political parties promote individuals who do not necessarily represent their neighbourhood interests. They are elected with that kind of machinery and backing simply because at the local level some advertising and name recognition really helps those individuals. Nonetheless, I think one can argue that with the backing of such an organization at the local level, it is very difficult to suggest that these kinds of individuals best represent their neighbourhoods. As I have seen the evolution of the political party, it is perhaps quite the contrary experience.
For example, I reflect on the development of city politics in Toronto. I well recall the gradual introduction and evolution of political parties at the local level during the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, one political party that operated at the provincial and the federal levels was able to permeate the city level in such a way that it was suspected that funds were channeled to support local candidates. Certainly the organization and the personnel who were involved in federal and provincial campaigns were involved in local levels. Unfortunately, the introduction of just one political party and the success that they had stimulated other political parties to be formed.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
In Vancouver city politics we had a longer experience with political parties. Indeed, for a time in the 1950s and the 1960s, three major political parties existed. These three parties had different acronyms than what we have seen in the federal and provincial front but were often thought of as the Conservative team, the NDP-CCF team and the Liberal team. Quite literally, the latter was called "TEAM" and was the Liberal team. To a certain extent, that maintained the integrity. I have made it very clear that I am not in favour of electoral organizations or political parties at the local level, but at least in Vancouver there was an attempt to remove the federal and provincial political parties from direct connection with those three parties.
I remember discussing this issue in some detail not that many years ago with the former Prime Minister of Canada. It was his view -- and I essentially agreed with it -- that were a political party at the local level to call themselves the Vancouver Liberal Party, or the Vancouver Conservative Party or the Vancouver New Democratic Party, even that association with a name would have been enough to remove it from local politics altogether. I remember being interested in the project and rummaging around for a legal opinion. There were even those who suggested that such a nomenclature is even illegal. Yet we have seen the gradual evolution where one political party has been brave enough to assert itself at the municipal level and call itself a party that is associated with the federal and provincial party.
In my own municipality of Richmond -- now the city of Richmond -- there is a Civic New Democratic Party. As a name, I think the Civic New Democratic Party would have been seriously challenged 20 years ago, and most certainly 30 years ago. There was even an opinion ten years ago that the evolution of something called the Civic New Democratic Party might even be considered illegal. That would have been the case whether it were Civic New Democratic Party, Civic Liberal Party, Civic Social Credit Party, or whatever. All of that would have been seriously challenged.
I suppose there is some honesty, at least, in suggesting that since the New Democratic Party has found itself interested in city and municipal politics, at least it calls a spade a spade. A Civic New Democratic Party in the city of Richmond, of course, makes no bones about it. They have connections of personnel, of the kind of people they recruit for their campaigns for supporting their candidates, and so forth. Obviously they share lists with the federal and, most certainly, the provincial New Democratic Party.
That is an evolution, were it now to stimulate a response. I suggest that that's not altogether hypothetical, because I did see this kind of evolution in the city of Toronto. Once you have a political party established and getting its impetus from the federal and provincial counterpoints and organizations, it is bound to stimulate political parties in response.
We're not talking about the NPA or something like that. We're really talking about political parties that have some connection or even affiliation with the federal and provincial counterparts. I think what we will see is that this is inevitable; this will occur. If that does happen, I would find it most regrettable. I thought it most regrettable in some ways in the city of Toronto. I would find that most regrettable in Vancouver, in Richmond or in other communities in British Columbia.
[ Page 7746 ]
I would say that I've made it very clear from the outset that what I would like to see at the municipal and city level, while we can still hopefully retain it -- though it's probably a losing battle on my part -- is a promotion of individual candidates who do not have the financial, personnel and organized backing of organizations -- in this case, elector organizations. While the elector organizations may appear to be a matter of fact, at this stage I still have to state that I'm not in favour of elector organizations. It is nothing but another term for a political party at the civic level. If we can resist having political parties at the municipal and city levels, I would certainly welcome it.
In this context I suppose I'm somewhat similar to some of the problems that James Madison put forward in the Federalist Papers. There is the famous paper, of course -- No. 10. I think it's worthwhile quoting here, because it is quite relevant to the appropriate sections when we're talking about elector organizations. James Madison stated that as far as he was concerned there was something extremely problematic in the evolution of factions, that factions would grow into organized sediments, and organized sediments would become organized aggregates, which would attempt to represent the interests of the community. Certainly they claimed to represent the interests of the community, but as far as Madison was concerned, in the last analysis this did not really represent the interests of the community as purely as an individual who is elected by the community. I think that's most appropriate in this context.
However, given that the evolution of factions does occur, Madison pointed out that there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction -- indeed, Madison assumed factions and the development of organized political parties, and I suppose elector organizations are mischievous in nature. Indeed, in my view, in many ways they are. He said that there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of factions: the one by removing its causes, the other by controlling its effects. There are, again, two methods of removing the causes of faction, the one by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence, the other by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions and the same interests.
I'd really like to emphasize the latter. I recognize, as James Madison did, that you cannot, of course, eliminate factions, because by attempting to eliminate factions you really attempt to eliminate liberty and how people express themselves. Indeed, one of the basic principles of a democracy is freedom of association. The association of two or more people, obviously, is an aggregate. You cannot really remove that without removing liberty. But Madison had a very strong argument: by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions and the same interests. That's quite difficult to obtain, and there are those who have an interpretation of that that I do not share. What Madison was really trying to get at is that, wherever possible in the political system, we have to promote liberty.
[7:15]
This comes back to the original point I was making. How do we go about electing representatives to represent our interests on the school board, on council and so forth? I would argue that the road is not to promote more elector organizations, not to promote more political parties, not to enhance political parties. It may not be very widely shared, but my view is to do whatever you can to protect the liberty of the citizens and to promote individual candidates who express themselves and articulate individually, in relation to the neighbourhood and the community.... Those individuals who feel they can best articulate the interests.... Let there be a competition among individual candidates -- a genuine competition in expressing and articulating the interests of the community.
That, I think, is really the route I would like to see. It is perhaps a losing battle, but it is one that still, while I can, because political parties at the municipal and city levels have not really been fully embellished yet.... While that is still the case, I'm sticking to my guns. We have to promote individuals representing their neighbourhoods and communities. In that context, the provision we see in Bill 35 which is aimed at the enhancement of candidates endorsed by electoral organizations has to be rigorously opposed. Whether I'm fighting a losing battle or not, the fact is that I still want to rigorously oppose that development.
Actually, the Minister of Municipal Affairs touched on many positive points of Bill 35. Naturally, I suppose that's how a minister would introduce a bill. It's a huge bill, and there are many positive points. But my view is that the provisions which deal with candidate endorsements by electoral organizations are of such a nature that they are actually embellished, enhanced. As I see it, political parties at the local level are encouraged all the more. Further, the member for Prince George-Omineca really did hit on a fundamental key point: what we do not see here is a provision, or preferably a set of provisions, that would make it extremely difficult for people organized at the federal or provincial level to contribute to campaigns at the local level. I agree with the member for Prince George-Omineca, as a matter of fact. I believe that contributions certainly of a financial and perhaps even of a personnel nature by provincial and federal parties should be outlawed. The member for Prince George-Omineca suggests that what we need is some sort of provision to make it a criminal offence to financially support local candidates from the funds of federal and provincial political parties. Frankly, I totally endorse that view, whether it applies to the New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Social Credit, Nationalists, Reform or whatever. That, in my view, is a darned good place to begin. Make it a criminal offence. If nothing else, I see this as a way of creating a disincentive for federal and provincial political parties to be involved. Over the years political parties at the federal and provincial levels have been discouraged, and it is not part of our Canadian political tradition to encourage that. If anything, that's part of the American political tradition, where Republicans and Democrats even support a candidate for the local dogcatcher or whatever. In my view, we have to do everything we can to encourage and promote individuals without any partisan connections to represent their communities and neighbourhoods on the school boards and councils.
[ Page 7747 ]
There is one other provision I would like to spend a bit of time on and that is the change a few years ago from two-year offices to three-year offices. I looked up this section in Bill 35 and saw that there has been no change whatsoever. I must admit I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. In my view, the two-year term was most appropriate at the local level and the three-year term is just far too long. One can make the argument -- and indeed, the argument has been made -- that a three-year term is more economical. There are fewer elections over a ten- or 20-year span, so it's less expensive to the municipality or city. But that's not really the point. The point is that at the local level, because of the nature of the issues and the problems that are involved and so forth, it is extremely important to have that degree of frequency in our elections. Indeed, one of the greatest ironies of our time is that much of the public is thinking of decreasing the term for MLAs and MPs. Indeed, if we were to follow the concept of recall, by the time one brings in a recall and all the rest of it, from the time that someone has been elected -- if one wanted to be mischievous that way -- at least two years must pass. In the United States it's not entirely inappropriate for a local representative to Washington, a member of the House of Representatives, to be elected for a two-year term.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Yes, it's a permanent campaign, but that's precisely the point: because it is a permanent campaign, there's no real strategy or jockeying. As a member of the House of Representatives, you just simply have to continually represent your community.
I find it ironic that a number of people have said that maybe the present government's term is too long. Actually, they advocate a turnover at the federal and provincial levels every two or three years. Yet we've moved at the local level, where a two-year term is most appropriate, from two years to three years. I would say that I have analyzed, as objectively as possible, a number of local councils, and two years seems to be appropriate. We have experimented in the last three years. But I would suggest that many councillors should subject themselves to an election after two years.
Hon. Speaker, seeing the green light is on, would it be appropriate if I am designated speaker? Perhaps we could just keep going for a little while, if you don't mind.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: I've got more to say. I'll see how it goes.
Deputy Speaker: Proceed, hon. member.
A. Warnke: When we take a look at the experience of a number of councils that have been in for three years, we find that a certain flabbiness has settled in after two years. It is really necessary, and even to the benefit of councillors and mayors, to go back to the people after two years and get a sense if they are headed in the right direction.
I'm trying to be objective as possible. I'm not only taking a look at my own home, the community of Richmond, but also at others. The people also want a two-year term. Perhaps in some cases they have elected a new council and mayor to kick out the old bunch because they simply disagreed with their policies. I know that in Richmond, certainly, there was a tremendous turnover in which Civic New Democrats formed the majority of council and the school board and elected a mayor. We simply disagreed, almost en masse, with the old council and wanted a whole new council in there.
New councillors need some time to get their feet wet and really come to terms with the issues and problems of the neighbourhood and so forth. But it is to the councillors' benefit -- and even for some members of the school board -- to say: "After two years, are we on the right track? Do we still have the support of the public? Do we have the support of the neighbourhood?" It is my assessment that whether it's mayors, councillors or members of school boards, they have to be reassured by the people that they are headed in the right direction and are representing their interests best.
Frankly, in that context, the three-year term has not worked out to the benefit of the people, and the people seem to be putting some pressure on other levels of government, asking: "Why don't you change?" Certainly the people of British Columbia do not want to see five-year terms at the provincial level anymore. As a matter of fact, one could make a case that many British Columbians would like to see it squeezed into three-year terms or break it down even further. I don't know whether, at the federal-provincial level, this will inevitably promote the idea of two-year terms -- as is the case in the United States with state representatives and members in the House of Representatives in Washington. That's neither here nor there, and I don't want to get off the point.
The simple fact is that there is something extremely vibrant about the two-year term, especially when we're looking at how elected representatives represent their people at a local level. Once again, the Federalist Papers of Hamilton, Madison and Jay actually provide a lot of insight that is applicable here as well. Why is a two-year term preferable? It's not preferable for the election of a President, a Governor or a Senator. The Federalist Papers outline how you need a considerable amount of time to promote stability within a large institution such as the United States Congress. Similarly, the argument here in Canada might be that at the federal level a four-year term in a parliamentary system is quite important for a certain amount of stability, even when people say five years is too long.
[7:30]
But the reason why four-year terms -- and, I would suggest, even three-year terms -- are too long is in relation to the sources of power. If the sources of power are complex, as in the case of electing MLAs, MPs, Representatives, Senators, Governors and Presidents, then it is quite appropriate to elect people for a long period of time -- that is, four years, six years or
[ Page 7748 ]
whatever. In the case of American Senators, it's six years; for Presidents, it's four years; for parliamentary systems, it's four years; for provincial governments, it's generally four years. Why? Because the sources of power are complex in the executive branch of government at the provincial and federal levels. When the sources of power are complex, a longer term is appropriate. But where the source of power is more simple in nature, as is the case with the member for a district in the House of Representatives.... The member of the House of Representatives representing his or her district has a very simple source of power. Similarly, at the municipal level, the source of power is very simple in nature. In that context, it is quite appropriate to have a two-year term.
That's essentially the way I see it. Were governments more complex at the municipal level.... That may well be the case in the twenty-first century. I don't know; I don't have a crystal ball; I can't see into the future -- that far in advance, anyway. I'm having enough trouble looking at the next election. I cannot look into the twenty-first century. It may well be that the structures of government will change entirely, even at the local level. Who knows? Maybe regional governments will become the new order of the day. If people elect their representatives to such a regional government, it's quite possible that three-year terms would be most appropriate. But at least in this present context, the duration of the office has got to be such that the officeholder is constantly aware of accountability and responsibility. As I see it, the nature of the office should match the duration of the office. So I'm trying to develop a strong argument for the minister to reconsider the three-year term. I can imagine a number of municipalities and cities....
L. Fox: Three years is great.
A. Warnke: Some people like three years, some people like two, and some people like four.
L. Fox: I like three.
A. Warnke: One member, at least, says he likes three. I will not engage in a debate with him on that.
L. Fox: We will have a separate debate on that.
A. Warnke: Certainly I would enjoy that exchange later on, because the gentleman is a fine gentleman.
From my vantage point, I would like to encourage a two-year term. If you use the argument that it's more expensive, I find that a bit of a problem. Over the space of ten years, it's three elections as opposed to four or five.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: It's too bad the hon. member has already spoken. I think I would have loved to have heard his rebuttal.
But the point here is not so much expense. Indeed, we have the luxury in our society of not being overloaded in terms of expense when it comes to electing people. What is essential is electing people on the basis of accountability and responsibility. For me, that's a personal quest. The three-year term is perhaps something that most people support. I would like to see the public solicited for their views on and experience of the three-year term and asked whether they actually feel that it is better. Indeed, if most people prefer the three-year as opposed to the two-year term, and they feel that it is quite adequate in representing the interests of their community and neighbourhood with regard to local issues, school board problems and so forth, I would certainly respect that. That's not as big a problem for me as the evolution of political parties at the local level and their linkages with the other levels of government.
There is just enough, therefore, in this bill -- and I have outlined two main areas where I have some concerns.... I have no intention of introducing amendments at this time, and I don't intend to introduce amendments at committee stage without closer consultation with the official opposition critic. However, I do understand from some of the remarks by the member for Prince George-Omineca that he might introduce some amendments at committee stage. Considering that the member spoke on some points similar to the ones I've been talking about, I'm looking forward with great interest to seeing those amendments. I believe there are a number of questions to pursue at committee stage with regard to these matters that I've mentioned, so I'll be following that very closely. This is just a personal view, but some amendments to improve the legislation would, I think, be entirely appropriate. I believe that the members for Vancouver-Quilchena and Prince George-Omineca raised some issues with regard to campaign financing. I think it would be worthwhile to examine campaign financing in some detail; therefore, when we get to section 61, I would like to follow that up closely as well.
There is another part to section 61, though. Section 124 under section 61 dealing with intimidation is an interesting one. In section 124(2) it says: "A person must not intimidate another person for any of the following purposes: (a) to persuade or compel a person to vote or refrain from voting...." The key words there are "compel" and "refrain." From time to time it's worthwhile to reflect on just what that means. In many ways it is also a reflection of the kind of democracy that we have, to speak of compelling people to vote or to refrain from voting. We can think of many examples in the twentieth century where actions and events have compelled people to refrain from voting. And refraining takes different forms. You can physically compel someone to refrain from going into the election booth. You can also discourage people from going into the election booth.
Often we are concerned about apathy, and in the Canadian political system apathy is greatest at the municipal and city level. I recall participating in a by-election where the turnout was all of 2 3/4 percent. To get highfalutin and rhetorical for a moment, our political system is such that we at least do not force people to vote, and we do not restrain them. It's
[ Page 7749 ]
certainly not my experience that we restrain people from voting. That's a remarkable feature about our political system, and from time to time we have to remind ourselves just how remarkable it is. I must admit that at the local level many people, not only myself, are very disappointed at low turnouts. There may be a variety of reasons for this. Media interest may not be that great because of the nature of the issues, and so forth.
But it is worth bearing in mind that local elections are most important in our political system. Numbers of local officials -- school board members and councillors -- have stated time and again how gratified they actually feel in being a councillor or a school board member, because it is here that they actually can have some direct, positive impact on the people they serve. Indeed, I can well understand it. When I was elected as an MLA I did something at a very concrete level for a person. It was a health problem, and in some ways helping a person with a health problem -- at a people level -- has certainly been the most gratifying experience I've had so far. I thought: "Gee, this is a great job. You can actually help people." I've found out since that it's darned difficult to help people, as much as you try.
I'm sure we all find that at the provincial and probably especially at the federal level. But at the local level one has the opportunity to serve people and do something directly for them. Also, the problems and issues are of such a nature that I suppose the achievement is almost immediate. It's certainly more immediate than being a federal or provincial politician. And it is the level of government that perhaps affects people the most. So in that context, naturally, it should be encouraged.
But at the same time it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that compulsion or refraining from voting can take various forms. I think we have to be very careful about some thresholds we have when it comes to compulsion to vote or forcing people to vote, how they are encouraged to vote, and so forth.
There is another section in here which I suppose I could address at the committee stage, but it's worthwhile addressing at second reading, and that is titles and the listing of occupations of candidates, and so forth. I just find it interesting -- I'm not going to make a big thing out of this -- that it's okay to list a political party with an individual to identify a certain individual but not okay to somehow identify an occupation with an individual. I realize -- and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena really pointed this out -- how the system could be abused, how people could abuse titles and so forth. But by the same token, if we are to define individuals and what they're all about, I think that an achievement in society is just as noteworthy as being a member of a political party.
When I started my remarks I thought I was going to be very short, but there were a number of points I really did want to touch on that are extremely important, that are most appropriate to this Bill 35, and I appreciate the indulgence of the Speaker and the members of this Legislature. I do hope that some of the comments will promote some sort of reflection and stimulation as to this most important -- and it is most important -- level of government.
[7:45]
G. Wilson: I'm pleased to rise on Bill 35, a most important bill and one that is very weighty and lengthy, and one that is going to affect the lives of virtually every British Columbian. Let me say now that the short period of time allotted in second reading to each individual to do justice to this bill is something that all of us who are interested and committed to seeing an adequate and proper debate on this would like to see extended. Many issues in this bill are of such magnitude and importance that they require very careful consideration, very careful reflection and, quite frankly, a thorough debate and airing.
I would like, in the first instance, to provide a word of congratulation to the minister for making an attack on what is a very difficult proposition with respect to the implementation of new standards for elections -- especially some matters relating to the extension of municipal boundaries, the changing of municipal status and, of course, the more difficult and more weighty concept of fairness in elections. These are not easy issues.
Similarly, as we heard a bit earlier in this debate when there was a bit of banter going on as to whether we favour two or three years, or whatever, quite clearly there's no right or wrong in much of what is in this bill. A lot of what is in this bill tries to clarify language; it tries to make provision for that language to be both clearer and fairer in its application -- some of which works for me and for members of the Liberal opposition, and some of which, as we've just heard in the debate, doesn't.
In order for me to use my time effectively, I would like to go directly to those sections of this very lengthy and weighty bill that I have some concerns with. I will flag those areas which I think we need to spend a good deal of time on in committee stage. It's going to be a very important, very weighty and, I suspect, somewhat lengthy process to get through.
The first concept is with respect to the provision for different status among electors. The bill introduces the notion of a property elector and a resident elector. There has been a long tradition in our parliamentary democratic system that an elector is an elector, and that there should be some equality of standards applied to provide equal opportunity to vote for all people who are affected by the administration of a government or governing body that they elect representatives to.
In the past, we had a provision in the Municipal Act that said that if you were a renter, if you were a non-property owner, you couldn't vote. Some people argued vigorously that that was in fact the correct way to go, because municipalities were, by virtue of their letters patent, originally and traditionally -- with the exception perhaps of the Vancouver Charter, which provides greater authority to the elected council of Vancouver.... By their nature, municipalities are there to provide services to property and to those people who live within the jurisdiction of that municipality. Therefore in principle one could argue -- and I think
[ Page 7750 ]
one could argue effectively -- that a municipality should not seek to gain revenue or to take taxes from the people for anything other than services to property. A municipality empowered under the Municipal Act is empowered essentially to levy tax against property. Because it is levying tax against property, what the municipality should be doing with that money is providing services to the property that they're taxing.
It was argued in the past, when renters were not given the opportunity to vote.... The argument went something like this: where a renter, who may be either a resident or a commercial renter, is subjected to a triple net lease agreement in which the lease arrangements include an increase in the rental fee as a result of an increase in taxes, because there is a financial burden placed upon that individual, that individual should have the right to vote. I think that that was perhaps a correct interpretation, because it says that we are not going to try to make distinctions or unfairly place one individual against another.
Given that a municipality should be levying tax against property only for the provision of services to property and should not be engaging in other forms of government service delivery which should more correctly be delivered by a more senior level of government -- i.e., the level of government that we represent as elected members of this assembly.... Now we see a departure from that process of fair application through the introduction of this notion of a property elector and a resident elector. I understand the dilemma well that the minister and those who are advocating this distinction find themselves in. Quite clearly, what they're arguing is that if there is to be a tax against a property, there should be essentially one equal vote per parcel size being taxed. What this says is that if you have property electors, where two or more people are joint owners of a property in an area in which they do not reside but wish to register as property owners, only one of those people will be eligible to vote. The bill goes on to talk about the rules for determining residence in section 53, and about how one might register as a property elector in section 52. In those two sections, what we talk about is the fact that the person entitled to register as a property elector must be one of the individuals -- not more than one -- who lives on the parcel of land.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I have some serious difficulty with this from a philosophical point of view. What we're doing is saying that if a couple or a partnership or some other form of joint tenancy exists in a particular community, and that joint tenancy may hold property in common, where two or more people may have entitlement to that land, they have to get together and decide which of those people are going to be entitled to vote. There is a problem with that, from my point of view. If the parcel of land is of a significant size, and if it is set up in a co-op manner or in some kind of strata title or in some way through development opportunities for individuals, then it seems to me we've put in place a provision that discriminates against a section of taxpayers, who are now not going to be able to have an equal opportunity to cast a ballot in a municipal election. Let's be clear: a municipality can only levy tax against property. They are not in a position to levy tax in a general form. Therefore, if we're going to look at some manner of distinguishing between electors, we have to be very clear that we are not doing that in a manner that is going to discriminate against one sector of the population. In co-ops, strata title developments and those kinds of areas where people may build and own co-ops, and not live in that community but use if for a summer residence or some other kind of action, those people are going to be discriminated against.
If we're to be fair to this bill, the problem is that if we don't put in some kind of restriction; if we don't in fact say: "Look, you've got to have some measure to give equity to those who are residential electors...." I understand the dilemma that the minister is in. You're saying that you can have block voting taking place by non-residential voters who may determine land use policy and strategy in a community in which they don't reside. There is a great deal of resentment by a lot of people who reside in a community toward people who are living elsewhere and coming in on election day and casting a ballot. I understand the dilemma. I'm not certain we've gone about it the right way. I have some suggestions, which in committee stage I would like to offer to the minister, that might provide a more fair and equitable way of dealing with this with respect to the voting provision. That's my biggest concern with respect to the question of electors.
I also have a secondary concern with respect to the use of the provincial voters list for municipalities. As somebody who has been elected at the municipal and regional district level, I'm well aware of the difficulty that exists in terms of getting an adequate and proper electoral list. Quite frankly, I favour the introduction of the provincial voters list. I think it's a sensible way to go. I just caution the minister -- and again, in committee stage we might talk about this -- that he may run into difficulty with respect to residential and property electors on the voters list, in terms of what status an individual may choose. It may be a more complicating factor for the regional district or municipality, if indeed they opt to simply go to the computerized voters lists that we have now. So I caution -- I flag -- that there is a possibility you could in fact be creating a jurisdiction that is going to be difficult to monitor and to police, because of this notion of two different classes of electors, if you will: the property elector and the residential elector.
Let me come back to talk about another section. As my colleague from Richmond-Steveston declared himself the designated speaker, I can't pull that off myself, which is unfortunate.
An Hon. Member: No concentration.
G. Wilson: Well, that's true. I'm trying to get this down to the nitty-gritty.
One of the things I do want to really take issue with in this bill... Again, I don't mean this by way of partisan criticism. I take issue with it because I think it
[ Page 7751 ]
is a fundamental point of principle. It has to do with the vote required for the incorporation of a new municipality or the extension of boundaries. The minister will know of this, because when sitting in opposition he was well aware of many contentious boundary-extension and incorporation issues within municipalities. I don't think, in all the time I spent in local government, I came across any issue that was more contentious than the restructuring of the municipality.
It's contentious because those people who live within the boundaries of the municipality want to have full authority to vote. Obviously, the inclusion of any new area is going to impact upon their tax base -- possibly favourably, possibly negatively. Similarly, the people who are being included into that municipality often have a desire to remain outside the boundaries. They may find that the proposition for boundary extension originated within the municipality, not within the community to be affected. As a result, we have to take a vote. The question is -- and that is not clear in this bill, at least not from my reading of it, and I'd be happy to get into this in committee stage: who gets to vote on that decision? This is a very important philosophical question. It's a problem for those of us who try to be purists in this sense, by saying we have to be fair and equitable to all people who may be affected.
But here's the dilemma. Say you have a municipality with a population of 5,000 that wishes to incorporate a community with a population of roughly 500, and that municipality decides that the population who live in that community of 500 has a tax base that may be stimulated as a result of a pulp mill or some other kind of industry located there, and that provides a desirable tax base for that municipality to annex and take advantage of. Then it's in the interests of the municipality to initiate restructuring; it is in the interest of the taxes on the tax base of the population of the 5,000 to annex and incorporate those 500 people. But it may be directly to the financial disadvantage and completely against the interests of the community of 500 to be incorporated.
[8:00]
The way this bill reads is that, essentially on a request of the council or municipality, all or part of which is within the area, the minister can initiate -- or may even on his own initiative, it says in this bill -- the incorporation of a new municipality that would include a boundary extension. It therefore would extend the boundaries or annex that community. It clearly says here in section 22, on the extension of boundaries, that the very same process can occur without the creation of a new municipality, but essentially on the recommendation of the minister -- and in fact, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can initiate that annexation and that extension of the boundary.
I have some serious problems with that, because there has to be some protection for those 500 people who may be in a small unincorporated or disorganized area -- maybe within a regional district. There has to be some protection for those people who have chosen to live in an unorganized area; who do not wish to be subjected to bylaws and land use regulations that exist within a municipal jurisdiction; who may not wish to be subjected to the kind of constraints that may be in place on land use; or more importantly, because it's more often the case, who enjoy a more rural lifestyle and do not want to be subjected to the kind of development pressures that will occur as a result of more lenient bylaws within a municipality. There has to be some protection for those communities, and there is none here.
It is a very contentious issue -- and I have a bit of a dilemma with this myself because I try to be a purist on this to make sure that we are fair to all people -- because if you argue that only those 500 get to vote, then presumably those 500 may block the entry of their lands into that municipality. Here is my dilemma: if only those 500 vote and they vote for inclusion into the municipality, they may in fact negatively impact the tax base because of road construction, road maintenance and policing. All those other kinds of things are going to change as a result of the 500 joining the 5,000. Therefore, how do you deny the 5,000 the right to allow them to come in? Because ultimately, if the 500 vote to say yes, presumably the 5,000 should have the opportunity, if they so choose, to vote to say no. In looking at this particular section of the bill, I have some recommendations to amend this section that would make the process more fair and more equitable. There's an attempt at it, and frankly I am delighted to see that there is an attempt to suggest that there has to be a process that deals first with the vote in favour of change and then any subsequent movement on that change. I think we can tighten that up, and I'd like to get at that when we get into the committee stage of the bill.
How about elections and election day? Well, there is nobody who is a stronger and more vocal advocate and proponent for a fixed election day than the person on his feet speaking today, and that's myself. I am most in favour of a fixed election day. Not only would I like to see a fixed election day for the municipalities in the Municipal Act, but I think it should also be in the provincial Election Act so we can have a fixed election date for this assembly so that we don't have the kind of politicking that goes on. A fixed election day is something that all British Columbians could look forward to, especially with this government opposite. If we were to set that date, I think most people would circle it on the calendar and would look forward to it with great anticipation.
Hon. B. Barlee: We'll see.
G. Wilson: The Minister of Agriculture says: "We'll see." I don't know, maybe he believes in miracles. We'll see as time progresses.
If we are going to look at electoral reform, deciding a voting day, which is cited under section 37, is something that I think all of us would welcome. I know there was a bit of a discussion as to whether two years or three years is best for the municipality. With all due respect to those who were involved in that debate, I think you have to be elected to council to know the value of a three-year term of office. Quite frankly, two years is too short in my judgment. The first year you're learning the ropes, the second year you're trying to get re-elected,
[ Page 7752 ]
and there is relatively little time to actually get the work of the electorate done. I think three years is also a cheaper process.
I do think that one of the difficulties with that is that we're likely to change councils wholesale all over the province in one fell swoop. It does perhaps create a hiatus in that sense, and we might want to look at some kind of mid-term election process. But clearly, unless the mayor is up for election, there is often very little interest in the process. It is perhaps a spinoff from American electoral politics, where you tend to look to the leader of a particular party or a movement.
I fully endorse and could not concur more strongly with the member for Richmond-Steveston when he says that partisan political parties should stay out of municipal politics. It is most unfortunate that we have partisan political parties such as the urban New Democrat movement, and I hope that we never see an urban Liberal movement.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The NPA.
G. Wilson: The member opposite is saying: "The NPA." He and I would have a lengthy debate as to whether or not that is Liberal, and we will talk about that. That is clearly another issue we would want to look at -- whether it is philosophically and intellectually Liberal or something else. Now for something completely different, we introduce the NPA. I don't think introduction of partisan politics at this level serves the public interest -- I couldn't agree with the member for Richmond-Steveston more.
Generally speaking, I would agree that the revisions are good. However, where financial support is given I would like to see a much stricter and more enforceable public declaration of support. If I look to the sections of the bill that deal with that, I think we have taken an excellent first step in the right direction, but I don't think we go anywhere near far enough. I would like to see a full disclosure. It's something that I feel very strongly about. I'm sure that all people who seek public office in the province -- especially those who might seek to lead a provincial party -- would fully disclose every dollar provided to them by any party at any time so that we all know who is financing whose campaigns, and we know exactly who has the strings attached to those politicians. I can say that, having no strings. There are those who would say: "Well, that's because you have no money." If that's true, that makes me a truly independent politician, albeit a poor one.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's not what Murray Pezim says.
G. Wilson: I wouldn't touch that comment, or even attempt to.
I think the electoral reform provisions are good. However, there are some areas with respect to electoral reform -- especially the question of costs of elections and how those election costs might be looked at, particularly in light of by-elections and the general financing of by-elections, which may be caused by resignation or other issues that might be looked at.... One difficulty we have in municipalities and regional districts -- and maybe regional districts more so -- is that they are often discouraged from the by-election process because of costs incurred to their communities. Elections in rural regions are not cheap. They are not cheap in urban centres, but they are less cheap in rural areas, often as a result of distances and travel and so on. We might want to look at some sections in there to provide some kind of relief for widespread rural regions where travel and the movement of ballot boxes and those kinds of things are issues. I would like to get into that in committee stage as well.
The other provision comes back to the question of this sort of dual voting status. I'm not clear on this, so I'm not going to make an issue of it in second reading. But I do want to get some explanation in committee stage, with respect to the referendum process and the eligibility to vote in a referendum, as to whether or not that process is the same as in the election of your representatives to government. Where money bills are up, and if there is a provision for specified area election -- and for those people who have been involved in municipal politics, you will know what we're talking about -- the specified area may be a designated area where a referendum is taking place to spend money on a particular development, be it a sewer, a water system or something else, and it may be a specified area within an unorganized area within a regional district that has more resident than non-resident voters -- i.e., property electors. I have some serious difficulty with that process. Often the direct impact of any kind of improvement is going to be for those who are paying property tax, not the residents who are simply in a rental situation paying no tax on that property. Therefore the development, if there's a long-term amortization of a sewer system or a water system, may incur to the property owner a great deal more burden than to those who may have a definitive yes or no but who are not owners of the property.
A case in point, if I may just use my riding as an example, is the Sakanaw Lake area, which is a most spectacular and beautiful area. A large number of property owners who originally leased land from the province on long-term leases have now purchased that land from the Crown and have residential property. The development opportunities there have expanded dramatically as a result of fee simple ownership. There is a demand on the regional district to put in systems for water and sewer to be able to support that development. That cost has to be borne by somebody. If we're actually going to get into that kind of water system and sewer system in those regions, who has to foot the bill? Is it going to be specified into those other areas that are adjacent to them but not connected? Or can we specify that area and have non-resident property electors deal with it? And if that's the case, what is the burden on the residential taxpayers, who are then going to have to pick up the tab for that long-term cost, even though they receive no benefit from the water or sewer system themselves?
This is a major issue. It's fundamental to the problems of municipal tax collection. People pay enormous sums of money in property taxes. If I can use
[ Page 7753 ]
my experience in the regional district, I know that there are large blocks of rural land on which the land taxes have been escalating annually and yet the service has not been escalating at all. In fact, in many instances they would argue that they receive nothing other than the planning function. They are possibly paying a levy because of a swimming pool or some recreational facility in their region. So we have to take some issue with that.
Furthermore, we have to take some issue with adjacent aboriginal land and residential property tenants who are leasing aboriginal land in areas adjacent to municipalities. This new voting structure will deny them the right to vote anywhere, and that's a problem for me. We in this province, and I hope in this country, adhere to a very fundamental principle that there is no taxation without representation. And yet, while I'm certain it's not the intention of this bill, I think it's a consequence of this bill that, under non-resident or property elector, there are problems for people in long-term lease situations. This tends to eliminate their right to vote. When we get into the committee stage, I'd like to talk about that, because I think it is a significant and major problem.
[8:15]
So, hon. Speaker, I think there are many excellent first steps in Bill 35. A lot of good work has gone into the bill. It's an enormous bill, one that takes a lot more than 20 minutes or a half an hour to synthesize and to speak to. There are areas where I and members of the Liberal caucus have some serious concerns. We would like to pick up and deal with those concerns in committee stage. I can assure the minister that there will be a very thorough and very detailed canvass in committee stage of every section of this bill so that we can make sure that what is effectively put in place does not disfranchise any of the electors in the province of British Columbia, whether they own property or not.
J. Tyabji: This is a very big bill that I look forward to dealing with the details of in committee stage, and at the end of my speech I'm going to congratulate the minister on some of the specifics of the bill that I think are long overdue. But I thought that I would bring a different perspective to the debate, and I did a little bit of research. The one part of the bill that I'm personally trying to determine just how I feel about is the introduction of partisan politics into the municipal and local levels of government elections. The argument can be made that to a large extent partisan politics has existed for a long time in many jurisdictions, and that what we are seeing now is a recognition of that and an open declaration of that, and some accountability and the ability to put that on the ballot.
What I decided I'd like to introduce to the debate is a little bit of research that I did on the largest population centre in the province, and the different what we'd call non-partisan groups that aren't constituted as provincial parties, in an effort to find out the motivation of the minister for introducing partisan politics into local government. It's in addressing the principle of that that I'd like to read into the record some of the research that I did into the background of the bill. I believe that I have discovered the minister's motivation for this and, in coming to terms with the principle behind it -- and the determination of whether or not that existed -- I'd like to share this with the House.
There was a paper done by an Andrea Barbara Smith, a thesis that she submitted in 1976, The Origins of the NPA: A Study in Vancouver Politics, 1930-1940. As we're all aware, this is one of the groups that I believe is being targeted by the section of the act that talks about partisan politics. This paper talks about the fact that the NPA arose out of a response to the CCF benefiting from the move from a ward system to general elections. Of course, we see in this bill as well that the ward system can now be introduced by a simple vote rather than going to a referendum. I believe that too goes back to this argument about where we ended up with the NPA and TEAM and COPE. She says:
"This thesis attempts to explain the emergence and success of 'non-partisan politics in Vancouver in the 1930s.' It contends that the formation of the Non-Partisan Association in 1937 hinged on the structural change in municipal government from a ward system to an at-large system in 1935; and further, that the NPA was the defensive reaction of provincial Liberals and Conservatives to the success of the CCF in municipal politics under the new system."
I think it's interesting that in this bill we see not only what we call the blatant introduction of partisan politics, but also the ability for the ward system to be introduced by a simple majority of council rather than by referendum. We do know that we saw in question period today some attempt to bring that forward in terms of the preference of this government to go to a ward system. So that's in the record.
There's a large debate underway across Canada on the introduction of partisan politics in the urban setting. In the continued pursuit of what the motivation would be for the minister, I found a quote that I'd like to share, about the surveys that were done of American cities where partisan politics and non-partisan politics were studied in different jurisdictions to see what the result of the voting was, and how people vote in a non-partisan setting as opposed to a partisan setting. This is what we found out:
"The results of non-partisan elections in U.S. cities have been well documented. The participation rate of the lower classes is cut lower than the rate of the middle and upper classes, who are more sophisticated and who don't rely on the party to cue their vote. For those who do vote, other reference points are used such as one's religion or ethnic background, one's neighbourhood or the familiarity of the name. Disorganized non-partisan politics makes it more difficult to legislate a program of politics, and in general for city government to innovate.
"Our point is that when moving from a non-partisan to a partisan system, parties have to overcome the inertia of some of these voting habits, but some parties can do it more easily than others. In effect, donning the party label means that elites are changing their relationship with the voter to make it easier for him to choose among alternative candidates. But the NDP was able to make contact with the voter and overcome the inertia of the past far more easily than the Liberals. Why?
"We can only answer this question after looking at profiles of the polls which tended to vote NDP and
[ Page 7754 ]
Liberal tickets. At least one voter in the poll voted for two or more candidates from the same party. The group of Liberal polls are obviously better-heeled. Four of the eight polls are the silk stocking wards running north along Yonge Street. It should be remembered that the incidence of ticket-voting is still very slight among Liberals, relative to the NDP. The group of NDP polls are at the other end of the socioeconomic scale."
That is an interesting observation about Canadian politics: when comparing non-partisan and partisan municipal elections, the NDP has done extremely well in a partisan election, as opposed to when the party affiliation is not attached to a candidate. So I think we're getting to....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear "What's wrong with that?" coming from the NDP benches. Yes, well, I see that. And it's interesting, too, that it does break down by socio-economic class. So in a continued look for the motivation of the minister in the introduction of partisan politics....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: This is Emerging Party Politics in Urban Canada; those statistics were from Toronto.
The minister, I guess, wants it to come closer to home, which leads me to my next dissertation -- an article that I know many of the people in this House are familiar with. It was written by Paul Tennant and Robert Easton, and it's called "Vancouver Civic Party Leadership Backgrounds, Attitudes and Non-Civic Affiliations." It has extensive surveys of voter patterns and the demographics of the people who support these different groups. Although in theory we haven't had partisan local elections for the last ad infinitum, if you look at the way the lower mainland municipal elections have broken down into NPA, COPE and TEAM, we find three separate groups that break down to some degree along the lines of ideology and demographics in terms of income and the way they tend to vote. What's interesting is that the group that benefited most from a non-partisan affiliation with the candidate was the Non-Partisan Association, and the group that did not benefit at all from the lack of partisan labelling was the NDP. Of course, the Liberals were somewhere in the middle, depending on the candidate and the issue.
From "Recruitment and Political Perception of Urban Politicians," I just want to read some of the demographics of NPA, TEAM and COPE into the record. It's interesting, because it shows us where the support has been coming from for these non-partisan groups -- or what we would deem to be non-partisan groups -- and that tends to indicate why the minister was so keen on introducing partisan politics into this bill. There are eight classifications of voters in this. In the first one -- lawyers, schoolteachers, university professors, engineers, dentists and accountants -- we find that there's a relatively small percentage of these professionals in the NPA. It hovers around 20 percent, up to 23.4 percent. In TEAM, which is the one that would be more or less left-wing liberal, I guess you'd call it, 39.5 percent are professionals. And in COPE, about a third of them are professionals. So we find that there are a lot of professionals gravitating toward TEAM and COPE and some of them toward the NPA -- 20 percent in the NPA are lawyers.
But then we get into the second classification. This is an interesting statistic: 50 percent of the people who support the NPA are proprietors, managers and officials of large firms. I thought that was interesting. There's a lot of money there. I'm glad to see some disclosure coming out on that. TEAM, the one in the middle ground, is 15.8 percent -- not a big percentage -- and COPE, which is sort of the NDP recruiting group there, is zero. I thought that was interesting.
In terms of the third classification -- the semi-professionals, which is social workers, brokers, librarians and clergymen -- there are none in COPE and none in the NPA. They are right in the middle; 18.4 percent of TEAM is made up of that group. Basically, all the semi-professionals ended up in the middle.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is asking what my thesis is. My thesis is pretty clear. It's pretty clear that the motivation for the introduction of partisan politics into this is that the NDP is going to be specifically benefited by the introduction of partisan politics.
The thesis that was written in 1976 that contended that the NPA was a reaction to the CCF is now the NDP's opportunity to get back at all the people who took away its ward system, and who have been more or less oppressing its members in the local election system by not labelling them for what they are.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I thought the minister would have a bit of fun with this. I think it is important to reveal for the world what the motivations of the NDP are in having the partisan affiliation attached.
We go down the list of the eight professions, and proprietors, managers and officials of small firms basically all end up in the NPA as well. As we go toward partisan politics, one might argue that those who are least financially benefited in the local elections will be most benefited by the partisan designation. This document, I would wager, was probably one of the things that the minister spent a lot of time with, in terms of trying to figure out what kind of disclosure rules should be introduced with this bill, and to what extent there should be partisan indication at the local level. That's a dramatic change. The way that it is a dramatic change, when we look at some of this literature, is not that it hasn't been going on. The dramatic change is that now it will be very obvious, and we will be now affiliating....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister says it will be upfront, open and -- honest, I'm not so sure. It's still politics, and we know what kind of reputation politics has for honesty.
[ Page 7755 ]
The Speaker is leaning toward her microphone, and I think she is about to call me out of order. I have all sorts of interesting statistics here, and it's....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I am talking about electoral process, and about the minister's motive for introducing....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I guess I won't have time to mention the religious breakdown, and the fact that 76 percent of the NPA is Protestant. I think that's an interesting designation at a time when we're getting toward this government's political correctness. I will put that aside so that I'm not called out of order.
I also have the original....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Actually, this is quite relevant, and I don't think I will be called out of order on this. This is the original pamphlet of the NPA, and the reason that it's relevant is that what I have found -- and this goes to the argument that we may actually have already been dealing with....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: It's from the library.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: It's called research. You might want to learn about research.
What I find interesting is that -- going back to the contention that we actually have been dealing with party politics in municipal government for many years -- this document from November 1933 says something that was news to me in researching it to try to find out if there's a link between what the minister is trying to introduce now and what we have had in the past. It says the non-partisan group started off as a provincial party. I didn't know that. I thought it was always a vehicle of the municipal elections. But it talks about things -- it's actually a bit disheartening to see -- tha we're still talking about today. "Party politics and the rule of political machines having brought government in British Columbia to its present intolerable state...." It sounds a little familiar. But in this, since we see that this was a provincial party originally.... We have been dealing with partisan politics for a long time. I understand that the NDP has a grudge match that they are going to have to make up with the NPA, and that is why we have that part of the bill.
There are two other sections of the bill that I want to talk about briefly, which won't be as much fun, but at least it will be more in order and I won't be getting funny looks from the Speaker.
I wish the Minister of Women's Equality was here, because the latest international studies show that less than 10 percent of the property owned in the world is owned by women. When we start to talk about who gets to vote when you have more than one person owning a property, it is quite likely that a woman could be a shareholder in a property, and if there is only one vote accorded to the group or partnership or whatever it is that owns the property....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is trying to say that it would balance out. I don't think so. I would like to see what the Minister of Women's....
[8:30]
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: No, I don't think so either. The point I am trying to make is that if a woman actually gets to the point where she is a shareholder in a property, whether it is commercial or private, the likelihood of her being the one person who gets to vote in the election is pretty slim. That is the first thing that struck me when I realized that there was going to be a group of people deciding who gets to vote. I would be really interested to find out what the Minister of Women's Equality has to say about that, considering the fact that in terms of property voters -- we have two classes, property voters and eligible voters -- and property rights, less than 10 percent of the property ownership in the world can be designated to women in the first place. So I do think that that is a further disadvantage that they're going to be battling.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: It would be interesting to see what the statistics are in North America. I would be very curious to track the property voters and find out what percentage of the owners are women and what percentage of those women end up being property voters.
Another thing that I would like to bring up with regard to this bill is local autonomy in constructing a municipality. In that respect, I am talking about the section regarding resource extraction that has been changed. In the past, if you had a group of people....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: It's the section regarding resource extraction and a municipality coming together for the purpose of -- I don't want to use the word exploiting, because that's the wrong word -- basically taking the opportunity of working with the resources.... It used to be a locally driven process where a minimum of five residents could say: "We want to constitute ourselves as a governing body." They could then make application to the minister and start the constitution. They would be designated a village, and they had X amount of time. Now we find the heavy hand of government is coming in again and saying: "No, you can't decide for yourself; it's up to the minister." The minister hasn't really addressed what the rationale for that was. I think it's
[ Page 7756 ]
unfortunate. It takes away the ability of a group of people struggling to get some local government together for land use management, health designation or whatever it might be....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: We don't always agree. It's a little difficult when the minister is.... I wish the minister could get back into the debate.
In that case, it is unfortunate because I think there is an opportunity.... There is no avenue within this bill, as I read it anyway, for them to appeal to the minister. It's basically the minister's discretion that decides that.
With regard to some of things in this bill that are good, although I spent a lot of time talking about the making obvious of partisan affiliations in municipal....
H. Giesbrecht: It has always been there.
J. Tyabji: I agree that it has always been there, but the extent....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, just to address the backbenchers who never have the courage to get up and debate for themselves but are always willing to heckle, I say: "Heckle at your peril, because you have no voice or vote of your own."
What I want to say to the backbencher who missed the point is that, although there has always been intervention of groups which can be considered partisan -- most specifically the Non-Partisan Association, which was constituted as a party as we see in the pamphlet -- we've never seen the ability of a large organization to intrude in the municipal process. That is new. Although many people knew that blatant funding was going on for a long time, it was never overt. There is a difference. Every study that's out right now shows that there is a difference, that attaching a partisan label is going to make a difference. And what a coincidence! It tends to favour the NDP.
Having said that, I want to give some kudos to this minister. I look forward to some of the bills where we won't be giving him any kudos, but there are a few things in this bill that he should be thanked for. One is the fact that there are better provisions for the disabled. I think that's very good -- some flexibility for voting by shut-ins. That's a big plus. The fact that both a tick and an X will be acceptable is long overdue and a welcome change. That's something that I think many voters were very frustrated by. It's extremely welcome to see disclosure of campaign financing. I have a real problem, though, with his two classifications of voters, which I think we'll address more in committee stage; I'm interested in canvassing that specifically.
I'm trying to see if I can find anything else good to say about this bill.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: It is a big bill. Oh, I am happy to see the conflict-of-interest changes in this, because I know of one specific example that was not in the best interests of the community. About a year and a half or two years ago we had an incident in a small town that was unfortunate. So it's nice to see that addressed in this bill.
L. Fox: Name names.
J. Tyabji: Well, I'm looking through the list of things. I don't know that there's a lot more to say that's positive.
I congratulate the minister on putting together this big bill. I look forward to committee stage. I especially want to canvass in great depth the introduction of the partisan element. I think that that is going to have the largest impact on future elections. I think it's also interesting -- and I'll conclude with this -- that in this day and age there's a very large movement away from partisan politics, not just municipally but provincially and federally.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I'd say most specifically in this chamber -- with the exception of the government party.
It's interesting that in this day and age of a great cry for electoral reform that moves us away from partisan politics and into a more grass-roots, populist style of doing things, we see that all the evidence has been ignored in this bill, which is unfortunate. I'll be interested to see how the dynamics of this change. What I would prefer to see happen is something a little bit more radical, where perhaps we reform the provincial system to move away from partisan politics, rather than reforming the municipal to move closer toward it.
With that, I conclude my comments.
The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm going to refrain from responding to most of the comments tonight because, as most members have said, we can address them in committee. But I cannot resist making the comment that with most of the people who spoke tonight, from both opposition parties and within the same party, most times the next speaker disagreed in some way with the previous speaker in terms of the context or the issues of the bill. I think what it really shows is how difficult it is to achieve consensus on something like this kind of legislation. As a matter of fact, I think the Liberal opposition will probably have to go and talk to themselves, because the Liberal critic...
An Hon. Member: They only talk to themselves.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's right.
...may be interested in some of the views given by some of his colleagues. But I want to put it in a positive light. It really shows that when it comes to this kind of legislation and trying to achieve consensus, it's very difficult. I think one member actually did say that there
[ Page 7757 ]
was no real right or wrong in this kind of legislation. It was different interpretations and different approaches to this legislation.
I just want to quickly comment on the last speaker's comments about partisan politics at the local level. There was a sort of thesis approach, an academic kind of approach, to the topic, which was kind of interesting for this time of night. The member did say at the beginning of her comments that it's been there a long time and she could understand why it's done, but she then accused us of bringing partisan politics to the local level. I suspect, hon. member, that you should take a look at your comments, because there's somewhat of a conflict there. You're saying that somehow we have introduced partisan politics, yet you said at the beginning of your comments that it has always been there.
Quite frankly, I think we're going to get recognition in this province for being open and honest and recognizing it's there. It can now be put on the ballot. The citizens themselves can make a decision on who they vote for. If they don't like people running under that sort of situation, they won't vote for that kind of person. But we're being open and upfront about that.
There are many other things here about election expenses and some of the questions raised by my colleagues, including the member for Prince George-Omineca. We will look at them and discuss them in committee stage. On that note, I close debate and move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 35, Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I thank all my colleagues for their contributions tonight and look forward to third reading debate. I wish everybody a good evening and move the House do now adjourn.
Hon. R. Blencoe moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:44 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)
On vote 27: minister's office, $325,600 (continued).
D. Jarvis: I believe you have your representatives on the energy end of your ministry here today in full force.
[2:45]
We can start off, then, by going into cogeneration. Could you tell me what is on line in the way of cogeneration plants in the province? What proposals have been brought forward in the last little while? What do you expect them to do in the future?
The Chair: Hon. minister, on the part of the question that does not require philosophizing on the future.
Hon. A. Edwards: I assume that's a warning or at least a caution as to what you would like.
The Chair: It's a mild caution.
Hon. A. Edwards: What we have here is basically a list of energy projects that are in review. They include TPAC at Savona. I don't know whether the member would like some detail on what kind of plant is proposed. This one would be somewhere between 155 and 225 megawatts -- a combined cycle gas turbine plant. There is Weyerhaeuser at Kamloops, 50 megawatts, wood waste co-gen; Pacific Electric Power Corp. at Port Alberni, 212 megawatts, gas-fired combined cycle co-gen plant; the Duke Point project at Nanaimo which would generate 60 megawatts, very simply described as cogeneration; Cogenis, a Fibreco natural gas co-gen at Taylor, 125 megawatts; the Cowichan co-gen project at Cowichan; and the North Vancouver co-gen, which, as you probably know, is 77 to 120 megawatts of natural gas cogeneration.
I'd like to add the one that seems to be ahead of the group and therefore I missed it. That is the Crows Nest cogeneration project in the Crows Nest Pass, which would generate 135 megawatts with natural gas co-gen combined cycle.
D. Jarvis: Are these all under consideration or have any of them been approved at this point?
Hon. A. Edwards: All of these are in review. There are three nearly existing co-gens. Howe Sound Pulp and Paper exists and Williams Lake, a wood waste project, is just starting. It would always be foolish to forget that most pulp mills generate some of their own electricity and steam requirements. I don't know if you're thinking of those or of the projects that are currently under review for generation of electricity in excess of the needs in the plant.
[ Page 7758 ]
D. Jarvis: I know that other applications have been forwarded. I wonder what your feeling is toward people, like the person up in Lytton, who want to produce cogeneration for their own use and sell the surplus to the grid. There's them, ANG in Alberta and quite a few others throughout the province. What is your ministry's position on those that are prepared to come on when they get your word?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Lytton project, I understand, is very small but fairly expensive, and it is not currently being approved for continuing in any process by B.C. Hydro. So it is a special situation that is different from the ones I was talking about.
I'm not sure how broad an answer you want to your question. We have put forward policy for independent power producers throughout British Columbia. We've put forward a policy for domestic production. B.C. Hydro has laid out a full-scale direction that they must go in if they want to provide power to B.C. Hydro, and the policy says that new resources will be required on the basis of need. In other words, unless Hydro needs the power, they will not be solicited. We expect that there will be a role for independent power producers in domestic power supply. All new resources will be evaluated on a social-costing basis, and we're working very hard at that. We, of course, have said that we're bringing out an electricity export policy in the very near future, and independent power producers will be involved in what we announce there too.
D. Jarvis: So, if an applicant for a co-gen plant doesn't require all the power for his own needs and has surplus power, is it the government's position that they will not give them an application on that premise, simply because Hydro has no need for it on the grid?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think the hon. member must look at this for a minute from the viewpoint of the power consumer in British Columbia, who pays the cost of producing power in B.C. If B.C. Hydro were to accept any amount of power, the cost to the consumer could be considerably increased. So it was decided that B.C. Hydro simply will not solicit or accept power from anyone, unless there is a proven demand for that power.
D. Jarvis: I'll go back to the Lytton power project, for example. I've had information from them saying that they require additional power to run their business. They've shown me graphs and charts where they have shortages of power -- brownouts -- and this is affecting their business and the way they operate. If they had a cogeneration plant they would be able to supplement these brownouts and shortages of power. It's not just once; it happens every year, from the charts -- sort of Gantt charts of it -- I've seen. It goes from month to month, from day to day, and they're having shortages. Why should they not be able to have a cogeneration plant?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Lytton situation is definitely different, and we've spent a lot of time looking at the proposal for the Lytton wood waste plant. But B.C. Hydro assures us that the problems they are encountering in the system at Lytton can be addressed in ways that are much less expensive, as they see it right now, than having that plant necessarily go ahead. There are a number of things they can do. For example, they could relocate poles so they don't get hit by trucks; that has been one of the problems with the outages. There was some concern about where the fellow lived who answers the emergency calls -- and so on. A number of things can be done in that area that do not seem to justify the call for a plant and the acceptance by B.C. Hydro of a certain amount of generation for which they cannot prove a need.
D. Jarvis: What about Fording's plant? Is there any suggestion that you may approve Fording's application?
Hon. A. Edwards: Fording does not have an application before us. Fording has had a number of plans, and those plans have been worked on for a considerable number of years. I have worked very hard with Fording to ensure that they are in a position to make application to the government about ways in which they can proceed. They decided at one point that they would simply withdraw their proposals and not go ahead with them. Recent talks I've had with them indicate that they may decide to go ahead again with a proposal, and I would certainly be pleased if they would do that.
D. Jarvis: I understand that the reason why they withdrew before was that they were denied to start with.
In any event, I want to ask you about the Energy Council, its proposal for energy export and the recommended ten-year clause. I have talked with various outfits -- Fletcher Challenge, for example, and a few of those -- and they feel that ten years is not a suitable time. They cannot finance their projects, and the capital involved, over a ten-year period. It was suggested that you had suggested that perhaps this would be readdressed, and upped to maybe 20 years, or 15 at a minimum. Have you made any decision on that aspect?
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I believe this would be an appropriate time to remind the committee of the necessity to debate through the Chair.
Hon. A. Edwards: This is awkward because, as we have said, we expect to release our policy very soon. Obviously, this is something that is about to come -- this is future policy. However, I am not trying to be coy about this at all. The ten-year term definitely was a point that we recognized right from the beginning would be a matter that would be controversial. We have canvassed this issue very extensively so that we will be ready to put out our policy. We certainly understand that the position of the industry is that it's very difficult to get financing for a contract with a ten-year term or for anything much less than approximately 20 years. So there is certainly some elasticity there. The council told
[ Page 7759 ]
us that the terms for contracts being signed in the U.S. in particular are diminishing. That compares with the fact that the National Energy Board allows 30-year contracts. That was the old way of doing it. We are going to try to reflect reality and balance.
[3:00]
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister -- which is, I believe, if you will check Hansard, what I have said every time I have stood up this afternoon....
The Chair: Hon. member, the difficulty comes with the choice of the pronoun used later on in the questioning. Thank you very much.
D. Jarvis: Too much of "you" and not enough of you.
The Chair: We are going to have a good time this afternoon, I can tell.
D. Jarvis: Madam minister, can you tell me how many FTEs there are now on the Energy Council that was created last year, other than the directors who were originally appointed?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Energy Council currently has six full-time positions.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister -- through you, Mr. Chairman: have they just the six commissioners and no one else on staff?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are six commissioners, but only the chair is full-time. There are five other full-time employees.
R. Neufeld: I want to go into a few things in the Energy Council's report on electricity export review, under recommendation Ni. 3: "...no new high-voltage transmission rights-of-way be developed or prebuilt for export except for grid connections for new projects." Maybe the minister could explain that more fully for me. I have read the explanations further back, but would that facilitate high-voltage transmission lines to return electricity from the Columbia River and the Kootenays to Vancouver, to where the electricity is needed?
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, let me tell you the background to the recommendation. The people of British Columbia have been somewhat antsy about the export of electricity. They have been highly suspect of paying the price of the development in order to export the product. So this is the first time that the public has said fairly clearly that they would approve the export of electricity -- if, in fact, there were significant conditions attached to it. One of the concerns that they have is the issue of transmission lines. So what the Energy Council said in response to that real concern was that there should be some restriction on building transmission lines for export, because that, again, is an issue.
On your second question, that basically depends on what happens with the entitlement. If the province decided after negotiations that we would accept a physical return, yes, of course, that would have to be taken care of within the context of our policy.
R. Neufeld: Then that recommendation would allow for transmission lines to be built from the Columbia Valley to Vancouver. Is that what I understood the minister to say? I understand that it's under negotiation whether we are going to take the power back or whether we are going to continue to sell it.
Hon. A. Edwards: This has a number of points of light, I hope. The hon. member would know that we have also said we will look at the possibility, if we were to take the power back, of having it returned to points other than Oliver. There are all sorts of possibilities that could happen with the negotiations. But as I say, whatever happens would have to take place within the policy of the government.
R. Neufeld: Number four was another issue: no export project to be subsidized by government or electricity ratepayers. There was a fairly long explanation about it, and quite a few different viewpoints. I would say probably the majority of people said that the users of electricity from B.C. Hydro should not be subsidizing any new facility to generate electricity. I understand that.
But there was also quite a concern from a lot of the environmental people about wood waste. The cost of generating electricity from wood waste, in most cases, is higher than either by water or by gas. To facilitate that, and to be able to use our wood waste in some areas in an environmentally friendly way -- instead of just burning it in the burners as we do now -- there may have to be some subsidy. I wonder what your ministry's response is to how we're going to handle that. I know it's also part of the Minister of Environment's ministry, but your ministry must have a stand on how we are going to look at generating electricity from wood waste. It would make sense to me if, instead of just burning it in beehive burners, we could generate electricity, even if we had to subsidize it a bit.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure that we don't have two parts to this question. First, I think that it was very clear that the public said to the Energy Council that they do not want to bear higher costs for their electricity because we are exporting electricity out of the province, that the consumers should not subsidize the export of electricity. There are a number of recommendations out of the council that are based on that understanding from the public.
To move on from there to the issue of wood waste, we are doing a considerable amount of work on social costing of projects. We have said that every kind of project should have the opportunity to compete on the market for the sale of electricity. It doesn't matter whether it's coal -- some people have a real feeling that coal shouldn't exist -- gas, hydro or whatever it is, and
[ Page 7760 ]
then it should be costed on a social-costing basis, which brings into account environmental and social impacts that are not normally considered in costing. We have found with the work that we have done through the Utilities Commission, through the Energy Council, through B.C. Hydro and our own ministry, of course, that wood-waste plants would probably get a considerable edge. In fact, I think that process will very clearly address the issue of wood-waste plants.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister says. We have to get coal, natural gas and wood waste together and deal with them in the whole scope, so that we don't just section one out. I was afraid that the ministry might be thinking just about wood waste, because it is more expensive to generate, and so would require a bit of a subsidy. But now I understand that the ministry's position is that they will take all of those areas into consideration, and the benefit there will be to the province as a whole. I think that's a positive way to look at that problem. If we can, we want to be able to generate electricity with our natural gas here in British Columbia, and then send our electricity down south. I would much rather do a lot more of that, because it would provide a lot of revenue for government and jobs. Jobs are what we really need, as we said last night; they're on everyone's mind. So doing those kinds of things makes good sense to me, instead of exporting raw natural gas or coal, or just burning our wood waste.
I'll just go on to one other area, and then the member for Peace River South also wants to ask a few questions on it. We talked to the Minister of Labour in regard to B.C. Hydro and the benefits that he thought would accrue to the Peace River area -- and the Columbia basin, which is, of course, dealt with in this report. I just wonder, from your ministry's standpoint, what benefits can be given to the area to encourage economic development, or to help with fish stocks, or any of those types of things. Has the ministry discussed any of those areas of concern in the Peace, and what are they?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly if we're talking about mitigation, some of the areas in the Peace River watershed have had mitigation funding that makes the people in the Columbia watershed area very envious, if you want to put it that way. There are some funds already there for the mitigation of damage that might have been done to fish and wildlife, and that funding is working its way into a process that satisfies local groups better and better. I hope that's so, and I certainly assume that it would be so.
The electrical systems operation review, announced approximately two weeks ago, will examine how the system operates in the Peace River area. I think it will give a very clear opportunity for people in the regions to tell B.C. Hydro what the problems are with the operation of the system. As well, it will give B.C. Hydro a very clear opportunity to tell the people in the regions what the constraints are on the operation of their system. Altogether, it will then give us the opportunity to see what can be done about the systems operation, and that may well give everyone a better idea of how things could work in the Peace River watershed. Certainly we have had an excellent symposium just this past weekend on the Kootenay and Columbia river systems, and we discussed how Hydro could fit into government economic development plans, and so on. I would very much expect that that same sort of examination will go on in the Peace fairly soon -- that's important. Hydro is such an important part of the geographical area that we've looked at the ways it can be involved in economic development for the future.
R. Neufeld: On one of your remarks about the Peace receiving a whole bunch of benefits that the Columbia would really like to receive, maybe the minister could enlighten me as to what those benefits are. I'm not really sure what the Columbia didn't receive in relation to the Peace.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's a Peace-Williston compensation fund, as I understand. Approximately $2 million every year has been set aside by B.C. Hydro, and it is administered jointly by B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Environment. The goal is to continue having it managed with the input of local groups. Certainly that describes what B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Environment announced last weekend for the Columbia-Kootenay system -- and I was fortunate to be part of that announcement.
[3:15]
As I understand it, the two funds are similar. They're designed to do approximately the same kind of thing. The fund in the Peace River area was begun, and they were working with it before the one in the Columbia. As far as I know, this fund was set up about six or seven years ago in the Peace River area. A number of people were working on it and with it, and there was also some money set aside -- but not on a perpetual basis -- for the Mica reservoir and the Revelstoke reservoir. Now Hydro has announced that it will be a perpetual fund for the Kootenay-Columbia. Because I'm not the minister for Hydro, I can't give you the exact figures on what's happening up in the Peace-Williston area. But it is a matter of interest to those interested in energy policy.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to spend some time today talking about some of the supply issues concerning the generation of electricity in British Columbia. I'm particularly concerned with the lack of action and initiative shown by the government in the area of small electrical generation. It seems to be a tragedy that for the last 18 months we have seen independent power producers discouraged and advised that there was no need for electricity. We have seen cogeneration projects withheld. We have seen the wood waste co-gen program scrapped. I want you to know I had a long list of things that I anticipated would happen when the government changed. The one thing that I never dreamt would happen was that the ministry and the government would abandon the program to convert wood waste into electricity. The minister will know that when she took over as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, there was instruction in place, through the Utilities Commission to Hydro, to pay a
[ Page 7761 ]
premium of up to 25 percent in order to make feasible the generation of electricity from wood waste. I was appalled that the government reversed the decision and took no action in that area. I believe that it is having, and will have, serious consequences for British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could give us some indication of where she sees this issue going. Before that, I would be interested in the rationale for all these projects being put on hold for 18 months.
Hon. A. Edwards: This gives me an opportunity to talk about the broad general picture that existed when we took office about a year and a half ago. We had a situation in British Columbia with B.C. Hydro and a domestic demand that simply was not going to be large enough to accept the kind of development that could be done if all the independent power producers in B.C. did what they were going to do. There was no question that for a number of reasons B.C. Hydro would be able to meet its demands without most of the independent power projects that were proposed.
The export issue was there. It had never been examined by the public in B.C. A policy had been set aside by the member's predecessor as minister. It had been announced that he was going to allow the export of electricity. Nevertheless, no project had yet come to a public hearing, and certainly all the signs were very clear that there was going to be a huge objection to the export of electricity. When we formed government in November, l991, there had been some kind of promise for a 25 percent premium by Hydro, but it hadn't been implemented. That had been increased from 15 percent, which is what had been given in Williams Lake at that project. The figures were more or less, as we saw it, pulled out of the air. There was no particular rationale for giving 15 percent or 25 percent.
We certainly believe that the wood waste projects could be very good projects and that they could address, as they addressed the generation of electricity and the supply and demand situation, the issue of getting rid of wood waste. Whether you choose 15 percent, which you put together after a Premier made a political promise because it was needed, or whether you go to 25 percent because we're coming to an election, there just isn't a rationale for it. So basically what we did was put together a domestic policy, and we also asked the Energy Council to pursue whether or not we should export electricity. That is what we would have to do if we were going to do all the projects that could happen in the province.
The independent power producers, of course, preferred not be delayed. But they did understand the logic of it, which was that if you say you're going to do a project for export -- and most of the people in the province object to exporting electricity -- when your project goes to the Utilities Commission, it will be the lightning rod that draws every flash of electricity in the province. We didn't want that to happen, so we put it through the Energy Council and have been able to put together our policies for domestic purchase from independent power producers. We will be announcing a policy for the export of electricity very soon.
J. Weisgerber: With the minister's indulgence, I would like to deal with export separately, because my primary focus today is on domestic consumption. If I understood the minister correctly, her understanding of the issue when she came to government was that there was excessive supply in the system for domestic consumption; the domestic market in British Columbia simply could not use all of the electricity that was available. Nor could it absorb into the system the electricity that might be generated through expanded use of woodwaste cogeneration, independent power production, small hydro projects -- all of those things. It is my understanding that the minister's belief when she took office -- and apparently it is something she continues to believe -- was that the system and the consumers in British Columbia simply couldn't use all of the available electricity. Did I understand correctly what the minister just said?
Hon. A. Edwards: The plans put forward by B.C. Hydro were very clear that they had already committed to the supply they needed, and that there was no demand for a number of the projects being proposed.
There was a great flurry of proposals by independent power producers. They are a very active and enthusiastic group, and they had all sorts of ideas. They might have been put into a process of spending a lot of money for projects for which they had no market. B.C. Hydro had no market, and we determined that we would want a public process before we allowed the export of electricity. So B.C. Hydro has been very clear in saying that they do not need a great deal of new supply, and that most of the supply they do need has been identified. The independent power producers agreed very clearly that it makes sense that you don't buy power you don't need. That just makes the consumer angry.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, would the minister confirm for me that her understanding of the supply projections by Hydro included the benefits that would be available to Hydro through Kemano 2 and the return of the Columbia River downstream benefits? Would she also confirm that it was because of those two assumptions that Hydro projected that they didn't need the electricity that might be generated from other sources?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, B.C. Hydro's supply and demand plan did include Kemano 2. As you know, Kemano 2 could still be completed. B.C. Hydro made two projections -- one with the return of the downstream benefits and one without -- in its 1992 supply plan. In both cases it showed a surplus.
J. Weisgerber: So the government, the ministry and Hydro were all prepared to gamble on the Kemano 2 project, even while the whole approval process was under review -- I might say, while the whole review process was being questioned by the government itself, or while the government was encouraging questions regarding the approval process. If the minister is absolutely confident that Kemano 2 is going to come on
[ Page 7762 ]
stream in time to meet Hydro's needs, she has a lot more confidence than I have. I think that it is irresponsible for the government to gamble the industrial and residential needs of British Columbia on a project that is being interfered with by the government itself. I would be curious to see the projections by Hydro that saw the domestic demands being met without the return of the downstream benefits. Every projection that I saw, through 1991, showed that British Columbia needed both of those major sources of energy in order to meet its needs. But if I understand it correctly, the minister minister's and the government's position is that we are going to get the electricity from Kemano 2, even though the project is mothballed. Even though the project is shut down, we are going to turn away all the other potential sources of generation because we are absolutely confident that Kemano 2 is going to come on stream, and we are going to have an excess of power. Is that the kind of energy planning that is now in place in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Edwards: I find it interesting that the member has all of a sudden decided that Kemano was in doubt from two years ago or so. The Kemano project has been in Hydro's plans for some considerable length of time. Hydro has agreements that would indicate that Kemano would be part of the supply plan. This government has said it recognizes the legality of the situation that Alcan is in as far as Kemano 2 is concerned, and we are in no way interfering with Alcan going ahead with Kemano 2. What we have initiated is a review of what goes on around that agreement. It is very clear that we understand the agreement, and that we understand it to be a legal agreement. It would be rather foolish to suppose, under those circumstances, that Kemano 2 should be pulled out of the plan.
[3:30]
Nevertheless, B.C. Hydro is initiating a new electricity plan this year in response to events that have happened since they made the last plan. I might also say, however, that in its plan -- the one that existed in 1992 -- it predicts very little demand for additional power from independent power producers over the next ten years. This situation could change if there are further delays in KCP, or if there is a resale of the downstream benefits. And of course, Hydro, in making those statements, also recognized that you can bring on independent power projects fairly quickly, certainly more quickly than you can build a Kemano 2. The time frame for the downstream benefits, if they were returned and used by B.C Hydro -- and as you well know, they do not belong to Hydro; they belong to the province and would have to be permitted to Hydro by the province, if that were the choice -- is quite a distance down the road.
J. Weisgerber: Earlier on, the minister suggested that when she took office, there was some lack of planning: there was no strategic plan, and it was because of that lack that she decided not to go ahead with things like small hydro projects. Let me suggest that it was because of the uncertainty of Kemano 2 and the desire to keep the Columbia River downstream benefits option open that the previous government was encouraging IPPs and wood waste cogeneration.
The minister somehow suggests that somebody pulled out of the air the figure of 25 percent. That's simply not the case, and I don't think a comment like that is particularly complimentary to anybody who was involved in making those decisions. The reality was that the 15 percent was what was needed to get the Williams Lake project going. It was the most cost-effective project in the area. I saw pretty solid evidence to suggest that premiums of up to 25 percent -- not a flat 25 percent, but premiums of between 15 and 25 percent -- would bring on stream generation projects that would use 80 percent of the wood waste in British Columbia and generate 4 percent of our domestic needs. The net result of that would be something less than a 1 percent increase in hydro rates.
That plan was announced. There wasn't a ripple; there wasn't one iota of public resistance to that announcement. Indeed, people were delighted to see an environmentally solid proposal like that go ahead, and I believe were quite willing to pay a modest increase in their hydro rates to accommodate it.
But the important point is that in energy generation planning there has to be some contingency, some accommodation for the unexpected, for the Kemano 2 or for the opportunity to sell downstream benefits for an extended period in a way that's advantageous to the people of British Columbia. It's poor planning to simply string out your generation capacity to the point where any one failure causes a crisis in the system. I don't think it speaks very well of the government's involvement in generation planning.
I believe it was a mistake for the government to have put these projects on hold while Mr. Gathercole went off and studied exports, because we weren't talking about exports. While Mr. Gathercole was doing whatever it was that he and his committee were doing with regard to exports, somebody should have been paying attention to what was happening with domestic consumption in British Columbia. I believe it was a serious tactical mistake not to have allowed the projects that I've mentioned to go ahead.
The thing that disturbs me with all of this is that we now have projections from Hydro that they're going to draw down Williston Lake to as low as 2115 feet. The effect of that will be to leave the entire community of Mackenzie high and dry. It will leave two pulp mills without either water intakes or effluent discharges. It will eliminate the booming of logs on Williston Lake -- a traditional practice -- and the loss of that opportunity will add between $17 and $20 a thousand to lumber costs in Mackenzie. It leaves the municipal sewage system high and dry. All of those things are being done because Hydro doesn't have enough capacity to meet its domestic needs.
How the minister can sit here and tell me of the decision 18 months ago to cancel projects that would have at least contributed to the shortfall that Williston Lake is now being looked to to correct is quite incredible. I will repeat for the minister that my understanding of the wood waste co-gen was that it would have provided about 4 percent of the province's
[ Page 7763 ]
domestic needs. On top of that, natural gas co-gen and other independent and small hydro projects clearly could have added to that 4 percent.
Because Williston Lake is in my constituency and my constituents are directly involved, I've been following this issue quite closely. We're advised that there are no other options for Hydro: they have to draw the lake down 40 feet or more below its historical levels, in order to generate enough electricity to meet about 7 percent of the province's needs.
If there ever was any question about the failure of the government's approach to small independent projects, the drawdown of Williston Lake has to remove that question completely. It clearly proves to me that there was a serious lack of planning around hydro generation. We've heard that it's low snowpack in the Kootenays or along the Columbia or the Peace, or it doesn't rain enough in Williston Lake. But the reality is that the ministry has a responsibility to be able to anticipate those kinds of weather patterns. It's simply not acceptable to say to a community: "We expect you take the summer off, and perhaps the fall, because we miscalculated the amount of electricity we would need and we miscalculated our generation capacity."
Hon. A. Edwards: What we are discussing here is not B.C. Hydro directly, because that's not under my jurisdiction. As far as what B.C. Hydro does as it affects our policy, I will talk a bit about B.C. Hydro, but basically I want to try to stick to what we have done.
You have talked about the issue of subsidizing wood waste projects. You have said that you thought 15 percent was enough to make Williams Lake go, and 25 percent would simply mean a 1 percent increase in hydro rates, and therefore that was acceptable. First of all, to simply choose a project and then decide how much it takes to make that project go is not a reasonable way of doing it, to us. That is why we are looking a social costing. We are looking at how we can allow a number of interested projects to bid on the opportunity -- and there are lots; you have said there are lots and we know there are lots, and in any particular request for proposals and any purchase of power there would have to be -- and know that we are getting the best possible deal.
We have looked at ways of having a comparative costing mechanism. Sometimes it will not be possible to actually have more than one project compared, but we want there to be a comparison with other projects or with a cost that we know about. We have tried to very clearly set up a situation where we will able to select the best project after a reasonable process that looks at the costs -- and more costs than simply the bottom line -- and then applies a subsidy, which may not be needed. There may well be situations where we don't need a subsidy. If we put a 1 percent increase on rates for B.C. Hydro, that is a $20 million subsidy. I don't know what your Finance minister used to say, but ours gets pretty upset when we talk about $20 million. This is something that we don't think is necessary from the consumers.
As I say, we did want to make sure we had social costing so that we could level the playing field. You are talking about contingencies for the domestic supply. The answer to that is that Hydro is meeting its needs and it is operating within its water licences.
There are some major problems coming up with Williston Lake, and although that is definitely not altogether within this ministry's ambit, there are a number of actions that could be taken by forest companies and B.C. Hydro to address the levels. As I understand it, there are meetings going on and some proposals being assessed. There are probably some very short-term actions, as well as some longer-term actions, that could be taken to allow the companies to continue operations as B.C. Hydro meets its needs with the Williston reservoir. It is a problem that I understand didn't develop overnight, and it may take some time solve, as well. It is certainly a serious issue. I know that if it were in my constituency, I would be significantly concerned about it, so I understand that. I hope there are ways to solve some of the problems without forcing Hydro to operate beyond what its licence allows it to do.
Those are interesting issues. It is interesting to talk about domestic supply and how ready B.C. Hydro should be in case of emergencies, if you like, or in situations where their supply expectations have not been met. In some ways it is much more difficult to predict, when you are dealing with independent power projects. You have called them small projects, and they are not what is formally called small projects, so I didn't answer your question. I don't think you meant the less-than-20-megawatt projects. We have done a lot on those, and if you are interested I will respond on that. Basically, as I say, there are some disadvantages to working with smaller projects rather than big dams that create huge amounts of power. There are also some benefits. One is that the incremental amount is smaller, so you can control it a little better, and you can also bring projects on stream quite a bit faster.
A number of studies have been done recently which have indicated that there are huge amounts of power available from wood waste generation if we go into it. I haven't heard from anyone that there is a worry that we would have a short supply of electricity.
J. Weisgerber: We'll go to Mackenzie, because there are some folks there who are worried about what's going to happen with supply and with generation. They see their livelihoods drying up in front of them because the government didn't take action to prevent the drawdown below a level that has never been drawn down to before. I find it incredible that the government would have said 18 months ago that they didn't have a demand sufficient to deal with the current capacity and then go to a community of 5,000 people and say: "We are simply going to have to draw down Williston Lake to a degree that is going to put you out of business." Surely that kind of planning is not what people anticipate either from Crown corporations or from government.
[3:45]
The minister says it's not in her purview, and that those are Hydro decisions. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the decisions around independent power producers, wood waste cogeneration and all
[ Page 7764 ]
those things are directly under the purview of the minister, and that the decisions that were made contributed to this difficulty. The minister obviously didn't take the time to even familiarize herself with the policy that had been announced with regard to wood waste cogeneration. The announcement and the instructions were that Hydro pay up to 25 percent in order to make wood waste cogeneration projects viable. The intent was to burn wood waste in an environmentally sound way -- it was going up in beehive burners and causing pollution problems -- and it was anticipated that each project would identify its costs and the amount of subsidy that was needed. Our advice was that the 25 percent premium at maximum would make it possible to use 80 percent of the wood waste in the province. That would have resulted in a 1 percent rate increase at maximum.
I had to smile at the minister, who would stand up and say that it wasn't acceptable to pass on a 1 percent rate increase to the people of British Columbia, when this minister is part of the cabinet that decided that Hydro rate increases should equal the rate of inflation plus 2 percent, so that Hydro could pay back a dividend to the government. What an incredible set of double standards! I would suggest to you that consumers in British Columbia would be a lot happier paying 1 percent to burn wood waste and help clean up the environment than they are with paying the 3 percent, 4 percent or 5 percent extra under the regime brought in by the Minister of Finance in his last budget.
The minister also suggests that she could bring on stream independent small projects quickly in order to deal with changes in demand. The Williston Lake drawdown will hit its most severe level somewhere in February, March and April of 1994. Is the minister able to reactivate projects that have been cancelled or discouraged quickly enough to be able to deal with this crisis developing at Williston Lake?
Hon. A. Edwards: As I said, the Williston situation is a matter for concern. The Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Forests are involved and are continuing to work with the people directly affected to see if there are some solutions. There is no question that part of that will probably involve B.C. Hydro looking at what it can do about reservoirs, because of what has happened in the Columbia system; and I would imagine it is also part of what the systems operation review would look at to see what can be done in that way.
However, I do want to return to the suggestion that wood waste and 25 percent was a solution. Yes, it was a choice. But this government saw that there were opportunities to allow independent power producers to participate in the generation of electricity for domestic use as well as export, and perhaps it would not cost that kind of a subsidy. So that's exactly what we're looking at. And certainly we are not the first government to bring in legislation that required a dividend from B.C. Hydro to the government, so that's not new with this government.
J. Weisgerber: I'd be curious to know how many applications either the ministry or Hydro has received for wood waste generation projects which didn't require a subsidy. The minister somehow suggests that it was bad management to offer up to a 25 percent premium for that kind of electricity. I would suggest to her that the reason the projects hadn't gone ahead before was that they needed that premium price from Hydro in order to be able to meet their costs.
The minister recognizes that there's a problem with Williston Lake. I would suggest that if the government, when it was elected in 1991, had simply done nothing, the problem would not be there today. If the government had simply allowed the plans that were in place to go ahead, Hydro wouldn't be in the position today of having to draw down Williston Lake to this historical low. The government say that they're going to do something, that they're going to look at, with the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Forests, some kind of a resolution. I would suggest to you that this is one of those cases where the people in Mackenzie at least would have been far better off if the government had simply done nothing. The government should have simply followed the plan that was in place. Despite the minister's review of it or her opinion of the plan, the facts suggest that the plans to go ahead with these projects were bang on and fully warranted by the experience that followed. It's only 18 months. Eighteen months is a blink of an eye in hydro generation; it's no time at all if you're talking about generating electricity by means of hydro dams.
Governments have had to plan ahead decades to bring on major projects in order to meet the domestic needs of the province. There have been criticisms of projects like the Revelstoke Dam, because they were brought on stream too early. There have been criticisms because of surpluses for a number of years after the completion of those projects, when economic growth wasn't as vigorous as original projections had indicated. But I want to tell you, I would feel a lot more comfortable with Hydro having a 5 per cent overcapacity -- a 5 per cent cushion -- than I would seeing it drawing one of our major reservoirs down to a historic low in order to meet domestic needs. I'm concerned because I don't believe that there is any guarantee the situation is going to turn around and that Hydro is not going to face the same problems in 1995 and 1996 and have no cushion at Williston Lake. I think that this whole exercise speaks very poorly of the plans. And so I would be curious to know whether or not the minister and her energy export advisory group are still able to consider extending the Columbia Treaty, given the crisis that you face domestically?
[H. Geisbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: Well, I think that the Leader of the Third Party has an interesting proposal -- if nothing had happened, there would have been no problem. But there is a problem, and the problem arises out of the nature of the agreement and what followed it. The agreement was signed in 1987 under the previous administration. As I understand, it results from
[ Page 7765 ]
actions that may or may not have been taken -- basically a whole collection of things under different ministries -- and therefore I really don't want to get into an argument about it. If the Leader of the Third Party is talking about a 5 percent cushion that he'd just like B.C. Hydro to carry, that's rather interesting. That would cost B.C. Hydro approximately $100 million a year -- certainly there is no question that Hydro's costs are going up partly because of the cost of power and some of the same reasons that existed with the last government -- and the customers could be stuck with $100 million to pay. Hydro would have to find that money, if you were in fact going to have a 5 per cent cushion. So that solution the member suggests would not have been appropriate or accepted by this government.
J. Weisgerber: Obviously, the option is to have a cushion and to look for short-term exports as a way of disposing of that surplus, if it in fact turns out to be a surplus and not required domestically as it clearly will be in 1994, 1995 and 1996. The other side of the coin is that the difficulties on Williston Lake directly caused by the actions taken by this government are going to cost that community $25.8 million a year -- according to figures developed locally -- in lost economic activity and wages and a shutdown of the major employers in the community. There is always a certain risk. Anyone who anticipates that you are going to calculate to one-tenth of 1 percent the domestic needs in the province is naive in the extreme. Obviously there is always a range of circumstances. There are ranges of snowfalls, snowpacks and economic activities. One wants to forecast to meet, but not grossly exceed, those supplies and demands.
Given the proof that the planning has failed, I am surprised that the minister continues to argue the opposite. There is demonstrable evidence that the decision not to go ahead with the projects that were on the books has caused Hydro to have a shortfall in supply that is going to dramatically affect at least one community in British Columbia.
Rather than spending a lot of time on this, I would be far more interested in knowing what you're going to do over the next few years. Are we going to start encouraging the use of wood wastes, independent power producers and all the options that there are? Are we going to look at new options? I don't think we can wait for these things to get worse. I hope that the government is going to have a solid plan. Perhaps we should bring on those projects that the minister suggests can be brought on quickly. Perhaps the minister has already written to some of those folks who were discouraged to advise them that there are now opportunities. That's an issue we can follow for a few minutes.
[4:00]
Given the crisis that exists at Williston Lake, what actions has the government taken to bring back those projects that were put on the back burner? What actions have you taken to try to offset this issue?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Leader of the Third Party makes some interesting proposals and suggests that we allow B.C. Hydro to have a permanent 5 percent cushion on its supply plan. That is an extremely costly proposal. We are going through a drought cycle right now, as the Leader of the Third Party recognizes. Through this cycle B.C. Hydro has been able to continue to supply all of the domestic demand. It does that through using Burrard, which is part of its cushion. It has refrained from exporting under its interruptible contracts. As the hon. member knows, we have agreements with our neighbours for the exchange of power at various times for optimum operation of the system. We are currently using those, and this allows B.C. Hydro to meet its requirements in this situation.
If we were to respond to a drought year or a series of drought years -- which is how droughts usually occur -- and supplied up to 5 percent more, we would be stuck with that supply. We would be stuck with contracts to buy that power whether it was needed or not. Right now that cushion would cost us $100 million in a single year. That would be pretty expensive planning. Why suggest that you pay $100 million per year in order to have a cushion of approximately 5 percent, when the system has been able to meet its predictions during this drought season and supply what has been demanded?
J. Weisgerber: I would like to wind this up and move on. Am I led to believe that even with the circumstances we're facing today, the government still is taking no action to encourage any of the independent producers or any of the cogeneration projects that were proposed at least 18 months ago? Is the government still saying: "All is well with the Hydro generation system. We're quite happy with the way things are going along. And we hope that the drought will be over soon and things will be back to normal"? Is that the position being taken by the minister?
Hon. A. Edwards: In fact, we have asked B.C. Hydro -- as I said earlier -- to prepare an updated plan. Part of that will be to assure that they prepare a strategic plan for the lower Columbia developments. There's no question that we want to be sure that their plans are working correctly, and that they will be able to supply. It's an important and difficult task to do those kinds of projections, and we have asked B.C. Hydro to again look at their electricity plan and update it in light of the drought situation we're in.
D. Jarvis: I hate to interrupt the member for Peace River South's train of thought. But when you were talking about the option you had about independent power projects, your option was to allow for export. I wonder if you could clarify that you weren't allowing independent power projects to export electricity to the United States this last year and a half or two years. In fact, the only export was gas; we lost our value-added aspect by pushing gas into Washington. Am I correct that you just finished saying that was your option: rather than have co-gen plants burning waste in the Peace area, that you opted for independent export? Is that what you said?
[ Page 7766 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: I think the question demands this answer. When we came to government we saw a situation where there was no immediate domestic demand. We had independent power producers who were eager and willing to do a lot of work that we think would be very valuable to the province. They could set up some projects that would be particularly valuable if they allowed us to dispose of wood wastes in a way that was particularly useful. We also saw that there had been no public review of the issue of the export of electricity to assure that if the independent power proposals went to a hearing on export, there was a way that they would not encounter a brick wall of resistance.
We did a study through the Energy Council. The Energy Council recommended that we allow the export of electricity under certain very stringent conditions. We have said we will do so, and that policy will be out very soon. That, I believe, will bring a number of independent power producers back into activity fairly quickly. I believe a number of excellent projects are waiting to be done in B.C. and will be done under the best conditions that we could provide for them.
D. Jarvis: Can you tell me if there were any applications for natural gas cogeneration plants in the Peace area in the last 18 months? How many waste-burning applications have there been?
Hon. A. Edwards: The last application we had on a natural gas project in the northeast was filed in 1991 by Westcoast. In fact, that plant will open at Taylor in September of this year. There was some interest by an American company for another project in the northeast, but they did not ultimately make an application. I can table this list of energy projects that are in review -- electricity generation by independent power producers for the domestic market, which are greater than 20 megawatts -- or I can review them again. They include, as I said, Weyerhaeuser in Kamloops, TPAC at Savona.... I gave it all to you earlier, so I don't think there is much point in repeating it.
J. Weisgerber: I understand that the minister and her deputy, along with others, make up a team that is negotiating the return of the Columbia downstream benefits. I suppose that my first question, logically, has to follow from my more recent discussions: is the minister confident that Hydro has the generating capacity -- the ability to bring on stream sufficient power -- to enable the government to enter confidently into negotiations on the extension of the Columbia River Treaty?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, it may be useful to review again the structure that we have put together so that we can deal efficiently with the downstream benefit entitlement negotiations. I chair a committee, and the other members of the committee are the Hon. Moe Sihota, who is responsible for Hydro, and the Hon. Glen Clark, who is chair of the Crown corporations committee. Reporting to us will be a committee of senior government officials chaired by Marc Eliesen, the president of B.C. Hydro, and including my deputy John Allan and Marvin Schaffer of the Crown corporations committee. That committee will be reporting directly to cabinet.
Are we confident that Hydro has the capacity to continue to supply its domestic needs if we, in fact, choose an option which would not be to return the downstream benefits? I would certainly say yes. We are quite confident that that can be done. I would also say that I assume the previous government thought that that was also possible.
J. Weisgerber: Yes, obviously, if the questions are being reversed, the previous government did have that confidence, but the previous government also had a plan to use a whole number of generation sources that have since been put on hold. I certainly can't have the same confidence with the current government. Perhaps the minister could suggest to me where Hydro is going to find the energy to compensate for that which would remain in the United States for a period of ten, 20 or 30 years if the treaty were extended.
Hon. A. Edwards: As the Leader of the Third Party knows, the return of the entitlement power would begin in 1998 and would not reach its fullest extent until the year 2003. The B.C Hydro system plan shows a sensitivity of approximately two years, and if he has looked at the 1992 electricity plan he will discover that B.C. Hydro has proposals for new resources which include: Resource Smart, Seven Mile Dam's No. 4 turbine, the Waneta Dam, the Keenleyside Dam, the Brilliant Dam. Without the return of the treaty entitlement, these other new resources will begin to come on stream in approximately 2007 or 2008. With the return of the entitlement, we would have that full supply begin about the year 2002 or 2003.
There are two different scenarios that B.C. Hydro puts into its plan. In either case, it has a number of sources of power that it has listed, and it could certainly juggle those, I presume, because that is basically the proposal. This plan still doesn't include all of the possibilities for independent power production, cogeneration projects and a whole number of things that are still there and still look like exciting prospects.
J. Weisgerber: They looked exciting a couple of years ago, and we haven't seen them.
The minister suggested -- and I perhaps misunderstood -- that if the Columbia's downstream benefits are returned, then the projects that she listed would still come on stream about the year 2007. If the downstream benefits were sold for a period of time, the projects would be accelerated and brought on stream about the year 2002.
[4:15]
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes. Without going into all of the details of what the plan says, if the downstream benefits did not return to B.C. Hydro through the province, then the other projects would be advanced by approximately two years. Or they might be staggered. I don't know exactly how they would plan to do that, but
[ Page 7767 ]
the other projects could be brought on at different times.
J. Weisgerber: So the minister is confident that at least one or two of the major projects would be able to be generating electricity as early as 1998. If Hydro is depending on the downstream benefits in its projections for 1998, then I would assume that there must be a plan for an alternate source of energy if the negotiations are successful.
Hon. A. Edwards: This shows fairly clearly that the Resource Smart projects, for example, would have brought in a supply of 610 gigawatt hours by 1997 and 1998. If you look at the plan you can see how it would work.
We have asked Hydro to redo a plan, because there are some other questions. They will do it, but it looks as though there will be clear opportunities for independent power projects in the province fairly soon.
J. Weisgerber: I am going to recognize now that there will be a certain sensitivity around these negotiations. It is not my intent to try to undermine the government's or the negotiating team's efforts, but I'm curious to know -- to the degree that you can let British Columbians know -- about the interest in the benefits of the system in the United States. I'm curious to know whether or not a series of meetings have been started yet. I recognize that the announcement of the negotiating team was quite recent, but I'm curious to know whether actual negotiations have started.
Hon. A. Edwards: Probably the best way to describe it is that there have been a number of pre-meetings, and you may understand the implications of the difference between a meeting and a pre-meeting. What we have tried to do so far is explore and establish the possibilities and the implications of various options to both sides, particularly the various options of return of the downstream benefit entitlement. In other words, if we decided together that we could have them returned further to the west of Oliver and closer to the lower mainland, what would the implications be? Or if we decided to do it further east or wherever, what would the implications be? We are trying to establish that sort of thing so that we have a clear understanding of the basis of what's exactly in the treaty. Those kinds of meetings are going ahead.
As far as interest in the U.S. is concerned, we are very sure that there is significant interest in our power. That's encouraging too, because if nothing else, it makes negotiations a little easier.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could give me a sense of the kinds of research the ministry might have done into electrical generation options in the northwestern United States along the seaboard. What kinds of options do the Americans have for generation, and do we have a sense of the so-called avoided costs? For example, we know that to build Site C and generate electricity there or at Keenleyside.... When I was last involved, the avoided cost was about 5.5 cents a kilowatt-hour. It might be slightly higher than that today. Again, if the minister suggests for strategical reasons her reluctance to share that, I'll understand. I'm curious to know how much work we've done in researching the position of the parties that we're negotiating with.
Hon. A. Edwards: We have done a number of market studies in the Pacific Northwest. By the way, before they put out their report the Energy Council did a number of studies that are available to us as well. We have done a number of market studies, as well as individual meetings with utilities.
As we understand it, demand-side management will supply anywhere from half to about 70 percent of the incremental electricity resource needs in the western U.S. in the near future. They are building, and seem to be fairly enthusiastically looking at, a number of natural gas generation plants. That's a very popular thing; they're relatively easy to do. And they like our gas for that, too. Anyway, they do gas. They are shutting down their nuclear plants, as you probably know, and avoiding coal plants.
What are the avoided costs? They vary, because some utilities need capacity, some need energy and some need both. We are getting a fairly good handle on it, but they do go all over the place.
By the way, you might want to see a brochure we have, called "Columbia Report No. 4." It outlines our options for return of the downstream benefit entitlement. You may have seen the first three reports. This one has just been released, and certainly we'll get you a copy.
J. Weisgerber: I wonder if the minister can give me a sense of the timing. Do we have any time lines whereby, for example, we would have to have reached an agreement on some of the earliest concluding agreements? Do we know when, to facilitate the return, we would have to come to an agreement? I'm trying to get a sense of when we perhaps could expect to see a first agreement, or an indication that there is not going to be an agreement and that energy is going to be returned.
Hon. A. Edwards: We did sign an interim agreement with the Americans last year, which allows for the building of the transmission lines to get ready for the return on existing lines. That interim agreement certainly allows the parties time to do the work they have to do. The existing lines would be near Nelway and Blaine, Washington. The interim agreement expires in the year 2003, and either party may terminate it unilaterally on 87 months' notice prior to that date. We are hoping for a memorandum of understanding, probably, when we determine what direction we probably want to go, so we can put the figures in. We hope we will be able to get to that level of agreement perhaps by the end of the year.
J. Weisgerber: I'm trying to get a sense of the timing. Do I understand that by the end of the year the ministry -- the negotiating team -- will decide that
[ Page 7768 ]
there is a deal for the 1998 expiry contract, or at the same time there will be a decision made simply that it's going to be returned and the planning will flow from that? How far down the way can we go: 1994, '95, '96? Where do you finally have to say either that we have reached an agreement and we're going to announce the details of it, or that we've been unable to reach an agreement and we're going to revert to the process that we announced when we advised the Americans we would be asking for the return?
Hon. A. Edwards: Without getting into how much detail would be included in some kind of letter or memorandum, I think the most I can tell the Leader of the Third Party right now is that we expect by the end of the year to have a pretty good sense of where we're headed.
[4:30]
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious to know, particularly as I look at recently tabled legislation, who you might anticipate would be signing the agreements on behalf of British Columbia. Without starting to debate legislation that's in front of the House today, the indications are that the government could designate someone to sign agreements on behalf of British Columbia, both between provinces and between British Columbia and other countries. I'm quite honestly hoping to hear from the minister that this agreement will be signed by one of the cabinet ministers involved or the Premier. With all respect to staff people, I think this is one of the most significant public policy issues in British Columbia today. It's going to have an enormous impact on the future direction of British Columbia, and so I would like to be sure that someone who is accountable to British Columbians directly would be the one signing the agreement.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure what the Leader of the Third Party's particular concern is. The negotiations are handled by the government of British Columbia, and there would be no agreement without the signature of the Premier or a cabinet member. There would be no sense in it being anyone other than a cabinet member who is involved. However, I would remind the Leader of the Third Party that B.C. Hydro is named within the treaty as the entity for British Columbia, so it may well require that a B.C. Hydro officer sign as well. Nevertheless, this is a provincial initiative directed by the provincial cabinet, and it will be signed appropriately.
J. Weisgerber: There is legislation in front of the House now that would change the constitutional requirements and permit your government or another government to appoint someone to sign an agreement on behalf of the province with a foreign country. That agreement would simply have to be ratified either by cabinet or Treasury Board. I am anticipating the passage of this legislation so there is the possibility of someone other than a cabinet minister being appointed, being given the authority to go and sign an extension to the Columbia River Treaty and then simply having to come back to have that agreement ratified by Treasury Board. I will be talking in the Legislature at some length about my concerns about that. But I'm taking the opportunity and hoping to hear today from the minister a clear intention from the government that this responsibility -- and it is a serious responsibility -- is not going to be delegated to someone other than a member of cabinet. I would prefer a member directly responsible for the Ministry of Energy rather than the minister responsible for Hydro or the Premier, because I think the responsibility is more direct. It's unacceptable to me that someone in the Crown corporations secretariat or some other organization may be appointed to go on behalf of British Columbia and sign an agreement of this magnitude. I don't know whether the minister has given some thought to this or about these groups that have been put together, both at a staff level and at a ministerial level, or whether there has been any discussion about who is going to be the signatory to these treaties. They are tremendously important treaties.
As we talk about this a bit further, I think it will become apparent to people other than the folks on the committee what the ramifications and implications of this deal are. Can the minister confirm that it's her intention, at least, that either she or the Premier would be the one who signs a deal on behalf of British Columbia? Perhaps I should say the Minister of Energy of the day and the Premier of the day, because it may well be that there's a change of government. I wake up every morning in anticipation of that. In any event, I think it's most likely that before we get around to signing these agreements, there will perhaps be other folks there. Perhaps the minister could give me an indication of what her intentions are.
Hon. A. Edwards: I am pleased to assure the member that in shepherding these negotiations through, I would expect as lead minister to sign any agreements that are necessary. I would also like to assure the Leader of the Third Party that I have every intention of being here for as long as I can. If he has dreams that are causing him a great deal of trouble, I hope he decides to change them to some other way in which he could satisfy his desires.
Anyway, there is no question in my mind that as the lead minister I would be signing whatever agreements are required. The Premier might well do that. If I had an illness or something, another minister would sign. There is no question that this is a governmental initiative. The government of British Columbia is doing the negotiating; therefore a member of executive council would sign. I would like to clarify that if we take the return of the physical power, that is a default option and does not require the same thing as if we made an arrangement and negotiated to sell the benefits. If we do that, it will require the signature not only of the entities in the agreement but also of the governments of B.C., Canada and the United States. If that option is chosen, there will be a larger number of people, and I assure you that there will probably be a lot of pen-carriers hanging around too. I think that the
[ Page 7769 ]
signatures will be from the very top executive levels of government.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps we could talk a little about the strategies or plans the government might be anticipating in the case of that default action. If the government simply decides that it doesn't want to extend the treaty and wants to bring the energy back to British Columbia, what kinds of models are being considered? For example, has any thought been given to providing energy at an attractive rate, perhaps even higher than the real costs under the treaty but below market value for regions like the Kootenays and the Peace, where we each have an interest. I identify those because obviously they are the generating regions, the areas that have been providing energy, some would argue, with relatively small benefits in return. Has the government looked at the kinds of industry, for example, that we might attract to British Columbia's producing regions? Has the government identified energy-intensive industries that could be attracted either to British Columbia generally or to the producing regions specifically?
Hon. A. Edwards: As far as the return of the entitlement, right now we are investigating what the costs would be for return at Oliver, which is what is in the treaty, or at Selkirk or Blaine. Any one of those options presents an array of choices as to what might happen with that additional and relatively low-cost power.
However, it is very important that we make a clear distinction between what we negotiate relative to the downstream benefit entitlement and its return and what happens with this provincial resource. We are anticipating a number of things. You are probably aware that we had a symposium on the Kootenay and Columbia River systems last weekend. We recognized that many people in that area feel they were not well treated when the Columbia River system dams were built. There is no question that I understand that very clearly as a minister of the Crown, and I have lived in the Kootenays long enough to understand that.
What we were talking about was the possibility of some return to that area, because of the great contribution it has made to that particular resource. We have talked about the possibilities for taking advantage of some of the entitlement in some way. We had three ministers at this symposium: me, the Minister Responsible for B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Economic Development. We were encouraging the people in the region to tell us what plans they could see for economic development, and what they wanted to do with the possibilities of benefit from the return. Having public input is exactly the kind of thing that we want. When we know what the profile of the return will be, we want some discussion about what we can do with it.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Economic Development and the minister continue to make some plans. Any number of people who are proponents of projects are visiting us and making proposals. I had a visit yesterday from a representative of Norsk Hydro -- you probably know that one. There are lots of other proposals that they feel they would be able to establish, but they have to be assured of an available, reliable and affordable supply of electricity.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious to know, for a couple of reasons, whether or not there is an interministerial committee -- a group of folks who might model and try to identify the benefits of the energy brought back to British Columbia and the economic opportunities that might flow from that. It's an exercise that would be useful.
Secondly, a positive model may well -- if nothing else -- enhance the negotiated position. We may be able to go and say to the potential buyers of the treaty resource: "Look, if we bring this back to British Columbia, we can stimulate this amount of economic activity, which is going to return X number of dollars to our economy." We simply aren't going to be able to persuade British Columbians to extend the treaty unless we can demonstrate a greater return to the province. I'm sure we all agree that we would want to maximize the benefits if we were to extend the treaty. I would be curious to know what kind of work is being done in preparation for negotiations.
Hon. A. Edwards: A number of very close studies, meetings and plans have been worked on and continue to be worked on by the Ministry of Economic Development in conjunction with our ministry and the staff of the Crown corporations secretariat. We are trying, as carefully as possible, to have a direction as to what we could do, depending on what we determine. Those are interactive; you do it both ways. Again, it's important for us to be fairly flexible in this, but we are doing the work. I can't say we have only one large task, because it's ongoing, but those three bodies continue to do a lot. We recognize that our strength in these negotiations lies in the fact that the U.S. must return the benefits. We know we are going to get power, or something that approximates the value of that power. It's something that you go into knowing that you are going to have a return, so what we are trying to do is put together some plans as to what we're going to do with that.
D. Jarvis: I have a couple of quick questions, and then I'll turn it over to my associate from Surrey-White Rock.
[4:45]
I understand that your intention is to bring low-cost power back into the Kootenays: Trail, Castlegar and all those cities that you're familiar with.
Hon. A. Edwards: What I said was that we in the Kootenays have long recognized the fact that when the dams went in, the redress for some of the situations was inadequate. In going to talk to the people -- and I always feel uncomfortable saying "going"; it means being there for me, because I am from the Kootenays -- we designed our symposium to recognize that sense of bitterness among many people concerning the Columbia River dams and the whole thing that happened. We are willing to recognize that there were
[ Page 7770 ]
shortcomings in how the people were treated, and we are willing to look at what happened in the past and see the sense of it but move very clearly to the present and the future. What we have said is that we are willing to talk about some new plans for economic development in the Kootenays by working with the people in the Kootenays, by looking at the possibility of some recognition of the situation that the Kootenay people feel that they have experienced. Obviously, it's very loose right now, because we haven't got down to specifics of what would happen, but as a government we are willing to recognize that the people in the Kootenays feel aggrieved, that they were in some sense aggrieved and that, in their economic development, we should recognize that.
D. Jarvis: Have you considered that they feel that they should receive double the indemnity for all the pain and suffering they supposedly went through with the building of these dams and the setting up of the Columbia River?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure where the member draws that statement from. The people of the Kootenays, in my experience, have never demanded double indemnity, and I think that what we as a government are willing to recognize are the historical facts of what went on there, and that there are therefore some special responsibilities on the part of this government to assure that the economic development for the future is well supported by us.
D. Jarvis: Just to clarify it, I have a letter here from the city of Trail in which they state as an example the equivalent of power projects built 20 or more years ago which now must be repatriated for a low-cost benefit to British Columbians. In particular, communities in the regional areas directly affected by the facilities built under the Columbia River Treaty should receive double indemnification on a population pro rata basis. To clarify that point, that's where I received it.
In any event, on to something else. Are you taking into consideration at all this new multinational water and power proposal for export of water into California?
Hon. A. Edwards: I assume the member refers to a proposal for some water export from the Thompson River area, and that of course is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment.
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions about the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. To start the discussion, I would like to ask the minister about the summary of the pipeline project, the rate stabilization facility and the responsibility the province has toward cost overruns. In the summary put together by Peat Marwick Thorne, does the executive summary of lurking expenditures represent an accurate reflection of the liability the province is facing in connection with this pipeline over the coming fiscal years? I believe the next eight years was mentioned in the Peat Marwick summary.
Hon. A. Edwards: The Peat Marwick report reflected the situation very accurately at the time that it was written. The province's situation vis-a-vis risk was worsening this year until we renegotiated and came to a new agreement.
W. Hurd: The Peat Marwick summary, which was released in early 1992, indicated that the potential overrun for both the rate stabilization liability and the cost overruns could total somewhere in the vicinity of $850 million. Could the minister advise the committee on the exact time frame anticipated and what steps have been taken in this fiscal year to reduce that horrendous liability identified by Peat Marwick as a lurking expenditure for the province. Has the figure of $850 million been reduced in any way during the current fiscal year?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have been trying to get the apples lined up so that we're talking about apples and apples. The base case in the Peat Marwick study predicted a $125 million rate stabilization funding amount for the province. By the end of last year, the estimated amount was at $203 million. Since we renegotiated the agreement, it is down to a predicted $92 million.
W. Hurd: I would offer into the debate the comments from Peat Marwick, which identify the rate stabilization liability, originally estimated at $36 million. It is now estimated at $186 million, and it could be as high as $672 million. It identifies the potential liability of the province under this provision -- this refers to the construction cost overruns -- of approximately $105 million, with the prospect of further cost overruns. Can the minister advise the committee whether the agreement she signed in any way referred to the rate stabilization liability? Or was it an agreement that dealt with the responsibility for the actual cost overruns of the pipeline?
Hon. A. Edwards: When I used the figure of $125 million last time, I should have said $131 million; it's that figure. I believe the member referred to the Peat Marwick report, and he looked at the peak RSF, which would have been $131 million. That figure is driven by cost, so you don't add them together. Whatever the costs are, they will drive what your rate stabilization fund is required to pay. As I said, that figure was increased by the end of 1992 to $203 million. It was worsening for the province. In our negotiations -- and I might say we used a member from Peat Marwick's firm as our adviser -- we reduced the exposure under the rate stabilization fund to $92 million. Again, this is the rate stabilization fund. These figures are driven by what the costs will be. You don't add in the increased costs -- or whatever -- in these figures I'm talking about.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that as a result of an agreement between the federal and provincial levels of government and Pacific Coast Energy the province is obliged to provide, as Peat Marwick has indicated, $55 million of conversion grants to assist
[ Page 7771 ]
persons to convert to natural gas, and $25 million in construction loans? Does that again reflect the reality of the negotiations at the time? Or are those fixed agreements in connection with the pipeline, at least with respect to Pacific Coast Energy?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's always interesting to have to discuss this agreement that was reached by the previous government, which we voted against. We did not support this deal in the Legislature because of the high degree of risk identified in the Utilities Commission hearing on the Vancouver Island gas pipeline agreement.
[5:00]
Nevertheless, here are the facts. Yes, the provincial government is committed to $55 million for conversion grants for consumers who convert from another source of space heating in their homes to natural gas -- not only in their homes but in their businesses as well: industrial, commercial and residential. And yes, the government did provide $25 million for the construction cost. Those figures, by the way, are calculated quite separately from the rate stabilization fund.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask the minister a question that I raised in the House some time ago about ongoing negotiations with Centra Gas, the company that's actually supplying the conversions on southern Vancouver Island. Can the minister confirm whether they have an exclusive agreement to supply those hookups and conversions? Or is there a free market competition involving other potential companies in providing those services on Vancouver Island?
Hon. A. Edwards: Centra has the exclusive franchise for distribution in all the communities, except Squamish, which, of course, isn't on the Island but is in the region served by the new pipeline. Besides that, there are seven pulp mills and a few large industrial customers who buy their gas independently. Otherwise, Centra is the distributor.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm, then, that her ministry and Centra Gas are currently involved in negotiations to cap that company's liability, or to reduce the penalties for its inability to supply customers on Vancouver Island in a timely fashion? Can she confirm that the company is approaching the government through her ministry for relief of penalties that were provided for under terms of an agreement between Centra, Pacific Coast Energy and the province?
Hon. A. Edwards: On June 7 I announced in the House that the government had reached an agreement with Pacific Coast Energy and Centra which involved not only a renegotiation of the agreement with Pacific Coast but also the penalties that Centra was required to pay under the agreement if it did not meet certain requirements. Basically Centra was required to pay certain penalties. It had not met certain requirements, therefore certain penalties were due. All of those things were part of the negotiations.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise us of the reasons that the company was unable to meet its obligations to service the appropriate number of customers on Vancouver Island? Was it just a matter of non-performance? How did it get into the position of having to pay these penalties and then negotiating their way out of them?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think it's clearly a simple case of non-performance by Centra. They discovered that the costs were higher and the demand was less than they had anticipated. Therefore they were subject to the penalties that were part of the agreement. The costs were significantly connected to the costs of installing the distribution lines.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
W. Hurd: I don't know if the minister is aware, but the company's contention was that they were unable to meet the obligations to customers on Vancouver Island as a result of the late arrival of the natural gas pipeline. Was that an acceptable explanation from the company, or is it just a case of the company being unable to meet its contractual obligations because of cash flow or any other problem? Was the fact that the pipeline to the Coquitlam watershed was delayed -- I understand as a result of environmental concerns -- one of the reasons that the company was unable to meet its obligations?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly, hon. Chair, that was what the company claimed.
W. Hurd: Just as a point of clarification with respect to the agreement signed in February 1989, it's my understanding that the agreement specifically exempted the company from obligation in the event that the pipeline was delayed -- that in fact the company's obligations did not actually start until the taps were turned on, so to speak, and the natural gas had actually arrived. So I'm a little confused. Can the minister confirm that the company's obligations kicked in only when there was actually a supply of natural gas delivered through the pipeline to southern Vancouver Island?
Hon. A. Edwards: That's correct.
W. Hurd: I must confess to being confused. My question to the minister is: why would the company be negotiating with the ministry for relief of penalties, when in fact the late arrival of the pipeline would have no impact on the company's inability to meet its obligations? Clearly the natural gas was delayed in arriving.
Hon. A. Edwards: Centra had been three years into dealing with this issue. The gas had begun to arrive, and we had experience. During that time Centra seemed to experience an increase in its costs and a less-than-expected -- shall I put it that way? -- demand. Regardless of any agreement, that only began once the gas began to be delivered to the Island.
[ Page 7772 ]
W. Hurd: I have a question with respect to the rate stabilization facility. The rate is fixed, I understand, at 15 percent below the cost of fuel oil. Can the minister advise as to how often that is updated? Is it a floating rate based on the market price of fuel oil?
Hon. A. Edwards: That price is set every three months, and it's based on a market survey price.
W. Hurd: Again, with respect to the province's liability under this agreement, does the province have any ability to renegotiate this rate stabilization facility without penalty, or is it a locked-in arrangement? I think it ran to the year 2004. Is it a fixed agreement that can't be changed?
Hon. A. Edwards: It was a 20-year agreement. Our negotiations, to reduce the government's risk in the situation, addressed the amount that the government would be liable for, but they did not in any way address the nature of the agreement. The nature of the agreement remains; the amounts are less.
W. Hurd: Just so I have the scenario correct, the government is subsidizing the flow of natural gas to Vancouver Island by paying the difference between the price of fuel oil, less the 15 percent discount. The government is also obligated to assist Centra, by providing grants to customers who might want to convert their applicances and home heating sources from fuel oil, for example, to alternate energy or natural gas use. So the province is actually involved in providing subsidies at either end of this process. Is that a correct assessment of where we are?
Hon. A. Edwards: This agreement was a very complex one, but in it's simplest forms, the rate stabilization fund represents the difference between the operating revenue for the pipeline and the distribution, and the operating costs. The rate stabilizations will depend on the revenue and the costs. As you can see, that 15 percent will simply contribute to how the revenue and the costs turn out. So it is not direct, as in the government pays 15 percent. It doesn't work that way; it is more complex. That is how the rate stabilization fund operates.
The grants are quite separate. They are based on a formula that we have and basically depend on the demand more than anything else -- in the annual expenditure it depends on the demand.
W. Hurd: The ministry is providing conversion grants to those who might apply from businesses or private homes on southern Vancouver Island. I understand that there is an agreement in place which allows customers to apply for upwards of $700 in the form of a grant from her ministry for conversion to natural gas.
Hon. A. Edwards: The residential grant is up to $700. We have budgeted it this year at $4.38 million, and that is how much we expect. If you look in your blue book, it is on page 112.
[5:15]
W. Hurd: I have a question about the rate stabilization facility, so that I have it straight. The province has no ability to negotiate a change to that formula of 15 percent below the price of fuel oil. Is that the formula that the province has agreed to, or is there any ability on the part of the ministry to adjust that in any way? Is that a fixed rate for the duration, right down to the pipeline?
Hon. A. Edwards: It is a rate fixed at 15 percent at the beginning. But it will phase out over time, so no, it doesn't stay at that level forever. Really, as that amount begins to phase down -- in other words the 15 percent becomes 10, or whatever it becomes next, and so on down -- the risk under the rate stabilization fund would probably be less. That happens later on in the life of this agreement. We're trying to find the exact figures for you. It drops 1 percent per year for five years, but I'm not sure exactly when that begins. I can let you know.
W. Hurd: This question might appropriately be addressed to another minister. However, the endowment fund's ownership of shares in these companies, which obviously have extensive dealings with the government through this ministry.... Would it be fair to say that the value of those shares could be impacted in any way by any decisions that the minister takes with respect to these agreements that are in place -- but which Peat Marwick Thorne has recommended should be renegotiated?
Clearly, if you review the recommendations of Peat Marwick Thorne, the auditors recommend that the government take significant steps to reduce or cap a liability that, in their view, could have reached $800 million-plus in 1991-92 when they conducted their review. Does the potential exist for these negotiations to impact the share values of those companies?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Peat Marwick report indicated a lurking expenditure, and this ministry went to work to see what we could do about it. We did that very clearly, and negotiated what is a very good agreement for the province and improves our situation. I'm certainly not in a position to discuss any ownership that is being arranged through some other arm of government.
W. Hurd: I have a few additional questions with respect to the Energy Council. If those questions have been asked, I'll be happy to stand down and read Hansard.
I want to question the minister briefly on any areas of overlap between the council and her ministry. I note from the report that was released by the Energy Council that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources continues to develop energy policy generally, including pricing, market structure, energy-efficiency requirements and conservation policy. Are we dealing
[ Page 7773 ]
with any areas of overlap here, in the minister's judgment, between what Mr. Gathercole is doing with the Energy Council and the functions of the ministry? It just seems that that would entail a great deal of overlap with the Energy Council with respect to market structures, energy efficiency and conservation policy.
Hon. A. Edwards: I am pleased to clarify, again, the role of the Energy Council. Its function is largely public education and public involvement. There has not been in this province before such a way of allowing the people of the province to have input into B.C.'s energy policy.
Energy is a very important issue in British Columbia. People have ideas about it, and they want to have their say. The Energy Council not only allows them to have their say, it helps them do that by developing the materials that will help them know what's going on and keeping them in touch with other people. Basically that is the primary function of the Energy Council. As a result, that council, from its input and the materials it puts together, does advise the minister. It gives us advice so that we in the ministry can do the policy role. The council puts plans together, and will put together an energy plan for the province but actual policy comes out of the ministry. There is a very clear difference between those two functions. I think it's very useful to remember that the Energy Council gives a new dimension to what we are able to do with energy policy in B.C., but they do not write the policy at all. It rests with the ministry, and that's what the ministry does. In so doing, I would say that we attempt as much as possible to ensure that the council is able to use some of our research and things like that. As much cooperation as possible is done in that area.
W. Hurd: Again, with respect to this area of overlap, clearly the B.C. Utilities Commission has a function as well in reviewing applications and dealing with some of the issues that appear to be within the mandate of the Energy Council. Can the minister describe for the committee the nature of the relationship between the Energy Council and the B.C. Utilities Commission with respect to issues such as applications for rate increases for a utility or something of that nature?
Hon. A. Edwards: Well, when it comes to decisions about rates, that is very specifically an issue for the Utilities Commission. The Utilities Commission is the regulator. It retains that function, and that's what it does very specifically. It sets rates for utilities, and it currently holds hearings on major projects.
Where the Utilities Commission and the Energy Council may work together and effect a kind of synergy -- if you will allow me the use of that word in this context -- is in such things as setting up an integrated resource plan for utilities. There may be some ability for the two of them to discuss that. The commission and the council work together on setting up some advice to the ministry on social costing. So basically there are areas where the two may work together because their interests coincide, and that may be very useful. But the Energy Council consults with the public and makes sure that the public consultation is well done. It submits advice to the ministry that sets policy and carries out the day-to-day monitoring to ensure that the policy is being followed, except for the Utilities Commission, which has specific responsibilities for carrying out that policy when it comes to utilities within the province.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can elaborate on her ministry's power and the gas extension program, particularly those extensions that cannot meet the B.C. Utilities Commission's test. Would the Energy Council have any role in making recommendations in that area, where the B.C. Utilities Commission can't get involved? Or is the power and gas extension program specifically a line function of the ministry that continues on that basis of reporting?
Hon. A. Edwards: The power and gas extension program currently doesn't exist. It was a program that did a lot of good things about extending gas into the area, and I certainly give full congratulations to the previous government for having that program in place for two years. We would like to extend it again.
The power and gas extension program is certainly one that I expect the Energy Council will hear a lot about when it goes out to put together an energy plan for British Columbia; and it may even make recommendations on that plan and some suggestions as to how we could do it. Nevertheless, whatever utilities do -- I think it would be mainly B.C. Gas and other gas companies -- in order to carry out that program, that would have to be approved by the Utilities Commission, because the Utilities Commission has to assure that the costs that a utility company put together are appropriate for the consumers to carry. So that again shows how the Energy Council and Utilities Commission work together.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask one additional question about how B.C. Hydro and Power Authority fits into this, because I understand that they also have a planning function and a function that includes the social cost of energy extension projects. I fail to understand how all these overlapping jurisdictions, including the line functions of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, fit together. When it comes to independent power plants, for example, Mr. Gathercole made a series of recommendations about those plants, but would have by necessity received a great deal of input from B.C. Hydro, which is the utility that has to transfer the power to export markets. What kind of input is Mr. Gathercole receiving from B.C. Hydro with respect to this energy plan that he's working on in British Columbia? Are there regular consultations? What is the reporting relationship?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the Energy Council consulted extensively in its report on the export of electricity and will do the same thing before an energy plan is put forward. Obviously B.C. Hydro has a very significant part not only in the export of electricity but also in any energy plan for British Columbia.
[ Page 7774 ]
Nevertheless, what we have said to Mr. Gathercole and the Energy Council is that in looking for an energy plan for the province we do mean energy, not simply electricity.
There are so many aspects to energy and its use and possible misuse in the province that there are many ways that the investigation and the request for public input can go. B.C. Hydro will want to have input into the Energy Council's activities because it has its own plans. It has directions that it wants to go in and has stated those. It will want the Energy Council to know that. It will also want to know what else the Energy Council is doing and make sure that the information is there.
[5:30]
The council seeks the participation of not only the traditional interests in the energy area, such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Gas, but also other interests normally not included in energy policy and planning processes. When the council makes its recommendations it realizes there are certain things that are going ahead in the energy area that it doesn't automatically have any power over. Since it is an advisory council, it can make all sorts of advice, but you've got to remember that it will know that B.C. Hydro and B.C. Gas -- and Westcoast Transmission, for that matter -- all have their annual planning and projections. When you talk about all the components of energy in the province, you're talking about a lot of things that the Energy Council must consider.
W. Hurd: According to Mr. Gathercole's report, however, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has the responsibility for overseeing energy pricing in the province. Is that a fair reflection of what this ministry does? If responsibility for the ministry is in energy pricing, obviously there has to be a monitoring function within the ministry to examine how rates are arrived at by utilities in charging industrial and residential customers, for example. What kinds of things are happening in this ministry to monitor energy pricing -- not only electricity but natural gas and a whole range of activities -- since B.C. Gas and B.C. Hydro appear to be operating in splendid isolation with only the minimal involvement or knowledge of the Energy Council?
Hon. A. Edwards: The ministry has responsibility for general pricing policy. That would involve such things as deciding that there should be a postage-stamp rate for hydro, for example. Nevertheless, the real rate-setting is done by the Utilities Commission. Although we put the broad umbrella of policy in place, the actual rate-setting -- based on the specific costs and inputs that come from the utilities -- is done by the commission. Of course, it must ensure that what happens carries out the policy of the government as articulated by the ministry. For example, the ministry has a core market policy for gas that we announced not too long ago. It said that we would allow the purchase of gas by large commercial interests, not through utilities. We would allow them to purchase direct. Then the commission took the policy and set the rates and the rules, which just recently came out as the core market rules.
Having enlightened a number of people with that information, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:33 p.m.
The Committee met at 6:12 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)
On vote 27: minister's office, $325,600 (continued).
Hon. A. Edwards: I have some information, which we said we would look up, on the Vancouver Island gas system. With the rate stabilization fund, the agreement on 15 percent less than equivalent oil prices goes for two years following the completion of the pipeline. It then drops to 14 percent, then 13, then 12, then 11 until it reaches 10 percent, where it stays as a ceiling for the last four years of the ten-year program.
D. Jarvis: I have a few questions left, and then I will turn it over to the member for Peace River North. Then I think we can probably settle down and get back to the main House.
[6:15]
I want to ask the Minister about a statement made by her party prior to the election, that there would be no drilling and no storage in the Fraser Valley area. I was not privy to it, but members of our party who were elected from that area stated that you made a promise to that effect, or your Premier did. Unfortunately, those members from Langley and the area are not available tonight due to personal problems in Vancouver and/or other business commitments. Do you have a storage and drilling policy? I appreciate that you have brought it up before, and I am not personally adverse to it, but the people in that area do have a concern. I would like how you feel about that put on the record. In fact, your Premier did say that he wouldn't have storage or drilling in that area, and now we believe you do have a policy to that effect. Could the minister express her thoughts on that?
The Chair: Hon. minister, please answer insofar as the question is related to the administration of your office and not to an election campaign or a pre-election discussion.
Hon. A. Edwards: The issue of gas drilling in the Fraser Valley has been a matter of considerable controversy. What one seeks in the issue is some degree of surety that the activity will be safe. What happened was that a number of leases, licences and permits had been sold to companies, which allowed them under law
[ Page 7775 ]
to drill for natural gas in the Fraser Valley. Over the last year we considered the situation in the Fraser Valley. There was a company, which had three owners, that wanted to drill two gas wells in the Fraser Valley on its holdings. Basically we addressed the issue that was of considerable concern to people who live in the Fraser Valley, which was the storage of natural gas. They were worried about drilling for storage. We assured those people, and we have said and continue to say that we have not allowed any permits for exploration that would automatically lead to deciding whether or not there are gas storage possibilities in the Fraser Valley.
We have allowed drilling of two wells for natural gas by these companies, which are led by Conoco. That follows the drilling of a natural gas well in Langley approximately a year earlier, which was carried out under very significant constraints. Those constraints dealt with how the water that was used in the process was contained, and with the noise and the traffic. There was an agrologist there to assure that the property was returned to its previous state, as least as good as it had been before drilling, That well was drilled with a degree of safety that we felt was acceptable. We again allowed an application for drilling. We gave a permit to drill to Conoco and its partners last summer. They did not proceed with that drilling, but that permit is still in force, and they have applied again to do some drilling this summer. Any drilling that goes on in the Fraser Valley, which is a highly populated area, will have to meet very stringent requirements. We've been very clear with the company that they will have to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as those that were met by the company that drilled in Langley. Those conditions have been made very clear to the public in Delta, and we have referred the application again to different ministries within our government, to the federal government and to the municipal government. So if there are further requirements that would be asked by those bodies, that would be taken up with the proponent, which is a company led by Conoco. Besides that, there will be an advisory council of citizens who will continue to monitor all activity that goes along with these two operations. So basically there will be a very close containment of any risk. We will assure that those conditions that are required by anyone involved with this are met if the drilling is to go ahead.
D. Jarvis: In regard to Cominco, the job protection commissioner some time ago made some recommendations. Has there been any follow-up on that? Or what is the situation with your ministry now with regard to Cominco?
Hon. A. Edwards: As you know, the job protection commissioner is supervising some activities and negotiations with Cominco. The commissioner is under the Ministry of Economic Development, so it's not something I can comment on except to say that we are very supportive of any measures that can be taken for Cominco to continue its smeltering operations in British Columbia, because that's very important to the industry.
D. Jarvis: Hon. minister, you mentioned earlier today that there is no way that you are going to reject the Kemano 2 project. I see you're smiling. Are you now saying no, that there is a possibility you will reject the Kemano 2 project?
Hon. A. Edwards: As the member may know -- and if he doesn't know, this should clarify it, I hope -- the permission to proceed with the project was given some time ago. It is not for the provincial government to reject or accept. It was for the government to recognize that there had been a legal agreement in place.
D. Jarvis: Then we shall assume that the project is going ahead. Why are we wasting taxpayers' money with intervener funding?
Hon. A. Edwards: It is interesting that the member suggests that intervener funding on the Kemano project would be wasted money. The history of the project and the history of the activity that has gone on around it has indicated that there is considerable reason to be concerned about what will happen if and when the Kemano completion project proceeds.
The whole issue of whether or not it should proceed -- and the impacts on the Nechako River and the other rivers in the system -- is so significant that the Rivers Defence Coalition and the aboriginal peoples in the area have spent a significant amount of money trying to prove that the agreement was not legal.
In setting up a process that will try to answer some of the concerns about that project, we have said: "Yes, we have to recognize that the agreement is a legal agreement, but what we can look at are some of the environmental impacts of what that will do, and whether or not there are any possibilities for mitigation."
This government has spent a considerable amount of time and money looking into that, because it is a matter of significance to the province. Dr. Murray Rankin looked into it, and we have his report. He clarified what the situation was and said again that there is a major significance in what would happen with the project proceeding. When you look into a situation such as that, where there is an interest in seeing what the possibilities are -- perhaps for some mitigation around what is legal and what must happen on the rivers involved -- what do you want to know? Probably one of the most important things you want to know is: what is the experience of the local people who understand the river systems and how they work? Not only that, but they should have the opportunity to ask the experts, bring in expert opinion or assure that expert opinion gets to the hearing. We have a fairly stringent interim policy on intervener or participant funding, and we have agreed that a certain amount of money would be applied to that hearing. I think it would be dismissive of the importance of it to say it would be money wasted.
D. Jarvis: If you were that concerned over the situation, why didn't you start a review a year and a half ago? Why was it necessary to have Rankin do his review and then come back and say, "The project is in
[ Page 7776 ]
order; we cannot sue them; we cannot change the project," and go ahead and just...? We are throwing good money after bad. You are throwing more taxpayers' money out there for a situation in which nothing can happen. No matter what paying these interveners can come intom, it is ostensibly a handout for people to vent their emotions about what they feel is going on there. There is absolutely nothing they can do about it. If there is, please tell me what they can do. Are you going to recommend, if there's something disastrously wrong, that your government is going to close down the project?
The Chair: The Chair finds the question to be somewhat difficult. Is it philosophical? Or it requires a theoretical answer. I will leave it in your hands, hon. minister.
Hon. A. Edwards: I can comment on the reasons that we directed the Utilities Commission to proceed with a review. It was very clear from the Rankin report that the agreement struck between Kemano, the federal government and the provincial government has legal weight. That is a great disappointment to this government. We consistently opposed the provincial government caving in to what was there without any environmental review. We didn't think that was appropriate. Nevertheless, there is legal weight to it. There was an appeal and the courts decided that it is a legal agreement.
Why did we ask the Utilities Commission to conduct a review of what can happen within that agreement? There may be a number of things that can be done not just to mitigate but to improve what happens in the water system, that will not have any impact on the generation of electricity. We don't know that. Who is best able to decide? Probably special experts on a panel of the Utilities Commission can deal with these issues.
It would be an abrogation of our responsibility to simply say it's a terrible agreement that is really going to impact this area extremely negatively and that there's nothing we can do. We want to know if there is something that can be done in that agreement so that the least damage possible is done. Perhaps there will be ways to mitigate some of the things that will come out of that agreement.
D. Jarvis: I assume that in the review Alcan will be called in to explain a lot of the situation under question. Why does the government not fund the stakeholders and only those, whoever they may be, who have a complaint or a concern?
Hon. A. Edwards: We gave the terms of reference to the Utilities Commission panel, which will determine the rules of presenting evidence and opinion to the commission.
[6:30]
D. Jarvis: The question wasn't answered. I don't believe we're going to get an answer.
It appears that we're doing pretty well in the petroleum end as far as the rights for drilling. I must apologize. I haven't read Hansard to see if you told me this yesterday. Can you tell us how much revenue is coming in for drilling rights in this province?
Hon. A. Edwards: The forecast for l993-94 is that oil and gas royalty revenue would be $158 million: $93 million for gas and $65 million for oil. Besides that, we expect that the oil and gas tender bonuses, fees and rents will amount to approximately $80 million; that figure has been revised upward since the beginning of the year.
R. Neufeld: I'll step back to the issue of drilling in the Fraser Valley and what's happened there. I'm not here to chastise the minister for allowing the drilling to go ahead; I guess I'm more of a proponent for drilling in the Fraser Valley for a number of reasons. The minister said that they are allowing the two wells that licences had been sold on before. Does she mean that is going to be the end of it because the ministry was committed to those licences before the election? Or does it mean that they are going to look favourably at what happens with the drilling this season, and then maybe issue some more? Would the minister explain that a bit more? I got the feeling that that was going to be it.
Hon. A. Edwards: There are a number of leases and licences held in the Fraser Valley. The only proponent who showed an interest in drilling there was Conoco, which had two areas that it wanted to drill, so those were the ones that we dealt with.
If Conoco goes ahead and drills this summer, they will expect to make an assessment of what would happen with that drilling. Depending on what the outcome is, the next steps will be decided, because within our structure -- our legal framework -- these companies have not yet run out of time to apply to do drilling -- so it is possible. Nevertheless, if the two holes are drilled and they find that there is not great success, I am sure they would not want to follow up necessarily in that area.
R. Neufeld: Maybe I'll word the question differently. I'm not talking about whether the company is going to decide to drill more. I'm asking: Are the ministry and your government intending to put land up for sale in the Fraser Valley on an ongoing basis, or are they not?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I believe the ministry has not offered oil and gas tenures in the Fraser Valley since 1989, and we don't expect we will do that.
R. Neufeld: So then the Liberal member's question is answered. If I understand you correctly, after those wells are drilled, that's going to be it for any drilling at all in the lower mainland -- as long as you're the government.
Hon. A. Edwards: There are actually six leases in the Fraser Valley that reach the end of their five-year terms on October 25, 1994. They can be continued
[ Page 7777 ]
beyond that date if they have proven reserves of oil or gas, or if the lease owners commit to an acceptable development plan. One licence has expired and a second is set to expire in October of this year. The other two drilling licences can be held until October 1995. If the wells are drilled on the drilling licences, these licences can be converted to five-year-term leases. So it is possible that there would be other applications for drilling in the Fraser Valley.
R. Neufeld: Are any of the proposals for storage only?
Hon. A. Edwards: We have not accepted any, and I have said that we would not accept a proposal for storage only.
R. Neufeld: I think the minister is aware that in the wintertime, when there's a heavy draw on natural gas from the north through the systems that are in place now.... In fact, I think they're finally going to finish looping the main line south this year. Westcoast hopes to. There is a crucial time if it gets very cold on the Island, now that we have natural gas here. Specifically, when it gets cold in Vancouver and south, the draw from the northern wells.... The three natural gas processing plants -- Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and Pine River -- are at their critical utmost production. There is the possibility of a catastrophe if something went wrong in the natural gas pipeline -- which can happen -- or to one of the gas plants up north or if the wells are being pulled so hard.
People down here don't realize that when it gets to 40 or 50 below, nothing works smoothly. It's very difficult to get the wells producing. The call comes for a lot of natural gas when it's very cold. To get them back on stream after being shut in for a while is very difficult. Being able to store gas in the lower mainland or have gas available in the lower mainland to help out if there is a really cold spell or something happens to the systems that we have in place.... I think we can go back to what's happening with the electrical problem right now, as our leader talked about: what's taking place in the Peace, possible electricity shortages and the effect that's going to have on some communities. Does the minister have any plans -- I'm not in favour of the Energy Council, and I never was -- for having the Energy Council study the ability to deliver natural gas to the lower mainland and to markets south of the border and how we are going to handle that in the future?
Hon. A. Edwards: You are addressing an issue that is a matter of some concern and attention within the ministry. When I put it to the people in the Fraser Valley who resisted.... They feel very strongly -- and I don't decry how they feel -- that they shouldn't have natural gas storage here; that it can happen up in your area or even closer to mine, which is further south, because nobody lives there. It would be handier, obviously, to have some gas down along the pipeline, but the crucial issue is supplying the lower mainland -- the main consumers of natural gas in the province.
That is one of the issues that is likely to be looked into by the B.C. Energy Council, because they have recognized that that is one of the concerns. They may focus some of their attention on that issue. We know that the Energy Council will be seeking public input over the summer on this issue. We have proposed a provincewide study of storage. That is likely to be put together within months, I would think, so that our ministry can look at it on a policy level in particular.
So it is a matter of considerable concern, but I do also want to say that there are some other alternatives to storage, some of which you have mentioned and some of which create different possibilities for concern. An LNG plant in the lower mainland could be a backup facility. We could have an East Kootenay link. You probably recognize that that would be a link from the Alberta natural gas pipeline in the East Kootenays across to the Okanagan, where we would then have an alternate pipeline to the lower mainland.
There is a lot of work going on. B.C. Gas is doing a lot of work with demand-side management and peak shaving. It is possible that propane could be pursued as a supplement. The Westcoast expansion is already there. They are doing some work -- you mentioned that. There is one agreement with the U.S. for storage facilities, but it seems a shame somehow to be taking gas down there or to use storage in the U.S. However, that is a possibility. Of course, we could start people switching away from natural gas, which in some cases might make some sense and in other cases might not.
Those are some of the directions, and that is some of the thinking we have going on. I believe that the Energy Council will address that in some detail, with some breadth in its input and in its consultation with people.
R. Neufeld: I have watched on the TV and read in the paper about people in the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland saying: "Not in my back yard, but it is okay in yours." I guess it is done in much the same way as environmental terrorists approach our logging practices or any other practices that we have in British Columbia. The Liberal critic said one word -- "boom" -- and everybody is afraid that they are going to blow up. They relate it to propane and not natural gas, which disperses very easily into the atmosphere if there is a leak or a blowout.
We in the north store gas now. We store a tremendous amount of gas in the Aitken Creek field. It is specifically done for deliverability purposes, and to hold for pricing purposes on spot markets and that kind of thing. It is done consistently in the States.
I was in Los Angeles not too long ago, and on the outskirts of the city, where there are highrise apartments, there was one place where they were drilling for gas right there. It looks like a highrise: it is all hoarded in and the rig is inside, working and drilling away. That is just on the outskirts of the city, with thousands and thousands of people around. It is done consistently all over the U.S. that way, yet here on the lower mainland we tend to.... I think it's probably the fault of government -- and I'm not saying just your government, but previous governments, too -- for not educating people about the benefits of natural gas --
[ Page 7778 ]
how it can be safe and how we do it in other parts of the province. People are afraid, and I understand that. If they've never been involved with it, they certainly are.
[6:45]
I happen to know the well site engineer who was on the well in Langley, and the noise level from the train that went by.... The systems that they monitor the noise with created a larger level on the monitoring system than the rig itself did. Noise like that means money to Peace River North, and it's just a matter of education. I hope that we do something within the ministry to start educating the people more slowly, so they have time to become accustomed to it before we send the Energy Council out there to do a study and say this is what's going to happen. I think there has to be a different kind of process, other than just pushing it on them quickly with the Energy Council. There has to be a process in that we talk to the people first from the ministry, and let them know the benefits and the value of natural gas. I hope that's what happens.
Getting off the issue of natural gas, I want to go through the mineral strategy for British Columbia that the minister spoke about. I'll just touch on a few sentences, and then I'll have some questions. At current exploration levels, mining could virtually disappear in this province in the early twenty-first century, and the paper addresses two tough questions. Does mining have a future in British Columbia? If so, what can be done to reverse the current disturbing trends? Actually, mining accounts for more than 20 percent of British Columbia's exports -- I'm sure the minister is aware of that -- second only to forest products. B.C. is the world's third leading exporter of copper concentrates and the fifth leading coal exporter. The mineral sector produced an output valued at $2.8 billion in 1991. Government revenues from the province's major metal and coal mines were about $410 million in 1991.
We go to some of our strengths, and the minister touched on some of these last night in estimates. We have political stability -- we all know what that means. And we've got a strong business infrastructure, a highly skilled technical and professional workforce. We've got extensive roads, railways and other infrastructures in the southern regions of the province. We've got access to relatively low-cost energy -- hydro. That's where I want to ask some questions. I went around some questions last night on the cost of hydro to the mining industry and what's taken place since this government took office. With the cap of 2 percent over the rate of inflation, I think just under 4 percent this last year, the new direction given to Hydro by the Crown secretariat, or perhaps through the cabinet, was to start trying to achieve an annual rate of return on equity equal to that allowed on pre-income tax based on the most comparable investor-owned energy utility.
So what we're saying is that instead of being a magnet for investment to British Columbia, B.C. Hydro is going to be used to fund all kinds of economic development programs, I would assume. I'm not exactly sure, but it adds a tremendous amount to the energy bills for mines. I'm looking at a letter from Highland Valley Copper written to the minister concerning some of the problems that they're facing with the price of their ore, and all the tax increases that they've seen in the last 18 months, and the ability to cope. I think they estimated that over the three years their hydro rate was going to go up by about $5 million under the system that your government is telling Hydro to do. I just wonder if the minister could expound on that a little bit and tell me how she feels that's going to encourage any further development of average ore bodies in British Columbia. We've just put one of the high ore bodies into a park. How is that going to encourage the average ore bodies in the rest of British Columbia to invest in the province?
Hon. A. Edwards: There is a lot of discussion, particularly in the mining industry, which is a large user of electricity, about the cost of electricity in British Columbia. The costs of electricity to our miners, and to any other industrial operation, are significantly lower than many of the other areas in the world. So British Columbia continues to have electricity rates that are highly competitive. B.C.'s rates, as of April this year, are the third-lowest in the country at 3.39 cents per kilowatt-hour; Manitoba has slightly lower rates at 3.24 cents, and a bit lower than that is Alberta at 3.14 cents per kilowatt-hour. From there, everything goes up. One of our major competitors, Ontario Hydro, is at 6.76 cents; and Quebec, with a huge hydro component as well, is 3.53 cents, which is higher than B.C. Basically, what we have found is that British Columbia has an ample supply of power, and it is competitively priced.
One of the things that happens if you don't price your power competitively is that you are unable to get people to take conservation seriously. Price is definitely one of the components in persuading people to adopt conservation methods and to ensure that they are careful and efficient with their power use.
We have seen industrial customers claiming that power costs in British Columbia have risen by 900 percent over the last 20 years. I'm not sure whether that figure is in the Highland Valley report you have, but it has been put forward by people in the mining industry to us. Certainly this has not been the case at all. B.C. Hydro's industrial rates have risen -- and this sound like a big figure -- between 600 percent and 650 percent in nominal terms, and by 70 percent to 84 percent in real terms over 20 years. At the same time, if you adjust for inflation, current rates are below the level of rates ten years ago. Ten years ago it cost you comparatively more in those dollars for the same power than it does today. Despite the fact that these increases look like very large increases, the cost of power has not kept up to the rate of inflation. So any suggestion that power rates in British Columbia are becoming exorbitant is simply not borne out by the facts.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister talking about price and conservation of electricity, but what we have to do is face reality and what we have to live with in British Columbia. If we look at Hydro on its own you may be able to use that rationale. When you throw into the pot all the rest of the things that have happened in the past 18 months since your party took office,
[ Page 7779 ]
however, there has been a tremendous increase in the mining industry.
To say that $5 million is not insignificant to a mining industry that's already feeling the crunch.... I think I spoke about it last night. What happens? Where do they go to alleviate some of those costs? They lay people off. You get technology in, and 20 years down the road you're trying to figure out how you're going to employ those people again. That's exactly what's happened in the forest industry; we're going around trying to figure how we can bet back into making doors and windows so we can employ people again. We found out that the technology the forest companies used to get away from rising costs has decimated the workforce. That's what we're doing now in the mining industry; that's what I am trying to get away from.
I was always under the impression and always proud that British Columbia had good available power, cheap rail and a good highways system to attract industry and development to the province. It seems to me and to a lot of other people that we're trying to send away industry. We're not trying to attract it to British Columbia.
I've talked to a number of the members of cabinet. They talk about the value of tourism and what's going to take place with tourism. I appreciate that. But I don't think that in the next 20 years tourism is going to take over what we have in our resource industries. It is certainly not going to hurt; we can expect a lot more tourism dollars.
Our resource industries and the value they give us, however -- whether it's mining, oil, gas or forestry -- is our lifeblood. That's what gives us the things we enjoy. To say that an increase in your electricity bill of $5 million is a drop in the bucket, and that according to Quebec and Ontario we've got lots of room to move -- I don't take that lightly. I think the mining industry is really concerned. Obviously, the mineral strategy paper that was produced for British Columbia is also very concerned about that. Maybe the minister could respond to that.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: I agree with the member for Peace River North that our natural resources are going to continue to be a mainstay of the economy in the province. There is no question that we have excellent resources, particularly an excellent mineral resource. Certainly we have an excellent petroleum resource and basic energy resources as well. Those resources will continue to be central to what we do in the province. They require an excellent road and rail system. I think we continue to have those, and they depend on reliable, affordable and ample power. Those things we continue to have. All our discussions today indicated a number of fears about whether there was adequate power to supply the demand in British Columbia. Our conclusion is that there is ample supply available in British Columbia. Is it and will it be reasonably priced? As far as any indicators are concerned, we are competitive not only within Canada and on this continent, but also throughout the world. So with all of the comments made by the members opposite -- and even despite the fact that we're well aware that every increase costs industry to a certain extent -- nevertheless our rates are competitive. We are committed to looking at the competitiveness for the industry. As the member knows, that is one of the three major focuses of the mineral strategy: we assure that the industry is competitive on a global scale. We will continue to look to that and assure that every direction we take works toward that as well as it possibly can.
[7:00]
D. Jarvis: I don't feel that just because we are competitive with other jurisdictions, that's a criterion to assist our resources. Are you aware not only that the power rates are going up, but what the corporate capital tax was, for example, for Highland Valley, that was passed on by B.C. Hydro?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, I'm aware of what it was, and I know that it increased costs for Highland Valley.
D. Jarvis: Do you feel that's justified? You're driving the mining industry in this province into the ground through your taxation policies, and adding hydro onto it is just that much more. From what I understand, Highland Valley's share of Hydro's corporate capital tax was somewhere around $600,000. That's plain out-and-out thievery by this government, by putting on that corporate capital tax, and it should be removed now. Your job is to try to assist and promote mining through this province, not to deter it and have it flee into other jurisdictions.
Hon. A. Edwards: The impact of the corporate capital tax on power rates in 1992 was 2 percent, and there's no question that that was part of that $5 million you're talking about. The corporate capital tax, as the Premier has said, was something we introduced as a measure to address the deficit. We are attempting very hard to address the deficit. That's an important activity. And it's an important activity for all of our resource industries, because if we do not have a stable fiscal situation in British Columbia, we will not be able to attract or hold the investment dollars we need to develop our resources, and to continue to be able to enjoy the return from developing the resources -- and hopefully developing them in a value-added way so that we get the most we can out of them.
Obviously none of us likes an increase in any kind of expense, but there are some realities to be faced. Definitely, the costs that the companies face have had to be there for the corporate capital tax, because of the deficit. The hydro costs are there for any number of very good reasons. When we can do that, and try to address the situations that B.C. Hydro must address, and continue to have rates that are competitive and an ample supply of that kind of power that is competitive, we feel we will still be able to attract resource industries -- and particularly mining companies.
R. Neufeld: Just a few further questions on the hydro rates and taxation as a whole, and the mineral
[ Page 7780 ]
strategy again. Like I said, when we take hydro rates in isolation and don't attach all the other costs that we put onto the mining industry specifically, or onto industry as a whole, through all kinds of taxation by your government, the strategy says the indications are that Canada is at the high end of a mineral taxation spectrum, and that within Canada the B.C. government does indeed levy above-average tax rates.
Obviously the strategy is telling the minister that when you put everything together, British Columbia is at the high end. Whether our hydro rates are the third-highest or we're lower than Quebec and Ontario is insignificant. We are at the high end of taxation on the mining industry. That's in our own report from our own ministry. That's what has to be dealt with. That's what the mining industry is continually telling us.
I have no problem with the industry paying its fair share of taxes, but I am also aware that we have to keep the industry viable if we're going to have those high-paying jobs. We need those high-paying jobs in British Columbia. To think that we're going to go to a totally service-based industry and that people are going to work for $6 or $7 an hour instead of $25 an hour is just continuing on the road we're on. We see so many single-parent families on social assistance because they can't make ends meet with service jobs that pay $6 and $8 an hour. You can't live in the city on that kind of money, and we all know that. So we have to create jobs.
That's why the decision upsets me so much. I don't want to get back on to the Tatshenshini, but that's what upsets me and my caucus and a lot of British Columbians -- mostly northern British Columbians. I had a tremendous number of calls today. My desk was piled high with calls about the Tatshenshini decision, what's going on there and the job losses. It's not just job losses in the north. My goodness, 1,500 of those jobs were supposed to be spinoffs in the lower mainland and Vancouver -- or in the cities. That's what we need.
Now that the ministry has said that we're at the high end of the taxation scale, can we expect this minister -- in cabinet, in public or in the House -- to stand up and continue to be an advocate for the mining industry, which she's responsible for, so that we can try to get back some of the investment we need in this province and have a viable mining industry and some of those good, high-paying jobs that we need? Can we expect that from the minister?
Hon. A. Edwards: I really am flattered that the member uses the mineral strategy to lay out the problems that we have seen in the industry. We are not trying to avoid the facts of the issue. We very clearly see that there are some problems for the industry, and we've been as open and honest as we can be in making our statements about them.
I would like to clarify the situation about having above-average taxation, and about B.C. being above average in the world. I might say that numerous....
R. Neufeld: In Canada.
Hon. A. Edwards: Well, even in Canada; okay. The issue of taxation worldwide show very clearly that Canada is competitive. Our tax rates in British Columbia, along with the other Canadian tax rates, are competitive with the U.S. and with Australia. The countries that we're not competitive with are Chile and Chile's sisters.
D. Jarvis: We're higher than the United States; we're higher than every country.
Hon. A. Edwards: If you compare apples to oranges, you will probably find that our tax rates are higher. If you look at some of the comparisons that are made overall, we're comparable with the U.S. and with Australia. Our tax levels are the taxation levels of highly developed countries. There's no question that those tax rates are higher than those of countries such as Chile.
Nevertheless, as I said last night, we continue to study the issue. We have committed to look at and study the issue in the strategy. We have completed the study that was reported at the mines ministers' meeting last fall, and a task force continues to look at those issues with the mining industry. If you find yourself in a spot with high tax rates and you are trying to address a deficit, it's a little harder to lower the tax rates. Despite the fact that we know it would be nice to give industry a big boost and get them started in your country, that doesn't always represent the best way to get solid economic development in practical terms. We are committed to looking at our tax rates, to seeing that we do what we can with the tax rates. We are committed to seeing that the infrastructure needed to support the industry continues to be in British Columbia, in a stable fiscal and political situation.
We certainly know that our tax rates are not among the lowest -- no question about that. We will work at what we can do about it.
D. Jarvis: It's obvious that you do not understand how to create wealth in this province. The previous administration wasn't very kind to the mining industry. You come into office, and you have exacerbated the situation tenfold. Since you have been in office, there has been a steady decrease in all the mines in this province. The number of people working in this industry in this province has been going down by the thousands. It was probably one of the highest-paid industries in this province. The figures and facts are out there to show you that for every miner who was earning an income, it's going to take six other incomes in the $20,000 range to catch up with that person. With a 6 to 1 ratio, you cannot say that we are equal to other jurisdictions in taxation. We are the highest of 24 jurisdictions in the world, and you can't say it's a matter of apples and oranges. You have to compare it to the United States. We are higher than the United States. We are not competitive. Our industry is going down and down, and you do not understand how to stop it. It is evidenced by what you did yesterday with the Tatshenshini. It's not much of a question, Madam Minister, but it's a statement.
Interjections.
[ Page 7781 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: I always find that my critic over there prefers to make extremely direct statements such as, "You are doing nothing" and "You don't know anything." They are very interesting statements, but they seldom contribute to the light that is shed on the issues we are trying to discuss. I will take his words, however, and give a response.
To suggest that we have done nothing for the mining industry is to misread what has happened. In fact, we have continued to put out mining certificates in this province at a rate that has exceeded what happened before we came to government. There hadn't been a mining certificate put out until late l992 -- in two full years at least -- and we put out two of them. We continue to give certificates, and I would say that we have committed within the ministry to assure that that process goes ahead quickly. One of the major complaints of the mining industry was that the process was being bogged down. It has not been bogged down under this government.
I know this is a repeat of what we have done before, but we have moved very quickly in this province to assure the mining industry of certainty in land use, something the previous government didn't provide. The previous government did ad hockery and immediate response to situations on the events of the day, and that simply doesn't do. The mining industry needs certainty, and we are moving to get that certainty.
You talk about everything being worse in this province than it was when we came in, and that we're doing nothing about it. You have, on occasion, mentioned what happened in the Elk Valley. If the member had any idea of the amount of time and effort that this government put into the situation that occurred in the Elk Valley, related mainly to the bankruptcy of Westar Mining, then he would have to change his mind. Without the assistance that was put there by this government, I do not believe that we would have the situation we have today. It certainly isn't as good as it was two years ago, but it is a situation where two mines -- the owner went bankrupt -- have changed ownership and have moved through a major bankruptcy into having new owners and to being back in production. And all that within a year, hon. Chair, and even less than a year for some of it. That is a major achievement and an achievement that I'm very proud to report. Any suggestion that that could have happened without the significant and intensive assistance of this government would be a foolish suggestion.
[7:15]
Let me say that I continue to be an advocate for the mining industry, and we as a government are highly supportive of the industry. We make decisions -- as we must; as any government must -- about the preservation of land; those decisions have to be made as well. But at the same time we continue to be advocates for the industry.
R. Neufeld: I asked the minister if she would be an advocate for the mining industry. To be perfectly honest -- and I'm not trying to put the minister's ability down or anything like that -- I believe that the mining industry has taken a bit of a licking under your government: putting in the corporate capital tax, increasing all the other taxes and the medical premiums and the environmental processes and everything that goes along with it -- the fuel tax hikes, you name it. There hasn't been a fee that you haven't found that you couldn't increase -- other than a couple you eliminated for the whole mining industry that amounted to $400,000 or $500,000.
So obviously the government, not specifically your ministry or you, has attacked industry as a whole, and that's the lifeblood of British Columbia. To say that it's attacking the deficit.... I'm aware that the deficit has to be attacked and that we have to look at it, but your record there is not all that great either. I mean, you've increased taxes and fees to the province to the tune of just under $2 billion in two budgets, and you've added $6.4 billion to the province's net debt. Really, when you look at it in those terms, there hasn't been a lot of elimination of deficits.
The land use certainty that the minister talked about is an issue, and I want to maybe go a little into the oil and gas industry in my constituency, the north. I know I've spoken on it in the House a number of times -- the protected-areas strategy that's in place and the difficulties for the oil and gas industry, specifically in the north, where it's all located. I don't think I could fairly say it totally stopped any activity, but it certainly has slowed it down in some areas, and it has given a certain amount of uncertainty to the oil and gas industry as to their future in the north.
The minister talks about how we are setting land policies so industry will now know where it can drill and where it can't drill, where it can mine and where it can't mine. But what we find is that in a protected-areas strategy, all of the circles were drawn around all of the areas in the province where there was any amount of activity. That is true in the north in the oil and gas industry, that's for sure, and I think in the forest industry. We are finding that as companies move around to different areas, they are suddenly going to be in study areas also -- and maybe in two or three years.
A number of weeks ago I met with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in Fort St. John, and along with taxation of the oil and gas industry, the protected-areas strategy was one of their biggest issues. They don't know what is coming and they feel very nervous about it. I know this is a process that was started a long time ago -- long before this member became Minister of Energy and Mines -- but it is a process that the bureaucracy now seems to have a good hold on, and keeps adding to all the time. If it is not spotted owls, it is some special biodiversity in a piece of muskeg in northeastern British Columbia that nobody ever gave a hoot about. Maybe the minister could explain....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Yes, a case in point -- a hoot. We have that problem on the Island.
Maybe the minister would like to respond to that, so we can see what we can do to alleviate the fears the gas
[ Page 7782 ]
and oil industry has about being able to continue to develop.
Hon. A. Edwards: I find it interesting to suggest that this government hasn't been dealing well with our fiscal situation when, in fact, we have more than halved the rate of increase in expenditures of the previous government, which was increasing its expenditures every year -- from 12 percent to 13 percent for the previous three years. That gave us a deficit that we have tried to wrestle with, and it is pretty hard to have to deal with it. I don't give all of the blame to the previous government. With the off-loading of federal transfer payments.... If the federal government hadn't broken its promises, we could have offset the deficit simply with that. However, that is another argument for another ministry, I am sure. The issue is that we have very tight budgets, and we have to be very careful about what we do.
The member talks about how the protected-areas strategy is operating in the northeast and its impact on the gas industry. Your experience is the very same as mine. When I was in Calgary a week and a half ago doing B.C. Day to explain our area to the industry, that was their major concern. We are just getting down to knowing exactly what is going to happen for the industry in the designated study areas. We have directed, or requested -- I wish we could direct -- from Mr. Owen that the next CORE process go to the northeast, because of the concerns there about dealing with land use and the protected-areas strategy. We are very hopeful that he will be able to get there and get a local table going so that they can make some decisions about what is included and what isn't.
We understand the concerns. We are talking with members of the industry about it and attempting to facilitate what goes on as well as we can. Nevertheless, the activity by the industry continues to increase, so a suggestion that that is stopping everybody from coming to British Columbia would be a wrong assumption. We predict that there will be somewhere between 150 and 200 new wells drilled in the northeast this year, which is an increase, and it is going up again from when it had decreased somewhat.
R. Neufeld: I wasn't trying to suggest that the oil and gas industry.... Of course, the minister knows as well as I do, just by the land sales, that there's a tremendous amount of activity that has to do with the price and some of the long-term contracts. The number of wells that are going to be drilled is good news; that's a lot of activity in the northeast. Maybe the minister could tell me when she thinks the CORE process will move to the north?
Hon. A. Edwards: I wish I could tell the member that, but we haven't had a response from the commissioner. All I'm saying is that we recognize the problem, and we have recommended it to him. If he can respond to our suggestion, he will probably be there with the next establishment of CORE tables -- we hope.
R. Neufeld: Someone was chatting to me, I'm sorry. Could you give it to me again please?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, the answer is that I don't know. The answer is that we've recommended it, and we recognize the problem, but we haven't had a response yet from the commissioner.
R. Neufeld: There is uncertainty with drilling, and maybe the 150 or 200 wells would increase if we were to get the process finished so the industry knows where it can drill. That's not a bad level to be at in northeastern British Columbia; I know that from experience. But maybe we could have it a little better, and that would be better for the whole province of British Columbia.
Maybe I'll just go on to something else, and it's about the export of natural gas. What is the minister's response to the export of natural gas? Does the ministry agree in the long term with the process that was taking place prior to your government coming into power, which was exporting natural gas without having to prove up all the reserves before being given a certificate to export or pre-sell it? Is that process still in place, and will it stay in place?
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically we have had a very stable time in the gas industry in British Columbia. The royalties haven't changed, and the gas export policy hasn't changed. So it's the very same policy that was developed about three years ago. Industry has responded extremely well to that kind of stability in British Columbia. Of course, as you know, the fines have been outstanding. The industry remains highly interested in British Columbia. We believe that the stability that we maintain and have maintained since we've been government has contributed to the continued interest and stability in the industry.
R. Neufeld: Is the minister saying that the export of natural gas, as it's going on now, will not change, and that there will be no change in the royalties that are paid or in the process that was set up about three years ago? Is that still ministry policy, and will it stay?
Hon. A. Edwards: Well, I don't make promises forever....
R. Neufeld: You only have to do it for two years.
Hon. A. Edwards: Are you going to be out then?
We are not currently considering any changes in the royalty policy or the export policy. Basically we have a very strong, healthy industry, and we expect it to continue.
R. Neufeld: I want to touch on something that happened a while ago. It's about Cassiar and the effect that closing the mine has had. How is the cleanup of the town is progressing. Is that under your ministry? Are you or another ministry responsible for taking care of closing that town down?
[7:30]
[ Page 7783 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: Our ministry is there supervising the reclamation that is required in Cassiar, but obviously that's being done under the auspices of the trustee. So the trustee is managing what's happening in Cassiar right now. We are directing what will happen with the reclamation, and you may or may not know that there has been a proposal by a company called Minpro to come in and do some work. In fact, it would involve mining the tailings, and that is a proposal that is being looked into at the moment.
R. Neufeld: That's interesting, because I've heard that what is happening in Cassiar is a bit of a dog's breakfast. Nobody really has a handle on what's happening, and I get that from people who are up there now. In fact, the new school in Cassiar was only occupied for a few months and is now being dismantled and moved to Hudson's Hope because they need a new school there. That's where I'm getting this information from, so it's secondhand -- I can't tell the minister that I've been there and seen this happen. Does the minister have an actual figure of what it cost to close Cassiar down now that pretty well everything that the government has been responsible for should be taken into account?
Hon. A. Edwards: That is not the responsibility of this ministry. Our responsibility is the reclamation.
D. Jarvis: Could you possibly tell us what ministry we would go to to find that out? You're looking after the reclamation, but what I'm trying to ascertain is what the final bill in Cassiar is going to be, including the reclamation and all the rest of it, and the disbursement of all the holdings, the chattels?
Hon. A. Edwards: Finance, perhaps.
R. Neufeld: Well, the Finance minister is not done with his estimates, so I guess we'll tackle him. Do you have any cost figures on the part that your ministry is responsible for?
Hon. A. Edwards: We expect the reclamation will cost between $4 million and $5 million.
R. Neufeld: That is the part your ministry is responsible for. The other thing, I would assume, is not within your ministry, but I'm going to ask it anyhow. The displacement of the people and job training. Has there been any tracking of those people and those families who lived a good part of their lives in that community? Do you know where they've gone to and whether they're working? Are they back in the system someplace, or are they living in Vancouver on unemployment insurance? Does the minister have anything on that?
Hon. A. Edwards: No, I'm sorry I have nothing on that.
D. Jarvis: Is that $4 million to $5 million for reclamation costs over and above the bond put up by Princeton Mining?
Hon. A. Edwards: The actual amount of bonding for reclamation was very small in the case of the Cassiar mine. The $4 million to $5 million is the amount that would be at public expense -- unless we come to some agreement, perhaps, with this option that you're currently talking about, with this company that wants to mine the tailings. If that comes through, then the cost of the reclamation would be shifted to that activity.
D. Jarvis: Can you tell us how much the bond for Princeton Mining was?
Hon. A. Edwards: I understand it was about $100,000. And I am predicting what your next question might be: why did the government not assure that there was more in place? Of course, the company already owed the government about $25 million. In order to get it they would have to borrow some more money, so it was an academic question.
R. Neufeld: To the question that I asked about job training and the displacement of families from Cassiar, I appreciate that the minister just stood up and said that that's not within her ministry. But I expect she could tell me what ministry it's in. It's obviously quite a dislocation for those families. I would hope that she would have a bigger feeling for the labour force that was working in Cassiar. Maybe she could expound on what knowledge she has. Obviously she would be talking to other members of her cabinet, who I guess would be responsible for looking after those people and families. Maybe you could just relate to me a little more about what happened with those people and where they are, or where I go to find out.
The Chair: Hon. members, we are dealing with matters within the minister's estimates. I think we should continue to deal with those matters.
Hon. A. Edwards: As far as I know, the Minister of Finance is the minister who would be able to answer those questions. An industrial adjustment committee was established. We do know that some of those miners went to Princeton with their company and worked at the Similco mine -- which indicates to you that their fortune has not improved considerably. A lot went back to Quebec; a lot of people were from Quebec and some of them did that. They would have mainly been distributed, I would have thought, by the industrial adjustment committee and/or the employment centre, which is a federal issue.
R. Neufeld: I have two issues, again in the north, that affect my constituency. Maybe the minister can bring me up to date a bit on each of them. One is Beattie Peaks and the Amoco proposal to drill. And one is the Stronsay proposal. Where are both of those at presently, as far as she knows?
[ Page 7784 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: The owner company, Curragh Resources, has appealed to the courts for protection under CCAA, as you may know. There is some indication that they may have new funding. If they do, we certainly hope that in the near future they will be able to pursue some of the opportunities at the Stronsay project. But we have had no indication of the project going forward.
R. Neufeld: Really what I was asking was whether all permits are in place for the Stronsay operation, so that if they get their funding, they can go ahead? Would they have to go through some other processes within the environmental review in place now?
Hon. A. Edwards: It would be a very simple process for the Stronsay mine. There are some permits they would still have to have, but they do have their certificate, which is the major step that they had to take.
If you're interested in Amoco, I did meet yesterday with representatives of the company to talk about where we could go next. The company's original plans were interrupted by some requirements and objections by the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, and the company has attempted, on a number of occasions, to meet since then with the Treaty 8 people. They feel that they haven't made a great success of that; however the ministry has been meeting on a regular basis with the Treaty 8 people, and -- we hope -- working toward some kind of an agreement so that there can be some progress with the Amoco project at Beattie Peaks.
An ethnohistorical study of the traditional land use of the area was completed in January of this year. The study is being reviewed and an outstanding item is the supply of raw study material by Treaty 8 to the study review group.
Amoco hopes to look at another application which would have them accessing the gas reserve that they're trying to reach from a different location, and they are working toward that. The ministry is planning further discussions with the Treaty 8 people. Amoco certainly plans to be in touch with them, if possible, and with us, and we continue to work toward getting that project on track.
R. Neufeld: I know these issues take awhile and that sometimes you have to look into a crystal ball. I appreciate that one. Does the minister have a feeling that we're getting close to an agreement with Treaty 8, so that Amoco can go ahead with its drilling program?
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically what we're looking at is working toward -- this is one possibility -- a memorandum of understanding with the Treaty 8 people so that there would be some understanding of their interaction with companies and with the ministry as gas exploration takes place in that area. It could be that the new application that Amoco puts forward for its Beattie Peaks project could act as a focus for discussions, and we're hoping that that might happen. There is no way that we can put a time frame on that, but we certainly do not see any drilling happening for at least a year.
[7:45]
D. Jarvis: Under the old mine development assessment program or process, Polestar went through many degrees and reviews, and the last one has ended up still in limbo. The result of it, I believe, is that they headed into a financial review -- why, I don't really appreciate. I don't understand what business it is of government to find out whether the company is financially able to do something or not.
On that same premise, do you plan to put Stronsay through a financial review, in view of the obvious and well-known financial problems they have throughout North America?
Hon. A. Edwards: The specific point about the study that went on -- was it the Peterson-Youds report? -- was a comparison of the benefits that might come from the mines versus the benefits from added recreational use. It was not a study of the possible economic feasibility of the company or of the mine itself. It was a comparison of what might come out for the community from the mine, or from the recreational use that might be there if there were no mine. Basically, that's how that worked. It was a bit unusual for the process, but it was an unusual situation and it was designed to respond specifically to that situation.
As far as Curragh Resources is concerned, the government has no intention of examining its economic feasibility or the economic feasibility of the project -- unless, of course, they were to ask for some kind of assistance in the development of the mine. In that case, due diligence would require that you did some kind of examination.
R. Neufeld: I am going to deal with some of the employment problems in the southeast portion of British Columbia.
I continue to get calls from the Greenhills Workers' Association, from some of those people who have been displaced with the things that have happened in that area. The minister is quite well aware of that. What has been done to try to employ those people who were not fortunate enough to get their jobs back? What kind of economic development is going on there? I know that would be under the Minister of Economic Development, but because it's from the minister's constituency, I'm sure she could tell me what's been done for those people, or what is anticipated that the government can do to get these people back to work.
Hon. A. Edwards: There has been extensive activity around the establishment of an industrial adjustment services committee in the valley. These things are never easy, as the member certainly knows. In the case of both mines, there was a significant reduction in the number of employees who were taken back into the operation. Greenhills, in particular, had a reduction from 650 employees to about 400. Those employees were almost totally from the Elk Valley, but they were not all necessarily former Greenhills employees. What happened was that the adjustment committee was established, and they have registered those people and provided services to help them get new employment and to access education. The
[ Page 7785 ]
Greenhills workers were much easier to deal with than the Balmer workers, mainly because they were out of work for a very short time. That has allowed them a little bit more latitude.
The committee continues to work, and the Greenhills mine is back in operation. The number of contracts they have for coal sales is beginning to increase. Every hope is that things will continue to go well with those who are working, and that those who aren't will be able to find new employment, either in the valley or outside the valley. If so, they will have assistance in relocating.
We in government have a committee that has been given the task of overseeing what happens in the valley, and that committee is chaired by my assistant deputy minister Bruce McRae. So we are constantly in touch. I might also mention POWA. It is a program for older workers under an agreement with the federal and provincial governments. We hope that we will be able to get something in place for older workers. Obviously we would have tried -- these things are slow anyway -- to get it going faster, but we are wrestling with numbers because of the fact that so many workers in the mines were from Alberta. Approximately 30 percent of the labour force in the Elk Valley is from Alberta. Alberta does not have an agreement with the federal government; it is not interested in funding that kind of program. Unless we can get them involved -- our numbers are different -- it's a very frustrating activity.
R. Neufeld: I will certainly send off the minister's comments to the people who have been phoning me. Obviously they're doing their best to get the people who are still there looking for work back to work or into something else.
The other issue I'd like to ask the minister about is the Similco mine in Princeton. We have had a letter from the mayor of Princeton and a copy of the press release from the mining corporation saying that they're going to suspend operations by September 10. They're talking about laying off 300 people, and that affects about 40 percent of the workforce in Princeton. So this could have a dramatic effect on Princeton and the people who work there. What is the ministry doing to alleviate or to -- as the Minister of Social Services says so often -- go in and help before the crisis hits? What's happening?
Hon. A. Edwards: Well, I've been in touch with the mayor of Princeton, and we've had a meeting with the mayor and the administrator. We're working toward a meeting with Mr. O'Rourke. The best and first step is to get the job protection commissioner involved. The commissioner was in touch with the company almost immediately; he has since been touch with the community, with the union there and with Mr. O'Rourke. We expect that he will be addressing the issue fairly soon. You're absolutely right: the sooner one can get there the better. Mr. Kerley is the man who has the best tools to address the issue.
D. Jarvis: I've been getting calls from the Elk Valley; we all seem to be getting calls from the Elk Valley. They're very concerned. The UI has run out for most of them. A program was supposed to be set up to help them retrain, and they've now been informed that it's not valid because there's no one to pay for it. The POWA program is really for an elderly group of people and is split by the federal government approximately 75-25, in the provincial government's favour. It is looking after the 55-to-60 age group. If they're going to train them through POWA.... I've seen how POWA works through Small Business and Advanced Education, and I've watched it happen over on the North Shore with the shipyard building. They've been off for over a year, and it's now just slowly getting into shape. What are you going to be doing for all those people? There are no jobs to go to. They're too old to retrain. They have no jobs to go to in the area. They're all in there, and they've lost all their pensions.
You seem to be very proud of the fact that you've got this community back on its feet, but it's not really back on its feet. It has very high unemployment, and there is really no future for a great number of those people because of their age. Can you respond to that?
Hon. A. Edwards: I am very proud of the fact that we've got two mines back into operation, because you can imagine what that valley would be like without those two mines in operation.
Obviously many people have been damaged in the process, and we are attempting to help those people now. The POWA program is not designed to put people back to work; it is designed to help people get out of the workforce, give them the ability to retire earlier than they otherwise would have, because people aged 55 to 60 are going to have significant difficulty finding new work. So what the program does is try to attempt to set them up....
D. Jarvis: It forces them to retire.
Hon. A. Edwards: Indeed, it allows them to retire when otherwise they won't be able to find work. So there's no question that the program is not there to get 55- to 60-year-olds back in the workforce; it is to build on what pension they may have and to give them the kind of assistance -- if it went to a younger worker, it would be to get them retrained and back into the workforce -- that would give them the money to allow them to retire at the stage that they're at in life.
I'm sure you're familiar with how people live in the rural parts of British Columbia, and this is as true in the northeast as it is in the southeast. They live there, and they're not going to move. At 55 years old, they're not going to be able to easily move, and they don't want to move. So what do they want to do? They probably have their house paid for. They probably have more ability to retire early than younger people have. This program might be able to help them to do that.
There has only been one POWA project in British Columbia; it was with shipbuilders. I believe it did apply to people who worked on the North Shore. Just like many other programs, it isn't perfect, but it does help. It is a program that we hope to get to those people who will probably not be able to go back to work in a mine, or use their skills to go to work somewhere else. They prefer to stay in the Elk Valley and with some assistance will be able to do that.
[ Page 7786 ]
Some of the complications, of course, include the fact that the pension plan was.... Well, we don't know where it is, because it's in the hands of the trustee right now. There are so many problems there that it's very difficult to suggest that anything in the valley is all good or all bad; it's still very difficult. We continue to work with it. Many people in that valley were hurt very badly and will continue to hurt for awhile. This government is doing what it can to assist them.
R. Neufeld: Again, I appreciate that the job protection commissioner was in touch with the mining company right away in Princeton re their closure, and we hope that the same thing doesn't happen there that happened in the Kootenays in the Greenhills situation. It's interesting that the minister is quite aware of what's happening there with the people who were employed in the mining industry but was not very knowledgable about what took place with the people who were completely displaced out of a town in northeastern B.C. that was totally levelled under her administration. Actually I'm really surprised that the minister didn't have anything further for me on the people who worked and lived in Cassiar all their lives. She knows that people who live in those communities -- and that's rural B.C.; that's where I come from -- like to stay, and a number of them would have liked to have stayed. So there were some terrible disruptions there also, but I'll try to deal with that with the Minister of Finance.
[8:00]
The press release that the Princeton Mining Corp. -- and it's again what we spoke about all day yesterday -- about the rate of taxation, the level of taxation and the costs that are attributed to mining in British Columbia. The price of ore goes down a bit, and that's specifically what happened here. Copper prices and the uncertainty of future prices have been part of why they're laying off 300 people. I'm sure the minister has noted the press release, but I want to read it into Hansard: "The termination notices can be rescinded if the copper price increases or mine site costs are reduced sufficiently during the 90-day period to allow the mine to stay open." That's what I have been talking about: retaining jobs and keeping people working in jobs that pay well.
Here are another 300 jobs; we're faced with 40 percent of the workforce in one community. It's not just the price of ore. You have to put everything into the basket, whether it's Hydro rates, taxes or whatever. You can't just say that our Hydro rates are lower and our taxes are in line with other countries. This memo tells me that we're taxing the industry. We're driving it away and forcing it to close.
What are we going to do with those 300 people? We've got a job commissioner going in there; we are going to do all kinds of things. These people could go on unemployment insurance; I guess in time they could go on social services. The Ministry of Social Services would be faced with the job of trying to retrain these people to get them working someplace else.
I hope, however, that the minister's government is able to see its way clear to alleviating some of the cost that this company is facing with the operation of their mine -- through fees, taxation and whatever goes along with it -- so that these people can continue to work. What we need is for people to continue to work. Anyone who has been on unemployment insurance or doesn't have a job knows that self-esteem certainly goes down, their worries go up and their families break up. That's what we are looking at again here. We went through it in your area with the Greenhills workers, and now we are going through it in Princeton.
I hope that the minister -- along with the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and whoever else is in there -- is seriously trying to do something to help this company, perhaps in the interim, until the prices of copper go back up so they can continue to have these people work. Maybe the minister can explain what the cabinet itself is doing, whether they are dealing with this issue specifically -- other than just having the job protection commissioner -- in trying to alleviate a disaster.
Hon. A. Edwards: The hon. member is absolutely correct: the price of copper is not anything that we have control over. It's a world price; it moves where it's going to go for various reasons.
What we are trying to do is address the other issues. That is where the job protection commissioner comes in. He is the person who can recommend ways to address issues over which the provincial government has some control. His office has the opportunity to actually make some recommendations, look at the business plan and decide whether or not there are adjustments which would keep the company in business.
By the way, I might mention -- and I don't know if the hon. member knows this -- that in the late 1960s this company was in the same situation, and a similar officer of the government, Art Phillips, made a plan for that company that saved it from going down at that time.
R. Neufeld: I can only stress that we read it in "A Mineral Strategy for British Columbia," a document produced by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that tells us that we in British Columbia are at the high end of the tax rate. The price of copper in the world plays a role, of course. But that's not the only figure that plays a role. The report shows what has to be done. I hope the minister will continue to be a strong advocate for the mining industry and other industries that are under her purview.
The last issue that I would like to deal with is a bit of research and development. I'm not sure exactly what happens within the Ministry of Energy in research and development on alternative energy sources. I thought of it because the minister talked earlier about natural gas in the lower mainland, saying that maybe we should be looking for alternative sources of energy. When I think about it, we are looking towards the future, and that is what we have to do. Maybe the minister could tell me what her ministry is doing on research and development for alternative sources such as solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear or geothermal. I think geothermal is something that the ministry is actively involved in, and maybe she could bring me up to date on that. What
[ Page 7787 ]
research and development is going on, if any? What are your thoughts on it?
Hon. A. Edwards: Before we leave Similco, I would like to make a comment about the possibility that we have the scope to address the problems. The difference in taxation on mining companies between Arizona -- which is at the heart of copper-mining activity in the U.S. -- and B.C. means half a cent per pound of copper. In the last several months this year, copper has dropped 30 cents, so that is the range of problem that the global price of copper is dealing us. What we have to deal with is probably a half cent a pound difference in taxation between here and Arizona.
What are we doing about alternative energy? We have a number of programs, and a number of areas where we keep track of things and ensure that they are going well. We do a lot of work with alternative transportation fuels, and we do not tax alternative fuels. We try to be fair about that, so none of them are taxed. That should support the use of cleaner transportation fuels. We have been very close to what has happened with the provision of and access to alternative transportation fuels in British Columbia, including working toward having a methanol pump in Vancouver. As you know, Kamloops has one of the few stations in the world that has all of the alternative fuels, and we are in touch with what is going on there. We don't do research ourselves in the sense of the use, but we keep track of what is going on and we support those who are doing work.
We have supported the development of the Ballard fuel cell, and we continue to assist the project by being a member on the project management committee for both the bus and the utilities project. You are probably aware of those experimental projects.
We acknowledge the role of geothermal energy in the generation of electricity and have worked with people who are making proposals and doing some work at Mount Meager and at Mount Cayley. Besides that, we are doing a lot of work under Fuel Smart programs, and that kind of thing. You can talk about fuels; we are in touch. We have some mainly public education programs. We have probably more public education than anything else, although we do support the development of various things. Under the Fuel Smart program we developed a RideShare program at Simon Fraser University that is now in its second year of operation. It has encouraged car-pooling at that university. That university was particularly appropriate for it, I suppose. There has been a significant participation in the project. We worked with a company that developed the software to do it. We put together what we called a "RideShare Toolkit" for the program. It's a step-by-step guide to any institution that wanted to promote, set up or maintain a car pool. We have distributed 2,000 tool kits since last fall, so we do some work in that area.
We have done a lot of work in Victoria with Camosun College. They have their automotive students and their environmental technology students who do projects which encourage the public to get involved and see what can happen with such simple things as keeping your car tuned up to see the differences you can make in your fuel consumption. Those kinds of things are going on all the time.
As I say, we have a broad, general approach, and we continue as well to work with industry and with universities. We are co-sponsoring a CEO's committee on energy, research and development with the Science Council of B.C., which began about a year ago. We've had two meetings with the CEOs of B.C. Gas, B.C. Hydro and Westcoast's Pacific Northern Gas on where the province should be going on R and D. We certainly have some very interesting proposals put to us. We wish we had more funding to go after more of it, but we believe that with the funding we have we are making a huge impact.
R. Neufeld: That concludes the questions I have for the minister. I'd like to thank the minister for her candid approach to answering my questions. If some of them were repetitious, I apologize for that.
I'd also like to thank the staff for their involvement, for the time they've spent here listening to the questions and for helping us all out. Thank-you very much.
D. Jarvis: I just have one more statement that I feel I have to read into Hansard, because I'd be remiss if I didn't. It regards your "Mineral Strategy for British Columbia. Under strategy element number 3, proactive mineral management, you say: "The ministry will adopt a proactive role in making sure that our valuable mineral resources are adequately accounted for in provincial land use planning and resource management." You go on to say that the industry needs access to vast areas of lands; that you want to develop infrastructure corridors; that you will prepare strategic mineral plans as an input into the integrated resources; and that this new land management and policy branch will let you be proactive in planning for high potential areas.
As far as I'm concerned, the Haines triangle is a very high-potential area in this province, but with the reduction of the mining industry, I think this province is going downhill. This was an abuse when you went ahead and decided that the Haines triangle was going to be a wilderness area and not a mixture of wilderness areas and/or parks and multiple-use areas. Your government bought into an environmental plan. Your Premier came out with a statement that he was going to save the glacier bear. I dare you to tell me right now where you have seen a glacier bear on the British Columbia border?
[8:15]
Statements like that are just pushed out by any organization that is against development in that area completely. The grizzly bear situation is ostensibly the same thing. You did not get detailed reports. You have a 60-page report on your parks strategy, and not one page indicates how many grizzly bears are in the area. So you bought into this program, and I think it's going to cause untold detriment as far as the mining industry goes and the province as a whole.
Having said that, I am prepared to pass your estimates, so we can all go home, as we've been here for
[ Page 7788 ]
close to and probably over eight hours now. Thanks very much to your staff for their help.
Hon. A. Edwards: Thank you very much to the member for his eight hours of assistance in this. It's an interesting closing statement you made. First of all, your party says that they would preserve the Tatshenshini, then you say in question period today that you would mine in parks and now you want a combination of this and that.
I think it's very clear that what we need in this province is clarity and stability. The industry needs to know what's happening and what's going on. We are working with the industry. We promised a proactive stance, and we have a proactive stance. This particular decision on the Tatshenshini is not representative of what will happen in the rest of the province by the very fact that we do not have such a high-value mineral deposit in such a high-value ecological area. So I simply reject your suggestion that this is typical of what will go on. I certainly agree with you that this government has bought into environmental planning. We do environmental planning. That's the kind of thing that happens in this province and continues to happen. The mining industry has existed very well in any regime that requires environmental planning.
So without any further comment, I would thank my critics and the other members who asked questions of the ministry. I am very pleased to move that the committee rise....
The Chair: Hon. minister, we need to pass vote 27.
Vote 27 approved.
Vote 28: ministry operations, $63,798,380 -- approved.
Vote 29: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $10 -- approved.
Vote 30: British Columbia Energy Council, $10 -- approved.
Vote 31: Fort Nelson Indian band mineral revenue-sharing agreement, $300,000 -- approved.
Hon. A. Edwards: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 8:19 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]