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)
FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 12, Number 16
[ Page 9131 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
SOCIOECONOMIC ORGANIZATION AND MANAGING THE PUBLIC SECTOR
A. Warnke: Two hundred years ago -- from the time that King Louis XVI of France was executed in January 1793 and Marie Antoinette in October 1793, until July 1794 -- was the infamous period known as the Reign of Terror. Contrary to what many believe, the French Revolution was not a product of poverty and starvation. France was the most advanced and affluent economy of its time, with its wealth far more widespread throughout its population than generally believed. Hence the lesson here -- a pattern that we have seen many times since.
Revolution is the result of the perception of losing one's property or social and economic station in life; in other words, the fear of losing what they have more than the concern about what they don't have. This is a lesson for modern governments. Much confusion exists about the nature of government and how to address the economic issues of our time. The function of government does not mean either stripping government to its minimum or expanding its function to the maximum. It means that whatever decision is taken by government, it should follow a process that satisfies that decision. This is the essence of the relationship between public policy and its administration.
If the achievement of these decisions can be attained without instituting an extensive government apparatus, our society and its economy will prosper and develop. Our institutions of government will remain democratic, because the people will ultimately determine the direction of government. The more clear and concise the policies, aspirations and decisions being taken, the more it has the support of its people. To achieve a prosperous economy that promotes a society that is just, safe and vibrant, we must succinctly articulate what we want to achieve.
First of all, we want a sound economy. Economic growth is essential to achieve this. In my view, we need to promote more savings and investment, the acquisition of knowledge, and the dissemination of technological literacy. Economic growth makes it possible. If we were to achieve those three aspirations I have outlined, we would reduce the burden of public debt and personal and corporate tax rates, and we would improve government services -- not through the expansion of government services, but through an ability to gain control over them.
We need to thoroughly re-examine the administration of public policy. We know that Education, Health and Social Services take up the bulk of our provincial expenditures. These departments are extremely large. The caseload is formidable and unmanageable, not through the fault of the staff or the public employees, and not even through the fault of public managers. But the purpose of our policies needs to be redefined. The purpose of the public administrative apparatus needs to be redefined, reanalyzed and reassessed. In this context, the ministry has to take the appropriate initiative.
Case applications need to be analyzed, not simply processed, and I believe that this is the fundamental problem. When governments become large, and when one government succeeds another one, as in this case -- and at the federal level -- the problem is trying to gain control of the public administration machinery. We end up in a situation where case applications are simply processed.
The reform of government is critical, but I suggest to hon. members that it is critical not in the parliamentary process, where we seem to have focused a lot of energy recently. This is only symbolic, anyway. The reform of government is critical in the administrative process. For example, we need to re-examine the role of grants, programs, subsidies and artificial protectionism. We need to stimulate British Columbia's international linkages to provide and develop business activity and economic growth. For far too long, we have been dependent on our natural resources to bail us out, and now we face some very serious dilemmas. What we need to do is re-examine the administrative process, and I will elaborate on where we ought to go in managing the public sector in my summary, as I anticipate the response to my opening remarks.
D. Schreck: I think it's fair to say that most of us felt that we were seeking election to make our individual contributions to managing the public sector, and that from this lofty chamber we play a key role in doing just that task. Whether we sit on the opposition or the government benches, we do have an extremely important role to play, and the public looks to us ultimately to manage that public sector. On the government side, I'm proud to say that I'm part of a government caucus that has set clear goals for managing the public sector; that has contributed to open government; that has eliminated the scandals of the past; that has embarked on major health care reform, which is desperately needed in this province and in this country; that has opened up consultative processes that never existed before; and that has taken a balanced approach to a balanced budget.
It's much more difficult to manage the public sector than it is any single private entity. In the private sector -- and I've spent most of my career as a manager in both the private and public sectors -- there's a simple market test, and if one doesn't meet that market test, one simply doesn't survive -- bankruptcy weeds out the failures. We don't have an equivalent test for, say, elections and the public sector. While the 75 members here may come and go, the public sector, with 300,000-plus employees, goes on, and is not changed unless the 75 members who are here at any particular point in time take their responsibilities seriously and manage that sector.
[ Page 9132 ]
Hence, when I look at what our government has accomplished in contributing to a balanced approach to a balanced budget, to health care reform and to openness, and when I compare that with years past, I am proud to be on this side. When I look at the promises opposite -- and I know that the opposition plays an extremely important role in contributing to managing the public sector.... The Public Accounts Committee, on which I'm proud to serve, is chaired by a very capable member of this assembly, who has made that committee work in a way that all members can be proud of -- on a basis of contributions to and discussions of managing the public sector.
[10:15]
When we started here, we were promised a new opposition with a new and constructive approach to government. We will do everything on our part to help that opposition develop and mature to fulfil that promise.
Interjections.
D. Schreck: We know that at some point that promise may be fulfilled. As it's less than two years since the election, we can't fault the members opposite for still working on a promise that is some considerable distance from being achieved.
In summary, it's important to say that we all do a disservice to public service if we oversimplify the task of managing the public sector. It is easy to become partisan and say that it's a simple job to do 5 percent or 10 percent across-the-board cuts, to deal ruthlessly with public employees and to chop programs as if their services didn't matter to people. When we engage in that oversimplification, and we don't understand the challenge of being responsible to the taxpayers, the service recipients, and the challenge of being responsible as an employer and balancing the many different policy objectives, then we are doing a disservice to managing the public sector and to our constituents.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I'm proud to be part of a government caucus that has taken on the challenge of managing the public sector with clear objectives that we clearly need. I'm also proud to be part of a legislative assembly that can challenge the opposition to contribute in an equally positive manner.
A. Warnke: I find it very tempting to get partisan here as well, which we're not supposed to do during members' statements. If anyone needs the help, I certainly think the government needs the help. If it's not convinced that it needs it, perhaps it may again tap into what public opinion is saying about this particular government. But I shall resist making such partisan comments.
In the last three minutes, I really want to outline the purpose of managing the public sector, and where we go. As a matter of fact, I may agree with the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on one small point -- and I thank him for his response to my remarks: it is incorrect to suggest cutting services or ministries right across the board. I said at the outset that we need to thoroughly re-examine the various ministries. We need to plan policy and look at programming in a context where we're constantly and thoroughly examining its achievements. The problem in the past has been too much reliance on the formal approach to public administration, which tempts expansion.
We have to adapt to a new approach which is rational and logical, but which also includes incrementalism. We have to look at many aspects of public administration. We have to recognize the government's responsibility and how it allocates resources and examines costs, public controls and their limits. Budgeting must be subject to a far more rigorous legislative review -- and it is here once again, I suppose, that I could get partisan. Governments must set realistic aims and objectives for the public service. Overall, governments must re-examine the premises on which they operate. It would not be wrong for governments to become a little more modest in what they try to achieve for people, because people are demanding that governments be responsible. Governments are being told by the public that they must handle their affairs responsibly. Therefore, somewhere along the line, we have to make another transformation in how we view the public administration of our public service, and somehow combine the formal approach of the past -- which has led to some of the problems of the present -- with a new way of thinking, and from there move on so that we can be responsible to our citizens.
ANIMALS IN URBAN AND RURAL BRITISH COLUMBIA
B. Copping: It has been over a year and a half since I came to this chamber as a newly elected member. Since that time I have heard thousands of repetitive words spoken. However, there has been very little mention of the animals. I find this somewhat sad and revealing.
I suppose people assume, because they have a more highly developed cerebral cortex, that they are more intelligent and thereby superior. Of course, that is a definition made by people for people. I say that we are unique, as is every other animal, but we are not superior.
I would like to see animal welfare put on the agenda again. It is an issue that cuts across all party lines, and as legislators we should be giving it one of the highest priorities. It is our duty to protect other animals, be they urban, rural, domestic, companion, wildlife or farm animals. We must protect them against ourselves. It is time to live up to the motto of the SPCA, and to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Humans have had a very sad history in how they have treated other animals -- things like the testing of cosmetics and household products. A very common example would be eye irritancy tests, where nail polish is dripped onto the eyes of millions of animals over a three- to 21-day test period. Another very common test is the lethal-dose LD50 test, where you force-feed animals a substance such as toilet bowl cleaner and observe the reactions of diarrhea, convulsions and skin eruptions, until 50 percent of the animals die. These
[ Page 9133 ]
procedures go on, and I believe that we have a responsibility to buy products that are not animal-tested, because they can be tested in vitro on tissue cultures. We have seen millions of animals killed, maimed or pulverized in automobile safety tests -- I could go on about the use of animals in research. Fortunately, funds are being used now to find alternatives, and animal care committees are being set up as well.
There are practices in factory farming in which animals are raised in extremely crowded conditions, and because of the crowding, the beaks of chickens are trimmed so that they do not cannibalize each other and pull out each other's feathers. We have seen animals on the freeway packed in crowded trucks going to the slaughterhouses, lined up, watching the animal in front of them and smelling the blood. I realize that many of these practices are in the past and that we are moving on to more responsible ways.
We have seen animals caught in leghold traps chewing off their legs. We have seen the bears at Stanley Park Zoo, when they were there, for many years going back and forth -- these majestic animals that we caged for our own entertainment. We have seen some of the inherent cruelty associated with the needless arena sports that occur in rodeos. But I must congratulate many communities that have now banned animal acts from circuses -- this is happening, so we have moved a long way.
However, I would like to talk specifically about a couple of issues. I would like to look at who plays a major role in preventing animal cruelty, and that is the SPCA. I have been involved for many years with the Vancouver regional branch of the B.C. SPCA. I think the fact that I can just say SPCA says something about how well-known that organization is, because there are many other wonderful organizations in this province doing no end of wonderful work, such as the CCABC, but not everybody knows that this stands for the Cancer Control Agency of B.C.
The SPCA was founded in 1896, and for the best part of 100 years the government of this province has relied on the SPCA as its agent in preventing cruelty to animals. It is a self-funded organization, although it does receive about $40,000 from the government to provide services in remote areas. It has an outstanding record of community service, and I think we all owe a great debt to the work they do.
It has been a quarter of a century since the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was considered by this House, and much has changed since then. The economy has tripled, the population has grown by nearly a million and there have been developments in the legal area like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Surely it is time to review the arrangements made in 1968 and to ensure that they are adequate for the changed circumstances of today. The SPCA states that they are not. They have been asking for amendments since 1979, with no tangible results to date. Amendments to this act would ensure that penalties for animal abuse are established. There must be an improved ability to ensure that animal welfare issues are dealt with consistently across this province. For the sake of the animals, it is this government's duty to amend the act to make it easier for SPCA inspectors to investigate and charge persons suspected in cruelty cases.
I personally am disappointed that it didn't happen in this sitting. However, I have talked with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I respect very much because I know that he is equally committed. I recognize that a new government can not do everything in its first two or three sessions. The minister has assured me that it is his top priority, but I say this today because I want it on the record that, hopefully, this will happen in the next session of the House. I have full confidence in the minister that it will be.
L. Reid: I'm delighted to respond to the statement from the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. The topic of animals and how we interact with them in society is an issue that has not been satisfactorily resolved over the last number of years.
There are tremendous instances of inhumanity toward animals. When something as significant as a pet or livestock animal is placed in our care, I think we have some responsibility to behave in a reasonable, rational fashion. Certainly that is the reason that the majority of families have young children and pets growing up in a similar environment. They want their children to learn responsibility, some decent interaction skills and some respect for something that is in their care. Those are life skills that I think all of us can take forward. I think those are skills that have allowed many of us to enter public service. They are opportunities to give something back and demonstrate some level of kindness. I would suggest that a lot of those skills were learned when most of us were very young and had numerous pets and the like.
We have senior citizens being denied access to pets in society based on residential tenancy laws and an inability for them to bring something into a house that's going to provide some companionship and sense of loyalty. We must address those issues in the Legislature, because we tend to separate individuals in society from what could give them tremendous joy and cause for celebration. We somehow deny them that based on where they live and the kind of housing we can provide. I trust those issues, as well, will be addressed by this Legislature.
The hon. member spoke of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That organization does good work and, in concert with the Legislature, I think their role is to set standards for what is appropriate care and what are appropriate responsibilities and obligations for something that is placed in our care.
I think we've all been touched by rare breeds of animals. We have certainly seen coverage in the last number of days about the panda. What is the future of that animal on this planet? We've seen tremendous coverage on the gorilla. What happens to the mountain gorilla? There is tremendous discussion about how we can create that environment, so that the British Columbians and Canadians who come after us still have some opportunity to be involved in understanding that lifestyle and how important that creature is to the
[ Page 9134 ]
overall environment and where we fit into the grand scheme of things. We tend to remove ourselves from a lot of that discussion. I think all of us have a responsibility to ensure that the things we value in this life, whether it be a very rare breed, a principle or a value system, are things that we're prepared to stand up and fight for. I think we'll come to that over time.
[10:30]
I will speak strongly for educational programs as they relate to animals. As a teacher, I have taken my students to the Vancouver Aquarium to stay overnight. I can tell you that I had a group of grade 6 students who spent the evening asleep in front of the whale tank, and the whales were nose to nose with those students. They will remember that educational experience and will value that interaction. They were certainly involved in the discussions on research and understanding more about the animal. They wouldn't have had that opportunity, if we had not spent 20 hours preparing them to understand more about why it was important to value something, and not let something disappear from our existence and life experience. Those are the kinds of experiences I would like us to pass on to children in society. The proper care and humane treatment of animals in society are value systems we can build around.
I welcome the member's comments. How we in a civilized society react to animals will determine where we go from here, and how much care, decency and respect we are prepared to show all members of society. There is a benchmark there that needs to be addressed, and I trust that public servants in British Columbia and throughout Canada will take a look at what, at the end of the day, are the two overriding principles of a civilized society -- respect and a sense of humanity.
B. Copping: I welcome the comments from the member for Richmond East, because I got through only the introduction of what I wanted to say. It's a subject I could talk on for many hours, and she did touch on many of the issues in the bulk of what I was going to say, particularly the Residential Tenancy Act. There is a tremendous amount of research to show that animals improve the physical, social and emotional lives of people. There can be a very precious interdependence built up between animals and the human animal. Animals are an outlet for a person's feelings of fear, anger, rejection and grief. As the member mentioned, this is very important particularly with seniors, who with the death of a loved one often have to move into rental accommodation, and I personally feel they should not be denied their pets. It is just unbelievable that this happens. When the residential tenancy review takes place, I would certainly encourage this government to make this a high priority for public consultation.
I also recognize many of the good things that have happened, and that this government has done -- the proposed banning of lead shot in waterfowl for 1995, the expansion of wildlife areas that has taken place in many parts of the province and the banning of grizzly and other bear parts. We have moved in many areas on behalf of the animals. I would like to end by quoting a few words from Henry Beston: "For the animal shall not be measured by man. They are not brethren, they are not underlings. They are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time...fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."
SOCIAL POVERTY, A CURABLE DISEASE
V. Anderson: One of the crises of our time is social poverty, and I am convinced that it is a curable disease. A disease is something that affects people and deprives them of health. Cancer is a disease and AIDS is a disease, and like other diseases they destroy health, and they kill. Poverty, which is the economic deprivation of people, leads directly to the deprivation of health, and if it is not overcome, it can also kill. There is ample proof in every society that poverty can kill, for poverty is a worldwide malady that affects women, men and children. Poverty is a plague that if uncontrolled robs a person of mental abilities, physical strength and life itself. Poverty is a social disease that destroys families and communities. It leads nations into civil unrest and international war. The disease of poverty claims primarily the innocent: the bystander, the young, the old and the physically and mentally challenged. Poverty destroys, regardless of race, culture, gender, religion, creed or age. Total statistics are hard to come by, but it is probably safe to say that poverty maims and kills more people -- at the very least it prevents people from being fully healthy -- than any other known cause.
Yet where is there a foundation, like the cancer society or the heart foundation, that does the research to seek the cure for poverty? Where is there one single act of the Legislature -- of the some 80 acts that we have dealt with in this session -- that undertakes to find a cure for poverty? We have established a cultural foundation and a library foundation. We have passed acts to deal with water, air, forests and much more. But we have no act to deal with poverty per se. We deal with some of the implications of poverty, but not with poverty itself. We have brought forward acts to set up community, regional and provincial health councils, but we have no council to deal with the most insidious disease known to humanity: poverty.
There are those who ask what the point is in overreacting, since poverty has always been with us. I do not buy that viewpoint. I am ashamed of myself for keeping silent for so long, expecting something to happen for the poor of this province. Nothing has changed for these people. Indeed, when I raise the issue, I am told that it is not politically profitable, and not politically correct. I am told that the people do not want to talk about the poor. That discussion might cost money, and people who are not poor do not want to spend their money on those who are poor.
When we think of poverty as a disease, we had better remember that tomorrow it may be our own disease. The children who suffer in poverty do not choose to do so. The people with disabilities who suffer in poverty do not choose to do so. The single parents and the widows and the seniors who suddenly discover poverty
[ Page 9135 ]
overwhelming them did not choose poverty. None of us knows who poverty will visit next.
My association with those who live in poverty drove me to be a politician. These people wanted a voice. They wanted a messenger. They wanted someone on the inside of the fortress called government who would speak their message and say that things have got to change. The message is quite simple: we cannot have a healthy society as long as the plague of poverty eats away at the very core of our community.
With all of our modern developments, poverty is overtaking our world, our nation, our province, our communities, our families and ourselves. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to this reality. We must stop our foolish prattling. The games we play across the floor -- sometimes until past midnight -- may be fun at times as part of our foolish jostling for position, but Nero played his violin, it is said, while Rome burned. We yack or talk here, depending on how we want to describe it. We provide food in our schools but not in our homes. We fail youth when we give them a limited education which still dooms them to poverty. We increase police forces to deal with crime caused by poverty, but do not touch the cause of poverty itself. We make big headlines which speak about fraud of the poor, and fail to ask what forces cause the fraud of humanity. What has caused this fraud to be inflicted upon the poor themselves?
Today I want to call for change. I want to call all on of us -- and I don't care about our political stripes, for poverty is politically neutral -- and challenge us to commit ourselves to join together to eradicate poverty in our land and, in due course, around the world. A hopeless task? I don't think so.
D. Lovick: To begin, I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Langara, who graciously provided me with a copy of his text. I also would like to be gracious in reply. I agree with much of what the member has said. Poverty is indeed a social disease; it maims, it kills, it deprives. I want to thank him for suggesting, ever so gently, that the phenomenon is larger than this jurisdiction alone. It is an international one -- a global village and planetary problem.
It is hard for me to be entirely gracious, however, when I listen to the member suggest -- and, I emphasize, only suggest; he didn't directly say -- that this government is somehow not addressing the problem. Frankly, I find that offensive. I want to say: how dare he suggest or imply any such thing, when he knows -- or certainly should know -- better? He sat throughout the Ministry of Social Services estimates. Indeed he is the critic; therefore he knows all the programs introduced by this ministry. He knows full well that we are making every effort, despite difficult times -- moreover, despite opposition from the opposition, who want to suggest that "poverty is politically neutral."
Poverty isn't politically neutral. Poverty is about politics. I would suggest to the member, if he wants evidence of that, all he needs to do is review the debates in this Legislature for the last few months. He would see that people on that side of the chamber have resisted every nickel spent by this government -- have attacked us and suggested we should cut budgets -- when 70 percent of our budget is on health, education and social services.
Let me be a little less indignant, if I might, because members' statements and responses are to be non-partisan. But I also want to remind the member of the existence of B.C. 21. He says: "What councils, what programs?" Let me remind him that the first initiative announced by this government, under the heading of B.C. 21, was a $32.6 million program for forestry redevelopment, targeted to income assistance recipients, displaced workers, youth, women and aboriginals in the forest industry -- in other words, poor people. It is a pretty significant accomplishment.
The member also knows, or certainly should know, something about that excellent document published by the Ministry of Social Services, called "The Challenge of Change: Maintaining British Columbia's Social Safety Nets." That document says, rather more eloquently than I or the member opposite could, what the problem is, why we have it and what this government is doing about it. Let me, in the few moments I have, refer briefly to what the problem is.
[10:45]
Let me quote to the member from the document: "Today if you are out of work you are likely to stay that way for a lot longer than before. Poverty is on the increase with its symptoms of family violence and breakup. There are more poor among us than before -- and they are getting poorer." The government published that statement -- the courageous government that did that -- despite the fact that we're in a period of fiscal restraint and the fact that we're being attacked for every progressive measure we introduce. We acknowledge the problem; moreover, we go on to address the problem.
Let me remind the members why we have the problem to at least a degree. First, every serious economist who has looked at the problem recognizes that we are going through a radical economic restructuring. Stats Canada, for example, talked about the jobless recovery. Even when the economy, by macroeconomic indicators, is supposedly improving, it's a jobless recovery. Second, in B.C. we have a net in-migration, because we are doing better than any other province in the country. Third, let us not forget -- and I'm surprised the member opposite didn't refer to this -- the federal government's activity in terms of off-loading and opting out, in effect, of transfer payments. They have reneged on historical commitments to this province.
Let me also refer ever so briefly to the long list of programs that this government has introduced. In the event that I run out of time, let me just ask those who may be watching these proceedings or may read these deliberations to write to their local MLAs and ask for a copy of "The Challenge of Change." You'll discover that this government has a proud record second to none.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the response of the member for Nanaimo and his attempt to be gracious. I'm just sorry that he missed the point of what I was
[ Page 9136 ]
trying to say. I was not trying to say that we have overlooked trying to respond to poverty; I was trying to say that we have failed to get at the cure for poverty itself. It's one thing to respond to the symptoms. I'm not talking collectively about the members of this Legislature; I'm talking collectively about the community in which we live, of which we are all, for good or ill, representatives. Poverty has been put on the back burner and has been hidden in the closet. It has been assumed that poverty will always be with us, rather than challenged.
It's something like war and peace. We spend a great deal of time trying to discover ways to win a war, but when men and women have tried to set up a council to study how we might win a peace, they have found very little support for and success in that undertaking. There is very little support for those who work from the confines of poverty itself. The local poverty groups over the generations in every community and every country, including our own, and under every government have had limited support. Even though I acknowledge that this government has probably given more support than other governments to those poverty groups in our community, that support is not significant enough to deal with the roots of poverty itself. It's still dealing with the symptoms rather than with the roots of poverty.
One of the realities is that we must first believe that poverty can be and must be eradicated. Then we must move ahead together, not in a political sense but in a community sense, to deal with this situation. I would like to suggest that this is, first of all, a poverty of the spirit, because it's a recognition that our values are where our heart, mind and soul will be. I trust that the eradication of poverty will be of prime concern in all of our activities.
ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
F. Garden: It gives me great pleasure to speak in the House today on the topic of alternative sources of electricity. British Columbia is fortunate among Canadian provinces. We are rich in natural resources and energy generation potential.
In the past, B.C. has relied almost exclusively on hydro power for the generation of electricity. In the future, we will still look to hydro power to supply most of our electricity needs. However, recent comments by one potential hydro power supplier -- Alcan -- have, for the time being, created uncertainty about the delivery of power from the Kemano completion project. At this point, it is appropriate to discuss what alternative future power sources must be considered.
This morning I would like to talk about some of the energy alternatives to the Kemano completion project that our government is actively pursuing, which have the potential to satisfy our province's energy needs for the future, and which satisfy the social and economic priorities of British Columbians.
In October 1992 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources announced a new policy for the development of independent power projects in B.C., including the introduction of a new project evaluation technique called social costing, which will act as a yardstick to give due recognition to each project's financial, environmental and economic development features. In my area in the Cariboo, Northwest Energy's new wood waste cogeneration plant at Williams Lake is an excellent example of a project that brings social, environmental and economic benefits to the community it serves. The $150 million plant sells power to the B.C. Hydro grid, and is the largest independent power producer to come into production in recent years. Many more similar projects have come forward for government's serious consideration, which they will receive.
Some members of the third party have suggested that our creation of the social costing evaluation of wood waste and other co-gen plants -- replacing the environmental premium concept they used when they were in government -- is a mistake. I disagree. The program of the Social Credit government to encourage wood waste cogeneration was little more than a series of uncoordinated initiatives. That program left other potential energy resources undeveloped and created intensive lobbying for specific projects, with no regard for the potential social cost to the community, and it bore no relationship to the province's present and future power needs.
B.C. Hydro has undertaken a number of programs which seek not only to develop greater energy generation capacity, but to gain greater efficiency from existing hydro and other generation facilities. The Power Smart program encourages residential, commercial and industrial electricity customers to consume less energy. B.C. Hydro's Resource Smart is another program designed to capture potential efficiency gains, which can be made through the upgrading of existing B.C. Hydro generating plants. This also includes making improvements to the efficiency of the electrical system as a whole, and the addition of generators to existing hydro facilities.
In June 1993 the Minister of Energy and the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro asked the Crown corporation to undertake an electrical systems operations review, with the following objectives: to explain how decisions are made; to identify concerns about existing operations; to gather more information on the possible uses of our river systems; and to identify potential substitutions in our power generating system which will accommodate our social, economic and environmental goals with little or no loss of power benefits.
Last Thursday the Leader of the Third Party stated in the House that our government's present concerns with Alcan and the KCP are "a direct result of the actions of this government and its failure to take action where it should have." Outside the Legislature, the hon. member has accused the government of bungling this issue. It seems the hon. member believes that our government should not have undertaken a review of the Kemano completion project. Further, the member for Peace River South stated in the House last week: "The government has put itself in a position where it is entirely dependent on energy from Kemano and Kemano 2."
[ Page 9137 ]
The member clearly seems to believe that this government has not been aggressive enough in pursuing energy-generating alternatives to the KCP.
In response to the member's apparent view that the government should not have undertaken a public review of the Kemano completion project, I want to strongly stress that the B.C. Utilities Commission public review of the KCP is long overdue. In 1987 the Social Credit government -- of which the Leader of the Third Party was an active and willing member -- signed a settlement agreement which gave Alcan the go-ahead to proceed with the KCP. We believe that it is time to do what was not done in 1987; to bring forward the local social and environmental issues surrounding KCP, and the opportunities for local mitigation.
As I stated earlier, the member for Peace River South claimed that it was the government's failure to pursue alternative sources that is forcing the government to deal with Alcan from a position of weakness. This is absolutely not the case. Alcan told the government last month that its costs of completing the KCP had risen by $500 million since the project was first announced. Alcan has further stated that it will not recommence construction of the KCP without a renegotiation of the contract to sell KCP power to B.C. Hydro, at an additional cost to the province of hundreds of millions of dollars. As the Premier clearly stated in this House, the province is not prepared to renegotiate this contract.
C. Serwa: It is a pleasure to address the issue brought forward by the hon. member for Cariboo North. I thought that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was the only individual here who was uninformed about and inept and incompetent in this particular matter, but the member for Cariboo North has clearly indicated that he runs a very close second.
Independent power proposals in British Columbia are and have been very important. As the former administration brought the power proposals in, there was a twofold effort to turn environmental negatives into energy positives, and that transpired. We also initiated a series of programs with respect to the conservation of energy. If the hon. member had the ability to do any research, I think he would find that that is true.
There are a number of things that this government has created that have put them in a position of being fundamentally dependent on the Kemano completion project for power. The Canyon power project, to produce ten megawatts of power, was a development supported by the village of Lytton. The community of Lytton is not served by a closed-grid circuit, and has been subject to many power interruptions because of that, so Lytton Lumber Ltd. and the local community got together and came up with a project. For two years they have been promoting that project to the current minister, who has been indifferent to supporting and promoting it. It has widespread community support, including aboriginal support. It would utilize wood waste, shut down beehive burners and turn it into an energy positive. It would utilize wood waste from the lower mainland, truck it into Lytton and use it as fuel, and also consume about 10 percent of its fuel requirements in tires. We have an enormous surplus of about three million passenger tires that are available on an annual basis for recycling or reutilization. We have a large number of truck and bus tires that could also be used. All in all, it is a very good project that has been blocked by the indifference of the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources minister and the current government.
[11:00]
I see that the socialists are trying to take ownership of the Northwest Energy project in Williams Lake. That is a project that I had actually discussed and suggested on a travelling tour when the Select Standing Committee on Forests stopped in Williams Lake and noted that some 500 to 600 loads of logs were coming into the mills on a daily basis. That project got up because of the commitment of the former Social Credit government to apply an energy premium. We got rid of the environmentally negative beehive burners in that community, and turned it into an energy positive. We're very proud of that particular accomplishment. The hon. member can badmouth it all he wants, but this government hasn't done anything. This government has shut down potential projects -- projects which are very necessary in Houston and projects that could have gone ahead in Vanderhoof. All that was necessary was some commitment to an energy cost program to make these projects viable. That has not been done.
There are a number of small independent hydro projects which we downsized because of the demand on water resources and the environmental effect. We have a superabundance of energy that we're not using, and we're wasting it either by consuming it in beehive burners or putting it into landfill projects. The other thing that this current government has done is approve a very large natural gas sale to electricity generating facilities in Washington State. It's very proud of it. It's exactly the same as shipping roundwood out of British Columbia to another jurisdiction, be it Japan or the United States. The current government rejects that policy, but they have no hesitation at all in shipping natural gas, which we could have utilized in the province to generate electricity. We would have had the job opportunities for British Columbians in capital construction and in the operation of this service, and we could have had the export of an added-value product, electricity, rather than long-term shipping of natural gas that we could have utilized here. This government can be faulted for incompetence, indifference and an incapable, uncaring attitude.
F. Garden: I'll be as brief as I can. I won't comment too much on the statements about ineptness, other than to say that it is because of the previous government's ineptness in dealing with issues like this that there's only six of these members now sitting in this House.
The Speaker: Order, please.
F. Garden: This government is not prepared to ask B.C. taxpayers to pay for the overrun on the Kemano
[ Page 9138 ]
project, and it is precisely because this government is actively pursuing alternative and attractive sources of power for our future that the Premier took that decision.
I would like to conclude by restating that Alcan's bottom line of $350 million in increased power costs to the province is unacceptable. Taxpayers should in no way be held responsible for Alcan's cost overruns on the Kemano. In cooperation with B.C. Hydro, the government is actively pursuing energy generation alternatives, including small and medium-sized hydro, wood waste, gas thermal and other proposals. All independent project proposals will be evaluated on their own merits according to consistent social criteria. It is abundantly clear that we need not depend on KCP. It is only one of the many options this government has to choose from in making decisions which will satisfy our province's present and future energy needs. I am looking forward to a period of government when the real potential of the energy resources of this province will be taken into consideration with all the environmental and social aspects.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN
On vote 6: ombudsman, $4,448,000.
K. Jones: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, who is representing the ombudsman and these other votes this morning, to give us a clarification as to just where this money is going to be spent. Where is this ombudsman's money, and how is it going to be allocated? That's $4.5 million in one vote. Where is it actually intended to be spent?
Hon. G. Clark: The ombudsman is a servant of the Legislature, not of the government. As he is a member of the Legislature, I would suggest to the member that he avail himself of the opportunity to scrutinize and discuss her budget with the ombudsman. Her budget has been dramatically increased this year as a result of the expansion of the mandate, which the Legislature approved, that now requires school boards, municipal boards, hospitals and others to fall under its jurisdiction. An individual who wants to seek redress for administrative unfairness with respect to a hospital or a school board now has access to a provincial officer of the Legislature -- the ombudsman -- and that's why the budget has been improved. There has been a dramatic enhancement of the role of the ombudsman in British Columbia, and all members supported that when it came before the House. This is the budget to do that. I suggest that if the member has any specific questions regarding the budget and how it is spent, that the member avail himself of the opportunity of discussing that with the ombudsman.
K. Jones: I understand that these are estimates, and this is the opportunity for these people to come before us and answer questions of this nature. It is appropriate. If that is not possible, then you, as the Minister of Finance representing them, are supposed to be able to have the answers to these questions. Could the Minister of Finance tell us what controls there are on the budget that is allocated to the ombudsman? What accountability is there in this case and for any of these areas?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's fair to comment that the member is new and may not know the way the legislative votes work. It has never been traditional for the auditor general or the ombudsperson -- or, for that matter, the Speaker of the House under vote 1 -- to answer these kinds of questions. Various ministers have nominal responsibility for carrying the matters. I have responsibility for three of these six votes in a very indirect way. But the member should know that there is no executive branch control over the expenditures, decisions and operations of these independent bodies who report to the Legislature, not to the government. They are properly designed to be at arm's length from government. For any cabinet minister or nominee of the executive branch to direct or pretend to direct expenditures would be inappropriate. It is a legislative matter, and the estimates are in front of us. Each of the legislative officers are available to talk to any member of the House about their budget, the decisions they make and how the expenditures go.
In the areas where I have responsibility -- including a nominal responsibility to carry legislation -- I would undertake to assist any member if any difficulties occur in the course of that kind of investigation. I might just repeat the point that it's entirely inappropriate for any of us on the executive council to usurp the role of the Legislature in directing the activities of these officers.
K. Jones: Thank you for indicating where things have been. I would like to suggest that we have to look at some of the things that have to happen today and in the future: all of the legislative officers also have to bring an accountability for their budget to this legislative floor. I think it is appropriate that they be here to address any questions that may come up with regard to their previous operations and their plans for this coming year. In the case of the information privacy commissioner, the allocation of that budget was by the government rather than the commissioner, because it was done prior to the commissioner being appointed.
That is why I would like to ask that these questions be clarified. Where is the accountability process within these budgets? These budgets range from $2 million to $6 million. That is a lot of money, and these are very important people to the operation of the Legislature and to the people of British Columbia. There should be a full, open process whereby these people report to the legislative process on an annual basis.
The Chair: Before recognizing the hon. Attorney General, the Chair would like to clarify for the committee -- or at least to reaffirm some of the
[ Page 9139 ]
comments made by the minister -- that witnesses cannot be called under present standing orders. With the greatest of respect for the desires of the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, this has been the tradition. The ministers are accountable for the budget and are here to respond, as best they can, to the questions by the members.
C. Serwa: I am not going to speak specifically about the ombudsman, just carry on the conversation. For the members' interest, and for the awareness of the government, as a member of the caucus budget review committee that was formulated under the previous government, we had the opportunity to ask questions of the ombudsman, the auditor general and others. There are some new departments that have been created here, but we did have the opportunity. It was conducted in a open room not dissimilar to Committee A. It gave the opportunity to ask specific questions that only they can answer about the type of work they do. I am agreeable with what the Chair has informed the hon. member -- that we cannot have that transpire here, because it is fairly complex, fairly select and fairly detailed. It is generally outside the parameters of the normal control and influence of the appropriate minister. All I can say is yes, it is important for the concept of openness and accountability.
The auditor general or the conflict of interest commissioner or the ombudsman should have the opportunity to show members of the Legislative Assembly what it is that they do. While we cannot do it this year, I will ask the government to take this under serious consideration, and to create an opportunity for all members of the Legislature to be more adequately informed about not only the fiscal end of the operations but about the total actual scope and context as well. The hon. Minister of Finance indicated the expanded role of the ombudsman. Especially with the stress we have had in education, I am well aware that the expanded role has encouraged many comments. Perhaps we can have that opportunity in the future.
The Chair: The hon. member is saying that the committee has no power to call witnesses. That said, we could proceed with vote 6.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the comments of the member for Okanagan West are well taken in respect of information about the operations of each of these legislative offices. I think another flaw in the current system that we should all take a look at is the reporting. The way the current system works, the officers end up reporting into a bit of a black hole, and I think that frustration has been expressed before as well.
So it is a legitimate comment. I think there are some serious issues that require resolution in respect of a more effective relationship between the legislative officers and the members of the Legislature. Together with the Minister of Finance -- and we have just had a quick word here about it -- I will undertake to begin some processes to see whether there are some better ways of handling these and other issues that we all acknowledge do exist.
[11:15]
F. Gingell: I note that in the budget of the ombudsman for 1992-93, you had a personnel complement of 43 FTEs. For 1993-94 that hasn't changed. I think that that's the case. It's proposed that it stays at....
Interjection.
F. Gingell: You are going from 43 to 50? Good, thanks. So the additional $750,000 is basically that cost -- $100,000 a head? Specifically, will these individuals focus on the additional responsibilities? Are they going to be handled in a separate group? In the organization of the ombudsman's office, do certain individuals specialize in certain types of jobs?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the FTEs go from 43 to 50, as illustrated in the estimates book. The additional costs are accounted for, in significant measure, by increased staffing needs, but also result from increased building occupancy charges and other costs that have increased -- as they have in other areas of public activity. But it's essentially a staff increase.
In respect of the question about specialization, yes, employees of the ombudsman's office do specialize in particular areas in order to develop expertise and skill in handling particular matters. I agree with the member, the additional costs are accounted for by the expansion in the role of the ombudsman.
F. Gingell: Can the minister please advise us if this $4.448 million is the amount that the ombudsman originally requested from Treasury Board?
Hon. G. Clark: I think it's fair to say that with all these votes, the requests exceed the amount granted, but not by very much. The officers of the Legislature have taken the position that they will try to live within the spirit of government initiatives. If the government is pursuing cost-saving initiatives, they voluntarily comply with them, although not always. Similarly, in the budget preparation, there's a presentation to Treasury Board and deliberations are made. In this case, however, there was some agreement at the end of the day that this was sufficient to comply with the expanded scope. But in practice, generally speaking, there's usually some modest division of opinion between the executive council, who has to raise the taxes to fund these agencies, and their requests.
F. Gingell: After I was elected, one of the first issues that I got involved in was a report from the ombudsman's office that was promised for the next week and we waited a whole year -- to start with, it was the end of next month and so it carried on. The amount of frustration on my part, and the anger by the citizen in the end was completely disproportionate to the issue that was involved. It was a review of the process of a child adoption issue. Clearly the pressures came, because continually a new project or a new job -- and Jericho Hill School for the Deaf was part of it --
[ Page 9140 ]
was seen to be more important than that case. In the end, the whole thing was a disaster -- just the anger that was created by it.
The lack of personnel really was a serious concern. I appreciate the present occupant of the position hasn't been there terribly long, but has she put to you that they really do not have enough resources?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think there's anybody who works anywhere in the public sector who couldn't argue for more money to do whatever. But I think it's fair to say that the discussions between the ombudsman and Treasury Board were amicable and the result was agreed to. Obviously the ombudsman, as other officers, could use more money. But what's happened in recent years as a result of the difficulties with the availability of money is that under the former ombudsman, and continued now with the current ombudsman, there has been a restructuring and a reorganizing of the way the services are delivered to make them more effective and certainly more cost-efficient. In my discussions with the ombudsman over budget matters, it's clear that this budget is sufficient to meet the legislative requirements that the ombudsman has under her act, and I think it's fair to say that there is no feeling that this is an inadequate budget.
H. De Jong: I suppose when the government introduced a service such as the ombudsman, it did so for various reasons. I think it was done so people could avoid having to go through the courts and so government could avoid dealing with court cases initiated by individuals. We talk about a $4.5 million budget, which is a lot of money. At the same time, perhaps we should also look on the positive side of things from time to time during these estimates. Whether it's money spent by the government in defending an action of government or money spent by the individual in order to fight for his or her rights.... Is there any information available...? If this $4.5 million were not spent, and if the ombudsman's office were not there, what could the potential saving be to government and the public? It is all a public cost. Is there any indication of how much that could be?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Information of that kind isn't collected; it's not available. It would be very hypothetical, because you never know what might have gone to court and what costs may have been incurred as a result of problems or issues that have been otherwise dealt with by the ombuds office. I think it's fair to say that no doubt there are cost savings as a result of having this structure, but more importantly there is redress for the public against arbitrary and unfair decisions of government that affect their lives. So the really important issue here is not so much the cost saving but the redress that ensures citizens have somebody to stand up for them in dealing with big government. I can't answer the question directly; I don't think it would ever be possible to collect those numbers.
H. De Jong: I have one further question. During various police board hearings, when people have a complaint against a policeman and so on, sometimes those situations are indicated as frivolous complaints. I'm sure that a number of issues that are now being referred to the ombudsman are good issues to resolve. I certainly believe that the ombudsman's job is to research every situation. I'm just wondering if there is any information from the ombudsman's office about issues that could perhaps be considered frivolous. Perhaps the public should also be informed that not every issue is so important that it should go to the ombudsman.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A fairly detailed response to that question is in the annual report of the ombudsman. It details how many actual requests or complaints were made in the first instance and how many were dealt with and in what fashion they were dealt with, so all of that information is publicly available in the annual report. We need to remember that while we may think an issue isn't important, and in fact the ombudsman may come to the conclusion that an issue isn't important, generally speaking the citizen who raises the question thinks it is. We always need to remember that that's the first point. If it's important to the citizen, then it's important. But the ombudsman then assesses, evaluates and in many cases works out with the citizen that this isn't a proper avenue to take -- that there's no cause for complaint, or whatever. All of that is in the annual report.
F. Gingell: I'm glad this subject got discussed. It tweaked a memory. I found the report from the ombudsman's office that has just been filed far less interesting that the previous year's, which went through a much more detailed description of a series of specific cases they had dealt with and the results thereof. I think it was particularly useful, because it gave MLAs, constituency assistants and citizens a much clearer understanding of the role and type of things the ombudsman gets involved in, and the type of help that the ombudsman can give. It is perhaps also a very useful tool for cutting some things off at the pass that would waste a lot of time and resources. So I would like to use this opportunity to put in a plea for a return to the earlier style of report.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have no doubt whatsoever that the ombudsman will read the Hansard of this debate and take full note of the member's comments.
Vote 6 approved.
ESTIMATES: INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
On vote 5: information and privacy commissioner, $1,204,000.
[11:30]
F. Gingell: The information and privacy commissioner, as I understand it, will come into
[ Page 9141 ]
position later this year. I presume that start-up planning has commenced with respect to staffing and offices. As is so important in this first year of a new position, I was wondering if the minister could advise us what number of months this expenditure represents, or put another way, what the government would anticipate a full year's cost being.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't do that at this stage. First, I should tell members that the Minister of Government Services is responsible for this. She's unavoidably absent from the House today.
When the budget was drawn up, the anticipation was that the legislative committee would have made a determination and the House would have approved the appointment of a commissioner earlier than the House did. The House just completed that work, I think, a few weeks ago. With proclamation scheduled for October, it's very important that the office and its operations be up and running by that point. That's why this particular budget is required.
I can't predict this for sure; however, it may be as a result of the later start that the full amount detailed here actually may not be needed in this budget year. I can't tell the member at this point, and I'm sorry about this. Although I can undertake to have the information provided later by way of letter or other arrangement, I can't tell the member now what the anticipated cost is for the rest of this year; nor can I tell the member what that would be on an annualized basis, which I think is the point of the question.
F. Gingell: In this morning's Times-Colonist there was an interesting article, headed: "Freedom-of-Information Law Makes It Hard to Do research in B.C. Archives." This particular researcher has had an interest in the process of inquests over the years, and has just been able to pop into the archives, go through the files, pick out what she needs, read it, put it back and so on. Now they've had to pop a bureaucrat between her and the files. This is not going to appear, I would imagine, in the budget of the information and privacy commissioner, but it is going to appear in the budget of the archivist, which is under the Minister of Government Services. When one thinks about this, one suddenly thinks about a whole series of things that are going to happen, particularly in the Attorney General's own offices, I would imagine.
I wonder if the government has given any thought to trying to find some means, particularly in the first and second years, to measure the costs of the freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy law that will be incurred in all the ministries of government.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Technically that is not within this vote, obviously, but I think it's a fair question. Every ministry is required to have an item which defines the cost to that ministry of compliance with the freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy legislation, so those costs will be identified, included in the budget process and available to debate during the normal course of estimates debates.
I don't mind saying this, and maybe I'll do this by way of a message to public servants: I think there is an overreaction on the part of many people to this initiative. I was as disturbed as the member by this story. I learned of it not by reading this morning's Times-Colonist, but yesterday. I intend that we get to the bottom of it. On the surface of that particular issue, it is having the opposite effect to the one that we very much want to achieve. I can assure the member that we will do everything possible to make sure that fewer impediments, rather than more, are put in the way of citizens who want to do the kind of research or other investigation that this author is intent upon doing.
But to answer the question directly, yes, the moneys are counted and strictly controlled. In fact, I don't mind saying that Treasury Board provided considerably less to the ministries than the ministries -- not the ministers, but the ministries themselves -- thought they might need for this initiative.
K. Jones: Since the Attorney General is the acting spokesperson for this area, I'd like to ask him whether he could do something to rectify the situation where even members of the Legislature are having difficulty getting access to information that is important in order to do their jobs because of ministerial reticence to recognize that freedom of information is here, there is a definite process and they should change their approach to giving out information and making it available.
I had this experience when I requested access to the government air logs in May. I was rejected access by the Minister of Government Services. I asked to have them only two days prior to the actual public distribution of them, and I gave her almost three months' notice. This seems to be playing politics; it's certainly not following the direction of the freedom-of-information legislation that would make these things available when they are in the hands of the ministerial staff. Evidently they were well in their hands a week or so before. This is for the next period coming up to the end of this month.
I had a similar experience when I requested access several weeks in advance of the previous air logs. I was finally able to get it delivered to me when I went to the airport -- three days after the fact. Three days after the public issuance of the information, I was finally able to get a copy of it. That was only because I had gone to the airport as I was heading to the mainland and made a last-ditch attempt to access these logs, so that we could have a copy in our hands. There doesn't seem to be any recognition of the intent of freedom of information by the minister who is really responsible for administering it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In order to rectify the member's concerns, we should pass this vote. It will enable the member to have recourse to an independent body that perhaps can make a decision to take his position as opposed to that of the Minister of Government Services. That's what this vote is for: to provide that mechanism to make sure that the spirit of the legislation is in fact adhered to, if for some reason it doesn't appear to be.
[ Page 9142 ]
K. Jones: I assure the Attorney General that the letter is in the mail to the commissioner at the present time.
A. Warnke: I have one question. Insofar as the new information and privacy commissioner at the outset expressed some potential problems with the budget, and since this particular individual is very well acquainted with other jurisdictions and how much it costs.... I should add that he has made it very clear that it is certainly not his intention to develop an empire. As a matter of fact, he pointed out that in Ontario the commissioner's offices are perhaps far more extensive than they need to be. Nonetheless, since this is the first year of operation, in the future we will be using this year as a baseline for comparative purposes. I'm interested in the approach that was taken to establish this particular amount and, simply because we were in the midst of setting it up, the concerns expressed by the commissioner about the baseline and flexibility with the amount of money here. Is there some flexibility in case of overexpenditure, or is this a high ceiling that has been established?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amount was what was determined to be needed in this fiscal year by people involved in developing the freedom-of-information program and by looking at operations in other jurisdictions to see what the costs would be. This is the amount. This is not a guess; this is the upper limit. It's my hope that we spend less than this amount this year, given the way the program is starting, but the new commissioner's office can spend up to this amount.
Vote 5 approved.
ESTIMATES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER
On vote 4: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $206,000.
F. Gingell: The annual budget has been in the $200,000 range for some years. In fact, this office has never spent more than roughly $100,000. Why don't we cut it to $100,000?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given the relatively static nature of the budget, I think the response of Treasury Board was to accept the request from the commissioner for a budget in this amount. Hopefully, he will continue to be frugal, but it may be that his work will expand -- hopefully, it won't in this parliament -- and then he would need more money. That's the expectation, so this will be a nice cost saving to the taxpayer.
D. Symons: I would like to take a few minutes and just canvass one of the reports put out by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, and it's the one dealing with the constituency allowance review.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. That is a report to the assembly, and we are on vote 4, which is not the appropriate time for that.
D. Symons: I wonder if I could ask when the appropriate time might be, then.
The Chair: During estimates.
F. Gingell: This is estimates.
The Chair: It's a report that comes to the assembly. We'll ask the Attorney General to shed some light on the matter.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for Okanagan West made this general point earlier in respect of finding a way in which we can have legislative officers interact more effectively with members of the Legislature. I undertook then to deal with not only with the member for Okanagan West's specific request, but also a concern that many of us have had for a long time that reports from legislative officers drop into this black hole and have no place to be discussed. I and the Minister of Finance undertook to embark on a process to begin to deal with that so there can be a more effective way, given we now have four, I guess, officers of the Legislature. We didn't used to have this institution at all. It's been developing, and we don't have the proper mechanisms in place to have the kind of discussion that the member would like. Clearly the discussion that he would like to embark upon is not in order under this particular estimate, but it identifies a problem which I think we have to resolve. Again, I undertake that we will get to work on it.
[11:45]
D. Symons: I'm wondering if this might be the forum to undertake that now.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a question of reform of parliament. It would probably require legislative amendment and a number of other things. Clearly this is a matter for all parties to be involved in, and the commitment is there. We will undertake that as part of the general reform of this institution that is so evidently needed.
The Chair: I would just reflect on the comments made when I suggested that the appropriate place for the report was in estimates, and someone suggested that we are in estimates. The problem is the report contains a variety of matters which run across a spectrum of ministries. These subjects are appropriate under the particular ministries; however, this is on the administration of the office of the conflict-of-interest commissioner, and it therefore would be out of order to attempt to address those issues specifically at this time.
Vote 4 approved.
[ Page 9143 ]
ESTIMATES: COMMISSION ON RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
On vote 3: Commission on Resources and Environment, $4,180,000.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to indicate to members of the House the reality of this vote, which is different from the other votes we have been discussing, inasmuch as the commissioner of CORE does not report to the Legislature, as the other commissioners do. He is appointed by and reports to the executive council, although he has an independent vote and an independent function. Given that difference, and given what we know to be the interest in the activities of the commissioner and CORE itself, Mr. Owen is in the House with us today to assist in answering any questions that members may have.
G. Wilson: With respect to parliamentary reform, I look forward to the day that the officers of the Legislature are able to come in and directly.... I think that would be a worthwhile reform -- one on one -- or to a committee of the House....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: We will deal with those kinds of trades later.
With respect to CORE, I have a series of questions, and I would like to demonstrate -- for your own ability to set them out -- how we are going to proceed. One is to do with the operation of CORE, as it stands right now with respect to the ongoing project; secondly, I would like to talk a little bit about the Clayoquot decision and the monitoring that is going on; thirdly, I would like to take issue with the extent to which CORE is able to work with existing community groups that are already hard at work within those existing communities.
On the first one, I wonder if we might hear from the government how the $4.1 million is going to be discharged in what seems to be an attempt to build an integrated land use strategy. I refer to the 1992-93 annual report, in which there is a fairly lengthy discourse and a rather nice diagram in terms of the current elements of provincial land use strategy. How is that $4.1 million being discharged to be able to engage in a strategy in this province that is going to try to eliminate some of the obvious conflicts that exist because of the differences of opinion that exist with respect to the appropriate types of economic activity for each community?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may not have properly understood the intent of the question, and the member will no doubt have at me again if I miss it.
It might be useful to give an overview of the breakdown of expenditures. I think that's what the member was getting at. I think the provincial land use strategy is looking at about 6 percent of the budget. Sixty percent of the budget -- significantly over $2 million -- is allocated for the regional processes that are now underway. The biggest, significant other issue is administrative costs, which is about 12.5 percent. Then a series of other issues -- policy coordination, communications, aboriginal issues -- go into the overall budget.
I think it's fair to say that the significant expenditures for the regional processes and ongoing work that the member was talking about, in respect of developing an integrated land use strategy -- including two forums earlier this year -- are leading to development of a policy framework in respect of integrated land use goals, which hopefully will be available in December this year.
G. Wilson: More specifically, how much money is being put into the exchange of ideas which I understand is going on? And how much money is being put into collecting hard data? For example, are we expending dollars putting together a comprehensive inventory of resources that will be useful in the decision-making process?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The hard dollars on inventory and data collection are spent in the ministries, as opposed to within CORE. CORE directs a process and involves people in coming together to identify the goals in respect of integrated land use development. But the hard data is in fact in the appropriate ministry.
G. Wilson: I don't want to get into a long philosophical discourse as to whether that's good or not, because I don't think that's necessarily appropriate at this time. But one of the concerns that has been expressed is that CORE, which is a good idea, is having trouble working in some areas, because when you bring people together to exchange ideas in a process toward making land use decisions, often hard data that's consistent and accurate is not available. For example, I know that within the Forests and Lands ministries, until very recently -- in fact it may still exist today -- they didn't even have compatible mapping and computer systems, and a lot of the data couldn't be integrated. There can't be a lot of exchange of information on a ready basis. I wonder if CORE, as a coordinating agency, has any function in trying to pull that together or not.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, CORE does have a role. In fact, CORE assists the ministries in trying to pull together all that kind of data collection -- systems and all of that. Speaking more generally, I think it's fair to say that one of the great difficulties we have in British Columbia in making land use decisions is that we don't have the kind of base data and other information that we need. As a result, we've had a lot of difficulties. CORE is very much involved in working with ministries to get that information base and compatible systems, to do just what the member is suggesting needs to be done. As a result of CORE's coordinating and leading role, that is now beginning to take shape in the various ministries involved.
G. Wilson: This goes to the heart of some of our concerns. While I think it's good to bring the warring
[ Page 9144 ]
factions together -- and I don't mean that lightly; it's getting pretty hot out there right now -- unless we're coming together with some common base data to make some hard decisions on, we're going to have some trouble. When those decisions are made.... This takes me to the Clayoquot situation, where CORE was not used. On this side of the House we feel that was a big mistake the government made, but that's another debate for another time. Given that the decision has been made and that we're supposedly now seeing new practices in place with respect to forest activity, what proportion of the $1.8 million is being spent on actually doing analysis of the impact of what's taking place in the Clayoquot? Is CORE actually monitoring what's going on there now? To what extent will that monitoring be provided in some form that the public can read?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Commission on Resources and Environment submitted a report to government as recently as last week. It outlined the variety of proposals for the monitoring work in Clayoquot. Government is now considering that report, and presumably will respond in due course. It is a public document released by CORE. The member may, in fact, have it in his hands. The question was costs. Whatever costs are involved in doing this work at this stage are within the budget. It would require reallocation if moneys are needed, but that is in this year's budget. Next year's budget will be a new matter, and will be the subject of discussion next year.
G. Wilson: We do have this report. In review, it is interesting that there is a series of recommendations in it which suggest quite clearly that there needs to be a much more comprehensive system in place to adequately review what is going on. I come back to the matter of the inventory. One of the reasons that CORE is having difficulty -- and you may dispute that they're having any difficulty; I believe that it was a good idea that's having some trouble -- is that we have not had, nor is there in place, any kind of coordinated effort to actually compile and provide an accurate inventory. That's not just of the hard resources -- the timber, mineral, water and soil resources -- but of what I would call the softer resources, in terms of ungulates and other kinds of species that we might want to look at. Nowhere is that being coordinated in government, and as a result we really don't know what the impacts are going to be.
[12:00]
We find in the Tatshenshini, for example, a decision made that was, once again, not referred to CORE, and we know there is a hard set of data with respect to the mineral deposit -- a $1 billion resource -- which has been denied because of what has been perceived as an aesthetic or tourist value. I wonder if the Minister of Advanced Education said to himself against that decision: "I think it was the wrong decision." We had an opportunity to do both in that area, and to do both with a great deal of comfort that we would not have massive environmental degradation. The reason we can't argue and articulate that with any conviction to those people -- especially those outside the borders of the province -- is that we don't have that inventory of hard data that gives us that kind of comfort.
So I come back to it and ask: with respect to the interior decisions that are being made -- the process is working fairly well in the Cariboo and a few other areas, and I give credit to Mr. Owen and CORE for that -- will there be some compilation of data at the end of that process that will be useful for future decisions? The decisions that are made today are very much going to impact those communities tomorrow.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member knows, there are four CORE processes going on in the province. Two are in the Kootenays. As a result of those processes and, in particular, of the process on Vancouver Island, there has been a clear recognition on the part of everybody involved in the process, including the government agencies, that we have to do just what the member is suggesting. That work is coming together. It will be one of very major benefits of the process that there will be a data collection dealing with not just the hard data -- how many trees there are, what kind they are and how old they are -- but also how many deer and elk there are, and all the other elements of a land use decision-making process. The CORE process is clearly driving that in way that I think is good and will serve the purpose that the member outlines, which is a positive purpose.
G. Wilson: We all hope that it will. From my perspective, the money that we have spent -- roughly $4.1 million this and last -- has done little more than create the entity. I'm not saying it has been necessarily badly spent, but what we have done is create it. What we have to be able to do now is allow CORE to become an effective operational tool for both short-term policy-making, which isn't critical, and more importantly, long-term project planning, specifically in those areas where conflict exists.
I'm not sure that the resources are adequate for that -- for two reasons, and I put these two to the minister. The first is that many community groups are already actively working in their communities. These groups are very much a part of the process of decision-making in their own communities on things from forestry to water management, from salmonid enhancement projects through to a whole host of other things, including gravel pit operations and residential and suburban land use planning. Those community groups are actively working with local governments today. Once they have come up with the decision on what they would like to do, they don't feel empowered to be able to take that to government with any conviction that government is (1) going to listen, and (2) going to implement it. They look to CORE as the avenue that would do it.
CORE doesn't have the resources either to accommodate or to undertake that, so it's an enormously frustrating process. They thought that here, finally, they have the group that is going to do it. Then they get there and are told that CORE is sorry but they
[ Page 9145 ]
just can't be on the list, because it doesn't have enough resources to do it. So we have a problem.
I understand that we haven't got a whole lot of money to throw at these kinds of things, and I hope the minister doesn't jump up and say we want to go spend and spend. That's not what I'm talking about. I am saying that when you create those real expectations, you have to have some ability to deliver on them or cynicism in the system becomes so great that nobody participates anymore, and you have done more damage than good. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member's comments are well taken and well understood, certainly by CORE and also by the government. In a sense, we have started slowly with this process. CORE was given the mandate to work in particular regions of the province. It was in three general regions and is now in four groupings, to get started.
What has been happening as a result of that is that a lot of learning has taken place, and it will be a lot easier as the program expands into other parts of the province. But to get to the point where we can effectively deal with the concerns the member talks about in terms of local groups, and ad hoc planning groups around particular issues, usually evolving as a result of a particular decision that's pending, we are probably a couple of years away from having the ability to have CORE provide the kind of comfort people need.
The only assurance I can give -- and that all of us, including CORE, can give -- is that we recognize the concerns raised by the member. We agree with them and are working toward being able to give people the comfort that CORE will in fact be there for them, helping to put those local land use decisions into a proper framework so government can make an informed decision, if that is where the decision has to be made.
G. Wilson: I just have one last question, and then I will yield to other members, who I am sure have questions, and it has to do with the aboriginal land situation and CORE's involvement or work with it. I understand that there is no mandate to specifically negotiate or involve...and I am not asking that question. But clearly the decisions that CORE is going to be making in the province will be impacted by whatever resolution is made on land questions. And clearly, if we're going to have long term resource planning, one of the components is going to have to be some recognition of either joint stewardship programs, a cooperative program or a resolution of land and resource issues under dispute. I just wonder what CORE's role is in that. To what extent do they have staff working on those issues?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The statute requires CORE to work with aboriginal peoples in developing issues. In fact, this is occurring; there is a lot of involvement by aboriginal people in the CORE process. All of that is without prejudice to the land claims issue, and I think that's understood by everyone involved. Where this will finally end up is a question that is yet to be determined in terms of CORE's ongoing work and the results that come out of land claims discussions.
Vote 3 approved.
ESTIMATES: AUDITOR GENERAL
On vote 2: auditor general, $6,933,000.
F. Gingell: I'm not trying to be funny, but every single one has been held to the same amount. You allowed the office of the auditor general an increase of $10,000. There must be some symbolism to this. I am wondering if the minister would tell me what the symbolism is.
Hon. G. Clark: I would apologize if the member thinks there is some symbolism, because there isn't. This is how it works: the officers of the Legislature come before Treasury Board, make a submission and try to live within the spirit of the government's overall budget objectives. The auditor general, of course, has been exemplary in that regard and you can appreciate that he, maybe more than anybody else, wants to ensure that there is efficient allocation of public money.
However, it's not a science. If I, as chair of Treasury Board, suggest to the auditor general that we are trying to keep to the same amount as last year, the auditor general may well present some rationale to the Treasury Board on why, for a particular reason, they need to be a little more or a little less than that, and we try to accommodate that. These are relatively amicable -- certainly for Treasury Board, very amicable -- deliberations, where there is some to and fro and agreement at the end of the day.
This amount would have been arrived at by that mutual deliberation, and I am at a loss to explain why it is $10,000 more than last year.
F. Gingell: Both the minister and I have discussed and recognized that there are sometimes fuzzy lines between the roles and responsibilities of the auditor general and of the comptroller general. The comptroller general is now taking on a quite active role looking at the internal operations, effectiveness and efficiency of various government ministries and departments within ministries. As the minister indicated to me recently, some discussions have been going on to try and clarify the roles of the auditor general and the internal audit department of the comptroller general. I was wondering if the minister would give the House an assurance that those discussions will be quickly brought to a close and those roles quickly defined. As we both know, the current term of the auditor general expires at the end of 1993, and it would seem to me that it's very appropriate that this matter be dealt with and brought to a conclusion prior to either a reappointment or appointment of a new auditor general.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I will give that assurance. We have been in discussion with the auditor general for some time, as I discussed with the member. I believe --
[ Page 9146 ]
and I'll be held to this -- that I have a meeting scheduled with the auditor general in the very near future. The comptroller general and Ministry of Finance, in working with the auditor general, have resolved many differences in terms of any new legislation. This is what the auditor general would like. There may be some outstanding areas of dispute; I haven't had a full briefing on that. The auditor general and I will have some discussion around that to clarify some of those very questions. I think it's fair to say we are trying to get a resolution this fall so we can bring something to the House for further discussion. I hesitate to give a firm commitment, but we are working toward a spring legislative agenda for new changes. In keeping with not wanting to overburden the legislative calendar, I am not absolutely positive it is going to make it through that system. That's the time track that we're working on, and the auditor general knows that. We have a series of meetings to try and do that.
F. Gingell: I would just like one further commitment from the minister. It is very important that he give me a commitment that he won't try to extend this sitting of the House long enough to bring in amendments to the Auditor General Act.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll give that commitment.
Vote 2 approved.
ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION
On vote 1: legislation, $24,025,000.
K. Jones: STOB 95 is "other expenditures." Could you detail what is being put into that $5,439,900?
[12:15]
Hon. G. Clark: No, I don't propose to do that. Vote 1 is the vote that governs this Legislature; it's not subject to Treasury Board deliberations in any manner, shape or form, nor should it be. It seems to me that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which has members of the opposition on it, is the appropriate place to ask those questions.
I might say -- and I know that all members are very proud of this -- that we have the lowest-cost Legislature per capita of any jurisdiction in Canada. We make a commitment to the public today -- and I know that all members, regardless of party, join with me -- to maintain that position. I think that that lowest-cost position is an enviable one.
Any deliberations or discussion around the budget of vote 1 is better performed within the purview of an all-party committee than before the House. It's the appropriate place to have those discussions.
C. Tanner: I appreciate what the Minister of Finance said, but I think there is one very important segment of this vote that deserves some recognition in the House. That is the fact that all members enjoy a $16,000 tax-free allowance. It's my contention, Mr. Minister of Finance, that that is not a fair way to appropriate our salaries, because the public cannot then make a fair comparison between what we make and what they make. In fact, there shouldn't be a tax-free allowance. I would like to get some recognition from the minister that he agrees with my point of view and that he will introduce in this parliament an amendment to change that procedure, so that we pay taxes on a full salary, like any other member of the public does.
The Chair: I would point out to the committee that any matters that involve legislation would not be appropriately addressed in committee.
Hon. G. Clark: I have a lot of sympathy for the member's line of questioning, but it would be inappropriate. The opposition would be concerned about it if the executive council were to impose wages and working conditions on members without consultation. That's why we have a committee that reviews those questions. I might say that we did have a committee. Mr. Chuck Connaghan of the member's party reviewed these very questions. As part of that review, I think this is the third consecutive year with a wage freeze for members. I think we are doing our part as members. Can we do more? Absolutely. Am I sympathetic to that? Absolutely. The appropriate course is to have your member of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee put forward any potential wage cuts, or others, that you think might be appropriate.
Vote 1 approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report resolutions.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee reported resolutions.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from Committees of Supply on April 23 and 27, May 4, 12, 17 and 18, June 1, 9, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, and July 12, 16 and 23 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $18,653,347,902 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1993, and section 1 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1993.
[ Page 9147 ]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 29 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Barlee |
|
Jackson |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Hammell |
Giesbrecht |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
|
Barnes |
Copping |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
|
Hartley |
Streifel |
Krog |
|
Randall |
Garden |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
|
Janssen |
| NAYS -- 13 | ||
|
Reid |
Gingell |
Dalton |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Stephens |
Serwa |
|
Neufeld |
Fox |
Symons |
|
Tanner |
Warnke |
Anderson |
| K. Jones | ||
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 1993-94.
Hon. G. Clark: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs for the 1993-94 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved just a second ago, by vote, in Committees of Supply after consideration of the estimates.
Bill 79 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.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]