1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 14, Number 7
[ Page 10031 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Prayers.
L. Reid: It is my pleasure today to welcome Beryl Anderson. Beryl is visiting from Melbourne, Australia, and I would ask the House to please make her welcome.
C. Serwa: I have good news for the House again today. In Oberstdorf, Germany, Canada's women's and men's curling teams won the world championships. It was a Kelowna, British Columbia, team that won the men's world curling championship for Canada. These gentlemen have a remarkable degree of dedication to achieve the highest standard of excellence, which has enabled them to win the world championships. Would the House please join me in congratulating skip Rick Folk, third Pat Ryan, second Bert Gretzinger and lead Gerry Richard.
D. Schreck: Visiting us today in the gallery is Mrs. Ellen-Therese Boyer. Mrs. Boyer is the mother of one of our legislative interns and is here visiting us today from North Vancouver. Would the House please join me in making her welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: On behalf of my colleague the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, it gives me great pleasure to welcome 30 students from Windermere Secondary School in East Vancouver. Their teachers, Dr. Philip Moir and Ann Parker, are accompanying them today. I hope that everyone will show them their best behaviour and make them feel very welcome.
G. Brewin: I have two introductions today. This being Volunteer Week, I'd like to first of all introduce a gentleman who has been a volunteer with the E&N Railway on Vancouver Island and also been involved with other transportation issues in the city of Victoria. His name is C. Joe Richards. Would the House please make him welcome.
My second introduction is on behalf of myself, as well as the Minister of Finance, who is the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, and the Minister of Forests, who is the member for Saanich South. We have in the gallery today volunteers from the community offices of the three ridings. I'd like to have the House make welcome Beth Rutherford, Margaret Brandon, Sharon Pearson and Tony Gibb from Saanich South; Lynda Reid, Judy Gaylord, Ann Easton, Ian Lyon, Lois Sutherland and Barbara West from Oak Bay-Gordon Head; and Jo Lawley and Bruce Fogg from Victoria-Beacon Hill. Would you please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to introduce Al Hickey, chief executive officer of the SPCA; John van der Hoeven, chief of field operations for the SPCA; and Reg Miller, an executive director with the Ministry of Agriculture. They're here today to witness something they've been waiting for for 15 years: debate on the amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Please make them welcome.
R. Neufeld: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a gentleman who used to live in Fort St. John: Mr. Andrew Van Der Gugten. He now resides in Victoria most of the year and writes articles for the Alaska Highway News. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: Although I don't see them yet, a great group of students in grades 3 to 10 from the Hartley Bay school in a tiny community at the mouth of Douglas Channel will shortly be coming into the gallery. For many of these kids -- particularly the younger ones -- it's their first trip outside the North Coast, down to Victoria and then over to the lower mainland. I would ask the House to welcome them and to also welcome Wade Gemmell and Caren Rennie, the teachers accompanying them, and Mavis Reece, who's helping the teachers. They're just a great group. Let's give them a rousing round of welcome.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE
A. Warnke: My question is to the Premier. In 1990 Bud Smith did the honourable thing and resigned when he announced that a special prosecutor had been appointed to examine his activities. Last Wednesday the Attorney General informed this House that he too had appointed a special prosecutor to examine his activities, but he did not resign. We reviewed the Attorney General's affidavit and its exhibits and have concluded that the Attorney General has no option but to resign. He should be no less honourable than Bud Smith. Will the Premier today demand that his Attorney General do the only honourable and decent thing and resign?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the Hon. member would check Hansard of last week, he'd see that I have already answered that question, and the answer is no.
The Speaker: The hon. member, with a new question.
A. Warnke: That surprises me, because we've had some time to have a careful review of the subject. I do not know why the Premier has not reviewed the documents by this time also.
The supplementary is that when Bud Smith resigned, he said: "That investigation necessarily will include me. It is my view that I could not properly serve the office I hold during the course of such an investigation." The Premier is also a lawyer and knows that the answer he's just given erodes public confidence in the legal system. Why does he have an ethical blind spot for his own Attorney General?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The special prosecutor has been at work for about ten days now. I think it would probably be appropriate for us to let the special prosecutor conclude his investigation in this matter and report out, rather than prejudge or prepare that report for the special prosecutor right here in the House.
The Speaker: The member has a final supplementary?
A. Warnke: Again to the Premier. On Friday this House passed a motion to suspend the estimates due to our lack of confidence in the Attorney General, and that is because the special prosecutor is taking a look at this case. In fact, the Attorney General himself supported that motion, as did all members across the aisle -- no doubt because even the Attorney General realized he did not have the moral authority to continue. Therefore will the Premier at least do the most decent thing here and demand the resignation of his Attorney General right now?
[ Page 10032 ]
M. de Jong: It appears that the special investigator was involved in this matter much sooner than this House has been led to believe. A complete review of the affidavit sworn by the Attorney General on April 13, 1994, confirms that in August 1993 the Supreme Court of British Columbia was misled. Today the chief law enforcement officer for the province of British Columbia is under investigation for obstruction of justice. Will the Premier not agree that preserving the integrity of our Attorney General's office is pre-eminent and takes precedence over any other political considerations, and demand that his minister step aside?
[2:15]
The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?
M. de Jong: On Friday of last week I was in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in New Westminster. I want the Premier to know what's being said in the halls of justice around the province. I heard prosecutors...
The Speaker: The question?
M. de Jong: ...laughing at this Attorney General....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
M. de Jong: I heard...
The Speaker: Order!
M. de Jong: ...a lawyer admonish...
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
M. de Jong: ...a witness to tell the truth...
The Speaker: Order!
M. de Jong: ...and that witness said: "Why should I tell the truth? The Attorney General's a liar." That's what he said, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Order, hon. members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Will the hon. member please take his seat, and will the hon. member for Okanagan West do so as well. Hon. members, I think it's quite clear that the member's comments were certainly inflammatory. The hon. member knows that under our standing orders...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
...although there is a strong desire for members to bring information to the House, question period is strictly for questions -- although from time to time we do allow preambles to provide a basis upon which a question may be best placed. But the member made reference to the Premier and the Attorney General having lied, I believe. The hon. member knows that members do not impute improper motives to any member of the House without doing so in a substantive way.
If the hon. member...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
...is suggesting that an hon. member in the House has lied, I would ask the member to please withdraw.
M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, you will know from my comment that I relayed to the Premier comments I heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in New Westminster.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. All the Chair is asking at this time is that if the member suggested improper motive on the part of any hon. member, would he please withdraw. If the member did not, he knows what he has done. Have you done so, hon. member?
M. de Jong: I said that in the Supreme Court of British Columbia....
Interjections.
Some Hon. Members: Withdraw!
The Speaker: Hon. members, I would like your attention, please. It is customary in this House that when there is any suggestion that an hon. member has lied, whether it can be clearly substantiated or not, it is usually the practice of hon. members to respect that possibility. In the event that the hon. member has inadvertently accused someone of lying, he is to withdraw his remarks unequivocally and unconditionally.
M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I made no such accusation. I related to the Chair what was said in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and that was a witness saying to a lawyer: "Why should I be compelled to tell the truth?"
The Speaker: Take your seat, hon. member. Thank you.
Hon. members, the House should be very clear on the issue the Chair is attempting to raise. This is a matter of propriety in the House. No member may do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I'm not suggesting what the member's motives are. But if there is any question whatsoever with respect to the intent of the member's comment, it is the Chair's opinion that the member should withdraw. I would therefore ask the member to please withdraw.
M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, like the Premier, I am also an officer of the court. I feel compelled to defend that institution; I will not withdraw the remark.
The Speaker: Hon. member and hon. members, in light of the response of the hon. member for Matsqui, he leaves no alternative but for the Chair to ask that the member please withdraw for the remainder of this sitting.
Interjection.
An Hon. Member: Of this sitting?
The Speaker: Of this session, hon. member. Would you please withdraw.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Hon. member, there is no further debate.
Interjection.
[ Page 10033 ]
The Speaker: Of this sitting, hon. member.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order! There is no further comment, hon. member.
M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the Chair....
Some Hon. Members: Sit down!
The Speaker: Hon. member, perhaps being new, you do not understand the ruling. It is that you must now withdraw forthwith.
M. de Jong: I understand perfectly well, Mr. Speaker. It's members on the other side who are out of order. The Premier is out of order and the Attorney General is out of order. They are the ones who are out of order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Considerable time has been taken up due to the rulings of the Chair and the time consumed in this matter. With your indulgence, I think it would be appropriate to extend question period for an additional three minutes.
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The Attorney General is one of the most respected members of this assembly. That reputation is being seriously compromised and damaged by the Premier's refusal to deal with this issue. Does the Premier recognize, realize and understand the damage being done not only to the reputation of the Attorney General but to the reputation of the office of Attorney General by his lack of action and his lack of understanding in dealing honourably with this question?
The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?
J. Weisgerber: The Premier clearly continues to demonstrate his contempt for the traditions of this Legislature. If the Premier doesn't today demand that the Attorney General step down, I, for one, will have no further part in the debates of this Legislature today. Over the next 24 hours before the next question period, I hope that the Premier will grab his moral compass and understand that the honourable, traditional and right thing to do in this Legislature is demand the resignation of the Attorney General.
J. Dalton: My question is also to the Premier. The Attorney General swore an affidavit claiming that no notes were taken at the meeting last July, when in fact the Attorney General did take notes. In his own handwriting, he writes: "Investigation of harassers by the AG." These words clearly indicate that the Attorney General is not impartial in this matter. In light of these new revelations, will the Premier order his Attorney General to resign?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think British Columbians are disappointed with the opposition and with the Leader of the Opposition.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. M. Harcourt: I am disappointed and British Columbians are disappointed at the flip-flops of the opposition on the casino issue, at the flip-flops we've seen on this particular matter and....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Premier, please respond to the question.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to respond to the question from the opposition critic for the Attorney General, who last week said....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. M. Harcourt: I had occasion to see a copy of the affidavit in question this morning. I have every confidence -- as the opposition does -- in the office of the Attorney General, and we're not going to make any further comment.
Some Hon. Members: Answer the question.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale please come to order.
The member has a supplementary?
J. Dalton: While in opposition, the NDP took a different tack on this. I quote, for example, from the current Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, who said in the last parliament that the AG has an obligation to be impartial and independent. Why is there a double standard with this government -- one in opposition and one while in government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We have seen an officer of the court call someone in this Legislature a liar.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: One of the members, who is a lawyer, left this court after abusing the rules of this Legislature, abusing one of the strengths of our justice system, which is to let due process take place and let the special prosecutor conclude his investigation. The member should at least be consistent with what he said last week: that he has every confidence in the office of the Attorney General and would not make further comment.
Every comment I have heard has done nothing but harm to the administration, and the opposition will have that resting with them for a long time.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Okanagan West.
J. Dalton: Again to the Premier, this is the second officer of the court in this cabinet who is under a cloud. I'm referring as well to the Environment minister, who is currently being reviewed by the Law Society. He is also an officer of the court, and he must realize how serious this matter is. In my conversations with colleagues around
[ Page 10034 ]
British Columbia, they show complete lack of regard for the Attorney General's carelessness...
The Speaker: Question, hon. member.
J. Dalton: ...and negligence in his duties, as reflected in that affidavit.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Dalton: Will the Premier get his head out of the sand and ask for the resignation of his Attorney General?
C. Serwa: My question also is to the Premier. The principle of ministerial responsibility is being seriously eroded by this government. In the past, members of cabinet such as Peter Dueck, Stan Hagen and Jack Davis have resigned at the slightest hint of impropriety. We have here not simply the credibility of government but of this institution and of the Westminster parliamentary system.
The Speaker: Your question, please.
C. Serwa: In view of that, will the Premier not reconsider his decision and ask the Attorney General to step down, for the credibility and integrity of this institution?
USE OF SEAL SCARERS BY FISH FARMS
G. Wilson: Certainly from the perception of the Alliance, what we have just witnessed is one of the most shameful examples of headline-grabbing that I've ever seen.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
G. Wilson: I understand that those who wake up last, laugh longest.
My question is to the Minister of Environment. With respect to seal scarers that are being used currently in the Broughton Archipelago....
[2:30]
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I realize my question is about seal scarers, but perhaps we could have less barking from the members of the Liberal Party.
Question to the Minister of Environment: fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago are currently using seal scarers that send a sonar impulse as far as 80 kilometres underwater. They are creating an enormous hardship for those wildlife that come in and use the archipelago, most notably sea lions and orcas. Will the Minister of Environment take action today to prohibit the use of seal scarers in the Broughton Archipelago and to fully investigate all farms that currently violate standing regulations by using those sonar devices?
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the question. I believe it's the first question that has been asked on the environment by any member of the opposition.
The situation in the Broughton Archipelago is certainly one....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: The Broughton Archipelago is certainly a very sensitive area in British Columbia. The habitat in that area has been impacted by a number of activities. One, of course, is the proliferation of farms raising salmon in the area. In addition, as the hon. member knows, a significant number of seals have been attracted to the region by the quantity of salmon species in the area. As well as the Broughton Archipelago, the Puntledge River area in particular concerns those who are concerned about the seal matter.
I want the hon. member to know a couple of things: first of all, we have eliminated the use of....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! With the greatest of respect, the hon. minister is now embarking on a ministerial statement. I would suggest that he answer the question.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was just enjoying the opportunity to respond to an environmental issue for a change.
In any event, the matter is under review at this point, and I intend to have more to say about it in the days ahead.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
D. Mitchell: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance: namely, the interference in the work of the special prosecutor named to investigate allegations that the Attorney General has sworn a false affidavit.
Both the Premier and the Attorney General have made statements to the effect that there has been no wrongdoing, or that the Attorney General has done nothing wrong. Such comments are extremely inappropriate, given the required impartiality of the process of the special prosecutor's investigation. The Premier's comments were made on CKNW's Rafe Mair radio program last Friday. On the same morning, the Attorney General stated in the House: "I have done absolutely nothing wrong." Outside this chamber on Friday last, the Attorney General told the news media: "The failure to remember a few scribblings in a meeting is not a wrongdoing." That's taken from the Times-Colonist of Saturday last. These statements raise serious questions as to why a special prosecutor has been appointed by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member knows that under standing orders it is appropriate for a member to introduce a matter of concern but not to enter into debate. I would ask the member to be very brief in his remarks, as the Chair will be able to bring back a report on the basis of what he has said.
D. Mitchell: I will wind up my comments by saying that the comments of the Premier and the Attorney General I referred to prejudge the important work of the special prosecutor. In fact, they can be construed as an attempt to interfere with the process of the special prosecution.
[ Page 10035 ]
This is a serious matter that can be resolved only by an immediate debate in this chamber to clarify it. It must be addressed now, hon. Speaker. I believe it is obvious that there is a need for an emergency debate on this definite matter of urgent public importance.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In response to the member's call for debate on an urgent matter, it's clear that this issue has been put before a special prosecutor and that the Attorney General acted forthwith in putting it before that special prosecutor. There is no intention to determine the outcome of that investigation prior to it. All is in order. There is nothing urgent to this matter whatsoever, and we should continue with the important business of this House right now.
G. Farrell-Collins: I advised the Speaker earlier today that I also had a motion under standing order 35, which I'll get to in a minute.
In regard to the motion put forward by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I'd advise him to turn to page 45 of Mr. MacMinn's book, which states that a matter which is under review of the courts cannot be raised on a motion under standing order 35. Further, it states: "A motion under standing order 35 should not be a censure or non-confidence motion, nor should it deal with a question of maladministration of a ministry." All the matters put forth by the member fall within that category.
G. Wilson: Speaking to the motion, the question is on a matter that is before a special prosecutor, not before the court. I think it is critically important on a matter of such gravity that partisan political gain not be sought when the senior law enforcement officer of this province is under a cloud.
Last week I rose in this House and suggested an appropriate course of action, which was rejected by the government. I believed then and I believe now -- my position has not wavered, and I haven't taken a week to think it up -- that the Attorney General should have stepped aside at that time. I believe that this motion, if it should be forwarded and accepted by this House, would provide an opportunity for members to effectively and properly debate concerns with respect to the office of the Attorney General.
The Speaker: Thank you for your submission, hon. member. The Chair will consider the submissions made by all hon. members and return later with a decision.
G. Farrell-Collins: In keeping with practice recommendation No. 6, I presented the Speaker earlier today with the required notice that I intended to rise this afternoon and, pursuant to standing order 35, move adjournment of the House to debate a matter of urgent public importance.
Last Friday a member of the opposition rose during the debate on estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and, after stating his non-confidence in the Attorney General's ability to continue the defence of his supply allotment, moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. In response, the Attorney General stated: "...if members of the opposition feel that it would be appropriate for these estimates to await the current events, I would have no difficulty in having that discussion with the Government House Leader." The Attorney General then voted in favour of that motion.
The defence of estimates is one of the primary responsibilities of any minister of the Crown, and passage of this motion is a de facto motion of non-confidence in the Attorney General's ability to continue in his position. Given these events of last Friday....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on a point of order.
D. Mitchell: I hesitate to harass the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, but standing order 35 is quite clear. Under subsection (10), it says that the right to move the adjournment of the House under this order is subject to the following restriction: "...not more than one such motion may be made at the same sitting...." Why are we entertaining a second motion under standing order 35 in the same sitting? It's clearly out of order.
The Speaker: Hon. member, please proceed and conclude your remarks as briefly as....
G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order, first, if I may, hon. Speaker.... If the member would check, he would be aware of his own comments and the debate that took place on April 9, 1992, when two motions under standing order 35 came forward at the same time. The Speaker heard both motions and ruled on them separately.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll continue with my motion under standing order 35. Given the events of Friday last, there is no further need for a second non-confidence motion. This motion is not intended as one of confidence or of maladministration by the ministry. Rather, given the critical public concerns regarding personal safety and security, which require urgent and immediate address, and the inability of members to debate those issues due to the sudden termination of the estimates debate, an emergency debate to address those critical issues is of urgent importance.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the only urgent matter that arises out of this is how fractured, confused and divided the official opposition is on the other side of the House. At the conclusion of the debate on Friday.... It's important that we not be misled by members of the opposition about exactly what we voted on. It was an ordinary motion of the day, to rise and report the progress that took place. There was an ordinary motion to adjourn. To suggest that anything else happened in this House is to mislead the House.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. members for their submissions. The Chair will take them under due consideration later.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In the House I call second reading of Bill 21.
HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. B. Barlee: Bill 21 contains urgently needed measures to improve the ability of provincial, local and first nations governments to protect and conserve our heritage resources. As all members know, our province has a very rich heritage, almost as varied as the landscapes and as
[ Page 10036 ]
diverse as the cultural groups now living here. Such places as the gold-rush town of Barkerville; the Haida village of Ninstints; the heritage main streets of Nelson, Revelstoke, Ladysmith and other towns; ancient Hatzic Rock, the spiritual transformer site of the Sto:lo peoples; and the Kettle Valley Railway's marvellous century-old engineering works all commemorate the lives, the beliefs and the work of those who came before us. We gratefully receive this inheritance from previous generations of pioneers and other old families of British Columbia. It must be protected, kept, cared for and enjoyed for the benefit of our grandchildren and their grandchildren. This legacy is the heart and soul of our communities, cities and towns, and cultural and religious groups.
Bill 21 amends no less than 22 separate acts, principally the Heritage Conservation Act, the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter.
The Heritage Conservation Act, in place since 1977, has been used successfully to document, protect and conserve thousands of archaeological sites, heritage buildings, structures and other sites across the province. However, through a process of extensive public consultation and policy analysis, it was learned that many shortcomings and flaws exist in this legislation. First nations have also been critical of inadequacies in the 1977 Heritage Conservation Act.
The Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act proposes numerous changes that will collectively create a fairer economic environment for owners of protected heritage properties, reduce risks for owners investing in heritage properties and bring heritage conservation into the mainstream of community and land use planning. It provides more and better tools for local governments to identify heritage resources, give them legal protection, encourage their reuse and conservation with more effective incentives, deal more fairly with owners of heritage properties, deter wilful destruction of heritage sites by imposing meaningful penalties for offences, and report enactments of heritage protection in each community to the province. It further provides fuller recognition of the values that aboriginal peoples hold for cultural heritage resources. Moreover, Bill 21 extends protected status to abandoned shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks similar to that available to archaeological sites. The heritage bill also improves other government legislation, which will result in better and more consistent conservation practices in British Columbia.
[2:45]
The major changes to existing legislation relate to three main subjects. First, tools for local government conservation of heritage resources are strengthened through amendments to the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Islands Trust Act and the Land Title Act. With respect to those changes proposed for local government, the underlying principle of these changes is to better integrate heritage conservation into the mainstream of local government responsibilities, including land use and community planning, taxation and grants, and public works. Bill 21 continues to empower communities to manage those heritage resources in their jurisdictions which they deem are important to retain and renew for the future. Local and regional communities are usually the greatest beneficiaries of conserved heritage resources and should thus be given the necessary legislative support to encourage heritage stewardship.
By strengthening, clarifying and creating new heritage powers, this bill gives local governments the ability to exercise more control over and thus benefit more directly from heritage conservation activity. By removing obstacles and giving new incentives for conservation, Bill 21 will help communities to more effectively attract investment in heritage building rehabilitation.
For example, in addition, heritage resources are important aspects of the tourism base of many communities and areas. Bill 21 will thus help strengthen and sustain the heritage character and identity of our towns and villages for the benefit of residents and visitors.
Secondly, changes to the Park Act, the Forest Act, the Mines Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Coal Act, the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act and other acts will clarify the role of Crown agencies and ministries in caring for heritage resources. These changes will give provincial ministries and agencies authority to conserve heritage properties within their respective jurisdictions. In so doing, we can create a positive framework to ensure stewardship of our historic courthouses and other important public buildings. As well, the changes will complement the consideration of heritage resource values in land and resource planning and management processes such as CORE, the protected areas strategy and the Forest Practices Code.
Thirdly, the bill reflects our government's commitment to create a responsible, fair and appropriate framework for the conservation of heritage resources by the province, by local governments and by first nations. Heritage conservation is a shared responsibility of all British Columbians.
Bill 21 more effectively empowers each level of government to look after heritage resources in its respective jurisdiction and gives clear authority for managing heritage resources. It does so by strengthening the capability of local governments and first nations to enact protection and to support conservation activities.
Bill 21 further enables the province to enter into formal agreements with first nations on a government-to-government basis regarding protection and stewardship of cultural heritage sites and resources valued by first nations. This legislative package is thus entirely consistent with our government's commitment to ongoing dialogue and negotiation with first nations about land base features and resources of possible cultural heritage value to them.
Bill 21 is the product of thorough consultation with the public heritage organizations, other interest groups, first nations, municipalities, regional districts and various affected provincial ministries and Crown corporations. It is further evidence of our government's ongoing commitment to community empowerment, as well as respect for the values and interests of first nations.
The quality of life in our communities and throughout the province will be enhanced by the provisions of Bill 21 for the renewal of our heritage, providing necessary and timely respect for the cultural legacies of all peoples. We have a singular opportunity with this legislation both to respect and recognize our history and to lay a foundation for heritage stewardship that will benefit generations yet to come. I seek the support of all members of the House for this important legislation.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read for a second time.
C. Tanner: I rise today to speak to Bill 21, Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.
It is not often that members on this side of the House have the opportunity to congratulate the government on the introduction of a bill. This is one of those exceptions. We congratulate the government on bringing this bill in -- in fact, on bringing it in for a second time. It's a system which
[ Page 10037 ]
we feel has a certain merit in certain sorts of legislation: when the bill is introduced and then not proceeded with in that session. This is what happened with this bill, in that it was introduced a year ago, considered and then not proceeded with so that we could get even more input than there had already been in this piece of legislation.
Don't any members be fearful that because we congratulate the government on doing the right thing that we won't be critical of them. We do have criticisms, and they will come forward when we get to the committee stage, when we are considering the bill paragraph by paragraph. This very important piece of legislation affects many different segments of our population, be it municipalities, the public, heritage organizations or first nations. It has been said that he who forgets his history is doomed to make the same mistakes in the future. The examples of that history are all over this province, and they should be carefully preserved.
Before I came to this Legislature, I sat in another legislature, and I am proud to say that in 1972 the Legislature of the Yukon introduced the first piece of heritage legislation to protect their artifacts against exploitation by various -- what we called then -- outside elements. That was anybody who didn't live in the Yukon and who wanted to steal those artifacts and sell them in other parts of the country. I want to assure the minister and the House that because he and I knew each other at that time.... We weren't working in conjunction to bring this legislation through. It's an interesting coincidence, because at that time that minister was interested in artifacts, as was I.
History has a strange way of coming around and going around. Here we are, 22 years later, discussing a piece of legislation which is doing better for British Columbia than the 1977 act, which was copied from the Yukon act of 1972. In 1972 -- and, in fact, in British Columbia in 1977 -- we weren't able to protect artifacts belonging to our first nations. In fact, sitting in this Legislature today we should be very ashamed of ourselves, and we deserve to take criticism for the fact that until now we have never attempted to protect artifacts belonging to first nations. One of my criticisms of this bill is that it doesn't go far enough. However, it is a good first attempt. In fact, it's a good second attempt, because it's been improved on since it was first introduced last spring.
Heritage is absolutely vital to understanding the future. If you haven't preserved the past.... To give credit where credit is due, it wasn't the member for Okanagan-Boundary or myself who really started the process in this House for this piece of legislation; it was the member for Okanagan-Vernon. The Socreds started an investigation and brought this legislation into process. I think some credit is due to the member forOkanagan-Vernon, who started this process.
It is not my intention to go through the legislation now, because we can do that in committee. But we are doing a number of things that are important, and I would just like to mention them. We are integrating heritage conservation into land use planning. We are improving the procedural rights for heritage property owners. We are making greater integrated powers for local government to improve community heritage conservation. We are finding a mechanism to recognize and protect first nations' heritage values. Although they're not complete, it's a good start. I notice I am saying "we." It isn't my right to say that. It's the government's right, but I do feel an affinity for this piece of legislation, as I think most members on my side do and, I think, members of the third parties as well.
The government is introducing new conservation incentives. They are introducing tougher penalties to deter and punish offences against heritage resources. Many studies took place -- going back to '87, '89, '90, '92 and '93 -- before this legislation was proceeded with. Mr. Speaker, I've got to tell you that it sticks in my craw a bit to say this, but for once, the government has done it right. It has done its investigating, it has put it out to the public for comment, it has laid out a proposed piece of legislation and it has made the right changes. I think they've almost got it right.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the government on bringing this piece of legislation through. You will have my interested input, and I promise that I'll discuss the details, passage by passage, as we go through.
D. Mitchell: I rise to speak briefly on second reading of Bill 21, the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, and also to join in offering compliments to the minister for being the lucky person to be able to bring this act to this House at this time. The reason I say "lucky" is that obviously this bill has been the process of very lengthy consultation, going back a number of years. The initial piece of legislation goes back to 1977, as the minister indicated. At that time the Heritage Conservation Act of British Columbia was noted for being a model of its kind in Canada -- legislation that was geared toward protecting and preserving heritage, and encouraging all British Columbians to value that heritage. Since that time the province has changed and grown, and concerns about heritage, thankfully, have increased. I'd like to compliment the minister, who, along with myself, a fellow historian, has also put a lot of effort outside this House into increasing the awareness of fellow British Columbians about heritage-related issues.
The act supports and complements local government heritage initiatives, and I think that's very important. One of the things we have to be concerned about, though -- and I'd like to bring this to the minister's attention -- is the cost associated with that. Local governments, for instance, are allowed to develop heritage registries under this act -- formal lists of properties that could be designated as heritage properties. The "tool kit" -- to use the language of the bill -- given to local governments is very extensive under this piece of legislation. But there's a real concern among all local governments that the costs not be downloaded from the provincial government to the local governments with this bill, because we've had enough downloading of costs to the local government level. That's a serious concern. One thing the minister really hasn't talked about at all in his second reading comments is the cost associated with implementing this legislation. I know that when we get into committee stage, we will have a chance to address that. In the remarks the minister makes in concluding second reading debate, I might invite him to address the issue of costs and how they're going to be borne, because I think that's an important consideration here.
I might also mention the heritage conservation areas that can be established under this bill. These are special areas defined in official community plans. The one matter that I would raise, which I would also ask the minister to address, is that hopefully these heritage conservation areas will not provide for any further deletion of the resource base, or the land base of the province that's available to the resource industries. We've seen enough of that with the various conservation or preservation areas that have been established. The resource industries in our province are beleaguered; they're under siege because more and more of the land base is being taken away from them -- whether it's
[ Page 10038 ]
the forest industry, the mining industry or others. We want to see parks established, of course. We want to see heritage values preserved in the context of parks and protected areas, but let's not see any further deletions from the rapidly diminishing land base that's available to resource industries in our province.
One other area I'd like to address very briefly is the recognition of aboriginal heritage -- a very significant accomplishment of this bill. There's nothing I want to compliment more than the fact that we are trying to encourage aboriginal nations, in their plans for economic development, to develop education related to heritage values and the heritage of aboriginal peoples of British Columbia. Certainly that's far preferable to the alternatives that are sometimes being discussed now in our province: things like aboriginal gaming or developing Las Vegas-style casinos on native lands. That's certainly not an approach that I would applaud or encourage. Rather, it would be the approach embodied in this bill, which is to encourage aboriginal peoples and first nations of British Columbia to concentrate on development that educates the public and tourists about the heritage values of the history of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. I applaud that.
[3:00]
One interesting section of the bill deals with heritage wrecks. It's an interesting phrase that relates to abandoned heritage sites, shipwrecks or airplane wrecks. In the constituency I represent, there's a major tourist attraction that sometimes is considered to be a heritage wreck because of the condition of the site, and that's Britannia Beach. It's a tremendous site. There are environmental issues there, but there's also tremendous heritage value in that property. I would hope that the government and this minister, through his ministry, might be able to use some of the tools in the tool kit of Bill 21 to help address the needs of the community at Britannia Beach, which lives on a heritage site where there are environmental and other issues, and complicated legal questions about ownership of the property. If the minister could assist the 400 residents of Britannia Beach, that would certainly be appreciated. If we can use the tools in this bill, we'd certainly be able to address a problem that needs to be addressed.
There are a number of other specific issues that I will want to address when we get to committee stage. But before I take my seat, I would congratulate this minister for bringing the bill forward. I think it's a very forward-looking piece of legislation that is going to allow all British Columbians to value, appreciate and promote the heritage of our young province, where heritage is only a generation old.
L. Hanson: I find it very interesting to listen to the minister's comments on the extensive consultation that his government has done in arriving at this point. I guess I'd only like to remind the minister that when credit is due, give it. You certainly are lavish with the criticism when you feel that way.
I appreciate the compliments from the member for Saanich North and the Islands. The fact is that the bill was first introduced by my predecessor, not by myself, although I did carry it a bit of the way. Since then there have been, I believe, three ministers responsible for carrying it to this point. I must give the current minister credit for bringing it forward.
One of the reasons the bill required so much public scrutiny was that there is a very thin line between the retention of heritage properties and of our history, and how the cost of retaining those should be borne by the public. One of the concerns that I originally had with the bill, when it was first presented to me, was about being absolutely sure that the individual owner, whoever it might be, was fairly and reasonably compensated for something that needed to be retained as a heritage property so that we can recognize and understand our history. Generally speaking, I think that has been answered in the bill.
Some changes that have been made to the bill since it was last tabled do trouble me to a degree. I hope that we can, during committee stage, get the minister to acknowledge that what might appear to be the intention is not the intention. With the agricultural land reserve, we've seen some issues that seem to put the burden of retention on the individual owner as opposed to the public purse, where it really should rest. I have looked at the bill at some length. I would like to question some things at committee stage, and I'm sure we'll have that opportunity. As the speaker who immediately preceded me said, the bill has enough tools that the dedication of government at any level -- community or provincial -- will enable a heritage property to be retained for our future generations.
With those few brief remarks, I tentatively speak in favour of the bill but I would like to know the intention of some of the changes, which will come up at committee stage.
G. Wilson: It's a pleasure to rise to discuss what is a very comprehensive set of legislative changes, and an important one for the history of this province now and for future generations. The member for Okanagan-Vernon hit on a very important point with respect to who bears the cost of this new piece of legislation and where ultimately that responsibility will lie.
In second reading we're talking about principles, not specifics. Some very detailed issues need to be canvassed thoroughly in committee stage, but in principle I don't believe there is a British Columbian who would argue that our heritage should not be protected. And I don't believe there is a British Columbian who wouldn't suggest that we not take whatever steps are necessary to protect, in the fullness of its current state, those objects, properties or sites that may be deemed worthy of the classification heritage.
Therein lies one of the main philosophical questions as to whether we in the Alliance would support this bill, because the question of who determines such worth is extremely important. In the determination of that, what actions may be taken -- either by the provincial government or by local government -- under this statute that may infringe upon or in some way remove individual rights and liberties of those people who may currently feel that they are in possession of properties that they do not deem to hold heritage value but that may be deemed under bylaws of local government to have such value? When one is trying to work out that registry, there can be obvious community conflict of which properties are in and which are not.
I have had an opportunity to discuss this with some members of the minister's staff. We have to look very carefully at the need to more clearly define a heritage object or a heritage site, because "heritage property," another term used throughout this bill, is not defined in the bill. Under section 9 of the act, that causes us some concern with respect to provincial heritage properties and those that may be deemed to be heritage by government. Some very clear contradictions in this bill could be amended through a fairly simple amendment. We will look at that when we get to committee stage.
More important is the philosophical question of what kinds of powers the jurisdictions within the province should have in order to protect those properties that they define as
[ Page 10039 ]
having heritage value. We have three primary categories. The first category is local government, which includes regional districts, the Islands Trust and municipalities. The second category is first nations. This government has accorded rights and jurisdiction to first nations on the basis of an independent government entity, although I question where in the laws of this province or this country that is permitted. That's another debate for another time, but nevertheless, it runs through all the legislation coming in now. That has to be looked at in terms of the jurisprudence that is in place that would empower first nations to act government-to-government, because I'm not sure that anything in our statutes provides for that. The third category is the provincial government. Clearly, three classifications of a wide number of mandated jurisdictions now have the right to come in and determine that objects, sites and properties are to be deemed heritage.
The problem I have is that some very real financial implications are involved, both at the local level, which is largely to be managed by local government, and, more importantly, in the cost that will be borne by current owners of such properties. It isn't just for those that have been designated. The bill says that those costs may also be applied against those which are eligible for designation. If we're talking about exemption of eligible properties -- properties that have not run any test of scrutiny, or are not actually on a designated list by virtue of an agreement but rather by virtue of a desire for an agreement -- then clearly some costs can be associated with that that may fall directly to either local government....
Under section 400.2(1), it says that "the council may require the owner of the eligible heritage property at that time to pay to the municipality an amount equivalent to the total taxes exempted" -- because there is tax exemption status provided -- "under the bylaw plus interest from the time at which the exempt taxes would otherwise have been payable, compounded annually at the rate referred to in section 428...." We need to look at this in committee stage, because this is an obvious point of some contention. Philosophically, we might say that we want to protect heritage -- no question about it. Who gets to fill the bill here? Who pays it up? That's something that has to be looked at.
The other thing, as a philosophical question of determination, is that this act provides for counterpetition. It provides for that to the tune of one-twentieth of the electors, who have to come forward and stop designation by counterpetition. Otherwise, by simple bylaw, a council can enact this heritage legislation after 30 days. I'm not sure that's a democratic way to proceed. I'm not sure that if we're going to be making those designations -- notwithstanding the fact that there has to be advertising in newspapers.... It says "a" newspaper, and I would argue in committee that it should be a local newspaper. We can clean up little things like that. But in principle, the act of counterpetition, which is now made available through amendments to the Municipal Act, and came in.... I think this government introduced them; if not, it's possible that the previous one did. I wouldn't want to get the wrath of the member from Vernon if it was the previous Social Credit government; I'd be happy to give them credit for it -- or not, as the case may be.
But in a counterpetition we have a situation where you can essentially empower council to take action. Rather than throw the onus on council and those people who would be seeking to have heritage designation, the onus falls upon members of the community to keep their eyes open for ads that appear in the newspaper and then to come forward and try to block it by counterpetition. Yet once that property has been designated, there are some very real restrictions as to what the owner of that property may or may not do with it -- everything from changing the nature of the outside of the building through to whether or not that building can be razed or the property altered. Some could argue that if the objects on that property are old-growth fir, or old-growth timber of any kind, those timbers could then be designated heritage, and therefore the right to take timber off private land may be curtailed by local council. Maybe that's desirable; that's something we can debate and discuss. But if it's in here -- and I would argue that it is -- then we should be very clear to the people of British Columbia that this bill, once passed, will give local government very sweeping, wide-ranging powers with respect to what can happen on private land. Philosophically, that is something that deserves some very close scrutiny and debate.
Let me say also with respect to first nations matters that this deserves wide-ranging debate in the Legislature~, and it's not the first time I've stood up to say that. I recall many instances from my tenure as an elected member of a local government where referrals have been made through Crown agencies for the use of Crown lands, and the heritage component of that land has been overlooked or simply not given the kind of weight it should have had. I recall one instance where outstanding petroglyphs were unfortunately not taken into account. These petroglyphs were lost as a result of Crown grants to a private company. That's unfortunate -- more than unfortunate: I think that's a travesty.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
We must recognize that if we are going to move to protect those, we're dealing, in the referral process, with the Crown lands ministry. The government must mandate some very clear guidelines and criteria by which the Crown lands ministry must act. They have to have protections, and in my judgment they are not clearly spelled out in this bill. We can move to make that distinction much clearer with respect to the referral process on land under application, particularly where the use of foreshore areas has an impact on upland uses because of ancillary industries. There are some very clear areas to be addressed, and we have to get at them in second reading.
[3:15]
The fourth area that it is really important for us to look at -- and it's under the definitions section -- is the whole question of the role of first nations and where heritage value falls into that. We cannot duck away from it. If this government is guilty of anything -- and I believe they're guilty of lots of things, but let me just pick on one at the moment -- it is guilty, in this section and in the environmental review standards of the newly introduced Forest Renewal Act, of not providing the people of British Columbia with an adequate forum to debate the whole concept of first nations government. That includes the extent to which first nations governments are going to be empowered by provincial statutes to set up independent and parallel legislation. That legislation will provide rights that can be acted on unilaterally, but we as legislators are not empowered to act on them on behalf of the larger population.
This is a fundamental issue in this province. It is one that we are continuing to act on without any real degree of direction or of debate. There are numerous instances -- and I'll raise them when we get into committee stage -- where powers granted to first nations in this bill will provide
[ Page 10040 ]
protection and latitude for unilateral action under which this act cannot have an effect. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It is the view of Alliance members in this House and in the province that you must not have laws that provide rights which enable individuals to come forward and enact regulations that apply only to people who have membership by virtue of their racial heritage. Note that there are a number of instances in the heritage act where protection can be provided through a unilateral process. If we deem that action to be undesirable or to not go far enough, we don't have the right to come forward and enact legislation, as is found in Bill 21. That's a fundamental issue.
I urge this minister.... I have a great deal of respect for this minister. I believe we have a minister with integrity who wants to have this debate and believes that it should take place. I believe that if we do not have that debate in a forum such as this, conflict will inevitably result from protection of what is deemed to be heritage lands and the alienation of those lands from a traditional economic use. And that is going to be a fact -- lands will be alienated for the protection of whatever heritage value they may be deemed to have. They will be alienated from activities that other members of society and the community believe they have had access to.
I'm thinking of ranchers and grazing rights, of loggers and logging rights and of fishers and their fishing rights. I'm thinking of all kinds of other areas in which there has been a consideration that Crown land is free, open and accessible for people who are involved in hiking or people who want to use upland stream areas and lakes. All kinds of areas have been used. Parklands are an example of where there is no classification of park designation, but where people have had a long history of using them for telemark skiing, for camping and for recreational use. That could be alienated through Bill 21 on the basis of an application for heritage designation by a government in which they have no membership.
This is a huge problem, and I hope that the minister and members opposite hear my words, because there's no point in waiting until it's law and the people of the province realize it is and have not had adequate time to understand it, to be apprised of it, to be educated and to be able to be part of that debate. If they're alienated from that land through some form of heritage designation, in which they were not able to have input or interact because it was done by a parallel system of government, I'll tell you that there's going to be a lot of civil strife in this province. And there isn't a community in this province that needs or wants that.
The time to debate it is now. It's here in this bill. It's here when we start to look at these sections and when we start to press on these sections with respect to that parallel system.
Furthermore, and in conclusion on the question of the principle of this bill, I think we have to recognize that the counterpetition proposition and the movement toward empowering local governments to have sweeping powers with respect to this provision of heritage designation may not necessarily be deemed desirable by many communities. While I'm sure there has been consultation with heritage groups, historical societies and many other groups -- I hear all other members of the opposition parties in this House say how much they think this bill is long overdue -- the problem is that you cannot come in and fix the situation by removing individual rights and liberties and the freedom of people to be able to direct their community's evolution and development through local government statutes. Counterpetition may indeed be that problem.
I hope that this minister might want to look at the question of referendum in some areas, particularly where those properties are of a deemed or designated size, or where there may have been a past economic use. I can think of a series of reasons that a counterpetition area would, in fact, not be desirable.
Let me say that in principle all of us want to protect our heritage and our heritage sites. In fact, as I look at each of the sections of this bill -- and I've had the pleasure to read through it in some detail -- I think there are areas that need to be addressed, with the potential for some amendment and reform. I hope that as we get into committee stage of this bill, this minister will recognize that the amendments put forward are put forward in the spirit of cooperation, in an attempt to try to make this bill a more appropriate and better bill for all British Columbians.
I would also hope that this minister recognizes that this is not the kind of bill that should go to a committee in Section A, and that we're going to keep it in Section B. I would serve notice that I, for one, would oppose this bill going into Section A.
With that, let me say that I look forward to committee stage, to a very constructive and detailed analysis of this very long and complex but necessary bill. When we do, I hope that the issues I've addressed in principle can be addressed in more specific detail. I would be happy, in the interim period between now and committee stage, to provide the minister with detailed issues of concern that I have so that we can expedite that committee stage.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments and call on the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture to close debate.
Hon. B. Barlee: I've listened carefully to all the members on the other side of the House and, generally speaking, there is agreement that this bill is long overdue. I think its particulars will be discussed at some length in committee stage; there isn't much doubt about that at all.
Of course, members of the House know that this bill is very close to my heart. In another life, I watched the fascinating ghost towns in the Kootenay, Boundary, Similkameen and Cariboo country, and in other parts of the province, virtually disappear before our eyes. I also watched some of the separate historic buildings disappear, such as the old Newmarket Hotel in the New Denver area, the Allan Hotel in Rossland, and on and on. Our heritage virtually disappeared before our eyes, because we were not careful. I think we still have the opportunity to preserve some of our history. I'm not talking just about buildings or ghost towns. I'm certainly talking about some of the historic trails, such as the Dewdney, the Ghost Pass Trail, the Hudson's Bay Brigade Trail -- and the list goes on.
Certainly this is a massive bill; it's 107 pages. It requires some scrutiny, and some members have looked at it extremely closely. I don't think there are answers to all the questions, but we will have a general idea of the intent of the bill and most of the specifics when we study that in committee stage. I therefore move that Bill 21 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting....
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Just move second reading, if you will, please.
Hon. B. Barlee: I now move second reading.
Motion approved.
[ Page 10041 ]
Bill 21, Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 4.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 4; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair, I'm just letting you know that I will be responding from this seat, so it's going to be difficult for you to see me when I rise on these different sections.
The Chair: I thank the member. Pardon me, I'm looking for a copy of the bill so that I can see how many sections we have. Then I will know how we want to call this. Shall section 1 pass?
D. Mitchell: Clarification, Mr. Chair. We're on Bill 2, Architects Amendment Act, is that correct?
The Chair: No, I'm sorry, member. It's Bill 4, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. My apologies if I've caused some confusion here.
The question before you is: shall section 1 pass?
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
R. Chisholm: It seems that this is the definitions section. I was wondering why the word "cruelty" was not defined. I would like to hear the minister's opinion of what cruelty means and how the SPCA will end up having to judge that.
I find that another word is not defined. Maybe the minister could give an objective definition of "stress," which is very critical in this bill, in his own words.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, cruelty is in the title of the act. This act deals with distress and critical distress. The definition of stress would vary with the animals. I imagine that we would talk to the veterinarians about that. As for the matter of cruelty, it really depends on the view of the person looking at the situation, as you know.
We're suggesting that the practices be governed, wherever possible, by codes of practice within the industry. If, in the view of an SPCA officer, an animal is in distress -- that is, if some harm will come to it -- then the agent is authorized to take action to correct the situation.
[3:30]
C. Serwa: This section on definitions is very important to the whole bill. I have a great deal of concern about the minister's comments when we talk about the definition of the word "stress." Here we have a large group of individuals -- members of the SPCA -- throughout British Columbia who will be charged with the responsibility for a specific act and given the power of enforcement, and the definition is very subjective. The interpretation of the degree of stress is wide and varied; there may be hundreds, if not literally thousands, of unique, individual interpretations of stress. If we cannot specifically define a word in a bill that is the fundamental basis of this legislation, and if we do not have specific parameters around the definition, how can the act be enforceable?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In this section, we refer to physical distress. Members opposite use the word "stress", which is generally considered a psychological term. We're dealing with physical distress, so the wording of section 2, subsection (c)(2), is: "For the purposes of this Act, an animal is in distress if it is (a) deprived of adequate food, water or shelter, (b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or (c) abused or neglected." We're dealing with a commonly understood physical distress situation.
R. Chisholm: Again going back to section 2, subsection (c)(2)(b) talks about the subjective terms "injured, sick, in pain or suffering." Here is the problem. If we don't have a standard for this, how can anybody enforce a law? Herein might be the problem with the bill: we have to define what this stress is and what this pain is. Otherwise, you have an interpretation, I have an interpretation and the Chair has an interpretation, none of which may be the same. But we expect people who are authorized agents of the SPCA -- volunteers, possibly -- to go out, administer the law and say: "That's pain." You haven't given them any standard to go by. That's my fear about this bill. I'm in full support of this bill, but where is the standard for the authorized agent who will go out into the field?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that the safeguard the member is looking for will come in the bylaws. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will approve the SPCA bylaws, and when we're approving them we'll ensure that they have adequate training in place and adequate standards for that training.
Let me use an example of why this bill can't define it to the nth degree. When they're in pain, some animals scream, while other animals are silent, so you can't use the utterances of the animal to determine distress. Anyone who knows horses will know that they're usually quiet when they're in severe distress. Anyone who knows dogs knows that they'll probably make considerable noise. People will be trained. For example, we expect that people designated as special constables will have training. They're taking this seriously. The SPCA educational program is under development. Before they can exercise powers under this act, the SPCA officers will have to take that training, in addition to what they have now, so they will be trained to understand when an animal is in distress.
C. Serwa: On that same section, it is apparent that if this legislation is going to apply throughout the province, there has to be some basis for consistency. The minister alludes to the fact that it's very difficult -- and with the type of drafting of legislation today it seems that it's very open-ended. I cannot conceive how you can create regulations that will narrow the scope of the words you have used in the definition. I recognize that there is a great deal of legislation. Something in forestry or mining is a great deal more concrete, yet different regions of the province interpret policies substantially differently.
Here you have something that is very subjective. The intentions are good and honourable, and we're not disputing that. In second reading we spoke with respect to supporting the philosophy and principles, but in order to accomplish that it has to be enforceable. That enforceability will depend on the consistency of enforceabilities. When a wide range of people are interpreting -- even if they are trained -- they are
[ Page 10042 ]
still going to be very subjective in nature. Good intentions are not good enough if you're going to bring legislation forward. If we do not make more accurate definitions in the legislation, this legislation is going to be subject to abuse, either by those who may intentionally mistreat or abuse animals or by those of a zealous nature wanting to impose their will on the system. There seems to be far too much latitude in this definitions section to allow it to go ahead.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When we question the judgment and ability to make decisions.... The SPCA has been making these decisions for 100 years. When we were debating the principle of the bill, members opposite spoke highly of the actions of this group. They are saying that they are put in some kind of jeopardy by not having a clear definition of what they can and cannot do. This bill clarifies and strengthens powers that they already have.
With respect to consistency across the province, the central B.C. SPCA will monitor the bylaws and oversee the activities of the locals. While there is some definition with respect to what might be acceptable because of weather differences -- and you alluded to cows calving in the cold weather, and so on -- they have to be aware that consistency across the province would be under certain conditions. These are the consistent rules that are to be applied. I would expect that codes of practice which cover most of the areas where animals are raised for commercial purposes take into account differences in weather and regional nuances. So the simple answer to your question about consistency is that the SPCA will monitor and pass on bylaws to us for approval. In addition, ministry staff, which includes trained veterinarians, will look at the bylaws presented for the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to ensure consistency in the rules. Consistency will come through the advanced training that members of the SPCA enforcement arm will have under this act.
C. Serwa: Just a few last statements on this. During second reading debate, an hon. member stated that it is very wrong to transport dogs in the backs of pickups unless they are secured. The minister, who represents ranchers and ranching country, knows that you have any number of dogs in the backs of pickups. Looking at consistency and subjectivity when talking about abuse or neglect, surely the minister can see that what is required in downtown Vancouver is not required in cattle country. It doesn't make any rational sense. My concern is that it's far too expansive. There are good intentions in certain areas, but because of its subjective nature, there is no consistency unless it's more accurately defined.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The example that was used alludes to the fact that circumstances change from urban settings to rural settings. I know that it's common practice not to chain a dog in the back of a pickup, in case it jumps out when you travel at higher speeds. However, you have to examine each particular case. Agents will be trained to know how these cases apply in that area. So there is a need for regional variation and for consistency across the province.
I have to say that by codifying a practice in bylaws, we will ensure that there is some consistency through the province. You alluded to regulations; there will be no regulations. We will approve the bylaws of the SPCA, but we're not going to enact regulations. This isn't a heavy-handed thing, in the sense that a regulation will be brought forward that defines to the nth degree what cruelty and distress, etc., are.
The emphasis here is on the work the SPCA does to define rules that everybody can live with. Those rules and powers will be defined in their bylaws after consulting widely with their members, with people in the industry, with veterinarians and with the ministry. It can be determined on the spot and with minimal training that a horse has been hit and has serious life-threatening injuries -- although most officers have considerable experience. You can relieve the distress of the animal without getting a veterinarian 30 miles away at 2 a.m. We're providing an opportunity for the society to clarify the rules that they govern themselves by and for the government to say whether those bylaws are adequate, creating the consistency and effectiveness across the province that we all want.
R. Chisholm: Again to emphasize the definitions, if I go back to the 1979 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the only thing that is defined is "society." We're going to send officers out to set a standard or apply the law, and they don't have a standard.
Another word that needs to be defined is "captivity." Just what is meant by it? I understand what captivity means. What does the Environment ministry understand captivity to be?
There are three words that I'm going to emphasize. If you're going to send officers out to apply the new amended act, they have to have a standard to apply. If they don't, we are going to have problems when we get to a court of law, because the court is going to adhere very much to what standard has been set.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, your reference to the definition of captivity.... By one definition, a cow on free range is not in captivity, but clearly it's a domestic animal. If you're talking about wild animals that are in captivity, then they're confined. They're taken out of their natural environment and confined, not able to get away. So we would apply that. That would be animals in a zoo or in some other kind of game farm.
With respect to the definition of cruelty -- I think that's what you were asking -- again, we are not defining cruelty in this bill. We are taking an act with few definitions and adding a definition of distress, which is important. We have to look at the defining provisions here: "...(a) deprived of adequate food, water or shelter, (b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or (c) abused or neglected." It seems to me that if somebody argued that an animal was abused or neglected, there too the SPCA would gather some evidence and present it to Crown counsel. Crown counsel would examine those things and decide whether the judgment made on the spot by the officers trained to do so was adequate to press charges.
R. Chisholm: Part of the point you just made about captivity, which goes with the point the member for Okanagan West made, was that a blanket statement can't cover the whole province. What's captivity to a cow in a pasture and to a wild animal are two different things, and they have to be defined.
When I get to the word "stress," I again go back to the words in (2)(b): "...injured, sick, in pain or suffering." What is that by your standards or by my standards? What is the standard of the veterinarian who sits beside you? That has to be written into the bill. That is very necessary if we are going to send people into the field to make charges that are going to go to court. There has to be a standard by which a judge can assess them.
[3:45]
[ Page 10043 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think we should debate captivity under section 3 of the bill, if we can agree to that. We aren't defining captivity, and I have no intention of defining captivity in this legislation. What does "pain and suffering" mean? We use common sense. If you need....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, pain and suffering is altogether uncommon. Pain and suffering will be defined.... If there's any problem with the way in which codes of practice define it or SPCA bylaws intend to deal with these situations, we will call on the advice of the veterinarian staff of the ministry or of the association.
The Chair: Just before the member for Chilliwack continues, may I make a point to perhaps assist in the debate. I remind all members that the Interpretation Act takes precedence in terms of all definitions. Failing it being spelled out in the Interpretation Act, one can use a dictionary. That is the normal practice for legislation, so I don't know if we need to spend quite so long on the nuances of every word.
R. Chisholm: I would like to see the minister tell a judge in a court of law to use common sense when he finally gives the verdict on a given case. If he doesn't have a standard and just uses common sense, where is it? You're going to have court challenges and appeals left, right and centre.
My last point is that it is very loose, and unfortunately it's going to create problems later on in the courts.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I guess my point is that it hasn't been a problem until now. Basically this act allows the SPCA to do what it has been doing but allows it to do that a little more easily. There are tests. Before a judge or someone is asked, in the final analysis, to use common sense, they will be in a position to know the judgments and advice of the SPCA, which is experienced in this matter; they will have the advice of the Crown counsel, who will probably consult expert witnesses in the case; and there may be independent referrals to people in the industry who are knowledgable. Crown counsel will have all this information at their fingertips when they make a presentation to the courts.
C. Serwa: The minister has opened up the topic a little bit, and I'll respond to some of the statements he has made. This may not be appropriate under this section, and if it isn't, I will defer it until a later section. My comment to the minister was that common sense is altogether too uncommon. That was the full statement with respect to that.
I have a great deal of concern regarding this specific piece of legislation. Again, going back to the minister's remarks, the government of the day is creating enabling legislation to allow an organization such as the SPCA to draft bylaws. Further, to compound the situation, we will give them the enforcement opportunities of a police officer. We have an unelected and unaccountable group being given authority by the provincial government to carry out this legislation, using common sense as they see fit, and we expect that to stand up in a court of law. This whole area is very cloudy as far as I'm concerned, when we get into this type of scenario.
The government has the responsibility for drafting regulations with respect to legislation, not an unaccountable and unelected body. We create enabling legislation for professional groups such as medical doctors, accountants or architects, and they have a responsibility. But those groups are substantially different from this particular situation. So I have a great deal of concern when I listen to the minister's comments on it.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In a sense, there are parallels to self-governing bodies, but this is slightly different. They have professional codes of practice. In this case, we would be looking at individuals who are members of the society. I think that we underestimate the ability of the public and the SPCA, which is an open society. New members can come in and prepare a judgment as to how they're governing this trust that they have. If we don't have a problem now, I can't see how we would have a problem under this legislation. We're saying here that they don't have to prove criminal intent. If somebody is abusing an animal or if the animal is in distress, they can deal with the situation. Not making it into a criminal situation in order to deal with what is essentially a civil matter does society a favour.
The bylaws don't change the definition or substance of critical distress. They will just deal with the enforcement practices: how they go about conducting their affairs with respect to the governance of the quasi-policing powers that they will be given. When we review them, we will look at whether they are contrary to other laws or whether they might tread on the definition and try to redefine distress. We would not pass such a bylaw. It would be ultra vires of the legislation.
G. Wilson: I have three questions on this. Depending on how the minister answers, these may be all the questions I have in committee stage.
Although nothing in here says that this act is dealing specifically with the prevention of cruelty to domestic animals -- except section 1.1, which says it doesn't apply to wildlife as defined under the Wildlife Act -- it seems to be generally implied that this act is really dealing with domestic animals that are not domesticated for the purpose of food or part of a farm operation -- for example, involved in the production of poultry for market. Can the minister tell me whether that is the intention of the act and whether or not we should be looking strictly at this interpretation section as that? Or is it the intention of the minister that the SPCA, given the powers and the new regulatory authority that it will have under this act, can make judgments with respect to domestic animals that are being produced solely for the purposes of the food market?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We deal with the commonly accepted standards in a later section. With respect to those that are raised for food, we use the codes of practice. Where they don't exist, they are being encouraged to develop them. There are two or three cases where they don't exist in British Columbia, but by and large there are codes of practice and the SPCA has to follow them. This act is going to apply to all animals except those defined as animals under the Wildlife Act.
The Chair: I would like to clarify for all members that we have had second reading, therefore the reason for the legislation and the principles behind it have already been canvassed and approved. I would therefore ask you to please direct your remarks to the specific sections. I think that many of the questions now coming before us are more properly dealt with under particular sections. So I just offer that as a gentle reminder to members, if I may.
The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands on a point of order.
[ Page 10044 ]
C. Tanner: To the previous member who was speaking, please excuse me.
When I first got the opportunity I wanted to put a point of order to the Chair. In the kerfuffle of getting started this morning, I wanted to ask a question which I think is appropriate to section 1. It is a general question which isn't really asked in second reading. It has to be asked here because we need give-and-take, and I'm now at a loss to know what to do after the Chair's ruling.
The Chair: Let it suffice, member, that after I have dealt with the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I will listen intently to your question and will allow you as much latitude as the rules allow me.
G. Wilson: Your point is well taken, and this issue was raised in second reading by the member for Chilliwack. He talked specifically about the language that the minister refers to being a concern. The reason that I raise this in the definition section is that under section 2(c)(3): "For the purposes of this Act, a person responsible for an animal includes a person who...." It then talks about custody or control of an animal, and then goes on under section 1.1 to exclude wildlife.
In looking at those definitions, I am wondering whether it was intended that the latitude provided in the later parts of the bill -- which we can canvass when we get to those sections -- regarding definition of custody and control of an animal relate to a commercial farm operation. I am particularly interested in whether it relates to the production of fowl, and I wonder if the minister might also include any consideration having been given to aquaculture operations and to the production of domestically raised fish.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it does apply to aquaculture; it does apply to domestic farm animals.
G. Wilson: For clarification, that was aquaculture, not agriculture. I couldn't hear.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, just for clarity, it applies to animals, except free-roaming wildlife.
G. Wilson: I just sent a note up to my researcher to look in the dictionary to make sure that fish are animals. I think they are.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I'm hearing that they are. I would assume, then, that penned fish are animals and that it does include aquaculture. I appreciate that.
C. Tanner: As I said, the problem was that I'd like to have discussed my question during second reading, but I need the minister to give a bit more explanation than he can give in that position. It goes to the heart of what the member for Okanagan West was saying. Perhaps if I put the question, the Chairman can rule on it. Is there any other jurisdiction that uses the SPCA in exactly the same way as this one? I've got another question after this one.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In general terms, this act brings British Columbia into line with all other jurisdictions. Alberta, in particular, has very similar provisions, and has had for some time. They have an organization that performs similar functions.
C. Tanner: Secondly, to the minister's knowledge, is any other society given this sort of power?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know that. This legislation deals with a society that has been providing a public service in this respect. We're seeking to clarify their powers so that they can do their job more effectively.
C. Tanner: In that case, where the government is delegating its powers to a society, wouldn't the minister say that the need for a strong definitions section is more important than in any other sort of legislation?
[4:00]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, given the fact that this society will have to provide us with bylaws before it can use enforcement powers. We have considerable comfort around that fact -- added to the fact that they've been doing this for over a hundred years, and there hasn't been a problem.
With respect to definitions, we have defined as much as is suitable. They have to have some ability to do the job and interpret this in the field, which covers a very broad range of animals and situations. The definitions that we've added are suitable. If the member has some suggestion, we'd be happy to take it under advisement. But we don't see the need to go into any more definitions with respect to this act.
C. Tanner: Then what the ministry is going to do, using the SPCA as their vehicle in this particular case, is make a great deal of regulations.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. Basically we're enabling them to go on doing exactly what they're trying to do now, but their bylaws will be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We will not be issuing regulations under this act.
C. Tanner: Now we've got to the nub of it. What you're saying then, Mr. Minister, is that the people in the field will be subjecting the animals, the farmers and the people making those conditions to subjective interpretations of what's happening. Just a couple of minutes ago, the minister said that they've behaved responsibly for a hundred years. That is not the case in my constituency, and I'm sure it's not the case in the minister's constituency, which is a rural one like mine. I have had some complaints in my office -- not a lot, but some -- about the SPCA's interpretation of the rules as they presently sit. I think the problem is that the rules weren't stringent enough for them in the first place, and that is illustrated by section 2 of the act.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can respond by saying that if you want to debate the principle of the act -- that the SPCA shouldn't be in the business -- we can't debate the principle here. The principle has been accepted, and it's a matter of how we're going to debate the rest of the legislation. I think this is adequate. I think that with people with common sense and training, and with reference to professional bodies, codes of practice and veterinarians, we will be able to administer this legislation. The SPCA will be able to carry out what they've been doing with more clarity, certainty and consideration for the animals that they are there to protect.
Section 2 approved on the following division:
[ Page 10045 ]
|
YEAS -- 43 | ||
|
Sihota |
Edwards |
Zirnhelt |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
MacPhail |
|
Blencoe |
Lovick |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Doyle |
Simpson |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
Mitchell |
Hanson |
|
Gingell |
Hurd |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Campbell |
Reid |
Dalton |
|
Chisholm |
Tanner |
Jarvis |
|
Warnke |
K. Jones |
Boone |
|
Hartley |
Lali |
Schreck |
|
Copping |
Brewin |
Krog |
| Kasper | ||
|
NAYS -- 1 | ||
| Serwa | ||
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
On section 3.
A. Warnke: I just have a point of clarification. As it reads now, the act does not apply to wildlife that is not in captivity as defined in the Wildlife Act, yet it implies that it does apply to wildlife in captivity. There is one thing I want to explore here, not belabour. In some sections in the Wildlife Act, including section 4, wildlife management area lands are defined. Some of these come into existence and so on. I guess I want an elaboration of the intent of this from the minister.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The intent is to apply to wildlife in captivity and other animals. Wildlife that is in captivity for a very short period of time -- say for banding -- would not be covered by this act; it would be covered by the Wildlife Act. If a cat in a tree were tranquillized to move it, it wouldn't be covered by this act; it would be governed by the Wildlife Act.
D. Symons: Just to clarify again what is covered and what is not covered, the minister mentioned in answer to an earlier question from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that farm animals and fish are covered by this act. I don't read that in the act, and I wonder if the minister might again confirm that wildlife which is out in the wild is not covered, and that farm animals and all other animals are covered. I just want to make sure that that is on the record.
[4:15}
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to be perfectly clear. It applies to all animals except free-roaming wildlife.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
G. Wilson: Under section 5, which deals primarily with the society, I wonder if the minister might clarify what exactly is intended here. Section 5(2) says: "Subject to subsection (3), the power to make bylaws, rules or regulations may be delegated to any committee, branch or officer of the society." Then section 5(3) suggests that there are some limitations to that delegation: "No delegation may be made under subsection (2) with respect to a matter reserved by the constitution, bylaws, rules or regulations to a meeting of the members of the society, or with respect to a bylaw relating to policies and operational procedures of the society for administering the enforcement powers of this Act."
That causes me some concern -- not that I take any issue with the SPCA's past practices; I have an enormous amount of respect for the organization, and I think most British Columbians also have respect for it. My concern is about the legal authority this government is giving to a society that is regulated under the Society Act. The provisions of the Society Act make it very clear that such authority is, in fact, not constitutionally available under the laws of B.C. I don't see any consequential amendment in this act that would provide them with that authority.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me go back to the purpose of this section. We don't want the SPCA to delegate any decision-making power or recommending power to any of its subcommittees. With respect to the enforcement powers of this act in section 5(3)(b), we want the SPCA itself to maintain that responsibility as a whole society and not delegate it to committees. It's fairly simple.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is a private act. The SPCA is not incorporated under the Society Act.
G. Wilson: That's a detail that I think is very important to have clarified here. I thank the minister for clarifying it, because it certainly clears up what I would have considered to be a legal problem with respect to the provisions.
But I'm not sure that section 5 is clear, because subsection (2) says that subject to subsection (3), this delegation can take place. Yet subsection (3) simply says that those matters that cannot be referred are matters reserved by the constitution, by bylaws or by rules and regulations, all of which the society makes for itself. The subsection also says that matters cannot be referred with respect to a bylaw relating to policies or operational procedures of the society for administering enforcement, which again lie with the society itself.
It seems to me the suggestion is that you can't delegate anything to subcommittee that is not constitutionally authorized within the society, yet the society is empowered to alter its constitution to provide for it. The minister needs to explain where there is any language in this section that removes the power of the society to define its delegation process that would not be consistent with this act, although it is inconsistent with the intention of this act.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Section 4(2) of the act states that they may delegate powers. What we're saying in the provisions of this act is that they may not delegate anything that has anything to do with enforcement. They're not allowed to delegate those powers. It's fairly straightforward. While I realize that there may be other ways to write it, we're trying to write it in plain English. If you read the existing act and then read this one, there is clearly an exception for any bylaw to do with enforcement. They cannot delegate that.
C. Tanner: My concern is similar to the previous speaker's, but it refers to another occasion that could come about. We see a group of people in Britain today who have very strong feelings about the use and abuse of animals and who have taken over their animal society by buying memberships. In fact, here in my hand I have such a suggestion from an organization that is in British Columbia right now. The agricultural members of this organization are being urged to become members of the SPCA and are being told that it is critical to become actively involved in the SPCA in order to protect their interests. It is a perfectly legitimate
[ Page 10046 ]
organization saying that about the SPCA, and I think it's their right to do so. But one must wonder what protection there is in the whole of this act and in section 5, which is where you make bylaws and give power to the offices of the SPCA. One wonders what would happen in the case of a takeover of the SPCA. These days we see the takeover of hospitals, political organizations and all sorts of things by interest groups, so what's to stop that from happening to the SPCA?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If they were exercising powers that were not consistent with this act, we would take those powers away.
C. Tanner: That's a nice thought, but it really is not quite practical. The minister casts it aside so easily. A takeover of the SPCA could happen, if it were carefully orchestrated, in one annual general meeting. The people who would then be in charge of that group wouldn't be the same people who have been in charge and doing their magnificent work for the last hundred years. What you would have then is a group of people making rules under section 5 that wouldn't be in concord with what the minister wants. Mr. Minister, unless you have some sort of emergency or can come back into this Legislature, you just don't change the rules overnight. How do you deal with the situation then?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is worrying about the takeover of a responsible society. Any society has the right to define its members and its objectives. At this point the SPCA defines their objective, as I understand it, as being able to deal with animals and use commonly accepted practices. We recognize that there is a wide variation in the animal-handling practices that people would like. The SPCA is a responsible, moderate organization. If there were a takeover, and if their powers were abused in any way, we would take away their enforcement powers with the Police Act. If they proposed a bylaw that was not acceptable to the spirit of the legislation, which is to use commonly acceptable standards, then that bylaw wouldn't be approved.
C. Tanner: I'm not going to flog a dead point; I just want to bring it to the minister's attention. If there are two groups of creatures in this world that get people excited, it's children and animals. In the country I was born in, animals probably take preference over children. Some of those people are so dedicated to their cause that they'll do virtually anything. In Britain they've proven that. I think there have even been one or two instances in eastern Canada where they've proven that. They will literally take over a society.
As a matter of interest, there's a third organization that gets people going pretty good too, and that's hospitals. In Vernon we saw our hospital taken over. It can happen. I'm not sure that the minister has enough protection in here -- in fact, I'd like to see written protection -- for the authority that he is delegating to this society. Mr. Minister, you must understand that by saying this I am not criticizing the society; I am criticizing those people outside the society who might want to use it as a vehicle for their beliefs.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We would have to approve any change. If a society were taken over by a special interest group, and they proposed any changes from what had already been approved, we would have to approve the changes to those bylaws. I'm saying that where there's a minority or a particular group that took it over, and it was against the spirit of commonly accepted practices which the SPCA and the government have subscribed to, then we wouldn't approve the bylaw. There's the safeguard; it's in the approval process of their bylaws. Furthermore, if there's an abuse of authority -- if they didn't follow the bylaws approved by government -- then the powers that they have as special constables can be taken away under the Police Act. It's our responsibility to ensure that there's some oversight of the activities of the SPCA. The safeguards are there.
This calls upon people who have traditionally supported the SPCA to be very aware of changing standards; it calls on the government and industry to be aware of changing standards. Some of these will change. I allude to the sort of organic nature of codes of practice that change over time. We expect, though, that the rules that govern the SPCA will be commonly accepted practices. I go back to that. They will be defined by dialogue when codes of practice are developed by organizations of industry groups, for example.
C. Tanner: One last question. I am reassured by what the minister says, but could the minister tell us what it costs to become a member of the SPCA?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know what the cost is. I suspect it isn't a huge sum, but I'm prepared to get it for you if you like. My view is that it doesn't really matter. If, for example, they started to charge inordinate amounts that meant only very wealthy international groups could belong, we would have serious questions about the society's activities and be very suspicious about what they we're doing.
C. Tanner: It's quite the reverse. My consideration is that if it is a dollar, you've got a thousand memberships for a thousand bucks. That's my concern -- not that they charge too much money, not that they're using this as a vehicle to make money. As I see it, this is a vehicle which would allow a group of people with a specific point of view to take it over. I suspect that it is only a dollar. In fact, I think it might even be by donation. If that's the case, it does allow any organization that has that whim to take over this organization quite easily.
D. Symons: The member asks some valid questions. The minister might have missed the implications of that question of the takeover situation. I don't think it's so much that they may change the bylaws of the SPCA; it might be subtly in the way that they enforce the bylaws.
In section 2 that has just passed, there are words like: "...an animal is in distress if it is abused or neglected." These are subjective words. If the SPCA is taken over by a special interest group that might not be as concerned about what distress, abuse or neglect means, when they are in the field and enforcing the rules, their interpretation can be quite different than that of the people who were there previously.
This brings us back to the point we were discussing in section 2 of the definitions. Since it is so subjective, and we have an organization that is subject to being taken over by a special interest group that might not have the same objectives as historically has been the case of the SPCA, we could be in trouble -- and the animals of this province could be in trouble.
[4:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure what the question is. I think it's more of a statement. I think we debated some of this when we were discussing the principles of the bill.
Let me assure the members opposite that care is taken by the representatives of the government in the determination of who can be a special constable and the rules under which
[ Page 10047 ]
they govern themselves. Under the Police Act, special constables who are not behaving appropriately in the public interest would lose their enforcement ability. Although the SPCA is an animal welfare organization, the point has to be made that they do allow the use of animals, so it's not a matter of animals not being used. We know the SPCA's constitution, and they present their bylaws to us. If a bylaw was ever passed by a takeover group that was against the spirit of the act and against commonly accepted practices, then we would not approve the bylaw.
C. Serwa: Is the minister comfortable with the privatization of regulation-making? That's what we're seeing in this piece of legislation. It's empowering an independent society to proceed with the drafting -- whether you call them bylaws or regulations -- of regulations. This body is not accountable or elected, and it appears to me that the government is abdicating its responsibility in this case. Would the minister be comfortable with other ministries abdicating their regulatory responsibility?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm comfortable, because I am comfortable with the proven track record of the SPCA. They have the authority now to enact bylaws. Because we are refining the enforcement powers, we are saying that we have to approve any bylaw that deals with enforcement powers. It's just making sure that they can't delegate it -- that they are aware that the government has to approve it. So the government retains the final authority.
With respect to whether we are privatizing, I see them as a public society. It's a community organization, so I am comfortable because of the organization's track record. We're not changing the rules of the game in any way that would change their ability to act responsibly or our ability to bring them into line if they choose to act irresponsibly.
C. Serwa: While the minister is very comfortable with the SPCA as it is presently constituted -- and we have reason to be comfortable with it as well -- this legislation gives a form of empowerment to the SPCA that will tend to attract other individuals to the organization. Let's say, for example, that animal rights activists gravitate toward membership in the SPCA. The concern I have is that not only will they now have the opportunity to craft regulations but they will have the opportunity to enforce them. I'm not familiar with the mechanism, whether it's an OIC approval. All I know is that the government is responsible for a great deal. If you delegate authority, the general tendency is to ratify the bylaws or regulations drafted. I'm afraid that a considerable amount of hardship can be caused for the agricultural industry by the dangers inherent in this specific section, where regulatory powers are given to the SPCA -- although the intentions may be good.
Section 5 approved on division.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
D. Symons: I have some concerns with various parts of this section. Section 8.1 states: "If an authorized agent is of the opinion that an animal is in distress and the person responsible for the animal (a) does not promptly take steps that will relieve its distress, or (b) cannot be found immediately and informed of the animal's distress, the authorized agent may...." Nowhere in here or in succeeding sections do I see that the person who has left the animal in distress is necessarily going to be charged, whether they can be found or not. I just want some assurance that if a person has put an animal in distress, there's going to be some consequence for having done that. Is that going to be logically following from section 8.1 or not?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will deal with that under a later section of the act.
R. Chisholm: I'd like a little clarification regarding special constables, especially with regard to the training the special constable is going to receive before going into the field to do his duties. Then I have a couple more questions on this section.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. member, we don't deal with special constables under this act. But if it refers to the opinion of an authorized agent, he is a person who is trained to exercise judgment. If he's not trained, he won't be made a special constable. I hope that helps.
R. Chisholm: I would like you to clarify the training that authorized agents are going to go through before they get to the point where they're authorizing special constables, so that we will have some clarification as to exactly what their powers are and what training they will have before they go into the field.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We dealt with that under section 9, under authorized agents, and we passed that section.
The Chair: Hon. member, we're on section 10; section 9 has passed.
R. Chisholm: The member for Richmond Centre just discussed section 8.1, which is part of section 9.
The Chair: Hon. member, I am reading where it says that section 8.1 is part of section 10. It says: "10. The following sections are added...."
With leave of the committee, we could return to that section if you would like to ask leave. Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
The Chair: All right. So we'll return to section 9.
On section 9.
R. Chisholm: The same question still applies. I just want clarification of the training these authorized agents receive before the stage of constable.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Currently the SPCA does training. They are developing a new training program that will deal with the new powers under this act. The training program will be adopted as a bylaw, and we will approve it as a bylaw. We will look very carefully at that, because this is all about enforcement powers. We want to be sure they do it right, and I'm sure they do too.
D. Symons: Just a quick question -- the answer may be clear, but not to me. Does the SPCA have the power under its current act to appoint provincial constables? I'm curious who has authority to appoint people with such sweeping powers as this bill seems to give these constables.
[ Page 10048 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One of the reasons for these amendments is to clarify that. In fact, right now it's an open question as to whether they have those powers. Some interpretations would say they do, and some say they don't. We're making it clear that they will have special constable powers under this, and we define how they become special constables governed by the act. They want clarification so that they know the bounds. They're welcoming this, and I think everyone else is welcoming it as well.
On section 10.
D. Symons: I see quite a few things I would like to ask here in section 10, and I'm sure other members would. Would the Chair consider discussing these substituted subsections seriatim -- 8.1...?
The Chair: Is that the pleasure of the committee? So be it.
On section 10, section 8.1.
C. Tanner: There are two things about this bill that worry me. One is that we're delegating authority to a society. The minister has pretty well allayed those fears. But now we come to a section where an agent is going to use his opinion; he's going to make a subjective judgment. That's when you get into trouble in that business, Mr. Minister. That's where the opinion of an official -- be he a veterinarian, an experienced constable, a longtime member of the SPCA.... When you're talking about the well-being of an animal, there's always a difference of opinion.
In my constituency, Mr. Minister -- which is a farming constituency for the most part -- I have had in my office a number of complaints about the very officials you're talking about, the ones with the authority here who you are asking to use their judgment. I'm not sure that the complaints I got were genuine, insofar as the judgment was concerned; my tendency is to agree with the official. But some of the people who were making the complaints have been around and have lived with animals for many years. I'm thinking particularly of the horse community in my area, where many horses are raised both for pleasure and for profit, quite frankly, in racing. When an officer of the court or the society or an officer under this authority is "using his opinion," as it says here, that's when we get into trouble.
The minister needs to reassure me that they've got some indices which they make those judgments by -- that it's just not, "Well, I've been around for ten years," or "I've got a veterinarian degree and I'm a veterinary doctor," or, "I'm a constable and I've got a uniform," or, "I've been a member of the society for many years." It's got to be more than that. We didn't get it in the previous parts of this bill; it's not available in the old bill. It's a judgment that's got to be called. I, the public in my constituency and the farming community need some assurance from this minister that those things are not going to take place.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In those cases where it's not cut-and-dried as to what is an acceptable treatment for animals, then the bylaws will require that they consult with experts in the field -- veterinarians, etc. We will be emphasizing under this legislation that the SPCA has to have additional training in the operations of the act and enforcement. So what you have to look at in section 8.1 is that if the animal is in distress -- and it's only where the animal is in distress, not where there is some simple disagreement as to how animals are to be held -- there has to be.... They know that if you get before a judge and the animal is not deemed to be in distress, then that calls into question the whole ability or judgment of the operating principles the SPCA are using.
So, in my view, given the fact that an additional training program on enforcement is being developed, they will have to know their business and when to consult with experts who are available to them. The experts I'm speaking of are people in the SPCA's own headquarters, where they have people with vast experience and members of the veterinarian community.
[4:45]
C. Tanner: Just prior to the minister speaking -- and I understand what he's saying here -- I jotted down about five different occasions when you've got to make a different judgment, and I assume the same enforcement officer will be making that judgment. For example, when animals are being transported on the road, there's a judgment to be made as to whether they're being transported safely and humanely.
When they're living on a farm, there is always a judgment as to whether the conditions that exist at the farm are beneficial to the animals. Quite frankly, I think the members of this House would differ sometimes when we see animals in jurisdictions which aren't ours. I don't think some animals that I've seen on first nations land are being well looked after, but that's a judgment call, and the people who own the animals think they are.
I had a riot in my constituency just a year ago this past fall, when people didn't agree with animals being used in rodeos and circuses. North Saanich Council tried to pass a bylaw saying that you can't have rodeos in that part of my constituency. However, when the rodeo was put on, literally thousands of people came to see it. So the majority of the people in my constituency didn't agree, but there were people who felt strongly about it. Somewhere down the line, one of the officers had to make a judgment under this act. That's four different judgments. When animals are being slaughtered, I don't think anybody would agree that it's humane or that they like it, but the fact of the matter is that animals are slaughtered. There are five different reasons for one of your officers making a judgment. I don't know how they do that. According to this legislation, they're using their expertise -- but it's a matter of interpretation and a matter of degree. Would the minister explain that to me?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You do it when you're trained. You look at the standards. For example, most of what you are referring to is governed by codes of practice right now. There is federal legislation that defines transportation of animals. Whether or not an animal is in distress is a matter of judgment, but you've got some standards to go by. The standards are those that have been developed by that industry, which says that these are the practices that are acceptable. If there is any question about whether an animal is in distress.... Take an animal at a rodeo ground that has been injured or handled in a certain way. We know that's an issue out there. The officer will be trained, and if there is some question of a disagreement, the officer can consult with an expert in the field. Failing that, if they choose to press charges, they will have to convince a Crown prosecutor, and the Crown prosecutor will discuss it with other people knowledgable in the field.
All enforcement is about judgment. That's what the training is for. We expect people to be trained. As you said yourself, in some cases it looks like the officer was right and that the people were challenging the use of animals. This legislation does nothing to change what animals are used for.
[ Page 10049 ]
It just gives powers to enforce certain provisions when animals that are being used are in distress. It allows them to take action, and it allows them to charge the person that's causing the distress.
C. Tanner: A year ago, there was an occasion in my constituency when an officer came and said that an animal either had to be removed or destroyed. The owner of the animal said: "You can't do that. I've invested my time, energy and a lot of work into this animal. While you might think it's in distress, I don't think it is. It's my animal, and I know better than you do."
I'm not necessarily agreeing with the owner of the animal. In fact, as I said before, my inclination is to agree with the officer on the site. But if they had destroyed that animal, the fact of the matter is that the decision was made. There's no appeal. You can be compensated, but how can you be compensated for something like an animal? In most other facets of our life, we've got a court to appeal to. But here, sometimes at a rodeo, a circus or on the road, an instant decision has to be made. That's when you get into trouble, that's when the problems ensue, and that's when your officers have to be so delicate.
I'm not convinced by what I see here that they have that ability. In your own wording, you say they've got to, first of all, make a subjective judgment as to the distress, and then they've got to make a subjective judgment as to whether or not it is in distress. We've got problems. I'm not sure whether this language is tough enough, quite frankly.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Someone has to make a judgment; we're saying that people trained in that field will make the judgment. A person caring for animals makes a judgment as to how to take care of the animal. If there is evidence that the animal is in distress -- which is defined as needing something such as food, shelter or care that it isn't getting -- then an officer has the power to make a decision. Some cases may go to court, and as court decisions are developed there will be more definition of what is acceptable. The teeth in this act relate to the ability of SPCA officers to gain evidence so they can prove it if they have to. Investment in an animal certainly won't be a defence if they are still causing distress.
With the precautions of the requirement for us to approve the bylaws -- and through approving bylaws dealing with the training programs -- I am satisfied that the SPCA will do a good job. If they don't, they won't have the powers and their agents won't be able to act. People come at it both ways: they have too much power or they haven't got enough. It's all about balance, and we think that the standards -- which may change through codes of practice as they change -- will be society's norms.
This legislation gives someone the ability to make the judgment by creating a "special constable" position, which is pretty serious. If that person doesn't have the judgment and the training, they can't become a special constable. The bottom line is that the people we want making the decisions and exercising judgment are people trained in the field.
C. Tanner: I can't help making a comment on what the minister just said: balance, thy name is Liberal. If you're talking about balance, you're talking about what's happening here, because we come down right in the middle on every decision. So I know all about balance.
But I'll tell you where you don't get balance. If a group of people genuinely believe that animals in a circus or a rodeo -- particularly in a rodeo -- are being abused and misused, they will do anything to stop that action from taking place. In spite of the fact that there might be a thousand people participating, watching and accepting what's going on, those animal rightists -- if that's the right name for them -- will ask your officer to exercise his jurisdiction and to stop what's going on. You tell me how he uses his judgment, because both sides are right. Under this legislation, both of them have the right to ask him to exercise his judgment. In good faith, both of them say: "Do something." In this legislation, I don't know what he does. I don't think it's going to work for you.
C. Serwa: Section 10, 8.1 is talking about an animal in distress. I am going to ask the minister some specific questions with respect to rodeos. The minister is quite familiar with calf-roping. You can't tell me that when somebody tosses a rope on that young calf, the horse stops and the calf is still going hell-bent for election, that there isn't stress on that animal -- and on occasion the calf's neck is broken. Bronco-busting, or bronco-riding, is a similar situation, where the animal doesn't have a choice. It can go into a steel fence or a heavy wooden fence and become injured.
This type of legislation empowering a society to draft regulations is going to be subject to all sorts of questions like that. What is the minister going to do when a bylaw comes in from the SPCA indicating that calf-roping is to be outlawed? Will the minister support that, or won't he? That's going to happen; it must happen.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This legislation does not change the use of animals. As the law stands now, it is acceptable for people to use animals for rodeos. This doesn't change that. But if an animal is hurt as a result of that use, in distress and not being taken care of, then the SPCA can take care of that animal or require that the managers take care of it. We now permit animals to be used in rodeos, and we will after this legislation comes through. If a bylaw comes through that relates to use, then we have to say that it relates to the use of animals and is not valid.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
C. Serwa: Just on that point, the reality is that you will in fact change, because you now have a society that will be drafting bylaws, and pressure will be put on them. We have a responsibility not to attend to the animal after the incident but to prevent that incident from happening. That will be the licence to outlaw calf-roping and rodeos, for example, because the mathematical probability of injury is there. If you know that the mathematical probability is there, it's pointless to do something afterwards. That's the reality you'll confront with this particular piece of legislation, because a body that is not elected and not responsible to the population at large, as the government is, will be drafting the bylaws. That's my continuing concern about this issue.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is trying to have us either ignore the issue or codify it in the act. We can't define all the conditions under which animals can be used. If the SPCA brings forth a bylaw that deals with a practice, then we will require whatever agencies that deal with the governance of that practice to come up with some guidelines. Right now, the standards are that rodeos are all right. Some people disagree with that. I think there is ongoing pressure for them to conduct themselves in a way where the animals aren't left in a distress situation if they are injured. We aren't taking the risk away in all cases. The normal handling of animals does
[ Page 10050 ]
sometimes result in injury. Fundamentally, we're not changing that at all.
[5:00]
I can't talk in theory about a bylaw that deals with a practice, because I can't see the bylaw; but, yes, the society could put forth a bylaw. But if it changes an industry standard, then we wouldn't approve it, because we accept that the industry standards are out there to govern it -- generally through codes of practice. A judge would require the same thing too. We are not bringing in legislation in this act to regulate the conduct of the practice of raising animals.
Section 10, section 8.1 approved.
On section 10, section 8.2.
R. Chisholm: We're now back to "critical distress." I would like the minister's opinion of what he sees "critical distress" to be. I know what it says right here in section 8.2, but the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association has a different opinion about some of the wording there. They feel it's far too strong. I'd just like to hear what the minister believes "critical distress" in the animal kingdom is.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my understanding that the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association is satisfied with thedefinition. Critical distress deals with extraordinary situations, situations where animals are in need of immediate assistance. In this case, for example, its focus would be on an animal that's injured to a point that it cannot be saved and needs to be destroyed to avoid further suffering. In the case of the latter section, the focus is on gaining immediate entry to property to ensure that the animal is taken care of. But it's my understanding that the veterinary association is happy with the definition.
R. Chisholm: The words that were mentioned to me as being too strong, in their opinion, were "cannot prolong" and "suffering unduly." They've had problems with those two, and I wondered if they had spoken to you about them.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have consulted with the SPCA, the ministry veterinarians and the B.C. veterinary college. They are satisfied with this. There's no other way to do it. We have to put some words in here to clearly signal that the animal is suffering in a way that is undue. There's going to be some suffering in the handling of animals, but you have to minimize it. The SPCA is determined to prevent undue suffering. If the people have not taken care to relieve the animal's distress, and it's critical, then there are powers here for action to be taken.
D. Symons: The intent, then, of this particular section is simply that if the animal seems to be beyond help, the SPCA is allowed to put it down. Is that strictly the intent of it, in simple words?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If it's the opinion of a veterinary doctor that the animal is beyond rescue. They may already have conveyed definitions to officers during training, and they can exercise that training. But if there's any question, they go back to the vet to get a judgment.
Section 10, section 8.2 approved.
On section 10, section 8.3.
D. Symons: Sections 8.3 and 8.4 both have similar wordings. Section 8.3 talks about "an animal in distress in any premises, vehicle," and so forth. That word "premises" comes up two or three times in the following sections, particularly section 8.4, which we're going to get to in a few moments. I'm just concerned that when you talk about "any premises" here. I asked earlier whether farm animals were included: would this then include farm animals? Would this include private homes and those types of premises?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there's nothing hidden here. The explanation is that entry will be authorized onto private property -- farms, residences -- with a warrant, for the purposes of relieving an animal's distress or of gathering evidence. They have to present evidence to the justice that the animal is in critical distress.
Section 10, sections 8.3 and 8.4 approved.
On section 10, section 8.41.
D. Symons: This is getting down to the meat of the issue here, because inspection is the part that gives the....
Interjection.
D. Symons: Somebody took exception to my saying "the meat of the issue." This part giving authority to do the inspection is what gives all the rest of the bill the power that was intended. If you don't have the power to inspect, much of the rest of the bill is meaningless. This is where I get concerned: "An authorized agent may, without a warrant, during ordinary business hours enter any premises, other than a dwelling house...." We were talking before about dwellings, and I want to make sure, by the section we just passed, that private dwellings and farm animals, whether raised for sale and for food, are included in that. This section states: "...during ordinary business hours...where animals are kept for sale, hire or exhibition." You've been assuring me all along that we can cover farm animals. I'm somewhat concerned that we now seem to be limiting this specifically to animals for sale. Would that include animals that are raised on the farm for sale? Does that sale include chickens, beef cattle and so forth? That is why the person is raising them: for sale, hire or exhibition. I suppose exhibition could mean the rodeos that we talked about earlier. I just want to make sure that we're including those animals as well.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If you read this, this allows the agent, without a warrant and during ordinary business hours, to enter premises "other than a dwelling house." If there's any question, they have to fall back on getting a warrant.
Your concern is whether or not this act empowers people to go in and relieve distressed animals on private property -- for example, a farm. Yes, this act will allow that. This section deals with premises where a business is going on. I've used the example of a pet store. You can go into a pet store, during business hours and without a warrant, go behind the front area where the animals are kept and determine whether or not an animal is in distress.
D. Symons: I hate to keep hitting this point, but I'm still trying to make positively sure that the situations that I have concerns about are covered. A slaughterhouse is beyond "sale, hire or exhibition." If an animal happened to be what's referred to as a downer, which is where an animal has been injured somewhere in the process of transport, it is
[ Page 10051 ]
sometimes dragged into the slaughterhouse. It isn't supposed to be, but I gather this is done; I've seen films of it happening. There's that aspect of it. Or there may be a number of chickens in cages. A person could increase the number in there so they're just body to body, with no space for movement except to peck the food that fattens them for market. Veal crates and various farming techniques are used. If somebody feels that they've gone beyond what is normal practice, does the SPCA have the power to enter during ordinary business hours? Where do we get into the dwelling place? Is the dwelling place the home only, or does it include the barns out behind the house? I just want to make sure that these practices are open to inspection. Are they?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If I understand the question, this section does not deal with private farms unless there's an animals-for-sale sign. If you're just raising them, it's private property. This section relates to areas where the public is normally invited. If the slaughterhouse has a big sign up that says, "Public tours welcome," this section would apply.
D. Symons: I'm doubly distressed. Both the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and I asked earlier what animals are covered. The minister told us that all animals are covered. I specifically asked, "Are farm animals covered?" and the minister said: "Yes, they're covered." But now you're saying they're not. I was misled earlier, or you're interpreting various sections to mean something.... You're saying that unless they have a sign saying "Animals for sale," they can pretty well do whatever they want; they're not covered.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member opposite is unnecessarily getting a little agitated. I wouldn't knowingly mislead you. Let me be very clear: during business hours they can go onto a business premises -- where the public is normally invited -- without a warrant; after business hours, they will have to get a warrant. Section 8.3, which we've already passed, applies to those circumstances. It says that if there's an animal in distress in any premises, the agent can enter.
An Hon. Member: How do they find out?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They have to have some evidence that it's there. This does not give agents a blank cheque to go around to every farm and see if they're following the codes of practice; there has to be some evidence that the codes of practice aren't being followed. To use your example, the current practices for veal or chickens are acceptable, and nobody can bring an action. But there has to be some evidence, or the agent can't go in.
C. Tanner: In the circumstance that the minister just outlined, what would happen if a complaint was laid with the society about a specific circumstances that didn't have a for-sale sign on it? Surely there's an obligation then for the society to investigate and do whatever it has to do.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To get onto private property, there have to be some reasonable grounds. You would have to go to a judge or justice of the peace and present some reasoned evidence that there is an animal in distress. Then the judge has the power, if he's satisfied with the evidence. If you have no evidence, section 8.3 doesn't help.
C. Tanner: In that case, is a complaint in writing from a neighbour sufficient evidence to take in front of a judge or magistrate to get a warrant to go on the land?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Reasonable grounds have to be demonstrated in order to get on the premises. Then they would be in a position to collect the evidence. They might say: "It has been rumoured that this person is using a practice. I've seen this particular piece of equipment being transported there, and a neighbour has seen it." If there is some evidence, some reasonable grounds, then they will be allowed to go on. In order to enforce the act, they will then have to provide other evidence and prove their case. If they get on the property with a warrant -- through the powers of the court -- and find the animal in distress, they would be empowered to deal with the situation. So I think some of your fears can be allayed. There are some powers here, but a judge will decide whether there are reasonable grounds to grant entry onto private property.
[5:15]
C. Tanner: Supposing the inspector -- I was going to say enforcer, but I guess that's not really a decent word -- the member of the society, or the constable goes on because of a specific complaint, and when he gets there, he finds some other problems. Can he then deal with those other problems, or does he have to go back and get another one?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There would be a requirement that the justice provide a warrant for a specific purpose. If he seeks the power to go onto the place just to gather evidence, then that's all he would be allowed to do. If it was to deal with an animal in distress, and the officer of the court was satisfied that there was some distress there, he could give the power to deal with the distress situation.
C. Tanner: I think the minister misunderstood what I said, or maybe I didn't say it very clearly. If an officer goes into a situation and finds a problem for which a complaint has been laid or that he's got evidence for, but he finds completely new evidence concerning different animals altogether in another area of the same situation, can he deal with the second case?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That depends on the wording of the warrant. You'll notice in subsection (4) of 8.3 -- we're really debating 8.4, but we can go back to 8.3 -- that it says: "A warrant issued under subsection (2) is subject to the conditions specified in the warrant." The justice will ask the question, look at the information that is being provided, and it depends on why the officer went there.
My guess is that the court will not give carte blanche to somebody for some kind of shopping spree, if you will. They're going there for a specific purpose. He will want to know why they want on there, and if the person says they want on there just in case there's something, then I would think the justice wouldn't be advised to do that. They have to provide some reasonable grounds that there's something causing distress to animals.
C. Tanner: I'm surprised that in this particular section 8.41, the inspection section, we don't include "abattoir" and "slaughterhouse." I know that there is a separate act for those, but if there was anywhere that I would have thought you'd need it -- because the occasion might arise -- this would be it. Could the minister please comment on that?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Specifically, the SPCA asked for a power -- this is a very specific inspection power -- and it deals with those public premises where animals are held for sale, hire or exhibition. This section of the act is for that specific purpose. If you're dealing with slaughterhouses,
[ Page 10052 ]
which was your example, we'd have to use some other section. But they can deal with it if they have cause to believe that an animal is in distress there under these definitions. They can go into those with a warrant.
In this case these are public premises, and it's during business hours where, specifically, animals are kept for sale, hire or exhibition. I go back to the fact that the SPCA itself asked for these powers in these limited cases. So this is not a broad power; this is a very specific power.
C. Tanner: Obviously I'm not going to belabour this point, because I think you're doing some of the things in this section that I asked for in the previous section. What concerns me a little bit is somewhat the reverse of what I started to say earlier, in that now you tell me the society is asking specifically for this power. You make me nervous that they had all the rest of the powers and this is a sort of catch-all and sweep-up to cover everything they didn't have. Would that be true?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the minister's answer.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know what the question is.
C. Tanner: Section 8.41 covers these specific powers and they're for this specific reason. The minister said that the society asked for these specific powers to do this specific job, and immediately my suspicions are that they've got the power to do everything else and they just needed this to tidy up with. If that's not a true statement, please correct me, Mr. Minister.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section deals with a situation where there are public premises involved -- where there's a lower expectation of privacy -- and allows them to go behind the front counter to check what's going on on the premises.
With respect to broader powers, they have to get a warrant to go onto private property, and a slaughterhouse is private property unless it is deemed to be public. That's why it's restricted. The area around the front counter where activities take place is in between public and private property. During second reading debate somebody said: "What about animals being unloaded off a truck at 4 o'clock in the morning at a sale yard?" They are open for business, because they are unloading cattle. In that situation the officers could go in, because it is a place normally open to the public and that happens to be the normal business hours for them. They do business around the clock when it's shipping time.
R. Chisholm: When we're talking about things such as public sale, hire or exhibition, where is the SPCA's accountability to the public? We've talked about where it is accountable to the ministry through its bylaws, but where is it accountable to the public? Is there any forum for that?
The Chair: Before the minister answers, member, I am struggling a bit with this clause being germane to that question. Perhaps we can pick up that question in another section. I don't see any reference here. The issue is simply differentiating between premises other than private dwellings.
Interjection.
The Chair: Yes, I'll see if the minister can clarify that for us.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to enforcement and inspection powers, they are accountable through the Police Act. The province administers the Police Act and ensures that the SPCA is acting according to the public interest.
D. Symons: I have been listening intently to the discussion, and I am most interested. Some people, as well as myself, have said: "We don't have a problem with the bill as a philosophical statement. Indeed, we commend the government for bringing forth a bill that will give more protection to animals." In many cases it might be just clarity of the position of people involved in carrying out the acts. Secondly, maybe some people such as myself are concerned that the bill doesn't go far enough in giving protection to animals, and that's why we are asking questions right now about animals which might be raised for something other than sale, hire and exhibition.
The Chair: Member, excuse me. I have no desire to impede the flow of this debate, but we are on section 8.41. The questions that you and other speakers have raised in the last few minutes have no resemblance to what is enunciated in section 8.41. As Chair, I have no recourse but to tell you that and to ask you to please either direct your remarks to that section or pass that section so we can go on to another that might be germane.
D. Symons: Not to be critical of the Chair, but I think the last words I said before you interrupted me were "sale, hire or exhibition," which I find in the third line -- the first four words -- of the section we are dealing with. That's at the very point that you interrupted me. We can check the Blues tomorrow, and I might admonish the Chair in this case.
Interjection.
D. Symons: "Don't admonish the Chair," the hon. member says. That's beyond the pale of what I can do.
In order to assist in this I thought I might propose an amendment to the bill, where we would add to the words "the sale, hire or exhibition," so that line would read: "...the sale, hire, exhibition or slaughter for the purpose of determining...." We would be expanding the bill a little so that we could bring in some of these other situations that could be inspected on a regular basis, if the SPCA considered that there might be some interest in protecting animals from abuse in those cases.
I would submit the following as an amendment to the bill. Basically, the third line would now read: "...sale, hire, exhibition or slaughter for the purpose of determining whether any animal is in distress in the premises."
The Chair: I believe the amendment is in order, and therefore I will allow it to stand.
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think it is in order. I think it changes the intent. The intent here, clearly, is to bring in a provision for areas that are public premises. Slaughterhouses are not public premises. This deals with inspection powers without a warrant. The member's amendment deals with a situation where, if there's a problem in the minds of people, they can get a warrant to enter private premises.
[ Page 10053 ]
The Chair: Excuse me. I have a point of order from the member for Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: I thought that I heard the Chair indicate that the motion was in order, and I then heard the hon. minister criticize the Chair. I'd like some clarification.
The Chair: No, member. Believe me, I would be as defensive as any were that to happen, but that did not occur. Rather, I ventured an opinion. The minister is giving me the benefit of his superior knowledge of the draft, and I understand his comments. I see the point that he made and agree that the amendment is probably out of order, because it is indeed substantive.
D. Symons: I hate to differ, but when answering the question that was asked before I got up, I think the minister said that if animals were arriving at a slaughterhouse -- or a gathering area, anyway; I'm not sure -- and were trucked in and unloaded at midnight or some unearthly hour, it would indeed constitute normal business hours. If this act were to cover situations like that, I can't see why slaughterhouses couldn't also be considered, in normal business hours, to be premises where business is taking place. I can't figure out why the minister is saying that trucking animals into a gathering place at one hour is legitimate for inspecting; this place is not private. How you can differentiate one as being private and the other as not being private? To me, somebody bringing a truckload of animals in at any time around the clock, and saying that it's public and open to the public in ordinary business hours is stretching the imagination somewhat. The minister is saying that a slaughterhouse would not be any more....
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. If I haven't made it clear, let me do so now. The amendment has indeed been disallowed and ruled out of order. That's not open to debate. We are on 8.41. I hope the member's comments were indeed relevant to 8.41 and not 8.41 as amended.
Section 10, section 8.41 approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
The Speaker: We are now going to have reports on Committee A. I think that by agreement the members who are not in the official opposition have the first opportunity to report. They have three minutes; the official opposition has five minutes; and the concluding remarks are by the government, which has eight minutes.
The others are passing, so the hon. member has the full length of time. Please proceed, hon. member.
[5:30]
D. Jarvis: We have just finished the estimates. In opening them earlier, the minister stated that she was excited about what was happening to the energy industry in this province and felt there was great momentum occurring in B.C.'s mining industry. In fact, I think her words were that the mining industry is rebounding. As far as the opposition is concerned, nothing could be better if it were true. I have approximately five minutes or less to discuss the problems arising throughout this province's mining industry, and time precludes me from really telling you the whole story.
Energy is exciting. We in British Columbia have approximately one-seventh of the world's fresh water, and yet we are importing power. Instead of cheap power to operate and encourage industry in this province, especially those businesses that are electrically intensive, we are raising their taxes to exorbitant levels, to the point where most of them are finding it exceedingly difficult even to operate. For example, it wasn't too long ago, with the 3.9 percent increase of B.C. Hydro, that Highland Valley mines had an additional bill of over $600,000 for this year. Now, if the B.C. Utilities Commission passes it, they will be faced with a further 2.8 percent increase retroactive to April 1 of this year -- another big provincial tax grab that is causing irreparable harm to industries in B.C.
As I said, we have untold supplies of water, and so far we're aware of untold supplies of gas that we're exploring and shipping south. We're using about half of it domestically, and the rest is going into other fields. Yet we are ignoring the fact that with this plentiful supply of cheap gas, we could be having exceptional added value in that industry in this province instead of exporting it all across the border.
We are fortunate that supplies of natural gas are such that huge profits are being made. The fact is that the government is selling its leases, and we are creating great gobs of money for this province. That is one of the things that is helping this minister's Energy and Mines portfolio. That's about all that's being created -- due to the fact that we're selling leases.
On the mineral end of it, I'll go on to say that the minister's hopes are high for exploration and development. We all hope so. However, the minister's own predictions are that everything is down in this province: production is down, revenue is down, and mining revenue is down to $31 million. It has never been so low in the history of British Columbia, especially with this government. There's no evidence that they are prepared to ease tenure. Their aggressive regulations, such as pre-profit taxes, are causing unbelievable problems. Confidence in revenue is at an all-time low. The minister's interpretation of momentum in the mineral industry in this province can be best considered as glacial progress.
It is time for this government to take notice of the fact that investment and development are not rushing into this province. That should be reason enough for her to consider that something has to be done about it. Something is wrong. It's too easy to say that approval is given if no results actually do occur. Too many efforts to offend and demoralize the business sector are occurring as a result of this government.
As I said before, I only hope that things will improve. Anything the minister can do that will be positive, for a change, we're prepared to support.
Hon. A. Edwards: I have every expectation.... I'm going to continue smiling while I'm talking, because I'm an optimist. I'm an optimist about the energy industry and the mining industry in this province. There's no reason that anybody in B.C. should be running around crying doom and gloom, because doom and gloom time is over. It's very
[ Page 10054 ]
interesting for the opposition critic to suggest that anything we say that looks optimistic is not true. We examined a number of things during estimates. By the way, we didn't talk about importing power except to examine, if we did import power, exactly why we did so. That was very clear. We were a net importer of power in 1993 because of low water.
The outlook for electricity in this province is very good. We examined the outlook for independent power projects in some detail. There are opportunities that we as a government have created by putting a policy together and moving to create a level playing field. Independent power producers can be sure that the process is fair, and they can compete fairly with each other and with the utilities. So it's all very good.
The opposition critic says that all our gas is going south -- actually, half of it is -- there's no value added, and we're selling leases, which is our only source of benefit from the gas industry. I find that a very interesting approach. We are able to talk about a continuing process for natural gas in B.C. We're talking about the continuing development of the resource, which is a generous resource. It won't go on forever, but it's going to go on for some considerable time. With technology increasing, as it is, and with our encouragement of that kind of increase through exploration -- that is happening because the industry is excited about what's happening British Columbia -- we are taking good advantage of this natural resource. We're always glad to see where we can add value, and we're working to do that. It's a good, clean resource that has done a great deal for British Columbia -- and will continue to do so for those of us who are willing to smile and say: "Things are going all right."
We did canvass a number of issues. We took a significant look at how independent power producers work in this province. We looked at how we as government are moving to integrated resource planning and how that will contribute to our goals, and to the goals of most people in the province, of achieving conservation and efficiency in energy use, in energy generation and in the field, on a broad basis.
We talked in some detail about the Kemano completion project. We dealt with the very complex issue of the agreements that were made -- without a great deal of public support; as a matter of fact, with a considerable amount of public opposition -- by the previous governments in B.C. and in Ottawa. We talked about how we could and should deal with that. Believe me, we intend to ensure that the current Utilities Commission hearing will bring as much information to the fore as it possibly can. We will then be able to deal with that, because we will have better information when that hearing is over.
The energy industry, of course, has been going along quite well in B.C. What wasn't going so well was the mining industry. I want to tell the House that it was my pleasure to relate to members of the opposition party who came to talk about mining the reasons why we are so optimistic about mining in B.C. and why we are able to say that we believe the industry is rebounding -- and I believe that is a good word to use for it. Certainly there is a significant amount of optimism for the mining industry in British Columbia.
We heard from the opposition critic -- even in his windup statements -- that our aggressive environmental legislation is going to destroy everything. The opposition member is quite willing to suggest, when it suits him, that we're destroying the industry with our aggressive legislation. I suppose he really means that we're doing that with more than just our legislation; he probably means with some of our policies, too. Sometimes he's willing to say that that destroys everything in the province; at other times he's quite willing to suggest that we're not paying any attention to the environment.
I would suggest that we have to strike a balance in the mining industry. They understand that. We're having discussions with the industry, and the Premier is working with the industry. We're working together so that we can form the kinds of partnerships that are really going to make this province go ahead better than any government that chooses to work alone.
Any suggestion that nothing is coming of our mining industry is the kind of doomsaying, gloom-looking and negativity that the negative Nellies of the Legislature and certainly of the province.... It's a shame to see a number of members, who I think really should look to the welfare of the province, denying that it's a good thing that five mining companies in B.C. that are in the certification process and working toward projects came with me in March to Toronto, representing $1 billion worth of potential investment. They are willing to say with me, to those who make decisions about capital investment in mining, that in fact B.C. is a good place to work, that they are working in B.C., proceeding toward their project, and that they have had good success working with government.
I think it's interesting to deny that some significant signs and signals are coming from Mitsui, for example, which is setting up an office in Vancouver to deal with investment in the mining industry in Canada -- and most particularly in B.C. I think it's foolish to suggest that the interest of Pegasus to work with El Condor Resources on their possible involvement in the Kemess South project is not a good sign. I think that's shortsighted, negative and self-serving. It would be foolish to suggest that the Korean investors who came in with Teck and Cominco to buy into the Cirque project, which had previously been called the Stronsay project.... To ignore that and say that that doesn't represent optimism and a good, new look into the mining industry in British Columbia would be foolish.
Basically we had the opportunity during estimates to review an optimistic and thriving energy industry. We had the opportunity to make the case for the rebound of the minerals industry in British Columbia. And we absolutely got the ability to exchange views and get down to the facts and figures -- and those are optimistic. I'm very pleased to have reached the conclusion of our estimates. I'm pleased that we will proceed and that we will in fact deal with good news for the province in both energy and minerals.
[5:45]
The Speaker: Hon. members, that concludes reports from Committee A.
Hon. R. Blencoe: On that very positive note, have a wonderful evening in the city of Victoria. I wish everybody a very pleasant evening. I will look forward to seeing you all tomorrow.
I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.
[ Page 10055 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:49 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)
On vote 25: minister's office, $333,000 (continued).
D. Jarvis: I want to go back into gas again, where we were the other day. The subject of integrated resource planning was brought up. I was wondering what the minister's feeling was on that. I got a letter a little while back which sort of surprised me, about the state of Illinois saying they were no longer going into IRP for gas, because it was no longer cost-effective -- in fact, it was quite clear it was a loser. They stated the reasons were very simple: gas IRP is unnecessary, and the alleged benefits provided are illusory, while its costs are quite real. They say that in the state of Illinois they tested gas IRP as a process and concluded, as of now and for the foreseeable future, that its costs do not justify its benefits, that eliminating gas IRP will not imperil any of the important regulatory functions developed over the years, and that we can focus all our attention on the economic benefits and costs of the investment and not be distracted by the minutiae of the integrated resource plan. Has the minister any comments on that?
Hon. A. Edwards: Integrated resource planning is a process that's been adopted to deal with some serious and, I would say, very far-reaching concerns about the use of energy. It requires those who supply energy to look at what is the best way to do so with certain values laid out. You look at your resource plan and make sure you have some integration with all the elements of that plan, so that you can achieve a goal. It's not easy to achieve goals such as efficiency of use, best public good and so on under any circumstances, but certainly it's almost impossible to achieve those goals without some planning. If you decide that you will simply plan on the basis of one fuel, sector or region, you will be doing so without the full range of what you may want to do. Because that hasn't been formalized in this province at all, we are looking toward doing so. It basically evaluates all known resources for meeting the demand for a utilities product; that would include both the supply-side and the demand-side resources. That is another of the broad areas that should be brought into a single focus. If you don't do integrated resource planning, you're not going to know whether you're being efficient or not. I don't know what your letter says, or what the group that wrote the letter said, but they are out of step with most of the rest of the continent -- I'll leave it at that range -- because utilities commissions are going toward integrated resource management. It only makes sense to look at all of your options before you choose one, particularly when the bottom line -- as it's always been considered; in other words, just the dollars you will have to pay for what you can get away with -- is no longer an acceptable criterion for governments, for utilitiescommissions, and for utilities themselves.
Basically, the other thing that integrated resource planning allows for is serious and useful participation by the public. The public often can tell you things. Sometimes in your own shop, however large or small, you've decided how you can best achieve a goal. When you take it to the public, sometimes you have some other opinions, suggestions and options very clearly put to you.
So our program and our proposal for getting a well-recognized process for integrated resource planning is being put together by a number of agencies. The ministry is involved, the Utilities Commission is involved, B.C. Hydro is involved, and B.C. Gas is involved -- the major utilities themselves. The Energy Council has been working with it. So a number of directions are there. One of the most important things is that we include as broad a range of factors of what go into the decision as possible and that it be open to the public.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate what you had to say about that; I was quite interested. It was actually the state of Illinois' Energy Department that said this, and they said that several other jurisdictions were also reconsidering IRP. I wanted to read you this last statement in there to see how you felt about that. They contend that basically: "...reality -- not theory -- is what matters. Regulators and utility management should be concerned with what has and will happen, not what should happen on paper or in some economist's mind. Utilities must ask themselves: 'When we spend shareholders' and ratepayers' hard-earned dollars on non-cost-effective gas IRP, will they be satisfied because it was a good idea theoretically?'"
Hon. A. Edwards: Well, I would certainly agree with the statement I believe you're putting forward: theories should be tempered with practical reality. That's very true. But if your process is that far removed from reality, then you should have a new process. One of the directions we want to go in is to make sure that what we put together and what we talk about is tested in practice, that it achieves what we want it to achieve, that we have as much input as possible from the people who deal with it every day on the most basic level of needing to accept it, and that they recognize that what's there is going to happen in the real world. So I would certainly agree with you that we need to be practical and that what we do in our planning has to work in the real world, or else we should change our process.
D. Jarvis: I want to jump over to power now. I want to ask some basic, simple questions. How much power is required to run British Columbia? And does the minister have a breakdown of how much of that power is produced by Hydro and how much by IPPs?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm sure that question leaves itself open to a number of answers, but I will give you an answer. It will be about electricity supply and requirements in British Columbia. Our latest figures in terawatt-hours -- that is, thousands of gigawatt-hours.... If you know gigawatts, you're away to the races. I guess this still would have been a very firm projection. In 1993 it took 59,000 gigawatt-hours for domestic requirements, and there were basically no exports. In fact, we were a net importer last year. So that is pretty well the figure.
D. Jarvis: Two questions. Was that all produced by Hydro, or was it part Hydro and part IPP? Also, what is the government's projection for 1994?
Hon. A. Edwards: What I gave you was a figure from all sources of power generated in the province. I can tell you
[ Page 10056 ]
much more easily what it is likely going to be in.... The components of that, in case you're interested, are: B.C. Hydro; Columbia River downstream benefits; West Kootenay Power; industrial thermal; and industrial hydro. The projection for 1994 is 63,000 to 64,000 gigawatt-hours. I would say that measures generation of power within B.C. It is a fact that the downstream benefits are exported already, but they're within that figure.
D. Jarvis: If we look at that as the projection for this year, then we're looking at a major projection for 1998-plus. What will our position be there? Have you come to any conclusion as to whether we're still going to be net producers -- or are we going to import -- when you factor in what we may get out of the Columbia and Alcan?
[3:00]
Hon. A. Edwards: What we have, and what I am going to talk about right now.... If you want to talk about projections, as to how we meet them, I can talk about that in a minute. Right now, for your information, our projections -- which are pretty well broadly available -- are: for 1995, 67,000 gigawatt-hours; for the year 2000, 75,000gigawatt-hours; for the year 2005, 84,000 gigawatt-hours; and by the year 2010, 91,000 gigawatt-hours.
As you know, we are looking toward an energy plan, which will be coming in December from the Energy Council. Certainly, the ways that we'll meet that plan will depend on a whole lot of things that are currently in discussion, including our integrated resource management planning. Our decisions are based on information that comes in from the Energy Council; the kinds of things that change from year to year, such as the cost of fuels and the cost of using those fuels to generate electricity; and, of course, the general feelings and sense of the public -- largely related, I think, to their views of what the impacts are on their communities, not only environmental but economic.
D. Jarvis: Does that projection include KCP? And what is it including as far as the Columbia River is concerned? Is that repatriation?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, those projections include the downstream benefits as they come back to meet the B.C. demand -- or supply. And yes, it does include the Kemano completion project. In fact, it includes a significant amount -- not huge comparatively, but a significant amount -- from Resource Smart programs of B.C. Hydro, which we think will make a difference. Of course, we know that independent power producers will be participating in the generation of electricity in this province. They may well be exporting -- we don't know -- but what I gave you were projections for domestic demand.
D. Jarvis: If KCP didn't come on, what would that do to the projection?
Hon. A. Edwards: The difference is 2,300 gigawatt-hours per year.
D. Jarvis: Hon. minister, I assume that's including Burrard up to full speed.
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes indeed, Burrard is included in the figures, and the upgrade of Burrard. Burrard ranges somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 gigawatt-hours per year, usually at the higher range, and it may go up beyond that in future years, when we get close to the turn of the century. We would use Burrard in critical water situations. It all depends on a number of decisions yet to be made, but you can project fairly well where the units of supply come from, and the largest of those.
D. Jarvis: I understand and appreciate that back in the early 1950s Alcan made an agreement about the water coming through. There was no charge for water rental by Alcan. Is there any change in that situation in regard to the water that potentially will be flowing through the Dunsmuir following the completion of the KCP?
Hon. A. Edwards: The agreement that was signed with Alcan was over the water the company used to generate power for its smelter. The amount of water rental paid for that is pegged to the cost of aluminum. Anything over and above that -- for example, any power that Alcan would sell to B.C. Hydro -- Alcan pays full water rates for.
D. Jarvis: On all the power produced through KCP, will there be a water rental charge? Has the agreement already been signed that they will be paying water rental charges?
Hon. A. Edwards: It would be useful to point out that it's the same with Kemano 1 as it is with KCP: the favourable water rate given to Alcan under the agreement was for use of any power at the smelter. Otherwise, for any other power that Alcan generates and sells, it pays the normal water rate.
D. Jarvis: None of the KCP power generated will be used for smelter purposes, from what we understand; it's going to go into the grid. Will they definitely be paying the normal water rates, as would Cominco or any other independent power producer?
Hon. A. Edwards: That's correct.
D. Jarvis: I want to jump a bit here. In an article that came out in this morning's paper -- you have probably read it -- an Ottawa civil servant says that "contained water" in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will mean water behind the dam. Simply stated, water implicitly qualifies as a good under the FTA because it is not being excluded as were the other resources in Canada.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's always interesting to have an individual speak out, but our best advice -- certainly the best they have in Ottawa, as we understand it -- is that if we export electricity from any water contained behind dams, that would not be considered to be the export of water.
D. Jarvis: So I can assume there has been no agreement by this government for water export other than bottled water.
By the way, the lady I was telling you about, the civil servant from Ottawa, has just been touring your riding. So I wondered if you had run into her there.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's nice to know we have another good tourist.
You're absolutely correct in your understanding that this government does not support the export of water beyond containerized water -- I should make clear that that's bottled water.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate that the Columbia agreements are 1998 and on. But is there a deadline date for a specific decision as to whether we're going to repatriate the water?
[ Page 10057 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: I would remind the member that it's repatriating power, not water. The dates for return of the benefits are 1998, the year 2000 and the year 2003. We have dates by which we would have some agreement so that we could do the planning leading up to it. We have dealt with those agreements enough so that we can continue our negotiations and come to some agreement as to what would be most beneficial for us. I'm sure that, in some cases, what is more beneficial to us is more beneficial to the U.S. So we are negotiating just exactly how we take back the downstream benefits.
D. Jarvis: Is there a decision date expected?
Hon. A. Edwards: There's basically no further date that we are meeting, except that by 1998 the U.S. will have to return the entitlement to us, unless we come to some other agreement. So we have come to every other agreement to deal with the planning that we need to do, and all we're doing now is deciding whether or not we should do something that would intervene in the normal process of what would happen under the treaty. That's the next date that we have. If we can come to an agreement, then we will be assured that the treaty may come back as designated, which is that they would return all the entitlement that we're entitled to at Oliver in 1998, the year 2000 and the year 2003.
D. Jarvis: I believe you said last year that you were considering moving the power up through the Oliver area. Are there any other options for moving the power?
Hon. A. Edwards: As we've said very clearly, if the power were to be returned at Oliver, both the U.S. and B.C. would have to build lines to Oliver, because they're not exactly complete there. So there is the possibility that they would bring it back at Selkirk; and there is the possibility that they would bring it back at Blaine, to the western side of the province. Obviously it is much more to our benefit if any power that is returned is returned further west in the province, because that's where the larger demand is. Partly because we already generate it, there's lots of power in the eastern side of the province. We have far more users in the western side of the province than we do in the east. It would obviously be to our benefit to have it returned further west.
[3:15]
D. Jarvis: Probably one of your favourite questions that keeps coming up in this last little while is: why was the Energy Council cancelled?
Hon. A. Edwards: You have no doubt detected that I had great expectations of the Energy Council -- which they were delivering on; I feel very strongly that they were delivering very clearly on the goals that we wanted them to. The Energy Council did a review for us on export of electricity -- that came as an ad hoc direction -- and they were working on energy planning for two-year energy plan intervals.
This government is the first government to make a serious attempt to take issues to the people of the province, and in doing so we have sometimes stressed the ability of communities and individuals to participate in that kind of consultation. We looked again at the situation in this time of constraint, and said that we can probably do the work that the Energy Council was going to do by doing it in different ways. We are going to look at that. I doubt we will have the kind of integrated look at energy issues that the Energy Council has been able to give us. It will be a loss when we lose that, but I also believe that we will be able to continue to do a lot of that work and do it in a different way. We've been shown the way in a lot of the things that the Energy Council did. Their method of consulting with the public involved a whole lot of different approaches. I think that some of them will be much easier for us to do within the ministry, and for the Utilities Commission to do. Because the Energy Council has pioneered these approaches, the people will be educated as to how to do some of that work. Basically, in looking it over, we've said that probably we could do the work in a different way, and do away with the levy for the Energy Council. I don't think it's any shame for those of us with a great interest in energy, and a great interest that the public have input into those policies.
As I say, I thought the Energy Council did a great job. I'm sorry it's going. Nevertheless, I think we will continue with the same goals of being able to consult with the public and of being able to have access to information from the public in order to give us the kind of input that we try to have with the Energy Council. We will continue to try and achieve those goals.
D. Jarvis: I'll come back to the Energy Council later. My associate here has a few questions he'd like to ask now.
W. Hurd: I have a series of questions with respect to energy policy in the province. Can the minister tell us whether her ministry would direct a level playing field for independent power producers in the province, given the fact that they ultimately have to deal with B.C. Hydro? Would it be possible for Hydro to negotiate agreements with independent power producers that might have the effect of not levelling out the playing field -- conferring, inadvertently or otherwise, a benefit on one independent power plant that might not be available to another in the province?
Hon. A. Edwards: We believe that we have made a level playing field for independent power producers in B.C. We have very clearly answered what the Energy Council demanded, which was that the domestic consumer be protected. After that, independent power producers must have the option.... This really gets back to integrated resource planning. We are working at that with the generators of electricity and the utilities. If independent power producers are working in the province and have the opportunity to bid on projects, then, of course, we have a level playing field, a fair process for independent power producers to bid on projects the same as any other utility. Having the power exchange operation in place allows the machinery for independent power producers to supply the domestic market. As was very clear with its contract with Alberta Natural Gas and Transalta for the Crowsnest project, Powerex are willing to market the power the independent power producers produce. Everything we have done in our policy and in looking both at export electricity and domestic use has levelled the playing field for independent power producers. That's the goal. We think there a lot of good ideas from the independent power producers. There's lots of energy -- if you'll pardon the word -- and enthusiasm, and we have every hope and expectation that they will be able to participate on a level playing field and begin to supply some of the market in this province.
W. Hurd: The intent of my question was to ask whether the ministry routinely monitors the contractual arrangements that might exist between B.C. Hydro and an independent power plant. Or does that fall within the scope
[ Page 10058 ]
of the Ministry of Employment and Investment? I think it's an important question because Hydro, as a functioning Crown corporation with a desire to improve its bottom line, clearly has the ability, I would assume, to negotiate with one IPP in a different manner than it might negotiate with another. I guess that the question I'm asking is: in order to ensure a level playing field, what steps has the Ministry of Energy taken to ensure that contracts that may be signed with Hydro are fair and equitable or meet some minimal guidelines of equity and fairness?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly every contract that an independent power producer would have with B.C. Hydro would be reviewed by the Utilities Commission -- that's the impartial, knowledgable expert body which would review that. Nevertheless, in situations such as the small project on the Queen Charlotte Islands, which was there before we had a lot of our other policies.... We are testing out some policies on that project. But basically the ministry itself was involved and, again, will keep a close eye on what happens to ensure that there is equity and fairness.
W. Hurd: I heard in the answer an expression of confidence in the B.C. Utilities Commission. So I guess a further question is: in the event that Hydro did sign an agreement with an IPP that clearly conferred an advantage on that particular independent producer that wasn't enjoyed by another, would it be the responsibility of the B.C. Utilities Commission to make that determination and to ensure the ground rules were fair? Or would they, in the opinion of the minister, have the ability to look at a contract and either roll it back or change it in any way? I'd appreciate some direction on that.
Hon. A. Edwards: I think that the member might want to look at the Utilities Commission Act, section 85.3(2), where it says:
"Where the commission, after a hearing, finds that a contract to which subsection (1) applies is not in the public interest by reason of (a) the quantity of the energy to be supplied...(b) the availability of supplies of the energy referred to in paragraph (a), (c) the price and availability of any other form of energy, including but not limited to petroleum products, coal or biomass, that could be used instead of the energy referred to in paragraph (a), (d) in the case only of an energy supply contract that is entered into by a public utility, the price of the energy referred to in paragraph (a), or (e) any other factor that the commission considers relevant to the public interest...."
In any of those cases the commission may by order declare the contract unenforceable. So the commission has the right, under the act, to examine the contract to see that it is fair, that other proponents that should have been recognized are recognized, and that even if there is not another proponent, the price is fair. In other words, you couldn't have a huge utility-- without naming any one; there's more than one in the province that could do this -- be the only proponent to supply a project, and then charge an unreasonable amount that would take away the competition. The Utilities Commission has the right to examine all of those things, and if they find that it has not been to the best benefit of the energy consumer, then the Utilities Commission can "declare the contractunenforceable, or make any other order it considers advisable in the circumstances."
W. Hurd: I think the minister has answered the question from the perspective of the consumer, which is not really what I was driving at. I understand the price has to be reviewed. I'm asking whether the Utilities Commission can, under its mandate, act to ensure equity among competing independent power plants. Would it be theoretically possible, for example, for Hydro to negotiate a contract with a hog fuel generating proponent that conferred a different rate for transmission than it would confer on some other IPP? Would there be a check and balance within the B.C. Utilities Commission to ensure that kind of fairness -- not on behalf of the consumer, but on behalf of the independent power producer who, as the minister will acknowledge, is forced to deal with Hydro on the basis of a monopoly and who, I assume, has to negotiate a number of issues: price, access in terms of transmission lines, a whole range of issues that would have to be addressed? Is the minister telling us that the only mechanism to ensure that Hydro deals fairly and equitably with IPPs is the B.C. Utilities Commission? Or does her ministry, in the interest of pursuing a provincewide policy that's consistent, attempt to monitor those contracts separately? As the minister well knows, unless a complaint is filed, the B.C. Utilities Commission might be in the position of simply accepting the application. I guess I'm asking if there is a separate function within the ministry that carefully examines these contracts one by one to ensure that Cominco, for example, doesn't have a benefit that might not be conferred on Alcan, or any other entity in the province that is seeking to sell power to B.C. Hydro, and ultimately for export.
Hon. A. Edwards: I think there are several principles involved here -- and I appreciate the member probing them -- but you're suggesting that if the Utilities Commission had only one contract, it would be in a position to accept it. The Utilities Commission would not be in a position to do that.
[3:30]
The primary responsibility of the Utilities Commission is to protect the interests of the consumer, but it can only do this by assuring that there is a fair process, so that every bidder who makes a proposal has fair and equitable access. The Utilities Commission would examine every possible contract and examine the contracts between B.C. Hydro...and so on, and make sure there was equity there. Although the Utilities Commission is very clearly there to protect the interests of the consumer -- and the Utilities Commission, of course, can make orders -- sometimes it carries out other activities at the request of the minister. In those cases where there has been an energy project review process referred to the Utilities Commission, the Utilities Commission and the ministry will examine all the parts of the contracts. Due diligence is done, and at no time would a contract like that not be examined on the criteria that the government lays out. We try to be very clear with our independent power producer policy, which is for domestic power. It's very clear what Hydro has to do to make sure that independent power producers have access to the market, that they have access that is fair and equitable compared to what the giant utility has and can do, and that there is equity and fairness when there is a bidding process between one independent power producer and another.
As you know, these criteria are laid out. This government's policy on independent power supply to B.C. Hydro states that new resources will be acquired on the basis of need. Broadly defined, this includes economic opportunity. It says very clearly that there will be a role for independent power producers and for B.C. Hydro in meeting supply opportunities. So they will both be there, but it would have to operate on something that is fair to all. All new resources will be evaluated on a social cost basis. Within those parameters, an examination done by the ministry and
[ Page 10059 ]
the examination done by the Utilities Commission are there to see that those policies are carried out. These are all in the interests of the consumer.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can narrow the focus of the discussion somewhat to the coordination agreement between B.C. Hydro and Alcan. My first question is: can the minister advise us whether that coordination agreement was subjected to the same scrutiny, review and approval process by the B.C. Utilities Commission?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: Excuse me for taking so long, but there are some very complex issues around here. The initial parts of this were undertaken, I should say, quite a while ago -- but, I might say, at various times.
The coordination agreement between Alcan and B.C. Hydro is not a power supply agreement. In other words, it is a coordination to take advantage of firm power supply -- between the two. It has been referred to the Utilities Commission under the current Kemano completion project hearings. It would not occur unless the Kemano completion project is completed. It has been referred to the commission. It's not, in strict terms, a supply agreement; it's a coordination agreement.
W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the government signed a coordination agreement -- or at least Hydro signed a coordination agreement -- in, I believe, 1992, which governs the price that Hydro will pay for the power from the Kemano completion project. Is that a correct assessment of what the coordination agreement stipulates?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are two agreements between B.C. Hydro and Alcan: one is a supply agreement and the other is the coordination agreement. In 1990 the coordination agreement was signed between the two entities; the other is the supply agreement, which is a different agreement, a separate one.
W. Hurd: Just a further question. So it was the supply agreement that was signed by the current government -- is that correct?
Hon. A. Edwards: The agreements are signed by B.C. Hydro and Alcan. Pardon me, I may have misled you by what I said, but it's B.C. Hydro that signs them with Alcan, and there have been no agreements signed since this government came to power.
W. Hurd: I must confess, I'm even more confused than I was before, given the line of questioning I was pursuing. The minister will recall -- I believe it was two sessions ago -- that the Premier rose to make a ministerial statement about Alcan and the process of the negotiations -- one would assume, the negotiations for a power supply agreement. What the minister is saying, then, is that despite the fact that in the B.C. Hydro energy plan there is reference made to both the coordination agreement and the supply agreement.... I wonder if the minister could just clarify then, as the Minister of Energy, exactly what the Premier was referring to when he rose to make a statement in the House about the energy supply agreement -- or the state of the agreement -- between Hydro and Alcan, on behalf of the people of the province.
Hon. A. Edwards: What I believe you're referring to is a statement by the Premier that we wanted to -- and should, in fact -- get all the agreements that Kemano had signed with B.C. Hydro onto the table for the Utilities Commission hearing. And as well as the actual agreements with B.C. Hydro, we should also know, supplementary to that, what agreements were there and what the terms were for the use of the power they were generating at the smelter itself. It's a long and complex issue that we can go back and forth on, and that may be fine, or I could give it another whack, if you want to tell me what you're still missing.
W. Hurd: To back up to my original line of questioning, I was attempting to discern that there was a vehicle in place to ensure equity and fairness among independent power producers. Maybe I can start with a basic building block. Under the ministry's terms of reference for what constitutes an IPP, would the Kemano completion project qualify as an IPP by virtue of the fact that most of what it is designed to produce will eventually end up on the Hydro grid or on the Hydro export grid?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly, yes. Alcan would be an independent power producer selling to B.C. Hydro, as many other independent power producers in B.C. would like to do.
W. Hurd: Therefore, would the price that the company was able to negotiate with Hydro for the use of the transmission lines to move the power from the Nechako diversion project to its generating station in Kemano be subject to review by the B.C. Utilities Commission?
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, I'd like to clarify that B.C. Hydro does not buy any power from the Alcan Kemano project, except at Kitimat. So there's no transmission from the Nechako project that you were talking about. B.C. Hydro buys the power at Kitimat.
W. Hurd: The project is half built. Had it not been delayed by the current B.C. Utilities Commission environmental review, one assumes that it would be nearly finished by now. Surely the minister is not telling the committee that no agreement is in place with Alcan for the price that's going to be paid for the electrical energy that's generated -- for the price that Hydro would charge for moving the power from the Nechako diversion project to the Kemano generators. The opposition was led to understand, and I think the media as well, that all those arrangements were not only in place, but were reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Is the minister now telling us that those negotiations are continuing and that nothing has been finalized?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think it would be useful to review a bit that's in B.C. Hydro's energy plan; it seems to be mostly here, I believe. In 1987, Alcan reached agreement with the federal and provincial governments which allowed Alcan to proceed with the Kemano completion project. This is simply an expansion of the existing Kemano generating station, right? So the KCP would add 524 megawatts of generating capacity to the existing station.
"In February 1990, B.C. Hydro and Alcan signed agreements for the purchase of electricity produced by the KCP"-- that would be what was produced at Kemano, where it's generated -- "and for the coordination of the operations.... The purchase and coordination agreements were both expected to commence by January 1, 1995, with terms of 20 years and 50 years respectively. Under the
[ Page 10060 ]
long-term purchase agreement, B.C. Hydro would receive 300 megawatts of capacity and 2,500 gigawatt-hours of energy."
So you have an agreement that was signed in 1987 that determines this, with B.C. Hydro taking delivery at the generating station. It's actually there that the price is generated.... Is there a difference in what we're talking about?
[3:45]
W. Hurd: What I hear the minister saying is that there is going to be no movement on transmission lines to the main KCP generators. My understanding was that the power would move from the turbines or whatever else they use in the Nechako diversion project and then move on transmission lines back to the Kemano generating station. The minister is now telling me that Hydro is buying the power at the point that it's being generated and is not transmitting the power at all to Kitimat. Is that what I'm hearing?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think the missing link has been discovered. The power is generated at Kemano, and then it is transmitted by Alcan transmission lines to Kitimat. So B.C. Hydro transmission lines are not involved at that point. B.C. Hydro has transmission lines from Kitimat but not from the generating plant at Kemano.
W. Hurd: That answer opens up another line of questioning. I think I started by talking about the importance of achieving fairness. Surely the minister will acknowledge -- at least, it's my understanding -- that it wouldn't be possible for an independent power producer other than Alcan to transmit the power it generates over its own transmission lines. Is that a benefit that would be available to other independent power producers in the province? Or does this arrangement that Alcan has predate the policy the minister says is in place with respect to these IPPs?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think we have to remember that most independent power producers don't want to build their own transmission lines. That's not something that independent power producers want to do. Alcan did it for a specific reason, and it has a transmission line that was built largely outside of government regulation. The agreements were done extra-governmentally, and then a transmission line was built by Alcan. What we would have would be independent power producers who do not want to build transmission lines and certainly do not want to duplicate what B.C. Hydro has there. One of the things we've tried to do in our independent power producer policy is make sure that there is some fairness, and that there is fair and equal access to the transmission lines, which are not a function that most independent power producers want to do.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us, assuming the completion of the KCP, what capacity the company would have, what it might use for itself and how much it would be selling to B.C. Hydro? Is that information available in the energy plan? I don't see it listed here.
Hon. A. Edwards: The full 524 megawatts of the proposed Kemano completion project would go to Hydro for the first years that it is built, but there is a recall provision in the contract whereby Alcan can recall power if it needs it for additional smelter capacity. I don't know if that's enough detail for you.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask the minister about the write-off provisions that independent power plants would enjoy for generating facilities. It's my understanding that the write-off provisions are not particularly generous -- in the range of 6 or 7 percent a year for an IPP that exists solely to sell power. Would it be the minister's opinion that it would be important to ensure that all independent power producers in the province are cognizant of that restriction on the write-off, and that it could potentially confer on one company a significant benefit if they were to achieve a faster write-off of their new generating capacity for any reason?
Hon. A. Edwards: I am not sure that discussing Alcan's situation is helpful to what we are talking about here, because Alcan predates the independent power producer policy. We didn't have an independent power producer policy in this province until we put it out. We had an independent power producer policy articulated for domestic use, for independent power producers who wanted to supply the domestic market. We then put in an export policy which allows independent power producers to export their power; we set up the policy, the ways and means by which these power producers could do that.
This independent power producer policy has a full social costing, which means that every proponent of a project will have to subject its project to a process that asks what the best social benefit for this power demand is. There is a fair and level playing field on this. It is meant so that independent power producers -- who were a part of developing and advising on the policy, and who have said they agree with it and understand that it is one of the requirements of the modern world -- will do that, and it is fair and equitable. We are definitely committed to seeing that it remains fair and equitable.
One of the things you may have wondered about in the questions and answers is that, as we have announced, we have asked B.C. Hydro to come up with a wheeling policy so that every independent power producer knows what the wheeling policies are for B.C. Hydro, how they can use the transmission lines and what the cost will be for using those lines. These are policies that have come up to make the field fair and the situation equitable. This is to give independent power producers the opportunity to be proponents for projects themselves and not always be outdone by B.C. Hydro, which will now have to sell its services to independent power producers, so that they can compete for requests for proposals for supply on any demand that comes up.
W. Hurd: What the minister is telling us with respect to the Kemano completion project is that all those agreements for price and for such issues as the transmission line authority predate the current administration, and that nothing has been signed or agreed to over the last two years with Alcan with respect to the Kemano completion project.
Hon. A. Edwards: That's absolutely correct. This government has not signed any agreements with Alcan over the completion project.
D. Jarvis: I think I'll go back again, if you don't mind, to a couple of questions I had on the Energy Council, which we were originally discussing. I assume that because the Energy Council is now being disbanded, or cancelled, the services it did provide are no longer needed. Although you said that you are now going to do it a different way, is it because it's no
[ Page 10061 ]
longer needed, or is it strictly a matter of dollars and cents -- as you said, the levy -- that you were trying to conserve on?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think it would be a fallacy of the purest water, if you could put it that way -- or maybe the brightest flaming red -- to say that their services are no longer needed. The services that the Energy Council supplied, I believe, are very clearly needed and will continue to be needed. Certainly we believe that we've learned a lot from what the Energy Council has been able to do. We have, in fact, laid a very firm and clear foundation for the kind of work we want to do, which is to continue to allow the public to have input into energy policy. The ministry continues to make the policy; that hasn't changed at all. But what the Energy Council did was enable the public to be up to date and informed on the issues and able, then, to feed into the government in its policy-making process. What I expect is that the chair of the Energy Council, Mr. Gathercole, will recommend to me ways that we can continue to ensure that the public not only is consulted but feels consulted about energy issues in this province. That is a necessity, I believe. I don't think that is some kind of service that is no longer needed. That is definitely a requirement and a demand by a very articulate and well-informed public in British Columbia.
D. Jarvis: Well, could not these functions that the council was supposed to do have been performed by your ministry from the start? In other words, why was the council so crucially important two years ago and, you feel, so irrelevant today?
Hon. A. Edwards: Definitely the services need to be there, as I've said. The ministry hadn't done them, and that's partly because the ministry has lots of things to do and partly because I don't think the direction of the previous government was particularly interested in receiving public input in the way that we as a government are interested in receiving public input. So I would say very clearly that what the Energy Council has allowed us to do is work toward how we can use participant assistance to ensure.... We didn't have that when the Energy Council began, by the way; we didn't have participant assistance, we didn't have legislation to do it, and we didn't have any way to do it. We now do, so I think we can direct that more easily. I think we have established some base marks with our energy plan with the public so the public will have a much clearer idea of what our planning is and what's involved in planning. And having gone through that exercise once, it is much easier to use the tools that are now at our disposal to improve what the public can bring to us, to respond as well as any government can, and to continue to allow the public to feed in.
[4:00]
D. Jarvis: Your energy department, however, could have performed these functions, could they not?
Hon. A. Edwards: With an unlimited budget, certainly the ministry can do almost anything. I'm very proud of them.
D. Jarvis: If they could perform the functions of the Energy Council, why was it necessary to spend all that money on the Energy Council? How much money will be left owing to Mr. Gathercole after his period of employment terminates?
Hon. A. Edwards: You can do a function one way or another, and we chose to do it by the Energy Council, which was at arm's length. We think that had some usefulness. It certainly did allow the activity to get up and started as quickly as any other way. We also had some very useful interaction between the ministry and the Energy Council.
We have, since we became government, put a number of things in place which were not in place when we began. It's very important not to forget things such as participant assistance, which is now in place and being tried. We now have some very good guidelines, and some clear practice in doing the budgeting to support participant assistance.
We have a number of other processes that are being done, such as the electrical systems operation review that B.C. Hydro is doing at the direction of government. We have the integrated resource planning process, which has a number of bodies involved, and we've all worked at it. I don't think there's any reason in the world why you don't look at what you're doing, look at your goals, and decide whether you can reach your goals by doing it in a different way that might fit your circumstances better.
At the time we came to government, I believe the Energy Council was very much the opportune, and the best, way to respond to the demand of the public for input. I believe that we can answer those demands now. We can do it at less cost. Of course, budget constraints are always there to keep us all doing things the most efficient way we can.
As far as what Mr. Gathercole will get, he will be dealt with in the same way as a deputy minister. He is the equivalent of a deputy minister; he will have the same terms and conditions that another deputy minister would have.
D. Jarvis: The fact that you had some interesting interaction between your energy department and Mr. Gathercole's energy commission is not the sole answer. I would hope that with any decision your energy department would make, you would have some interaction in it. If they all agreed upon everything you decided, it wouldn't be much of an energy department.
In any event, is Mr. Gathercole obligated to provide any alternative function for the ministry, or is all the money that's left his, regardless? Does he have any other functions to do for the rest of the year? I understand that he is still on salary for the next two and a half years. At $100,000 a year, does he have any other functions for this, as I understand it, $200,000 to $300,000 still owed to him? Is he going to be sitting at home picking up $100,000 a year for the next two years, or does he have a function that he has to perform?
Hon. A. Edwards: I won't even begin this if we're going to vote.... I react quite negatively to the ungenerous aspersions that the member casts on the chair of the council. So I will answer his questions when we come back.
The Chair: Hon. members, the bells signal a division in the main House. This committee stands recessed until the division is completed.
The committee recessed at 4:05 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:16 p.m.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: The member's question deals with what now becomes of the duties of the chair of the Energy Council. First of all, I would like to make very clear that the chair of the Energy Council has a five-year term, not a five-year contract -- there is a difference. What we have is an
[ Page 10062 ]
order-in-council appointment whereby the chair of the Energy Council was appointed for a certain term. He has now been told by government that the function for which he was appointed will be completed sooner than the original term of the appointment.
We have not discussed with Mr. Gathercole what happens after he has completed the task he was given through government to bring back an energy plan by December 1. That directive was given by me as minister to the chair of the council. In very practical terms, it will take a considerable amount of work and administrative abilities to ensure that the plan comes in at that time. I'm not sure exactly how we will work with the dates to shut down the council, finish the plan and all of those things. The member probably knows, even from his own experience, that it is very difficult to bring in a plan and finish work that very day. I'm not sure how we will deal with the fact that we have a directive that the plan comes in on December 1 -- it may well be that it comes in earlier, or whenever.
Nevertheless, the point is that Mr. Gathercole has been trying to deal with other issues that have a much higher priority with the council, with the staff of the council and with the ministry right now. We have not entered into any discussions as to what happens with Mr. Gathercole and any severance that he would have a right to as an order-in-council appointee.
D. Jarvis: Approximately two years ago, when this Energy Council was formed, we suggested that his job probably could be done within a time period of two and a half years or something along those lines, and you said that was possible. At that time, we put forward an amendment suggesting that there should be a two-and-a-half-year time limit on it. You said that the council was to be a body that would allow for ongoing public participation and continuous planning to ensure that planning is done in a comprehensive way. So you were against any type of amendment that would limit the period of time. It's quite obvious that your government or your ministry doesn't feel that the Energy Council is necessary, so you're terminating it. Really, you've wasted a lot of the taxpayers' money. So all I'm saying -- and I'm not casting any aspersions on Mr. Gathercole -- is that you said, when the Energy Council was cancelled, that he would be around for approximately one more year. Well, there's another year after that. I just wonder whether you have any alternative position for him. Or is he going to be sitting at home collecting his money and his pension?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think it's very clear that Mr. Gathercole will be discussing with the ministry, and with government, what his future will be. Since those discussions haven't begun, I am certainly not willing to discuss them at all.
D. Jarvis: Would the minister be amenable to discussing what the final details of his pension are, and the compensation packages that were given to Mr. Gathercole?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm afraid that it's really not very helpful to go beyond the fact that Mr. Gathercole will be dealt with on a basis similar to a deputy minister. He was appointed as, and his salary is similar to, a deputy minister. His severance provisions will be similar to those of a deputy minister, and any discussion we have with Mr. Gathercole will be based on those basic criteria.
D. Jarvis: Will he be continuing to augment his pension plan or the pension fund for the remainder of his contract, even though he's no longer working in that intended capacity?
Hon. A. Edwards: All these things are a matter of discussion, and I resist discussing these issues before I've discussed them with Mr. Gathercole. He is a public employee; I recognize that very clearly. He is definitely going to be discussing those things with the ministry and, in general, the same provisions apply. We are accountable for what happens. When we begin those discussions, we'll begin to discuss those issues.
D. Jarvis: Could you tell me how much money was spent by the council in total, by the year, for salaries per councillor, for intervener funding, and for communications and information?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have to be sure I get the right piece of paper here. We have here the figures for the operations in 1993-94, as well as the figures for 1994-95. The salaries and benefits, which were $579,000 in the previous fiscal year, are calculated at $425,000 in this fiscal year. Operating costs, which were $721,000, will be $415,000 for this year. Asset acquisitions, which were $40,000 in 1993-94, will be $10,000 this year. Grants and contributions -- which includes the participant assistance -- which were $160,000 in 1993-94, will be $100,000 in 1994-95. Basically that is a reduction for this year of $154,000 for salaries and benefits, $306,000 for operating costs, $30,000 for asset acquisitions and $60,000 for grants and contributions. These costs, as you know, are recovered through a levy on all the energy utilities in the province -- and the energy -- as well as on what are generally considered consumer utilities, and also the pipelines.
D. Jarvis: Aside from firm electricity export, what other issues did the council consider? Did it produce other sets of recommendations on any other issues?
Hon. A. Edwards: In order to focus discussion for the energy plan so that it wasn't always sort of a broad-ranging discussion that went everywhere, the Energy Council decided that they would choose three subjects and do some in-depth work on those subjects. In so doing, they would focus discussion there but probably deal with a lot of the other issues that were around. They also felt they were going to get lots of input on all of the issues, but if they focused on three, it would be very useful. They originally chose six subjects, then narrowed it to three. One was alternative transportation fuels -- it is one of the directions in which they are going. One is wood residue, its use and its place in the energy picture of the province. The third was space and water heating, and they limited that to the lower mainland. So those three areas will have a significant amount of material now, thanks to the focus the council has placed on them.
D. Jarvis: The mandate of the Energy Council was ostensibly to enable common citizens to take part in meaningful discussion on energy issues in this province. In view of that, why didn't this Energy Council -- that was supposed to come up with an energy policy for British Columbia -- take into consideration anything to do with the Alcan-KCP or the Columbia River situation? These are two of the most major energy situations that will arise in the next
[ Page 10063 ]
decade in this province -- occurring either right now or in the latter part of this decade. Why would the council not get involved in these two, the single most important issues in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, I would like to clarify again that the Energy Council does not come up with policy; the Energy Council contributes to and advises on policy. Policy is arrived at and set by the ministry and, through the ministry, the government.
Nevertheless, they have a very broad focus. I can't imagine that they could possibly deal with an energy plan for British Columbia without having a very clear idea about how the public feels about such specific projects as the Kemano completion project and, certainly, the broad range of the Columbia River Treaty projects. Nevertheless, those are not their direct focus of attention. They have dealt very properly, I think, with broad general issues such as the place of wood waste in the province's plan.
The Columbia River Treaty was signed quite some time ago. One part of it, the entitlement of DSBs, is under negotiation. This is a consequence of the people in the Columbia and the Kootenay River basins feeling that they had not been treated fairly at the time the treaty was signed. There is no question that the Energy Council has heard a lot of input on that, just as government does. I certainly know that the hon. member, as a member of the opposition and the Energy critic, has heard a lot about those issues.
[4:30]
The Kemano completion project, of course, is a very special issue. The Utilities Commission was asked to help look at issues around that agreement. The province has recognized that that agreement is in place, like it or not. The Utilities Commission is looking at that. I would say it is proper that the Energy Council kept its vision and its perspective broad.
D. Jarvis: Therefore there is no formal structure set up now for public input into the energy situation, in view of there not being an Energy Council out there to review it or search for input.
Hon. A. Edwards: I will repeat again, for the member, that the B.C. Energy Council will be working with the public and with staff -- hard at it -- to put together a recommended energy plan for British Columbia, which is due in December of this year. Right now is probably the high point of the ability of people in British Columbia to have input into the policy for energy in the province.
Not only do they have the Energy Council working at its full capacity right now, they also have the electrical systems operation review, which was, as I said, implemented by B.C. Hydro at the direction of government. There are utility collaboratives working, and if the member hasn't examined these, I recommend that he take a close look at how the B.C. Hydro collaborative has worked. The people there demanded what happened there, got what happened there, and have been working for several years on some very useful studies that they have put to the province. There are a number of Columbia basin initiatives going on to respond to in the Columbia and Kootenay River basins -- and to feelings about what happened with the Columbia River Treaty. Certainly you can talk about B.C. Hydro mitigation programs, and you know that there is an energy caucus of the B.C. Environmental Network. They are very interested.... There are a number of independent power producers who do a lot of collaboration and talk with the public. So there are ways that the public can have input.
One I haven't yet mentioned and probably should have mentioned first is the B.C. Utilities Commission. The Utilities Commission is constantly reviewing rates and other issues related to utilities in the province, and the public has open access to the Utilities Commission.
As well, the ministry is open to discussions. We had the Energy Council working as, I believe, the most organized, directed and focused body, and I believe it did a good job because of that focus.
D. Jarvis: Could the minister tell us how many full-time employees the Energy ministry has and if she intends to hire any more at this time?
Hon. A. Edwards: We have moved very modestly from a complement of 405 FTEs last year to 408 this year.
D. Jarvis: And there's no plan to do any further hiring?
Hon. A. Edwards: It is the intention of this ministry to follow the guidelines of government.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister a few questions on mining. Maybe we will return to Hydro later. You got a good break today, I think.
In the minister's budget, under assistance for miners, the deduction for the mineral tax payments is approximately $2 million to $3 million. What is the estimated saving going to be? I'll go through all the items, and then I will go into the mineral tax rate for coalmines. What do they estimate will be the savings there, if they can estimate? As for the pool of exploration costs, she said it's a better tax deal for them. What kind of savings would be there? In the fourth item, was the capital expenditure on new, expanded or reopened mines grossed up? What are the estimated savings there?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member probably doesn't know how pleased I am to be able to answer these questions. I think this is a very good package for the mining industry in B.C. So I'm very pleased to tell him that. I believe you asked about exploration as well -- Explore B.C. and the prospectors' assistance and training program, which are proposed over a three-year term and are an expenditure rather than a tax change. In that case, we expect that we will be able to put $4 million into the industry for exploration this year, and $15 million over three years.
The Mineral Tax Act pooling is somewhat related, but is a tax deduction allowed for companies so that they can pool their exploration properties. Instead of having to name an amount for each property, they can pool the properties and the amounts, and therefore direct their exploration money to where it would do the most good. We expect that will allow the companies about $200,000 this year, and $1 million over five years.
The Mineral Tax Act deductibility against corporate income tax -- which, I believe, is the one you were talking about first of all, although I'm not sure if it was this one or the next one -- will probably cost the government $500,000 this year and $16 million over five years.
The coal tax rate reduction will give a boost this year to the coalmines of $11.7 million. Over five years there will be a benefit of $48 million.
The mineral development agreement, which has two years to go, will this year have a $1.6 million expenditure. This may not have been what you asked, so exclude it from your figures if you don't want the mineral development agreement. Over five years -- okay, the next two years; it
[ Page 10064 ]
could run one more year -- it will probably amount to $2.8 million. The 133 percent Mineral Tax Act capital allowance -- which will last for a period of five years, and which will begin on January 1, 1995 -- will, we believe, do nothing for the industry this year, because it doesn't come into effect until the January 1. However, over the full five years it will amount to $20 million. If it amounts to more it will mean that we have more mines starting up, and that will be good news.
D. Jarvis: Has your ministry given any consideration to amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, we have.
D. Jarvis: Would the minister like to clarify a few points on that, and what the intended changes may be?
The Chair: This is not in order at this stage. We're dealing with estimates, not legislation. Hon. minister, can you add to that?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm happy to tell the member that this is an issue of significant importance. Certainly because of the requirements and the way things are working in our modern world, we have been consulting with the industry. We will continue to consult; it's a matter of significance.
D. Jarvis: It certainly is. The Mining Association of B.C., for example, has always been very -- I don't know what the correct expression would be, but I would say "chicken" -- in the sense that they have not been able to come out against what the government is doing to their industry. This is hard enough as it is. They've asked for peanuts, and the government has turned around and given them peanuts. When you talk to people out in the industry, the main problem is mineral tenure. They're afraid to come back into this province because of the uncertainty of the mineral tenure situation. So I thought that since the minister is always talking about future energy policy and all the rest of it, perhaps she could talk about future tenure policies and what they intend to do, if anything.
Hon. A. Edwards: I find it interesting to have the mining industry's request termed "peanuts," and to have the industry described as bashful. I find both those terms quite interesting; nevertheless, perhaps you have a different perspective.
The issue of mineral tenure is a matter of importance to an industry that has to put a lot of capital up front; and we're well aware of that. Therefore we've worked very diligently as a government to deal with the kinds of things that threaten the certainty that the industry needs. Some of those issues were land use issues; and we have gone head-on in attempting to get a land use plan for the province. When that land use plan is there, it will create much more certainty as to where the industry can work.
Another issue is compensation. The centre of that concern for the industry was a land use decision that the province made on the Alsek-Tatshenshini area. We have made a promise that there will be fair compensation, and we intend to keep that promise. We will be negotiating with the claims holders, and there are quite a few of them. So that is another issue.
Nevertheless, I think that no one should lose heart over what the industry feels and whether or not they are seriously concerned about their tenure. They want to know what's going on; and I think they're absolutely correct to want to know what's going on and to have serious and clear lines there.
Nevertheless, the mood in British Columbia is optimistic and our exploration projections are for an increase of somewhere between 15 and 20 percent this year. We certainly have a number of companies which are currently at the stage of actually doing their planning for investment in B.C., and they are continuing that planning.
In fact, there were five of them who came with me to Toronto in late March to talk to the Prospectors' and Developers' Association of Canada, where 2,500 mining people gathered. They told a gathering of people there, who were financial analysts and the people who make the investments and decide on where investments should be made, that they are working in B.C.; that it is quite possible to work in B.C.; and that they have confidence working here in British Columbia. Those five companies represent a billion dollars' worth of prospective investment in this province.
[4:45]
Things are changing. The things that we have done as a government, I believe, have led to enough certainty for the investors. They are changing their outlook on British Columbia, they are working in B.C., they are willing to continue working in B.C., and the mood is on its way up.
D. Jarvis: I know one person back east who wasn't thrilled with you; we read about the comments in the paper.
With regard to the compensation that you were talking about, it's been ten months now since the announcement on Windy Craggy, and your Premier said that there would be quick and fair compensation -- I don't call ten months being quick and fair. The end result may be fair, but it's certainly not very quick, and it's going to be well over a year before you get down to any detail on it, I'm afraid.
I wanted to know, with regard to industrial minerals -- you've been talking about promoting the potential of industrial minerals -- why nothing has been done on Polestar. Has anything come forward on Polestar, or is that another one that's involved in the land issue?
Hon. A. Edwards: There's no question that we promised fair compensation and that we would get at it as quickly as we could. I hope the member doesn't have unrealistic expectations of what happens in some of these issues and the difficulties we face. However, I'm not going to go further into that, because we are not negotiating.... I did not negotiate in public, nor will I negotiate here with any of the owners of the claims in the Tatshenshini area. I certainly look forward to the day that Ms. Witte decides that she will be investing again in B.C., and I hope that day comes fairly soon.
As for the garnet proposal -- the Polestar company -- we know there continues to be interest in that property. We continue to work at it, and the best I can say to you -- because it has been very frustrating for everyone involved -- is that we're very optimistic; we are optimistic again, I should say, that we will be able to get that project to a certificate very soon.
D. Jarvis: About Windy Craggy, I believe there was a geological survey of the Windy Craggy site, the Haines triangle area, back in '92. If that's true, can you give us any of the findings that resulted?
Hon. A. Edwards: We had people from our geological survey branch working in the Tatshenshini-Alsek area in 1992, and in trying to get a clearer picture of what the
[ Page 10065 ]
mineral resource is in that area, they found, as expected, that it was a very rich mineral resource. This indicates, as I've said many times, that there were two very high values in that area, and that in fact, by making a choice, government had a very difficult time making a land use decision, because we had to decide on that piece of land. There were two very valuable "baskets of benefits" there, and we were very clear in making sure we knew as much as we could about the mineral resource.
D. Jarvis: Needless to say, you're aware of what my feelings are with regard to the land decision you made on the Tatshenshini or Windy Craggy area, and the Haines triangle. I think that either your ministry or the government put out a lot of misinformation on this situation, telling the people in this province that it was basically a land issue, and in all the myths that were put out with regard to the Alsek being a tributary of the Tatshenshini River, which was completely wrong, because the Tatshenshini is basically a tributary of the Alsek. And your government has mentioned, to support your land use decision, that it's one of the last strongholds of the grizzly bear, and you know darn well that's not the situation. It's been established that there are over 14,000 or 15,000 grizzlies in British Columbia. There's never been a comprehensive study done of the grizzly bears in the Haines triangle. There are an estimated 6,000 in there. But on and on it goes, and all I can say is that I feel that irreparable harm has been done to the mining industry in this province as a result of that land use decision. I hope you are right, but I feel that you are definitely wrong. There is no confidence out there. Industry is not going to come into this province until we have a more clear-cut attitude as to what the land issues are and what their future will be. No one wants to put capital into this province when they can have it taken away from them.
In regard to mining, as you say, the exploration is going to continue. Mining exploration is basically when a prospector goes out and finds some land that he thinks has some minerals in it. Then he sells it to someone else, and on it goes. The majors are not buying from the miners anymore, and the miners are not buying from the prospectors. On and on we go, and we are going to end up in a very adverse position unless something is done very quickly. Upon saying that, I'm prepared to have the call for the vote.
Hon. A. Edwards: I really must not let this pass. The member alleges that the government put out misinformation on what he chooses to call the Windy Craggy area, rather than the Tatshenshini-Alsek area. I suggest that that is not the case. There may well be -- and I believe there is -- some information out there that is interpreted in many ways, and I think the member should be sure of what he is talking about. When the ministry puts out information, that information, as far as I understand, is correct. I won't go into some of the details that you put out there, although I would be glad to respond to every allegation you have made.
Nevertheless, I would also like to say that the member seems to be very happy with the doom-and-gloom outlook for the mining industry. Besides the things I've already said, there are a number of other indicators that I think are very important. He says that the majors don't come. I might point out to the member that Mitsui is planning to open an office in Vancouver in order to look at the options for investing in mining in B.C. I would like to remind him that Pegasus, which is a very large mining company, is looking at an investment with El Condor to develop a mine. That is a significant move that the company has made. I would also like to mention -- without going into too many; I've just chosen three off the top -- the Korean company that has agreed to invest with Teck Corp. and Cominco in the Cirque deposit, which was known as the Stronsay. These investors are saying to British Columbia that they have confidence in this province and in the future. I just wanted to say that.
The Chair: Shall I put vote 25?
D. Jarvis: Hon. Chair, I'd just like to make one more comment. I did say that I hoped the minister was right in her comments.
In regard to misinformation and the fact that she was not aware of any, when the announcement was made, the Premier stood up in front of a photograph that he was discussing, which was taken 30 kilometres inside the Alaska border.... It wasn't the Tatshenshini area that he was saving for the people of British Columbia. And another aspect, if the minister would like to answer the last question.... The Premier said that he was saving the glacier bears. How many glacier bears have been spotted in British Columbia in the last 50 years?
D. Schreck: I'd like to thank both the member for North Vancouver-Seymour and the minister for this very stimulating discussion. I think it helps to clarify differences. If I heard correctly, if this province were to have a Liberal government, that Liberal government would allow mining in the Tatshenshini, whereas the current New Democrat government will not allow mining in the Tatshenshini. My constituents in North Vancouver-Lonsdale appreciate hearing that clear statement of a difference. I would like to thank both members for making that difference clear.
Vote 25 approved.
Vote 26: ministry operations, $60,845,980 -- approved.
Vote 27: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $10 -- approved.
Vote 28: British Columbia Energy Council, $10 -- approved.
Vote 29: resource revenue sharing agreements, $550,000 -- approved.
Hon. A. Edwards: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:58 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]