1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 21

[ Page 14125 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. Cull: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Rosemary Barnes, who is President of the B.C. Real Estate Association, and 65 representatives from the B.C. Real Estate Association who have been meeting with members of the assembly over the last day or two. So I'd like to ask all the members to make them most welcome.

G. Campbell: For the last year I have been one of the newest members of the House, and I'm pleased to say that that will not be the case shortly. I would like to introduce to the House today the newest, the MLA-elect for Abbotsford, Mr. John van Dongen.

F. Gingell: I had the very nice privilege of lunching today with two charming ladies who are also acquaintances of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. So will the House please welcome Christine Tanner, wife of the hon. member, and Rebecca Tanner, daughter of the hon. member.

L. Stephens: In the House today and visiting the premises are 29 elementary school students with their teacher, Mr. Wiebe, from Langley Prairie Fundamental School in Langley. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: Although the Minister of Finance introduced the people from the Cariboo Real Estate Association, it's not often I get to introduce someone here who comes all the way down from Fort St. John. But it's certainly my pleasure today to introduce to the House Kim Mackay, a realtor from Fort St. John who is here with the Cariboo Real Estate Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

G. Wilson: Today we have four guests with us from the community of Abbotsford: Barbara Wightman and her daughter, Rosalind Delmonico, and her delightful daughter, Courtney Delmonico, and her aspiring political son, Andrew Delmonico. Would the House please make them all welcome.

L. Stephens: Also in the House today, visiting with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, are constituents from Langley: Mick Stiksma, Margaret Shaw, Wayne Mulyk and Trudy Lancelyn. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Every year at this time a group of dedicated parents and teachers in Port McNeill bring a high school class down to the Legislature. They are with us again here today -- students, parents and teachers -- from North Island Secondary in Port McNeill, and I'd ask the members to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Class Proceedings Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this time I would like to introduce Bill 16, Class Proceedings Act. In the spring of 1994 the government announced that it would undertake to develop class action legislation. That announcement, made approximately a year ago, was the first step in the government's promise to offer hope to groups of people who have been overlooked by the justice system.

Over the summer of 1994, extensive consultation took place with all parties who were interested in assisting the government in the development of this legislation. The Ministry of Attorney General received numerous submissions from a wide variety of British Columbians, who offered their valuable advice on the shape of class action legislation for this province.

I'm pleased to introduce today a bill that reflects the interest contained in those submissions. Bill 16 will allow individuals to apply to the court to bring a civil action as a group, and to seek redress for injury or damages caused by the same or similar circumstances. Class actions have been used in other jurisdictions in legal actions involving consumer goods, civil rights, securities, competition laws, environment and other areas. In British Columbia, Bill 16 will allow women injured by silicone gel implants to benefit from class proceedings legislation.

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. D. Marzari: The Home Owner Grant Act provides a measure of property tax relief for B.C. homeowners who live in their own homes. For hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, this program has made it a little easier to afford a home. The legislative amendment I am introducing today will further increase access to this program by extending eligibility for homeowner grants to occupants of all housing cooperatives and equity housing societies.

These forms of housing already make a significant contribution to the supply of affordable housing in British Columbia, and their importance is growing. The Ministry of Housing's Homes B.C. program supports housing cooperatives and equity housing societies in order to increase the supply of affordable housing. Typically, people who live in these units are in the low to moderate income range and cannot afford conventional home-ownership. This legislative amendment will have a positive impact by making their housing more affordable.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 14126 ]

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF FOREST PRACTICES CODE ON NORTHERN COMMUNITIES

G. Campbell: My question is to the Deputy Premier. On the weekend I was in Williams Lake at a meeting with members of the North Central Municipal Association. All members of the North Central Municipal Association are concerned about the potential reduction in annual allowable cut as a result of the Forest Practices Code. I wonder if the Deputy Premier would be willing to make available to all members of the North Central Municipal Association the studies that have been done by the Ministry of Forests and Wild Stone Resources, including the assumptions of those studies, so that they can prepare for any changes that may take place as a result of the introduction of the Forest Practices Code.

Hon. E. Cull: I would be happy to take the question on notice for the Minister of Forests.

[2:15]

The Speaker: The member has a new question?

G. Campbell: This question is also for the Deputy Premier. As you know, this government promised to be open with British Columbians. A number of reports have evidently been done by the Ministry of Forests, prepared by Wild Stone Resources. In the past, the Premier has said that he would make those reports available. Will the Deputy Premier undertake to get in touch with the northern communities to include them in the discussions about any strategy for the future so that we don't have to have the kind of quick response team that the government is quickly trying to throw together for the Kootenays, and the northern communities can prepare for any changes in their livelihood as a result of changes in government policy?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised to hear that question from this member. These are the people who voted against the forest renewal strategy, which is working with communities in this province to ensure that we secure jobs through forest sustainability throughout British Columbia.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

K. Jones: Last Monday at a conference in Vancouver, the Minister of Government Services criticized charities for not being vocal enough about their support for the NDP's policy to introduce government-run video lottery terminals. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit has called for the elimination of existing illegal VLTs through strict law enforcement. CLEU has made it very clear that there should be no expansion of gambling in B.C. Can the Minister of Government Services tell us why he has decided to ignore the advice of CLEU?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Despite several statements that I have given over the last two or three days, the member opposite doesn't seem to have a clue. It is the intention of this government to bring about a comprehensive policy on gaming in British Columbia within the next four to six weeks, with a specific inclusion of gaming for first nations.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

K. Jones: To the same minister. Dozens of communities across B.C. have passed motions condemning the NDP's VLT policy, and many have also enacted bylaws that forbid VLTs altogether. Will the minister assure all British Columbians that these municipal bylaws will be respected so as to protect communities who do not want an expansion of gambling?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can assure the member and this House that there will be a comprehensive provincial policy on gaming announced within the next four to six weeks, and many of the questions that he and others have raised will be addressed.

SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FINANCING

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Education. This government has doubled the debt loaned through the School Districts Capital Financing Authority. Yet an internal audit by the comptroller general suggests:

"The ministry has no procedures to verify that approved capital funding was spent for approved purposes...The ministry does not obtain or review documentation to support payments made by school districts for capital projects...Decisions to finance school district capital projects...are not made in the context of the province's overall financing strategy...."

How can the government possibly agree to spend $1.3 billion when it has no guarantee that the money is going to be spent for the purposes approved?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: This government supports publicly administered, publicly funded public education, and we do so by putting funds where our mouths are. We are proud of the accomplishments of building capital facilities throughout the province in response to the needs of children and families. However, we are to some degree hobbled by some poor policy left in place by the previous administration, of whom the member opposite knows much. The audit to which he refers dates back to 1992. We are doing our best to continue to clean up the mess left by the previous administration and will continue to do so.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The comptroller general notes that this current government reversed the capital approval process. Indeed, he goes on to note that as a result of those changes, "...there is...a risk that capital projects could be undertaken and financed...without Treasury Board approval [because]...Actual capital funds spent by districts and institutions, and the timing of these expenditures, are never reported and compared...." How in the world can this government put taxpayers $1.3 billion further in debt and not have the kinds of controls the comptroller general believes you should have?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I find it greatly ironic that the member opposite was part of a previous administration that had a very poor process in place for approvals of capital expenditures. The process has been much improved by this government having brought in a cash flow management system that's much superior to the capital envelope system that the previous administration used. I would also point out what 

[ Page 14127 ]

we discovered upon assuming government: there were commitments made and funds in excess of $100 million dedicated and hanging out in the system. They were not accounted for, no process was in place for them; and we are still trying to clean up that mess.

REDUCTION OF HOME-CARE SUPPORT SERVICES

M. de Jong: My question is to the Minister of Health. Some 65,000 British Columbians depend upon home-care support to live independently and with dignity. Many of those people were left without services for the past six months, until the strike that was very recently resolved ended. Their reward for enduring the strike has been to receive notification from the Ministry of Health that as a result of a new classification system, they're no longer eligible for home-care support. My question to the minister is: how can he defend this very callous decision to abandon the sick and elderly whose dignity depends on their ability to receive home support services?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, in spite of some of the concerns about the home support strike -- which went on too long -- essential service legislation was in place, and essential home support services were provided. The member opposite knows that.

I agree with the member that home support is an essential element of ensuring the necessary support for those who wish to live independently and at home. That's why funding for home support rose 32 percent over the first three years of this administration. At the same time, we have a responsibility to make sure that the services are going where they're needed. That is why -- in his riding, as in others -- we've asked those providing home support to review eligibility for the housekeeping part of home support services to make sure that they are provided where they are needed. Where they are not needed, we make adjustments.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, those are very hollow words indeed for the 755 patients in Abbotsford alone that are affected by this decision. They're outraged, and they're lighting up the phone lines at constituency offices across the valley. I would like to know from the minister what he would have me say to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, who at 80 years of age, blind and disabled...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member.

M. de Jong: ...have just been told by this minister's officials that the minimal home support, which enables them to live with dignity and independently, is being withdrawn. What does he have to say to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson and the countless others whom his ministry has abandoned?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I suggest that the member opposite tell his constituents that this government intends to support medicare and to continue to increase funding for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I also advise him to tell his constituents that if a mistake has been made, there is an appeal process in place. His constituents should go to the public health unit and seek appeal to make sure that needed services are provided. That is the direction I've given the staff on this thing.

The hollow words in this Legislature are the words from the member opposite, who on the one hand keeps saying, "More, more, more; fund more," and the other hand says: "Fund less, less, less. The cuts have been too little." Which is it, up or down, hon. member?

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Attorney General. Recently, Nelson Riis, an NDP MP from Kamloops, voted against the Liberal gun control bill. Just yesterday, the governments of Alberta and Yukon and the Saskatchewan NDP government called on Ottawa to withdraw Bill C-68 or at least to implement it only in Ontario and Quebec on a trial basis. Will the government of B.C. join with other western provinces, including the NDP government of Saskatchewan, in having this onerous and intrusive piece of legislation withdrawn?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The prairie Attorneys General were, I believe, testifying in front of the parliamentary committee. Among other things, they made a number of recommendations for amendments to the proposed bill, which I have also made in my discussions with the federal minister -- proposals we made at the federal-provincial meeting in January here in Victoria and which have more recently been endorsed by the Canadian Police Association, which says that when these amendments are made, as they should be, the police across Canada will be supporting that amended bill.

APPEAL OF WAYNE SULLIVAN VERDICT

J. Dalton: I have a question for the Attorney General. In April of this year, Crown counsel decided not to appeal the verdict of Wayne Sullivan of Prince George, who shot and killed his wife. Sullivan was found not criminally responsible, partly because he was intoxicated at the time. Now, to add insult to injury, he is insisting on the survivor benefits of his wife's estate.

The Attorney General has refused to launch an appeal of this verdict to the Supreme Court of Canada, despite the very dangerous precedent it sets. Can the Attorney General explain the rationale for not appealing this decision?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take that question on notice.

ABORIGINAL GAMING POLICY

G. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. In light of the breakoff of discussions between the province and aboriginal communities, will the minister tell us what action he or members of his staff are taking with federal officials to seek amendments to the Indian Act and the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent aboriginals from acting unilaterally on this matter in the province?

[ Page 14128 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want the House to know that it has never been the intention of this government to treat gaming as an aboriginal right. I am very clearly and firmly of the view that one law applies to all British Columbians. We would expect them, whether they are first nations or other people in British Columbia, to obey the laws of British Columbia as well as the Criminal Code of Canada.

ROBERTS BANK BACKUP LANDS LEASES FOR TENANT FARMERS

F. Gingell: My question is for the minister responsible for lands. The minister should be aware that almost two years ago the tenant farmers of the provincially owned Roberts Bank backup lands were promised new leases that recognize this government's commitment to the dedication of these lands to agricultural use. This promise was made by the Premier. By following through on this promise, the minister could accomplish three things: first, she could help preserve agricultural activity in the lower Fraser Valley; second, she would encourage investment directed at improvement and regeneration of these important agricultural lands; and third, this might help repair the tarnished and tattered credibility of the Premier on the issue of keeping his promises. Will the minister, new in the role, today make the commitment to follow through on this promise?

Hon. E. Cull: I will take that question on notice.

[2:30]

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; and in the House, I call committee stage on Bill 11.

GROWTH STRATEGIES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 11; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 7, section 942.14 (continued).

The Chair: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. Excuse me, member. I'll just ask.... Excuse me, members. Could I ask those people who have business elsewhere than the chamber to please depart the chamber. Notice I'm not being specific.

D. Mitchell: There had already been some good debate on section 942.14 yesterday. I've been reading through the comments made by the minister in response to questions raised by a number of members: the member for Prince George-Omineca, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and others. I'd just like to seek some clarification about what powers this section confers upon the minister and the cabinet requiring the adoption of a regional growth strategy, and how that balances with the principle of municipal autonomy, which the minister spoke about quite eloquently during this debate. I think that's the crux of this very important section of the bill.

I paid attention to what the minister said in response to some of the other members yesterday. Just very briefly, the minister indicated that a regional growth strategy is going to be required where there is a reluctant party. "Where there's a reluctant party, the minister has to use that discretion." That is what she said yesterday in response to the member for Prince George-Omineca. Further, she was responding to questions that this might be a threat to municipal autonomy. She said: "It's obviously a threat to communities that for various reasons are not interested in coming into a long-range planning process, for whatever reason they may have, such as, perhaps, desiring to remain no-growth communities." That's what the minister said yesterday in response to this.

There's a fine balance in this bill between the minister's power and discretion, which can be used to require that a strategy be imposed, and the notion that this bill is driven by local governments, which the minister has also said. I'm wondering if the minister can clear up any contradictions that appear to exist -- at least in my mind -- when I listen to these competing ideas: municipal autonomy on the one hand, and on the other, the minister's power and discretion, which can override that autonomy, it seems.

Hon. D. Marzari: I should say here that one of the reasons for this section -- that is, to give the minister the discretion to pull in a regional planning mandate for a growth strategy -- came from municipalities and regions themselves. At first we discussed trigger mechanisms by which certain regions would automatically come inside the rubric of a planning process. We jettisoned the notion of trigger mechanisms -- that is, a population growth mechanism; something that was driven by a formula -- and replaced it with the notion of ministerial discretion.

It is my notion that this will very rarely be used, if ever. It is there as a tooth in the legislation that will drive the municipal agenda toward encouraging regional growth strategies, so we can have comprehensive growth plans, for example, on the east coast of Vancouver Island, throughout the lower regional mainland up to Hope, and throughout the Okanagan. The discretion is there. It was advised by the municipalities and local governments themselves. I figure, therefore, that it's fair and just that we have this mechanism for ministerial discretion through the executive council.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister would agree that this section is included in this bill not only as an incentive -- which is the sense of what I'm hearing the minister say -- but also as a bit of a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of local governments that, for whatever reasons, cannot come to terms or agreement on a regional growth strategy.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

Section 7, section 942.14 approved.

On section 7, section 942.15.

[ Page 14129 ]

D. Mitchell: This is "Requirements for adoption" of a regional growth strategy. There are some important exceptions that are listed under subsection (2). It states that there are particular grounds for why there could be exceptions to a requirement for adoption. I wonder if the minister can briefly explain why those exceptions are needed. Why are these safety valves required in this legislation?

Hon. D. Marzari: Subsection (2) provides that local governments may agree to disagree on certain items. A local government may object to a specific provision of the regional growth strategy, for example, and a board may consider that the specific provision isn't critical to the overall strategy. Therefore the local government can accept the regional growth strategy on the basis that the provision doesn't necessarily apply to them. That basically gives them a fail-safe; it gives them an ability to continue discussion that keeps the table together.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister could then explain why these exceptions are in there. Is it effectively an opting-out provision for local governments that don't agree with the regional growth strategy that might be agreed to? A consensus may be formed, but if a local government doesn't agree or can't come to terms, are these exceptions there so that a local government, regional district, municipality or village can effectively opt out of that strategy?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, we're not talking about opting out here; we're simply taking a look at those issues which may not be critical to the overall growth strategy or to the ultimate success of the strategy. The mayor of Oak Bay recommended this particular provision at one of our workshops. The intent was to provide municipalities the opportunity to agree to disagree on some issues that the region itself determined were not crucial to the success of the strategy. So it's not an opt-out. You'll notice that in the following provision in subsection (3), it provides that local government could choose to accept the provision later on.

D. Mitchell: I don't want to belabour this point, but just so that it's understood: where a regional growth strategy is put in place, there can be exceptions on certain aspects of that strategy, and some local governments within the region as it's defined can agree to disagree on a particular element of the regional growth strategy. The minister says that's not opting out, but if a regional government and a local government can agree to disagree, doesn't that effectively say that the overall strategy for the region may or may not be binding on all participants in the process? Isn't that equivalent to a kind of opting-out provision for parts of the strategy itself?

Hon. D. Marzari: The overall strategy is assumed to be in place and intact, and this provision is to take those exceptions that are not crucial to the overall strategy. This is not an opting-out provision; it is a small exclusion. It isn't critical to the overall success of the strategy. It does not represent an opting-out clause for municipalities.

D. Mitchell: I have one further question on this. I am struggling to understand this concept of a regional growth strategy where regional governments within a defined region will come together and form a strategy, but there can be exceptions. I think it's important for there to be some flexibility in this, but I wonder if this concept of a regional growth strategy is so loose that....

The minister says that small exceptions can be provided. What happens if a number of participants in the process want to see exceptions for different parts of the strategy? Couldn't that strategy itself become so porous, so loose, so flexible that the regional growth strategy itself becomes almost meaningless? It might be just a statement of principles that sounds great, but there could be so many exceptions, based upon the competing or various needs of communities within a region. It really raises the question of why we're adopting a regional growth strategy; why we're putting this into the requirements for adoption. Why have a strategy if...? The minister says it's not opting out, but it sounds awfully like opting out to me.

It sounds like the opportunity exists for local governments not only to agree to disagree, as the minister says, but to basically disregard aspects of the regional growth strategy that's adopted by the region. What does a consensus really mean then, and what are we requiring these local governments to adopt if in fact they can follow through on the exceptions provided in subsection (2) of this section?

Hon. D. Marzari: It's the regional board's responsibility to protect the integrity of the plan itself -- not the minister's responsibility, the regional board's responsibility. It's up to the table, at the local and regional levels, to ensure that the substantive provisions of the plan to minimize urban sprawl, protect water resource and clean up the air are there and protected. It is not the responsibility of this legislation to prescribe in finite detail what exemptions might be made or, where there might be disagreement, to come down in favour of one side or another. The purpose of the legislation and of this clause is basically to allow a little flexibility so that the table may be kept together, the plan may continue to thrive and the essential elements of the plan may be protected -- and so that municipalities may, from time to time, agree to disagree on certain components. The regional district and the peer group will basically decide on what those issues are and they will be recorded. That is very different from saying a municipality can disregard any piece of the plan at its whim.

D. Mitchell: Presumably this would apply to first nations participants in the regional growth strategy as well. I'd just like the minister to confirm whether or not that's the case and whether or not this subsection was placed in the bill to take into account issues that may involve first nations.

Hon. D. Marzari: First nations are not governed by this act or by this bill, except unless the Sechelt band wishes to sit at the table, at which point I'm sure they would be fully recognized by the bill.

[2:45]

C. Tanner: The Liberal opposition, as you know, has a fundamental difference of opinion with the minister on this bill, and that is the fact that we are asking many different areas of government to come together, with the notable exception of the ministries within this provincial government. As a consequence of that disagreement, I am introducing an amendment to section 942.15(1)(c), to read as follows -- and I believe the Chairman has a copy of it: "(c) the regional growth strategy 

[ Page 14130 ]

must be accepted by affected local governments and Provincial bodies in accordance with section 942.19." I offer that amendment and concede the floor to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

On the amendment.

G. Campbell: I think this is a very important amendment. Having spent time.... I know the minister has spent a considerable amount of time with representatives of local government across the province. I know she's spent a considerable amount of time with the planning elders -- as she calls them -- of British Columbia, but I think that she also has had a great deal of experience in these things herself. Having gone through the exercise of trying to build a regional strategic plan, as the minister has tried to outline today, I have to say that the most serious flaw in this bill is the fact that the provincial government, indeed, can act on its own without reference to the regional plan, without reference to the work that's been done by communities. There are so many areas of concern -- where, in fact, the decisions that would be made by a provincial ministry or Crown corporation can have huge impacts on the regional plan. It would mean that you would have to go back to the drawing board.

We have looked, for example, as announcements have been made by successive governments -- not just this government, but by successive governments -- that have had no reference to a plan, where there is no commitment to a plan whatsoever.... And this particular government -- even when there has been a commitment, both in writing and verbally, that the government would work within regional planning constraints in cooperation with the region -- has effectively gone and ignored it when it met with its political needs.

The problem, we all know, is that if we do not in fact include provincial agencies, if we don't include provincial transportation decisions, if we don't include provincial hospital decisions, and if we don't include provincial education decisions; if we don't include provincial decisions with regard to advanced education, then all of the work that's done at the local community level and all of the work that's done to bring regional communities and entities together will be for nought. It will mean a lot of work put in by citizens without any real validity if the provincial government is not willing to be bound by the same strategic regional plan that is suggested in this regional growth strategies document.

I concurred with the member for Prince George-Omineca yesterday when he brought up the issue of schooling. I think we also have to recognize that there are no issues that have as much impact, particularly on rapidly growing regions, as transportation issues do. Successive governments have made decisions that completely ignore regional plans and regional work that has been done by communities, municipalities and regional districts to try to control their growth.

When you look at institutions of higher learning.... I can tell you that in the region I come from and that I represented for some time, the second-largest generator of transportation difficulties was an institution of advanced education, which was not included and not contained, in fact, by the regional strategic plan.

I would urge the minister to accept this amendment. I believe it is absolutely critical that if the principles and goals she has outlined with regard to this bill are to be met, then it is imperative that the provincial government, provincial institutions and provincial agencies be included, and that they accept and agree to be bound by the regional strategic plan that is outlined -- that we're attempting to outline -- through this legislation.

Hon. D. Marzari: Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition presents a case which he thinks represents the wishes of municipalities and regions of the province; in fact, the opposite is the case.

In canvassing the province, regions and municipalities, who owns the strategic growth management plan was an issue; ownership is an issue. If, in fact, the provincial government is put in a position of having veto power over a plan, it basically undoes the sense of regional or local ownership of a planning process. It's extremely important that the regions and municipalities represent ownership, take ownership and drive the planning process, basically, with the guidelines that this legislation represents.

A veto power puts local government in the position of becoming a lobbyist to the provincial government and seeing what they can get from the provincial government at any given point, depending on their priorities. It encourages the risk of having the provincial government lying in the weeds, then coming out at the last minute and exercising power over local government decision-making. In my mind, it is not appropriate, and it skews the whole balance of what decision-making goes on in the process of developing these plans.

Rather than giving the provincial government ownership from the outset by saying that the provincial government will sign off on regional plans, the bill outlines a process whereby the provincial government sends delegates to sit at technical tables while the plans are being developed. Then it provides implementation contracts, ensuring that the provincial government and its agencies -- and the federal government, for that matter -- will deal seriously with implementation agreements with the regional government. Obviously, transportation is one of the biggest issues, but there are others, whether they be sewage disposal, water distribution or air quality control measures. These are all measures where the provincial government has the bigger buck and is therefore very much the larger partner when it comes to implementation agreements. It is very, very important for the ownership of the plan itself that the provincial government not have direct veto ability at the beginning of the planning process, or halfway through the planning process after a pubic hearing.

We prefer to go this route, not only because it's driven by the local governments themselves, but also because it's a more appropriate way for the provincial government and its agencies to become involved with local and regional planning. With the intergovernmental advisory strategy group that meets with each regional plan as it is developed, hopefully we can imagine that every ministry or every Crown agency will be properly informed about the evolution of the regional plans as they come along, and will start to be able to think through the long-range capital planning that will have to be accomplished in order to properly meet the objectives of each of the high-growth regions. For these reasons -- ownership interests of the regional and municipal governments, fear of a 

[ Page 14131 ]

provincial veto and the building of an equal partnership as the plans unfold -- I would recommend that we vote against this amendment.

G. Campbell: The minister has misconstrued fairly dramatically the intent of the amendment. It is certainly not to provide the provincial government with a veto. That is the last thing we have on our minds through this amendment. What this does say is that the provincial government will accept the regional plan and will carry out that plan in accordance with section 942.19, which means that if the province does not accept the plan, there is a way we can go to resolution.

The fact of the matter is that the province today has a veto, and I'm staggered that the minister doesn't understand this. The province can decide to announce commuter rail without any discussion about whether it fits into the transportation plan for a region. It can do it without any reference whatsoever to the overall growth strategy of the region, and under this legislation the province will continue to do that. This legislation protects the province's veto. This legislation does not bind the province in any way whatsoever to live within the strategic plan that the region has put forward.

We are suggesting that if the minister does indeed believe that this growth strategy legislation should work, then she has to understand -- and I'm sure that in talking to local officials, they would tell the minister this -- that the province must be included in the plan and must be willing to go through the dispute resolution mechanisms that are in place. It is not a matter of the province driving the plan or vetoing the plan. In fact, if this legislation is left as it is, we almost guarantee that the province will veto the plan with the province's actions, as they have done time and time again over the last decade.

I would encourage the minister to think about how the province does veto these efforts that are put forward by communities and regions when they make decisions out of context. This is simply saying that, like the local communities and other agencies that are included, the provincial government, provincial ministries and provincial Crown corporations would be put into the planning process. They would be included in it in a real way, and when there were disputes, they would move to dispute resolution so that the plan could be accepted.

It is certainly not giving a veto or taking away ownership from the regional planning body. What it is doing is saying that the provincial government will follow in line with the strategic plan that is put in place.

Look at transportation decisions that can be made by the provincial government without reference to the regional plan. Look at the hospital decisions and health care decisions that can be made by the provincial government without reference to the strategic plan. Look at the advanced education decisions that can be made by the province without reference to the regional plan. It simply guts the intent of this legislation not to include provincial agencies and the provincial ministries in following through the planning process, in including themselves and in following through on section 942.19, which commits them to work through this process in good faith with local communities and to commit to the dispute resolution process.

Otherwise, the province does have the veto the minister is concerned about protecting local administrations from. I believe the amendment speaks directly to that. It removes the veto from the province and ensures that there will be regional ownership of the plan. I'd like the minister to reconsider her comments in view of that, now that I've been able to clarify the intent of the amendment.

L. Fox: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that clarification, because in my initial reading of this amendment I was somewhat concerned that it appeared to go against the intent of this section. The amendment reads: "...the regional growth strategy must be accepted by affected local governments...." Even though the minister doesn't appear to want to call this a limited opting-out provision contained within section 942.15(2), in actual fact it's there, and this amendment would seem to take away that flexibility. That was one of the concerns I had. I have no concern at all with the intent to somehow bind provincial ministries and agencies to work within the scope of the strategic plan. I think that should be a very important principle, but my difficulty with the amendment.... Maybe I could ask the minister if her ministry officials would agree that the clause would indeed limit the opportunities of affected local governments.

Hon. D. Marzari: At a later point in the bill, in section 942.27, which we'll be coming to, we'll be talking about a regional growth strategy developed by a community. It doesn't necessarily commit or authorize a regional district, municipality or board to proceed with designated projects -- for many, many reasons. So we're saying here that for the sake of flexibility and adaptability, we're looking for consistency and continuity, and we're looking for partnerships between local, regional and provincial governments.

This bill is a process bill, which basically says that this is the best way we can create those partnerships. This is the best conceivable way we can create the tables for discussion and the planning atmosphere which does not repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in the past, which included such items as allowing senior levels of government or a regional level of government to make land use decisions over and above the heads of municipal governments. So we're making every attempt to try to keep the municipalities as autonomous as possible, yet giving up very finite degrees of their autonomy for the purposes of doing regional planning. We're trying to give regional districts the flexibility that they need to pull together a plan of reasonable integrity.

[3:00]

The bill gives everybody a lot of leeway. In other words, it does not punish municipalities or regions if, in fact, they feel that they must make some deviations or adopt different opinions as they go along, based on new information. Neither does it force the provincial government to sign off for the reasons I mentioned earlier, having to do with ownership, with the integrity of the planning process and with the nature of the bill itself. It's a bill which basically creates the tables for discussion and pulls the provincial government and its agencies to those tables so that appropriate decisions can be made in capital planning, and financial arrangements can be made for future needs down the road.

This bill is a political bill, and it relies on political processes between the three levels of government. It provides the framework and the tables for those political processes to occur. It does not force the issue with one or other of those governments to comply to the letter. It's important for the provincial government -- I speak as a provincial minister 

[ Page 14132 ]

now, having come from local government -- to do integrated, comprehensive listening to regional and local governments. This bill provides the provincial government with a lesson in how to do that, because I don't feel the provincial government does a good job of that.

In this position, I and many of my colleagues spend a great deal of our time trying to coordinate ourselves inside a structure which isn't necessarily a structure which cooperates within itself. It's not built that way; it hasn't been built that way for 700 years, I imagine. So this bill is an attempt to create the kinds of frameworks which will assist and mould the ability of ministries and corporations to listen or to hear and to start planning with communities, rather than placing artificial coercions on any level of government, including the provincial government, to comply with any given plan or any given strategy. The important thing here is partnerships, and the important thing here is contracts. Those are the contracts that will be developed between the three levels of government and Crown agencies, if they are not privatized, and we'll see our way through to serving the interests of growth management in the process of doing that. I'm talking process; I'm talking ownership. These are the reasons why we cannot accept the amendment.

C. Tanner: The minister has missed the point in her reply to the Leader of the Opposition when she says that this is an attempt at a veto. It is exactly the opposite of that, in effect. In fact, this gives the minister an opportunity to add belief and authenticity to her words when she says that she wants the provincial government to comply with the same plans that she's asking the junior governments to comply with. If legislation is a level playing field in which the minister has got the rules all laid down for everybody below that level, and she cannot touch and affect the legislation for the people above -- that's the federal government and Indian reserves, and so forth -- she has got the ability to say that her fellow provincial ministries should comply. And while it says that here, there is no compulsion. It would give a great deal more authenticity to her words if there were compulsion, and that's what we're asking for. We say the minister has designed a bill which helps regional and municipal governments get together and design a plan.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that there has been sufficient discussion on this amendment, and I would call the question on the amendment.

The Chair: Just to clarify, member, I don't think that is within your power to do, but I understand your point -- moral suasion.

I'm going to take the member for Richmond Centre. Is it for a brief introduction, member?

D. Symons: Yes, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Symons: I believe that -- I see their heads looking over us, so I guess it's true -- seated in the gallery today are 38 grade 11 and 12 English-as-a-second-language students from Richmond Senior Secondary School in my riding of Richmond Centre. They're accompanied by their teachers Ms. Schuck and Mr. Schuck. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Serwa: On the amendment, hon. Chair, I just wanted to stand up and reserve my right to enter into second reading debate in some of the future sections, which your latitude allowed the minister to enter into on this amendment. The purpose of my rising at the moment is just to reserve that right.

The Chair didn't pay any attention to that, so I'll have to do it again.

The Chair: I am sorry, member; there was a procedural point I was trying to sort out. Please....

C. Serwa: Well, I just wanted to reserve the right, hon. Chair, that you extended to the minister to enter into an expanded second reading debate on the amendment proposed to this particular bill. I just wanted to stand, because in the future there are several sections which will require that type of latitude.

The Chair: I disagree with the member's conclusion, but his point is taken.

G. Wilson: Speaking against the amendment, I'm not sure where this research came from or where the advice was with respect to this, but my guess is that it's from a municipal lawyer who is trying to bind these so-called provincial bodies.

There are several reasons why we can't support this amendment. First of all, the concept of a provincial body.... If this had been thought through at the outset of this bill in presentation, there would have been an amendment to the definitions section to include....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, the member for Saanich North and the Islands says if I had been around to hear it.... In fact, I have been here from the beginning of the debate of this bill.

Had this amendment been adequately thought through, there would have been an introduction to amend the definitions section of the bill to tell us what the provincial bodies were going to be. The fact is -- just to show you how ludicrous this amendment is -- that for those areas outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.... I can understand why, when the Leader of the Opposition, whose sole political experience has been as the mayor of Vancouver, sees that the sun rises in Chilliwack and sets in Lions Bay.... There are other parts of the province where this makes no sense at all. The provincial bodies that he intends to bind often do not correspond with the boundaries of regional districts and municipalities being affected by this particular bill.

The second problem is that it is not often wise legislation that binds senior levels of government, which in effect, if we read through the appeal process, are going to have to be allowed to act....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I do not stand up and heckle the member for Saanich North and the Islands when he is making a point in debate. That he should continue to do so is exceedingly discourteous and unfortunately a tradition that has 

[ Page 14133 ]

become part of this member's contribution to this chamber. I would seek that you try to bring order so that we can have some reasonable debate here.

The Chair: The member's point is well taken. As you know, it is the practice in this chamber to allow some latitude for all members to participate, albeit indirectly. But I ask all of us to be cautioned by the fact that we ought not to interfere with the standing member's right to carry on with his or her remarks.

G. Wilson: The second point I was attempting to make is that it is rarely good legislation when one attempts to bind senior government -- in this case, the provincial government -- in a statute directed primarily at municipal levels of government. There are several reasons why you don't want to do that.

One is that if you're looking at a regional growth strategy in which there may be conflict over the land use and how land uses are going to be developed, the last thing you want to do is bind the very body that may be the process of appeal for those people who believe they've been poorly served in the initial plan.

Second, there is an issue with respect to a later section that provides an opportunity for senior government to effectively use existing plans as these regional growth strategies. If those plans were used and contested by local government at the local level and, through that contesting of that plan, it was found that there had to be a binding provision in the provincial government, it would do an enormous disservice, especially to smaller regional districts or areas that don't have the same weighted vote that they may in a normal planning process. So for a second reason this is not a sensible or properly thought through amendment.

The last issue, and this is probably the most important one, is that if you allow for this to be binding on all provincial bodies -- which would include all of the Crown corporations, hospital districts, school boards and a whole variety of Crown agencies that presumably would be encompassed in this -- my guess is that it's going to make it virtually impossible to get agreement on a plan. All of those bodies are going to have to be consulted, to be involved in it and to protect what they deem to be their vested interest.

What is likely to be the result of that is that people will strive to put in place the broadest base of restriction on land use, which will then be implemented over top of fee simple land and will bind -- often in perpetuity, in cases -- people's ability to use their land as they should do under existing zoning regulations. We've got legal jurisprudence -- and I'm prepared to raise it in a future section -- where the judges of this province are saying this is not the dutiful and rightful role of the provincial government.

So had there been a little research done on this, we would have seen for those three reasons that this is not a well-thought-through amendment. This is not something that enhances this bill, but in fact would do a significant disservice to those people who will be affected by it.

[3:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

T. Perry: I'd like leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Perry: I spied in the gallery two old friends who were co-founders of the nuclear disarmament group in the Slocan Valley in 1982: George and Marion Bergevin. Although their own representative in the Legislature failed to recognize them, I'd like to introduce them on his behalf. Would members please make them welcome.

The Chair: Shall section 942.15 pass?

Interjection.

The Chair: I'm sorry, member for Saanich North and the Islands. I thought I could slip one by, but clearly I can't.

I think what I will do, members, is ask those who are not participating in committee to please depart the chamber before we resume. I'll give you a moment to leave.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry. I thought we were going to lose that in the shuffle. I have nothing more. We've made our point on section 942.15, and, as far as I'm concerned, that section can pass.

Section 7, section 942.15 approved.

On section 7, section 942.16.

G. Wilson: I have just a very quick question about section 942.16(2) with respect to powers of the minister, where it suggests: "If a regional growth strategy is to apply to less than 

[ Page 14134 ]

the entire regional district or is to be prepared jointly with another regional district, this must be authorized under section 942.13(2)...." When we discussed that, as well as section 942.14, I mentioned that this particular section was going to be somewhat relevant. One of the reasons that I raise this now is that in a provision later on.... I don't want to jump too far ahead, but there is a provision later on in the section of this bill that provides for the minister to actually take existing land use plans -- they may in fact be from two different regional districts -- and to use those as part of, or in total as, the regional growth strategy process. I wonder if this section.... In terms of the portions of a regional district or a combining of regional districts, it says that the requirements of this have to happen if it's envisaged that the minister can use this section to force plans that are potentially sitting on shelves to be a part of the binding provisions under section 942.14.

Hon. D. Marzari: The intent of this particular section.... In fact, there are other provisions in the act that allow the integration of existing plans such as the GVRD's, to bring it into the fabric and the mainframe of the act. But subsection (2) is a clarification applying to less than an entire regional district. It has nothing to do with ongoing plans that may be inside that regional district or an adjacent district.

L. Fox: I would like some clarification on subsection (3). It seems to me that this subsection says that the provision does not apply to a municipality under subsection.... Subsection (2) can be applied later if the municipality decides to accept that provision. It seems that out of caution you may have a lot of municipalities or interested parties sitting around the table not prepared to make a commitment to enter into the process until such time as is decided what the outcome and the impacts of that are going to be, because there is no opting out. Once you say yes, you're in it. There's no opportunity to get out of it, so there's going to be some hesitancy by individuals to get into the process. They don't have to opt in and be part of it in the beginning, because they can opt in later. I'm wondering if the minister wouldn't agree that this whole process seems to be counterproductive in terms of dealing with the overall interests of that region.

Hon. D. Marzari: Subsection (3) refers to the initiation of the process; it doesn't refer to six months down the road or 18 months down the road, and suddenly the region or the municipalities decide there is going to be another major issue. This is at the beginning to provide municipalities with a definition of the scope of their plan, so that they can feel comfortable and secure in entering and engaging in the plan. This basically gives them instruction to serve notice on what the major issues are going to be, if they are more than housing, transportation, services, parks, natural areas and economic development. It is providing municipalities with the security of knowing what the scope of the plan might entail.

Section 7, section 942.16 approved.

On section 7, section 942.17.

D. Mitchell: Section 942.17 deals with the consultation that is to take place during the implementation or development of a regional growth strategy. I have a question regarding subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) deals with the consultation that is to take place during the development of a regional growth strategy, and subsection (2) deals with the consultation that takes place immediately thereafter, once a strategy is accepted -- as soon as possible after the initiation of a regional growth strategy is put in place.

There seems to be a difference in the kinds of consultation that would take place during the implementation of strategy and immediately thereafter. I wonder if the minister could explain why that would be. For instance, in subsection (1) it says that the board should consult with everybody it considers might be affected by the strategy -- and it is totally up to the board's discretion to decide who might be affected by the strategy. But in subsection (2), immediately after a strategy is adopted, this section tries to define and to list those who should be consulted. It's quite a broad listing, but I wonder why that listing wouldn't relate to both prior to and after the fact. Why are their differences in the consultation process?

Hon. D. Marzari: These are not two separate consultation processes: subsection (2) is simply an elaboration of subsection (1) for the purposes of the bill. If you read the first line of subsection (2): "For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), as soon as possible after the initiation of a regional growth strategy...." That is the initiation, not at the conclusion of the plan. This is at the very beginning, so subsection (2) becomes simply an elaboration of subsection (1), and not a separate and distinct part of the public process.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's explanation of that. Subsection (1) says that during the development of a strategy, the board is to consult with everyone who it feels will be affected, but subsection (2) lists the minimum. In addition to that, I suppose, it could be whoever the board considers.

Section (1)(b) says: "the board and the affected local governments must make all reasonable efforts to reach agreement on a proposed regional growth strategy." That's during the developmental stage. Who will decide what "all reasonable efforts" are? Is that totally up to the board, or is there any definition? Would the minister offer any guidance on what "all reasonable efforts" might mean?

Hon. D. Marzari: This is called the best-efforts clause. Every reasonable effort will be made, and the judges of that will be the public themselves. If they do not feel they've been properly included, they will be able to take citizen recourse -- through the courts, if necessary. The important thing here is that it's in the bill. Reasonable efforts must be made. In fact, those efforts are further spelled out in the course of the bill. This is minimum consultation, desirable consultation and consultation which anyone engaging in a planning process would do in any event. This is a stipulation that reasonable effort must be made, and fine detail on what reasonable effort should look like is not here. The bill is not entirely prescriptive on that score, but there is provision, obviously, for citizens to make their complaints.

D. Mitchell: This test of reasonableness is an important one, and it comes up later under subsection (3), which says: "A failure to comply with a consultation plan under subsection (2) does not invalidate the regional growth strategy as long as reasonable consultation has been conducted." The term "reasonableness" again enters into the legislation -- "reasonable consultation." I'm assuming that what the minister has said about the test of reasonableness will apply here as 

[ Page 14135 ]

well, but the failure to comply with this consultation plan is pretty important. What if someone comes forward after a plan has been adopted during the initiation stage -- a local government, an individual citizen or a private sector participant in the region -- and says: "Wait a second; I wasn't consulted. I don't think there has been reasonable consultation." How would this failure to comply be determined in terms of whether or not reasonable consultation has been conducted? Could the minister offer any guidance on that? I think this could be so highly subjective that it could be one of the most contentious aspects of this bill.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: That's the reason for the clause itself. If a board's consultation plan provides, in general terms, that citizens would be consulted, the chance of an individual citizen successfully seeking to overturn the entire growth strategy in judicial review on the basis that the individual citizen was not personally consulted.... This clause minimizes that possibility. I reinforce, therefore, the concept of reasonable consultation as being a recognized term that can be used as a protection -- not only for the regional plan -- and as an encouragement to the planners and the regional planning body to anticipate and resolve difficulties before they start; but it's also security for citizen groups.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: I have a further question on what appears to me at least to be a contradiction here. In section 942.17 under subsection (2), it states very clearly that the board must adopt a consultation plan. There's no discretion allowed there; there has to be a consultation plan in place before a regional growth strategy can be adopted and implemented. And yet under subsection (3), it says that a failure to comply with this consultation plan doesn't invalidate the regional growth strategy. How can we have it both ways? I ask the minister for some clarification on this apparent contradiction. There must be a consultation plan, but if you don't have a consultation plan, it doesn't invalidate the strategy. I mean, is there not a contradiction here that's going to cause a lot of confusion for the general public in the important consultation process as we move forward with these regional growth strategies?

Hon. D. Marzari: The provision under subsection (3) insists that there be a consultation plan. It has to be there; that's a basic framework for the planning process. We've learned a lot in this province, largely from the GVRD's initiatives through the last 20 years. I'll reinforce the message that if people aren't included in planning, a plan isn't worth anything. This process involves and insists on the involvement of affected governments, groups and agencies; there's no double-messaging here. It insists on reasonable consultation. That is a protective clause to ensure that one individual citizen, for example, cannot claim that because they had not been personally informed, the plan is invalid. That is a protective clause for the overall planning process. Consultation with affected governments, citizens, groups and agencies is built in.

D. Mitchell: I'm a little bit puzzled by this. I think this is potentially a very important section of the bill. It deals with the public consultation that is to take place when a regional growth strategy is implemented. There must be a consultation plan, but if you don't have a plan, it doesn't seem to matter. At least, that's what the wording of the legislation says; that's not what the words of the minister say, but I'm referring to the actual bill.

I'll just take it one step further by referring to subsection (4) of this section. In subsection (4) of this section, there's a requirement for a public hearing to take place. I'll just ask the minister this, using this as an example. In subsection (4), where there's a requirement for the board to conduct a public hearing and provide an opportunity for the public to make their views on the strategy known, what would happen if a public meeting were held in a region where a regional growth strategy was about to be implemented and a wave of opposition came forward at the public meeting? If not just one individual but perhaps a number of stakeholders and citizens came forward in a public meeting and said that they weren't consulted, they were opposed to the strategy and they didn't believe that the consultation plan was valid because they weren't included in the process, what would happen? Would the public meeting itself be a bit of a charade, just like the consultation plan itself? The failure to comply with the consultation plan suggests that the consultation plan might not be that crucial. Is the public meeting referred to in subsection (4) just a phony consultation -- another stage in a plan that is going to be implemented regardless of the public wishes?

Hon. D. Marzari: The member speaks as someone who has perhaps been through too many local planning consultation programs and doesn't see the value of public hearings.

The clauses themselves insist that consultation happen, but they don't prescribe the specifics of that consultation. For example, if the regional district is going to have five workshops and then decides at the last minute that it's going to have seven because groups were left out, they're not going to go back and revisit the regulations and the terms of reference for the plan by going to seven workshops. Similarly, in going to a public hearing.... If there were a wave of opposition at a public hearing -- and very often there are; public hearings encourage those who are opposed to a plan -- it gives the regional board an opportunity to have further workshops and revise the plan, if they so desire. That is further consultation; that is a further outreach possibility for the board.

We're saying that there's going to be public consultation. The broad scope of that consultation should be outlined somewhere near the beginning, but it doesn't have to be executed to the dotting of the i and the crossing of the t. It doesn't have to be executed perfectly. You're still okay; the plan can still be considered intact and have integrity. What's being said here is that the spirit of reasonable consultation must prevail. In the last analysis, if citizens do not agree that consultation has been appropriate, they can use the existing recourses that are there for them in the law, such as going to the courts, if they so desire.

D. Mitchell: I have just one further question on this, then. The minister has talked about the recourse that can take place if citizens feel aggrieved because proper consultation hasn't taken place under this section of the act. Since some of the previous sections we've dealt with in this bill provide a safety valve in the form of the minister's office, allowing the minister some discretion here, I wonder whether the minister would regard her office as being part of the recourse for a citizen, a group or a local government who felt that proper 

[ Page 14136 ]

consultation had not occurred, or that a public hearing needs to take place and hasn't taken place -- or whatever form of consultation is required.

If due process doesn't seem to have been followed under the terms of this legislation, will the minister regard herself, either under this section or any other section of this bill, as having the power or the discretion to compel further consultation to take place? Could she compel a public meeting or a series of public meetings to take place in a large region? What powers does the minister have? What discretion does the minister have under this legislation to ensure that consultation takes place and to be that recourse, so that there isn't simply a recourse to the courts and to judicial processes that are expensive, time-consuming and sometimes not effective in achieving the ends of the proper consultation that this section seems to contemplate?

Hon. D. Marzari: The member seems to be seeking some reassurance, and having been through a number of public processes that involved citizens opposed in a public hearing process or in a consultation process, I can understand the points, and they're well raised.

The judicial review process is a reasonable and rational process for citizens to use if they do not feel they have been properly consulted. I should also say at this point that it's not appropriate either for the minister's office to be used as a court of last resort for citizens to appeal to, if they feel they haven't been properly heard in a public hearing. It is something that the provincial government, this minister and this ministry stay away from, most particularly around local disputes in land use matters, because it's not useful or desirable for the provincial government to be intervening where people may have local disputes around local land use decisions. Similarly, around these regional growth strategies, I would say that the minister, the ministry and the provincial government should stay well away from local disputes. If the local governments themselves disagree inside the framework of the plan, they do have a dispute resolution mechanism.

Because the member has raised this concern, and because I do have some empathy for this concern, I will ensure that guidelines are developed for the facilitators and the facilitation of the program that will set out perhaps more rigorously what public consultation should look like and what its shape should be.

J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to welcome a class of grade 11 students from Brentwood College School, which is up the road on the Malahat, as all members will know. They're sitting up here behind me. They are accompanied by Mr. Robert MacLean, their social studies teacher. I want to thank the students particularly for the very perceptive questions they have just put to me. Would all members please make them welcome.

C. Tanner: I was surprised how long it took the minister, when answering the questions from the previous member, to tell him that the word "reasonable" is interpretable in the courts. There is obviously always recourse in this legislation through the courts, because to my mind, that's what this section says.

If I might, I'd like to use this section to ask a specific question concerning a bill and debate we had last year on a highway. It was a planned highway going through private property. The way I read this section, and particularly as you put in section 942.17(2)(a) "its citizens" as the first item before everybody else, and you mention "persons" first in section 942.17(1)(a) -- you've put in "persons, organizations and authorities" -- obviously the minister and her staff had individual citizens within the area foremost in their minds of those people who should be consulted.

While I appreciate that consultation can take place in a public arena, in the case that we had last year -- and I've forgotten the number of the bill concerning the highway....

Interjection.

C. Tanner: Bill 25 -- thank you, minister. Concerning that bill and the debate we had where a private property owner -- or a number of them, but one specific one -- felt aggrieved, in this case would they be consulted? If we had a situation where the growth strategy plan included a highway in the long range, and no compensation or no ability had been undertaken by the region to look after the individual's property, would this be the place where they would be consulted?

Hon. D. Marzari: I should say that that particular group of citizens in the Maple Ridge situation had been consulted for many years. They knew exactly where they stood for many years, and in fact their court case and the resulting decision of the judge was no surprise to them; the process and their recourse was no surprise to them. As I stated yesterday, this bill does not change any of the goalposts around issues of compensation, nor does it challenge any judicial decision that has been made, most particularly the one in Maple Ridge. Rather, this bill simply takes what we have now and does not change any notion of what compensation should or should not be, and observes the judicial requirement that local government put their money up front if they're going to do any long-range planning. We have difficulties with that, because long-range planning sometimes means you have four options, and paying compensation for four separate rights-of-way might be rather difficult for local government. But we're not changing the goalposts on that.

This section is talking about a general consultation. It's not talking about specific or targeted or individual consultation with citizens. It's the general consultation process, which should be an integral part of any long-range strategic growth management study.

C. Tanner: Let me just make it absolutely clear that I understood what the minister said, because in section 942.17(1)(a), the first you say have to be consulted are "persons"; in subsection (2) of that same section, the first you say have to be consulted are "citizens." Admittedly, they're both in the plural, but are you only talking in the plural? Do you never talk in the individual?

[3:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: This legislation in subsection (a) does not refer to individual citizens.

[ Page 14137 ]

C. Tanner: In that case, while we have made no difference to the situation we had last year under Bill 25, if a local region decided to make some plans -- which included, for example, highway plans, which would make sense, or even potential school property and so on, which was privately owned -- would those people go to a public meeting and say: "If you do that, what's in it for me, or what happens to me, or what affects me?" Or would that still be a private decision of the individual to go to the courts rather than to the planning process? The point I'm trying to make is that if it isn't, we've lost something in this new legislation, it seems to me.

Hon. D. Marzari: If rights-of-way are designated by a strategic plan, it's likely that the official community plan of the local government of the municipality will be the one to enact the change. Insofar as we're talking about the local government creating the change in its official community plan, there will be no change in the rules from what they are now; no one is losing anything here. The municipality will conduct itself by the same rules that it presently governs itself by; and the citizens will have the same access through the second hearing debate of the strategic plan of the regional growth plan, and they will also have access to the local council.

L. Fox: I just want to follow up on the earlier questions by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I was pleased to hear the minister suggest that she would highlight some clarification in the regulations around what this consultation would be. But I'm somewhat disturbed about some of the discussion I hear, because it seems to me that when we draft legislation, we should be attempting to do the best job we can to stay out of the courts. Otherwise we provide a society or legislation which is only.... The only time people can defend their interests is if they have money. So I think we've got to be doggone sure when we draft this that we don't put too much emphasis on the courts being the deciding factor in making the appropriate interpretation. That's one observation I wanted to make, and I'm sure the minister would like to comment on that.

The other one that I would also like to make and would ask the minister to give some consideration to in the regulations is the time frames that legitimately should be considered in setting up a process -- time frames for notification, for instance, similar to what we see in the existing municipal legislation around the developing of OCPs and settlement plans in regional districts. Because what I as a community leader might figure as being fair, I'm not sure that other individuals or specific interests within a community will perceive as the same. And if the minister doesn't want to be the arbitrator in some of these issues, then I think it's very important that she lay out in regulation some guidelines that the public understands and that the process honoured in order to come up with its plan.

Hon. D. Marzari: I thank the member for his comments. The guidelines, I think, should make some reference to time frames for consultation. That might be useful.

I should also add that there is every intent here, with this concept of reasonable consultation, that that doesn't encourage the court process. The judicial review is a process which can be used for any legislation and all legislation; it's not a special judicial review, court process or legal process just for this act. If anything, there's a disincentive, because no regional district or municipality wants to be held up in its regional growth strategy by the threat of court action being taken against it for lack of reasonable consultation. So I would suggest that, in fact, there is an incentive here for regional districts to do more than reasonable consultation so that the issues they are discussing can be properly put on the table by the widest group of individuals and agencies imaginable and so that it will guarantee the ultimate passage of the plan.

Section 7, section 942.17 approved.

The Chair: Shall section 942.18 pass?

On section 7, section 942.18.

C. Tanner: Madam Minister, the facilitators in section 942.18.... We're talking about what they're going to do, but I don't see any itemized authority that the facilitator has to compel other provincial ministries to go through this process. I know it's written here that they should, but I don't see any power itemized where he has the ability to compel, with effect, other provincial ministries to concede or go along with the designated plan. Am I missing something in this section? Could the minister explain it to me, please?

Hon. D. Marzari: The facilitator is basically there to assist the proposing regional district board and all the affected governments in getting involved and getting together, and to pull the agencies and local governments around the table. The facilitator is not an enforcer, although the facilitator does report back to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. There's no compulsion here, and no ability for the facilitator to insist. But there is the assumption that in the engagement of our regional planning process, all the appropriate agencies will be around the table. Certainly, this government is committed that all appropriate agencies will be around the table for every regional planning initiative.

A facilitator can do no more; a facilitator's role has been considered by local governments, and local governments would not feel comfortable if the facilitator were expected to be an enforcer. The facilitator will get involved later on, however, with the dispute resolution and in pulling together the mechanisms for dispute resolution.

The compulsion, when it is to come, will come from cabinet. The Premier's commitment on March 2 to the UBCM and to the executive of the UBCM was that in fact the provincial government intends to be there for the intergovernment advisory group that will be the technical group for each plan, and it will be there when the time comes to implement contracts between the province, its agencies and regional governments.

C. Tanner: Could the minister give us an illustration of how she sees the facilitators being chosen? Where does she choose them from? What type of people? Would she be using the local governments and the regional governments -- people within that fraternity -- as facilitators?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe I answered this question yesterday when it was asked. The facilitators will have to be very special people, obviously. I would assume that the facilitators will be hired; they will not necessarily be planners, but they will be people who work well with the communities, who have done some work with the regions, and who have the faith, basically, and the confidence of the municipalities 

[ Page 14138 ]

and regions that they'll be working with. Therefore it would behoove the minister and the ministry to ensure that there's some consultation with the regions before the facilitators are actually hired.

These people will have to have the competence to pull people together, to work well at tables, to be able to synthesize vast quantities of material, to initiate dispute resolution if it becomes necessary anywhere in the process, and to assist in the general planning regime. These people could be staff from the ministry; they could be consultants hired by the ministry in consultation with the regions; they could be ex-politicians, for example, who have worked in the community and no longer have a vested interest in elected representation, as long as they have the confidence of the community.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Marzari: Does that leave politicians out?

The most important thing is that these people be competent and that they have the confidence of the people they work with.

C. Tanner: As I understand it, it will be the sole authority of the ministry, and probably the minister specifically, to make those appointments.

All through this legislation, the minister has pointed out how her helpful and hard-working ministry is going to make these plans happen and assist the regions in making them come about. Does the minister see, therefore, that if these people did come from the ministry -- one of the suggestions she just made -- they will be paid for by the regional group? If they're not, how's the minister going to find the resources in her ministry to do all the extra work that this bill is entailing?

Hon. D. Marzari: The commitment has already been made that the ministry will pay for the facilitators.

G. Wilson: I only have two very short questions to the minister on this section. It would seem that the facilitators, in fact, will become a surrogate for the minister. I say that because in the next section, which we'll get to momentarily, the facilitator has an opportunity to be one of those designated to review the plan prior to acceptance, if they're in that position. Where one isn't there, then the minister becomes that designate. Given that, I just wonder about the.... It says that these facilitators, once they are coming in, are "setting up and using non-binding resolution processes," but we notice also that this non-binding resolution process has become binding and effective on local government in the next section.

I'm curious to know what powers these facilitators are going to have with respect to their ability to actually gain information or to move an agenda forward if there is reluctance from the board. I'm thinking particularly in light of some controversial areas where there is a very urgent need for a growth strategy plan to be in place, but there are very jealous turf wars at work, and a facilitator may become de facto an arbitrator. I'm curious to know what those powers are going to be and how those are designated within this act, because it's not clear.

Hon. D. Marzari: I should repeat that the facilitator has no coercive powers. If the member is referring to the next section, talking about the facilitator acting in place of the minister, or if we're only talking about the facilitator being able to convene meetings, poll people around the table and receive the plan, as I believe it says in the next section that we're to deal with, we're not dealing here with a facilitator who has substantive powers to make decisions.

[4:00]

G. Wilson: Well, then, I wonder if the minister might just elaborate a little on section 942.18(4), where it suggests that: "Once a facilitator becomes involved under subsection (3), the proposing board and affected local governments must provide information as requested by the facilitator and must otherwise cooperate with the facilitator in fulfilling his or her responsibilities." The way one would read that, it doesn't necessarily mean there aren't coercive powers. There are limited options that the local government has in cooperation.

Hon. D. Marzari: In re-reading that section, we can read that "the proposing board and affected local governments must provide information as requested by the facilitator and must otherwise cooperate with the facilitator in fulfilling his or her responsibilities." The responsibilities are the responsibilities of coordination, the responsibilities largely laid down by the legislation and consultation, and the responsibilities of designing the scope of the plan itself. But no facilitator is going to step into a community and force the issue or try to coerce any regional district to perform and behave in a particular way. The responsibilities of the facilitator are just that.

G. Wilson: Okay. I take the minister on her word on that, and I assume that that is the intent. However, the intent of legislation and what happens are often not the same thing. So I just wonder if the minister is confident that somewhere in this act it provides authority or powers to local government -- given that the facilitator is the appointment of the minister -- or whether they have an opportunity therefore to appeal or have that person removed, in the event that some overzealous facilitator might in fact be advocating on behalf of one agent within local government against another.

Hon. D. Marzari: There's no coercion here. The local government can call a bluff, can basically see through the games and make recommendations, or phone the minister. You can rest assured that there will be no attempt here to send a facilitator in with a top-down agenda or a heavy-handed approach. The essence of this whole bill is coordinative and integrative; it is not coercive or top-down.

G. Wilson: Let me put it very specifically then: does local government have the power to fire the facilitator?

Hon. D. Marzari: Local government certainly has the power to recommend to the minister that the facilitator is not working out for the region.

C. Tanner: There's an exception made in this section in subsection (3)(b), where there's a request made "by an electoral area director of the proposing board, if this is supported by at least 2 other directors." I was wondering what the motivation was behind that particular exception. You've got two ways that the facilitator can be activated, if you like. In (a) it is "by the proposing board or an affected local government" 

[ Page 14139 ]

and in (b) "by an electoral area director." What's the reason for that particular section?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: Electoral areas aren't incorporated; they're not municipalities. Electoral area directors have wondered aloud at many workshops how they get involved, where their power is and how they can exercise some voice in the preparation of regional growth strategies. This basically allows an electoral area director, with two other electoral area directors -- which sort of forms a critical mass of electoral area directors -- to have some say in pulling in a facilitator or in the preparation of the plan. They don't have any formal sign-off. They don't have any opportunity to have their issues considered except at this juncture, so it's important that they be included in the preparation here.

C. Tanner: I'm sure the minister is aware that in many regional boards, many urban directors -- municipal directors, regional directors -- have some problem with electoral area directors who they think don't have very much to lose and consequently are part of the decision. You're making an exception for the electoral area director; why wouldn't you make the same exception for a municipal director, should he be supported by a couple of others? You could have a municipal director in a small, isolated urban area where he'd have the same problem as the electoral area director.

Hon. D. Marzari: Municipal councillors obviously have their council, speak through their council and have the power of the incorporated council as their planning entity and as their sign-off. They have power to sign off; they have power to engage with the regional district. They're sort of wards of the regional district in many respects; the regional district is their federation.

The electoral area directors are very often the unsung heroes of rural planning, out there very often alone, trying to make land use decisions in the unincorporated areas. It's very important for them and for us to recognize them. This is the point in the act where we do recognize their ability to get involved with the process of developing the role for the facilitator, and ensure that they're at the table. So their involvement with the facilitator here is recognizing their role in the process.

C. Tanner: Madam Minister, was this discussed at the UBCM -- this specific feature? The reason I'm asking is.... Was it supported by them? Was it supported by municipalities generally? Because, as I said, in regional boards this is a common complaint: some of the more dissident electoral area directors do have a lot to say, with nothing to lose. I'm surprised that you've got this section in, other than if there was a full discussion when you went around the province with the municipalities and the UBCM on this particular item.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, this has been canvassed with UBCM. In fact, it was a significant discussion because of the electoral area director's role in the regional district and their inability to act as an incorporated entity. Where were they going to get involved? They could not be involved in sign-off, because the municipalities are involved in sign-off, and electoral area directors individually couldn't engage at that level. But it's very, very important -- and I've made this clear from the beginning -- that they have to be recognized and they have to be considered a part of that overall table. This is the point in the act where we do recognize them and give them the ability to work with the facilitator to make their concerns known.

C. Tanner: Would I be right in thinking that some of the reservations I've expressed on behalf of some of the urban municipal directors are taken care of by the fact that the electoral area director has got to be supported by two other directors? They don't necessarily have to be electoral area directors; they can be any directors of the regional district.

Hon. D. Marzari: That is correct. They work with two other directors, whether or not they are electoral area directors. They can work with two other members of city councils. And that's important too. That pulls them into the process and gives them reason to know that they are being heard.

C. Tanner: I'm not sure that with the way you have it phrased that there isn't an ambiguity there, because it sounds to me like you need the word "any" in order to be more specific. As it reads now it almost appears -- and that's, in fact, how I first read it -- like the other two directors have got to be electoral area directors. I think it might be an amendment which would make it clearer in law, should this go to court, and might make it easier for the minister in future, if she made that definition.

Hon. D. Marzari: It could be as the member suggests, except that in some areas there aren't two other electoral area directors, and having the critical mass of directors to bring forward a request for facilitation is an important one. So that's basically the way we've "writ" it. The electoral area director could well couple himself or herself with two other electoral area directors to bring forward a concern.

L. Fox: One of the first points I want to address in this section is in subsection (2): "On being notified that a regional growth strategy has been initiated, the minister may designate..." -- or appoint -- a facilitator. First of all, I guess that begs the question: at what point does the minister envision this process to be initiated? Is it when one municipality comes forward and suggests that it would like to see a growth strategy started? What is "initiated" really considered to be?

Hon. D. Marzari: The official initiation of the process is the first motion brought to the regional district board that there be a regional planning process. Once that motion is passed, we would consider that the process has been initiated. Obviously, in most instances that we're dealing with now in the high-growth regions, they're already well underway. But for future programs, it's obvious that we're going to have to stipulate that the first motion that a regional growth strategy be initiated will be the takeoff point.

L. Fox: Then a further question -- because it says that the minister is allowed to designate, or may appoint, a facilitator at that point in time.... Obviously -- I would hope, at least -- we wouldn't immediately be appointing somebody until there is something for that individual to do, and that it would happen somewhere down the road when it becomes obvious that there is a need, and something for that facilitator to be doing. That's one question.

[ Page 14140 ]

The other question is: how does the minister envision the facilitator's office? Is it going to be an independent office within a region, and therefore staffed and so on? Is it going to utilize some of the administration within that existing regional district, perhaps, in order to be cost-effective?

Hon. D. Marzari: I think that is to be negotiated between the ministry and the individual region. Obviously we are concerned about costs. In fact, that was one of the major concerns raised in the consultation as we went around the province, and that's why we are going out of our way not to inject a huge budget into the program. But we are going to try to bring good people to the program and elicit good support from the local communities. Where the facilitators are housed and who their support staff is will be negotiated with the regions in which they're working.

L. Fox: Would the minister then explain to the committee what she would envision as a typical office structure for a facilitator?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, I wouldn't do that, for the obvious reason that I don't want to prejudge how different regions might want to establish or structure the facilitator's role. I think it would be prejudging the issue to say anything prescriptive about what it should look like and where it should be located.

L. Fox: That concerns me a bit, because it would appear to be something like writing a blank cheque. Bureaucracies have a way of growing, and once they're established it's very difficult to control. It would seem to me that there would be specific guidelines given as to what the structure should be. If they are truly only a facilitator, then it should be rather simple to do that. I don't understand how we could be entering into a process where we're not sure how many facilitators would be utilized throughout the province. We're not sure what each structure is going to look like; therefore we're not sure what the costs would be. It seems to me that some estimates, and some thought, must have been given to this whole process before the minister agreed that it would be at provincial expense.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Marzari: It might be that regions have developed their growth strategy to a point where all they need to do is integrate it into the purposes of this bill, and where we can proceed without a facilitator. It may be that the GVRD is at a point where we should simply negotiate how they plug in what they've already done and get on with the job of signing some implementation agreements. In some other regions it may be that the services of a facilitator might not be required; there may be somebody in the regional district administration or in one of the municipalities who is capable of taking on this job. At the very minimum, when a facilitator is required, it may be simply a consultant, based downtown -- although I would hope not -- who would make regular visits to the region, oversee a plan as it's coming into place and try to deal with some troubleshooting.

At the other end of the scale, there might be the need for a full-time person to help draw people around the table, solve some disputes and ensure that the program unfolds, the planning gets done and the appropriate resolutions come to the board at the appropriate time. It's very difficult to say. Obviously some thought has been given to the role of the facilitator and what kind of person that should be; some thought, too, has been given to the budget within the ministry as to how we can readjust what we have so it doesn't overwhelm the planning function of the ministry itself.

I can guarantee the member that the costs are not going to be exorbitant, and ministry staff is not going to be expanded to deal with the program. We are adjusting inside the ministry to maintain our existing staffing levels and still incorporate the regional planning program. I anticipate no expanded bureaucracy, which was one of the messages that came back to me from the municipalities and regions involved. I do envisage, though, a couple of people -- consultants or staff members or people that we can agree on with the regions -- that will help to monitor and see the planning process through.

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: I am delighted to welcome to the precincts today 28 grade 7 students visiting from my riding, the riding of Richmond East. There are here with Mrs. Aitchison, a teacher, and they're representing Garden City Elementary School. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Fox: The first question I'm always tempted to ask after a member from Richmond introduces a group of students is whether or not they're in portables.

Back to the minister. I was somewhat relieved when I heard the minister talk. Earlier in debate on this legislation, I was convinced in my mind that we were going to have these facilitators all over the province, and it was going to be an automatic structure. From what I hear the minister saying, a facilitator may not even need to be appointed. If there are some examples out there where municipalities have been able to come far enough through the process without a facilitator, that would tell me that other municipalities and regions might be able to achieve the same thing.

That begs the question: does the minister envision that a pool of facilitators might be prequalified -- although maybe not utilized -- so a region may say: "This guy or this gal is someone we could work with"? Is it going to be that kind of situation, or is it going to be a reactive situation, rather than a proactive structure?

Hon. D. Marzari: I should add once again -- and I think I've said it 15 times so far during the course of the legislation -- that the legislation itself has largely been written and driven and demanded by the municipalities and regions of this province. The facilitator was not something that sprung full blown out of the brains of Municipal Affairs staff. In fact, the necessity for someone to help was requested by the municipalities and the regions of the province themselves, sometimes saying: "Look, we can't do this on our own; you have to help."

Municipal Affairs has helped in the past. This is a formal declaration that the provincial government is prepared to send someone out to help with creating tables, pulling together thoughts, amalgamating materials and assisting with 

[ Page 14141 ]

dispute resolution. This is a response, not a coercive effort by the provincial government to facilitate where they're not wanted. It is, in fact, a response to requests for help that local governments feel they must have to deal with those issues that transcend their local boundaries.

Regional planning in its old context doesn't ring true with many municipalities in this province. There's a desire by the municipalities to create or recreate a sense of being in charge without necessarily recreating a whole regional planning structure. What we have is this measure that will send out people from the provincial government to assist in the development of regional growth plans without necessarily structuring a whole apparatus called regional planning. This is a response to an issue raised by municipalities and regions. It's an issue that we're trying to address in response to them.

Can we be proactive? I think the legislation is proactive in terms of process. It works with municipalities that have been asking for help. But we are reacting as well. So I want to assure the member that we are not dealing with a breed of people who run through the province with their own notions in mind about what land use should look like and how transportation corridors should be developed. This is an attempt by the Municipal Affairs ministry to respond to an outstanding request.

L. Fox: I'm not trying to belabour the point, but I think the role of the facilitator is going to be extremely important in some areas and under some circumstances, because this legislation does have the ability to pit one community against another. To get over that situation, the role of the facilitator is going to be extremely important. My question is whether or not a list of individuals who are going to be prequalified as facilitators is going to be available so that regions can then choose somebody that they feel some comfort with, or somebody who has a background that they can relate to and feel comfortable with, so that they can move forward.

Hon. D. Marzari: Let me guarantee the member that if a facilitator is going to be designated by the minister, there will be consultation with the regions so that there will be some comfort. I can't promise the member that there will be a pool of facilitators lined up against a wall for regions to choose from.

The Chair: Clearly, fighting words.

L. Fox: It is, because it kind of belittles what I was trying to say. All the way through, the minister is suggesting that this is bottom-up legislation, not top-down. This is one of the areas where it's top-down, and I'm trying to get the minister to concede that there should be a process of identifying a facilitator that would work within a region more comfortably than others. The municipalities and regions might be more comfortable with one person over another. We see that every day in mediation, arbitration -- you name it. I am trying to get some commitment from the minister that that kind of relationship is going to exist and that municipalities are going to continue to enjoy what the minister appears to be so proud of: the bottom-up structure.

I would like to make one other observation on a statement the minister made a few minutes ago about all this being requested by the UBCM and the regions. I have been through that process, and I've seen how legislation sometimes.... It may have been intended, and the discussion and the dialogue was to achieve a specific action, but in the end, for various reasons the legislation does not meet the test. That's the reason we go through here.... Just because the UBCM is happy with it -- in my view that's great -- doesn't mean that everything within it has been discussed and refined.

Section 7, section 942.18 approved.

On section 7, section 942.19.

C. Tanner: I have a quick question. Section 942.19(2) says: "Acceptance of a regional growth strategy by an affected local government must be done by resolution of the local government." I take it that's a simple majority.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

C. Tanner: Throughout this whole section 942 and all its sections, it appears to me that there are time frames and compulsion later on -- time frames in that if you don't want to accept it you've got 120 days to say why, and compulsion as to reasons why you can't accept it, and even potential exceptions made for the jurisdiction which is saying: "We don't want it, but maybe you can give it to the rest of them." To borrow a phrase from the member for Prince George-Omineca, "bottom-up and top-down," this is another section where it's a little bit top-heavy, particularly on the individual municipality dealing with its region. I wonder whether the minister would comment on the fact that in subsections (6) and (7), particularly in (7), is the feeling that the people that don't accept it are some sort of pariahs and that we've got to lean on them so heavily that we'll only give them 120 days. Why shouldn't a district have a different view from its surrounding municipalities? I can think of an exception very close to this building: Oak Bay, which has been notorious for being different from everybody else around it. Is there no way of accommodating that sort of exception to the rule?

Hon. D. Marzari: First of all, it must be declared at the outset that the planning process that we have to engage in here has to have an outside max. There has to be closure. We cannot roll these plans along year after year after year, with local governments saying, "We just can't come to closure; we can't come to agreement," and the provincial government reasonably helpless to deal with that fact. Local government -- and this was an issue around which there was a great deal of discussion at the UBCM -- wants closure; they want to get involved with implementation agreements. The provincial government wants closure and wants to engage in bona fide contracts with different agencies of government. Deadlines were set to prevent stonewalling. Deadlines were set by the municipal governments. In fact, many municipal governments said 120 days is too long; after all, the regional district and the municipalities will have been engaged in this for two years before the 120-day sign-off comes along.

So there are two years -- let's assume that it's about two years -- for the initial preparation of the plan. Then once the plan has gone through its public hearing and it's signed off and sent back to the municipalities, one can only say that there has to be a set period of time for the municipalities to say yea or nay: "Yes, we can live with this" or "No, we can't live with this." In fact, there are two years after that for the munici-

[ Page 14142 ]

palities to in effect adjust their official community plans to make a statement back to the regional district about how they intend to fit themselves into a plan they've already agreed to. These are outside maxs. I'm sure that most communities that engaged in the consultations would like to see them bumped along in a much faster mode than what's presented in the legislation. But for due caution, for proper diligence and to ensure that there's no sense of coercion, we did stretch the time out to 120 days in the particular provision that we're talking about here to ensure that municipalities had full opportunity.

But I don't imagine that municipalities will be going to the full max, using all that time to come in with context statements or using the full time to come in with their approval of a plan. I'm sure that after two years of sitting around tables once a month discussing the context and the scope of planning, they're going to have very strong opinions which will have been articulated far before the time comes for them to make their final statements known. So basically what we have in this section has been driven by the UBCM and by the municipalities themselves saying: "You're going to have to put some deadlines on to ensure closure." Basically I have full confidence here that we're operating in a manner that's consistent with what's been demanded and what we can live with.

[4:30]

C. Tanner: Just to endorse what the member for Prince George-Omineca was saying about his experience in the UBCM.... My understanding of their attitude towards this legislation is: "What the hell, we've got nothing else to lose. We might as well go for it." Quite frankly, it sort of endorses what his experience has been.

In section 942.19(6), the statement is made that: "If an affected local government fails to act under subsection (4)(b)" -- which is a very important part of this legislation -- "within the period for acceptance or refusal, the local government is deemed to have accepted the regional growth strategy." That is a very telling statement. Why doesn't it say that it also applies to provincial government departments?

Hon. D. Marzari: We've decided, on that latter point about the provincial government being given sign-off authority and veto power over the bill and over any plan.... This was decided on by the UBCM, the city councillors and the regional district directors themselves in an effort to find a way to seek closure at each logical interval in the process. After two years of planning and 120 days of having a chance to look at it, one can only assume that municipalities that are engaged and involved, and that care about the region and larger problems they have agreed upon already, can only be deemed to be in favour if they have not responded.

C. Tanner: I agree with what the minister just said as far as the local governments are concerned, but it doesn't say anything there about the Ministry of Highways. This ministry has had a reputation in the past -- I'm not sure what kind of reputation it has now, from what's left of it -- of being very autocratic and of knowing what's best for local municipalities because they're building highways to move traffic. What happens if part of the plan includes some stratagem that means a highway, which is included in the Ministry of Highways? Where does it say anywhere in this legislation that they too are compelled? If a question is sent to them, and there is no response within 120 days, are they included automatically?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is nothing in this section to talk about provincial governments signing off from the regional growth strategy. But I can guarantee the member that while this time is elapsing -- whether it be 60 days or the 120 days for this particular section -- the technical advisory group that comes from every ministry and every Crown agency will be hard at work. It will be working as hard as the regional district itself to come up with a compatible and comprehensive provincial response -- whether it be in terms of capital planning, regulation or policy formulation -- to ensure that the framework of the regional plan can be met by the provincial government. Even while these days are elapsing, I can assure you that there will be a committee of provincial officials meeting early and continuously throughout this process to do nothing but pay attention to the structures and frameworks of the plan.

Upon closure of the plan, those contracts that hopefully will have been developed during the course of the planning process will be signed, ratified or honed to perfection or completion. The important thing here is closure of the planning process, because once the planning process is over, it can be ratified, and in five years it can be reviewed. Then we know what we've got, and the contracts can be signed, sealed and delivered. Then the provincial commitment will be visible and will be ratified.

But as this is going on, the Ministry of Highways will be seated at the table. As municipalities are ratifying, negotiating or preparing their context statements, the Ministry of Highways, among ten or 20 other agencies, will be there talking about subdivision, roads and transportation planning. That is what this bill guarantees that no other bill in the history of this province has guaranteed. Consequently, closure for the planning becomes extremely important.

C. Tanner: I don't think this bill does guarantee it, but I am reassured to a small extent by what the minister says. But would the minister be a bit more specific and tell me whether the Highways ministry, all other provincial ministries and Crown agencies are committed to the 120 days -- the same as the municipalities?

Hon. D. Marzari: The upside here is that the provincial government and its agencies are not sign-offs here. They're not signing off on the closure of the plan; they are subject to the local government's signing off on the plan. The timing of the plan is up to the regional government, not to the provincial government. When the closure happens, it's not up to Highways. Provincial agencies have no veto here; they have no power to sign off on any parts of these plans. They only have the obligation to be at the table to discuss the problems, and to make changes inside their ministries and their agencies to respond. They have the obligation to sign contracts with the region to deal with the problems that emerge and are identified, and to come up as problem-solvers. That is the obligation of the province -- not to have ownership or sign-off authority inside the time frames that are suggested here.

C. Tanner: I think the minister is walking around the subject. All I ask is a straight yes or no to the question. If the municipalities are obligated to under 120 days under this plan, 

[ Page 14143 ]

are provincial ministries -- be they what they may; the Highways ministry in particular, but also Education and all the others -- making the same commitment that you're asking of the municipalities, which is to say: "Yes, we're in" or, "No, we're out"?

Hon. D. Marzari: We've had this debate. It's not a yes-or-no answer. It's an irrelevant question.

L. Fox: I want to ask a question for some clarification around subsection (5) -- I'm so thankful for this plain language we've seen initiated in some of this legislation. Could the minister please explain the intent of subsection (5)?

Hon. D. Marzari: If all the municipalities agree sooner than 120 days, there's sign-off and ratification. If they don't, the 120-day period is, in fact, the outside maximum they're allowed to run to. Subsection (5) provides that the acceptance of a strategy is effective when all local governments have accepted the strategy before or at the end of 120 days. Subsection (6) clarifies that where the 120-day acceptance has expired and the affected local government hasn't said yea or nay, we're going to assume that the local government has said: "Okay, it's all right; we haven't complained."

L. Fox: That's what I was trying to garner out of it. It seems to me that if for some reason there's a breakdown in the system and there hasn't been official notification from the local community, there could be closure because it's perceived that because they didn't complain, there was closure. Is that what the minister is telling them?

Hon. D. Marzari: The regional board will have certainly met within that 120 days, and I'm sure that it will certainly be an item on the agenda of the regional district. The system can't really break down unless the regional district hasn't met for 120 days. Also, there's the backup proviso that a facilitator will be able to notify and help the municipality ask for an extension if it's absolutely necessary or if there's just cause for an extension. That is a possibility, as well.

L. Fox: So the minister, then, is telling me that if there were an early sign-off of 120 days, that part wouldn't be in effect, and that it only comes into effect if the 120 days has been reached. Thank you.

Section 7, sections 942.19 and 942.2 approved.

On section 7, section 942.21.

L. Fox: I would like, at this time, to propose an amendment. In actual fact, the amendment would come into a number of clauses where the same statement is made. But, given the minister's statements.... And I apologize -- I only have one copy of this amendment, but I'll read it out. The second-to-the-last line of subsection (3) says: "...if the minister considers that these parties will not be able to reach agreement...." My amendment would replace those words with "if these parties do not reach an agreement."

The reason for putting that amendment forward.... I think the minister has made it very clear that she didn't want people coming forward and using the offices of the ministry. Indeed, she wants the local people to work out their own strategies and their own plans. She doesn't really want to see individuals running to the minister to do it for them. What this does is encourage those parties not to use the minister's office but to work it out themselves. They and the facilitator have to determine that it can no longer be resolved locally themselves, rather than the minister determining: "Hey, this process isn't working." It puts a lot of pressure on the local governments, and it takes some pressure off the minister. As well, it will resolve and maintain the local autonomy that the minister is suggesting.

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Marzari: By the time we reach this point in the bill, we're not dealing with choices about strategies around problem-solving. We're dealing with what kind of non-binding resolution process is going to be used. There is a menu of two or three possibilities for a non-binding resolution. We're assuming that the municipalities or regions, or a combination of them, can't reach an agreement. If they can reach an agreement about which non-binding resolution process they're going to use, that's fine. But if they can't decide which of the three they're going to use, it seems to me that it's appropriate for the minister to have the ability to step in and choose one of the three non-binding resolution processes that are outlined here. This is a technique inside the dispute resolution mechanism that we've designed. It would be useful, I think, for the minister to be able to step in here, because at this point the process is crucial and can't be adjourned. It's important to get resolutions and disputes properly dealt with.

[4:45]

I would disagree with the amendment and say that the minister should be in there directing that particular process. It's probably one of few places where the minister should be involved.

L. Fox: Actually, the next several sections have the same clause in them, and this amendment I've put forward would change all the sections. I think it is very important here, if the system breaks down, for the groups themselves to identify the fact that it has broken down, and at that point they need to request help in order to resolve it. We're talking about a process that has been driven by local governments and local regions. I think we should be concerned about the authority of the minister. There may be ministers at some point in time that have reasons to step in -- political reasons or whatever -- and the way it's written, this clause essentially allows that minister to do that. If it were the other way around, where they would request help because the system has broken down, it would provide me and other people a lot of comfort in the process.

Hon. D. Marzari: I can guarantee the member that there would have to be evidence of a complete breakdown in discussions -- a breakdown on what dispute resolution method should be used; that's how far it's gone in terms of the breakdown.

It's appropriate here for me to tell you that this would be a last-resort mechanism. No minister would step in and impose a dispute resolution mechanism on any dispute unless there were good evidence -- in fact, massive evidence -- that the parties are unable to agree. After facilitation and discussion, you would have to break the impasse somewhere, and the minister is the appropriate person to break that impasse. 

[ Page 14144 ]

But it's a last-resort mechanism. I would assume that, like other items in this menu of dispute resolution, it would be used as a last resort.

In fact, their existence is a threat to ensure that disputes do not reach that point, and nobody has to end up at the minister's office saying: "Break this one for us." This shouldn't happen, and I'm assuming that it will not happen. If it does, it will be an extremely rare circumstance. So it is a mechanism to solve irresolvable differences concerning which dispute mechanism should be used.

Amendment negatived.

Section 7, section 942.21 approved.

On section 942.22.

L. Fox: I just stood up to.... In section 942.22, subsection (5) allows for the affected board and governments to come up with a different growth strategy than the one reached through the settlement process. Can the minister explain that section to me? It seems to me, once again, that we could empower the minister to lay other values on those regions.

Hon. D. Marzari: Subsection (5) basically provides that once a decision is made by a panel or an arbitrator, the proposing regional district board and its affected membership -- its local governments -- will have 60 days beyond the final arbitration in which to agree to a different resolution for the strategy. In other words, it's another flexibility inside the act that gives the regional districts another chance to come to an agreement, to find an alternative strategy to reach agreement or to find compromise where they can find closure to the planning process. It is another mechanism for the regional districts to come together again.

The whole reason for this dispute resolution, which must seem very complicated, is that we have, in provincial government -- with all our boards and agencies, and at federal levels -- immense, complicated and sophisticated dispute resolution mechanisms. We have them for all occasions. The only area, the only system, for which we do not have dispute resolution is the local government level. The local government level has never, ever had any way in which to disagree with it's neighbour. The council chamber speaking through the media to another council chamber has been the way it's often done.

This legislation, which brings in regional growth management strategies, is the first attempt of any government in this province to try to bring in some kind of a system whereby municipalities can disagree with each other; sit down at tables and find some way, some common ground; go through a ladder or a menu of dispute resolution; save face; regain ground; and still continue to talk to each other. You've been in municipal government -- and I have -- and you know that there hasn't been any way to do that before.

This is a first attempt at trying to create that opportunity. I know it seems very onerous and very complex, but it is an attempt, and it has been developed in consultation with municipalities themselves. So there it sits. It's possible that you could get an arbitrated result. Hopefully nothing ever goes to arbitration -- hopefully. I would assume that the mere thought of arbitration would encourage good decision-making well before that would ever happen. But what if you get a terrible arbitrated result that nobody can live with? Two months is a good idea, to allow municipalities to sit down and say: "We can come up with something better." That's the intent of subsection (5).

L. Fox: I guess I don't have any problem with two months to reconsider an arbitrated result. What I am concerned about, though, is that if a municipality goes through this process, informing its electorate of the objectives they're trying to achieve.... It's gone through the public process in their own community, and they move on into this part because they haven't been able to achieve unanimity. At the end of the day, after the public process is all finished, their stated objectives and goals have all changed through this process, and they come back to their electorate and say: "I'm sorry. We represented your views, your opinions, the wishes of the community, but what we've got now doesn't reflect that." Because there's no public process to bring this back and inform your electorate, this could in fact be a very counterproductive part of this legislation.

Hon. D. Marzari: I don't think the member is disagreeing with the 60 days; I think the member is saying that there's nothing in subsection (5) or anything thereafter to suggest that the municipality must go back for public consultation. Let me just use other sections of the bill to say that there's every reason to suppose that the facilitator could respond and say: "Yes, there should be an extension here so that public participation can occur." The municipalities themselves can say: "We think we're coming up with something better; we'd like a further extension" -- which could be granted if that's necessary because of the need for public consultation. So I don't think the member should worry, because other flexibilities can be found within the pages of this act to enable the new compromise deal to be properly canvassed.

Section 7, sections 942.22 and 942.23 approved.

On section 7, section 942.24.

L. Fox: I would ask the indulgence of the Chair, because these sections are very long and my notes are long, and if you rapidly do that.... I know some folks here only come in for the entertainment, but there are others who come in to do the people's work. I would just ask that the Chair give time to go through....

The Chair: Absolutely, member. Do you want me to step back to section 942.23? I can certainly do that. I will give you a moment.

Section 7, sections 942.24 to 942.26 inclusive approved.

On section 7, section 942.27.

C. Tanner: I have a couple of points here. First, I have a little problem with the sudden appearance of the words "greater board" in section 942.27(2). Greater board is defined in the definition clause as being that which appears in a later section. I'm just wondering how we could have it appear before it has been defined, first of all; and second, when you look at the one it refers to in the definition clause.... Section 943(1) says that the appropriate act is repealed, and I don't find -- unless I've lost it -- a definition of "greater board."

[ Page 14145 ]

Hon. D. Marzari: Greater board is defined in section 942.1. It means a greater board as defined in section 943(1). A greater board is basically a greater Vancouver water, sewage or drainage district, or one of the improvement districts that would call itself a board. It basically refers to the GVRD. It's the corporate body incorporated by an act, with responsibility for the provision of water or sewage and drainage services. I've got all three, and there are only a few of them in the province.

C. Tanner: I don't want to make a point about it, but maybe I've missed something in the flipping backwards and forwards of all these pages. It might be worth the minister's time to have somebody look at it. I suspect that you've got a misinterpretation here and that you don't end up with what you want to end up with. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, because I think it might have happened. Section 942.27(1) reads:

"All bylaws adopted by a regional district board after the board has adopted a regional growth strategy, and all works and services undertaken by a regional district after the board has adopted a regional growth strategy, must be consistent with the regional growth strategy."

My question to the minister is: does that grandfather in everything that is existing as of that date?

Hon. D. Marzari: This basically refers to future bylaws after a plan has been passed. It demands consistency with the plan, which is appropriate, since the plan has been developed by those who wish to abide by a plan.

[5:00]

C. Tanner: The objective in bringing up that particular point was to assure municipalities -- when they read this legislation -- that having gone through this process, they then don't have to upgrade the present circumstances in which they find themselves, but from there on in they have to meet the standards that have been set by the regional board. That's correct, isn't it?

C. Serwa: Section 942.27(3) says: "A regional growth strategy does not commit or authorize a regional district, municipality, greater board or improvement district to proceed with any project that is specified in the regional growth strategy." The concern that has been brought to my attention is similar to a law case that took place with respect to Maple Ridge. The municipality, I guess, had decided in their plan to reserve land for a road crossing. They went beyond the authority given to them under the Municipal Act with their particular plans. Obviously, even the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had not selected a route. The concern is that this particular section 942.27 and subsection (3) would tend to reverse that. It does appear to give this type of planning the opportunity for expropriation without any compensation whatsoever. It appears that even if they have no intention of carrying out the project, under this the land can be zoned in such a manner, or designated for a specific purpose, that the property owner has no recourse to an open market. There's no recourse to an open market simply because any other use does not conform with this particular plan. In effect, it appears to be expropriation without compensation and would reverse the court decision that was recently made in the Maple Ridge case.

Hon. D. Marzari: As I stated yesterday, there is no attempt anywhere in this legislation to reverse or challenge any court decisions that have been made, with particular reference to the Maple Ridge court case.

This section 942.27(3) basically does not -- nor does this act -- talk to specific land use decisions. In fact, land use decisions are made by municipal councils. That's where regional planning ran into difficulty in its last incarnation. This bill does not refer to land use decisions; that is a municipal council's decision. Rather, these are general principled policies for planning purposes that the regional growth strategies are about. The municipal councils will be bringing themselves into conformity with the regional strategies. So that's item number one. There's no effort or desire to change goalposts here.

The reason for section 942.27(3) is that it's entirely possible that a regional district may have to have other approvals or other bylaws in order to proceed with implementation of specific plans -- that's all. This is to say that the plan does not itself give the regional district the authority to say they can proceed unilaterally.

In fact, this section 942.27(3) is a check and balance on a regional district. It must proceed with developing the appropriate approval processes or bylaws that are required. Similarly, it might be that the regional district may not have the dollars, may have to raise the dollars and may have to sign an implementation agreement with the province in order to implement a piece of the plan. Once again, section 942.27(3) is a check and balance to ensure that the regional district goes through the appropriate procedures -- like, for example, raising the dollars -- without using the plan as an authority in and of itself.

So there's no attempt here to expropriate without compensation or to challenge any law. In fact, here there's a further guarantee to municipalities that a regional district isn't going to do things that are not within the confines of its mandate and that take it beyond the ability a regional district has -- things that municipalities haven't previously agreed to in total.

C. Serwa: I'm certainly pleased to hear the minister's remarks with that, because there was a concern.

I guess, in the course of the section-by-section debate and also the second reading debate, it's still not clear to me exactly what this growth strategy management plan will actually look like, how detailed it will be and how demanding it will be on the municipalities. The concern here is that perhaps for public use needs -- whether they be schools, corridors for roads or any public use -- the potential existed in this legislation on the planning if it were so detailed. I recognize that the broadness of the intentions will not be the specific ones the local authority must have to make. Because I'm not familiar in that area, I suppose the difficulty is to come up with a vision of what this plan will entail, how detailed it will be and how restrictive it will be on the municipality in working their orderly growth and expansion needs. Somehow that hasn't come through to me in a clear, concise form. I haven't attended all of the debate, and perhaps the minister has already endeavoured to clarify or identify it more accurately. But this one section appeared to raise cause for concern, and perhaps the minister would respond.

Hon. D. Marzari: Only to reassure the member that the municipalities are driving the bill; the municipalities are 

[ Page 14146 ]

basically in charge. The regional districts are federations of municipalities, and by municipal consent are being granted a certain power to get involved with regional growth management. The whole process of sign-offs, signing back, waiting and coming back to the table, has to do with the municipalities feeling comfortable with what they have designed here. They develop the scope, they bring on the people, and they work through a process of dispute resolution to conclusion. The municipalities are the ones ultimately responsible for the zoning or land use decisions, or for the transportation corridors that will emanate from the regional plan, and the municipalities are ultimately in the driver's seat. So I think that should give the member reason to feel comfortable here.

Section 7, sections 942.27 and 942.28 approved.

On section 7, section 942.29.

C. Tanner: I congratulate the committee on the rapidity with which we've just moved. I should say that we've had the debate, I think we've made our points and now we're down to the tidying-up section, and I have a couple of questions here. Section 942.29(3)(c) says: "...senior representatives of the Provincial government and Provincial government agencies and corporations, determined by the minister after consultation with the board." Could the minister give us some indication of who she sees...? Would that be from her department, or would it be from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways? What sort of people does she contemplate those members of the advisory committee would be?

Hon. D. Marzari: All appropriate ministries and Crown corporations have to commit with this clause, to sitting at the table if a regional board requests it. The commitment from the provincial government is that the provincial government will be providing representatives from its agencies, corporations and ministries. I will be making the decision as to how that should take place and who will be shipped out to work with the regions, or who at the regional level will be asked to sit at the table. That will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to coordinate, and that is the firm commitment that this bill represents. As I said yesterday, that's one of the reasons that municipalities wanted to see this bill, because they are going to see a firm commitment from the provincial government to sit at local tables.

C. Tanner: How would the composition of that committee...? That advisory committee is only an advisory committee, and it can only give advice to the board. Are they able in any way...? Can the minister see whether they would be holding up...? Because of technicalities, they could hold up the progress of this whole plan because a particular ministry -- and I have in mind Highways again -- might have a different agenda.

Hon. D. Marzari: The regional districts and the municipalities that I've conferred with expect that this process is going to expedite and improve communications with the ministries. The main problem that municipalities have very often is that they feel that they are not making contact with the ministries, and that they're not being heard. When you have regional people or people sent out from Victoria to listen, this guarantees that the regional districts, the municipalities and the plan will have a better chance of success.

C. Tanner: I have one final question for the minister. If for some reason.... I've seen the turf wars that sometimes happen between bureaucrats and different departments, and sometimes it's for good reason -- not very often, but sometimes. If that happens, is the progress of this legislation in any way impeded by having this committee? If the advisory committee doesn't work -- I guess that's my concern -- can everything else progress without it?

Hon. D. Marzari: I would say that if I were a regional district director preparing a plan, and the provincial government didn't have an intergovernmental agency or group that would meet and listen to and comment on my plan as I went along and prepare the potential contracts that I might want to sign, I would lose faith in the planning process.

Planning for the sake of planning is not worth the paper it's written on. I would not engage in this exercise if I did not believe that we could express a deep commitment to bring the ministries and the agencies of the provincial government together to perform and produce for the regional districts and the municipalities that are represented there. Without this, there is no closure; there is no contract. With this bill, there is contract; there is closure.

L. Fox: I have a couple of questions on this section. Firstly, one could read into this that the board could establish this intergovernmental advisory committee, and it could in some instances be quite onerous on the province. We see here who must be appointed, but we don't see any real limitations in terms of the numbers. Once again, I'm a little concerned about the point at which these folks are appointed to this committee and what the rationale is for putting them there.

We've all been on committees, and some are very useful and helpful. We've also had demands on the government sector. They've been there -- and it's costly to supply those individuals -- but the productivity has been questionable. I'm concerned that we don't have any kind of.... We've put a lot of ability in the hands of the board without any kind of accountability in the process. There could be a substantial cost to the province if you start bringing all the different ministries together on a regular basis -- your Highways people, your Health people and all the rest of them -- and expect them to participate. There are no provisions here or suggestions as to: (1) what the focus of this group should be, (2) when it should be established, and (3) what the objectives should be.

Hon. D. Marzari: The legislation provided was built on a promise, and the promise to the municipalities and regions was that the provincial government, with its interagency committee, would be there early and continuously. By "early," I would suggest that they should be there or appointed soon after the initial vote is taken by the regional district to establish a regional planning process.

[5:15]

However, it must be stated that if they are not productive, if they are not producing to the terms of reference that are established by the planning process as it is ongoing, and if they're not providing a good resource base for the exercise, then we'll have to ensure that they get clear direction from the regional districts as to what it is they should be doing and what scope they should be looking at. Obviously, how often they meet and where they live remain as things that have to be 

[ Page 14147 ]

discussed. In very many instances, we'll be able to use regional staff for different ministries of the Crown. In some others, there will have to be people sent out from central office.

But the important thing is that they are committed -- a group of individuals are committed -- from each individual ministry or Crown agency as determined by the scope of the plan itself. Obviously, if one regional district is concerned about transportation and air quality and another is concerned about water quality, you are going to have different people from different branches attending and sitting on that committee. It's very important that the committee produce. It's very important that the committee start developing the framework for contracts that might occur down the line. These interagency committees are basically the central component of the bill as far as the provincial commitment is concerned because they do lead to good contracts.

It they aren't useful, they'll not be used. If they aren't useful and they're frustrating the regional district, they'll be replaced. The intent here is to provide a service and create the framework for future action and future partnership between the province and the regional plan.

L. Fox: I want to clarify a few points. Firstly, I didn't mean that the government employees may not be useful or productive. But the process may be stalled; many meetings could be forced upon our government employees, and that is going to take away from their regular positions. Subsequently we will see additional staff demanded, and all of this because a board may establish without clear guidelines from the minister. It would seem to me.... While I understand the intent and the desire to have all provincial agencies in the process of designing this strategy, I'm somewhat concerned that what I see throughout this is that there's an unsigned cheque. There's not a lot of accountability for the dollars that may or may not be spent. That concerns me.

Section 7, section 942.29 approved.

On section 7, section 942.3.

C. Tanner: In 942.3(2) we talk about the provincial government entering into contracts with various regional growth strategy groups or boards. Would those contracts be entered into on an individual departmental basis, or would they be entered into as a group, or would they be entered into by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs? Who's the signing authority for the provincial government in this case?

Hon. D. Marzari: The ministry will be the basis for the signing authority, but basically the contracts will be government contracts, and therefore they'll be honoured by government. When it comes time to sign -- write up the contracts, promise delivery, and develop the cost-sharing arrangements -- those will be contracts, memorandums, protocols or agreements made with ministries.

C. Tanner: If it's the individual members of individual departments of provincial government who are making the arrangement, who's going to be riding herd? Obviously the regional boards are going to be interested in them, but who's going to be riding herd if they feel they're not being fulfilled? Who do they appeal to -- the minister?

Hon. D. Marzari: This bill promises internal coordination, sponsored or coordinated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the provincial side of the equation. That is the nature of the contract that this bill represents. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be making attempts to do the coordination that needs to be done, and the individual ministries will be signing the final contracts.

Section 7, section 942.3 approved.

On section 7, section 942.31.

L. Fox: This is a very important section in that it allows for review of the growth strategy. There are a couple of things here that concern me in that there doesn't appear to be any obvious trigger if we have, as I pointed out in some other concerns, certain values in an election carried forward and the people support the values of the folks that it elected. Given that there is no opt-out of this process, the review and how that review is triggered is a very important part of whether this is going to be successful. Is it an automatic...? It mentions at least every five years, so I would assume that's a maximum. What might be a minimum, and what would trigger that minimum time frame?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is no legal minimum; there would just have to be consensus among the regional districts. A municipality that was newly elected and had an entirely different framework would have to convince the whole regional district or the subcomponent of it that has worked on the plan, and that would be the triggering mechanism. They would have to go through the same processes as for the initiation of the plan: the motion to the regional district, etc., for appropriate review. So there is no legal minimum here. After the closure of the plan and it's been put into place, a council can challenge the plan by requesting an overview. There has to be a majority opinion on the regional district. At five years, the same motion would have to come forward for a review of the plan.

L. Fox: That would suggest to me, then, that even at five years, if there wasn't consensus and a majority of the region agreed that a review should take place, there wouldn't be a review -- if I take the minister's last words correctly. That's one point.

The other point I would ask about as well -- and we may have touched on it earlier when we talked about the voting procedure, but I'm having difficulty recalling whether we did or not -- is whether the vote achieved to seek this review would be individual votes per identity, and not a weighted vote.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, that's correct.

L. Fox: I have just one further point, then. The minister may not have heard me, but even at five years, does it still have to be a positive vote in order to seek a review in this process?

Hon. D. Marzari: That's correct.

L. Fox: I'm concerned about that, because subsection (2) says: "At least once every 5 years, a regional district that has 

[ Page 14148 ]

adopted a regional growth strategy must consider...." It rings very hollow if one municipality is caught within that and nobody else wants to move. The municipality that may want to have its position reconsidered, and that has elected members and councils because of a circumstance, then has to rely on the goodwill of others to do that. Where they're a minority, they're in it for 20 years. There really isn't any realistic review in this unless there's goodwill among the rest of the players at the table.

Hon. D. Marzari: The attempt in this review process is to include as many people as possible, once again. It has to happen in the spirit of consensus. In subsection (3), the regional district has to provide an opportunity for reasonable consultation, once again, with persons and organizations referred to at the initiation of the process. Basically what we're looking for here is reasonable consensus around the table.

But you're right: if the majority of the regional board is not interested in reviewing or opening up the plan, or looking at an expanded scope, or reducing the scope of the plan.... If there isn't an agreement around the table to do that, then obviously the review will not proceed. But every five years there must be a consideration of a review.

I understand the member's concern. It's for the minority municipality which may decide that it doesn't want to engage. But let us remember that we're in high-growth municipalities; we're in high-growth regions. There is a tremendous intersection of problem areas. They've agreed that there's a tremendous amount of air pollution or water deterioration. These transcend their boundaries, so it's obvious that there has to be reasonable consensus around the table in order to undo a previous plan or to open it up to expand its scope. Let's just assume, then, that that municipality, having sat there for five years, is going to have a working knowledge of how to approach its colleagues and its neighbours to deal with the presenting problems.

L. Fox: I guess the minister has a lot better crystal ball than I do and is able to envision, especially in a fast-growth area, what the problems are going to be 20 years from now versus today. I want to tell you, if I'm a mayor of a municipality, especially a fringe municipality to a metro centre, I'm going to be extremely concerned about opting into this process -- because as a small player in it, I'm going to have to rely on the goodwill of the big boy to reopen it at a later date if the values change. I really believe there is going to be a whole lot of posturing and a whole lot of consideration.... Perhaps it may even stop this process from working, because there's no room for reconsideration unless it's at the goodwill of others. I think that's going to be a major flaw in the success of this plan.

Section 7, sections 942.3 to 942.32 inclusive approved.

On section 7, section 942.33.

C. Tanner: Just one quick question to the minister. When she's talking about.... Section 942.33 reads: "After a regional growth strategy has been adopted, the minister may require a municipality or regional district to adopt, within a time specified by the minister...." What sort of time frame is she thinking about?

[5:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: The staff is telling me that the time frame around this would be the typical time that it would take a municipality to pull together the appropriate plan. This is in an area where no such plan or bylaw exists -- correct? So this is where the minister is requiring a municipality or a regional district to adopt an official community plan where no such plan presently exists. So, assuming that the municipality has got a planning framework but doesn't have an official community plan, we can assume that a public hearing and putting together a plan of that nature could probably take three months to half a year.

C. Tanner: We're near the end now, and I don't want to raise an objection right out of the blue, but.... Maybe I do, though, come to think of it. Could this be seen as a back door for the minister to do what she was trying to do all the way through the act: coming back in and saying to this region: "You're not behaving as all the other regions are; you're not conforming. I'm going to impose these various rules on you, and you've got three months" -- or whatever the reasonable time to do it is? Is that in fact what's happening here in this section? The minister is coming in the back door and saying: "Look, after all else has failed, you're not complying. We've given you a reasonable number of shots at it, and you haven't done it, so this is what I'm imposing on you"?

[S. O'Neill in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: For areas that don't have any planning or framework in place, that have no stable framework so that their neighbours know what's going to happen or what's going on or so that the development community knows what's happening or what's going on.... Basically, in the context of this regional plan, we can only assume that they are players and that they are involved with it. In fact, some communities that have no planning have been engaged in consultations for the last year and a half through the workshop processes that we've conducted.

The answer to your question is yes, there's an expectation here that it's part of corporate responsibility to do some predictable planning, to engage with neighbours to do some zoning and to create a framework so your neighbours know what they can rely on.

L. Fox: This is a point of clarification. I'm hoping that the minister would agree that where planning is forced on an area, substantial growth at the very least would be envisioned. There are many regions in the rural parts of the province where there is no growth. I'm seeing this as.... If a regional director is not being responsible in terms of meeting the responsibilities that he was elected to meet.... That's where it is, in many cases; it's in the rural areas. Some of them don't even have APCs, and they should. The minister could give the regional district board authority through her ability to go into that region and force some planning to be done because it is a rapid-growth area, not a rural region.

Hon. D. Marzari: That is correct.

G. Wilson: Section 942.33 has to be read in conjunction with the previous section 942.27(3). The biggest concern I have with this entire bill is the fact that a regional growth strategy doesn't commit or authorize a regional district, municipality, board or improvement district to proceed with any project that's specified.

[ Page 14149 ]

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

We've already seen, in a subsequent section, that matters with respect to capital construction are not necessary. It relates back to Bill 25 last year, when a rather controversial section with respect to capital infrastructure, section 106, was pulled out. Yet here, under 942.33, the minister may now require the adoption of land use bylaws that will be built upon this regional growth planning strategy that may very well overlay properties purchased under a different set of land use regulations or bylaws, and that therefore may impact negatively for many, many years on lands which ordinarily had designation for development and now can't be developed.

I guess my concern with this is that if we don't have to undertake the normal kind of bylaw and regulatory authority after this growth strategy plan is in place -- if we can just use this as a mechanism to introduce bylaws without going through the normal procedure of bylaws -- then what's likely to happen, and the danger, is that by inference you may have a time lapse after the passage of the regional growth strategy where properties are deemed to be headed toward an eventual bylaw, where that bylaw may infringe upon a person's individual liberty to be able to do with their property what they had intended to do. That's a big concern.

Hon. D. Marzari: As I stated earlier today, there is absolutely no effort, no intent -- and I hope my words are used if that should ever to come to pass as an accusation through a court -- and no spirit here to engage in any expropriation by zoning or government.

The regional plan is not a land use plan. It does not have to do with the microzoning that only municipalities can do. That is what we respect in this bill. That is integral to the bill and the reason that the bill has such consensus among municipalities.

There are very few -- one or two -- incorporated areas inside high-growth regions that have zero zoning, no zoning and no plan. It's very important inside a high-growth area for there to be some predictability and some stability of land use, so that there can be some form of planning. Neighbouring communities and regional districts have insisted that there is uniformity of purpose around this particular clause. For those very few -- one or two -- communities that have not brought themselves into the rubric of even having a one- or two-page official community plan, it's extremely important that they come to the table at the regional district, become a partner, engage in defining the scope, and work with the development of the official development plan or the regional growth strategy. This section deals only with one or two communities in high-growth regions; it deals with a consensus of regional districts and municipalities. The communities know who they are, they've engaged in workshop discussions and they're concerned. But their neighbours have stated explicitly that there can be no planning if one or two of their neighbours don't have official community plans. This section requests a basic minimum from a very few players.

G. Wilson: I just want to clarify this position again in light of that previous section. We should take some comfort, then, in the words of the minister today. I think it's very important to clarify it, and I clarify it in light of a section of the reasons for judgment from Justice Saunders, with respect to a matter -- which has already been raised once, and that's the question with respect to the transportation corridor -- between the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, and Peter Kenward and Raymond Young. Looking at those reasons for judgment, the judge makes it fairly specific that it suggests that because there had been no commitment to proceed -- and I'm paraphrasing.... It then goes on to say, and I quote now: "Yet this designation could cloud this property for a decade or more, without any firmer commitment made than now has been given."

This section speaks to that, because the difficulty with putting in place these intended or proposed plans is that it places over those properties, particularly those properties that are in high-growth areas, an anticipation that there will be forthcoming some form of either construction or capital program, in some instances -- i.e., sewer, water, highways -- or that it may in fact anticipate downzoning or some form of action taken by way of the bylaw stipulated in section 942.33 that will impact on those properties. If there is a time delay between the passage of the regional growth strategy and the implementation of those bylaws to enact such change in land use, then I would argue that we have people who are in limbo, effectively, and that therefore it really runs counter to what I believe is a proper application of local bylaws and regulations. I think it's important that the minister respond to that, especially in light of the reasons for judgment, which I believe she has a copy of.

Hon. D. Marzari: In the Maple Ridge decision, the judge said that if the Legislature had intended a municipality to be able to designate a transportation corridor without having funding committed, it should have said so in the Municipal Act. The judge also said that the entire OCP bylaw was not valid, because the district did not follow the requirements of the Municipal Act, which requires a council to examine the plan it has in conjunction with its most recent capital expenditure program.

We're talking OCPs here; we're not talking regional growth strategies. The extent to which any action can be taken, if ever it can be, would be dealt with under the OCP. The rules and the goalposts here are not changing anything to do with OCPs, except that municipal councils will produce a context statement that will show how they intend to work with the regional growth strategy by referring to their OCP when regular review comes up. It will all be within the context of OCP review, which has to happen every five years anyway and which most municipalities do on a regular basis. What we're doing here is perfectly within the parameters of what has been done for many years -- only we're assisting municipalities in reviewing their OCPs with the regional growth strategy in mind.

G. Wilson: As was pointed out, I think rather eloquently by my colleague from Prince George-Omineca, the problem is that OCPs can be used -- and there are clauses within the section -- as functional parts of regional growth plans. In fact, one would suggest that that's a sensible application of an OCP. I don't argue with that. This section now turns around to say that you may require adoption within a specified time of "an official community plan, a rural land use bylaw, a zoning bylaw or a subdivision servicing bylaw" as a result of what's been going on. In effect, it binds them together. So I don't accept that OCPs aren't part of this process; they are.

Hon. D. Marzari: Read on to where it says, where "no such plan or bylaw currently applies" -- in other words, 

[ Page 14150 ]

where nothing presently exists. As I said, that only occurs in one or two communities in this entire province that are within high-growth areas.

G. Wilson: So the minister can commit to us today, then, that there is nothing in this bill which is going to effectively place restrictions upon land use that would be outside the ordinary and traditional and approved Municipal Act procedure for bylaw regulation and land use amendment. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, there is nothing in this bill that changes the relationship between the planning process and ownership of property.

G. Wilson: That wasn't my question. My question is: if there is now going to be a movement toward placing an OCP or a rural land use bylaw or a zoning bylaw...? Let me use Powell River as an example, where there are no land use bylaws in place. There's no zoning in the Regional District of Powell River. In fact, they have steadfastly resisted putting that in place. If for some reason.... I don't suppose that it would qualify immediately, but if they were forced into this process, then presumably the minister could overlay that regional growth plan as a functional part of what would ultimately be an official community plan or bylaw. Any properties affected by that are going to be restricted in terms of their ability to develop until such time as that process is complete, and that process could be three, five or ten years.

[5:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: Neither the court order nor the judge's decision or anything in this bill turns a regional growth strategy into an OCP. There is no connection and there is no intent -- in spirit or otherwise -- to have a regional district do zoning that only a municipality can do. Municipalities are responsible for their zoning and their OCPs, and this act does not interfere with that in any way.

G. Wilson: That clarifies half of it. If the minister can clarify the remaining half, I'll be satisfied. Is it correct to say that a regional growth plan or strategy may not be used by a regional district or a local municipal government to restrict land use that would ordinarily be permitted under the existing zoning regulations as a result of an anticipated change in land use bylaws that may be coming forward? That has happened in a number of regional districts where they have used this anticipated land use change to prevent development permits from being given.

Hon. D. Marzari: No zoning; no permits. This act does not relate to zoning, nor does it relate to any permit distribution system. It is strictly a statement of goals and aspirations, and planning tools for the province and regional districts and municipalities to come together to do good servicing and to create some problem-solving around issues that have been identified by the municipalities themselves.

Section 7, section 942.33 approved.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

C. Tanner: I have to ask on behalf of the islands that exist in my constituency whether section 12 -- the new 13(2.1) -- doesn't add yet another layer of bureaucracy on those poor people who live on the Gulf Islands who try to get things done and are invariably frustrated, taking years to do what we can do anywhere else in months.

Hon. D. Marzari: At the present time, all islands do refer their bylaws to the regional districts. That is a matter of courtesy. This entrenches that and helps encourage the prospect that there will be a coordination between the planning that goes on by the Islands Trust and the service provision that the regional districts are engaged in.

C. Tanner: Would the minister give me the assurance that there is no further add-on to the process that goes on in the Gulf Islands now -- this is merely substantiation of something that already happens?

Hon. D. Marzari: The only add-on would be better coordination. So I will say that there is no add-on.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

C. Tanner: Again, for the Gulf Islands.... Could section 15 allow, should they so want it, the Gulf Islands to form their own regional group or community -- all of them together or any parts of them?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, that's not the intent of section 15.

C. Tanner: The intent of section 15 is to coordinate service agreements with regional districts -- I understand. But is there an ability under section 15, or anywhere in this act, for the trust islands to form their own regional district?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, there is not.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

C. Serwa: The question I have is with respect to section 20(1). It's not clear to me why or how a regional district may be exempted from the Municipal Act. Perhaps the minister could clarify the circumstances -- whether they're simply relating to statutory times, or what type of exemptions the minister foresees with this latitude.

Hon. D. Marzari: In the GVRD, where there is a plan ongoing and there has been for some years, it's important that we don't force the regional district to go all the way back to square one before it plugs into this bill. This provision basically allows the Greater Vancouver Regional District to sit down with our staff and allow their plan to be ratified and worked into the context of the bill -- where they're at now, which is close to completion, close to closure. It basically allows for an exemption from the articles of this bill to allow for a recognition, by the provincial government, of an existing planning program.

C. Serwa: Was this, then, specifically with respect to Vancouver? Or was the intention also to extend that latitude 

[ Page 14151 ]

-- or is it necessary to extend it -- to other areas of the province? I know that the legislation has to be consistent and applicable to the rest of the province. Are there any other areas where this would occur or is necessary?

Hon. D. Marzari: Other regional districts might have made some preliminary steps, such as the Nanaimo Regional District. Certainly they would also be covered by this particular section of the bill.

Section 20 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Marzari: With great relief and with great thanks for the admirable work of staff and many people over the last year and a half, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Marzari moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; L. Krog in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 26: minister's office, $343,000.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm pleased to be here and to begin the estimates for 1995-96. First I want to introduce the people who are with me and acknowledge their support: my deputy minister, Brenda Eaton; assistant deputy minister, Peter Ostergaard; assistant deputy minister, Bruce McRae; senior financial officer, Jennifer Smith; and executive director of revenue and operations, Joan Hesketh.

These are the people who make my comments possible and who help me with the detail that I know the opposition critic wants to have for his questions. Certainly the other ministry staff have been extremely helpful in our work over the year, and I know we have an excellent staff in place to do the work that is upcoming in 1995-96.

This year's priorities of government, as we said very clearly in the budget speech, include jobs and prosperity. That's very much a part of what this ministry's estimates are going to address. We also support medicare. I am not sure if we are going to be addressing that too directly, but it is part of the government's direction for the year. I hope you will consider our presentation in light of the goals of the government overall.

The mining and energy sectors are important contributors to the economic well-being of the province. They represent 9 percent of provincial government revenues, 5.6 percent of the gross domestic product, and more than 13 percent of B.C.'s exports, and they employ 13,600 people directly in the mining sector. That's probably the largest chunk of people, so that is the number we use.

I'm going to begin by talking about energy, which is an issue in this province that's not highly controversial right now but certainly significant and important. I'm going to talk about the B.C. Energy Council, which completed work on energy planning late last fall. The council concluded that the province has ample reserves of energy -- certainly of hydro power, natural gas and coal -- but the impact of generating electricity is beginning to exceed the environment's capacity to absorb those impacts.

The council's report is far-ranging. It includes recommendations involving new energy efficiency standards for vehicles and buildings, including houses and other buildings; expanding energy efficiency standards to include products that are not already regulated; and exploring non-traditional power sources and incorporating energy efficiency as a priority in community design. Our government will be announcing our response to the B.C. Energy Council's proposals and action plan this spring.

Although a formal announcement will come later, we have already begun many activities that do respond to the recommendations of the council. We have enhanced energy efficiency standards, and we have expanded the AirCare program. You will note that I go beyond our own ministry, because we have been looking for governmentwide response. We are undertaking other initiatives under our clean vehicles and fuels program as well as establishing the community energy planning program through B.C. 21 Power Smart.

That brings us, of course, to discuss the B.C. 21 Power Smart program a bit. Our ministry in particular is working with the community-based energy efficiency program, which is a true grassroots component of B.C. 21 Power Smart. This $2.8 million program goes beyond the broader general program, which addresses energy and water savings. We'll see the installation of energy- and water-saving devices in an estimated 75,000 B.C. homes. That number will be added to by the 8,000 homes involved in the very comprehensive community-based program. Overall, a total of 83,000 homes will have the opportunity to know more about energy and water efficiency and the ability to do something about it.

The community-based program, which, as I said, is of particular interest to this ministry, will feature a 50 to 80 percent level of participation of homes in approximately four 

[ Page 14152 ]

communities around the province -- we've already designated Golden and Osoyoos. There will be extensive community involvement through a local steering committee. We will have an energy management plan generated for each of these communities.

In addition, there will be public education and awareness aspects to the program so that people will become more and more aware of how they can save energy. They will be presented with some things through the general program, such as water heater insulating jackets, but they will be able to purchase other products from local retail merchants who will be involved in the planning. They will be able to have them installed by local tradespeople who will be involved in the community process.

I believe this level of involvement will give stability to the establishment of energy conservation in those communities and will make sure that it goes on from one home to the next, from one generation to the next, from neighbour to neighbour, and so on.

The national energy code is being revised. We are working with the national energy people to put in place a new energy code to protect consumers and building owners by ensuring that these new homes and new buildings do not waste energy. For example, in February 1994 the ministry was successful in achieving a new energy standard for residential buildings, which has resulted in energy savings of about 25 percent for every house that has met those standards.

[2:45]

We are now doing another review of the code, obtaining public input on new standards for British Columbia through stakeholder committees made up of representatives of associations, designers, contractors, building inspectors, environmental groups and other interested parties. These new standards will be introduced through an implementation program that ensures that the industry -- by that I mean the builders, designers, suppliers and so on -- is well staffed and has sufficient tools for effectively administering and enforcing the program. Energy savings from this round of discussions on the code are expected to be 10 percent for the average house and 7 percent for commercial buildings.

To go back to the B.C. Energy Council, one of its recommendations was that B.C. Hydro put forward a request for proposals for private power; that has happened. B.C. Hydro has put forward a request for 200 to 300 megawatts of supply, and 48 responses were received. Five of these submissions are conservation-based and are dependent on demand-side management. The other 43 are supply-side bids, which have proposed construction of generation facilities on various scales. Most of them would use natural gas for thermal generation, some of them would use waste wood, some of them would use small hydro, and so on. This reflects the government's commitment to partnership in power production between the private and the public sectors and the urgency to test the competitiveness of wood waste on the energy market.

Currently the B.C. Utilities Commission is engaged in an electricity market structure review. It's looking at ways of matching the needs and the wants of customers much more closely. That review will conclude by summer, and the recommendations will come to government. Our government has been encouraging public input on issues at the hearings, which include regulation/deregulation and feelings on competition -- those kinds of things. We need a policy that is not made somewhere else, but made here in British Columbia to meet the needs of British Columbians. I expect that government will be able to respond to that report from the B.C. Utilities Commission within a very short time, a matter of months.

The electrical systems operation review was completed last June. The government received that report and has responded to the review. We released our response on April 27, and our response directs that certain actions be taken by B.C. Hydro. With input from the federal and provincial governments, as well as from other stakeholders, B.C. Hydro has been asked to coordinate and expand some of its existing programs and to add new mitigation and compensation programs to better address operations' impacts where cost of service is appropriate to be put to B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro will also address some specific information gaps that were identified in their own review. They will establish ongoing consultation processes that will ensure that the corporation continues to consult with customers and with first nations, and for all of this, it was asked to respond to government within 120 days with a plan for what it was planning to do.

I am delighted to remind members that the government has completed the legislation for the Columbia Basin accord; we completed that this week. This allows an allocation of funds which have come from the negotiation of how the entitlement should be returned to B.C. under the Columbia River Treaty for downstream benefits. It allows the return of that money partly to the region where the historical compensation was inadequate and partly to address the issue of debt in British Columbia. So it's all positive.

Now moving to the oil and gas part of the ministry.... On the oil and gas front in 1994, we drilled 520 wells in British Columbia. That is an all-time high. The previous record was 395 wells, which was set in 1979. We don't expect that the exceedingly frantic pace -- I think that's a fair way to describe it -- of last year will continue this year, but it will be a busy year. We expect $178 million in petroleum and natural gas royalties and taxes this year.

We have been working at the regulatory side. We have taken an active part in the National Energy Board proceedings. We were involved in presettlement negotiations on Westcoast Energy's tolls, which were subsequently dealt with at the hearing. The ministry has been involved in Westcoast facility applications through an interagency coordinating committee which is co-chaired by this ministry and Environment, Lands and Parks.

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources intervened on behalf of the province in support of the recent Aitken Creek application at the 1995 National Energy Board facilities hearing. This hearing raised issues such as tolling, risk and jurisdiction. On the latter issue, of course, the ministry is proceeding on negotiations with the federal government, with the goal of transferring regulation of Westcoast's facilities within the province to the province.

We are working closely with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Forests and industry to develop a solution to the operating and maintenance problems which have affected the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan Road over the past several years. The Highways ministry has agreed to assume responsibility for identifying, administering and monitoring maintenance activities for the entire road. The 

[ Page 14153 ]

province will continue with its annual funding of $200,000 for maintenance. The balance will be paid by industry on a user-pay principle. This plan will be finalized and implemented during the next two or three months.

Over this coming year we will continue to work on assuring that the petroleum and natural gas tenure system is up to date. That will take a considerable amount of attention.

Turning to mining, I wanted to talk a bit about our provincial mineral strategy, which we introduced in 1993. In keeping with that strategy, over the last year we were able to establish the British Columbia Advisory Council on Mining to follow up on and implement the recommendations of the Whitehorse mining accord. That, of course, was a national initiative, which involved all of Canada's provinces, the federal government and stakeholders, including the corporate side of industry, the workers' side of industry, environmentalists, first nations and academics. They all worked together to arrive at this accord.

This mining advisory council has been established to carry out the work -- nearly all of it provincial work -- that the accord suggested should be done. It will provide advice to me and the ministry, and it will serve as a forum for stakeholder concerns. It will develop a statement of commitment for mining. It is working on this statement right now; I hope it will come out very soon.

The establishment of the council certainly demonstrates our continuing support for the mineral industry. This support was very clearly made last year when we committed a $100 million incentive package for the industry. One of the projects that the council will provide input on is a revision to the mine health and safety code.

Explore B.C. is one of the programs that respond to a priority we had in our mineral strategy to revitalize exploration. We want to get the work done. It is going to identify tomorrow's mines. In order to stimulate this exploration, we introduced tax relief and incentives last year, which, as I mentioned, have a value of more than $100 million over five years. We are seeing success in that area. In 1994, our exploration expenditures were up by 36 percent over 1993. They totalled nearly $100 million.

Despite this turnaround, we believe that it's important that we continue the Explore B.C. program and continue that bit of support that we can give at the exploration level. Therefore our Explore B.C. program remains in place this year with $2.5 million, plus the prospectors' assistance program, which remains intact.

The mining industry is on the up side of a cycle. In January British Columbia was very fortunate to be able to recognize the first mine to be opened in western Canada in the last five years: the Eskay Creek mine. As well, over the last short while through the office of the job protection commissioner, the government provided assistance to facilitate the reopening of the Gibraltar and Similco mines. Afton-Ajax was reopened as a result of increased copper prices, and Byron Creek's Coal Mountain has been purchased by Fording Coal. Again, this was one in which the job protection commissioner was involved. That mine will be expanded and will be operating within the thermal coal market globally.

At Cassiar, a company is actively pursuing the viability of reprocessing old tailings, which may eventually lead to restarting a mine there. There are two advantages to this: one is the economic development of the area, and the other is a cleanup of the old mine tailings site.

Quesnel River gold mine near Williams Lake is under construction, and production is scheduled for the summer of 1995. Construction is also planned.

Construction is also planned for fall 1995 at the Bralorne mine. Bralorne, of course, is another historic mine in British Columbia, but reopening it is almost like a brand-new opening. It hasn't been in operation for some considerable time. In total, there are 22 operating mines in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: That's a good one.

Hon. A. Edwards: I think it's a great mine.

Coal is making great gains on the international market. Last year metallurgical coal production approached the pre-1992 levels, which, of course, were very, very high levels for the province.

This year prospects are looking better and better; it looks like we will have an improvement this year. Prices for all major B.C. metals were higher in 1994 than they were in 1993, and we expect that 1995 prices will be even higher. I don't mean just for metals; I mean for all minerals, which includes coal.

As a government we have made it an objective to keep debt under control. We also want to cut red tape and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. I want to talk specifically about what we've done in the budget, which follows those goals.

There are a couple of items outside the core ministry budget. The first I want to talk about is vote 28 for the B.C. Utilities Commission. If you have read the blue book, you will see that $600,000 of the $630,000 funding reduction for the B.C. Utilities Commission reflects the commission's completion of its report on the Kemano completion project. We increased the budget last year; this year the budget is down again. As you know, the Kemano completion project report was tabled with the government and the commission. Though it looks like it's going to be a very busy year, we will not have anything like the level of expenses that came with that inquiry.

At the same time, the B.C. Utilities Commission is continuing work on integrated resource planning. B.C. Gas and West Kootenay Power already have their integrated resource plans, and B.C. Hydro will complete its first full-scale IRP this year.

I want to talk as well -- and this is, as I said, outside the core budget -- about the financing transaction for the Vancouver Island rate stabilization facility. You will know from previous years that this fund provides a loan to the utilities that built and operate the Vancouver Island gas pipeline and is designed to cover the operating costs of that pipeline. It is to be repaid if -- I think the contract says "when," but the question is "if" -- it starts to generate surpluses. Unfortunately, the amount of money required to finance these interim losses is much larger than was ever expected, and certainly larger than I like. To date, the province has made RSF payments to the VI gas project totalling $106 million. When the previous government announced this deal, the citizens of B.C. were told that the total RSF payments would be 

[ Page 14154 ]

$70 million. Now that it's $106 million and growing, the province is currently negotiating a new form of provincial involvement.

[3:00]

There's no question that the VI gas project has been costly to the province, and certainly far beyond the estimates of the previous government that put the deal in place. We are confident that negotiations with the company will improve the situation, but it's going to be many years before the project is profitable and before it would even be able to look at repaying any loans -- certain provincial loans -- under the agreement.

Turning back to my ministry's budget, the ministry is forecasting revenue of $390 million from the oil, gas and mineral sectors in 1995-96. Our services to the energy, mining and petroleum sectors will be delivered with 420 FTEs and a budget of $68.728 million. We are undertaking a number of initiatives to cut red tape and eliminate bureaucracy.

Last week I introduced the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, which will streamline the process for approvals to develop industrial minerals. We are working to reduce duplication with the federal government. For example, we now have a letter of cooperation in place on energy efficiency and alternative energy. This will reduce duplication, and it will ensure more effective use of public money.

We are working to clarify the role of the National Energy Board, which is something that we believe could very significantly eliminate overlap. My ministry has taken over the responsibilities for the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and that has saved us $550,000 a year. This saving was passed through to the industry in the form of a reduced levy under the Natural Gas Price Act, which you will see in your blue book as well. We have also taken over responsibility for implementation of the B.C. Energy Council's provincial energy strategy.

I should also mention that this will be the last year of the mineral development agreement between the federal and provincial governments.

All these things are occurring in a period of increased activity. Our government is continuing to make significant progress in the issue of land use. We are creating certainty for industry, and my ministry has played a strong role in this process. Working with first nations is a key element, and my ministry has been and will continue to be actively involved. One of our initiatives is the development of a handbook for our staff to provide guidance to ensure that aboriginal rights on Crown land are respected.

Delivering the Forest Practices Code is having an impact on the mining and petroleum sectors. We are developing handbooks for oil and gas practices -- we've had excellent cooperation on that, by the way -- and for mineral exploration to ensure that activities are consistent with the code's environmental objectives and so that we can streamline our administration.

To sum up extremely quickly, with the conclusion of the B.C. Energy Council's work, we are making good progress toward a sustainable energy situation in British Columbia. We are already moving on a number of the council's recommendations. On the oil and gas side, activity has been at an all-time high. Mining is on the up side of its cycle with the opening of Eskay Creek and the reopening of three mines, employing more than 600 people. I would say that, on the whole, 1995-96 looks like it's going to be a much busier year than even 1994-95.

D. Jarvis: Thank you for your opening remarks; they were very interesting. It seems like the province is in good hands in your department. However, there also seems to be a lot of people out there who don't feel the same way you do. Why, I have no idea, but I imagine we will get into it over the next couple of days.

I was surprised that you said.... I remember you saying some time ago that we have an embarrassment of riches of electricity in this province and that our conservation programs have already proven to be in order, therefore we will have no problems. Yet you talk about the impact that has on the province at this time. I will go into that further as we go on.

We will also be discussing, quite in detail later on, the impact of the Columbia Basin accord. I know you're quite pleased with it, but there is a question of its validity out there. Although we are supporting the fact that resources are going back into the Kootenays, there is a great question of whether you have a valid program with the dams that you are going to prop up in the Columbia River area.

Oil and gas is evidently doing great things in this province. From newspaper reports that I see and from your offices we can expect pretty well the same levels as we had last year as far as drilling and royalties go. With regard to tenure, there's great question throughout the industry with respect to tenure and where this government is trying to lead us. We will go into considerable detail on that.

Bureaucracy. You mentioned that your bureaucracy is down, although.... I'm sorry I missed what you said about what you're adjusting to, but I notice in the blue book that your FTEs are up from last year. I don't know how you can say that you are saving on the bureaucracy end of it if you are increasing your staff. In any event, I think we should get into the detail. I will not prolong the discussion that long in response to your opening statement.

What I wanted to ask you is: how many FTEs do you actually have now that are employed? I want to go into all the various branches of your ministry. I appreciate there are 30-odd branches in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources -- unless it has changed in the last little while -- but basically I want to ask about seven questions as to how many FTEs are employed in each branch. I'm not expecting us to go over each one at this point. I'm going to ask you to furnish me with the information, if you wouldn't mind.

I'll give you the questions now, and you can take them out of the Blues later. How many FTEs are employed in each branch, and how do you measure the performance of the personnel in that program? How do you measure the effectiveness of each branch? What are the main objectives of the programs in the branches? Have the objectives of the programs changed since they were first started? If so, how have they changed? How many FTEs are full-time employees and how many are on contract? How does this compare to last year, for example? Finally, what is the cost of these programs? That's a lot of work, so I won't expect the answers later this afternoon.

Hon. A. Edwards: Do you want me to answer?

[ Page 14155 ]

D. Jarvis: I don't think we have time. It would take up most of the day to answer for all those programs. Does the minister wish to answer all those questions for each branch at this time?

Hon. A. Edwards: It is my pleasure, hon. member, to answer every question that you want to ask me -- if I can answer it.

I was very clear in saying that we have 420 FTEs. If you have all these questions, we might as well answer them right away. There is no sense trying to run away, because we have all this information right here.

First, we have 420 FTEs; this includes 12 new positions. One of these is a transfer for freedom of information, for which we have many, many requests. That's what that employee does. We have seven for the Forest Practices Code; we have four for mineral resources. Then there were some reallocations of positions. Of course, I have already given you the 12 positions that are new, but we had six positions transferred from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which will continue the business functions within the ministry. Two of those positions are in energy resources and four in revenue and management services. We have a small staff of 1.5 in the energy resources division. I think that was a reallocation of position. Revenue and management services had one to address program priorities.

I don't know if you want each branch. We have approximately 15 branches, as we had a reorganization. We are down to five positions in minerals, six in energy and five in revenue and operations. If you will look at the staffing plan, I believe it is there, but I will make it clear. For the 1995-96 budget year, the minister's office has 5.7 positions; revenue and management services, 86; energy resources, 108.2; and mineral resources, 220.1.

How do we measure their performance? Do you want me to do that here? I would be pleased to. Perhaps I can talk about it in a general way. Basically, we have a business plan which gives us strategic priorities, goals and a list of projects. I will talk about strategic priorities in the order that they are here. The first strategic priority is responsible resource stewardship and the efficient use of energy. The goals of that particular priority are to integrate government land use plans into ministry operations and to foster responsible industry activity through sound management practices. I am sorry to be interrupted.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will resume after the division of the other House is concluded.

The committee recessed from 3:13 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.

Hon. A. Edwards: I seem to have only six questions listed, and I believe the member had eight. I will ask him if I have it right. You asked for the number of FTEs, which I have responded to. You asked what the performance measurements are for reaching our objectives. That's two questions, I believe. You asked if our objectives have changed. You asked how many employees are on contract as opposed to being full-time, and you asked for the budget for each branch. If you could clarify what else you need to know, I'll answer.

D. Jarvis: There were actually seven questions, and that was the first one: how many FTEs are employed in each branch? How do you measure the performance of personnel in those programs? How do you measure the effectiveness of the programs? What are the main objectives of the programs? Have the objectives of the programs changed since they were first started? If so, how have they changed? And how many FTEs are full-time employees? Of the FTEs, are there any contracts in each branch, and how does this compare to last year? And number seven is the cost of these programs.

Hon. A. Edwards: I started off by talking about responsible resource stewardship and the efficient use of energy, and I mentioned two goals. So I'll simply proceed to three others, which include: to implement the government's response to the B.C. Energy Council's energy strategy for B.C.; to deliver and develop policies, programs and regulations that promote economically efficient use of oil, gas and electricity; and to develop and implement revised electricity policies to take advantage of B.C.'s strong position as we enter an era of electricity industry deregulation. Those are basically the objectives. I'll talk about performance in reaching those objectives later.

The projects themselves include things in integrating government land use plans into the ministry operations such as implementing CORE regional plans; facilitating and encouraging appropriate exploration development activities in special management zones; ensuring that environmentally acceptable exploration development is recognized within planning and regulatory structures; and implementing the Forest Practices Code. I can give you a lot of detail, and we're pleased to have this detail, because it makes clear that the ministry is doing its job.

The second goal, which is fostering responsible industry activity through sound management practices, involves such things as continuing implementation of policies and programs to manage the number of oil and gas wells that have environmental or safety liabilities, but no identifiable owners -- in other words, orphan wells; developing and implementing new reclamation security policies to bring mines into compliance with full security; reviewing guidelines and standards for establishing post-closure land use and productivity objectives for minesites and relative requirements for waste-pile stability and soil stockpiling; advising on mine health and safety codes through a tripartite consultative process to ensure that standards are kept up to date; developing new tenure maintenance regulations in consultation with industry to ensure that tenures are diligently explored; redesigning and implementing the mine accident reporting database system to efficiently collect and store relevant accident data; establishing placer mining standards and; implementing improvements to the oil and gas tenure referral and activity referral process.

Those are the first two goals and some of the activities. The third goal is to implement the government's response to the Energy Council's report. We will be releasing the government's response to the Energy Council's report. We will be monitoring and reporting on the implementation of recommendations. We'll establish a mechanism to begin an update of the strategy.

The fourth goal is to develop and deliver policies, programs and regulations that promote economically efficient use of oil, gas and electricity. We've got a huge number of projects there. We will develop and implement B.C.'s greenhouse gas stabilization reduction strategy. We will regulate new products. We'll require higher standards, monitor compliance and 

[ Page 14156 ]

participate in new standards development. We'll encourage efficient use of natural gas on Vancouver Island under the Clean Choice program. We'll participate in the clean fuels and vehicles initiative. We'll implement new energy codes for housing and buildings and implement a community energy services program.

The fifth goal is to develop and implement a revised electricity policy that takes advantage of B.C.'s strong position as we enter an era of electricity industry deregulation.

We are creating an action plan with B.C. Hydro that features IPP requests for proposals, the development of resource-smart projects, competitive rates, new electricity services and renewed mandate for Powerex. We're going to implement ESOR, the electrical system operation review recommendations; develop with public input a policy framework to ensure changes to the public and private electricity industry, and make sure those changes benefit British Columbians; finalize legal agreements for the Columbia River Treaty; prepare marketing agreements; and participate in regional allocation initiatives. These are the five goals under the first strategic priority.

The second strategic priority is resource development; there are five goals under that. The five goals include identifying mineral, oil and gas potential. Some of the projects there are to complete and publish a GIS-based northeast B.C. oil and gas inventory. We'll complete a four-year provincial mineral potential mapping program, in particular the study of the northwest region; complete one regional geochemical survey with seven map sheets of bedrock mapping, four sheets of surface mapping and supporting mineral deposit studies; and carry out an advanced airborne geophysical survey of lead-zinc formations in the east Kootenay region.

The second goal is to facilitate timely processing of industry applications and information, where we will provide high-quality technical, economic and policy input to the new environmental impact assessment agency. We'll be completing and publishing the B.C. oil and gas handbook, which serves to combine the requirements of government agencies and achieves equivalency with the Forest Practices Code. We'll develop and evaluate a pilot project for map selection and mineral tenure, and implement oil and gas volume metric reporting by electronic data interchange. That was a selection of projects.

The third goal is to foster a positive investment climate for the mineral and energy sectors. Some of the projects involve developing appropriate guidelines in order to provide confidence to the industry to explore in special management zones, and completing and releasing a mineral sector commitment statement signed by all the stakeholder groups. I talked about our Explore B.C. program. That's one of the projects there. We will also review and revise the mining and, oil and gas road policies and regulations and the prospectors' assistance program.

[3:30]

The fourth goal is to support government value-added and infrastructure initiatives for the mining and petroleum sectors. This will involve evaluating and promoting value-added opportunities for natural gas, which included a number of things such as LNG, NGV, MTBE and electricity generation. I can give you words for those acronyms, if you like. If you don't understand any of them, just ask. All of those initiatives are value-added projects.

We'll be working with the B.C. Investment Office and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority to assess infrastructure requirements for new mine developments in the province. We'll be implementing multi-year programs in geological investigations, commodities and market studies and aggressive marketing of industrial mineral opportunities. We'll be helping to deliver the two electricity and 30 natural gas grants under some of the programs that we have.

The fifth goal is to maximize benefits to B.C. from extraction, marketing distribution and the export of oil and natural gas. We'll be preparing a public discussion paper on a natural gas strategy for B.C. We'll also be managing provincial petroleum and natural gas rights in a manner that is responsive to public concerns and supports an active industry; updating the ministry's royalty regime and revenue collection procedures; minimizing the government's financial exposure on VI gas projects in the distribution systems; and finalizing and implementing northeast B.C. underground storage policy. There are a number of others.

The fourth strategic priority is integrated land use. We have five goals there to ensure that mineral, oil and gas values and sector interests are reflected in land use analyses and decisions. We'll be participating in LRMPs and in regional interagency management committees so that we're sure to have the interests of these industries, the constituents and those stakeholders with interests represented in those processes.

The second goal is to ensure stakeholder participation is fostered and developed through ministry programs. We will continue to provide for public involvement in policy development and program activities. The Advisory Council on Mining is one of these ways. We will develop and implement public participation guidelines for oil and gas industry upstream developments.

The third goal is to establish a responsible management regime for aggregate resources. We will initiate changes to the present regulatory framework for sand and gravel resources; we'll allow local government to make their own land use decisions. This is, of course, complementary to the moves that are suggested in the Mineral Tenure Act amendments. We'll be completing a digital inventory of private aggregate pits, and we'll produce aggregate-potential maps in selected area. We'll complete manuals of technical standards and reclamation guidelines for sand and gravel pits and quarries.

The fourth goal is to ensure that ministry policies and procedures reflect aboriginal rights and interests. We'll develop a memorandum of understanding with first nations on issues related to resource development activities, including referrals to first nations communications with respect to activities in traditional territories, trading opportunities, and potential employment and business development opportunities. We'll be sponsoring at least two mineral sector forums with representatives in the ministry, first nations and industry. We've talked about some of these others. We'll be developing protocols and agreements with first nations on issues related to subsurface resources activities.

To go on, the fifth goal is to ensure that responsible government agencies are well informed of potential geologic hazards, hazard reduction opportunities and related land planning issues. We'll be initiating an earthquake hazard mapping program for the lower mainland and/or south Vancouver Island. We'll be participating with industry in an earthquake monitoring program in the Fort St. John area.

[ Page 14157 ]

I believe we're onto the fourth strategic priority, if I've got the count right. It is efficiencies and internal operations. One of our goals is to improve our efficiency and our internal operations in working with our people. We'll be initiating work process reviews through the ministry partnership programs, supporting the ministry suggestion awards program -- in which our ministry has been outstanding and has been recognized under that program. We'll be improving communications between Victoria and regional operations. We'll increase the delegation to front-line staff. We'll be providing training for employees, in employment equity and harassment awareness. We will review the ministry organizational structure to assist the span of control considerations.

The second goal is to redefine our relationship with other levels of government -- in other words, things such as negotiating the transfer of Westcoast Energy jurisdiction from the NEB to the province, and developing an accord between the geological survey branch and the Geological Survey of Canada to ensure a coordinated and efficient approach to geological research in B.C. We'll be working towards harmonization and environmental protection of fisheries management. We'll develop agreements and associated communications initiatives with our own provincial agencies and with UBCM regional districts on their respective roles in managing sand and gravel resources -- an issue that continues to be of importance and is certainly a matter of constant interest. We'll implement and build on letters of cooperation with Natural Resources, pertaining to energy efficiency in petroleum geology.

The third goal here is to streamline relationships with other ministries. We'll have an MOU for administering the Forest Practices Code as it applies to the mineral and energy sectors. We hope to have a streamlined interagency referral process to the mineral exploration management project and through the oil and gas handbook, where we've transferred administration of some activities that we think are better related to our ministry than other ministries.

The fourth goal is cost control. We will be developing a budget forecast module which will improve our fiscal management at the branch level. We're improving information systems -- IS -- budget planning and tracking. We'll be monitoring our ministry vehicle fleet utilization. We have a goal of mine health and safety code review, and I think that speaks for itself. But certainly we'll also be reviewing the oil and gas industry safety records and accident trends with the WCB, and we'll be amending our operating practices as appropriate.

Number six, we will complete our policy reviews, which will streamline operations. We'll complete reviews of energy removal certificates, complete our natural gas royalty pricing policy review and develop legislation to cover oil and gas revenue-sharing with first nations.

We're going to be delivering ministry support services effectively, we hope. We will be implementing regional networking projects. We will be developing integrated databases and related information systems. The final goal there is clear and effective communications about ministry projects, initiatives and issues with a variety of ministry clients. We hope to review our publications: what our publications are and how we can improve them. We hope to complete our annual report within five months of year-end -- there's a good one -- and we hope to make it work this year. We will increase our use of the Internet -- those kinds of goals.

I would like to proceed to how the objectives have changed. I can certainly give you our last year's plan, which you can compare to my comments today. You will be able to see very clearly what has changed, how we've progressed and the differences for this year.

Our performance measurements go by the division. In the energy resources division we have branch plans, which build on the division's and the ministry's strategic plans by including measures that are being taken to evaluate performance. For example, the petroleum geology branch is designing and implementing an effectiveness measurement and reporting program as a pilot project, with the assistance of the auditor general. We're following the auditor general's guidelines. We have a number of performance measurement indicators, and there are approximately 12 long ones. I would be pleased to respond on what they are if you would like to ask.

Successful performance measurement involves a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators, which are complemented by audits of division programs. These might include OCG reviews, peer reviews and client surveys. These will ensure that our functions remain efficient, effective and consistent with ministry and government priorities. These measurements are laid out, and performance is measured against them by senior staff -- that's how we proceed that way.

For revenue and operations, performance measurements for administrative services include timeliness of response to client requests and turnaround time on idea program -- they're efficiency measures. We also have effectiveness measures. We measure the level of fleet utilization. We look at the updated ministry ARCS and ORCS record system, the level of ministry compliance with government policy and procedures, and the value of consultation on facilities issues. I might mention that we have both efficiency and effectiveness measures for information systems, human resources, resource revenue, financial services, employment equity and for information and privacy. There are a number of repeats such as timeliness of service to clients, timeliness of job classification review, the quarterly reports -- these are efficiency measures -- accuracy of supplier payments and timeliness of response to users' problems. Timeliness of response is a constant.

Effectiveness measures are our constant availability to people and to our clients; compliance with agreements; problem resolution at early steps; satisfactory implementation of budget-driven measures; level of compliance with financial policy and procedures; reliability of monitoring; positive employee feedback on training; increased staff awareness; clear, relevant responses to FOI requests; value advice and consultation -- those kinds of things.

For the mineral section, we have measures of about ten activities. We measure timeliness and efficiency for mine openings and closures, titles-recording, claim-mapping, exploration approvals, mine approvals, major permits, accident frequencies -- we measure them regularly -- exploration-spending and claim-staking. We look at reclamation liability and at government exposure to company defaults. We look at areas disturbed and reclaimed. We have a way of measuring client satisfaction with our GSB surveys. We look at the permit issues, inspection frequencies and timeliness of dispute resolution processes for mineral tenure disputes.

[ Page 14158 ]

We have those things measured by our senior staff, and we occasionally look at audits, particularly by the OCG, so we consider that we have a fairly good eye on what we are doing. We certainly believe in performance-based activity.

Although it takes a while to answer this, you should have a better idea of how we actually run our ministry, which I believe is an extremely efficient ministry. In fact, I think our 1994-95 annual report, which I hope will be out very soon, is going to reflect our performance-based activity, because we concentrate more on that kind of thing in the annual report.

You asked about how many people were on contract as opposed to being full-time. Two years ago we had about ten contracts. These were converted to FTEs, and now we have no contractors as employees.

A budget for each branch....

The Chair: Minister, I might remind you of standing order 45A....

Interjection.

The Chair: I understand the members opposite are prepared to waive it. Please proceed.

Hon. A. Edwards: The branch budgets: communications, $460,000. Do you want the FTEs beside that?

D. Jarvis: Please.

Hon. A. Edwards: Seven FTEs. Administration, $1.3 million, 7.5 FTEs; finance, $18,685,000, with 12 FTEs. This includes the deemed grant of $18 million for the VI gas agreement, so there's only $685,000 on top of the $18 million. Human resources, $566,000, with 8.5 FTEs; information services, $785,000, with 9 FTEs. Resource revenue is where we have the biggest budget, and, of course, that's where we bring in the most revenue -- $2.604 million, with 30 FTEs. Power and projects, $938,000, and 9 FTEs; energy management, $1.053 million, with 12 FTEs. Engineering and operations is another big one -- $3.736 million and 43 FTEs. Petroleum and geology, $854,000, with ten FTEs. Petroleum titles, $1.251 million, and 15 FTEs. Oil and gas policy, $1.094 million, with 13 FTEs. Mine review and permitting, $1.706 million, with 19 FTEs. Mineral titles, $2.1 million, and 32 FTEs. Geological survey is another large branch of ours -- $5.6 million, with 74 FTEs. Mine health and safety, $2.3 million, with 26 FTEs. Land management and policy, $5.4 million, with 65-plus FTEs.

[3:45]

That gives a total of $50.432 million. There are other allocations. I don't have the dollar figures, but I have the FTEs: deputy's office, 5.5; ADM, minerals office, 4; ADM, energy office, 6; executive director of revenue and operations, 4; minister's office, as I've said, 5.7; employment equity, 0.5; and FOI, 2. This adds up to the budget of $12.576 million, which includes all the rent overheads. There are 420 full-time employees.

The Chair: Thank you, minister, for that very thorough and comprehensive answer. I'm sure the hon. member was delighted with the response. He now proceeds to ask another question.

D. Jarvis: You're right. I appreciate the minister's answer; it's always good to see a reorganization plan that her staff should be complimented for. The only quick comment I have to make is that I notice the reorganization has dropped from 32 branches to approximately 16 branches, yet you have increased your staff. That's the first time I have seen a reorganization with an increase in employees.

Before I start asking some questions on mining, would the member from the third party have any questions on the operation of the ministry so that we don't jump back and forth?

R. Neufeld: I have some brief questions that relate to some of the full-time employees. I was interested in the seven full-time employees to administer the Forest Practices Code. Is that total for minerals and for the petroleum industry? My feeling about what happens with the Forest Practices Code, especially with environment.... There's quite an involvement with environment. How are we going to get away from overlapping between environment and your seven full-time employees to administer the Forest Practices Code through the mineral and petroleum branch? Maybe you could just expand on that a bit, because I think all the ministries are having a bit of a problem with it.

Hon. A. Edwards: As I said, we have seven new employees for Forest Practices Code, which will be going into operation this year. We already had five FTEs attending two Forest Practice Code issues. That makes a total of 12 within the ministry to deal with the issues that will be required under the Forest Practices Code.

We expect very soon to have a protocol signed with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment so that we can deal with our issues under the code without duplicating. We want to avoid duplication.

R. Neufeld: At the present time, you must contact the Ministry of Forests before any activity can take place, whether it would be in minerals or oil and gas. Is the minister telling me that with the agreements they are going to have with the Ministry of Forests, an oil company, for instance, will no longer go to that ministry for permits to complete the work, or is this just for the 12 employees who work on the ground?

Hon. A. Edwards: I had the wrong number, sorry. It is seven new employees; we had ten originally. So we have 17, not 12.

We expect to have, under the mineral exploration code and the oil and gas handbook.... These will be the two protocols we will have signed. Ultimately, companies who have a certain amount of work to do will still have to get tree-cutting approval from the Ministry of Forests. These people working under the memorandum of understanding will have a clear understanding of what we will be requiring of them, and we expect that a lot of work will be reduced. We will not be doing a lot of duplication.

R. Neufeld: Right now the oil and gas industry, specifically, has tremendous difficulty with regulations and people tripping over one another trying to apply the same regulations or the same rules. It amazes me that within your ministry we have 17 people just to administer the Forest Practices Code. That's almost 5 percent of your total employees. I find that a 

[ Page 14159 ]

bit onerous. It worries me that by not streamlining things we are going to run into a lot more trouble in the future. We are going to run into an awful lot more trouble if we have 17 new inspectors out there beating the bushes for purposes other than what the oil companies had to deal with before.

Does the minister have any feelings toward how we can handle the problems that are going to arise? I know I have been in contact with the ministry every year -- and every fall, every busy season for the drilling industry -- trying to get the permits and the okays to start working in the oil and gas industry specifically. Does the minister see this as slowing it down an awful lot more or speeding it up?

Hon. A. Edwards: First, just to clarify, we haven't got 17 people working yet....

R. Neufeld: But you're going to.

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, we will have. We have this new oil and gas handbook for the oil and gas industries specifically. This handbook means that the Ministry of Environment will not be participating in referrals in most areas; that will be streamlined. We have an agreement with them that we will be administering with some of these new people. Then, as far as the Forest Practices Code, we will be administering that unless they need a tree-cutting permit or something that relates to forests.

We need to have inspectors who will inspect to ensure that there is compliance with the code. We haven't got those kind of people right now, so we need new people. But certainly that will mean that they didn't have to be hired in Environment or Forests.

R. Neufeld: Did I understand the minister correctly? Did she say that a lot of the responsibility that the Ministry of Environment now has over approval on referrals is going to be removed and processed directly through the Ministry of EMPR?

Hon. A. Edwards: For well sites and geophysical occurrences -- these are less imposing activities in non-sensitive areas -- the Ministry of Environment will not be involved. We will be dealing with it. But we will have an agreement where we don't need a huge administrative involvement.

R. Neufeld: I have lobbied for that to happen for a long time, because the holdups seem to be within the Ministry of Environment. If we can streamline those processes so that the oil and gas industry can get their wheels on the ground and get to work sooner in the season, it will certainly help. I must commend the minister for that and thank her.

I'm not going to go on about vehicles, but I'd like to know how many vehicles within your ministry are powered by natural gas.

Hon. A. Edwards: I'm embarrassed to say. It seems to be one, but I think that's not the case, because I have a flex-fuel vehicle which is not a natural gas vehicle, but a methanol vehicle. It's flex-fuel -- you move it both ways. I'm very pleased to have it. I have been promised for quite some months now that there will be that kind of fuel in Victoria. That hasn't yet occurred, but as soon as they have it, I have the vehicle.

D. Jarvis: Go to your Mohawk station.

Hon. A. Edwards: No, it doesn't happen at the Mohawk station. There is not a station here in Victoria, although it has been promised for quite some time. I regret to say that we do not have natural gas vehicles in our ministry at the moment.

R. Neufeld: I find it absolutely appalling that we would have only one vehicle. When I look at the news releases put out by your ministry that talk about clean air and all the different things that can be done to help the environment, I find it actually quite surprising, to be perfectly honest, that your ministry, which represents the oil and gas industry, has one vehicle powered by natural gas. There's no sense....

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

R. Neufeld: Maybe next year we'll find out. The station on Vancouver Island was another question, because I have been approached by a number of people to find out why we don't have a station on Vancouver Island. Is it really in process -- you alluded to that a bit -- or is there a finite date you can give us when one is going to be in place?

Hon. A. Edwards: I have to say that we do drive vehicles that are fuelled by a petroleum product.

Yes, I'm quite sure that there will be a methanol fuel pump in Victoria.

An Hon. Member: Natural gas?

Hon. A. Edwards: Natural gas? There are no natural gas pumps here on the Island. Let me talk a minute while I get the answer on natural gas. The problem is integrating the pump itself with the other pumps that they have and getting the price right, and so on. So it's been slow, but it will come, I'm sure.

We're now working with Centra Gas to bring some of these fuelling pumps to Vancouver Island so that people who run fleets can begin to fuel with natural gas. I do find it interesting that every time I go to an alternative fuel event somewhere, we talk about things, but we're still not in a position to favour one over the other. There are benefits to some and disadvantages that balance out -- it's quite interesting. There are a number of natural gas fuel fleets in the lower mainland, in particular, and in other parts of the province -- certainly up in the northeast. We're hoping that these things will expand. I was disappointed to note that B.C. Gas Inc. is trying to sell its fuel-making subsidiary, which hasn't, I guess, performed as well as they had hoped.

F. Gingell: To this point, according to my reckoning, the government has some $132 million under the rate stabilization facility, with an anticipated additional $28 million in this year. On the provision that this is a zero-interest loan, is that part of the $18 million provided in your ministry's budget as contributions? The allowance to present-day value, the advances that are being made in 1995-96....

[4:00]

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, the $18 million is the deemed grant. We expect to pay out $28 million, which we've had to budget for under our current agreements.

[ Page 14160 ]

F. Gingell: Without going back and working the whole thing through, is the $18 million an allowance on the $28 million anticipated to be advanced in 1995-96? Or is it an allowance for forgone interest on the total amount of money advanced to this date? That is, are we charging off the interest on the moneys advanced in that year or the interest that's forgone from advances made in every year to that point?

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I try to be very careful with this stuff, which leaps around from time to time. This year we are writing off only $18 million of the $28 million that we have budgeted. Other years, we have typically written off about 75 percent of what we had budgeted.

F. Gingell: So the amount typically each year has been 75 percent of the amount to be advanced in that year. So you're current-valuing the payments as you make them and not putting in an allowance for forgone interest each year.

Hon. A. Edwards: The deemed grant is equivalent to the forgone interest.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

F. Gingell: Actually, it is the interest that would have been earned in future years that's being taken out. If the program doesn't work out as originally envisaged, all of a sudden the $160 million that you will have advanced by the end of this year is going to come back later than you had originally hoped because of bonds to the pipeline, or whatever the various terms of the loans are. There would, in fact, be a need to go back each year and look at the provisions that you made, this 75 percent, and see if that was enough. Those provisions were based on the moneys coming in at some future date.

Perhaps we could start questioning, because.... Maybe it isn't relevant. Are there fixed dates of repayment of these funds or is the repayment subject to certain things happening in the future?

Hon. A. Edwards: I want to be careful that you know whether I am talking about the original agreement or the agreement that we have had an MOU on, that we're not trying to get to a different agreement. Under both circumstances, the repayment would be only when the company reaches a surplus situation and begins to generate surpluses. Then they would have to start repaying the RSF.

F. Gingell: When you use the word "surpluses", you are talking about them making profits. It isn't related to throughput on the pipeline.

Hon. A. Edwards: It is related to profit. Obviously, their profits depend on the throughput, but it is not related to the throughput.

F. Gingell: Are there any rules or conventions that set the expenses that you will find acceptable in determining whether or not they have arrived at a profit, or is it something that goes through the Utilities Commission? Do you use Utilities Commission findings and those kinds of things?

Hon. A. Edwards: The Utilities Commission deals with some of this, but I'm going to repeat a bit of what I said in my introduction. The RSF -- I think you know some of this, but some of this might clarify what we're talking about -- is an interest-bearing loan which is to be repaid as the project starts earning a profit. To date, the province has made RSF payments to the VI gas project totalling $106 million, with $24 million of that in 1994-95. That very high contribution in 1994-95 was because oil prices were low and gas prices were high.

There is no question that the VI gas project has been costly to the province. It went way beyond the estimates of the previous government, who signed the agreement and expected that the RSF total over total time would be $70 million. We believe that our continuing negotiations, based on the MOU, will improve the situation, but it is going to be an extremely long time before the project is at all profitable. I'll leave it at that and answer any further questions if you have any.

F. Gingell: This figure of $106 million that has been advanced: is that to March 31, 1994, or March 31, 1995?

Hon. A. Edwards: March 31, 1995.

F. Gingell: If one goes back and adds up in the estimates each year, the amounts come to $112 million. I wonder if you could explain that difference.

Hon. A. Edwards: The difference is due to audit recoveries. The figures that were there.... I'm not sure exactly when we made the recoveries, but because of audit recoveries, those figures are different than the figure we are using -- by $6 million.

F. Gingell: Perhaps in the future you could put a line in the budget estimates so that members are given the correct numbers. It shows the amount that is to be paid out, but if there is any adjustment due to a review of the accounts, I suggest that the appropriate way of treating it is to write in that section of the estimates in order to show an amount that is recovered. Otherwise it is a little misleading.

Just for the sake of my information, this facility that we have been discussing is for the pipeline itself. The other facility, the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline assistance item, where there was originally the sum of $25 million paid, was that for the infrastructure on the Island, for the distribution system? Or was it all paid to the same company?

Hon. A. Edwards: The $25 million was for the Clean Choice program. This provides for $25 million -- it was supposedly over a ten-year period, I believe -- in grants to convert homes and businesses to natural gas in the service areas. As you know, the $25 million in grants here were part of our agreement to make up $150 million, which matched the federal government's $150 million. The $25 million was for Clean Choice. As of March 1, 1995, we had a total of 16,297 Clean Choice grants, which were worth $11.4 million. This has been paid to residences and businesses. We have a remainder of $13.6 million in the program.

In 1994, in the Centra Gas service area -- that's just Centra's service area, I remind you -- the number of Clean Choice grants was up 45 percent over 1993 levels. It did go up for a while there, and there was an increase of people taking the opportunity to have the Clean Choice grants.

[ Page 14161 ]

F. Gingell: The amount of money originally made available for that project, I understand, was $55 million. Of that $55 million, we are down to $13-odd million at the beginning of this year.

In each year to this point, you have budgeted more funds than you have spent. In '94-95 you budgeted $5.02 million and you only came in at $3.42 million; the previous year it was $500,000, and so on.

This year you budgeted a total of $4.91 million. Do the ministry officials have any feeling for whether you have over-budgeted again, or whether the demand is growing? As natural gas becomes a more accepted fuel and people begin to appreciate its cleanliness and its convenience, one would have expected the level of requests for assistance for conversions to go up. But it has held quite steady.

Hon. A. Edwards: This is, of course, an amount that we have to have there, just in case; we have to budget generously enough to cover what could happen there. You are correct; we have overestimated it most years since it's been there. However, what we are hoping to do this year is to make some revisions to the Clean Choice program which will more directly target energy efficiency. We are working on that right now, so I can't tell you what we hope to do. We have looked at it and said: "It hasn't been taken up. We may not be getting the very best that we can from our money." So we are looking at the Clean Choice program for refinements, where we can ensure that we can encourage people to use this "clean" fuel.

F. Gingell: In this same account that we touched on right at the start was a $25 million loan. Now that loan, I believe, is in addition to this $106 million. Could the minister briefly tell us what the terms of repayment of that loan are, if they have been met, if we expect it to come back soon or if circumstances have caused its repayment to be delayed?

[4:15]

Hon. A. Edwards: I hope I have the answer to your question. There was $25 million laid out as a capital construction loan. Most of that had been written off by 1991-92. In fact, we had deemed the grant at that point of nearly $20 million. So most of it has been written off.

F. Gingell: I would like to suggest to the minister that, perhaps, the $25 million was anticipated to be received many years down the road. Valuing it in 1991, you'd value it at only $5 million. It was still going to be $25 million when you got it. You loaned it in 1991 dollars, and you get it back in.... Well, that's what the question is. Are we going to get it back in 1997 dollars or 1998 dollars or 2098 dollars?

Hon. A. Edwards: The deemed grant was for the forgone interest. The repayment, if you put it into figures, is scheduled for the year 2006. However, it will not be repaid until after the federal loan of $50 million is repaid. This, of course, all depends on gas prices, oil prices, ability to manage, good management, fiscal constraints and a number of things.

F. Gingell: If it was the conclusion of the ministry that the original estimated date of repayment, the year 2006, was going to be delayed, would you put in a provision in your current year's budget estimate to write down that $5 million to something lower, which would reflect current value of funds now receivable -- not in the year 2006, but in the year 2010 or something?

Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly, if new facts came up. In fact, we would make the appropriate accounting entries. But we have not yet reached that situation.

F. Gingell: Recognizing that one of the major factors involved in this exercise is in fact throughput through the pipeline and understanding that Vancouver Island generates so little of the electricity that it uses, one could appreciate that an independent power proposal for Vancouver Island to use natural gas as its major fuel source could have all kinds of benefits to this particular program. Has the ministry gotten involved in those issues, which come under the Ministry of Employment and Investment -- the issue of IPPs on Vancouver Island?

Hon. A. Edwards: Part of the memorandum of understanding that we signed with Pacific Coast Energy Corp. was that it was hoped that we as signatories would attempt to assure that if at all possible, we would promote a generation facility on the Island. Whether or not that will come to pass under the current B.C. Hydro RFP, we await the decision. Certainly among the 48 projects that were bid into Hydro's RFP, there were natural gas projects on Vancouver Island.

F. Gingell: I am a little afraid of asking this question, because maybe I should know the answer. Is the memorandum of understanding a public document? Is it something that has been published? Have we seen it?

Hon. A. Edwards: The binding agreement and the amending agreement are both public. We have announced them, and we have made them public. You have access to them.

R. Neufeld: Just a few quick questions to take up what the member for Delta South talked about: the grants to change over from oil to natural gas on the Island. The minister removed the grants that were available in the north for rural gasification projects, and we continue to see large grants available on Vancouver Island. I'm certainly not disputing the fact that Vancouver Island residents should have natural gas for heating. It is one of the cleaner fuels, even though the minister spoke in her earlier remarks about how non-cost-effective the Vancouver Island pipeline was. I think when you take into consideration the environment and what it is going to do for the environment on Vancouver Island and British Columbia as a whole, burning natural gas is certainly a lot better than burning oil -- like we have been for a long time. I think it is a good project, and if it costs more, it costs more. What I'm asking is: why can't people where the natural gas is actually produced enjoy some of the benefits of rural gasification that were in place prior to your government being elected?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, they were in place for two years before the election, but they had been cancelled by the previous government as well. It's difficult to keep those kinds of grants in place in difficult budget times. We have worked hard with regional districts to find different ways that people could get natural gas extensions. I am very optimistic. A number of regional districts and municipalities applied under the 

[ Page 14162 ]

infrastructure program. That's the program where we have to get approval from the province and the feds as well. I'm very optimistic that we will succeed in getting some of those extensions going. Some extensions have been done with regional districts financing them for people. The people have to pay them back, but they have been financed through regional districts. Fraser-Fort George is the first one, I believe, that did one. The Regional District of East Kootenay has done one, I know. I don't know where else they have been done, but probably in a few places throughout the province.

Certainly we are eager to see that people have access to natural gas when they can have it. It is a good fuel, and we have lots of it to supply our customers in the province. It benefits the economy of the northeastern part of the province, not to mention the rest of the province. We are very good supporters of natural gas. As much as we've been able to do within our budgeting, we have tried to assure that we get assistance for people to get natural gas into their homes and businesses for heating.

R. Neufeld: Quite a number of people have written me letters in the area around Fort St. John. Fort Nelson is pretty well supplied with natural gas, but around Fort St. John there are people who have gas wells on their farms, on property they own, and they cannot heat with natural gas. They still heat with....

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: You can take your place when you want to, and ask any questions of this minister you want to, when your time comes -- and through the Chair.

Those people who have gas wells on their property are not able to get grants; they were before. I'm not saying they were the same amounts of grants, but if you're having trouble -- and you obviously are -- balancing your budget and spending money wisely, why do you continue with this grant on the Island? Why don't you just discontinue that? If you're not going to do it for any region of the province, then why don't we just discontinue it for the Island?

Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly empathize with the member. I have people in my own riding who have gas lines going right through their property and can't get gas. I thought that was bad enough. Then I went to the northeast and discovered people with gas wells on their property. They couldn't get gas because of the way gas lines work. So when it came to balancing budgets -- we've done a good job; we've managed to get our budget balanced this year -- we looked at all these things. We could not eliminate the Clean Choice program, because the Clean Choice program is legislated. It is a statutory program, so we would have had to cancel the agreement and the whole thing. It is part of the legislation for the Vigas agreement.

R. Neufeld: The minister talked briefly about the Canada-B.C. infrastructure works program and the applications through that. I have a letter from the Ministry of Employment and Investment, which actually seems to control everything within government here, denying that some $2.5 million worth of work was applied for through the Canada-B.C. infrastructure works program. So that's certainly not an avenue that the people in the north can use to get gas delivered to their homes.

The other part, that regional districts are working with people to get natural gas to their homes, is difficult for people in the north to swallow, to be perfectly honest, because people up there are aware of the grants that were legislated for Vancouver Island, as the minister says. They see housing tied automatically into natural gas on the main line. Yet, in a lot of cases, they can't.... I know about pipelines; I know you just can't tie into every pipeline everywhere; I'm quite aware of that; I've worked in that most of my life. But there are a lot of projects where a large group of people could have benefited from a grant -- the Blueberry gasification project on the Blueberry Indian reserve, and there's also a bunch of farmers and ranchers in that area.

I just want to emphasize to the minister, again, that people in the north -- where the natural gas comes from -- are not too happy about wanting anything to happen on their land anymore with the production of natural gas. Later on in estimates, I'm going to go into some of the problems that some of those people are experiencing now with the production of natural gas, and some of the things that happen as we go along with technology. I think the minister is aware of some of those problems. So it only heightens that anger when they can't even tie into it to heat their homes. It's difficult for me to go back there and tell them: "No. The people on Vancouver Island get it again, but I'm sorry, you can't." If it's legislated on Vancouver Island, why don't we legislate something for the rest of the province?

[4:30]

You've had massive amounts of money through Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources over the last three years. The industry has done quite well. The money that has been contributed to government has actually reduced the deficits of the province -- not last year but the year before -- by $200 million. Those are sizeable amounts of money. The people in the north aren't asking for a lot; they're asking for a bit back so they can heat their homes.

Hon. A. Edwards: It certainly would be wrong for you to assume that we have not fought very hard for this province to get some of the money under the infrastructure works program for natural gas extensions.

R. Neufeld: I didn't mean to imply that.

Hon. A. Edwards: We fought very hard. You have to respect the fact that there was a federal minister involved as well.

However, those of us who come from resource-producing communities understand the kinds of feelings that happen when you bear the costs of producing a resource in the province and then don't have the same kind of return on that resource. For example, in the coal fields; we're shipping all this coal, and what do we get back for it? I understand that syndrome. We have to deal with it, and any government has to deal with it. I think that's fair. Certainly I hope that we'll be able to do gas extensions that have a reasonable cost. I think it would be unfair not to note that the Clean Choice program is dealing with fairly dense communities. The per-connection costs are different. But I hear what you are saying. As I say, I hope we will have some extension announcements; we still 

[ Page 14163 ]

have hope for that. What we had hoped is that we would have a program, as I say, and I am still hopeful that might happen, and that it would be larger than the Clean Choice program for the year.

R. Neufeld: I am not going to beat that any more.

I was looking through my notes and just happened to find -- to go back a little bit to when I asked the minister about how many vehicles were powered by natural gas within the ministry -- a news release of December 1, 1994; "Report Supports Alternative Transportation Fuels. The report 'Cleaner Fuels for Cleaner Air' was issued today by Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources minister Anne Edwards." I just wanted to bring to her attention that she's already put out a news release saying that we're looking at cleaner fuels and cleaner air. But so far the action within her ministry has not been to meet those goals.

Hon. A. Edwards: Where it would be obvious that we would have it is in the northeast, but we cannot do the job we have to do or get the range that we need in the northeast with that fuel. That is one of the problems. You are probably also well aware that most users of natural gas are city fleets: taxi cabs, service vehicles and those kinds of things. It's difficult for us to find that. Government does have natural gas vehicles, although this ministry doesn't.

F. Gingell: When the minister was speaking relative to the goals and measurements, she talked about efficiency measurements and economy measurements. In the area of efficiency measurements, where you are dealing with issues that are at the interface between your ministry and the public applying for a free miner's licence or whatever, from what you were saying, it sounds as though you are setting some standards -- i.e., if you apply for a free miner's licence, you should get it back within eight working days or whatever. If you go down to the office, I guess you get it back in 20 minutes. But in developing all those customer interface standards, are you publicizing them? Are you putting them up on the wall and saying: "If you don't get your licence back or if your mining claim is not registered within seven or eight working days, let us know"?

Hon. A. Edwards: We do have these standards that we have laid out. They are fairly well known in government. Believe me, I can tell you that from the mail I get. People know that we expect to serve them in a certain time. Certainly I appreciate your suggestion, and perhaps we could do better.

F. Gingell: The issue, I think, is letting the customer know that a certain level of standards is expected. In Britain, what they brought in was the Citizen's Charter, and that's exactly what the Citizen's Charter is. If the trains don't run on time, you can get a refund. Would the minister consider an encouragement program such that if you don't get your mining claim registered within the stated time -- because it was the fault of the ministry, not because the applicant filled out the form incorrectly -- then you would receive a rebate consisting of a portion of the fees that were paid for that registration?

Hon. A. Edwards: I am not sure that we would have a very easy time dealing with rebates over free miner's certificates or claim registrations or that kind of thing. We do try to be very efficient and clear about claim-staking in particular -- registration of title. These things are very crucial to people who operate there. They know our rules, and they know what to expect from us. Certainly if they don't get from us what we both sort of expected, we normally give them.... We respond to them.

Again, I can assure you that that's the case because of the pressures from the public about it. If you've staked a claim, and your partner or former partner stakes it a few hours later, they need to know who did it first. We are very conscious of that kind of thing. So that kind of thing is very closely watched, and there's lots of pressure on it. I believe we do a very good job on it, because we do not have very many appeals and that kind of thing.

Certainly we will look at it with a view to letting the public know what kinds of promises we're willing to make, and we will make sure that they know they can get the best kind of service from us.

F. Gingell: I guess I didn't pick the right example, because clearly the issue of registering claims is time-sensitive. But a lot of other things are not as time-sensitive; they're just frustrating to your customer if responses take a long time.

I was pleased that you intend to report on these issues in your annual report. I think it's really important that the way you're going to improve services is to let people know what the standards or the criteria are -- the benchmarks -- and how you have met them or failed to meet them, and whether or not you're getting better at doing it.

My question to the minister is: do you intend to have a fairly full and open disclosure about these kinds of matters in your report? Secondly, does the minister think that 150 days or 120 days...? I think you said your target was 150 days or five months. Reports are most valuable to the readers and the reporters the more current they are. It would seem to me that if one plans the program of preparing the report in a sensible manner, 60 days should be enough time, really. When the year-end comes, you don't suddenly rush out and try to get all the information. You have a program by which the information comes in automatically.

Hon. A. Edwards: I might mention, first of all, that it used to take weeks to get a claim staked; now it takes 24 hours. With our work permits -- and it's very clearly known -- we lay out that we try to respond within 30 days. We don't always manage that, but the absolute majority of what we do is within 45 days. We have those kinds of goals. We are improving a great deal and are continuing to try to improve.

I don't know whether we can make the annual report much faster. We have had significant staff cuts, which make it hard to do those kinds of things as quickly as we might like. If you're setting priorities, probably doing your annual report is not going to have as high a priority to get it done in 30 or 60 days.

D. Jarvis: I guess we're basically a resource-based society. The figures I have show that only a quarter of 1 percent -- we're dealing in hectares -- of B.C. land is actually disturbed through mining. We see a situation where if you work that out on the basis of how much.... The actual figures I had were 

[ Page 14164 ]

that only about 24,000 hectares in B.C. were actually disturbed, although we have about 6,000 square hectares that are under tenure.

If you work on a hectare basis, the gross revenue last year was $3.2 billion. Comparing it to forestry or agriculture, on a ratio basis mining brings in approximately 30 times more than forestry does. Then you go out and talk to people in the industry. I've travelled around the province, and I've seen just about every mine there is. When you talk to the mining associations and the different groups and ask what they think of the mining picture in British Columbia, they all say it is going downhill fast. We see them leaving the province.

Then I look at your press releases on exploration. You are very pleased with what you and this department have done with about $2.5 million going out on exploration this year. The picture you get from other people is that maybe your exploration is up 36 percent, but the number of mines coming on stream is based only on the fact that we have an unusual situation in the world -- for example, the price of copper and other minerals, and the Canadian dollar going down to a fairly low figure in relation to the American dollar and the rest of the world. We're doing well in exploration, but we're not increasing exploration in this province. It doesn't appear that way. The industry feels we are heavy in taxes and in bureaucracy.

[4:45]

I wonder if you could give me an explanation as to why major people in the industry are all dead against what is happening. They do not believe that the philosophy of this government is such that you are really an advocate for mining. In fact, early in your tenure as minister you said you weren't an advocate of mining. That has followed you all the way through these last three and a half years. The industry doesn't feel that your ministry is actually doing anything to benefit new mines coming on, other than putting out $2.5 million in exploration. That doesn't seem to be the answer to the problem. It's your general attitude toward the land use issues. You are curtailing any exploration there is out there with the government's overall philosophy. Do you have any comments on that? I imagine you would have.

The Chair: Hon. minister, before you speak I would like to talk about language usage. All of us here are impersonal individuals. We talk to each other as though we were talking to a position, not a person. The second-person pronoun "you" is not on the table and is not to be used.

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, through you to the member, I found it quite interesting that when I first became minister, I made a big gaffe. Somebody asked me if I was an advocate for mining, and I said I thought mining was a great industry, but I was also a regulator so I had to temper my enthusiasm. I was leapt upon by members of the industry who said I had better be an advocate for this industry. As I went along, I discovered that I could become an advocate for this great industry, and I found increasingly that I seemed to be the only one around. For a while it became more of a game to say that I was the odd man out, so to speak, and to use a wrong, sexist expression.

The mining industry takes certain positions. At one time, there was a fairly public position being taken by some people within the industry that everybody had left B.C. because it was so bad. The commodity prices were so bad that they were in fact a major contributor to what was happening in British Columbia, but commodity prices are back up, and look what's happened. We have three mines reopening just because of the price of copper. We have two new mines already started in B.C. this year, and we have the mining activity you can see in the financial pages.

You also talk to miners. If you're talking to them and ask them what's happening offshore, you will hear that they are getting somewhat tired of dealing with the higher prices of.... How do I put this? The actual costs for labour, for example, which per unit are less than here, do not give them the same productivity, so their labour costs are high. Their electricity and provisioning costs are high. Dealing in another country is not quite as attractive as it was thought to be at one time.

The companies are beginning to come back to B.C. Commodity prices are a significant help to us, and the position of the Canadian dollar is very helpful. It has helped us in coal and so on, but the circumstances with Australia have helped us as well. You will note -- and I believe it was today -- that the president of Placer Dome Inc. indicated that the company is staying right here. They're too busy to do anything. They had thought they might look at something else, but they're not. They're staying here in B.C. The companies are here, and they're going to invest in B.C.

Investment in exploration was up 36 percent last year; that's a significant amount. That was with a relatively small contribution by our government compared to the $100 million that was spent on exploration, but it's coming back. Mining is a cyclical industry: it goes down sometimes, and then it goes up. The commodity prices are part of it. When everything conspires against it, it may go down.

What we've done for the industry is significant. When we came to government in the fall of 1991 and into 1992, there was no land use strategy. The mining industry was one of the industries that said we had to have a land use strategy in British Columbia, and this government took that seriously. I have said, and I believe, that we were elected on a platform of bringing a land use strategy to British Columbia so that you know what you have to deal with. That doesn't happen overnight.

Actually getting to a land use plan for the province is a little more difficult to deal with in concrete terms than it is in theory, but we're dealing with that. We have dealt with an environmental assessment process, where the mine development was a good one but needed some refinements. Other projects didn't have to go through that process. We now have an Environmental Assessment Act that has time frames on it not only for people to have input but for government to respond. There will be a time frame on all these processes.

As I say, I think this is difficult. It's difficult any time you put a number of people in a room, who have conflicting ideas of what they want to do with the resources on a piece of land. When you have them try to decide, there's going to be conflict. There has been conflict, but we have reached some land use plans, and we're reaching more new ones as we go. That will make it much easier to operate.

With all these things put together, we have the companies being very enthusiastic. It obviously depends on who you talk to. We have companies that come in and say: "We are a B.C. 

[ Page 14165 ]

company, and we want to develop further in B.C." That kind of thing is happening more and more. I believe that the $100 million program we put into last year's budget was very helpful in that way. It gives a real boost to the companies that want to develop mines in B.C. It gives them the ability to write off capital expenditures in the early phases of mine development, and it allows them to write off income tax against their mineral tax.

The exploration grant is not the only thing that we've done for the mining industry. We have worked at our processes. We have somebody within the ministry to deal with any company that comes in wanting to go through the process. We have a specific person assigned to go through with a company to deal with their certification process and their permitting processes. We've done a lot of work, and that work has been very important to modernize what's happening in B.C. so that the resource industries can operate here. Mining, being the second-largest resource extraction industry in the province, is truly there. It's been at the centre of our goal to see that the industry can operate appropriately and as easily as possible in this province.

I really can't sit down without saying that the Whitehorse Mining Initiative had so many people working together to say they want very clearly to have a viable industry in this country. B.C. was front and centre in that process. We've worked very hard with the industry, and we're not at the bottom anymore. We're on the way out of the valley of this cycle.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate your explanation. However, that is not what is felt out there, believe me. I believe your interpretation of the Placer Dome statement that came out today was that it was not because they were busy in B.C.; they were too busy outside B.C.

Can the minister tell me if the ministry has a record of how many companies have left British Columbia and are mining outside B.C.? Do we have a basic record like that?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, we do. Falconbridge is the only major company that has moved out of B.C. in recent years; I think it was about three or four years ago. They had an exploration office here, and they closed it. The other company that people would know is Royal Oak, which is not that big a company, but it did move its head office out of Vancouver to somewhere in Washington.

D. Jarvis: You mentioned earlier in your discussions, Madam Minister, that Bralorne was going to open. Is there any suggestion that the roads or infrastructure going into Bralorne will be extended northwest of the Bralorne area to open up that area? Are you aware of anything that may be happening in that area?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, we can certainly get an answer to that. We usually don't open roads on speculation, but if there is some activity up there, we'll look into it and come back with an answer.

D. Jarvis: In that same vein, I was wondering: has there been any idea or thought of the ministry doing any exploration in the sense of putting in new roads or jointly building infrastructure with mining companies to open up different areas in British Columbia, such as the area between Bralorne and, say, northeast toward Fish Lake in the northwest section along the Iskut or down through Telegraph Creek?

Hon. A. Edwards: When we consider infrastructure -- and we do -- we have a very clear interest in assuring that we look at infrastructure and a reasonable way to deal with it. We do that for somebody who has a specific plan to make an investment in a mine. But we couldn't possibly consider infrastructure without having a project. I don't know of any government that would do that. If there is a mine, we will look at it. There are all sorts of infrastructure that we talk about. We talk about roads; we talk about power lines; we talk about other kinds of transportation, like airstrips; we talk about port facilities. Companies ask for all of those things, and we look at them, but not unless there is in fact going to be a mine.

D. Jarvis: I was alluding to the fact that there could be some development up in the Fish Lake area and back down through the Bralorne area.

What I really wanted to get to was where you stood on the Royal Oak situation. You brought up the infrastructure that they wanted. From what I understand.... And I know very little of it. You would probably know more; you've been in negotiation with them to a certain extent. What was the hangup with them as far as what they require in the way of infrastructure? I understood they were looking for about $150 million in infrastructure.

Hon. A. Edwards: To deal first with Fish Lake, Fish Lake is one of those rare mines that would be developed very close to existing roads. There was no particular infrastructure discussions with the people who want to develop Fish Lake.

As for the situation with Royal Oak and Geddes and their announcement that they would buy El Condor and St. Philips, most of what Royal Oak wanted was laid out in the newspaper. We don't negotiate via the media. We were certainly willing to talk to a company that wanted to develop that property, and we had talked over the last months for quite some time with El Condor, which currently owns the Kemess property, and St. Philips, which owns Kemess North. We certainly were willing to look at what had been put on the table as to what would be required to develop a mine. We did talk about that for a short period of time.

D. Jarvis: I saw in either a newspaper or a press release that you were rather surprised that they had withdrawn their offer so quickly and that you hadn't finished negotiations. Were there specific things that they asked for and you said no to? What did you mean when you said that you hadn't finished negotiations?

[5:00]

Hon. A. Edwards: I think we were fairly familiar with the property, because we'd been working on it with El Condor for some time. As I say, any company that wanted to develop, we would talk to them. So the announcement came via the media that Royal Oak wanted to discuss compensation for Windy Craggy in combination with infrastructure for the Kemess properties. We did talk with representatives of Royal Oak and Geddes Resources, and we had outlined the directions in which we would go. And then the announcement came that we had not offered enough.

D. Jarvis: I heard that your offer to them was on a dollar-for-dollar basis and that essentially it wouldn't be valid for them to come in and invest $100 million. I think it was about 

[ Page 14166 ]

$34 million that the government had suggested they would either loan them or grant them and that they would have to match it dollar for dollar and that the larger portion of the $150 million, or up to that, was on the basis of a loan at about 8.5 or 9 percent interest. Is that right?

Hon. A. Edwards: Ms. Witte was quoted as saying that she valued our offer at $34 million; we never said that. That is not a figure that came from government. We do not negotiate publicly, as I say. There was more to this particular negotiation, because Ms. Witte said that she wanted to combine a proposal for compensation with a proposal for infrastructure. So obviously the discussions were wider-ranging than they have been with El Condor, which currently owns the property.

D. Jarvis: I'm learning. Would the minister tell me if there are any discussions going on at the moment, other than the offer from Royal Oak, in regard to the settlement of Windy Craggy? Has any proposal been made?

Hon. A. Edwards: It is not within my ministry. The negotiations are being conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Parks by the Ministry of Attorney General, and the discussions and preparations for compensation continue.

D. Jarvis: Talking about exploration prior to this, you mentioned that there was $100 million spent last year on exploration in this province, up from about $70 million in the year before. Is there any specific evidence to show that exploration is going to be equal to or better than what it was last year?

Hon. A. Edwards: We expect that the level of exploration will be approximately the same this year as it was last year. It will be much more broadly based. We think it will be focused more on the development part of the exploration programs and more broadly based for the initial exploration -- in other words, at the prospector level.

D. Jarvis: Well, on that basis, we're not really growing. We are pretty well staying at the same level as we were last year, and that is really way down from where we had been in previous years. When you say that we expect more mines to come on line, there is no evidence of that, as it takes five to ten years for mines to come on. If our exploration is still low, how can we expect to see this ministry grow in that sense? The industry itself is slowing down.

Hon. A. Edwards: One of the unfortunate things that happened last year was that with the takeover of Lac Minerals by Barrick Resources, the Red Mountain property is no longer expected to proceed; $18 million of last year's exploration budget was at Red Mountain. To reach the same level of exploration -- a very similar level, anyway -- in two years and discount the $18 million that went into the Red Mountain property.... The people who previously owned it were very excited about it and thought they were ready to begin development. Barrick Resources has backed off completely. If you take out that $18 million and put that amount in again, we believe that the level of exploration is going to be quite healthy this year.

D. Jarvis: One of the big problems out there, as you're probably aware -- you hear it and see it in the paper all the time, and everyone criticizes the ministry -- is the fact that taxation is too high, regulations are too strict and the cost of permitting is too high. Is the ministry contemplating any changes to the cost of licensing, regulations and fees in the hope that the overall taxation may drop?

Hon. A. Edwards: Within the $100 million package that we put in our budget last year, $85 million was for tax measures. Of that $85 million, $48 million was to put the coal industry on an equitable basis with the metals industry on matters of taxation. That made a huge difference to the coal industry; that you can see. We believe it will be very helpful in the northeast for those people who are still operating on continuing contracts, and it certainly has been extremely helpful in the southeast where people are continuing to get new contracts. It has made a big difference.

With the metal mines, there were some tax measures that we believe are significant and will make a real difference. For one thing, you can write off your income tax against our mineral tax. That made a big difference to the metal mines.

The discussion about our taxation being high is like trying to compare apples and oranges. We have a high tax rate when mines are highly profitable, but we have a low tax rate until they are at that level of being highly profitable. So the marginal tax rate is high, but, in general, when a mine starts up, its tax rate will be probably on the comparably very low scale. Basically, as I say, we have a tax system that allows you to begin a mine and have favourable tax treatment; then as your profitability goes up and as you pay off some of the investment, you begin to pay at a higher rate at that point. So the tax system is frequently labelled -- perhaps a bit unfairly because we have that particular method which helps companies to get into a mine development. They know that when they do become profitable, they will then pay the difference. It is not as negative as some people make out.

D. Jarvis: I will ask the minister one more brief question, and then the member of the third party wants to ask some questions. I want to ask you what your feeling is with regard to the industry's feeling that this government's philosophy -- through CORE and on aboriginal land use issues -- is closing in on them. The area where they could go out and search for minerals is no longer as open as it was. They have been lumped in with forestry. You cannot tell where a mine is. You never know where it is -- whether it is on top of a mountain or in a valley. All these really heavy-handed protectionists for the area, ostensibly on the environmental end of it, are restricting mining in this province and the exploration for mining quite extensively. Most of the mountaintops in your own area have been restricted for exploration as a result of CORE in the Kootenays. Most minerals don't grow in valley bottoms; they are found in the mountains.

Can the minister tell us what her feeling is toward this situation? Does she agree that the Kootenay CORE is a good settlement? How much input did her ministry, which sat at the CORE table, put into the final decisions as to the Kootenay CORE report?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'll start with the answer on the Kootenay CORE report. I can't emphasize too strongly how well the coal industry did. They have more certainty for their properties now than they have ever had. They couldn't possibly have the level of certainty that the East Kootenay CORE report gave them.

[ Page 14167 ]

To go back to some other things, we were ready with our mineral potential plans for that process of the Kootenay CORE report. In many cases, we were able to assure that the protected areas excluded mining claims. In any other land zone under a land use plan, mining is an accepted activity, as you know. The industry, which is one of the most environmentally careful, has had some of the greatest success in dealing with environmental requirements. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the mining industry will do well operating in any one of the management zones, under any of the land use plans or any of the ones that are about to come.

I also want to mention the whole issue of first nations negotiations on land claims. There is no industry more aware of the need to have some certainty on aboriginal land claims than the mining industry. There is probably no industry that has been so successful in already having negotiations and talking to the native community. The mining industry has been operating in the far reaches of the province, dealing in areas where there are largely aboriginal populations, making agreements with them and working with them, but they know very well that they need the kind of certainty that we are working to get. We are working to get this certainty through negotiation so that we don't have litigation and court-directed decisions as to what's happening. So I believe that process is well known and supported by the industry. We can come to an agreement such that they know where they can operate and where they can't.

As far as environmental requirements go, as I said before, I think the industry is one of the most environmentally successful of any industry. I applaud them for that, and I think that bodes well for their future.

I did want to go back and say that titles and fees in B.C. are among the lowest in Canada. We talked about taxation already, but our titles and fees are very low.

[5:15]

I also wanted to mention that I hate to hear such negative talk when we talk about the mining industry. This year's theme for the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines is "Back to B.C." It's very clear that the mood is changing. The people who are operating in this province have a different attitude about what's going on and what they can do. We've been very clear on what we plan to do with land use and environmental assessment. We've laid it out, we've consulted with them and we are there. I think the mood here is really quite optimistic.

D. Jarvis: I'll just make a couple of brief comments and then I'll turn it over to the third party. The gentleman there has a couple of questions.

With regard to your statement that the coal sector is happy, Madam Minister, I have a letter here from that sector. Their position on the CORE report is that they do not endorse it in any way. There was no agreement at the table by the coal sector. So they couldn't be happy with the final results of CORE.

The other aspect, which I intend go into a little further at a later time, is the aspect of aboriginal use. You say the mining industry is completely happy. Yes, there have been mines that have gone out and made agreements with various aboriginal groups and have been quite successful with them. Under the new Nisga'a report that's on the table now, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has stated that subsurface minerals, oils and gas will belong to the aboriginal group that takes over that area, and that all leases and agreements are not considered private property. Any leases that are out there now are not registered on the land, as far as he's concerned, and are not considered in the fee simple sort of attitude that he has taken as to how the land is going to be turned over to the aboriginal people.

Don't consider that the miners out there who are exploring feel that everything is all good. They're going to go out tomorrow and find that they staked a piece of land that will possibly not be a piece of Crown land in the future, and there's no way that any agreement they have on it will hold any validity in the future.

Having said that, because we're going to come back to that again, I'll turn it over to the member from the third party.

Hon. A. Edwards: I think it's very difficult to conduct a debate when you have misinformation. The Nisga'a negotiations continue until the three parties reach an agreement. Certainly there will be lots of activity and lots of discussion before such time as we have any agreement with the Nisga'a people, even though they have been negotiating for some years now. I will not engage in debate on what has happened, what has been offered or what will happen with the Nisga'a negotiations, because they are far from complete.

I did not say, by the way, that the coal industry has said they are happy with the CORE process. What I said was that the coal industry has never been so secure in the East Kootenay, where a large part of B.C.'s coal industry is. Eighty percent of the coal lands are in designated areas. They are designated for coal mining. They wanted them all in, and I said I would hate to see a situation where the industry would be in a spot where they would demand that they have designation in order to operate as a mine. If they do that, then it's going to turn on them, and there's going to be at least a demand that they not operate unless they're designated. I don't think that's right. I think they should be operating in zones where they can operate, and they can operate anywhere, except in the protected areas. Nevertheless, in the East Kootenay plan, 80 percent of coal lands in the East Kootenays are designated lands for coal mining. The coal industry participated to the point of submitting a report to the CORE commissioner, and after that, their position then changed. So it's a very complex situation in the East Kootenays as far as coal is concerned. I repeat that the coal industry has never been so secure as it is now.

R. Neufeld: The minister stated earlier that the mining industry, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, talked about how everything's well and good in B.C. I guess I would have one comment on that. I think they have election fever in the air and maybe that's why they're starting to come back to B.C.

Land use is probably one of the biggest issues facing British Columbians today. It doesn't matter what resource extraction you have, whether it's mining or it's oil and gas or forestry or whatever. Can the minister...?

We also talked about taxes. The member from the Liberal Party talked about taxes, fees and those types of things. Does the minister have information that would tell us the per unit cost increase from 1991 to now that relates specifically to tax increases or anything of that nature that government would control? I know you can't control maybe the cost of their 

[ Page 14168 ]

labour; I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for tax increases, electricity increases, those types of things that government has put on the industry. How has that increased their cost of production?

Hon. A. Edwards: We don't have figures we can lay out for you, but if you look at the significant package of tax cuts and so on that we've made and at some of the tax increases we've made, it probably ends up to be about a wash, I would calculate.

R. Neufeld: It would be interesting if the ministry.... I don't need the answer to the question today -- maybe at some other point in time, if the minister could give it to me. I know there have been some tax concessions. Just for my own purposes, for the mining industry, I would like to know what their real costs have either increased or decreased over the last four years. It would be good information, I think, probably for the ministry and for myself.

Secondly, I'd like to ask a little about infrastructure. It was interesting to listen to the questioning about building roads. In one part of the country that I know quite well, it's tremendously expensive to build roads in those areas. The minister responded that the ministry looks at those issues and -- I assume, from the way she responded -- would look favourably at infrastructure costs for the mining industry, such as roads, hydro or those basic hard costs for the industry.

How does the ministry...? Is there a formula? Does the ministry look at each specific site as to the benefits to the province or to government? How do you go about negotiating something like that? To be perfectly honest, I don't know how far government should go in paying those costs for those kinds of hard assets.

Hon. A. Edwards: There is not a formula for infrastructure. Government looks at infrastructure needs, at what the actual return would be to the province, and balances that out with the kind of breadth of use, I think -- you know, how many people would use a road or a power line? That has been a constant consideration, as you know, with the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan Road: who uses it, whether it is really a public road, why we are still operating it partly private and partly public, and so on.

So these things do come up. But it's on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. Government looks at the needs, at the project itself, at the other users and at what we, I guess, could do to tie it all into the public good.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister relate to me something that has happened in the last three years -- during your whole mandate -- where you have participated in infrastructure costs with a mining company of any kind?

Hon. A. Edwards: As I have said, we look at infrastructure requests constantly. But generally our concept is for loans on commercial terms, rather than grants. The major example of that is the Cominco Trail operation, where we took a situation where a lot of public money had gone into a project that had flopped. We put together another agreement that was on commercial terms. We think that it was a good agreement. We think it was the kind that we would like to replicate when we can -- when we need to participate.

R. Neufeld: Then what the minister is telling me is that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources does not have any policy at all or any desire to participate in any infrastructure costs for any mining company. What I understand the minister to say is that they would rather have it as a commercial loan. Could I assume, then, that that would be guaranteed by the province of B.C.? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. A. Edwards: When we agree to a loan, the government is backing that loan, but it would be at a commercial rate. By the way, it is not my ministry that does it. It is connected to the development in mining and so on, but it's the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

R. Neufeld: I haven't participated this year in this room. Do we go past 5:30 p.m., or are we to break soon? Maybe the Chair will clarify that for me.

The Chair: Hon. member, the practice is to break at about 5:30 p.m. Rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again is generally the motion -- unless, of course, we're ready to pass the vote.

R. Neufeld: I can go on for quite a while -- but on a different topic. If it is acceptable to the minister, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:28 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada