1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 21, Number 11
[ Page 15971 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment; and in the House today I call second reading of Bill 50.
MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995
(second reading)
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pement: I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill contains legislation that is designed to save lives and make our roads safer for the rapidly growing bicycling community. Moreover, it contains legislation that will modernize our bicycle laws, something that is long overdue. In addition, this bill contains a number of amendments, mostly housekeeping in nature, but including one that will allow the superintendent of motor vehicles to issue drivers' licences for a shorter period than one year, a move tied to our fines collections initiative.
Most of our current legislation on cycling dates back to 1957. While there have been amendments several times over the years, the law from a policy perspective has remained basically unchanged. According to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, lower mainland residents make 50,000 bicycle trips on an average weekday. That may be only 2 percent of the total trips, but the percentage is rising. Cycling is growing dramatically in our province, and we need cycling laws to reflect that fact. We welcome this growth not only for the obvious health benefit but also because it helps alleviate one of our most pressing urban problems, which is traffic congestion. We support the development in several ways: through legislation, through investments in cycling infrastructure and through education and public awareness programs that promote cycling safety itself.
We'll be providing up to $2 million a year under a cost-sharing scheme funded by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, to help municipalities and communities expand and improve on their cycling networks. Only municipalities with comprehensive cycling plans will be eligible for grants, although we have waived this requirement for the current fiscal year.
We are developing a safe cycling program for children in grades 3 to 7. It will be taught by certified instructors who will be trained under the program. We expect that it will show a benefit down the road. These young people will start driving cars and hopefully apply the safety lessons they have already learned. This program, which is funded by ICBC and the motor vehicles branch, will heighten public awareness of safe cycling and involve stakeholders in generally enhancing cycling itself. We could not have reached this point without the valued input of our partners and stakeholders. They have come from cycling groups and organizations, the medical field, education and police. Our consultations have been crucial to our success, and they are ongoing.
Safety is a primary concern of us all. In the past five years in B.C., there have been nearly 10,000 bicycle accidents involving motor vehicles, 52 people have died, ten of those in 1993. These are just the reported cases, and it's estimated that the total number of cycling accidents may be 30 times higher. The likelihood of injury is great because cyclists are so exposed and vulnerable, especially when a motor vehicle is involved. In 1993, 95 percent of cyclists in accidents with motor vehicles were injured. In cycling accidents, about half of all injuries are to the head, and in three out of four cases where there is death, head injuries are to be blamed. The social costs are great. Acute care hospital treatment for head injuries averages $1,000 a day, while extended care may range from $100,000 to $200,000 a year.
It is a proven fact that head injuries drop dramatically when victims are wearing helmets. Eight of the ten cyclists who died in 1993 were not wearing helmets, yet only about 5 percent of all cyclists nationally wear them. This figure ranges from a low of 2 percent for children to 30 percent for adults. We have to change our thinking about helmet usage. We have to get the message across that helmets are good for one's health and life and that wearing a helmet is in fact as much a socially responsible act as buckling up a seatbelt in a vehicle.
That is the reason we have introduced this mandatory helmet law. We do not propose to enact it until September 1996, which is 15 months from now, so people will have time to understand it and prepare for it. We are developing a helmet rebate program as well. The vast majority of stakeholders, especially in the medical field, have applauded this program and the legislation itself. We realize that wearing a helmet is not the total answer but is rather just one part of the safety equation.
The other part in the far greater scope is education and public awareness, and on these we'll be moving into high gear in the coming months. We are confident we can achieve high compliance, because the connection between helmets and safety is undeniable. Education, however, is the key. This means we not only have to educate cyclists to help them acquire safe cycling skills, but we also have to educate motorists, because we all must share the road. This makes the responsibility for safety a shared one, too.
The initiatives I've outlined are consistent with our determination to develop a transportation and highway system that provides for a variety of modes and serves the needs of all. These are investments in our future. They're consistent with the recommendations of the Energy Council that promote and encourage alternative transportation in our province, and they are consistent with my ministry's commitment to safety, as reflected in our recent traffic safety initiatives. We are a government that supports cycling in our province. But moreover, we are a government that is committed to ensure safe cycling.
C. Serwa: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 15972 ]
C. Serwa: On behalf of my colleague the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce 27 visitors: grade 5 and 6 students, adults and the teacher, Mr. G. Overgaard of Signal Hill Elementary. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Symons: I thought the member for Okanagan West was rising to speak on this bill, because he may have a bit of ownership on it, in the sense that he had it as a private member's bill on the order paper a few years ago. So it's good to see this bicycle bill come in. Actually, it's an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act. There are a few other things, but certainly the main import of it, I believe, is bicycle helmets.
The other parts involve the refinements to the 24-hour roadside suspension for driving without a licence and things of that sort, which I wholly go along with. It's more housekeeping. Another portion of it deals with accommodating those who have outstanding traffic fines. Rather than have them lose their driver's licence, if they've made some agreement to pay off those outstanding fines, they would be able to retain, on an interim basis, their driver's licence. Again, I think that's a welcome change to the Motor Vehicle Act.
But the main part of this bill deals with bicycle helmets, and in a sense I have mixed feelings in dealing with that. On the one hand, we have the problem -- and people have expressed this opinion to me since this has come before us -- that we've got more government regulation, we've got more of the government-in-our face sort of idea and more restrictions on our freedom of choice. On the other hand, I think we balance that off with what the purpose of this bill is: safety and the possibility of head injuries.
The minister mentioned that they had support from the user groups, and that's true. Some of the bicycle organizations support it, but there are others that have second thoughts about it. Certainly the B.C. Medical Association is strongly in favour of this and has been recommending it for years. On the whole, I think we would find that there is more support from these organizations than those that have questions about it.
When it comes down to it, I think I will come down fairly strongly on the side of supporting the bill. In the two things I mentioned where there are mixed feelings, you have to weigh one against the other. My only choice, I suppose, would be that if somebody says they don't want to wear a helmet and you were to give them that freedom, I would want them to sign a waiver to say that if they suffered an injury -- particularly a head injury -- because they were not wearing a helmet, they would not cause any cost to the B.C. hospital plan and that we wouldn't be paying their hospitalization and medical bills that would result from their foolishness in not wearing a helmet. The unfortunate thing is that most people probably wouldn't sign one of these waivers. We couldn't run around catching anybody on a bike and saying: "Sign this waiver before you go anywhere." So we'd have to bring in a negative option, and since I'm against negative options, we'll have to go back the other way and say that the bill is designed to protect people. And if people don't want the protection, because there are costs to society if they make a foolish choice in that matter, it will have to be imposed.
[10:15]
I agree with the government in doing this slowly and putting in an education program to go along with it, particularly with the children in school, because that's where safety starts. If we can start with the young people, get them trained and get them to accept this, we'll find that it will become second nature for them to put on their helmet before they go riding.
I'm reminded of a few years ago when the minister made reference to seatbelts in cars and the resistance there was to that. But it is accepted today, and everybody uses them. Another issue dealing with helmets might go back to hockey players. You might remember not that many years ago, when a few hockey players began wearing helmets, people sort of laughed at them and called them sissies, and so forth. But you don't see a hockey player on the ice nowadays who isn't wearing a helmet, because the knowledge of what happens in the event of being smashed into the boards or other collisions in hockey, and of what head injuries can do to that person, is too great for them to not wear a helmet. So common sense, I think, reigned there. Once common sense takes over the few people who are resisting this, they will indeed go along with it too. I support the government in this.
I have just a couple of suggestions. We will be getting into some, because there are some areas of the bill that could be improved somewhat and that didn't go far enough. One of them is the $100 fine -- and it says up to $100. I would hope that at least for the first six months or something, maybe you would make some provision that the person must come back to the judge within a specified period of time and show that they have a helmet, so part of the $100 could be the purchase of a helmet. They would have to prove that they now have one. So if they are caught without one, make them buy one. Don't just let them go away and get away with it. That is a suggestion that I will maybe bring in later on.
The other part I would like to have clarification on in committee stage is about how this affects communities. It's a Highways bill, and I'm wondering how this will apply to city streets, parks or other areas where there might be trails, and what activities are taking place to see that it will be universal, rather than a hit-and-miss sort of arrangement.
So with those few words, I will say that I support the bill in second reading in principle, and I look forward to committee stage where we can discuss it in more detail.
B. Copping: I rise to speak very briefly in support of this bill. I am very proud today, and I would like to congratulate the minister for bringing this bill forward, because it's a bill that directly impacts on the saving of lives, and it's a bill about safety. The minister has mentioned some figures, but when we talk of saving lives, you only have to look at the fact that in the past five years in B.C., in 9,400 bicycle accidents involving motor vehicles, 52 people have died. In 1993, fatalities from cycling accidents numbered ten, eight of which were not wearing helmets. Head injuries caused three-quarters of all fatalities and account for almost half of all the acute cases resulting from cycling accidents. This bill has been needed, I feel, for quite a long time.
However, what's even better is that because of the minister in her wisdom and all the work that the stakeholder groups have done and the advice they have given, the helmet legislation will go a very comprehensive education program. A bicycle, of course, is the first vehicle that a child uses. If they are educated as to how to operate a vehicle -- albeit a bicycle -- safely, hopefully this will carry over when they perhaps go on to more dangerous vehicles, such as motor vehicles. There
[ Page 15973 ]
will a Bike Smart program, which is a standardized cycling education program for the schools, aimed at elementary children in grades 3 to 7. There will also be a public awareness program. Again, the answer is education, education, education. As with most things, this is no different.
Also, I'm very pleased to see that there will be a cycling network program, which is an infrastructure program giving $2 million in matching grants to municipalities for capital costs in constructing cycling facilities.
As I said earlier, there have been a lot of people working to see this legislation come into place. Again, the bicycle helmet is one step toward safety. Education is by far the strongest component. If there is enough education, you will get everybody absolutely wanting to wear a helmet without the legislation even being needed.
I would particularly like to thank one of my constituents, Glenna Ayerst, who is president and founder of the National Bicycle Safety Foundation. Glenna has been the driving force behind this issue and the driving force behind seeing this legislation discussed in the House today. She deserves a great deal of credit for this. Also, I would personally like to thank Dr. Bill Mackie from the BCMA, who has also worked very hard on this issue. As with anything, these are only two people I mention, and I recognize that there have been many people. Again, thank you very much. I'm very pleased to see this legislation being debated today.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
B. Simpson: I'm delighted this morning to speak in favour of this bill, which will require bicyclists to wear a helmet as of September 1996. I want to commend the minister for the initiative she has taken in introducing this important piece of legislation -- legislation that will undoubtedly save lives. Seldom can one point to a piece of legislation that will have such a profound effect on the lives of our citizens. In the past five years, 52 people have died in 9,400 bicycle accidents. In 1993 the tally from cycling accidents numbered ten, of which eight were not wearing helmets. Head injuries caused three-quarters of all fatalities and account for almost half of all acute cases resulting from cycling accidents. Studies have shown that helmets will reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent. The evidence is overwhelming that such legislation will save lives and reduce head injuries significantly.
Legislation has been introduced in a majority of states in the United States. Legislation is now law in Australia and is about to become law in Ontario. Such legislation has received widespread support from individuals, regardless of their political leanings. At this point, I want to pay recognition to the hon. member for Okanagan West, who introduced a private member's bill some three years ago on this subject.
The Canadian Automobile Association, with its four million members, made an urgent appeal that provincial governments enact regulations requiring mandatory use of bicycle helmets by all cyclists. The B.C. Medical Association, along with the report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, recommended mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets by all B.C. cyclists and their infant passengers. Provincial medical health officer Dr. John Millar has urged mandatory bicycle helmet legislation, and the Bicycling Association of B.C. supports introduction of this important piece of legislation.
According to Dr. John Millar, about 5 percent of young people in B.C. wear bicycle helmets most of the time when cycling. In other words, 95 percent of our youths are not taking this highly effective measure to prevent injury and death. In the state of Victoria in Australia, helmet use by youth has gone from 5 percent to around 95 percent over the course of several years, through a combination of public education followed by legislation. The legislation in Australia has resulted in a dramatic decline in the proportion of cyclists sustaining head injuries, and the Australian experience has shown that there was widespread support and very little resistance to this legislation.
The lifetime costs of a head-injured Canadian, which include intensive care, long-term hospital costs and lifetime care and support in the home, are estimated to be in the range of $1 million to $1.5 million. Between 1990 and 1994 there were 461 head-injury claims that went through the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and the total bodily injury reserves for these claims was over $15 million. In addition, millions of dollars have been paid out for these claims by way of part 7 benefits, which include medical benefits and rehabilitation. These figures do not include the costs of hospitalization.
To quote Dr. John Millar, the provincial health officer:
"I've repeatedly stressed the need for British Columbia to implement a program to increase bicycle helmet usage. It is my view, based on experience elsewhere, that this will require both a public education program and legislation to make bicycle helmets mandatory."
I want to also commend the minister and the Attorney General for the exhaustive consultation process that took place before the legislation was introduced. The bicycle helmet advisory committee comprised members from the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia, Sport Medicine Council of B.C., British Columbia Head Injury Association, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Cycling British Columbia, British Columbia Injury Prevention Centre, British Columbia Medical Association, Vancouver City Police, RCMP and officials of various ministries. All worked tirelessly to make this legislation possible.
I want to commend in particular one individual, whose tireless efforts are responsible for the legislation that we have here today. That individual is Glenna Ayerst, founder of the National Bicycle Safety Foundation. Glenna has been lobbying for safety helmet legislation since 1988. It was her persistence and determination that encouraged me and my colleagues to recognize the importance of having this legislation introduced this session. Glenna recognized, together with her colleagues, that any delay in the enactment of this legislation would result in needless suffering, unnecessary loss of lives and avoidable health care cost.
I urge all members to give speedy passage of this very important bill.
G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill 50. Its primary focus is, of course, helmet legislation, introduced for the first time in British Columbia. It also includes a number of other aspects in the bill -- namely, section 9 of the bill, which amends section 115. It also amends some other aspects, and that's about high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. The bill itself makes reference to the fact -- section 9, section 115, on bus lanes -- that the lane is reserved for the exclusive use of buses and other prescribed motor vehicles and drivers.
[ Page 15974 ]
I just ask that the ministry recognize a passion of mine: that motorcycles be included in those high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, primarily because they are held up in traffic and have much greater manoeuvrability. There's nothing worse than having to sit in traffic when it's pouring rain, and you could be going quicker; you're getting wet, the high-occupancy-vehicle lanes are empty and there's not a bus to be seen for some time. So I urge the minister, with that plea, to include motorcycle usage on high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, when they are established.
[10:30]
Turning to the helmet legislation, it is good news. I have long been a motorcyclist. At the age of 16 I first got my licence; I acquired both licences at the same time. I'd like to take exception to the Liberal critic's remark that somehow a waiver should be signed by people who prefer not to wear helmets. That remark is rather draconian. I've heard that remark before from the motorcycle community. We're opposed to that, because you can't wheel somebody into a hospital when they are.... Hospital workers would have to make the decision to look for a waiver, and if they had a signed waiver, they would have to wheel them back onto the street. That remark is rather draconian; it should not be considered. Any reference to it should be quickly disregarded in this bill.
This bill does not go far enough. It is fine to talk about the numbers of people that have been injured by not wearing a helmet, but it is still possible in this province to put on a helmet, whether riding a bicycle or a motorcycle, and ride around in a bathing suit, without shoes. It is possible for a young person to get on a bicycle without any training and ride through busy traffic in downtown Vancouver wearing a helmet, a bathing suit and no shoes.
I'm glad to see that aspects of this bill address training, and I can't emphasize that strongly enough. I said, when talking about motorcycle issues in this House, that it's still possible for a 16-year-old to go down and get a licence for a 250-cc motorcycle and climb aboard what's called a crotch rocket: a 160-horsepower motorcycle that will outmanoeuvre virtually anything on the road and that can be put on the racetrack -- with no training whatsoever. We have to ensure that proper training takes place, in fact, and that young people -- and adults -- when getting on a bicycle, have training and know what is out there and that there is two-ton piece of metal out there that's ready to run them down and cause serious harm, whether they're wearing a helmet or not.
In preparation for this bill, I was in a bicycle shop the other day and had a look at some of the helmets. The helmets must be adequate. I don't really think they are at present, because the disclaimers on the tags attached to the helmets were in fact onerous. Perhaps the member who spoke previous to me and has a legal background would like to assist the minister in addressing some of those disclaimers. In fact, one went so far as to say that the helmet was not to be used at speeds above four kilometres per hour, because it wasn't safe then. The Speaker runs faster than that; in fact, he may even walk faster than that.
Again, we must ensure that the helmets being worn are safe helmets that adequately protect the rider and that there is proper training to ensure that we do not have people on the streets riding bicycles who in fact do not have any experience. In my home country of Holland, there are 15 million people; nine million ride bicycles. There are more bicycles than cars in Holland. They don't wear helmets, but they have adequate training. There are certain areas where there are licensing requirements. We are being told time and time again that the training is what prevents accidents. I see that the bill encourages communities to develop bicycle lanes so that there is no confrontation between the two-ton pieces of metal called cars and the bicyclist. I encourage this bill, I encourage support of the bill and I encourage all people to wear a helmet, whether they're riding a bicycle or a motorcycle, for their own safety.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond Centre rises on a point of order.
D. Symons: The former speaker attributed some comments to me, and he totally misled the House. He totally took something out of context and attempted to give a wrong meaning to what I said.
The Speaker: Hon. member....
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, he was misleading and purposely twisting words...
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
D. Symons: ...and I do not think that's appropriate.
The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not the means by which a member can correct what he believes to be improper comments, unless it's by a substantive motion.
D. Symons: In other words, hon. Speaker, then anyone can say anything in this House....
The Speaker: No, hon. member.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Would the hon. member....
Interjection.
The Speaker: I must ask the member to withdraw the comment that the member is a liar.
D. Symons: Well, I would say that he twists the truth.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
C. Serwa: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Serwa: This morning we have group of up to 90 visitors, grades 5 and 6 students, from Chilliwack Central Elementary. I have the pleasure of introducing them on behalf of the member for Chilliwack. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Gabriel D'Archangelo and a number of parents.
It's particularly appropriate for the young people who are here this morning that we're discussing the mandatory bike helmet regulations. It's really important, because it's your
[ Page 15975 ]
future that this Legislature is concerned about, so it's indeed most fortunate that you're here this morning. Would the House please welcome this group.
The Speaker: The member is now going to address the second reading question. Please proceed.
C. Serwa: It's a sincere pleasure to rise in support of Bill 50, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, especially with respect to the mandatory need for bicycle helmets.
There's something that I would like to say before I get a little bit more extensively into the legislation, but it's proof -- sometimes needed and sometimes necessary to defeat the cynicism with respect to politics and politicians -- that even a single, solitary member, the sole surviving member of the Social Credit Party, can make a difference in this Legislature. While I compliment the Minister of Transportation and Highways for bringing this legislation forward, and at the same time I must compliment the Attorney General for his sincere contribution and his interest in seeing that this legislation is brought forward, I'm also cognizant that in being able to bring forward a private member's bill several years ago, I was able to raise the profile.
But the result of this bill is more than just the effort of all of us in this Legislature, and I think it's incumbent on us to recognize that. There are a whole series of groups and organizations -- spearheaded, perhaps, by the B.C. Medical Association, which has been strong and foremost in this -- that have lobbied throughout the years for this type of legislation. I suppose that as legislators in this Legislature, we can all stand very tall and proud of our profession as politicians in the province when we recognize and acknowledge the need for this type of legislation, which has such widespread support among all of those individuals. I think that accolades are certainly due to the minister, to the Attorney General and to the government, and I think they are also a credit to the way the Legislature operates. It's certainly one of the bright spots in my time in the Legislature.
I think the legislation will go a long way to minimize the devastation that occurs. First of all, the loss of potential, and invariably it happens with younger people.... I see that the education program being carried out is such that most of the older people riding bicycles for relaxation, recreation or competition are all wearing headgear. But altogether too many of our young citizens are not wearing bicycle helmets, and they're, of course, the most vulnerable. When you think about the loss of potential and the devastation to the immediate family from a head or brain injury.... I've gone to a number of facilities that look after these individuals, and I've seen them and their past records. It gives me a great deal of concern. I think this legislation is very, very necessary. It hasn't been an easy matter to resolve or to bring forward, and I compliment the tenacity and the will of the government in bringing this legislation forward.
In the end, I think our communities in the province will be well served if part of the education process and program is borne by the press and by the radio and television media outlets. I think they have a splendid opportunity to propagate the awareness and understanding, the educational aspect. There are significant moneys allocated for the education portion that goes along with this piece of legislation. I also think we will see a great deal of support from commercial business organizations throughout the province, making bicycle helmets more readily available, perhaps, to families in need and our young citizens. I'm certain that a spirit of cooperation will spill out from this Legislature over British Columbia, and the beneficiaries will be those young people like those who are with us in the galleries this morning.
In the end, society will be the ultimate beneficiary from the cost -- which is anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000 annually to look after a brain-damaged person, and that's a societal cost -- but the greater cost is the loss of potential to the individual, and that is a significant cost.
In concluding, I support the philosophy and the principles behind this bill. I compliment the minister, the Attorney General, and the government on bringing this bill forward. It's certainly one of the proudest moments I have had standing in this Legislature.
H. Lali: I rise in support of Bill 50, the bill to require cyclists to wear helmets. I appreciate the comments made by the Social Credit member for Okanagan West. I know he has been working in favour of this type of legislation for a long time. Although there's strong support within the New Democrat caucus, there are some people I'd like to single out as well, not the least of whom is the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who has done a lot of work in this area and was fundamental in bringing this legislation forth, as was the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. The member from Port Alberni, who's an avid motorcyclist, has given strong support; and, of course, the Minister of Transportation and Highways has had the foresight to bring this bill forth at this time. I think she deserves a lot of credit.
Interjection.
H. Lali: Yes, of course, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain was also right there alongside the member for Vancouver-Fraserview in lobbying very hard to make this a reality.
This issue is about safety. I'm particularly concerned because I'm the father of two children, three and a half and two years old. My daughter, who's two, rides a tricycle, and my son has a bicycle with training wheels. Long before we introduced this legislation, my wife and I were avid supporters of helmets for cyclists; our children, whenever they ride in our cul-de-sac, ride with helmets on. So this is very, very important to me, because I'd like to.... I know that all other individuals who have children -- or nieces, nephews or grandchildren -- are quite concerned as well about the safety of these children.
There are people out there who have opposition to this, and they cite all sorts of reasons, but, then again, those are the same kinds of reasons we saw when seatbelt legislation was introduced almost 20 years ago. At that time they were using all sorts of arguments, saying that it was infringing upon the freedoms of an individual. But in a case like this, we're saving lives; it's actually preventing major injuries, such as seatbelts have proven to do over the years. This is indeed a good piece of legislation.
I'm also happy that the minister introduced, along with the legislation, a training and educational program which will reach out not only to the children in the schools but also to the general public. Recreational cycling is becoming a big thing in our lives, as is cycling for exercise. There are, as well, a lot of older people who participate in cycling alongside youth.
[ Page 15976 ]
[10:45]
I understand that there's a little over a year of consultation before this actually becomes law in September 1996. I'm a little bit concerned that at this time there is no exemption being made for people who wear turbans. I hope that in this year and a quarter of consultation, perhaps some change could be made to make an exemption for turban-wearers. The member from Port Alberni mentioned that some of the helmets that are out there don't necessarily meet some of the standards or don't appear to be very safe. I can attest that the turban is a piece of cloth that's almost nine yards long; it's wound around the head and is a lot safer than some of the helmets that are out there. Having made three trips to India in the last three years, I know that most of the major cities have laws that exempt from wearing a helmet those motorcyclists who wear turbans. I've seen that all over India, and I think that's something we should possibly look at; maybe look at some of the statistics about accidents involving people wearing turbans, so that we could make some exemption for turban-wearers who are avid cyclists in this province.
I want to point out a couple of statistics before I take my seat. In the last five years in British Columbia there have been 9,400 bicycle accidents involving motor vehicles, in which 52 people have died. In 1993 there were 10 fatalities from cycling accidents involving people who were not wearing helmets. Head injuries account for three-quarters of all fatalities and almost half of all acute cases resulting from cycling accidents. Studies in the United States have shown that helmets will reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent. I think the statistics speak for themselves.
I don't think much more needs to be mentioned. This is a good law. It's a law about safety, not only for the general public but especially for children who ride bicycles. I think everybody in this House should applaud the minister for bringing forward this initiative and should support this bill.
J. Dalton: I'll just make a couple of brief comments. I went out just a little while ago to phone home to see how my high school children are doing, because they're out of school today; their exams are finished. I talked to my 13-year-old daughter, who always wears a helmet, and has done so since the day she learned to ride a bicycle. I reminded her that we are debating this very bill today and to make sure that she has her helmet on. The same applies to my other two children, a ten-year-old and a 16-year-old. I also reminded my 13-year-old that if she doesn't wear the helmet, I'm going to get nailed for any offence she may be pulled over for.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: And the members applaud. Thank you. I told her it would come out of her allowance, and she had better be careful.
I understand that in my absence -- when I was speaking with my 13-year-old daughter -- the member for Alberni made a rather cheeky comment about a statement made by our critic the member for Richmond Centre. I just want to remind this government that perhaps if you were to listen more carefully.... Sometimes people in this House, we know, do make comments tongue in cheek, and I don't think it's fair comment for the member opposite to get up and make reference to something that clearly was a misstatement. I just want the record to be clear on that point.
I thank the minister for this legislation. It is long overdue, and I can assure the minister that my three children have always complied with this law, even though it is not yet law, and they will continue to do so.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I am very pleased to be able to rise today in second reading in support of this bill, a bill which I believe exemplifies the approach that legislatures have to take as they look at the broader issues of how we preserve people's health, and not simply care for them when they become injured or ill.
The tragedy of head injuries is apparent to anyone who has experienced that in their own family or has experienced a friend or a member of a friend's family die or sink into a coma as a result of head injuries and lead a diminished life as a result of the tragedy of head injury.
The most common cause of hospitalization among our children in British Columbia is not disease, for all that leukemia or other conditions are highlighted. It's not some epidemic. The most common cause for the hospitalization of British Columbia's children is injury. Many, many of those injuries are preventable, whether they happen at home, at school or, as happens too often with bicycle accidents, as they play on the playgrounds and roads of our province.
Like many in this chamber, I grew up in a time when the idea of a bicycle helmet would have seemed like science fiction. We rode our bikes viciously up and down hills, on and off roads, with never a thought to the fact that we were exposing ourselves to injury, although sometimes we visited our friends in hospital, and occasionally we attended their funerals.
The bill we're introducing today is a quantum step forward in the protection of children in British Columbia. It acknowledges that we in this Legislature have a responsibility not only to take care of British Columbians after they become ill or injured but to try as best we can to prevent injuries. It is of a piece with other strategies that our government has adopted. Whether it's immunization programs -- we have the only hepatitis B program in Canada for our children -- whether it's measures to reduce the use of tobacco among young people by maintaining taxes and taking firm steps to ensure that tobacco is not sold to those under the legal age of purchase, whether it's other injury prevention and safety programs in their daily lives and in our schools -- the "Learning for Living" program tells children about preventable diseases and safe behaviours concerning sexual matters -- or whether it's nutrition programs, in all those areas we have gone a step beyond providing health services by saying: "We have to prevent illness and injury." Putting helmets on the heads of kids is a marvellous step forward.
I have two children. My oldest child is now 24, and when he was a youngster, helmets were just starting to come into vogue. I remember buying him his first one when he was in his teens, and getting him to wear it was a bit of a challenge. Now he is a regular cyclist. He lives in Victoria and is so much committed to cycling that he recently deinsured his car. He said, "During the summer I'm going to do nothing but ride my bike," and he's going to be riding his bike with a helmet. He is a committed cyclist. He loves this form of transportation, but he knows the personal dangers that lurk out there for him. As a young man he has made a clear choice to continue something that I started him on when he was a child.
[ Page 15977 ]
My daughter is now 15. She has never ridden a bicycle without a helmet. For her this is part of the landscape; this is what one does when one gets on a bike. The first thing you do, after unlocking it, perhaps, is to put on your helmet. So as they go about their lives as children and young adults, I have the satisfaction of knowing that they have taken personal measures to improve their safety.
I think that this law and the education program that must precede the mandatory nature of helmets will broaden this debate to every city, every village and every school in British Columbia and will make the experience of my children -- and, I expect, of children of others in this Legislature -- more and more common. My hope is that as a result, we will see fewer tragedies, we will have fewer young people in hospital wards and long term care facilities, and we will have fewer families grieving in cemeteries in this province.
I want to offer my congratulations to the minister for bringing this bill forward, and I join with others on all sides of this House in supporting this legislation.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to stand and support this bill, a bill that I've long supported the concept of. As with the previous member, this has been part of our family. It's a matter of taking preventive measures that will prevent the serious injuries that any person.... For children it's a tragedy. For adults it's a tragedy to have to deal with an acute care hospital situation as a result of an accident that has led to serious head injuries. We need to do whatever we can to try to prevent these. Utilizing helmets on a regular basis is one of those methods that's been proven to be a good safeguard -- a good example of what you might call preventive medicine.
We have fine role models such as professional football players -- like yourself, hon. Speaker -- professional hockey players and bicycle racers. Most people who are in a risk position with a chance of head injuries are now wearing helmets. That is proof of the fact that these professionals know that they have to take that protection because of the serious losses that can occur.
A minor head injury is a serious injury. I agree with the concept that if you start with a helmet at the beginning, as part of your equipment.... Just as skateboarders and in-line roller-bladers are now wearing helmets and pads to protect them, so should a bicycler also do that as a fundamental thing when they take their bike out. This recognition through legislation of the need for that, I think, will emphasize that in everybody's mind.
I feel thankful to the Lord that my daughter, while she was attending UBC and was in a race and took a terrible tumble, landing on her head, fortunately was wearing a helmet at the time and was not seriously injured. I really commend the concept of helmet-wearing and will support this bill fully.
The Speaker: There being no further speakers, the hon. minister closes debate.
Hon. J. Pement: We have heard different comments from the members with regard to the necessity for the legislation, particularly in the issue of health and safety. But I think the key to this legislation is public education: there is knowledge that we need to have with regard to skills in cycling and rules of the road. Community involvement is also part of the legislation, in that it is a case of sharing the road. At the community level we all have responsibilities, and as legislators we have to take the message back to our communities with regard to this legislation.
[11:00]
We have ongoing work with the stakeholder groups. I think our work has just started, really, with regard to ensuring that this legislation is successful. The real issue is to get people to wear their helmets and to be safe on their bicycles.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 50, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
B. Simpson: With the House's permission, I would like to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Simpson: I'm delighted today to greet the students of Walter Moberly school and their teacher Mr. Cummings. I believe there are some other teachers, and I apologize for not having the names before me. I would also like to apologize for not having the opportunity of speaking to you out in front, but I was debating here, together with my colleagues, a bill that is very important to your students. The helmet legislation will be law within the next year. I ask all members to join with me in welcoming the students from Walter Moberly Elementary School.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 48.
ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES ACT
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I am very pleased to rise today to speak in more detail about the Access to Abortion Services Act.
This legislation will ensure that abortion services in British Columbia are provided in an atmosphere of security, respect and privacy. That is an atmosphere that for too long has been lacking as women go to seek legal medical services and as doctors provide them. Instead, the climate has in many cases been one of long-term conflict, which has interfered with access to this legal medical service. Anti-abortion protests are occurring outside providers' homes. Doctors are being threatened, their children are being told their parents are murderers, and women seeking abortion services are separated from their escorts, verbally harassed and chased to their cars.
This act is intended to defuse the tension by putting some distance between the protesters and the people seeking and providing abortion services. The legislation will create access zones around facilities providing abortion services. Access zones will be established around all doctors' offices and homes, and may be set up around the homes of other service providers.
[ Page 15978 ]
Access to health services is one of the foundations of the Canadian medicare system, and it is my responsibility as a minister to maintain access to services. In the case of access to abortion services, we must ensure that access to choice is a practical reality, not just a legal right. I recognize, and I think all members of this House recognize, that members of society and members of this chamber may have strongly different views on the issue of abortion, but the fact is that this is a legal medical service, and it should be available to women in the province in an atmosphere of dignity and respect.
Too often, those who have protested have let that protest spill over into interference and harassment, and at times they have created an atmosphere that has led to violence. For too long, B.C. doctors have been subjected to loud, offensive, disruptive pickets outside their homes, with signs that name individual doctors and messages that state such things as "Dr. X murders children." Many of the doctors providing abortion services have been harassed or threatened by phone, received hate mail or been picketed at their home or office.
The BCMA has endorsed the legislation that this chamber has before it. The Medical Association is emphatic that no doctor should feel intimidated or threatened in the practice of medicine. Physicians who provide abortion services are practising their profession legally. They are providing a legal service, doing so in an ethical manner and serving the women of this province. They should not have to do so in an atmosphere of intimidation or threat. The issue that this government is addressing is one of access to medical service and of the right of doctors and their patients to live and work in an atmosphere free from harassment.
One of the tests of a free society is how it balances the wish of some to protest or oppose or express dissent with the right of others to follow their own course, to make their own choices and ultimately to live their lives free of harassment. This is a fair and democratic society with rights and freedoms and corresponding rights and responsibilities. The right of freedom of speech and expression carries with it some responsibility for what is said and how it is expressed.
I want to assure those who hold strong beliefs with regard to abortion that this law will not prevent legitimate, peaceful protest. I recognize the strong feelings and beliefs of many who are opposed to the provision of abortion services. I receive correspondence daily and weekly on this issue, and I read it. But there is a line to be drawn between the liberty that we all value to express our views and the licence when abuse of that liberty leads to harassment, interference and intimidation. This law does not seek to prevent legitimate, peaceful protest. It does not seek to limit the liberty that we all value and the freedom of speech that we all treasure. But it is intended to ensure that women of this province can access legal medical services.
The courts have said that freedom of speech does not include the right to have one's message listened to. Where people are captive listeners or viewers to an unwanted message, as they are too often in the case of demonstrations, protests and sidewalk interference around abortion services, one of the fundamental assumptions supporting freedom of expression is brought into question. The Charter of Rights in this country guarantees freedom of expression but also says that it is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable limits that can be prescribed for demonstrably justified causes.
[11:15]
That is the case in this bill. The legislation we are debating today will not replace Criminal Code provisions that relate to harassment, nor is it intended to criminalize anti-abortion dissent. But establishing access and some clear guidelines in provincial law makes it easier to defuse a volatile atmosphere around clinics, hospitals and the homes of doctors and other service providers.
The act defines a series of behaviours that cannot be carried out within an access zone, such as intimidation of or physical interference with a doctor, patient or service provider; protests, including picketing or handing out leaflets; and graphic recording, such as the use of video cameras. We will protect access to abortion services and ensure that our health care providers are not driven away from delivering legal medical services.
The legislation achieves a balanced solution to a difficult and chronic problem. We have balanced the need to protect access to this medical service with the ability of people to express their views. Access zones will separate those opposed to abortion from doctors, patients and other providers, and we believe that a great deal of the tension that surrounds this service will be defused by creating this necessary balance. It will be an offence in an access zone to approach a woman or her escort and harass, interfere or attempt to stop her from proceeding with her choice -- her choice -- to terminate her pregnancy. As well, it will be an offence inside an access zone to attempt to dissuade a service provider from delivering care, from serving the women who have come to seek that service. Access zones may be set up ten metres from the offices of physicians, up to 50 metres from clinics providing abortions and up to 160 metres from the homes of doctors and other service providers.
Yesterday, Dr. Garson Romalis wrote passionately of his experience serving women of this province in delivering abortion services. His own experience with protest was an experience of the atmosphere of violence that too often is created. He said clearly to us here in this House: "This is a humanitarian issue which crosses party lines." I encourage all members of this Legislature, no matter what their political affiliation, to join me in supporting this bill.
L. Reid: As I enter into the debate this morning on Bill 48, I do so from a perspective of safety and security. I have a tremendous regard for personal safety of all British Columbians, and I'm always dismayed by violence. My understanding is that the intention of this bill is to provide some safety and security for care providers in British Columbia, for patients in the province and, more specifically, for families -- for the children and the spouses of care providers. I don't believe that they should ever be drawn into the fray. I was personally touched by the public account of the shooting of Dr. Gary Romalis. No one could possibly condone that type of behaviour. I think that by asking people to stand back from physicians' homes, from clinics and from doctors' offices, this legislation is not asking too much.
I will reference this morning the comments of Joel Bakan, who is the individual who talks about this issue from a civil rights perspective and attempts to suggest that proposed buffer zones constitute only a minimal restriction on the expression and interests of protesters. They are what are commonly referred to as time, place and manner restrictions. They do not prohibit people from expressing particular views, but rather from expressing them in particular places. I think that
[ Page 15979 ]
that is indeed the intention of this legislation, because the purpose, as I see it, is not to close off the rights of individuals to have that degree of expression, but simply to suggest that perhaps there is a place that's more appropriate, and certainly to protect people from what is potentially harmful behaviour.
There are a number of issues before us today, and I would never diminish the complexity of those issues. However, I believe that our only task today is to decide if the legislation can deliver what it promises. The intent of the legislation appears to be to provide unimpeded access, and again I would suggest that that is a tremendous balancing act. To cite Dr. Gary Romalis, and to come back to the release of the British Columbia Medical Association, creating zones around clinics is an excellent measure to protect health professionals if indeed this legislation is about public protection, and I trust that it is. This indeed may be something that we can propose.
Certainly I agree with the minister when he suggests that this legislation is not intended to duplicate the Criminal Code; that is certainly my understanding. This legislation, for me, is about safety and security. I would not stand today and tell you that this legislation is a solution. I do not believe this legislation will solve the problem, but in this instance, moving the problem may be a reasonable idea. The official opposition understands the intent of the legislation, and as such, we will do all we can to improve this bill in committee stage.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in second reading debate on Bill 48, the Access to Abortion Services Act. This particular bill has in some respects been a long time coming, but it's interesting to note that there has always been access to abortion services in British Columbia in our hospitals. There were some hospitals around the province that denied women these services through decisions made by hospital board members, and that was not acceptable, either. However, freestanding abortion clinics are not the answer.
I think that the extreme controversy and confrontation around abortion services in the last few years can be laid squarely at the feet of the NDP government's freestanding clinics. The health service providers, patients and supporters have all been subjected to intimidation and harassment. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be done in a hospital. With the changes under New Directions in health in the province, whereby the community health councils and regional health boards determine services closer to home, these services could be, and should be, accessible to every woman in her community hospital in every region of the province.
When the government established the freestanding clinics, they were asking for trouble and they got it -- not just trouble but a near tragedy -- with the shooting of Dr. Romalis. I do not believe that this bill will protect the doctors, nurses or staff of the clinics from violence in their homes or communities, but what it will do is make it an offence to harass people within a designed perimeter. This means that in addition to the Criminal Code dealing with harassment, the police will have another tool to protect individuals from intimidation, confrontation and possible violence.
The bill lays out a number of prohibited activities within these access zones. I think it's worthwhile listing what they are. There can be no sidewalk interference; no one may advise or persuade a person not to access abortion services; similarly, a person cannot provide information to those seeking abortions. protesting: picketing or handing out leaflets in protest of issues related to abortion services is prohibited within an access zone. Besetting: within an access zone, a person cannot continuously or repeatedly observe a patient, doctor or service provider with the purpose of dissuading them from accessing an abortion service. Physical interference: any kind of physical interference with a doctor, service provider or patient is prohibited under this law. Graphic recording: a person cannot film, videotape or photograph doctors, patients or service providers who are in an access zone for the purpose of dissuading them from using or providing abortion services.
For these reasons I will support this bill. But if this government truly cared about the health, safety and choices for women in this province, they would close the freestanding clinics and make sure that every acute care hospital in this province provides abortion services, except those run by religious organizations.
The questions about rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly -- that have been raised by a number of organizations and individuals around the province.... It seems to me that some people's excess of freedoms become other people's oppression. Whereas I will concede that this bill is an infringement on a person's rights to protest in certain ways, I believe that certain kinds of behaviour and expression are not acceptable in our society today. I also believe that this government is inviting a multitude of court challenges under the Charter of Rights. This is going to generate huge costs in terms of legal fees and court time, and possibly days, months and years of valuable time and money for all concerned.
In spite of the flaws in this bill, I support the intent to protect women and health care providers from harassment, and to protect their rights to provide and receive legal medical service in this province.
L. Fox: I rise to speak against this bill, and let me point out my reason. In order to preserve one right, this bill actually infringes on another right, and to me that is a very large concern. Let me say as well that I recognize the emotion around this issue. I do not condone the violence, harassment or life-threatening actions that we've seen. When we look at all those symptoms of a problem, we have to ask ourselves: what is the problem?
In my view, the problem has become more pronounced, more focused and a lot more dangerous since we've had freestanding abortion clinics. When abortions were done in the acute care centres, there was very little, if any, way to identify individuals entering those facilities who were going there for the purposes of having an abortion, and there was very little opportunity to identify the doctors in terms of who was doing the abortions. So we didn't see that kind of harassment prior to the freestanding abortion clinics.
Let me also say that there are many incidents out there when we could legitimately justify this type of bubble zone. We did a bit of research, and I would like to make everybody in the Legislature aware of this. We did a search of the Vancouver Province on two issues, identifying one "labour and violence" and the other one "abortion and violence." In the Vancouver Province we saw 131 documents documenting
[ Page 15980 ]
labour and violence since 1992; we saw 87 documents documenting abortion and violence. In the Vancouver Sun, in the same time frame, we saw 297 documents documenting labour and violence; we saw 166 documents documenting abortion and violence.
I give those statistics to point out my concerns. This act targets only one segment of our society, when there are justifications right here to attach the same kind of bubble zone around labour issues and a workplace during a strike. I mean, that's pretty obvious, given that bit of background. We've recently seen radical left-wing animal rights groups fire-bombing taxidermists. They recently burned down a guide and outfitter in the Monashees.
[11:30]
How far do we go? We see that section 1 of this bill states the definition of "beset" as the continuous and repeated observation of someone. In section 4 it states that observing doesn't have to be specific to the bubble zone; it could be anywhere in the province. In effect, we have suggested that you cannot observe this one segment of society anywhere in British Columbia.
I'm very, very concerned that this legislation is only the first step toward the infringement of many rights. If we were to extend it even further, perhaps the bubble zone should be extended to the Legislature; it would prevent environmental groups from knocking the door down during the throne speech. There are so many areas where this could be applied if the same principle that's contained within this legislation was applied to other incidents of similar consequence around the province.
With those few words, I suggest that the right approach would have been to put the abortions back into the acute care centres in British Columbia and leave the rights of all British Columbians intact and consistent. For those reasons, the Reform Party will be voting against this bill.
J. Pullinger: I rise to speak in support of this legislation, and I applaud my colleague for bringing it in. In my view, this is highly necessary legislation. This is a step that we're taking to provide some protection to women and their doctors, and to the people who work in clinics and other places that provide these medical services for women.
I find it really interesting that the opposition parties are ducking and weaving on this issue, and it's no surprise. It's no surprise that the Reform Party is going to vote against it, because in their previous incarnation as Socreds they did absolutely nothing to allow women to gain access to abortion services when they needed them -- absolutely nothing. They turned a blind eye, at best, and stood in the way, at worst -- or certainly tried to. So I applaud our government for bringing this in.
We hear all this stuff about freedom of speech and how this might be an infringement on freedom of speech. But what are we really talking about? We're talking about the rights of women, who are already in a very vulnerable position, to access legal medical services and to do so in safety, to do so without harassment, to do so without intimidation and to do so without threats of violence. That's what we're talking about. That's something that all of us in this Legislature should be standing up about and saying: "Yes, that's something that we need to do."
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I want to give a couple of examples of what we're talking about. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We're talking about incidents when these people who think that they want to make the choice for women will box in or surround a patient and cut her off from the person accompanying her, press anti-abortion information on her and say things to her like: "Don't kill your baby." That is absolutely unacceptable. They're chasing women who leave the clinics to their cars. They're warning women that they're going to have to pass through protesters when they make their appointment. If no protesters are there, the women are obviously very relieved, which means that they had a whole lot of stress around that. If the protesters are there, women are reporting that they have to steel themselves to pass through them. I mean, does anybody really think that women in this kind of position, who have obviously made what is a very difficult decision in their lives, need this kind of nonsense?
We're also talking about the freedom of doctors to practise their skills, to practise medicine, to carry out legal medical procedures and to do so in safety, without threats of violence or actual violence -- as Dr. Romalis knows -- or intimidation or harassment. That's what we're talking about here. We're also talking about the rights of the people who work in those places and who are not doctors to do so without fear of intimidation, threats to their personal safety or harassment. That's what we're talking about.
We've got a bill that says: "Your freedom of speech is fine. You can go and protest anywhere you like. You can have marches; you can have parades. You can protest at the Legislature; you can protest at city hall; you can protest at the courthouse; you can protest anywhere you like. You can write to the newspaper. You can go on the radio. You can send out brochures. You have all of those freedoms of speech available to you." What this legislation says is that it's not acceptable to harass, intimidate or threaten women, their doctors or workers in abortion clinics. The rights of those people outweigh the freedom of people to undertake those kinds of unacceptable activities within very small, very defined areas of the province.
I strongly support this legislation, and I know that every single member of our caucus does. But what about the opposition? Well, the Reformers are on record already: they're not going to support this. They are reformed Socreds. As I say, they got in the way of women's rights to access abortion, they tried to delist it as a service when they were government, and they allowed hospital boards to shut it down. It happened in Nanaimo. I've been involved in this issue for a long time.
Let me say to start with that I have never heard anybody argue for abortion and say that it's a good thing. I think all of us recognize that there's a problem. We discriminate against women. Women are poor; there are more women who are poor than men. Women get 60 percent of work. They are discriminated against in getting jobs. We don't have any kind of representation in any equal numbers in the powerful positions in our society. So women are in a vulnerable position in society, and when women have children, then that creates a whole lot of other things. That means that their opportunities for education or for a job are limited even further. Lots of times, it also means they're stuck in violent relationships.
Women are entrapped in many ways. We need to deal with that as a society. We need to start changing society so that
[ Page 15981 ]
we stop treating women like second-class citizens. Notably, the Liberals and Reformers have voted against a number of the things we've done in here, such as wage equity and child care measures, and expanding employment standards and expanding WCB. There's the raising of the minimum wage, which they argue against every time. Those all make life a little easier for women, and those are the kinds of solutions that we need.
Until we get to that kind of solution, then we have to trust that women are smart enough and capable enough to make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives. Not only do we have to say to women that they have the right to make those decisions because they're obviously the only ones capable of making them, because they're the only ones who know the context of their lives and their particular situations, but we also have to agree that women have a right to do so in safety, and free from harassment and intimidation and the unsavoury practices that we see carried on every day in this province.
So we have a situation here where we have opposition parties, two of them, that vote against almost every measure that helps women to get decent jobs or to be better protected under workers compensation, employment standards, better minimum wage and all of those kinds of things. They vote against them. At the same time, they're going to vote against this bill that protects women. The Reformers are going to vote against it. I don't know what the Liberals are going to do, but it's clear that the Reformers are going to vote against even this piece of legislation. It's my understanding that the Liberals are going to have a free vote on this. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I understand they're going to have a free vote on this.
If that's the case, then I find that absolutely amazing, because they stand together in solidarity when it comes to giving hundreds of millions of dollars of tax breaks to big corporations. They stand together in solidarity against fair wages and against good minimum wages. They stand together to sell off our public assets and to privatize our public assets. Instead of getting public return for public assets, they want to make private return for them. They stand together in solidarity against breaking public sector contracts and rolling back wages.
But they're not going to stand together to protect women when they're accessing legal abortion services. If they have a free vote on this, then that in itself is a very clear statement about where the Liberals stand on this issue. Maybe they'll do what we saw the other night. They didn't want to seem to be divided, so they all ran away and left two members standing in this House -- when they were all here. They all ran away. Guess what the issue was. It was the Criminal Records Review Act, where we're saying that if you're going to work with children, in today's context you have to have a criminal-record review to make sure that when you work with children, you don't have any kind of history that would threaten those children. Again, that's a reasonable thing to do. But what did the Liberals do? They all ran away for the vote. They just couldn't take a stand on it.
It's going to be very interesting to watch what the opposition parties do on this -- or the Liberals anyway, because we know what the Reformers will do. They will vote against this, and they will vote against any other legislation that works to better include women or to provide women with free and safe access to abortion services. We know that they are going to do that. So we're not worried about the Reform Party; we know where they stand, and they have a long track record in this province.
But we're going to be watching with interest what the Liberals do. We know there are a number people in that caucus who don't think that women should be able to make their own choice about abortion services. They're going to try to make this into a different kind of issue, and we'll be interested to see how they duck and weave on it. I hope that they have the jam to stand up and support it unanimously -- without having all their members hiding in their offices somewhere -- to be here to stand up and support it, because in my view, there is nothing else that you can do in all conscience.
Interjection.
J. Pullinger: I can't help but respond to the member for Langley, who talks about trained seals. Well, we've seen trained seals for, as I say, $350 million worth of tax breaks to big business. They have no problem with that whatsoever. They will all stand up like trained seals in support of the big corporations, just like they're standing up for the Americans on the Bonneville issue and standing up for business against a decent minimum wage, which people might even be able to begin to live on. They have no problem with those kinds of issues. But on this issue, like the criminal record check, let's see what they do. We will all be watching with great interest.
Again, I want to applaud my colleague the Minister of Health for bringing in this legislation. It's good legislation. It can't ensure that there are no further problems, but at least it will provide a modicum of protection for women at a time when they're terribly vulnerable and for all of those who provide legal services to those women.
[11:45]
J. Tyabji: I appreciate very much many of the comments of the previous speaker. I certainly agree with her when she talks about the feminization of poverty and some of the problems that women have to face, and that many people choose to ignore those problems and believe there has been an exaggeration of them.
Having said that, I rise to speak against this bill. It shouldn't come as a surprise to members of this House who remember when we talked about freedom of speech two years ago in these chambers. That is not going to be the basis of the opposition of the Alliance to this bill, but when we talk about restrictions, what we are trying to accomplish and whether or not we accomplish those objectives.... I say I agree with many of the things that the previous speaker has stated. However, I don't think that that is going to change very much with this bill.
Let me point out that many people have talked about Dr. Romalis and his shooting and how regrettable that was. There's no question that it was a horrible occurrence. It was a tragic event, and it was an event that should not have happened. It was also an event that could not have been prevented by this bill. There's nothing in this bill that can prevent someone who is going to break the law and try to commit violence against someone else from doing that.
Unfortunately, what I think is happening with the debate on this bill is that we're doing the exact thing that the govern-
[ Page 15982 ]
ment is stating they wished not to do, and that is to focus on the issue of abortion, to inflame the situation and to almost provoke a debate that really, if it's going to occur, has to be a debate that society will wage when society decides what society would like to do.
I want to go to the comments about the protesters and the harassment of the women who are trying to make a very difficult decision. I would agree with the member for Langley and the member for Prince George-Omineca, who talk about the difference between providing abortion services at an acute care hospital or a hospital and having freestanding abortion clinics, and about how this government has moved very quickly to have freestanding abortion clinics.
There's really no question. Generally speaking, the people who are going into those clinics.... There's little doubt that they're going in to make a very difficult decision, to have a very difficult surgical procedure and to have an abortion. If one is to protest that and is fanatical about the issue of pro-life -- and there are those out there -- it's almost as if the government has provided an easy target in those clinics. It's a much easier decision if a woman can have the opportunity to enter a facility that provides such a wide range of services that there would be little understanding of what she is trying to do.
I don't disagree with the previous speaker, who said that perhaps the most difficult decision a woman will ever have to make is a decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy. Certainly women who are impoverished have the most difficult choice to make, because they may actually want to have the baby. They may want to bring the pregnancy to term, but they may not have a choice. In not having that choice and in having to make a decision to have an abortion -- in order to continue to care for the children they may already have, to provide for the family that exists or to provide for herself -- the last thing she needs is to have somebody harass her on her way to obtain that service.
We acknowledge that abortion is a legal service. We acknowledge that in this province we're not going to force someone to have a coat-hanger abortion. We're not going to have back-alley abortions. So once we get into the emotional rhetoric around the abortion debate, we could be here for days talking about the atrocities that have occurred in places where there is no access to abortion. But we're not talking about that.
The two members that I alluded to earlier, the members for Langley and for Prince George-Omineca, really came to the heart of what it is we're talking about. If we're to provide these services, are we as a society going to allow a woman to enter a facility without someone knowing the very difficult private decision she may have made? Or are we going to say they're available at this abortion clinic or health clinic, as we may call it -- Everywoman's Health Centre or whatever we want to talk about?
Everybody knows it's an abortion clinic. That way, even if there is not one protester there -- there doesn't have to be a protest -- if that's the difficult decision she's made, she will think the whole world is watching her walk through that door. She's going to feel that, because she's going to feel she will be judged if it's a decision that she doesn't want to make, and I think in most cases it would be.
What does this bill do? That's got to be where this debate focuses. In trying to prevent protesters from impeding a woman in procuring service, this bill provides what we call a bubble zone. What is that bubble zone and how does it provide it? It talks about activities restricted in an access zone, because that's what we're calling them for the purposes of this bill. Those activities would not be allowed outside of the access zone. Under the existing laws, if someone wants to get a charge of harassment for physical interference, for intimidation or attempting to intimidate, for repeated interference....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is saying it's wrong. It clearly isn't, because injunctions can be procured today, and an injunction will prevent that kind of activity. The reason an injunction will prevent that is because that activity is not desired activity.
The minister might say that that would require an application to a court, and a court would have to hear why the injunction was necessary. I would point to the fact that in all the other instances of high emotion and potential violence -- whether it's Clayquot Sound, the TNL labour protests, a strike action or whatever it is in the province where we have a fundamental disagreement which may lead to violence -- the legal recourse is for an application for an injunction and that that has been the recourse in this case.
In fact, I'm sure the minister is aware of the precedent set in Ontario with successful injunctions. The difference is that rather than it being in a legislative debate where MLAs are debating something which is somewhat abstract -- for some of us maybe not so abstract.... But if it's somewhat abstract, we're not on the ground, we're not making the application and we're not having our arguments heard by a judge. In order to make the application to court, an injunction hearing requires that both parties have an opportunity to present, and our justice system, imperfect though it is, will make a decision.
I think the decision in the Ontario case not only was made on those grounds but achieved the objectives that this legislation is trying to achieve. But they did it with the opportunity for those people to make their presentations, and there's nobody here.... I don't care if it's an abortion issue, a labour issue or an environmental issue; people have a right to be heard. Those are the principles of natural justice, and we do live, as the minister said, in a free society. We live in a democratic society. That society carries with it rights and responsibilities, and each of us has a responsibility to each other.
I should put on the record that I'm not a stranger to this debate. As many people know, I graduated from a Catholic high school. As many may not know, in my last year I was actually the president of the youth pro-life movement. At that time, I believed fervently and adamantly that under no circumstances should you ever terminate a pregnancy. When I was in university, I had the opportunity to learn firsthand how difficult those decisions can be for women and how sometimes it's not black and white; sometimes these decisions are incredibly difficult and completely inevitable.
Through that process, I came to learn that one cannot assume either the government's position that in all circumstances there should not be protest within this access zone, or the other extreme, which is that we must constantly protest all possible abortions or abortion services. So from that perspective, when I take exception to what the Minister of Health is trying to achieve, I'm not doing it from a theoretical standpoint. I understand the complexities of the issue and have been involved, at one point, in the education process from the other perspective.
[ Page 15983 ]
When the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance and I spoke against some of the provisions of free speech, when this government tried to bring in what they called anti-hate legislation, we said quite clearly what the arguments were in favour of the education of society, so that society as a whole can move toward a more progressive approach to social decisions and social issues. It may be a very difficult path -- it will be a difficult path -- but it's not an impossible task. It will be the most productive task, because at the end of that -- at the end of the debate, at the end of the attempt to educate, if we educate from a constructive and non-antagonistic perspective -- we have the opportunity to bring everyone with us.
Right now what we're doing -- and I know some of the players in the pro-life movement -- is giving them a platform, a cause and a flag. I don't disagree with some of the arguments that they're coming forward with. But on a matter of principle, in terms of what this bill is attempting to achieve, I don't believe it is doing any of the things that it sets out to do. To speak of Dr. Romalis, I think, is slightly misleading, because under this bill he still would have been shot, and under this bill anyone who chooses to break the law may still do so. Unfortunately, in the case of Dr. Romalis, we don't even know who shot him. We still don't know who did it.
There is other legislation that could have been amended to accomplish the same objectives that the minister has stated, without painting a big sign and saying the word "abortion" as a motivating factor in this. I tend to think that that would be a more constructive approach.
Seeing the hour, hon. Speaker, I move that we adjourn debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT
(continued)
On vote 24: minister's office, $375,615 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask leave at the outset today, as opposed to every time, for officials to answer questions from time to time, if it's appropriate.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to introduce the officials I have with me today. On my right is John Sheehan, chief executive officer of B.C. Hydro; behind me is Bruce Duncan, who is with the Crown corporations secretariat and has a sort of Hydro beat; and on my left is Doug Allen, Deputy Minister of Employment and Investment.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could summarize for the committee the progress that he has made in bringing the Bonneville Power Administration to its knees in the ongoing battle over the return of Columbia River downstream benefits. The trail has gone a little cold since the special debate in the House, and I know the minister has been racking up the frequent-flyer points in his efforts to turn this issue around. I wonder if he could just describe for the committee what material progress has been made in the way of a measurable response from the company -- or otherwise -- that would lead us to believe that a change of position might be in the works.
Hon. G. Clark: I should say at the outset that this is not a B.C. Hydro matter; this is a government of British Columbia matter. The entitlement is owned by the government as opposed to Hydro, but I'm certainly delighted to answer it in this segment of my estimates. Obviously Hydro is intimately involved; I'm not trying to argue that.
I'll give you an update on some of the things we've been doing. As you know, we sent a letter to Bonneville, giving them a deadline to respond with a change in their minds. They did not choose to avail themselves of that opportunity. They reiterated their position, although they asked for further negotiations. We then responded by cancelling two storage agreements, as well as the cooperation agreement with Bonneville. We're asking B.C. Hydro to cancel those, or to not renew them, as the case may be.
[10:15]
We subsequently travelled to Washington and Oregon for very interesting meetings with the Northwest Power Planning Council, an agency created by American federal legislation. It's an interesting creature, because it's created by federal legislation but actually has on it two individuals from each of the four Pacific Northwest American states appointed by the governor, so it has, essentially, state representation on it. They're to look at northwest power planning, and they have a great deal of influence, although they don't have implementation power, which is left largely to the federal agency, Bonneville Power.
We had discussions with them to explain our position. Aside from not negotiating with Bonneville Power because of their acts of bad faith, we also wanted to make it clear, because Bonneville has made some interesting remarks, that this is not a deal between two commercial entities. Bonneville would say: "Look: we're ripping up contracts with other companies, so the B.C. government is in no different position." That was a view that might have been held by some of the politicians in the Pacific Northwest. The point we made to them was that this was not a commercial deal between Bonneville Power and B.C. Hydro. It was not some commercial deal such that if they break it, that might be bad business but that's part of business relations. We made the point that this is an international treaty
[ Page 15984 ]
between two companies. We have legal rights under that treaty; we fully intend to enforce them, and we'll win. Bonneville happens to be a corporation, but it also happens to be the entity under the international treaty. They're acting as a commercial corporation, but not as the entity under the international treaty. I think we were quite successful in making that case with the Pacific Northwest people.
We also met with the Governor of Oregon and staff, and we met with the staff of the Governor of Washington. This week the Minister of Energy is in Ottawa dealing with the State Department, her counterpart Anne McLellan and Mr. Ouellet. Next week we're planning to go to Washington, D.C., to deal with the staff and politicians who are responsible for the Bonneville power corporation. There is a view, I should say, that Bonneville was acting without the full knowledge and understanding of the American State Department and the American Department of Energy. It was attempting to act as commercial entity to break a bad commercial deal without realizing that there are international treaty obligations they have to live up to.
That's where it stands. There is a lot of interest in renegotiation. We're not interested in renegotiating with Bonneville Power. Last week we made our position clear both here and in the United States that we will entertain from the State Department of the United States alternative arrangements for settling this matter if they have equal or greater net present value than the deal we struck with Bonneville. We've opened the door to that. At this point, I have nothing further to add.
W. Hurd: I know that Powerex is gravely concerned about the ongoing saga of Bonneville Power Administration and the impending changes that we understand are occurring with this corporation which, as the minister knows, is a debt-ridden facility facing major restructuring. In fact, I understand that the U.S. government is considering some sort of different status for BPA, perhaps that of a Crown subsidiary or a subsidiary company, which would speed the deregulation process.
I noticed in the latest issue of Energy Weekly from the Canadian energy market association that there is a great deal of concern expressed by Powerex about its relationships with Bonneville and the impacts that this dispute may have on the ability of Powerex to access export markets in the United States. I just wonder if the minister could advise us of the status of a planned sale by Powerex to the city of Palo Alto, California, which I understand has applied to the National Energy Board for the go-ahead to export power to Palo Alto -- a significant sale. I note that Doug Little, who is listed as the manager of interutility issues for Powerex, has expressed some concern about what impact this dispute and the restructuring of Bonneville might have on this particular sale and other opportunities for Powerex.
I'm asking for assurance from the minister that the initiative that is underway to put pressure on Bonneville Power Administration will in no way jeopardize the activities of Powerex, which has a major contract in the works with Palo Alto and is looking, I'm sure, at other contracts that would require access to BPA transmission facilities.
Hon. G. Clark: I will say two things. Several things are happening in the United States. The member has alluded to some of them.
There is radical restructuring taking place. We've joined what is called the regional transmission group, the RTG, of the Pacific Northwest. British Columbia is part of that. That, combined with changes Congress made to the regulatory regime governing transmission, gives us open access.
Bonneville's historic monopoly position to block access is being blown away, if you will. That's not to say, as we move into this new world, that there aren't challenges. I fully acknowledge that Bonneville will act to protect their historic monopoly position. This dispute with Bonneville does make it challenging in terms of access, but no more challenging than it has ever been, because they've always had a real grip on transmission access. That's been a huge challenge.
We had this as part of the negotiated settlement -- the agreed-to provisions -- which would have given us more access and expedited the deregulation process. Obviously, without that agreement we're back to a more of a traditional relationship.
I can tell you that the RTG and my discussions with the United States mean that Bonneville is simply not going to be able to maintain the fight. In the short run, they may be able to attempt to block some power sales, but we have a lineup of public utilities and investor-owned utilities in the United States knocking on our door and desperately trying to break away from the Bonneville system. They are captives of Bonneville. They're looking at B.C. Hydro, Powerex and other utilities to get into this new, competitive environment. I can assure the member that there is no chance that at the end of the day there will not be more access to the American marketplace, because the consumer is demanding it and the laws allow it. So that's what we're moving towards.
W. Hurd: It has come to my attention, however, that the proposed sale to Palo Alto is actually a joint venture between Powerex and the Bonneville Power Administration. Is that a correct way to assess this? That would be my first question. My next question would relate to how much the deal is worth to Powerex. Perhaps the minister could confirm the size of the sale, the value to the province and whether there are any remedies available to Bonneville to block the sale, given that we are involved in this rather messy and public dispute with BPA?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the CEO of B.C. Hydro to give the answers.
J. Sheehan: The Palo Alto deal is mainly a backup for Palo Alto. The expectation from both entities is that neither of us will ever sell energy to them and that they will not require it. They require the backup in order to be able to assure their utilities commission that they will have firm power for ten years. I believe it's a ten-year deal. It's like insurance. They pay us, I think, initially $3 million a year. If they ever need energy, it will then be bought at basically the market price, in addition to the backup commission that we're making. From memory, I believe we had to have an arrangement with BPA so that at that time we could be assured of the transmission, if they ever needed the backup energy. They need it mostly for peaking. Of course, since then, conditions with BPA have changed very significantly, but that contract is firm with BPA and will not be interfered with.
We got notice two weeks ago that the northwest RTG rules have been approved by FERC subject to filing wheeling
[ Page 15985 ]
rates. We have to file wheeling rates in about three or four different categories. They will have to be filed by all seven members who own transmission facilities in the RTG by November 1, and then those rates become effective.
As the minister previously said, that really means that the ability of Bonneville Power to prevent us from getting on the lines is significantly restricted. Previously, Bonneville let us on the lines only after other U.S. utilities' requirements were filled, and we were on there at a much higher rate. With the new rules, all have to be treated equally both as to rates and priority. So that gives us far greater freedom, and we don't need to give the concessions to Bonneville Power that we had to previously, if we got into any deals like the Palo Alto deal. But Palo Alto is mainly a backup of capacity with the expectation on both sides that they will never buy energy from us. In the meantime, I believe we will get in total around $35 million really for providing insurance.
W. Hurd: This might be a question more appropriately directed to the minister. As the minister is aware, he is involved in a rather high-profile -- and some would say messy -- dispute with Bonneville Power Administration, and he hopes, I guess, by virtue of that campaign to -- if I can characterize the rhetoric in the House -- bring the company to its knees in some way or to force it back to the bargaining table to meet the obligations of the original agreement. I guess I'm seeking assurance from the minister and his staff here that these arrangements for the transmission of power on behalf of Powerex will in no way be jeopardised by this particular campaign, which is politically charged and which will increase in intensity, I expect, as we move closer to the 1998 deadline for the return of benefits under the downstream agreement.
I'm just seeking categorical assurance from the minister that the Powerex sale to Palo Alto and other activities will in no way be jeopardised by a decision that BPA might make. For example, they might decide to block this sale in retaliation for the decision on the storage dams or undertake some measures of a punitive nature on the transmission lines they will control for the foreseeable future.
Hon. G. Clark: I think what Mr. Sheehan mentioned should give members a lot of comfort. On November 1, through the RTG, Bonneville will be required to act as a common carrier through their system. They will not be able to block access.
There is a debate still to ensue around how much they will have to charge for various wheeling provisions through their system. The stroke they had in the past, they don't have. I cannot give you complete comfort that they won't attempt in some ways to continue to act as they have over the last 30 years to block access. But I can guarantee you that we believe, and my trip into the Pacific Northwest confirms, that they just will not be able to win at the end of the day. The law has changed, the rules have changed, and now with a November 1 deadline, they can't block access.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate the RTG is going to.... The deregulation is coming through. I also understand that special legislation was passed a long time ago, and our friend, Mr. Foley, down in the state of Washington, looked after BPA very well. Will that not take precedence over...? Has the American government said that these deregulation proceedings will take precedence over the legislation that's in Congress now?
Hon. G. Clark: There is a kernel of truth to what the member says, but only a kernel. Bonneville is a member of the regional transmission group -- they've signed on -- so they are members to the regional transmission group rule changes that impact on November 1. If they want to drop their membership or try to get out of it, I don't believe they could, but I suppose there would be something.... Remember, this dispute between Bonneville and the B.C. government is not the only thing happening in the United States. There's a whole deregulatory change taking place down there with huge momentum from consumers and from utility districts that have been hosed by Bonneville for 30 years and treated with monopoly contempt. They're lining up. The Palo Alto, other utility districts and private utilities are lining up to Powerex. They are saying: "Finally we don't have to take what Bonneville gives us any more. We want access to other competitive sources of supply. Bonneville is going to be forced to feed it through their system, through the RTG, and the rules.
There's a kernel of truth to what the member says. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules were changed in 1992, there was a very ambiguous amendment exempting Bonneville from certain aspects of it. In the United States, when I was there just recently.... I certainly won't claim to be an expert after a couple of days of visiting people down there, but there is a debate as to what the 1992 amendment to FERC rules meant. Bonneville would say that it exempts them from some of these changes. Most people disagree with that interpretation.
But even if you accept that they have some protection in the 1992 changes, number one, the protection is limited, and number two, under the RTG membership, they're required to.... The three groups in the RTG membership are transmission line owners, independent power producers and marketers. It's a very large group, which includes B.C. Hydro, and everybody's signed on to these changes.
D. Jarvis: From what I've been told, the possibility of BPA being BPA six months to a year from now is highly unlikely. They have got, as you say, an abysmal record. Their investments are in the hole so much that I'm informed that they've never even made other than interest payments on their original loans. So the odds are that it's going to collapse from within.
Hon. G. Clark: Three and a half percent loans.
D. Jarvis: That's pretty good. Well, the Americans always have lower percentage loans than we do, anyway.
The odds are that what's there today will not be there a year from now. So we're going to have problems, in the sense.... Can you give us any indication of who is going to take over this? Is it going to be subdivided out into other companies? Who's going to continue the line up to Oliver? Have we enough capacity? We haven't got enough capacity now to put all the power we want into the United States, so we're going to build new power lines to Oliver. Are we responsible to the border or to Oliver, and vice versa?
Hon. G. Clark: Just on the last point first, if we were to actually build a hookup, they're required to deliver it to the border, and it would cost us about $25 million to connect up to our 500 kV line to bring it back to Vancouver, where we're more likely to need it.
[ Page 15986 ]
I don't believe the power line will be built. If it is, if that's required and they have to spend $150 million (U.S.), then certainly we'll take it. We can use it here or export it back in this new marketplace. I find it very hard to believe they'll build a powerline that is environmentally damaging, goes through an aboriginal reserve -- the Colville reserve, which right now is suing Bonneville for some other matters -- and which costs $150 million (U.S.). They don't want it, and we don't want it. The rational thing to do is not build it, give us some of the money they save for not building it and give us the power at another source. That was the essence of part of the deal we struck.
The member is correct. Bonneville may not exist in its current form six months or a year from now. That's a big debate in Washington, and one of the reasons we're going there. Senator Hatfield is working on a version of saving Bonneville in some fashion. Other Americans, particularly Republicans, are arguing for privatization, and this debate is raging. But the member should remember that it doesn't matter to the B.C. government whether or not Bonneville exists. We have an international treaty signed by the American government, and they are required to build and to deliver that power to Oliver. It's correct that Bonneville's corporate troubles are part of the reason we're in this dilemma.
Our challenge is to ensure that the politicians, particularly in the American government, understand that this is not a commercial deal between a troubled Bonneville and B.C. Hydro; this is an international treaty obligation they are required to fulfil, and they will fulfil it, albeit at the end of the day. If we don't resolve this question, we'll likely have to take them to the dispute resolution process through the IJC, and that would take several years.
But we shouldn't be panicked or spooked in British Columbia. We have this huge block of power that we're entitled to, which they're obligated to return to Oliver, and we'll get it. It's just a question of how we get it, how we maximize its value and when we get it. Literally all the cards are in our favour with respect to enforcing that international treaty.
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions with respect to the deregulation of the transmission facilities of Bonneville, which the minister addressed earlier. I wonder if the minister or his staff could apprise the committee of what impact the natural gas players in Washington will have on the capacity of the BPA lines. Clearly there are a number of proposals in the works or nearing completion in the Pacific Northwest which will add natural gas capacity to the BPA lines.
Since we are approaching a deregulation situation with those lines, is there any danger that Powerex might be frozen out by virtue of the price it requires for its power. One would assume that Powerex will be forced to compete in those markets for access to the transmission lines. Will it have to complete head to head with natural gas? Will there eventually be an overcapacity on the BPA transmission grid as a result of this new natural gas capacity? Is Powerex confident, even with this new capacity coming on line, that there will be enough capacity on the grid to handle sales that Powerex might make to Palo Alto or to any other customers in this region of the United States?
Hon. G. Clark: There's no question that cheap Canadian natural gas is competing with electricity. That's driving prices down. There's a lot of debate about that, because oil and natural gas, like most commodities.... People with not very long memories will know that it goes up and it goes down. Right now it's down, but it will go up, or at least most people believe it will. At the moment, it's very competitive.
Having said that, obviously we can be very competitive with the downstream benefits power as it returns, because at the margin, it's free. We can always sell it and compete for that power. I don't know whether the member's heard that, but we can always sell the 1,400 megawatts of downstream benefit power. At the margin, it's free power for us. We can be competitive with natural gas, assuming that we have a surplus in British Columbia for our needs and that we have this power coming back that we can always sell in the marketplace.
As for the question of the capacity of the transmission system, the most likely scenario, as you move into this, is very much like natural gas. You'll have a transmission spine, if you will -- a wholesale spine much like you do with Westcoast Energy. You'll have retail utilities off that spine. How the spine will continue, in all likelihood, depends on the transmission line to be regulated. The regulations are open access, common carrier, first come, first served and best price. You do have to bid to get access to that line, and that puts more competitive pressure on the players.
At some point, when you reach full capacity of that line, the owner of the transmission spine will go and add more capacity. It's exactly like the deregulated natural gas marketplace, which is most likely what we're going to face in natural gas. The regional transmission group gives the utilities who want access to the line the right to demand increased capacity, provided the people demanding increased capacity pay for it. You can actually force a bigger pipeline for electricity. Again, it's very similar to what you see in natural gas.
The short answer is that low natural gas prices -- largely from Canada, but around North America -- are driving the price of electricity down. There's no question about it. This makes a very competitive marketplace in the short run. Again, most assumptions are that natural gas prices will go up over time and become more competitive.
Secondly, we don't have to fear that for the downstream benefits power, because to us, it is free power that we can always sell in the marketplace. We can always beat natural gas with that power. Increasingly competitive for us is building new power for export, competing with our own natural gas exports to the United States. Don't dismiss that. There are lots of proposals for building natural gas powered electricity generating stations here in British Columbia for exporting electricity to the United States. That's still an option, but it's much more competitive.
Lastly, remember the unique advantage of hydro power, the ability to store energy when you don't need it and to pump it through when you do, at peak periods. Everybody uses electricity from 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock at night; nobody uses it from 3 o'clock to 4 'o'clock in the morning. Natural gas, thermal-powered plants run full out 24 hours a day. There are real advantages to us buying some of that power when no one wants it, at very cheap prices, and storing it in our reservoirs and then selling it back when the price is high. Hydro power has unique advantages in capacity sales, and those advantages will grow as the market oversupplies on the thermal side.
[ Page 15987 ]
We're not talking over the short term -- next year or the year after -- but over time. We have an incredibly valuable resource in hydro power which allows us to shape and store energy. That's the unique advantage that you don't get with a natural gas system.
W. Hurd: I don't want to turn this into a forum for the future restructuring of BPA, and I know my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour has some other questions that he wanted to address, but on a general basis, I wonder if the minister agrees with, or at least has some sympathy for, the calls for some sort of public inquiry into the energy needs of British Columbia, given the fact that we are entitled to receive downstream benefits by 1998. It's my understanding that we're looking at least to a 1,200 to 1,600 megawatt shortage in capacity as early as the year 2003 in British Columbia. Given that we're facing a critical shortage, as the minister has acknowledged, I wonder whether we need to be looking at opening this process up to greater public involvement, beyond the parameters of the B.C. Utilities Commission, and providing communities and individuals with opportunities to come forward to address the whole spectrum of co-generation of independent power plants.
It seems that the whole energy picture in British Columbia has been somewhat closed over the past four years with respect to public involvement and participation. There is the avenue of the BCUC, of course, but as the minister well knows, they are constrained by the terms of reference in which they operate. I wonder if the minister would agree that a public inquiry, a royal commission or some other type of review of energy is required, given the dismantling of BPA, the return of downstream benefits, the questionable economics that surround the dam projects in the Kootenays, for example, over which there is considerable debate, and the ongoing problems in Williston Lake. Isn't there a need for a broader process to consider these issues?
Hon. G. Clark: I wouldn't agree with that. Let me just remind members that the Energy Council held hearings all over the province and published a report. You guys criticized it. BCUC has held more hearings. We have intervener funding status so that people actually get paid to intervene in order to attack B.C. Hydro and other things. We've now done a request for proposals -- a real market test -- for power. We have received 42 bids from all over British Columbia from private power producers, and that's a real test. That is what is out there in a market sense. We can bring on extra capacity in two and a half years if we need it.
[10:45]
The decision not to proceed with the Kemano completion project does move up the need for capacity to the year 2003. So we still have some time, and we're moving hard on that. We're looking at Stave Falls Dam, which is a small project, to add some energy capacity for the lower mainland. There is also the fifth unit of Revelstoke, which has a lot of capacity and is very inexpensive, and then the combined cycle natural gas plants and the like.
I appreciate what the member is saying. I think it's true that we're in a state of flux. As you move to the marketplace, the marketplace -- I'd better be careful of what I say here -- generally fixes these questions, because you're starting to move to some common rules and you're moving forward with all kinds of new technologies, with new independent power producers bidding on access. We have an incredible competitive advantage in this field in British Columbia. This is because of our cheap natural gas, the Canadian dollar and a few other things. Also, most importantly, it's because we have these huge invested assets worth billions of dollars, which are going to increase and grow over time with the hydro power.
I think we've had lots and lots of public input. B.C. Hydro has an integrated resource planning process that includes members of the public. We appear before it to discuss our resource plan and to canvass with them on all these questions.
I do want to make the little distinction that the downstream benefits entitlement -- that 1,400 megawatts -- is not B.C. Hydro's to deal with; it's the government of British Columbia's to deal with. That is a distinction worth remembering.
J. Weisgerber: I want to explore this whole question of supply, because I'm not at all satisfied that Hydro has the supply side under control. For the years leading up to 1991, at least, Hydro had projected, over the long term, the need for both downstream benefits and the power coming from Kemano. The decision has now been made to cancel Kemano, although we've never actually seen anything other than a highly staged press conference.
I think that as we look at the Kemano decision taken by the Liberals and the NDP, we would recognize that it was a hasty, political decision made without any consideration of the BCUC report. It was very much akin to the decision made on the Tatshenshini that was so roundly criticized by the leader of the Liberal Party, even though he saw no contradiction at all in taking the exact same kind of decision himself on Kemano. But that's a debate that we'll have in another forum, and perhaps a far more public one.
I'd like to know from either the minister or Mr. Sheehan what has changed. How is it that as little as four years ago, B.C. Hydro needed both the energy coming from Kemano 2 and the Columbia downstream benefits? What's changed? What has fundamentally changed, and where does Hydro see that supply that it was anticipating coming from? Where is the reduced demand, if indeed it's a demand-side rather than a supply-side issue?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to just confirm that essentially there's the same demand forecast. We have growth in the system about 2 percent a year, as I recall. It's about 150 megawatts of power a year in increased growth. That's very good growth by North American standards. When I say good growth, I'm speaking as minister responsible for B.C Hydro.
Admittedly, we're not seeing the big energy-intensive industries that we had in the past. So the growth is good by current standards, but it's very slow by historical standards. When you're referring to the need for power, we haven't really altered the growth forecasts, I don't believe, from when the member was the minister. So the member is right: we had assumed both the downstream benefits as well as the Alcan project.
I also want to remind members that we have not sold the downstream benefits into the United States. Even the deal we struck sold only a piece of them, and most of it we could bring back to Blaine, much of it for free. That was part of the attraction. So we still have the downstream benefits as a
[ Page 15988 ]
potential source for British Columbia, if that's what we want. We want to maintain that flexibility. If they did deliver the power to Oliver, we may or may not sell it back to the United States. We may need it.
Secondly, we do have a hole to fill in the energy plan with respect to the Alcan project. What we've done about that is that obviously we're moving on Stave Falls and the fifth unit at Revelstoke to deal with our capacity, and we've done an RFP. I don't know if these numbers have been made public before, but we have 3,000 megawatts of proposed IPPs -- 3,000 megawatts the market tells us they'll bring on. The other thing that's surprising about that is that almost all of it is actually competitively priced. We're not talking about.... That 3,000 megawatts of private power is half the cost of Site C. Most of that is based on assumptions about low natural gas prices and some other things, so it's not all a free lunch. However, there is a lot of power potential, so we still have quite strong growth.
The member is correct that the cancelling of Kemano completion moves up some other projects. He is not correct in assuming that we are assuming that the downstream benefits are gone. We will only do that if that makes sense at the time, as it starts coming back to British Columbia. We are committed to moving on several projects right now: Stave Falls, Revelstoke and some private power production.
I just want to make two points. We are doing something else which we call Resource Smart and new technology. There are some little things -- low technology -- Mr. Sheehan can correct me but.... Having less sag in the transmission lines above the ground actually generates more power with more efficient use. New technologies and new techniques are giving us more energy from our existing system.
More important than that, as the member might know, we are doing the Kootenay Canal plan, which is basically a retrofit of the existing plant. Our studies show that we might be able to get 2 percent or 3 percent efficiency gains throughout the entire hydro system just by applying new technology to the existing dams.
The Bennett Dam, which is a huge project by B.C. standards, big even by international standards with those big turbines.... Right now it looks like putting new runners in and applying new technologies will give us very, very cheap incremental power -- 2 percent or 3 percent. The Resource Smart program will give us very cheap incremental power. Stave Falls, the fifth unit at Revelstoke and private power will easily deal with the growth that we are talking about.
The question we have to decide, then, is: at the margin, do we bring back some power from the downstream benefits at home and use it, which is very inexpensive? Do we expedite some more power projects in British Columbia for domestic use and sell the downstream benefits in the marketplace? That is the decision that future governments will have as we move forward. We want to negotiate -- we haven't negotiated yet, but we are hoping to negotiate -- a flexible arrangement which allows us to bring it back at Blaine or Selkirk or sell it into the American market.
J. Weisgerber: I think there are some interesting questions that need to be answered. What is the cost of the IPP power? How much of it is wood-waste-generated? How much of it is natural-gas-fired? How dependably and accurately can you forecast natural gas prices? How willing are IPP contractors to commit? How long a period of time are they willing to forecast? Against that backdrop, what are the projections for the sale of the downstream benefits in the United States? I think while we are making these kinds of decisions....
Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, we don't have the details of that here.
J. Weisgerber: Just for the benefit of the minister, any time he is more comfortable having Mr. Sheehan answer directly, that's fine as well.
I think there are a number of questions. How cost-effective can these IPPs be? Should we be willing to pay a premium for wood-waste generation? I happen to believe we should. What can we reasonably forecast for the sale of the downstream benefits, the actual power into the United States market? What role do the announced projects in the Kootenays play in the overall supply projections for Hydro?
Hon. G. Clark: All those are excellent questions. Just to give you a sense of the IPPs -- this is very rough -- I'd say that it's roughly 80 percent natural gas -- maybe a little less than that -- about 10 percent small hydro and about 10 percent wood waste. You can't hold me to that entirely, because there are some projects.... The member may know the Elk Falls proposal, which is a co-gen and natural gas combination. Often there's some wood waste and natural gas combination. That gives you a sense of the breakdown.
On natural prices, the advantage of natural gas as well is that you can actually buy long-term sales agreements, because there's a fairly well-developed market now in natural gas. You don't know what the price is going to do in the future, but there's actually a market in the futures of natural gas. So you can protect yourself from that, albeit, you pay a premium for current prices, but even with that premium they're still very low. So we do have that opportunity.
In terms of the price risk and some of your questions, I can't give you a definitive answer on that, because that's really what we're negotiating in some respects. If Hydro takes the gas price risk, then prices would have to be pretty low for us to take it. Those are discussions that we have to go through.
No final decisions are made yet, but there are about 42 proposals. About 20 or maybe 30 of them will probably drop off just from the competitive process. They're good projects, and they look pretty good compared to something like the Site C dam proposal. We don't need them, so we're probably going to just tell them that we don't need them right now, even though the price is pretty good, and then drop them off so they don't do any more work. There will be a dozen or so where we'll get into more intense negotiations around how we deal with some of those questions you mentioned.
Should there be a premium paid? The answer is yes. The real debate is on how much the premium should be. What we've tried to do through the Crown corporations secretariat and other agencies is develop a kind of social costing which gives people a sense of the playing field. So we don't say: "There's one plant up there which we'd really like to make go, so we're going to give them a big premium." We have to make sure these are consistent ramifications. Not everybody is happy with the numbers; in fact, I don't think anybody is happy with them. Some people think they're too low, and
[ Page 15989 ]
other people think they're too high, but we tried to sketch that out in the RFP.
We also gave some credit on the Island. As the member may know, the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line is pretty well full, and the southern line across to Vancouver Island is an old DC line. We have to spend a fair amount of money on bringing more power to the Island. If we can generate power on the Island, then that saves us money in terms of our southern crossing. Also, if we generate more power on the Island from natural gas, we save money on that outrageous deal that you were involved in with the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.
[11:00]
We have to be careful that we're going to keep Hydro whole on this, but the government has imposed some social costing. It has given credit to certain projects, depending on the overall social impact they have. Social impact includes saving the taxpayers some money on natural gas. There is a bias in the current RFP towards Vancouver Island production. But I have to tell you, it's so competitive that it doesn't mean we'll do any private power on Vancouver Island, even though there is an embedded bias in the system. There's also a credit for wood waste, but it's very hard to be competitive with the natural gas market -- not to prejudge the negotiations or discussions that Hydro might have with IPPs.
J. Weisgerber: On the issue of wood waste, I think it's more than just a question of price competition. There's this whole issue of beehive burners and alternative environmental concerns. At one point in my involvement, there was a plan put forward that would have seen 80 percent of the wood waste in British Columbia used for generation, which would have supplied about 4 percent of Hydro's domestic consumption, based on a premium of 25 percent over Hydro's avoided costs. That program was cancelled. One of the first things the current government did on getting elected, to my continuing amazement, was cancel that project that was underway.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to respond, because I can't stress enough that the real difference is that Hydro's avoided costs have changed like no one could have predicted. To let you off the hook, no one could have predicted that Hydro's avoided costs would fall so dramatically. Hydro used their avoided costs, as the next cheapest alternative was often Site C, and these projects are coming in at half the price of Site C. So suddenly, even if you give a premium of 25 percent for wood waste over Hydro's avoided costs to Site C, then all these co-gen projects or wood-waste projects become viable. But if you give them the same credit over Hydro's avoided cost now, which is natural gas generation, then they become very challenging to make happen.
I agree with you. We've got some policy for conflicts. We're driving on the beehive burners and the pollution question, and obviously wood-waste energy would be excellent if we could do it. At the same time, we've got Hydro's avoided costs dropping.
The committee recessed from 11:02 a.m. to 11:12 a.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: To pick up where we left off, 25 percent over avoided cost is avoided cost, whatever the avoided cost of the moment is. I'm curious to know whether the government is still sympathetic to that approach and what percentage of wood waste they anticipate the current proposals to be dealing with. That seems to me to be one of the challenges. It's one thing to say that we have an obligation to look at providing British Columbians with low-cost power or the most competitively priced power. The other thing is that we have a big environmental concern with wood waste. Somewhere between those two there seems to be a solution that would deal with both. What percentage of wood waste currently scheduled for beehive burners would be dealt with under the round of IPPs that have been contemplated?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll say a couple of things. I don't know if you're asking the question: if we accepted all the IPP bids that deal with wood waste, how much of the wood waste would we deal with? I think that was your question. I don't know the answer to that. I can find out for you.
Second, we do have a premium, as I said earlier. It's not 25 percent across the board. It depends on where it is and all of these other factors that we work in, but it certainly can be even a little more than 25 percent under certain conditions, depending on how we weigh it. We give some credit to it. But there is a philosophical question, which we do have to be careful with, and that is: should electricity consumers subsidize the wood industry? That is what we're really asking them to do if we're asking them to pay more money for their power. It would be to subsidize an environmental problem, which, one might argue, the industry should deal with themselves. I don't want to wander in this debate too much. I guess the answer is that we are saying that there should be a premium paid for wood waste generated power. It's over avoided cost, and it varies. It's a more complex multiple cost accounting mechanism; it could be up to 25 percent.
The challenge is that we don't believe we should bring on stream wood waste generated power that is prohibitively expensive relative to the alternatives. There is a line there. You have to say: "Yes, the premium is valid, but we just can't do something that is uneconomic." This becomes increasingly important as you deregulate. We can't say, "You're going to have to buy all this expensive power because the government thinks that's a good idea," and then say to B.C. Hydro: "You have to compete with IPPs in a brave new free-market world." Some people, especially environmentalists, have to understand this question; I don't think they do in some respects. You can't load onto the utility. When the utility was a big monopoly, you could say: "We want you to do more environmental work, and we want you to load on." Then some ratepayers had to pay a little more for it, but it was blended into the big system. You could impose these costs onto Hydro, whether they're fish, environmental or energy conservation costs. Many people advocated that and still advocate that.
[11:15]
That is Bonneville's situation. Bonneville is paying $500 million a year in fish mitigation measures, which is one of the keys to their financial dilemma. I'm not necessarily arguing against making them pay that, but I'm saying that there are consequences. You can't say to Bonneville that it has to do that and then deregulate so that it is not financially viable.
We have to be careful about this parallel here, as well. I would argue that we shouldn't force B.C. Hydro to do things that are clearly uneconomic if we're also going to require it to
[ Page 15990 ]
open up its transmission grid to independent power competition. We have to work these things through; I think we've done that. We agree that there should be some credit for environmental purposes. We are imposing extra costs on consumers of electricity, and B.C. Hydro in some respects, to deal with that.
We are not making the grid wide-open to what they call retail wheeling. We're opening it up, but we're not allowing an IPP to pick off one particular industry in British Columbia and use their market power to do that at the expense of residential consumers in the province. We are trying to work through this balance as we move forward in a different environment.
J. Weisgerber: That's fair enough. I don't think many people would argue with the comments, but the question, though, is about the process. In the agreements that were put in place in 1991, the instructions were to pay up to 25 percent of the avoided costs. Just so the minister understands, it wasn't a flat 25 percent; it was a premium of up to 25 percent on a project-by-project basis.
At that time we would have dealt with 80 percent of the wood waste, and the effect on retail hydro rates would have been a 1 percent increase. The government has had very little hesitation about increases substantially more than 1 percent for revenue purposes, and it seemed to me at the time that consumers, including the big consumers of power, were clearly prepared to pay that 1 percent premium. When we brought the proposal forward, I expected a big reaction from the mining industry. I really thought that the mining industry would ask why in the world they were going to be shouldered with a cost associated with the forest industry, but it didn't happen. Quite candidly, that surprised me.
In any event, I would be curious to know what percentage of wood waste is going to be dealt with. I don't expect the minister to tell me today. I would like to know whether ongoing consideration is being given to the Fording Coal Ltd. project with coal waste, and I'll look forward to some information there.
My larger concern is that the minister says 80 percent of these projects are fired by natural gas, and it seems to me the question is what the pipeline capacity is from the region of the province that I represent to the regions where the electricity would be produced. We already have periods of peak power demand when the present Westcoast system barely meets the needs of on-line consumers. I'm not quite sure how that fits into the scheme.
Is there consideration being given to saying that the electricity might be generated in areas in the north and then fed into the system there? I would like to know where the minister or Mr. Sheehan sees the Fording project, and how they intend to deal with gas pipeline capacity, if that's going to be the major source of IPPs.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have to get you the information on Fording and so on. I will have that provided for you.
That's an interesting question. When I said 80 percent, I didn't mean 80 percent in number; I meant 80 percent in quantum of electricity. There are a lot more smaller wood waste and hydro projects than there are gas projects, but the gas ones tend to be bigger for economies of scale, etc.
The good news is that we may well need further pipeline access down south. I think that's good news. Westcoast would like to bring another line down, and Trans Mountain would also like to bring another line down. If some IPPs down on the coast can justify further development of our gas fields up north and of another pipeline, that is very good news to me, generally speaking. There's a real chance of that, and I think both those companies are looking very carefully at it.
I want to say as a generalization, though, that it is significantly cheaper to bring gas down than to bring electricity down, and that militates against the electricity plant being up there. Because of line losses and because of the opportunities, it is cheaper and also environmentally less damaging. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it or look at it, especially if you have to bring on a new line or something and add the capital value of that to the cost. But in general, it is not competitive. Gas moves more cheaply than electricity, so that tends to lean toward most of the proposals for building the gas plant down closer to the load source of electricity and saving on the electricity transmission, or building a gas plant on our side of the border and exporting to the U.S.
J. Weisgerber: It's such a fascinating topic, because every time you get into one issue, others come forward. The question of line loss takes me back to my old saw, which is regional power rates for the areas where electricity is produced. It seems to me that we like to sell power at a postage-stamp rate in the province. Hydro and the Utilities Commission have been very reluctant to recognize line loss and transmission costs. Indeed, they tend to ignore it.
As the minister and Mr. Sheehan may know, I made a presentation to the Utilities Commission, arguing that there should be special rates for industrial consumers in the regions where electricity is produced. I think that would apply to the Kootenays as well as to the northeast. It ties in to this issue of longstanding debate with IPPs. Is it Hydro's continuing position that a premium be paid for hydro generated near Vancouver or that a penalty charged for those who produce hydro outside of the demand areas?
Hon. G. Clark: It's delivered to Vancouver, and we put different benefits, including the value of transmission line loss, etc., into the bids. Depending on what project you bid, this gave you an advantage. The big advantages built into the RFP really are Vancouver Island and the lower mainland because of the unique circumstances. We did include all the externalities in the bidding process, or we tried to.
J. Weisgerber: I would suggest to the minister that perhaps he go back and look at that principle as it applies to selling hydro from sources like the Bennett Dam to large industrial consumers that might locate in the proximity of the dams around the province -- the sources of supply -- and give them the recognition. There's always been a refusal on the sale side.
When Hydro wants to buy power, they recognize the cost of transmission. They recognize line loss, but when they sell it, they simply ignore it. They say: "That's too complicated, too hard to figure out, and we like selling at one price across the province." I think we can't have it both ways.
Without dragging this on longer than I want to, I'm curious to know what the costs, perhaps blended costs, of the IPPs will be, what you're able to purchase and what you're projecting as your costs from the block of power that you'll get
[ Page 15991 ]
from IPP sources. I'd like to know what you project the sale value of the downstream benefits to be in the United States, in Canadian dollars. I would like to know what you project for the total cost of generation at the newly announced generating facilities in the Kootenays under the trust.
Hon. G. Clark: We're in a bidding process. I have to be a bit careful on the IPPs. Generally speaking, for the 500 or 300 megawatts that we talked about buying, it will be something like blended 2.9 cents a kilowatt-hour for power delivered to Vancouver -- something like that, 3 cents maybe. That's the market price, not the social price and everything we might look at.
Site C is 6.5 cents, just to put it in context. Downstream benefits are $5 billion (Canadian) over 30 years; $5 billion to $6 billion based on the conventional assumptions about prices, which are wrong -- they will be wrong. They are forecast over 30 years, but everybody uses those numbers. Net present value is $1.6 billion for the downstream benefits.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
If we took the 1,400 megawatts, even delivered to Oliver, went down to New York and said, "You deal with them," you could probably cash them out for about $1.6 billion. Well, you probably couldn't, unless you worked out access and everything else. But generally, that is what they are worth to the province in today's dollars. If you wanted to, you could probably book it as a financial asset. The province books it at around $1.6 billion. We anticipate between $5 billion and $6 billion over time in today's dollars as we make sales, either here or in the United States. It doesn't matter for downstream benefit purposes. If we sell them here, it would be the avoided cost of 3 cents or whatever down there.
Lastly, on the Columbia River question, there are three projects, as the member knows: the Brilliant expansion, the Waneta expansion and Keenleyside. The Columbia Basin Trust power corporation is looking at those projects. They are not necessarily factored into B.C. Hydro's plan. We say to them that if they want to sell to B.C. Hydro, they have to be competitive with the IPP question, otherwise Hydro shouldn't do it; it would be a subsidy.
I have to say that West Kootenay Power and Light is very keen on purchasing some or all of the power associated with those projects. They actually have quite a serious power shortage coming up, particularly in the Okanagan, as they face dramatic growth. They are interested in purchasing some power. Powerex has indicated that they will give them some sort of floor price, a backstop. In other words, we know we can sell the power.
We expect to be able to sell all the power to the United States at certain prices; it may be around 3 cents (Canadian) or something. So with comfort, Powerex can say: "We'll buy all the power from all those projects at this minimum price." That minimum price is very low, so we can establish a floor with Powerex. We think we can establish some of the power in an electricity agreement, an export energy purchase agreement, with West Kootenay Power and Light, although that still has to be negotiated. They can also bid into B.C. Hydro's system by providing a competitive alternative source of power for us. Those are the options that are available to us.
[11:30]
The most likely option, I think, is going to be some arrangement with West Kootenay Power and Light with an arrangement for exporting some surplus to the United States through Powerex at an upset price -- something like that.
J. Weisgerber: Translating the $6 billion sale over 30 years -- 1,400 megawatts, I think; I haven't done the arithmetic -- it works out to something under 5 cents (Canadian) a kilowatt-hour. If indeed we are going to look at what we are going to pay for IPP projects and what Site C is going to cost in terms of kilowatt-hours, I think we have to know what we are going to get for downstream benefits.
Hon. G. Clark: Compare them against alternative sources.
J. Weisgerber: Exactly. That was one of the questions I was trying to identify. On the basis of that same comparison, I put some questions in the....
Hon. G. Clark: Three point five cents.
J. Weisgerber: Maybe I'll let the minister respond.
Hon. G. Clark: The assumption we use for the sale of downstream benefits power, either into the United States or into British Columbia, is 3.5 cents (Canadian) per kilowatt-hour.
J. Weisgerber: In my earlier discussions with the Minister of Energy, she indicated to me that the costs on the Columbia system would be somewhere between 7 cents and 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. We had a fairly lengthy discussion. The minister may want to go back to estimates debates of a few days ago and have a look at that.
Talking about total capitalization of the project, she said that with 50 percent capitalization -- in other words, 50 percent of the capital costs not contributing to the overall cost -- the generating cost would be 5 cents. Extrapolation of that then takes you to 7 cents or 8 cents a kilowatt-hour.
I sense from his body language that this minister disagrees with the Minister of Energy. It is an important question and an important area for us to have some clarification.
Hon. G. Clark: For Keenleyside, which is the more expensive of the three projects, if we were 100 percent debt-financed, the way we have done other projects, it would be 4.4 cents "levelized" per kilowatt-hour.
The president of Columbia Power, Lorne Sivertson, is here, and we have all those numbers. Take 50 percent of it in equity, 50 percent in debt, and you have to cover your debt costs....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: You have to have a return on equity, I agree. So if you assume the return on equity is the same as the cost of debt, then it's 4.4 cents. If you assume -- and you're prepared to take more risk -- that it goes down, then you can bring the price down. If you assume there's an upside benefit, if the price goes up, then you get it. That's where the rubber hits the road. If you want to bring it down to 3 cents a
[ Page 15992 ]
kilowatt-hour to make it the cheapest power in B.C., short of the cheapest IPPs, then it brings our rate of return down to about 7.5 percent on our equity portion. That's how sensitive it is.
J. Weisgerber: Well, there's obviously some difference of opinion with the Minister of Energy, the member for Kootenay. Quite candidly, I'm more inclined to accept these numbers, because at least there is some semblance of sensibility in the comparative costs and sale prices. I think one still has to ask oneself: is it a good deal to sell power into the United States for 3.5 cents if it costs us 4.5 cents -- or 4.4, whichever number you want to use -- to generate it here in British Columbia?
I think the strongest position we have with the Americans on this whole question of disposition of the downstream benefits is to say: "Look, we've gone to the best project we can find in British Columbia. We've looked at the best projects we can find. The most effective way we can see to generate replacement electricity in Canada is 4.4 cents. So what are your options in the United States? Are you going to use natural gas? Can you depend on natural gas prices over the long run? If you aren't going to use natural gas in the United States, what are your other options?" And I don't think they have a lot. I've said it before and I'll say it now: I think we should look at that, and we should argue those points.
Having made those arguments, I want to come back to a local issue, and that's the Williston Lake....
Hon. G. Clark: The 2,150.
J. Weisgerber: The arguments around excess supply seem to be contradicted by the activities of Hydro with respect to Williston Lake. If there's no shortage of supply, if there are easily replaceable sources of supply through IPPs or other sources, then it seems to contradict the argument with respect to the unwillingness to give the people on Williston Lake a sense of security with respect to the maintenance of water levels at 2,150.
Let me say again that, as I understand the issue, Williston Lake fills to about 2,200 feet maximum. It is most unusual to be able to replenish anywhere near 50 feet drawdown in Williston Lake, even over a period of years. The reservoir fills very slowly; it's a huge reservoir and draws down slowly. The most efficient use of the water is at the higher water levels. Indeed, if the water draws down, the energy generated per cubic metre of water -- whatever measure you want to take of water -- reduces as the water levels fall. I can't imagine why in the world we would want to draw Williston Lake down below 2,150 feet. It seems to me that simply from a perspective of efficiency and community stability, there would be a willingness to say: "Look, we're just not going to draw the water levels down." I know the minister was up in Mackenzie. We sat on the stage....
Hon. G. Clark: It was a great time.
J. Weisgerber: It was a great time. It was March 3, 1994, if it has happened to fade from the minister's memory. There was a commitment then to keep water levels for a short period of time. I believe the time has come, with all of the transition around supply-side issues, for Hydro to simply make the commitment to the community to maintain water levels at 2,150 feet and then work from that parameter. I know there are some arguments around the drawdown, and there are some significant social costs associated with the drawdown. If hydro is available from IPPs at less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, and if we have hydro that we're hoping to sell to the United States for 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, then we owe something to the communities where the electricity is supplied. The minister's government seemed willing to recognize some responsibility for the Kootenays, but to be candid, it seems unwilling to accept the same degree of responsibility with respect to Williston Lake.
The minister talked earlier about the question of whether hydro consumers should pick up costs associated with premiums on wood-waste generation. I was tempted at that time to suggest that Hydro has obligations of its own, which perhaps haven't been totally fulfilled with respect to areas like Williston, where there are environmental concerns over the water level and debris in the lake. Perhaps I should sit and give the minister a chance to respond to what is for me an important constituency issue. It is an issue on which I put a resolution forward. That resolution would easily facilitate the minister in bringing forward the issue for debate in the House and finding a resolution.
Hon. G. Clark: The member knows I'm sympathetic to what he's saying. I did attend the meeting in Mackenzie, where people had very strong feelings about the question, and I don't diminish that for one minute: I appreciate that. There are some distinctions between the Kootenays and that country -- namely, that the plant and many of the people moved there after the reservoir was built, not before. It is a reservoir; it's not a lake. A reservoir means that it goes up and down to provide for power. People knew that when they moved there, and the companies knew that when they entered into their arrangements. I believe the province at the time gave some guarantees for mitigation efforts if it ever went down. So it's a different question.
The challenge we have is that I don't ever want to see the level of that reservoir go below 2,150, and Hydro knows that's my view. It's one thing to attempt to avoid dropping the reservoir below that level, and it's another thing to give up the right to drop the reservoir level down. To do that would fundamentally alter our reservoir system in British Columbia and cost us tens of millions of dollars in potential revenue. We have to manage the system differently. If we give up the right to do it, it costs significant amounts. We're simply not prepared to do that at this time.
I appreciate the member's concerns. I think we do have to bring on more supply to help relieve some pressure on the reservoirs. The member made that point at that public meeting, and I know he's pleased that the government is moving in some of the direction he suggested at that meeting. But we have no intention at this time of removing our right to draw the reservoir down if it's required in the public interest.
J. Weisgerber: I know from the minister's comments in Mackenzie that the community probably feels confident that the water levels would be maintained at least for the remainder of your term in office. I think they believe they would be maintained if we elect a Reform government. Quite
[ Page 15993 ]
candidly, it's the turns taken by the Leader of the Official Opposition with respect to issues like Kemano that have caused an enormous amount of concern in the community. As unlikely as that scenario is, I think the people there would like to protect themselves against the kind of knee-jerk political reaction that we saw on a number of occasions, particularly related to B.C. Hydro issues.
It's for that reason -- the uncertainty that may flow from future governments -- that my constituents look to me, with all respect to the minister, to try to find a resolution to this issue so that there can be a sense of security. I think it's important to recognize that a transportation system with large barges, which is supported by the current administration and by myself, is developing on the lake, and I think it holds the promise of considerable economic opportunities in the areas of mineral development, log transportation, etc.
Those will be very negatively impacted by drawdowns at the lake. Those are important issues. Again, in the interest of protecting my constituents from the unthinkable, we should accept and bring forward the resolution I have in the Legislature and put this issue to rest.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: I wonder whether the member has talked to his colleague from Prince George-Omineca.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]