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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 12

[ Page 15995 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today is one of the four candidates for the federal leadership of the New Democratic Party. I am particularly happy to introduce to the House Mr. Herschel Hardin. Mr. Hardin is a candidate from West Vancouver, on the North Shore. Accompanying Herschel Hardin is Lloyd MacDonald from Delta North. On behalf of the member for Delta North, who is out participating in an announcement of more good news from this government, I introduce Mr. MacDonald. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to acknowledge two people in the gallery today who have contributed significantly to the provision of health care to British Columbians. This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the Medical Services Plan in this province. I'm not sure any of us here were present 30 years ago in June 1965, but I'm sure many of us remember the founding of this vital component of medicare. In the legislative gallery today are two Ministry of Health staff who were there at its inception and who have continued over the past 30 years to provide services to the people of British Columbia through the Medical Services Plan. I'd like all hon. members to join me in recognizing the contributions of Anne Morley and Heather Upton to providing health care to British Columbians.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like the House to welcome once again this year Mr. Scholtens from the Credo Christian Elementary School in Langley and approximately 18 people who are with him -- grade 7 students and their parents. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

C. Serwa: Somewhere in the precinct are a group of 25 splendid young citizens from Shannon Lake Elementary School in the constituency of Okanagan West on the west side of the lake. They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Ed Tonn and Mr. Greg Sanger, as well as five parents. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be a little unusual, but I'd like -- I think probably on behalf of every member of this House -- to go on record as congratulating all the members of the House of Commons today for passing unanimously the DNA legislation, which was introduced this morning and passed all readings today. This will help law enforcement in this country immeasurably, and I'm delighted that the House of Commons acted so expeditiously.

Hon. U. Dosanjh tabled the 1994 annual report of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, in accordance with the Lottery Corporation Act.

Hon. J. Cashore tabled the first annual report of the B.C. Treaty Commission for the year 1993-94, and the second annual report for the B.C. Treaty Commission for the year 1994-95.

Hon. P. Ramsey tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the year 1993-94.

Hon. J. Pement tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF CRAIG BAY PROPERTY

M. de Jong: Yesterday the government announced that it purchased 14 acres of waterfront property in Craig Bay for $7.8 million. That land was subject to claims by the Nanoose band. The events leading up to that purchase, involving, as they did, the erection of a blockade, demonstrate a disturbing trend as this government staggers from crisis to crisis in its negotiations with aboriginal bands. My question to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture is: is he concerned that in proceeding as it has, the government is sending a dangerous signal to aboriginal groups that illegal action works, that illegal action will get the attention of this government and that if you don't follow the rules, you can jump ahead of other aboriginal bands that are prepared to follow the rules?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think we should go over the chronology of some of the events. First of all, there was an agreement between Craig Bay.....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. B. Barlee: I don't mind using the time.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. B. Barlee: There was an agreement between Craig Bay Estates Ltd. and the Nanoose first nation last year, approximately 13 months ago. That agreement held together for about four months, and then it came apart following some advice from individuals who were advising the Nanoose first nations. We were eventually asked to intervene. They could not come to a reasonable solution. We realized that there was archaeological evidence there that was significant. That site is as old as the pyramids; it's very important. It is a significant historic site in the province of British Columbia. I know probably about 900 sites around the province, and nothing matches this. It is something important not just to the first nations but to all people of British Columbia.

So we did intervene. We discussed this with the principals of Craig Bay Estates, and they valued this property....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. minister to be as expeditious as he possibly can in responding. Please proceed.

Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

They valued this at $15 million. We had an independent appraisal of $7.5 million. The medium ground on that, of course, was $11.25 million, and we settled at $7.8 million. the Nanoose first nation did not get a buyout; they received 

[ Page 15996 ]

nothing. This is green space, administered by B.C. Lands. The province of British Columbia gets another park in that area to serve about 100,000 people -- not only the people, but first nations and tourists.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

The hon. member has a supplemental question?

M. de Jong: I have a supplementary which I offer with great trepidation, hon. Speaker.

One can't help but draw the conclusion that by its action today and yesterday, the government is signalling its willingness to pay hush money to avoid tough political negotiations. The minister himself acknowledges that there are burial sites strewn across the province. If this is the sort of strategy that the government is going to proceed with, it's going to cost a lot more than $7.8 million.

In spite of that, the matter hasn't been settled in this particular instance. I wonder if the minister can assure the House that the lands that have been purchased for $7.8 million won't be the subject of an ongoing claim by the Nanoose band. The matter hasn't been resolved. In spite of paying this money, can he assure us that there won't be further claims by the Nanoose band on this land?

[2:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm not prescient. I cannot read the minds of the legal advisers of the Nanoose band, nor can I read the mind of Chief Wayne Edwards. That will be resolved in the future, quite obviously.

A. Warnke: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and it concerns the fact that the government has paid $7 million for 5.7 hectares of land near Nanoose Bay to avoid another simmering dispute. Since the band in question has not even entered treaty negotiations, what assurance can the minister provide that this astronomical sum will not form a benchmark or precedent for the value of any land eventually transferred under treaty?

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member has said it himself: this underlies the value of the treaty negotiations process that we've set up so that we can resolve some of these issues.

But with regard to the specifics of Nanoose Bay, let the hon. member remember that this is a law of general application within this province with regard to heritage. This deals with the heritage of the citizens of British Columbia. The fact that it happens to relate to the people who had been on that site is significant, but it's part of the heritage that we all share, and the question should be crafted with that insight.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: Also to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: even a government lawyer has warned about several ancient burial sites along the west coast and the impact that they could have for settlement on private land. Given the staggering precedent at Nanoose Bay, is it the government's intention -- or the minister's; the one with the long, garish sentences -- to buy all of these various burial sites before treaty negotiations even begin to start in earnest?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, hon. Speaker, the point the member makes in phrasing his question makes it very clear that we have a heritage within this province that goes back 4,000 years. That's something that's of interest to all of us, and that law of general application is there to deal with that value.

With regard to the question, there has to be a recognition that this incidence has done much to raise the profile of this type of situation, which could indeed apply in other cases. Therefore, in the development of lands, there is the opportunity to look to the site and ensure that prior to getting into development, those issues are addressed at that time.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. The implications of this government's sweeping Heritage Conservation Act for private property owners and taxpayers are now apparent. The act has cost taxpayers nearly $8 million to buy peace with the Nanoose band at Craig Bay and, more importantly, has raised the stakes in native land claim settlements by an incredible measure. Does the minister understand that he not only has put private property rights in question but has also put on the table the whole issue of private property in land claims negotiations?

Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member has a very short memory. I do recall in the 1950s that the Socred government bought out significant amounts of property in a place called Barkerville. That is a historic site, of course; this is a historic site. They also went down and bought Hat Creek Ranch, and that was private property. That was a historic site, and so is this.

I have no apologies for this. I think it will provide access to a marvellous waterfront park where people can look out at Craig Bay, and 100,000 people will use that eventually, both natives and non-natives, tourists and whoever else comes to that area. This is not a one-off item. This is a practice of government since time immemorial, even the government previous to us.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

J. Weisgerber: Under section 3.1 of the Heritage Conservation Act, it was anticipated that formal agreements with bands would be negotiated with respect to conservation and protection of heritage sites. There was no such agreement with the Nanoose band or any other band in British Columbia. Until three or four days ago, the minister didn't seem to have any interest in this issue at all. Why would the government spend $7.8 million in order to buy out a heritage site that hasn't even been designated? And why didn't the minister support the agreement for relocation that was negotiated between Craig Bay Estates and the Nanoose band originally?

Hon. B. Barlee: The last part of that rather long statement was that there was never an agreement between the Nanoose first nation and Craig Bay Estates.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, this just doesn't fall under that. It's an important heritage site, but it falls under the law of general application, as has been explained before.

[ Page 15997 ]

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON HIGHWAY SIGNAGE

K. Jones: The Minister of Highways has a policy banning billboard advertising along our highways, and while this policy does not apply to aboriginal lands, the B.C. signage policy was put in place to minimize driver distraction and prevent accidents. Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell the House why his ministry is flouting the spirit of the signage policy by purchasing space on the billboards along Highway 17 in Delta and on the Pat Bay Highway south of Sidney for the promotion of the Victoria Line?

The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?

K. Jones: Supplemental to the....

Interjections.

K. Jones: This is just another example of this minister's do-what-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude. The highway signage policy was designed to promote safety, reduce accidents and save lives. It would appear that the minister's money-losing Victoria Line is more important than highway safety. Will the minister do the right thing and comply with the spirit of the signage policy by instructing the Victoria Line, today, to remove these billboards?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer a question on the Victoria Line. Victoria Line traffic is up 15 percent over last year. Fully 80 percent of the passengers are coming from Seattle to Victoria and spending money in Victoria. We are exceeding our business plan and projections for this year and adding millions of dollars to the tourism economy in Victoria. I will look into the question the member asked.

The Speaker: I believe that was taken on notice.

REFERENCE PRICING UNDER PHARMACARE

L. Fox: This afternoon, in the spirit of the climate within the Legislature, I will ask the Minister of Health this question. The government is planning to impose reference pricing, a policy that would select for coverage under Pharmacare one prescription product per each therapeutic category. Can the minister confirm that the quarter of a million British Columbians who will be affected by this policy -- mainly seniors and the handicapped and disabled -- were not consulted prior to him starting this initiative?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a matter of future policy. Reference-based pricing is not the policy in this province at the present time. It is good to see, though, the Reform Party taking an interest in issues of Pharmacare and making sure that drugs are accessible to British Columbians. Unfortunately, they seem to have got it wrong. They're on the side of the international drug corporations that oppose preserving Pharmacare and keeping it a reasonable cost to British Columbians.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

L. Fox: It's clear to see that this Health minister is more interested in politics than in the issue. In fact, if he has read his mail this morning, he would have seen a position statement delivered to him by the B.C. Pharmacy Association, which opposes this, based on the need of health care services. This new reference-based pricing policy will force 250,000 patients into one-size-fits-all health care. The patient's ability to pay for prescriptions will become a factor when physicians prescribe what they believe to be in the best interests of that particular patient. Can the minister justify imposing this two-tier health care policy on those who may be least able to pay the extra costs of $300 to $400 a year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier this year, this government rejected the proposal of the pharmacists of this province -- which I think the member supported -- to impose an ability-to-pay model on the Pharmacare program. Instead, we made efforts to make sure that we were getting one-style Pharmacare for all and that the drugs people needed were in their hands when they needed them, and to avoid the giveaways to the international drug corporations, which have opposed every initiative to make sure that we can keep drug costs contained and keep Pharmacare affordable for the people of B.C.

Presenting Petitions

W. Hurd tabled a petition.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: May I ask leave for an introduction, hon. Speaker?

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the members' gallery today is His Excellency Mufleh Osmany, the newly appointed High Commissioner of Bangladesh to Canada. The high commissioner is accompanied by his wife, Dr. Shireen Osmany, on their first visit to British Columbia. Would the House please join me in welcoming these distinguished visitors to the Legislature.

PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO PHOTO RADAR

Hon. J. Pement: I rise to give a response to questions taken on notice on June 12 in this Legislature from the members of the third party on the implementation of speed radar cameras. Speed monitoring cameras have provincewide support. They are not cash cows; over time, revenues actually drop as motorists slow down and fewer tickets are handed out. Where speed-monitoring cameras have been used, there has been a significant decline in highway deaths and injuries.

In Ontario they had a profound impact, as shown this morning in the Globe and Mail article, which quotes Ontario Provincial Police as saying that the road fatalities in the province this year are down 16 percent, or 118 fewer deaths over the previous year. The state of Victoria in Australia has reported a drop of 46 percent in fatalities since the speed-monitoring cameras were implemented four years ago, and injuries are down 36 percent.

Polls in British Columbia want the same results. We will start a photo radar program, as planned, on January 1, 1996, and our support is widespread. Support has come from the B.C. Automobile Association, the Vancouver police department, the RCMP and municipal councils -- Trail, Nelson and 

[ Page 15998 ]

Delta, as well as other councils. It comes from the safety driving school in Prince George and from the B.C. Medical Association. These groups see cameras as instruments of safety, not as invasions of privacy.

In a letter to me from the B.C. Trucking Association, President Paul Landry says: "Unsafe conditions cause customer service to decline because of unreliability. They raise maintenance costs and increase equipment downtime. They lower employee morale and cause insurance rates and WCB premiums to rise. Safety is good business."

[2:30]

Speed-monitoring cameras have been used in Calgary and Edmonton at only a few locations, not provincewide. Although only two cameras were used in these cities, average speeds and accidents are heading downward. We intend to use our cameras in a way that is consistent with the desire of the B.C. driving population. They will be used in a high-accident location, determined through our partnership with the police and with extensive community consultation. As well, we will be reviewing all speed limits on provincial highways. British Columbians have waited too long for government to act on traffic safety initiatives, and to wait longer, as our critics now urge, is unthinkable.

Hon. J. Pement tabled statistics on traffic safety for Calgary and Edmonton.

Ministerial Statement

ADAMS LAKE BLOCKADE

Hon. J. Cashore: I am pleased to report that the Adams Lake roadblock is down. I commend the chief and council for this decision. I commend the property owners who have endured this disruption. At this moment, the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Philip Halkett, is meeting with the chief and council at a neutral site in order to discuss with the band the permanent dismantling of the roadblock and a process for identifying and resolving the issues. There are two federal government officials at the meeting.

Disruptions are symptoms of a legacy of unresolved issues. Typically, these issues include roads on reserve lands that have not been legally transferred. The federal government, under its Indian Act, is legally responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Primary responsibility in resolving road transfer issues rests with the federal government. In spite of this, the province has taken the lead in seeking to restore access. At Adams Lake, officials of the government have been on site constantly since early April. We have worked diligently to instruct staff regarding our intent to achieve a peaceful resolution, protect public interest on a long-term basis and avoid violence.

Let me be clear. Unlawful activity in B.C. will not be tolerated, and we will uphold the law. In the House and from the public we have heard demands that politicians should direct the police to immediately end such disruptions. When there is a court injunction and a court enforcement order in place, it is the men and women in our law enforcement agencies whom we trust to protect our persons and our private property, who must decide how to uphold the law with everyone's public safety and a lasting peaceful resolution in mind. The RCMP deserve much credit for their professional handling of these issues by seeking to uphold public safety and achieve peaceful resolution.

In the case of Adams Lake, the province was placed in a more difficult position by the federal government's failure to implement an agreement to transfer the road. The Leader of the Official Opposition is simply wrong to say we have not "come through with our part of the bargain." It is the federal government that never acted. We supported the owners in filing for an injunction. Given that 65 percent of aboriginal people in B.C. are members of the first nations in the Treaty Commission process, we have an instrument to enable the orderly resolution of dispute.

Given that many of the remainder belong to sovereigntist bands, it is essential that the federal minister and Chief Saul Terry of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs establish a treaty process. Sovereigntist bands will not negotiate treaties with the province. However, they and all British Columbians must clearly understand that justice does not start with disrespect for the law. Those who choose confrontational courses cannot expect to maintain the respect of their neighbours or a respectful working relationship with government. The province is willing, however, to participate with the federal government and the UBCIC in a process at a side table that would negotiate on such issues as road transfer, heritage sites and environmental concerns. These issues will not go away.

I wish to commend two members of this House for exemplary leadership, assistance and being part of the solution. The member for Shuswap has worked diligently to keep my office informed and to speak with constituents to promote a peaceful resolution. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast first contacted the government in early April with knowledge of the problem. Since that time he has established a line of communication with both senior officials and the band. I commend him for his approach.

The federal government has a duty and responsibility to settle treaties and deal with these issues. The federal government must increase its presence in addressing these issues. Our government will continue to work for peaceful solutions by: (1) working to prevent disruption by identifying problems and assisting in proactive solutions; and (2) refusing to negotiate matters of substance while roadblocks are up.

The Speaker: Responding for the official opposition, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: In response to the minister -- and I did not get advance notice, but that's all right -- the fact is that it is complicated, insofar as incentives must be provided for a solution to these problems. Here is the dilemma: if blockades work, as one aboriginal chief put it, what evolves is every incentive to set up blockades, because they attract the attention of the government. This is at the expense of those bands that are trying to negotiate in good faith with the provincial and federal governments. The problem is that this sets up an incentive for what one would call queue jumping -- that is, simply getting ahead of the line.

There is something else here, too. The reference is to sovereigntist bands that will not negotiate. If we provide 

[ Page 15999 ]

incentives for non-negotiation, then we will not have resolutions, and we will continue to have problems in the future. It is extremely important for every government to provide incentives so that resolutions can be found.

What is not clear, not only from the provincial government but from the federal government, as well.... The federal minister has said that he will not negotiate as long as blockades are up. But the problem and the dilemma for all governments is: what happens when the blockades come down? Does that mean that we re-enter the negotiations? It is that kind of action that actually provides incentives for blockades and violations of laws. It is extremely important.

While this is a complicated issue, and while there are dilemmas here about which way to go, underneath it all it is extremely important to proceed in a direction that provides incentives for negotiations and that especially recognizes those bands that want to negotiate and resolve outstanding claims in a way that will benefit aboriginals, British Columbians and all Canadians. That's the direction to go in. The fact is that I'm not convinced, no matter what the minister says, that the provincial government is really sending a clear message that will help to resolve that. And that's a fact.

I join the minister insofar as commending the RCMP, who skilfully negotiated the Douglas Lake situation and the Adams Lake situation -- people who want to see resolution and who negotiate in good faith. We recognize that. But I'm afraid I cannot share with the minister that somehow the provincial government and those who associate with the provincial government have somehow created a miracle. They're far from it, and we have a long way to go.

J. Weisgerber: I rise as well to respond to the ministerial statement. The blockade is down, and I'm sure the people who live in Adams Lake are relieved that it is at least temporarily down. In his opening remarks, the minister said that the deputy is there negotiating the permanent removal of the blockade and negotiating a process to deal with outstanding issues in the community. Indeed, the minister said roadblocks work. Roadblocks say that if you want your issue to come to the attention of the minister, and if you want to get to the head of the queue, roadblocks are the route to go. Apex, Douglas Lake, Craig Bay and Adams Lake all demonstrated that this government is susceptible and is willing to negotiate at road blockades.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says: "Duffey Lake, Duffey Lake, Duffey Lake." Let the minister tell me.... At Duffey Lake, the road right-of-way was resumed, and there was no negotiation during or after the blockade. For the benefit of the minister, who can't seem to understand the difference....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it's difficult to hear the person who has his place.

J. Weisgerber: Despite all its protestations, this government is guilty time after time of negotiating at road blockades and allowing the bands to move to the head of the line after blockades. The minister knows that. His own words suggested that he has had folks at the blockades during these weeks and months. Is this the government that does not negotiate? Is this the same government that had people there over all these weeks? Were these the negotiations and was this the government that doesn't negotiate behind blockades? This government has set a tone that will be reflected over this summer. He knows it, and the other government members know it. The government is inviting the kind of activity we've seen around the province this spring. The government has to send a message. From his previous ministry activities, the minister should know that when you're a parishioner in the parish it's impolite to sit and mumble in the back row; you should take your turn and listen. This is the sermon and this is the way it is, and you should listen up.

I think the people most injured by this government and by this sanctimonious minister are the bands who have been peacefully negotiating issues in this province over the years. When the Adams Lake, Douglas Lake and Apex groups go to the head of the line, someone else is being deprived of the opportunity to negotiate. Incredibly, the minister is so thick that he doesn't understand. It's time that this province showed some leadership on this issue; it's been sadly lacking, and again sadly lacking today.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I think that Lord Beaconsfield Elementary School is in the gallery today. I always make a point of meeting with school groups that come to the Legislature. Unfortunately, my estimates debates are up today and I haven't been able to do that. So I ask the House to make the students from Beaconsfield school most welcome here today.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I think either in this precinct or soon to be in the precinct is a friend of mine, David McLernon, who I believe is going to be visiting us from Chase. Unfortunately, he should have been here to listen to the comments from the Liberal critic on Aboriginal Affairs. Surprisingly enough, the Leader of the Third Party, in his commentary with respect to the Adams Lake blockade....

[2:45]

The Speaker: Order, please. I believe the hon. member sought leave to make an introduction.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker, I'm getting to that.

I think that he would have been.... Because he was with me when I was in Chase....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. That is clearly a violation of standing orders, and the hon. member knows that full well.

[ Page 16000 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Nice try, though, I thought.

I call third reading of Bill 29.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

Bill 29 read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark: I call third reading of Bill 35, hon. Speaker.

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Bill 35 read a third time and passed on the following division:

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. In the House, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 48.

ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES ACT
(second reading continued)

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I believe I have about ten minutes left; I'll be watching the lights.

The Speaker: Actually....

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker. Sorry, we've been in committee stage so often in the last two weeks.

Before we broke for lunch, I spent a lot of time talking about some of the practical applications of the bill and how we felt it would play out. I'd like to spend a bit of time in this section of debate on the philosophical argument. Some of the discussions about free speech, freedom of assembly or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have in Canada, and the ability to assemble and to have freedom of conscience.... That's what I'd like to focus on this afternoon.

With respect to freedom of speech, there are very few freedoms which are more passionately debated, especially when we ask: where does the government draw the line, and why does the government have the right to legislate against assembly or against speech? I know that the minister in his opening remarks took a great deal of care in saying that we live in a free democracy and that this would not hamper the responsible exercise of our democratic rights.

However, I point out that quite often when people are protesting abortion, whatever we might think about their motives or the principles, we have to respect their right to express them. This bill would be, in effect, drawing a larger line around the abortion clinic. So we could still have the protests, but they would be at some distance from where the clinics are. Even if emotionally I might be in line with what the minister was saying, even if I could recognize that there's little difference between his perspective and my perspective on what he's trying to accomplish, we would have some serious differences in principle.

I'd like to read into the record a couple of comments of people who certainly have spent a lot more time debating the principles of free assembly, free speech and collective rights versus individual rights. One person many of us have heard from is Milton Friedman. When they talk about a free society, he says: "In a free society, a government has no business using the power of the law or the taxpayers' money to propagandize for some views and to prevent the transmission of others. Freedom of speech is for the listener as well as the speaker, to enable him" -- or her, I'm adding -- "to make his own choice among as wide an assortment of views as his fellows are inclined for whatever reason to set forth."

We know that in this bill there's actually a provision that would prevent the distribution of literature that would be sympathetic to the perspective of the person protesting abortion. The government have said, in their reasoned judgment, the reason that they would have to bring this forward is to prevent harassment of a woman who has made a very difficult choice: "That woman going into the clinic needs the least stress possible, so to reduce that stress, we would not want to have any literature imposed on that person."

[ Page 16001 ]

[3:00]

I know there are examples where someone who is making a decision like that -- a woman who is on her way inside to get the abortion -- may become so distressed by some of the literature that's been given that she may actually withdraw, go somewhere else and not proceed with the abortion, or may be admitted to a hospital. In some cases, there have been changes of mind -- not in the majority of cases, but occasionally -- where a pregnancy is not terminated. That's an aside. That's not what I want to talk about right now. I don't want to debate the abortion issue and where we stand on that.

The principle of preventing the dissemination of information is a fundamental principle in a free society. In this society, we have to recognize that unless that is hate literature that is going to be somehow harmful, perhaps one reason it becomes a stressful document for the woman is that she's having some difficulties in making that decision. I'm not advocating that she have these things given to her. But I am definitely saying that in a free society people have the right to exchange ideas and to provide an alternative perspective. That right has been compromised by this bill.

In addition to Milton Friedman, one person who speaks very passionately on the issue of freedom and how we define freedom in a democratic society is John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill talks about collective versus individual rights in the following way: "There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence, and to find that limit and maintain it against encroachment is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protesters against political despotism."

I would like to say the number of times in this legislative session that I've said to the government that, benevolent though their dictatorship may be, they are moving toward big intrusive government that decides on behalf of the people of the province how the people of the province will conduct themselves. The people of the province are having fewer and fewer choices. When it comes to something as fundamental as freedom of conscience, there should be the ability to share information. Because that has been included in the legislation, I think we have to make specific reference to it as something that is impinging on a very fundamental principle of democracy.

In Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality, Michael Walzer has written about the nature of power, how power should be exercised and what we do in trying to determine the appropriate use of power. I think that that, to a large extent, will be where this debate will be waged outside this legislative chamber.

I mentioned before the break that one of the problems I have is that although in the courts of Ontario we've seen a precedent for an injunction that accomplishes roughly the same thing, what that application for the injunction allowed was for those people directly affected -- those people who believe, who have the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion to say: "My conscience dictates that I do the following" -- to present themselves before a court of competent jurisdiction and make their case before the injunction was pronounced.

In Spheres of Justice, they're talking about the question of power. The author says:

"Who should possess and exercise state power? There are only two answers to this question that are intrinsic to the political sphere: first, that power should be possessed by those who best know how to use it, and, second, that it should be possessed or at least controlled by those who most immediately experience its effects."

The reason I read that into the record is that within a democratic society, it's very important for those who feel that their rights of expression and rights of freedom of conscience are protected by the Charter. They would want to have the ability to state that case before a judge. As I said earlier, imperfect though the justice system is, it is an avenue for those who immediately feel the impact of an injunction to have their day in court.

Within this legislative chamber, we do not give that option. We do not allow the people who feel so strongly that they're taking action -- action which we may have a strong difference of opinion with.... Each one of us may wish to go and protest against those protestors, and we have every right to do that, but we are disenfranchising them from the opportunity to state their case toward someone who is able to make that choice.

The minister is saying no, but clearly we are. Because when this bill is passed by this chamber -- as it shall be, because the government is in the majority -- the people who feel this strongly are automatically prevented from making the kind of case they could make before a court if the government chose an injunction, as was done in Ontario, or if, as we would rather see, a body of people affected -- whether that be the B.C. Medical Association or people directly affected by the injunction not being in place -- sought to have an injunction heard by a court. We're not allowing them to say anything.

One of the most powerful debates we've had in this country has been the debate around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how that will be implemented and how we interpret that. We saw, for example, over the nuclear debate, a lot of debate about whether or not we had freedom of conscience in Canada. I know that, ironically, many people who are true believers in this government's party -- the New Democratic Party -- very strongly took the position that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allowed freedom of conscience and allowed them to withhold their taxes to protest war. That was an interesting debate that took place in this country. I believe that many of the arguments and decisions that came out of courts on the freedom of conscience would be directly relevant to that. We recognize that, ultimately, people did end up paying their taxes, but some of the decisions of the courts were very interesting.

Quoting from a book written by Gisela Ruebsaat called The First Freedom: Freedom of Conscience and Religion in Canada, I'd like to read into the record some of the decisions that came out in the interpretation of the Canadian Bill of Rights. We're talking about the Walter case:

"In the Walter case, for example, Justice Martland stated that 'Religion...must mean religion in the sense that it is generally understood in Canada. It involves matters of faith and worship, and freedom of religion involves freedom in connection with the profession and dissemination of religious faith and the exercise of religious worship'."

Clearly, we have to recognize the difference between "freedom from" and "freedom to." The debate is often: can we have freedom from something which may be disturbing to us if, in the case that the minister has painted, we are someone who has made a difficult choice to have an abortion? We must 

[ Page 16002 ]

have freedom from harassment. At the same time, if we have a strongly placed belief and our conscience dictates that we communicate that belief, we must have freedom to communicate, although that communication must not elevate to the point of harassment.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to single out a very contentious issue -- one which should not be a political issue. It should not be an issue singled out in a separate act, certainly not an act that has a name such as the Access to Abortion Services Act. Many of the objectives of this act could have been achieved by amendments to existing acts without using the word "abortion" and singling it out. When we talk about something as strongly felt by some of the people -- and I have known some of these people in the past, and although I have differences of opinion with them now, I respect that they have strongly held opinions and have the right to express those opinions.... Those people will feel compelled to express those opinions, because of their religious beliefs or because of their conscience. I find it very interesting that the government is going to prevent some of that in this bill. In fact, it allows a fairly wide-open interpretation of harassment.

In the same publication, The First Freedom, I would quote from chapter 4, "Freedom of Conscience and Religion under the Charter of Rights: A Mild Blow to Parliamentary Sovereignty": "The rights guaranteed in the Charter erect around each individual, metaphorically speaking, an invisible fence over which the state will not be allowed to trespass. The role of the courts is to map out, piece by piece, the parameters of the fence." That, indeed, is what the injunction would do. If this government chose to pursue the route that the Ontario government chose -- which was to receive an injunction -- then those people who had individual rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have the opportunity to state their case before the courts. The end result would probably be the same as the access zones outlined in this bill. Again from The First Freedom I quote:

"Certain key sections of the Charter are particularly relevant to the Peace Truster's claim. Section 1 provides a guarantee of certain rights and freedoms: 'The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'."

The minister is saying that he has set out reasonable limits which are demonstrably justified. We fail to see how this bill has set that out.

The case should be made in the courts. The case for the justification in the request for an injunction could be made in the courts; it has not been here. We have had, if I could use the word, partisan -- I hesitate to use that, because I'm not talking about politically partisan; I'm using it from the perspective of the issue -- debate on this issue without there being a case-by-case presentation of justification where there have been incidents and times cited, where the bill is specifically cited and, in the case we're hoping to see, where it would be an injunction -- where the recommendation for an injunction would specifically cite how the injunction would prevent those cases from occurring in the future. That has not been done here, because this is not the chamber to do it.

The last quote from The First Freedom refers to section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It says: "Section 2 enshrines certain fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience and religion: 'Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion....' " I know that there has been a lot of talk in the public about this bill and about there being a challenge to it under the Charter. I think if there is a challenge, there may be some precedents already set for freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. That's why we have the provisions for injunction applications in the courts. That's why this government doesn't have to pursue this kind of legislation when we're dealing with potentially explosive situations. In fact, there is one right now, which is a forestry dispute where aboriginal people are involved. Tensions were high, and an injunction was immediately put in place. We know how frequently injunctions are necessary to prevent an escalation of violence.

I should make it clear that in no way do I disagree with many of the sentiments that the government has expressed in terms of it's distress over the pain and suffering people have been feeling on both sides, on all sides -- there aren't just two -- of this issue. It is for that reason -- because this is a highly contentious issue which many people have had the misfortune of experiencing firsthand -- that we should be more sensitive on this issue than on any other. If we are bringing in changes, we should go out of our way not to inflame the issue and, if possible, we should try not to have facilities which have exclusive abortion services, recognizing how difficult it is to control people's emotions around this issue.

I think that when we pursue something from the basis of emotion, which is not necessarily a bad motivation, sometimes it becomes an overriding motivation in bringing forward legislation, and we fall prey to putting aside some of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, and we tend to inflame the very situation that we're trying to calm.

G. Wilson: I rise in debate on Bill 48, and I also rise to speak in opposition to the bill. This bill is a very vexing one from a legislative point of view. I listened very carefully to what the Minister of Health said in his opening remarks as we entered into second reading on this bill, and I commend the minister for what I think was an excellent speech. He outlined very clearly the perspective of his government and what his government is attempting to accomplish, and I respect that.

I also entirely respect the requirement in a free society to allow people -- in this case, women -- access to health care unharassed, with privacy and with the best of their medical and, where appropriate, spiritual counsel to make decisions and to have within themselves the confidence that those decisions will be respected and they will be able to live with a certain level of dignity. I fully respect that. I find it ironic that there are those within our society who will harass and even take action with respect to physical aggression against doctors or women who select to have abortions, while they are all the while proclaiming to be pro-life.

[3:15]

If we're to have a free society, I think it is extremely important to recognize that we have to become a great deal more caring about each other, and we have to start to be a lot more respectful of each our opinions, our beliefs and our values. That's a two-way street. I know that this government is not neutral on this question, and that is part of the problem -- not that I'm condemning it for not taking a neutral position. In fact, I respect the fact that they have their point of view. But they are not neutral on the matter of abortion; indeed, they have come forward and put government-funded, stand-alone 

[ Page 16003 ]

abortion clinics in place in the province. Regrettably, it's almost as if they put the target in place when they did that. And now, with this legislation, they're going to start to draw concentric rings around it. That is regrettable, because I don't think that that does anybody a service.

In preparing my remarks today, I wanted to say that I don't believe -- and I never have, and I've been consistent ever since entering public life -- that abortion is a political issue. It is not. Abortion is a very personal matter between a woman, her physician and, where appropriate, spiritual counsel. As a man, I cannot begin to understand the very emotional, complex and difficult position that a woman finds herself in when that situation occurs. I think it would be arrogant for me as a man to stand here and say that I could understand that. I can't, and I don't want to in this debate.

I hope this debate does not degenerate, as other debates unfortunately have.... For example, we have a bill on adoption right now, and what do we see in the media? We see that this is something about homosexuals and their right to adopt children, which is absolute rubbish. I hope this doesn't degenerate into that, because there are a lot of good things in that bill. We don't want to debate that now. I don't think that's what this is about. I hope this doesn't become about whether or not you're in favour of or opposed to abortion, because that's not what this bill is about. What this bill is about is providing an environment within our society in which people have access to medical services -- in this case, a woman with respect to abortion.

I shall state without equivocation that I have been on record many, many times.... I hope that within this debate.... It's an important, emotional debate, not only in British Columbia but right across Canada and the United States of America. I hope the leaders of the other parties come into this chamber and speak to this bill and go on the record and say where they stand with respect to this, because it would speak volumes as to how we would approach this matter of civil liberties and civil rights -- the questions and privileges within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada -- and how we approach government's role when the government deems that it has to find itself restricting those rights and freedoms.

I don't support abortion on demand. I've said that ever since I entered public life, but I fully understand and respect that a woman may find herself in that very difficult position where she, in consultation with her doctor and spiritual counsel, must make that decision. That's where it rests.

The federal statutes permit abortion as a medical service in this country, and until such time as that changes, this government is obliged to make sure that there is an accessible service that women may avail themselves of, free from harassment, when it is needed. I think the government has said that that's what needs to happen. Doctors who are trained in the procedure must, because it is a legal procedure, be able to perform that procedure free from harassment. I don't believe that this legislation is going to provide that. Indeed, I think it may work quite the opposite way.

I refer to the case of Ontario v. Dieleman, a case that looked toward the provision of an injunction with this notion of zones. I find it interesting that in looking at that, there are references throughout the entire case not only to Canadian law but to law in other jurisdictions. Of course, the one that comes to mind is the United States. I caution that we not look toward U.S. jurisprudence too much, because it's a different situation there than here. We don't want to become too embroiled in their charter questions, because ours is quite different than theirs in terms of what it provides for.

What we see when we look at that case -- and I think it's important for us to recognize this -- is that prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notion of public protest in Canada was not considered to be a particularly highly valued activity in terms of the Anglo-Canadian.... Let's remember that there is the French civil code, and I don't want to diminish that. But in the Anglo-Canadian common law perspective, we see quite a different review. If we actually review the French civil code and look at Quebec law.... I don't want to get too much into that discussion, although that would be a very valuable one for us to look at if we had the time.

We see in this legislation that there is a series of items that needs to be considered. I understand that the government has considered this, and this is the direction they've opted to go in. I respect that, but I don't agree with it, and I'd like to tell you why.

First of all, what we know with respect to this statutory matter is that it applies exclusively to women. There is a matter with respect to rights, privacy, equality and security, and in this case, it relates to one gender: women. So there is by nature a discriminatory question in the matter of law, either in favour or opposed, that is important in terms of the legal jurisprudence that we would look at. I say to those who argue that we have to have consistent law that applies to women and men equally -- as with labour law, for example, given that they are within a trade union and therefore those laws are equivalent -- that in this case, we do not.

The second thing I think we have to recognize is the matter of expression and freedom of expression in Canada. It makes clear within this judgment -- and I think that we can concur with it by looking at some other case law as well.... It provides several important components, but I think the most important is the fact that expression always involves both content and form. When this government has reviewed this particular piece of legislation and has sought to put in place what they believe to be an appropriate response, what it has to recognize is that expression will take, first, a form -- that is, the manner by which you choose to express yourself, whether it's by blockading, protesting, writing letters to an editor or by some other way trying to advance that; that's the form by which you try to do that. And, of course, we know that the extreme form is to conduct physical violence against an individual.

But there's also the content -- that is, what it is that you are trying to express. What is the view? What is the expression? What is it you're trying to get out? What we have to recognize is that in this particular instance there is a legitimate point of view, expressed by a vast majority of people -- I believe it's the vast majority, and I think the numbers would say that -- that this matter is largely personal. Therefore the notion that we should be putting in place some form of freedom of expression that may, in fact, cross lines that government draws.... And I remember clearly that in the minister's opening remarks he said that the government has to decide where it is going to draw the line. But when those lines are drawn, we obviously commence the abrogation of certain rights.

[ Page 16004 ]

I wish -- as we start to look at the matter of the Canadian Charter, because I think that the Charter provision is important here -- that when Mr. Trudeau and those people that were involved at that time came down with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they had also drafted a Canadian charter of responsibilities. That they didn't do, and it's unfortunate that they didn't. Because if we had a charter of responsibilities, we would understand that there is a responsibility of every citizen to have respect for other people's points of view and other people's positions, and to recognize that where those responsibilities do not exist, government must come in and take a position.

This government has come in and taken a position, because it is not neutral. Neither were they neutral in the Ontario government. In fact, the judge in the case that I've just mentioned -- Ontario v. Dieleman -- found that the government funding of free-standing abortion clinics was illustrative. Because politicians are often subject to strong partisan pressures, they may also fall victim to a tendency to overestimate the need for restrictions on speech. That is a very important point. Where we are subjected to those pressures, and when those pressures exist particularly within our political party or among those who may support us politically, we often tend to react -- and react very strongly -- without recognizing that the role of government is to look to society as a whole and govern for all people in society, to be respectful of all positions. So we have to be extremely careful.

Now, it suggests here that in the same light.... Prof. Cass Sunstein in Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech talks about how the courts may be very suspicious of the regulation of political speech, and how, because government is not neutral, we run the risk of falling victim to legislation that, in fact, is driven driven by political motivation. I don't mean that in any sarcastic way; I'm not trying to be partisan in my comments. But it's driven from a political point of view rather than being driven with respect to providing a solution that addresses a broader base of concern.

In that commentary, the justice quotes from Schneider v. the State of New Jersey -- again, we have to be a bit careful when we get into American jurisprudence. He says: "One is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it must be exercised in some other place." We get down here to the real nuts and bolts of what we're dealing with -- that is, whether government has the empowerment or authority to come forward and say: "We are going to make designations on a map around a doctor's home, a doctor's place of business, a stand-alone abortion clinic or a hospital. Within this prescribed area, the liberties you normally would have with respect to freedom to assemble and freedom to protest...." They're listed in the bill, which talks about what they may be: "engage in sidewalk interference" -- we need a definition of that -- "protest; beset...." We understand what the latter is, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the definition that is provided in this bill is unclear.

There are constraints provided within that zone. One of the ways you can defend them is to turn around and say: "Well, the reason we can take away your rights within these areas is because you're free to do that elsewhere." Consider the consequences to those people who now live within the broader circle. You have simply taken that protest and pushed it further afield, so that the same zealots -- and there are many out there -- will simply assemble at a greater distance. Those people who are either residents or merchants or people who are trying to conduct business within those regions are going to be subjected to being inside that zone. That's a problem, because we have now included within the so-called target -- if I can use that unfortunate analogy, but I think one that's fitting for those zealots who would make it so -- a whole series of other businesses and associated activities and residential communities of people who are now going to be subjected to the same thing. I think that's a big problem, a serious problem.

If I use prostitution as an analogy, and the idea that we are going to try to set up zones within which we're going to turn a blind eye to what is effectively an activity that is generally not accepted, even though it is described as the oldest profession.... We tried to set up those zones, and those zones moved. So all we did was take a problem from here and put it over there. We didn't solve the problem, and neither will we solve the problem by setting up these so-called bubble zones.

If we ask ourselves whether there's a Charter provision to deal with this matter, the first test is to see what's being done here. I refer again to the Ontario decision that involves determining whether the objectives sought to be achieved by the government action relate to concerns which are "pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society." I would argue that they do not in this case, because this is not going to end the debate or assist in the resolution of that, except to say that it will provide a guarantee for women to have a corridor of access where they will be free from harassment in at least a portion of that area. That's what the government's trying to achieve, and I'm sympathetic to that goal -- I really am. I just think we can do it a different way.

This court decision talks a lot about the notion of privacy, and the idea that somebody has a right to assemble freely and a right to disseminate information freely, provided that it's not hate literature. Clearly there are also rights for people to have freedom and enjoyment of their private property, their home. A physician, for example, has a right not to have a picket outside his or her house, and a right not to be harassed. Similarly, a woman has the right to have the state protect her interest when she is pursuing a legally constituted medical service. That's a right. There is a right-to-privacy question here. A woman has a right to privacy and should not necessarily be photographed, filmed or in some way recorded going into an abortion clinic, which is an offensive thing for people to be doing.

[3:30]

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

All of those considerations have to be measured against whether or not this bill actually meets the Charter test. The government has decided that it does. In our review of it -- in our careful review of it -- we believe it does not. I do not believe that it is going to necessarily remove that kind of requirement that the government is going to have to move into, which is an injunctive requirement, from the situation. All it does, essentially, is define a zone within which the government is going to act, and act more swiftly.

Is there a provision, then, in terms of looking for an injunction? Is there an issue here that needs to be dealt with? If we were to take our point of view, which is that you don't 

[ Page 16005 ]

design these zones but you have a provision within an amended statute that provides the government with an opportunity to not only formally deal with injunctions but to act, and act swiftly, with respect to those injunctions....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Yes, there are. There are several. For example, if a person is going to be subjected to injunctive relief, what is the burden of that relief? Who pays for it? Who initiates it? How does that injunction happen? Does an injunction happen before people are actually harassed? In most instances, the answer to that is no, it doesn't. Therefore the government would argue, I think, that injunctive relief is not going to be satisfactory, because it isn't going to prevent the harassment. Our argument is that even if you put the zones in, you're not going to remove the harassment. All you're going to do is to broaden the circle around which that harassment may continue. So an injunctive decision, we think, is the way to go, but we do have to look for a manner that would assume the burden where injunctions are proceeded with.

I think there is some interesting material in the Ontario court decision, in the Ontario experience, about how a government should move with respect to these injunctions. Where and how should these injunctions be honoured? For one thing, we've got two parties involved. We've got the individual who is seeking the service, and we've got the physician who is seeking freedom to be able to perform a legal medical service. In both cases, the move towards injunctive service could be prohibitive: in the one case, for the physician in both cost and time; but, more importantly, for the woman, because it is going to once again bring to the public's attention the fact that this very personal decision has been made for whatever reason that individual had.

So there are concerns within the state, and we have to look towards the privacy concept of how you work with those issues. We believe that there should be a provision within the health statutes for the government to take injunctive action and protect the privacy of those people who would be initiating those injunctions, and to be able to move swiftly against those people who would be subjected to it.

One of the things that I think is an issue relates to the question of the Charter provision of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. I think that the government is on the right track on this particular point. Clearly, the Charter does not provide within its intended rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech that you should be able to, essentially, make an audience captive in order to put forward a particular dogma or propaganda. So the notion of a captive individual -- whether they're captive as a physician might be if you had pickets set up around their home, and you had all kinds of facilities being put in.... That, I think, needs to be addressed within any kind of health statute amendments that would look towards injunction as the remedy.

But the second issue is whether or not you can, in fact, make people captive by entrapping them through intimidation tactics on a sidewalk, a street or out in front of a clinic. That, I think, is something that needs to be done with respect to the health statutes provisions this government might put in place. There has to be provision to prevent it. I don't think anybody -- there may be a few, but I would certainly be prepared to challenge them -- who reads and understands the concepts in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would argue that a person's right of assembly includes the right to hold captive or to restrict free movement of people. We know that from the blockades. That's the argument of an injunction on a labour picket, where people come out and say that if there are third-party involvements, then that's a matter....

There is a question around standards, because there's one interesting little line in this bill that we're going to look at the implications of when we get to committee stage. It is interesting, because it is right at the very end of the bill. It says under section 16: "This act is subject to the Labour Relations Code." I haven't really heard from the minister on this, because there's no more reference to it than that, but I'm assuming that this allows labour picketing to take place within these bubble zones, which in itself is a bit contradictory. It would be interesting in terms of a test of law whether you would allow a labour picket to go up but you wouldn't let another picket go up. We'll get to that in committee, and we will discuss what those are about.

But you clearly can't hold people captive; in a free society, you shouldn't. We believe that you can capture within the legislation...to provide for government an enforcement provision to prevent that from happening. Similarly, on the so-called sidewalk-counsel notion, you can have somebody walking alongside you trying to hand you literature and trying to intimidate you from having that service, often by providing printed information. More often now, and regrettably so, it is done by telling you in your ear that you're a murderer, that you're a killer, that you're killing your child and all this sort of thing. I don't think anybody would argue that this an absolutely unacceptable way for us to behave in a free society, especially if a woman is in need of this service. It must be difficult enough as it is without having that additional emotional burden and physical harassment placed upon them, and I think we have to move to have that restricted.

We argue, and our position is not new, that stand-alone abortion clinics provide part of the problem, in that they set up very designated and clearly defined areas in which these kinds of focused protests can occur. If you're not going to have those, however, then we have to look at the hospitals. We have to look to see whether provisions for hospitals are provided, and we know the history of hospital boards and some of the restrictive measures that have been taken with the hospital boards.

These are social issues that have to be addressed and resolved within the communities in which people live, because as a free society not only do we have the freedom to practise our beliefs but we also have to recognize that there is a need to respect the law. Where there is a legal procedure, we really have no option but to respect it, even though we may strongly and vehemently disagree with it.

I'm going to try to wrap up my remarks now. In this motion, it was clearly demonstrated by the court in Ontario that this provision was permissible under the Charter and that there is a provision where your freedoms, while they may be abridged to a degree, have been abridged in the interests of the freedom of those it seeks to protect. In a nutshell, that is what the decision was suggesting. There are a lot of costs, such as bystander costs, however, that are involved in this. I don't mean dollar costs now, because I'm talking about costs in terms of legislation that I think this government ought to take great care to deal with prior to steamrolling ahead with this particular piece of legislation.

[ Page 16006 ]

Before they move ahead to try to put in these zones, I also think that the government should take a very long and hard look at the question of legal jurisprudence across Canada with respect to the matter of freedom of assembly. In the matters of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech and the matters on those questions on Charter provisions, we have to recognize all those provisions I have talked about here -- the right of an individual not to be held captive, for example. There is a discussion around personal space and how that personal space needs to be protected. The notion that there has to be protection for those who are within their own private property needs to be protected.

In the final analysis, this legislation isn't going to end this debate. The debate on abortion is one that continues in our province. It probably is the question that's most often asked at the time of an election. I hope this does not degenerate in the public to a debate on abortion. As I've tried to keep saying in my remarks, in my comments, it has a lot more to do with the provision and rights of free assembly, the right of government to be able to restrict that measure, the question of the Charter provision and whether this is an appropriate approach to try to deal with a very specific problem that is gender-specific -- that clearly, in our society, we do need some solution to.

We believe that the health statute amendments that should come forward should take an injunctive approach. We believe that we should be moving toward a provision where the courts will restrict those who actually create the problem, not by trying to abrogate the broader rights of the community. If there are those who are denying and violating individual rights, let those people be charged. But do not introduce the concept that government finds it okay to start to draw lines around maps that say that, within these zones, the following kinds of restrictions apply. When we do that, we set up a precedent that is most undesirable. It's undesirable in a free society. Notwithstanding the need to have the kind of protections that are in place, it's undesirable for us to proceed.

J. Weisgerber: I welcome the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 48, the Access to Abortion Services Act. Let me say first of all that I was impressed with the eloquence with which my colleague from Prince George-Omineca dealt with this issue and with which the members for Okanagan East and Powell River-Sunshine Coast addressed the issue. I found myself agreeing with much of what they said.

I'm opposed fundamentally to the notion of bubble-zone injunctions in any form. It seems to me that we have a court system that has evolved and that there is injunctive relief to people or groups of people who are aggrieved -- and may well be very much genuinely aggrieved.

[3:45]

I don't believe for a second that this legislation is going to provide safety to those people who are stalked and violently attacked. People who have that intention are not going to walk around with an identification sign that would keep them away from a doctor's home or office, or an abortion clinic for that matter. I don't accept the argument that in the need for public safety or the safety of individuals, this kind of trampling of human rights and personal freedoms can be justified.

It seems to me that, in this province particularly, we've seen injunctive relief on a whole host of different fronts. We've seen it in labour disputes. We've seen it at road blockades, whether it be truckers who are protesting, natives who are blockading roads or some other economic force that's brought to bear. It may well become ever more common in this province, because we've seen that blockades have a far bigger impact on society generally than the protests that take place in abortion clinics. We've seen injunctions sought and obtained for relief at abortion clinics.

So the question has to be: why in the world, then, has this government decided to select only abortion clinics for these bubble injunctions? Why has the government decided to have the Minister of Health bring it forward rather than the Attorney General, under whose domain this is far more likely to fall and whom one would be far more inclined to expect the legislation to come from? Indeed, the minister, I know, doesn't want to involve himself. Strategically, the government has decided that for some reason the Minister of Health will come forward.

At the end of the day, there's a need to strike a balance between the rights of people seeking an abortion and those people who want, in a legal and lawful and acceptable way, to protest against that activity. That's a reasonable balance, and I believe, quite candidly, that governments, whether they are ideologically inclined one way or another, have an obligation to represent the interests of everybody. This is not and should not be a political issue. The parties should recognize that they are there, after having been elected to govern, to represent the interests of the people.

It seems to me that the government has decided to move beyond that, for some reason, by selecting this issue of creating bubble zones. In the very naming of the act itself they have moved very aggressively into an area that is emotionally charged, that is divisive and about which people have very strong feelings. An element in society, which I think is a relatively small one, has very strong feelings on the issue -- on both sides.

It seems to me that the government is reacting to the fact that creating stand-alone abortion clinics has brought this very emotionally charged debate into focus. They have taken abortions away from hospitals. People could go into the hospital and have an abortion. The doctor performing the service wasn't easily identifiable, the person receiving the service wasn't easily identifiable, and it was done in an atmosphere of health care delivery. But this government has chosen to move that issue to a far more focused, public and high-profile situation.

In case anyone doesn't know, let me say that I believe, at the end of the day, that the decision to have an abortion is a choice to be made among a woman, her doctor, those who may be close to her and those to whom she looks for guidance. I believe that and I always have, and I believe that it represents the belief of a good percentage of our citizens. But that doesn't mean that we should trample on the rights of those people who want, in a lawful way, to register their protest against that activity.

First of all, no one in their right mind would condone violence or harassment, but one must be conscious of the actions that create the atmosphere and the opportunity for that kind of confrontation. So the government now decides that it will create these so-called bubble zones. I'm not sure if it's just very badly misguided or whether the government, in its wisdom, has some other motive in mind. I don't know; you can't know.

[ Page 16007 ]

I know that a government beset with problems of protests, blockades and interference.... Why would a government come forward and deal in isolation with one issue? It's a question that I can't answer; it's a question that I don't think many British Columbians can answer. Perhaps if it were the Attorney General bringing the bill forward, he would say: "It's just the first of a series of acts; this is the new direction of government." But the Attorney General hasn't brought it forward, so one is left wondering, then, what the motivation is. Why the selection?

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: For some reason unbeknownst to me, the Attorney General says: "We don't use injunctions for drunk driving." I'm sure that makes profound sense to him. It must, because he's a thoughtful person, and he normally doesn't say irresponsible things. But how in the world he could take an injunction on drunk driving and draw a parallel with this is absolutely beyond me and, I'm sure, beyond almost everyone who might hear.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: I think the Attorney General, who is normally not one to avoid standing and clarifying issues in the House, will want to tell me in his broader response to this bill how in the world drunk driving has anything to do with this.

Perhaps it reflects a more frivolous side of this than I would first think. I hope not. The reality is that the government has taken an inappropriate action, which I am unable to rationalize. It doesn't make sense to me that the government, in the last days of its mandate, has decided to bring forward a bill aimed at a problem, an issue.... There is no question that it's an issue, but it is one of a series of issues. This is a dramatically different approach to this issue than we see the government taking with other high-profile public issues that are indeed the responsibility of the government to deal with. The government, in other issues, finds the need to be conciliatory, and to go out, find and deal with the rights of all the parties involved, perhaps sometimes to an extent that we believe is excessive. But in this case the government is quite prepared to simply trample over the rights of one group of citizens in its attempt -- or its stated attempt, at least -- to protect the rights of another group.

I'm not at all comfortable with the thrust of this legislation, the mechanism and the motives that drive this legislation coming forward. As such, I will listen with interest to other members. I will certainly hope and expect that the Premier, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Attorney General and others will come forward and state their views on what I think is an important issue. I'd be very interested in the position of those individuals -- in addition to all members of the House, as is always the case.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to begin by complimenting the speakers who have spoken today in second reading and to compliment the tone in which we are entering into this very serious debate. For some of us in this Legislature, we were part of a Legislature that allowed the emotion that is very much part of this issue to erupt on the floor of this Legislature, and I don't think that was constructive for this House or for the issue itself. Having said that, I want to give my support not only to the Minister of Health but also to the legislation, and to recognize that the legislation is an extraordinary step. In saying that, in the time that I have in the debate I will speak to the issue of extraordinary action and to some of the other points that have been raised in the debate as well.

For those of us on the government side, I think we recognize and readily admit that this legislation will not deal with all of the problems that are inherent in the debate around access to a legal, safe, health procedure. Nor will it deal with the issues with respect to the vehemence in which some people hold their beliefs and the permission they give themselves in holding those beliefs to break laws, to trample on other people's rights and to endanger life and property. Having said that, I believe -- as I am sure do all members in this House -- in the parliamentary system, in democracy, in the right to protest and in the right to express strongly held views, but in doing so, recognize there is also a line over which individuals cross, understanding the full weight of the law, and that that democratic process will come into force. We are in the process of debating a law that has some roots in history, recognizing that a whole organized group of people -- not only here in this province in the lower mainland but elsewhere in Canada and North America -- have seen themselves as above the law, and have seen themselves with the divine right, if you will, to endanger the practitioners who are fulfilling legal medical practices and to infringe on the rights of individuals who are seeking that service.

[4:00]

I'd like to lay out for the House some of that history. For the record, I want to read some of the points made in a report to the commission of inquiry into policing in British Columbia -- the Oppal commission. In the report to that commission a number of events were itemized. Since 1989, at Everywoman's Health Centre.... Before I read that into the record, I want to take exception to the previous speaker's comments with regard to this government putting in place these clinics. There is a bit of revisionist history in the province, because I think most of us who have watched this issue or been involved with the issue of the rights of women to choose and make decisions with respect to their reproductive health and reproduction choice recognize that those two clinics came into existence in this province because the previous government, not only by its actions but by its inactions, denied and restricted access to abortion throughout this province. In the fight to control their reproduction choice, women in this province organized and came together to provide those options for other women who sought that legal service. It was because of the actions of the Social Credit government that those clinics were necessary.

One of the clinics I am speaking of is Everywoman's Health Centre. For the record, let me read from the appalling record that is part of their existence. In 1989 there had been approximately 25 blockades preventing entry to the clinic, ranging from one person to 104 people actually blockading the entrance to the clinic. In the spring of 1993 there were three blockades. Individuals sometimes sat in front of the doors. Other times, the doors of the clinic were wired shut or individuals used locks to attach themselves to each other in front of that door. At times, protesters said that the doors or cement blocks would explode if anyone attempted to move them. Between 1988 and 1993, Everywoman's Health Centre received two bomb threats. There have been two instances of individuals who were carrying weapons participating in pickets outside the clinics.

[ Page 16008 ]

In British Columbia, at Everywoman's Health Centre, it continues. In December 1989, telephone lines were cut. In February 1990 the centre was broken into and thousands of dollars' worth of medical equipment was smashed with a crowbar. In 1993 three individuals were charged with civil contempt after they twisted duct tape around the doors of Everywoman's Health Centre. I won't take the time of the House to itemize all of the different experiences of people who were practising a legal health procedure or of the women who visited those clinics, but B.C. is not alone. The examples that have been so high-profile in North America are frightening to all of us.

In February 1995, death threats caused two of four hospital doctors in Halifax to stop performing abortions. In March 1993 Dr. David Gunn, a Florida doctor who performed abortions, was shot dead outside his clinic. In July 1994 Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister, shot and killed Dr. John Bayard Britton and volunteer James Barrett outside a abortion clinic in Florida. In December 1994 two employees were killed and five others were wounded when anti-abortionist John Salvie opened fire on two Massachusetts abortion clinics. He then drove to Norfolk, Virginia, and blasted out the windows of another clinic.

That's the history of the struggle with respect to the rights of women to receive legal abortion services not only in British Columbia but also in Canada and in North America. These acts have been carried out by organized groups of fanatics who believe they are above the law. So when I say that this legislation is an extraordinary step, I believe it is, and it is in response to a history of extraordinary actions both here in British Columbia and, regrettably, in other places in North America as well.

I want to speak now of the women who seek those services, and of the impact of these actions not only on the people who work in health care facilities, but also on the women who are seeking support. A number of years ago I escorted a woman to a clinic here in British Columbia, in Vancouver. I want to speak a little about the decisions that women make in seeking an abortion, first of all, and then I want to talk about the experience I personally had in escorting that woman to the clinic. The decisions that women make with respect to taking control over their reproductive choice are possibly the most basic and fundamental decisions that a human being makes. I want to elaborate on that and put it into some perspective, because a number of speakers in this House have said that it would be very difficult for them to put themselves in the place of a woman who had to make that decision.

As a mother of two children, I think I have some understanding of how difficult that choice is or would be, but I want to credit those individuals who make that decision, and who make it in the most serious context that perhaps any of us could imagine. In the first couple of years of government, I had the privilege of working with the Ministry of Social Services. All too often the case studies that came across my desk left irreparable memories of individuals -- often young women who were on their own and trying to raise children through the pressures in their lives, taking out their anger, their frustration and their inability to affect their families on those children.

I recall a personal experience as a young mother bringing an infant home from the hospital, being up all night with that baby a number of nights in a row and feeling quite desperate, not knowing what I could do to stop this baby from crying -- how difficult that was.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member across the way says to feed it. I went through the checklist, as all mothers do. I fed the baby; I changed its diaper; I checked for pins. I did all of those things. I remember how desperate I felt, not being able to bring some comfort to that infant. At the moment where I just felt like picking that baby up and shaking it -- saying "Stop screaming!" -- I picked the baby up and went outside and talked to my neighbour, who I had never talked to before. It was after that sort of calming experience that the baby finally fell asleep in my arms. I have a very supportive mate at home who helps with the children.

I think of the number of women who find themselves in the situation of facing poverty -- not being able to keep a roof over their family's heads -- and I understand that the decision as to whether or not they should carry a pregnancy to full term.... I can't even imagine the number of issues that some people have to face in making that decision. It is a decision that is survival for both themselves and their families. Having made that fundamental decision and then having to seek out a service and having to deal with governments that feel that abortion services should not be funded as a legal health service -- having to face the issue of access in their community and going to a clinic that was established for that very reason and then having to run a gauntlet....

Let me share that other personal experience that I talked about. I walked to a clinic with a young woman who had made that decision. The clinic was not picketed that day. There were two people in front of the clinic, and it was unclear whether or not they were protesters or whether it was an information picket. We were walking up to the clinic, and a strange man approached us and wanted to engage us in a conversation. We weren't too interested in talking to anybody, never mind a complete stranger; we were pretty embroiled in the issues that we were dealing with. This young woman, who was 16 years of age, was then blocked from entry by this individual. The individual held out his hand and said: "Do you understand that your baby's feet are this big?" I'm not a violent person, but let me tell you, I did bodyblock that guy. I physically put myself between that young woman and this protester. I was never so insulted and so appalled by the intrusion on this individual's rights and the lack of sensitivity -- that this fellow felt that he had the moral authority to interfere in that very difficult decision she had made.

Let me end by addressing a couple of other points that have been made in this debate. It has been argued that the issue of this legislation.... It sets precedents; it will have an impact on other lawful protests. While I think that I have laid out a very strong justification for exceptional action in my previous comments, let me make the point that this legislation recognizes that there is a need to bring a balance where individuals and organized groups of individuals who are prepared to put themselves above the law must be held accountable, that there is a democratic and lawful process to influence and that the process has been underway for a long time and has driven legislation like this.

But with respect to the points that some of the speakers have made with regard to labour law in this province and the 

[ Page 16009 ]

impact on labour disputes, I found it particularly interesting when the Reform leader got up and spoke to this, and I'm hoping that the leader of the Liberal Party will get up and ensure that he is on the record. The House Leader indicates that he is not here to engage in the debate. He, though, I believe, has a responsibility to the people of this province to make his views known. Women are counting on it.

I find it particularly ironic that those who argue against this legislation are more than willing to support essential services for the public service, essentially denying the right of working people in this province to withdraw their labour and engage in a lawful strike. I find it particularly interesting that the leader of the Liberal Party has, on a number of occasions, taken the position in support of essential services -- particularly with respect to school teachers -- again denying whole groups of people the right to withdraw their labour and to negotiate with their employers.

[4:15]

There is a parallel here, one that recognizes and says that there are due processes, that labour relations enforce the rule of law and that if individuals in labour disputes break those laws, there are opportunities for injunctions. The point I'm making here is that there is a history where organized groups of individuals have preyed on the rights of not only the workers in those clinics but also on single individuals, and that those individuals are asking government to bring a balance back to the process so that their rights of access to legal and lawful services in this province can be preserved.

So as I engage in this debate, it's my hope that the tone of the debate will continue in this productive fashion, in recognition that this is a very serious step and in recognition that this government understands that this legislation alone will not solve all the problems; but hopefully, it will send a strong message to those who feel that they are above the law.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to add some comments to the second reading stage of Bill 48, the Access to Abortion Services Act. I note with interest that the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services indicated that this bill represents an extraordinary step. Indeed, I agree with her; this bill is extraordinary. I think the question that we as legislators have to answer before we decide on how to vote on such legislation is whether or not this kind of extraordinary measure of creating bubble zones around abortion clinics, doctors' offices and the residences of medical practitioners as prescribed in Bill 48 is justified. Is it a justifiable response by the provincial government to a situation that may warrant it?

The minister in her comments spoke a little about the recent history of violence that we've seen not only in British Columbia but in North America. Extremely disturbing violence has occurred against abortion staff and medical practitioners. The minister made a valuable contribution to this debate by putting that on the record and reviewing that for us in this debate.

The question is: is that violence part of a large wave of violent activities that are being practised in an organized fashion, deliberately directed toward those practitioners in the medical profession who may be delivering these services to women? Or are those the actions of aberrant individuals who are not representative of those who dissent, who don't agree with the legal framework that provides access, at the expense of taxpayers, for such services in North America. This is not an easy question to answer.

We had last fall, here in British Columbia, just such an example of violence, when there was apparently an attempted murder of a well-known Vancouver doctor, Dr. Garson Romalis. That is something that all of us as legislators abhor and would criticize in the strongest possible language. Is this bill a response to that particular action? If so, then I would have to question whether we as responsible legislators can support a new statute, a law of British Columbia, that is seeking to deal with what might be an isolated circumstance in our province -- a situation not representative of the legitimate dissent and protest that exists on this kind of very difficult and challenging issue -- and whether British Columbia should be engaged in an act that might justifiably be criticized as legislative overkill in dealing with the situation. I raise that because these are points that have to be discussed in this debate.

The Minister of Health, who introduced the bill and whose comments were surprisingly brief for bringing in a bill of this import, indicated that this legislation will ensure that abortion services in British Columbia will be provided in an atmosphere of security, respect and privacy. I don't think there's any member of this House who wouldn't want to see those principles enshrined and practised in British Columbia -- that the women who would make that most difficult of decisions, that profoundly difficult and challenging decision, should be able to receive that medical service in an atmosphere of security, respect and privacy. I applaud the minister for wanting to achieve that goal. Indeed, as Minister of Health, it's his responsibility to ensure that these principles are achieved. The question we have to answer, though -- and we have to answer it with some certainty in our own minds -- is whether Bill 48 is going to do that.

When his colleague the hon. Minister of Consumer Services reviews the history of violence -- what I might call sporadic and isolated instances, but some others might choose to interpret that pattern of violence in a different manner -- I have to ask whether Bill 48 is going to stop that. Is Bill 48 going to stop the few deranged, aberrant individuals who may be so inclined as to practise this kind of violence? We've had one example in the province in the last year.

And at what point do we balance that? The Minister of Health talked about the need to balance those objectives with the right to allow continuation of legitimate dissent. This is not an easy challenge; it's a very difficult thing to achieve.

We have in British Columbia, at the municipal level of government, a reactive form of governance much too often, where municipal representatives too often seek to pass bylaws to deal with a very specific, isolated situation. That's one of the features of municipal government in the province. When we deal with situations at the provincial level, at this more senior level of government, I don't think we can afford to pass a broad measure, a new statute, to deal with something quite so specific. I think the test of a law in this province must be that it not only can stand the test of time -- so far as we can see it -- but also have broad application. It must not be dealing in what might be criticized as a knee-jerk reaction to a specific or isolated circumstance. I believe that's a weakness of this legislation. There is some legitimate criticism that can be levied against Bill 48 on those grounds.

The hon. Attorney General may have some views on this next matter that I raise, and I certainly would be interested in his views. I'm not a lawyer, nor is he, but he's responsible for 

[ Page 16010 ]

the administration of justice in this province. I have yet to have it explained to me why injunctive relief is not the remedy that we should be looking at in this kind of circumstance. Why are we seeking to pass a law that simply puts a bubble around an area that says: within this bubble, legitimate dissent will not be allowed? The freedoms that we take for granted in Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not be allowed to continue because of some special and extraordinary circumstance. Why cannot injunctive relief remedy that situation?

There is an important distinction between a legal injunction and legislation. Legislation is permanent. Legislation such as Bill 48, if passed by this Legislature, will become a statute of our province, a law of the province. It will be permanent. It will, of course, be open to interpretation by the courts but not to regular review, as an injunction would. An injunction is a temporary measure brought in for a special and isolated circumstance, which can be reviewed by the courts -- not just interpreted, but reviewed -- as to whether or not its application must continue. Why, then, should we not be looking for an injunctive remedy in a situation like this? Why do we feel that there is a need to pass a law?

I worry a little bit that Bill 48 might be an attempt by the government to take a symbolic act.... And maybe there is a need for a symbolic action here on the part of a government that feels a need to respond. There is a need to respond, but is this the right response? Or is this simply a symbolic action of a government that wants to be doing something -- perhaps anything -- on this important issue? Should a provincial statute be approved on that basis? I think that's the question we have to grapple within in this. It's a philosophical question. Interestingly, this isn't a question of reproductive rights, necessarily; indirectly it certainly is, but not directly. It's not a question of abortion rights, but it is a question of how this service can be provided, as the hon. Minister of Health said, in an atmosphere of security, respect and privacy. Those are the principles we have to address, and we have to question whether or not Bill 48 is the appropriate way to respond.

Some have spoken of a precedent that might be created with the creation of a bubble zone -- a special zone -- and indeed there is a precedent there. The bill specifically says that picketing will not be allowed within certain parameters. I for one think that it would be quite reasonable to suggest that no medical practitioner's residence should be picketed, so I actually think that portion of the bill makes perfect sense. But when we apply that to an abortion clinic or a medical office -- a public place -- we're not talking about the private life of anyone working within the medical profession, we're talking about the public life of the province of British Columbia, and about creating special zones. What kind of a precedent are we creating? Why is it that picketing of this particular nature must be dealt with by a special law, rather than through the injunctive process that is already available to us through the courts?

The Minister of Consumer Services talked about the labour relations aspect. Of course, the bill specifically says, under section 16, that this act is subject to the Labour Relations Code. It seems to me that there is a parallel there, but there are several other parallels that perhaps could also be drawn. What kind of pickets will and will not be allowed in British Columbia? A picket for a labour relations purpose -- during a strike -- clearly will be allowed, because the government is comfortable with those kinds of pickets. The government says that there is nothing wrong with those kinds of pickets in any circumstances, so we're not creating bubbles around those kinds of zones. But the kinds of pickets that might be up around abortion clinics are not allowed.

How do you decide where to draw the line? Could we say that a picket at a blockade of a road -- whether it be by aboriginal or non-aboriginal British Columbians -- could also be abolished by putting a bubble around it and saying that anyone within that bubble will not have their right to freely express their dissent? Should we be looking at any kind of civil disobedience? Why is it particularly this kind of picket and this kind of picket alone? What kind of precedent does that have?

The hon. Minister of Health may feel comfortable that this bill will stand the test of an inevitable constitutional challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'm not a lawyer; I don't know if that's the case. But I do know -- and I think there is some certainty in this -- that there will be such challenges. So this matter will be reviewed by the courts, and it should be.

When we start dealing with things as fundamental as freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the freedom to legitimately express dissent in our democracy, then we have to be very cautious. We can't move to address an isolated, specific circumstance if that is also going to have a precedent or an indirect effect on the other freedoms that are guaranteed under our constitution. Those are the kinds of concerns that need to be addressed; they need to be addressed in a way that this bill doesn't....

The impulse behind this legislation is important, and the goals that the Minister of Health has established in terms of trying to provide an atmosphere of security, respect and privacy are important. We don't want to see the kind of intimidation that the Minister of Consumer Services talked about. There must be a way to stop that. There must be a way to prevent that kind of intimidation and violence, which will complicate the very difficult and troubling moral dilemma that a woman may have when she makes the decision to seek that kind of medical service. We must prevent the wall of protest that some women have had to encounter. There must be a way to do that.

I believe that injunctive relief has to be explored as an alternative remedy. If that injunctive relief is unsuitable or cannot do the job, then the hon. Minister of Health has an obligation to consult with his colleague the Attorney General to try to figure out how to strengthen the injunctive process in British Columbia to ensure that the principles established by the Minister of Health -- the atmosphere of security, respect and privacy -- are guaranteed. But it should not be by passing a new law to deal with something so specific and so isolated, in my view.

This is a bad precedent, and while I support the impulse that comes from this bill and from the Minister of Health and his colleagues in the cabinet, and while I support the goals and objectives he has established, I don't think Bill 48 is the proper response, and I don't think Bill 48 is going to solve the problem. Indeed, Bill 48 is a dangerous precedent in terms of its potential impact on the rights and freedoms that we cherish so much in our country.

[4:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll be brief in my remarks. I actually was listening to the debate in my legislative office and found it 

[ Page 16011 ]

very interesting -- one of the best debates I've heard in this House over the course of the last months. I wanted to join in on the basis of engaging my colleagues on just a couple of points.

As I was sitting in my office, the thought occurred to me that governing is really, really tough. It's the toughest thing that.... And when I say governing, all of us here are governing. Some of us have to make the final decisions, but we as MLAs in this chamber do govern, and governing is toughest when we have to make collective decisions about people's personal lives. We have to make decisions about how we as a government support people in making personal choices and in ensuring the safety of their personal lives. It is also tough when we know that we're making decisions that will stay in place for a long time.

But do you know what? I joined the debate because we have to make the decisions; we can't escape from them. We have to do this in a way that reflects why we were elected. We are elected in a parliamentary system, and we have to make our decisions based on how parliamentary democracy unfolds, on a party-by-party basis. Our government has said that this is an important piece of legislation; it's a health care issue. We have to govern in a way that collectively shows our decision.

I actually applaud the Reform Party for taking a decisive stand. People who vote for us know where the Reform Party stands. I also applaud the Progressive Democratic Alliance. I would debate point by point at some other time, but as a party they have clearly put a position on record. I would urge every party to do this in a way that doesn't escape the reason we were elected. We're not in a system where just because the issues are tough and they affect people's personal lives and because they are permanent decisions, we can escape acting in the manner for which we were elected. For anyone in this House to think that this is an issue about where we can make a personal commitment based on the fact that we are individual MLAs is wrong.

We're going to be facing some tough issues in the course of the coming weeks, ones that face us in our daily lives: how we raise our children and when we choose to have children -- and you know that the Adoption Act is coming in. These are issues that show whether you can govern or not; whether you can actually engage in debate with the public and whether you can listen to the various points of view that the public expresses in substantial amounts. Then you make a decision and you govern on that decision. How we govern in this Legislature is by voting for pieces of legislation, but we don't do it as individuals; we do it in the context of parliamentary democracy that's based on a party system, and that means that parties should take collective stands in these matters.

My colleague the Minister of Consumer Services has spoken aptly and eloquently about the need for such legislation. Her personal and ministerial experiences stand on the record as reasons this legislation is so necessary. I wholeheartedly support the legislation in a way that gives women access to the health care they need. It is no more complex than that. When people impede access to women's health care -- or anyone's health care -- in a way that's concerted, by established design, then government has to make some access to clear the roadblocks. It's as simple as that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This legislation is not about criminal violence or establishing criminal violence in a different way; the Criminal Code takes care of that. This is simply a health care issue and an access issue. I would just say to my colleague, the member opposite for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, that they are not isolated incidents. This is not about one single incident, about the violence directed toward the obstetrician Dr. Garson Romalis. I have spoken with many doctors who have been intimidated at their offices and at their homes in a way that's very similar to what Dr. Romalis had to suffer. Those incidents have occurred in the very recent past, and they have occurred repeatedly as well. Health care workers have faced the same sort of violent intimidation in their own areas of work and in their own homes. Those are the health care workers. Then, of course, colleagues have related their personal experiences to women facing those issues of violence. It is orchestrated. These are not random acts of intimidation. This is an orchestrated, organizational exercise in limiting access to health care.

There are manuals on protest on this continent, perpetuated by organizations that are anti-choice and that would deny women their right to reproductive health care. Those manuals advocate violence and denigration of women. We're not doing this for some glib, high-profile reason. We're doing it because we need to stop the concerted impediment, and we need to ensure that people who make the choice to have an abortion and those who exercise professional medical care do so in a climate in which any other medical care would be offered, whether it be heart surgery or your child having a cast put on his or her arm.

I just urge that we look upon this as an issue about which we have to make decisive choices as legislators, not as individuals. I don't think we have the right, as legislators, to make decisions individually. We were not elected on that basis, and we don't govern on that basis. There is not one individual who will have the right to govern here in a way that allows them to do things individually. We have seen that challenge put to us, as a government, each and every day -- people saying: "You guys do things collectively, and therefore you're to be held accountable collectively." I agree with that. I urge each and every party in this Legislature to stand up and be held accountable on a party basis, so that when we're asked to be accountable -- the only way we can be: from the voters -- the voters have a clear choice.

R. Neufeld: If there was a list, I think I have jumped the queue. But if not, I rise to speak briefly to Bill 48, the Access to Abortion Services Act, and to put my thoughts on the record. I've listened to much of the debate today, and I must agree with previous speakers that there has been some rational debate around what is a serious matter within British Columbia and what's going on with safety for those people who provide services in the abortion clinics within British Columbia.

As my colleague from Prince George-Omineca stated, I want to put on the record that we certainly don't condone violence. We would like, somehow, to be able to address this issue -- the symptoms of it and what really causes it. I think that probably the issue of abortions.... There are all kinds of feelings on both sides. I think each and every one of us has our individual feelings about abortion, whether we agree with it or not -- and so we should.

After saying that, I must say that I don't agree with the Minister of Social Services when she stands up and says that 

[ Page 16012 ]

you have to vote in a block on all issues. I suppose that is the fundamental difference between the NDP as a collective and us in the B.C. Reform Party: we agree that you should be able to have free votes and vote as you believe your constituents think you should vote.

This is an issue that goes far beyond trying to just put forward your own feelings; I think you have to listen to a lot of people. For that reason, I spent a fair amount of time talking to my wife about abortion and how she felt these issues should be handled. I might want to put on the record that I listen very closely to my wife -- most times I have to. Those who know my wife will know that she is a very forceful person and has very much a mind of her own and does not shy away from telling me what's on her mind. She told me she felt that the reasons we have this difficulty around freestanding abortion clinics is that we have focused abortion on just a few places with the freestanding places. Rightly or wrongly, that's happened.

What we see now is a government trying to put into place bubble zones around abortion facilities that will be approximately 50 metres, or 160 metres from doctors' and workers' residences and ten to 20 metres from doctors' offices. I don't think that putting a bubble around any one of those areas is going to stop the person who is intent on doing harm. It isn't going to stop that person at all. It won't stop the kind of deranged person who shot the doctor. It's almost like what we've heard so many times on the gun control issue, which is that if we register all firearms, all crime will be reduced. That's not going to happen. With putting bubble zones around doctors' offices or freestanding abortion clinics, we are still going to have the issue. Does 50 metres from abortion facilities mean, then, that it's okay to protest the way protests have been going on, but just 50 metres further down the road? You still have the issue. It's still there, and that's what we have to deal with, I think, in this whole issue of freestanding abortion clinics, because everyone knows what happens in there. I think the suggestion I've heard today, one that I agree with, which is that abortions should probably take place in hospital facilities, is the way to get around these issues. You don't have to set up bubble zones around hospitals.

I'm not exactly sure what this does to the cost. I think that if women are going into a hospital to receive an abortion, they may feel a little more comfortable if they don't have to first go through a lineup of people protesting against abortion, because I don't think you'll find that that takes place at a hospital.

It's a reality, it's part of life and it's here with us, and we're going to have to deal with it the best way we know how, but I know that just setting up a bubble around abortion clinics is not going to be the answer. It will not be the long-term answer, and that's what we should be looking for. This may stall things for a little while. There may be a challenge under the Charter of Rights. I don't know; there very likely will be. There are all kinds of reports that there are going to be; they will go to the Supreme Court. That may stop, for a short period of time, the problems that women and people who work in those facilities are experiencing at the present time, but I think they will return.

I think there are other solutions to this very serious problem that we should be looking at collectively. I appreciate all the discussion today around what is a very explosive issue. I think it has been a rational discussion; there have been a lot of good ideas, and people are talking a lot of good common sense today. I think that as legislators, as the Minister of Social Services said, we should be seriously looking at all of those issues to try to deal with the problem in the best way we can, and I don't think that setting up bubbles around abortion clinics, doctors' and workers' residences or doctors' offices is the answer. With those few words, I will take my place.

[4:45]

C. Serwa: First of all, I guess the first thing I would like to say in this particular debate is that I probably regret that this debate is having to take place. I regret that society, perhaps, is forcing this particular debate to take place. That's one of the concerns I come here with when I look at this particular bill.

Nevertheless, we are here and we are debating the bill, and the philosophy and principles of the bill. What the debate is not is a debate about abortion. I want to make that perfectly clear, because it's hard to separate the element that we're discussing from the bigger question that's out there, but it is not a debate about abortion. Under the laws of Canada, abortion is a legal medical procedure. Under the policy of British Columbia, again, we're not debating whether or not the public purse should fund abortions. That's not part of this particular debate. There is a great deal of debate going on about that, perhaps, in various sources, but this debate is not a debate about that. So I want to make that very clear before I begin.

The one thing I sincerely appreciate is the thoughtful type of debate that is taking place in here. I personally often wish that that debate would take place in this particular forum more often than in this one situation. It's a very, very sensitive issue. I think a lot of the members here are expressing their awareness and understanding, and I think that a lot of the public, which will either be reading Hansard or perhaps viewing the proceedings, are aware -- painfully aware -- of the sensitivity of this particular subject.

The one thing in the course of this debate that virtually everyone I have heard is in support of is the concept of security, respect and privacy for those individuals. I think that we're all in agreement there. Obviously, different sides and some different opinions have been expressed on how we achieve that -- perhaps in a different manner than this specific legislation proposes. I suppose there are different approaches. If you take a theoretical approach to this, you can say that it's an infringement on the rights of freedom of expression. You can take that perspective and make an excellent case for that.

But I don't think that's the real issue here. I think that one of the things is the fact that we're able to debate in this forum with respect, with relative privacy and with rights. As a matter of fact, we have people in the galleries who are restricted from taking notes, who are unable to voice their particular opinions on this particular issue, who can't intimidate us or shout down at any time, and we accept that. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine participating in this forum without the opportunity to engage in free expression and not be subject to intimidation.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The member has suggested that perhaps we have a bubble zone, and that's what makes it so difficult.

So there are various perspectives that one can take on this legislation. I think that we're all painfully aware of that. I'm 

[ Page 16013 ]

also aware that sometimes there are demonstrations outside when I come into the precinct, but I am aware of Sergeant-at-Arms security staff and the rights and freedoms we have as legislators. I've gone out amongst the people in protests against the former government and this government, and I've been treated with courtesy and respect. The individuals engaging in those protests have been courteous and respectful, and perhaps have provided me with information, but I have never felt a form of serious intimidation.

I, like other members, have done a lot of soul searching with this. I'm still not quite confident what my ultimate decision on the vote will be, because you can look at it in perspectives. I've talked to staff in my caucus offices about this. As I stand here as a male in society, I will never stand in the shoes of a female, so in a way it's presumptuous of me to stand and debate -- but yet, stand and debate I must. It would have probably been more politically astute to evade standing in debate and to refrain from enunciating my particular concerns and interests in this, but I'm loath to do that. I saw an example of it in the Legislature the other day, and I think that it's very wrong. We're chosen and elected to be responsible and to make decisions, and so proceed I must.

We're all concerned about the safety and security of the individuals wanting access to this health measure, and every individual in our society should have that right. A number of things have happened, perhaps through the previous government, perhaps through the wiles of society, and changes in societal mood have made this particular broader question very, very controversial. Nevertheless, it has been decided by the law of Canada, and it is policy in British Columbia, and that's a given.

When I look at the concept of the bubble zone, I too wonder if, in fact, it will be effective. I don't know that it will be effective. Privacy.... Someone with a telephoto lens, whether it's close or 50 metres away, still has that access. The ability to set up protests or signs or placards is still there, but perhaps what it does is give an access zone -- and I guess that's the intent of this legislation -- so that the woman is able to enter the clinic unimpeded.

I encourage those who have difficulty with this to look at options other than the type of protest that has occurred, other than taking the law into their own hands or feeling that they're above the law of the land. There are other actions that they could take -- actions such as counselling, for example, advertising and making themselves available to work with people, and it should be a voluntary type of relationship.

The whole issue we're dealing with is really a symptom of a malady that probably all of us in society are responsible for. There are more ways of dealing with a matter than either taking the violent end of one side of the perspective or the violent or radical end of the other side of the perspective. Common sense decrees that we who live in a collective society have to respect, listen to and tolerate each other. We're all unique creations, each and every one of us; we're individually unique.

An Hon. Member: Some are more unique than others.

C. Serwa: Some of us more unique than others; that's a reality. Nevertheless, we can only work, as we work in this Legislature, by respecting and listening acutely to each other, and then coming up with something that we believe may be not the real answer but perhaps an indicative sign -- again, maybe that small step in the right direction.

While it won't be a cure-all, it may be questioned and may not be quite the right tack to take. I'm not aware of the number of incidents that occur, whether they're increasing or diminishing, and whether society is accepting or not accepting the concept of freestanding abortion clinics. I really don't have that information. If it's diminishing, perhaps the bill is overkill and simply leading public acceptance of that reality. There are certainly many questions I can ask that I don't have the answers for, and perhaps the minister in bringing forward this legislation has more of them.

Nevertheless, when we look at the intent of the legislation, while the legislation may be very bad legislation, it is carried out with good intentions. The injunction system may in fact work. But should the injunction system be necessary?

I do know that prior to the freestanding abortion clinics there was a movement.... Hospital boards were yielding to significant pressure from special interest groups and closing their hospitals to abortions. I know that the steps taken by the former government were inappropriate, from my particular perspective, because they were creating a situation where someone who was relatively well off could go to another jurisdiction, for example, and have an abortion, and others who were not well off were confronted with more difficult choices.

So on the whole, I'm going to continue listening. Unless someone convinces me that there is a better way, I believe I'm going to have to support this particular legislation, in spite of the difficulty I have with some of the censures of that bubble-zone concept -- and I do have a great deal of difficulty with what it might expand to.

I can talk about unions and strikes and intimidation of men and women, and go into that, but I don't think that is a valid portion of this argument. Women and children are the most vulnerable in our society, and we have to be sensitive enough and recognize that reality. If special accommodation is necessary, then we have a responsibility to ensure that this accommodation is made in this Legislature.

With that, I don't know if I've added anything to the debate. It is something that hits each one of us in a special and significant way, and it's our responsibility to try -- muddle as we might, sometimes -- to take those tentative steps in the right direction. I suspect that this is a tentative step in the right direction, from the standpoint of the safety, security and privacy of those seeking an abortion.

A. Hagen: I'm sincerely glad that I'm following the remarks of the previous speaker. We haven't always agreed, but I want to comment on his thoughtful presentation. Actually, he began his presentation with the same words that I would, and will, begin my brief presentation with: this is not about the issue of abortion; this is about access to abortion. It's very important for us to recognize that this is what we are talking about in this particular legislation.

[ Page 16014 ]

I listened very carefully to the debate this afternoon, and I find it difficult to understand the concerns that people have raised when we are looking at the access issue. Let me tell you why, and I will try to do that very briefly.

The facts speak for themselves: women, their escorts, doctors, nurses, clinic staff and office staff continue to experience what I believe is the totally unacceptable personal infringement of their right to access legal medical services or to provide those services, and the right to those issues of security, privacy and respect that they should enjoy in accessing those services. This is not a sporadic issue; it is an ongoing issue. This legislation is designed to deal with it.

This is not about free speech, because free speech is not impeded by this legislation. People have the right to continue to lobby and demonstrate and protest and inform others about a public policy. But we must differentiate between that right and the actions of people who deliberately and provocatively move to harm people physically, emotionally and psychologically. That is what this legislation is intended to prevent.

This is not about trampling on people's rights: 99.99 percent of the province is available for people to exercise their rights of free speech and to try to influence public policy. This is about ensuring that the woman who has made a decision to seek an abortion and that those who provide her with counsel and service can go about carrying out those actions. It's very important for us to recognize that these are the issues that we are dealing with in this legislation.

[5:00]

This legislation will not end the debate on a woman's right of choice on abortion. It will not preclude some people from taking actions that are inappropriate. I very much like the minister's words: we're looking for some quiet space. We're looking to give people some space, so they can go about making a very difficult decision and accessing those services or providing those services.

There are no lines to be drawn here. It's specious to say that we shouldn't have a freestanding clinic but should do something about the privacy of a doctor's home. All of these things are interrelated, and the access issue is therefore interrelated.

If we think about what the purpose of the bill is, who it is designed to protect and the message it sends to the broader public -- and I think all of us in this Legislature agree that we need to send that message; I'm not hearing any dissent around that -- it's clear that we are not moving to infringe people's Charter rights, rights of free speech or rights to protest or seek changes in government policy. We are moving to ensure that people have safe, secure, private, respectful access to a legal medical service.

I want to add one thing that I haven't heard this afternoon. I know it's not part of the legislation, but I believe it should be referenced. When the Minister of Health announced that this legislation would be coming forward in the House he also announced that he, in concert with communities around the province, would be providing additional resources to ensure that we seek to prevent unintended pregnancies. I want to applaud that initiative. I want to note that one of the places where people are sometimes harassed is in Planned Parenthood offices and clinics where people are providing access to health, education and personal counselling for people who are dealing with their potential for pregnancy or dealing with an unintended pregnancy. We need to recognize that here, too, people are often affected.

I applaud the fact that there is an intent here to try to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. That is something that I have felt very strongly about for a long time. I don't believe that we in North America do nearly enough to provide that kind of education, counsel and resources for young men and women, so that they can deal with their sexuality and deal with responsible decision-making. Everything I know about that issue is that education and information are the best ways to prevent unintended pregnancies. That's part of the larger debate -- not this debate, but it is an important aspect of this discussion.

I believe that we have heard from most of the people in the Legislature, and I respect the views they bring forward. I would urge people to remember the intent of this legislation, which is not to limit Charter rights, free speech or the right of people to try to influence governments about policy. It is about women and those who serve women, and access to a legal medical service. On that basis, I believe the legislation deserves the support of all members of this Legislature.

D. Lovick: I want to begin in an unorthodox way: Ntwa kgolo ke ya molomo. That's an African proverb in the language called Setswana. It's especially appropriate to quote that into the record. Don't worry, Hansard, I will give you a rendition of that in case my accent isn't correct. It's a proverb that translates aptly into: Better to jaw-jaw than to war-war. It captures rather well what parliament is about. I mention it today because I think this is a day on which we can be rather proud of what parliament is about. We are carrying out a venerable, longstanding and honourable tradition of debating, and doing so with respect for one another, rather than name-calling or being ugly as we are often wont to do. I am pleased that the debate is occurring, and I am pleased that it's happening in the way it is.

In my few moments of contribution to this debate I want to respond to points made by various speakers on the other side of the debate, with the greatest amount of respect I can muster, and to try to focus on the points rather than on the individuals who presented those points. I think that some of the points are not as well thought out as they ought to be, perhaps, or are missing some significant arguments that I think need to be factored into our discussion, and ultimately into our conclusion.

I want to respond first of all to the point made, I believe, by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who said that maybe what we're doing is overreacting and that what we're dealing with here is aberrant behaviour on the part of only a few. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano has some claim to be a scholar. He has some knowledge and some background. He ought to know that we aren't dealing, sadly, with aberrant behaviour. We're dealing with a pattern of behaviour that shows every likelihood of becoming more evident and more obvious. I want to....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano rises on a point of order.

[ Page 16015 ]

J. Dalton: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I have not said one word in this debate.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, that is not a valid point of order, but the member makes a point. I'm sure the speaker will correct himself.

J. Dalton: He'd better correct the record.

D. Lovick: I certainly apologize to the member. I would just point out, if I might, ever so gently, that that's probably the most complimentary thing I will ever say about that member. What a pity it wasn't him. Rather, my comments were addressed to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and I apologize for any confusion.

The point I was making is that for those who have taken the time to find out a bit about the issue, you'll discover that the pattern, not just of violence but of harassment -- of hassling women -- is well and truly established. I'd recommend that the member look at two books on the subject, both written quite recently. One is called The War Against Women, and the other is called Backlash. Both of them make for very alarming and disturbing reading, because they present a powerful case indeed that the old misogynist culture, the old woman-hating culture, is alive and well; that on every front where women are trying to advance their legitimate interests, they are being beaten down; and that the matter of reproductive choice is merely one small vestige of that. So for the member to ask the question whether this is an overreaction to one small phenomenon, I think the clear answer is that no, it isn't one small phenomenon -- indeed, it is a pattern. That's the first point I would make.

Members from the Reform caucus.... Like the Minister of Social Services, I must say that I admire them for the candour, honesty and sincerity of their opinions. I have no reason to doubt any of the above, and I think that the people are well served when all of us as politicians state very clearly what we stand for and what we believe in. Having said that, I have to question their arguments. Members used the phrase "the trampling of human rights" a number of times. Presumably they were referring to freedom of speech, freedom of association and the like. Quite frankly, I can't comprehend how anybody can confuse what this legislation is setting out to do with the trampling of human rights. We are not talking about people's right to assemble, to speak or to dissent from positions that we might believe in. Rather, we're talking about those zealots who believe that it is their right to harass, coerce and intimidate others. That's what this legislation is about.

Frankly, I think we do a disservice to the grand literature and grand tradition of civil rights and civil liberties if we confuse those zealots, those people who have no commitment whatsoever to a civil liberties or civil rights perspective, and who suggest that somehow we're interfering with their precious right to be different.... They have the right to be different in the same way that somebody standing just outside this chamber on the front steps has the right to dissent, but we don't allow the person into this chamber -- this bubble zone, if you will.

Instead, we play by certain rules that say that all members on both sides of the House in this chamber know they came here to debate, and to defend and articulate their positions, and we don't assume that those members are also going to go outside and be attacked by their colleagues. This is where we have the debate, this is what it's for, and only those of us who commit to the rules of this place and who stand in this place.... Note that we're separated traditionally by a couple of sword-lengths, rather analogous to ten metres, 60 metres or whatever it may be in the legislation. That, I suggest, is what is wrong with the argument about trampling human rights. Nobody is trampling human rights.

I also must challenge the argument.... Again, I sympathize with the position, but members on the Reform side of this debate have been talking about their concern about violence, and they're quite right: we should be concerned about violence. But with all due respect, this is not, in most cases, about violence. It is not about violence, it is about harassment.

An Hon. Member: We also said harassment -- that's what we said.

D. Lovick: No, I'm sorry, member. You're saying, "We also said harassment," but you slipped it in. It was a very small piece of the argument.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, please address the Chair.

D. Lovick: The issue is harassment; that's what it is. The issue is the assumption made by some people that what they can do -- what they have every right to do -- is to stand in front of others and say: "You are not adult enough, you are not intelligent enough to make your own decision, and therefore I'm going to tell you what you should do." That is what this debate is about, and that is what we're trying to protect people from. People have been given the legal right to carry out a certain kind of activity and are being effectively prevented from doing so. That's what the issue is. It's about harassment, as I say, ultimately.

I don't want to spend a great deal of time on this issue, because I think others are going to contribute. I know, for example, that the Attorney General is going to talk about the business of injunctive remedies and why we perceive on this side that those are not satisfactory. All I want to say is that trying to suggest that somehow this legislation, by protecting people against those who would prevent them from carrying out what they are legally entitled to do.... That is not, in my mind, to be confused with free speech; it's simply not to be confused with that. Rather, we're talking about people who, as I say, are zealots, who are convinced that they know what's right for others and can tell -- and, indeed, force -- others to do what they perceive to be right.

On the basis of that as well as a number of other arguments one could adduce, I have no difficulty supporting this legislation. I think it is defensible. I think, moreover, it is absolutely necessary.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In opening my comments this afternoon, I think it is fair to say that in the exchange between the leader of the Reform Party and the member for Nanaimo, the leader of the Reform Party was right. He was careful to talk about the whole range of issues. I just want to acknowledge that. I listened very carefully to his comments.

That is perhaps a neat segue into the first thing I wanted to say, which is that this is one of those occasions in the House 

[ Page 16016 ]

that happens occasionally -- usually at least once a session, sometimes two or three times, but usually not more often then that -- where accidentally a debate breaks out and we don't necessarily have predictable responses from everybody.

I particularly note the comments from the member for Okanagan West, comments that I thought were particularly inspiring. I listened very carefully to his comments and was moved by them, perhaps because I didn't quite expect that set of comments. I think it was a courageous position for that member to take. He acknowledged something that many of us find difficult to acknowledge publicly: that the former government may have made mistakes in the way they handled this general issue when they had responsibility.

[5:15]

I'm not going to speak very long. I want to deal with a couple of issues. It hasn't been raised much this afternoon in the Legislature, but there has been some question as to why this bill was introduced by the Minister of Health and not by the Attorney General. I think the member for Peace River South raised that question, and it has been in the media.

I get a lot of letters every day from citizens who are surprised that I'm not responsible for all legislation, because I'm the "chief law enforcement officer" and therefore must have something to do with all the laws. A lot of people write to me asking me to change this law, that law or the other law, because I'm in charge of laws, aren't I? And that's a common misunderstanding. No one in the House has that misunderstanding. I don't think anybody, during the debate on the Motor Vehicle Act amendments, suggested that. The Motor Vehicle Act is enforced by police, who I am responsible for. If prosecutions occur they come under my ministry. The court system and the corrections system come under my ministry, therefore for some reason the Motor Vehicle Act should be handled by me. It's not; it's handled by the Minister of Highways. There are lots of other examples of that; I think that happens to be the best one. In the same way, this piece of legislation is not about the justice system; this is about the health care system, and that point has to be made really clearly and firmly.

We're not talking here about expanding; we don't have the jurisdiction to do it. We're not talking about expanding Criminal Code provisions. We're talking about ensuring that citizens of British Columbia can, in an unimpeded, unharassed, unintimidated way, have access to a procedure that is legally available. If there was a protest against blood transfusions in this province and there was a sustained activity making it impossible for hospitals to do surgery because blood wouldn't be available, people would argue that there needs to be a remedy. This is the same thing. It applies to a smaller section of society, whereas blood transfusions could possibly apply to all of us, but the right is still there. The right for access to that service is still there, and it must be guaranteed as long as the law of the country is as it is. We haven't been able to protect that right that citizens have.

That leads us to the question of how you protect that right. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi in particular, among others, raised the question of injunction versus legislation, and in all candour I will say that that was a serious discussion. The Minister of Health and I and others discussed long and hard, for many, many months, how we can best effect this necessary protection of the right to access a legal service. We looked long and hard at the Ontario decision to seek an attorney general's area-wide injunction, which resulted in a 400-page judgment by a justice in Ontario that is, in effect, the law in that province. We looked seriously at that approach, and we looked seriously at the legislative approach. We chose the legislative approach for a number of reasons.

This is a matter of public policy; it is a matter that, in our view, the Legislature should determine. Elected people who are responsible to the citizens of this province should decide this, not the courts. I have always believed that court-made law is inferior to legislative-made law in one sense. It's not inferior necessarily in its quality, but it is inferior in terms of its sustainability, support and accountability. Court-made law has no accountability; legislative-made law has accountability every three or four or five years, when people can vote for somebody who will throw out that law and enact a different one.

This is, to me, the kind of issue where it's important that there be accountability. If we went by way of the courts, there would not be a public debate. While it is in the public, it's nonetheless a private debate between a narrow set of parties, and the decision, as I said, has no accountability. That's one reason that we felt that it was important to bring this matter to the Legislature and not to a court.

I want to cite what is an even more compelling reason to do this. The difficulty all of us face has been described by other speakers: women are too often intimidated as they go to seek the service in the doctor's office or the clinic. An even greater threat exists that hasn't been fully realized as yet, and that is the threat that very soon, if current trends persist, there may not be enough doctors left who are willing to face the harassment and the intimidation and actually perform the service. Therefore, by the fact of there not being enough medical doctors available and willing to do it, women will be denied a legal service. That is, sad to say, a very real fact. I'm sure the Minister of Health, if he chooses to, can expand on that in his closing response. I think it would be a useful contribution from the minister, because this is a very serious issue. If we were facing the same issue that doctors who.... If pediatricians, for some reason, or some other particular.... If urologists were not providing urology any longer because there was some kind of intimidation going on, we would move very quickly to deal with that, and we have to, in the same way, with this.

Why an injunction or why legislation? An injunction is designed to deal with a specific and isolated incident. I was really interested when the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi spoke. He said that the denial or the difficulty with obtaining abortion services is not a specific, isolated event. Before he made those comments, my notes to myself for my comments were exactly the opposite of what he said. This is, in fact, a systemic problem; that's the difficulty.

Let me just give a kind of crude comparison, because we have a number of kinds of civil disobedience in this province; it generally goes into four categories. We have environmental civil disobedience, native civil disobedience, labour relations-related civil disobedience and abortion-related civil disobedience. That generally captures the kinds of issues I have to deal with almost every day in my job. We try as best we can to respond in the same way in each of those cases.

Let's take environment, because there's an issue in which, in our party, you've got people on both sides of the issue -- so I can't be accused of being partisan on that one. At Clayoquot 

[ Page 16017 ]

Sound, there was a specific and an isolated event. This wasn't against every faller or every logger in British Columbia, going on year after year after year after year; it was about a specific place, a specific time. You don't then have a law to prevent that kind of civil disobedience; you go by way of injunction, because it is specific, it is isolated. But if that protest against logging -- the falling of trees -- was systemic, was everywhere in the province and was going on for a decade or more, as this one has been going on everywhere in this province, then we would have to think about legislative solutions to that particular problem. We don't, because they're specific.

This situation is one where we faced the very real prospect of there being insufficient numbers of people left to provide a legal service in this province. You can't remedy that by way of injunction. You can't protect a doctor's home by way of injunction. If you go by way of injunction, you have to go to the court and say: "Dr. So-and-so" -- and name him or her -- "lives at this address and has experienced harassment or intimidation, or fears that they will." That then is in the public domain; it's on the public record. This remedy leaves intact the privacy of the doctors and their homes -- where they live.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It does until the event occurs. An event might occur, at which time a police officer can quietly notify the people that they are violating an injunction. If they didn't know it was there, nothing's going to happen in the first instance. They'll leave. If they come back, then you've got a problem. The legislation is designed very carefully to ensure that. We're talking about privacy here; we're trying to respect these rights, and an injunction doesn't do that. You've got to be able to prove to the court that there is a real and pressing concern in a particular and specific location. You're just not going to get the order.... You can't very easily get an injunction to protect someone from being harassed if they walk to work, for example, if they're a health care provider. This legislation enables us to afford that kind of protection.

I could go on, but.... We thought long and hard, and I want members to know that. We did not come to a snap decision on this; in fact, it went around and around and around. The more we worked on it, the more we thought about it; and the more we talked to people who know the issues, the more it became very clear -- in particular to the Minister of Health and to myself, because it was a question of which one of us would be pursuing this issue -- that the best, the most secure and the most democratic way was, in fact, to go by way of legislation.

[5:30]

I'm going to leave it at that, hon. Speaker. I'd just say again in closing that I think the debate has been really quite a good debate, and I want to thank all members for their contributions, whatever their perspective. It's not the kind of issue that we're particularly interested in scoring partisan points on. The Reform had a genuine and legitimate perspective; the Liberals have a variety of perspectives; and we have a specific perspective. I guess that's just the reality of the positions in the House, and that's fine.

The important thing here is that we ensure that every woman who wants to seek an abortion can do so without fear, intimidation or harassment. That's what this bill will accomplish.

K. Jones: I rise on this bill to give a perspective, some of which has been expressed already and some, in my research, I will bring in new. First of all, I'd like to clearly identify that this bill has nothing to do with abortion per se. It is a bill about access, safety and security, and that's what we need to focus on in this debate.

There has been some emotionalism brought into this debate; there have been some other factors that are really not related to the bill. The Speaker has allowed a fairly wide divergence of comment and debate on this. It's been a very interesting, thoughtful debate by all parties, by and large without much of the emotionalism that sometimes gets attributed to the question related to abortion.

I'd like to point out that this is a difficult area of legislation. It's similar to the bringing in of freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation, where you claim to provide access to information, but then as it is implemented you bring more and more bureaucracy and restrictions to the access to that information, as it becomes convenient and as you start to get to, as one article related, the points of tolerance or intolerance by the government.

By bringing this in, we are actually creating a law that will restrict the way people can freely move, freely express their views and have an opportunity to protest in certain parts of this province. These can be determined at the whim of the government.

The well-meaning government that is bringing this in may not be around in the future. Maybe some government may have a different use for this type of thinking and legislation, and in the distant future they might decide that they would like to use this to control how people are able to do any other activity. I am trying to point out that the real factor here is a fundamental factor of government-in-your-face government trying to control what people can do. The interesting part about it is that there already is adequate legislation to deal with that situation if there is an identification of a difficulty, a violence or a problem.

This is really scary legislation. It gets to the question of how much control government has on our lives. It is an attempt to provide a false impression of security to those people who may feel that they are beset or, as the terms are, that they're engaged in sidewalk interference or physically interfered with or attempt to interfere with a service provider. These are clauses right from this bill. It gives that false impression. It is purposely misleading to the public, and it's intended solely to intimidate those people who would have legitimate protest to an issue. That issue could be the issue identified in the title of the bill or it could be any other issue, depending on how the bill would be slightly modified.

It is for that reason that I am very concerned about this bill. I am very concerned about the direction of this government -- not really surprised, because it falls into a pattern of control to keep interfering in the individual's rights for the sake of the state. It's a direct attack.

The freestanding clinics that have been described, I have to agree, have been a total failure. They have done nothing but focus concern in a certain area. They have brought great pain and suffering to the neighbourhood as the result of that. We have good health care facilities in our hospitals. I think that they provide the appropriate place for those who have a legitimate desire under our law to have an abortion. That is probably the best place for it to occur.

[ Page 16018 ]

It is very, very disturbing when we look at some of the terminology of activities that are restricted within these access zones. People who protest are not allowed to do them. It describes "protest" in the definitions as: ". . . includes any act of disapproval or attempted act of disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, verbal or written means." I did a little looking at the definition of "picketing" in the Labour Relations Code, called Bill 84, that was brought in by this government in the fall of 1992. In that, it states:

". . .'picket or picketing' means attending at or near a person's place of business, operations or employment for the purpose of persuading or attempting to persuade anyone not to

(a) enter that place of business, operations or employment,

(b) deal in or handle that person's products, or

(c) do business with that person, and a similar act at such a place that has an equivalent purpose."

There's an interesting parallel between these situations, but the rules are quite different.

I would challenge this NDP government to bring the restrictions that are in Bill 48, Access to Abortion Services Act, as amendments to the Labour Relations Code if they truly believe that this is necessary to prevent violence and provide access. There are similar situations occurring regularly on labour picket lines -- I've been there, and I know what happens -- to those being described in relation to the provision of services for abortion. So there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in the government in relation to how laws are created in this province.

I'd also like to point out a fact in here that's very interesting. It is understandable. No person can be prosecuted without the person being aware of the zone that they're entering. That makes good sense. It also states that a certified B.C. land surveyor has to draw up a legal plan of the bubble zone. This plan has to be registered, and it has to be posted on the site so people will know where that zone is. I don't know whether providing a sign near the perimeter is going to be adequate, or whether we're going to have painted lines on the streets and down the lanes and over the fences to try to show everybody that this area is where abortions occur, and this area is where a person who works in a facility that provides abortions lives. I don't think the neighbours or the person involved is going to want to have that kind of identification.

The whole concept of this is not going to work, and I think that it was ill-thought-out, it was ill-prepared and it is a bad piece of legislation. It is something that we, as protectors of the public's freedoms and responsibilities, should not be bringing forward as legislation. We should not allow this type of legislation to be put on the books in British Columbia. We should deal with the problem that is occurring. It was interesting to hear the member for New Westminster state that there is a program for finding means to prevent abortions among teenage persons. That's interesting, but it was established about three or four years ago, and that did not show any reduction in the number of persons having an abortion. I think that has to be seriously looked at, because in the way it has been practised in the past, it is not an alternative. I hope they will come up with a better plan than they have had in the past.

This piece of legislation, as has been mentioned by many people, infringes on individuals' rights. For instance, if a person who works at one of these facilities happens to live in a strata-title condo facility, their hallways, their elevator and their entranceway, which are common property, are also subject to this bubble legislation. That means that these people could have a police officer sitting in their hallway checking them or creating some problem as to their ability to freely go to and fro. This is not a method that is at all acceptable to most people in a civilized country.

[5:45]

I really feel that we have done our very best in trying to present the various arguments here. Various concerns have been expressed by many of the members here, and I urge that some very serious thought go into the decision by this government or by any persons here, if they consider voting in support of this. I feel this should not be allowed to pass.

V. Anderson: Dr. Garson Romalis is a constituent in my riding. I had the privilege of being seated beside him not too long before the unfortunate incident took place, and that's a part of this that I would like to stress.

We talk about safety. As my colleague indicated, this is a bill about safety as well as about access. It's also about having to live in fear. The family of Dr. Romalis lives in fear; they have no choice. Even if they move, as is indicated they will have to do, the fear will go with them. Even the next family who moves into that house, who will probably have nothing to do with medicine, will still have the fear that those who have come will come back again because they will not know that Dr. Romalis has moved.

We talk about the women who come, and they have fear. From my point of view, it's not strong enough to talk about harassment. With all the concerns that have been expressed, you must reflect upon the fear that a person faces when you go down into that uncertain crowd and someone steps up to you, and you have no idea what they're going to do. That fear is not there just for the time you walk down that street; it's there when you go, and it's there when you go home. That fear is there with the children of that person, who are at home, worried about what they will have to go through, hoping and praying that they will come home again. That's the kind of fear that's been engendered. We're not only talking about safety, we're also talking about fear. We must have the freedom to live in our communities without that kind of fear.

The solutions are not easy and are not perfect. The solutions we try will probably have weaknesses in them, and we will learn from mistakes. But unless we try, we can't find out what those mistakes are. We can argue, all of us here, as we have today, from the same Charter of Rights and come out with different conclusions. We all have the same concerns, premises and arguments. In the final analysis, we come down with an individual decision. We may do it collectively, but even to be part of the collective is an individual decision.

I take seriously the comments of Dr. Romalis, the others I know about and the fear in our community. I simply say that when the theory is done, we must do something. We can't just sit and do nothing. When we come down with the balance, from my point of view, it's better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all. So from my point of view, with all its weaknesses, with all the theoretical arguments, I come down in support of this attempt.

The Speaker: The hon. minister concludes debate.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to begin my closing remarks by thanking all members of the House for their very thoughtful 

[ Page 16019 ]

comments this afternoon. This is one of those times when, as the Orders of the Day recorded, a debate broke out -- when indeed a real debate has broken out. It has been a thoughtful expression of views and principles on what I think is a very important piece of legislation in this session of the Legislature of British Columbia.

I also want to thank my colleagues the Attorney General and the Minister of Women's Equality, and their staffs, for their considerable assistance in bringing this legislation forward. As the Attorney General said in his remarks, it was not an easy decision to figure out how best to deal with this problem, nor was it a piece of legislation quickly drafted. I want to thank all who were involved. I imagine some will either be watching or reading a transcript of this debate. I want to thank all of them for their assistance in bringing this piece of legislation before this body.

As many people have said during the debate, the basic debate here is not about abortion. Choice, and a woman's right to consult with her physician and whatever other adviser she wishes and to decide whether or not to have an abortion, is a legal right in this country. Many have said that we should keep the debate away from that issue, and I think we've done that relatively successfully here this afternoon. But I must also say that in this debate, part of this debate, part of the reason for this act, is to make sure that the legal right to access those services is a practical reality. While we may differ on ideologies, I would ask all of us to focus on what practical steps we can take to make access to this legal health service freer from the sorts of interference, intimidation, and physical, emotional and spiritual harassment that have occurred at times.

This bill and this debate are not about how we prevent criminal violence; there's the Criminal Code to take care of that. Quite frankly, nothing in this act will prevent the sort of tragic assault that occurred in the case of Dr. Romalis. We can hope, as I said in my opening remarks, that if we can cool the temperature of the in-your-face confrontation that takes place around provision of this service -- those who use the rhetoric around that confrontation to build an atmosphere that allows violence -- then perhaps we'll see a reduction in the number of incidents of physical violence and assault.

But that has not been the pattern in this province, in this country, in this continent over the last several years. The atmosphere of protest and dissent that has, as its goal, dissuading women from seeking legal abortion services and dissuading doctors and health service providers from providing those services has grown. Those voices have become increasingly loud; the rhetoric has become increasingly violent and the incidents of violence have become increasingly common. I think it is time, as legislators, that we say that it is our responsibility to take some action. Protesters are now a regular feature at clinics. They carry signs that have messages of hatred on them or pictures of gore. They follow, and sometimes chase, clients to their cars. They incessantly harass clients, verbally and sometimes physically, as they enter or leave the clinic. They attempt to separate clients from their companions and escorts, they attempt to block clients from entering clinics, they write down clients' licence plates, they photograph them, and they pass out literature with manipulative and inaccurate information.

The effect on women, I believe, is unacceptable. We have women who repeatedly report that as they seek to get a legal medical service, they are stressed, anxious, fearful, tense and nervous. That is not the climate we want people to have when they go to get a legal health service.

The purpose of this legislation is stated clearly in its preamble, and I want to read it into the record:

"Whereas all people in British Columbia are entitled to access to health care, including abortion services;

and whereas all people who use the British Columbia health care system, and who provide services for it, should be treated with courtesy and with respect for their dignity and privacy;

therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows...."

We'll debate what follows at committee stage.

I think it is clear why this government has chosen to take this action at this time. I have spoken of the effect of this atmosphere on women. I also want to speak a bit about the effect on care providers, particularly physicians.

In my opening remarks I pointed out that there is a small number of physicians who provide the majority of abortion services in this province. In Prince George, there is one. In the entire Okanagan Valley, there is one. There are about 20 in the province, and their numbers have gone down -- not because they are less committed to providing obstetrical and gynecological services to women, but because they and their families are assessing the risks they are taking in delivering those services to the people of the province. When they receive.... It's not just the assault. That has obviously been a tragic event for Dr. Romalis, and a demonstration, I think, of the extremes this sort of activity can go to. But when they talk of the phone calls when nobody's there -- the repeated phone calls to their offices, hundreds of calls a day, and nobody's at the other end of the phone; or the casual remarks made to their children, as they walk down the street, that their father is a murderer; or that their mother kills children, I understand why they would question their commitment to providing health services, and I say it is our responsibility as legislators to do what we can to help them carry out the services and provide them to the women of the province.

I was going to speak a fair bit about why we chose legislation rather than injunction. The Attorney General has spoken very well on that. I would only add that, like him, I sought a way of dealing with this issue that could, at times, be proactive rather than reactive but that did not involve the naming of physicians and the detailing of their location -- almost putting a bull's-eye on them. Unfortunately, an injunction would do that. This legislation allows us to say that if a physician provides abortion services, there is an access zone around his or her office and around his or her place of residence. We believe it is more serious for clinics, and we need to specify very clearly what those zones are and have them designated by cabinet. But we'll get into these details more in committee stage. As Minister of Health, as I look at getting access to women of the province, we must ensure that this is widely available in the province. I believe that this legislation will help us do that.

Finally, I want to talk....

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In spite of the urgings of the members opposite, I have one or two other things to say here on the 

[ Page 16020 ]

arguments about how this legislation interacts with or affects basic rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many members of this chamber have spoken eloquently and with a lot of insight on this issue this afternoon. First, there is nothing in this legislation that affects one's freedom of conscience or religion. People believe what they will believe, and they will do so after this is law, as they have before. Nothing in this law will affect a person's ability to choose to have or not have an abortion, or to provide or not to provide an abortion. Those are their rights; they choose to act as they will. As people have talked about, there are some limits placed on where specific actions take place and where specific expressions can be made. The Charter of Rights says that legislatures and courts have the right to impose reasonable limits on freedoms that are demonstrably justified. That is really the question for this chamber: do we have reasonable limits that are demonstrably justified? I believe we do.

I believe that if we can justify limiting freedom of expression when it concerns hate literature or obscenity or profanity or pornography or even advertising to children, then surely we can justify a restriction on freedom of speech that says that within these very narrow, geographic zones, certain activities must be restricted. This law draws those restrictions narrowly. It says very clearly that these are vulnerable members of our society that deserve protection. They are the sorts of limits that talk about the time and place of expression, and they leave the entire rest of the province for people to express whatever views they have on the issue of abortion services.

I'm sure that at committee stage we will debate more fully the provisions of this legislation. I thank all members for their comprehensive debate on the principles of Bill 48. I now call second reading on Bill 48.

[6:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 48, Access to Abortion Services Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:50 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:09 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

On vote 24: minister's office, $375,615 (continued).

Hon. G. Clark: I don't see the Reform Party leader here, but he imputed some words to the Minister of Energy, which according to the record are not correct. He said that the Minister of Energy indicated that the cost of Keenleyside was around 7 cents. In checking the record, I noted that the only person who said it was 7 cents was the Leader of the Third Party. In fact, the Minister of Energy said it was 5 cents or perhaps lower. As you know, in our discussion today we indicated that if it was fully debt-financed, it would be 4.4 cents. His recollection of the Ministry of Energy estimates was not correct.

D. Mitchell: I would like to follow up with a couple of brief questions further to an item discussed this morning in this committee on the Bonneville situation. I had a chance to review the Hansard Blues of this morning's meeting of this committee, so I don't want to re-cover any of the ground. The minister, I think, outlined very well the purpose of his recent trip to the Pacific Northwest. I read with interest the Liberal opposition's comments on this in terms of their concerns about energy issues related to B.C. Hydro and how the Columbia downstream benefits might relate to that. I spent some time looking through the transcripts to find out if the Liberal opposition had a position on this, and I haven't found one. Although they did ask a few questions, I haven't figured out exactly what their position might be on the situation with respect to the Columbia River downstream benefits. I was trying to judge how they would do things any differently from the government in terms of the negotiations, the break in negotiations and the attempt to bring Bonneville back to the table.

I certainly don't accept the suggestion that was made in the committee this morning that we should be going to some kind of public hearing. The Liberals suggested that perhaps we should be having public hearings to determine what our energy plan is in the province. I think the minister very correctly pointed out that we have an energy plan. B.C. Hydro does a very good job of publishing an electricity plan every 

[ Page 16021 ]

year, and in fact we have an Energy Council that has done some recent work on that, as well. I don't really think public hearings would solve the problem.

However, the Bonneville discussions are interesting. The minister reported this morning on his meetings with the Northwest Power Planning Council. I think it was a good and useful statement to have on the record of this House. The official opposition wanted to talk about the situation with California purchases and different issues, but I actually think the Bonneville situation deserves a couple of other questions in order to have the minister on the record.

When the minister met with the Northwest Power Planning Council.... I wonder if the minister could just revisit that for a second and highlight for the committee what he understood the northwest states' position was. I'm talking about the members of the state governments who are members of the Northwest Power Planning Council. I wonder if the minister could comment on the position of the government counterparts in the northwest states and what their position was with respect to the Bonneville Power Administration. Did the state government appointees to the council identify their power needs as well and state whether or not they have confidence in how the BPA is going to help service their needs? Did the minister get a clear message that British Columbia has a role to play in terms of coordinating needs throughout the northwest region?

We had a special resolution on this issue in the Legislature earlier this session, an emergency debate and a motion against the Bonneville Power Administration for breaking off the memorandum of agreement with the province of British Columbia. I think the period that followed the adoption of that resolution -- the period of consultation that the minister and his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have been involved in -- is important in terms of perhaps cooling down some of the rhetoric and getting back to the table.

How is Bonneville perceived by the minister's counterparts on the council? Is there confidence that Bonneville is going to continue to play an important role in providing the energy requirements to those counterparts? I think that's important for us to understand in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll have to qualify my remarks and say I'm not an expert in the American response. My remarks should be taken in that context. My sense of the discussions, particularly with the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Governor's office in Oregon and the Governor's office in Washington, is that there is a general dislike of Bonneville -- a general hostility toward Bonneville. I think a little deeper reading might reveal more of a love-hate relationship. They do have a long history, and Bonneville has provided fairly inexpensive power as part of the Grand Coulee Dam and the great projects of the Depression era. There's the Woody Guthrie song about the dam; there's a lot of history. There are mixed feelings about Bonneville.

In general, there's a growing hostility toward them and a growing recognition that the new environment we are in will lead to more competition, and that will be better for American consumers and American business. Therefore the drive toward deregulation is taking precedence over the concerns that Bonneville might have.

Having said that, there is a division and there is a kind of challenge. I alluded to this earlier. The Governor of Oregon is very concerned about fish; fish values outweigh power values. This new sense that's growing in British Columbia and elsewhere around those kinds of environmental values wasn't contemplated at the time of the Columbia River Treaty. People like the Governor of Oregon are inclined to support hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of costs being imposed on Bonneville to deal with fish mitigation. So there's a little inconsistency if they want to have Bonneville provide those kinds of resources, and at the same time Bonneville's survival is in jeopardy because of commercial transactions and the new marketplace. That leads to a division that they have to reconcile.

Senator Hatfield is busy -- and we're hoping to meet with him in a week or so -- looking at the possibility of trying to have what is euphemistically called a rescue package, a way of dealing with Bonneville's challenge. Other Senators are responding to that as we speak. I don't think they're particularly popular, but they do have support, particularly in the American Senate.

The Northwest Power Planning Council has indicated that they consider BPA authoritarian. They consider them as low cost historically, but as now being challenged by both the fish mitigation question and new competition.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's response on this. The minister modestly says that perhaps he's not the best one to comment on this, but he's the closest we have in the province to a minister of external affairs. After all, he's been engaged in this recent diplomacy in the Pacific Northwest, and he's heading off to Washington, D.C., very shortly, I understand, on this very issue. This week his colleague the Minister of Energy is in Ottawa consulting on this issue. She's issued a news release to talk about how she's going to be meeting with federal ministers to pressure them on the Bonneville Power dispute. Perhaps it's too bad the minister is not there, though I'm pleased he's here reviewing his spending estimates today instead.

Could the minister explain why he, particularly, is involved in this issue? I'm curious about this, because this morning in this committee he indicated that this is not a B.C. Hydro issue. The minister is responsible for B.C. Hydro of course, and that's one of his responsibilities we're reviewing in this committee today, in the absence of a Crown corporations committee which can review the activities of Crown corporations. This is our only opportunity to pursue that. But the minister has said, quite correctly, that this is not a B.C. Hydro matter; it is a government of British Columbia matter. The entitlement, the downstream benefits, are an asset owned by the province of British Columbia.

So why then is the Minister of Employment and Investment, who also happens to be the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, engaged in this diplomacy and taking such a leading role, along with his counterpart, the Minister of Energy, on this important matter?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, remember that the negotiations began shortly after we took office. There was a committee of cabinet set up, which consisted of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro at that time, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin; the minister responsible for the Crown corporations secretariat, the Minister of Finance -- that was myself -- and the Minister of Energy. Subsequently that committee was shrunk to two -- myself and the Minister of Energy. The lead 

[ Page 16022 ]

negotiator for the province of British Columbia was Marvin Shaffer, who was the head of the Crown corporations secretariat, but it reported to a committee of two ministers -- first three and then two.

The largest work around the very technical negotiations was led by Marvin Shaffer. Ken Peterson, who was working at the Crown corporations secretariat, is now the CEO of Powerex. Then there was a large group of technical staff from B.C. Hydro, including Ken Spafford, legal teams, etc.

I've been involved by virtue of my Crown corporations secretariat hat, more than anything else and also now, as responsible for Hydro. This has huge impacts on B.C. Hydro. Of course, B.C. Hydro is an integral player in helping to manage the assets, and it is the entity named under the Columbia River Treaty. So it is a British Columbia entitlement, and we have to treat it that way, but Hydro is involved.

D. Mitchell: I think the minister needs to exercise a bit of caution in this regard. As the minister points out, B.C. Hydro is the entity named under the Columbia River Treaty -- that's correct -- but these assets are not owned by B.C. Hydro. And as an asset, the downstream benefits, which may end up coming to British Columbia at some point -- certainly that's what's prescribed in the treaty -- do not come back to B.C. Hydro. They come back to the people of British Columbia. Whether B.C. Hydro gets to benefit from or purchase those downstream benefits from the people of British Columbia, I suppose, has yet to be determined. But there is a potential conflict. I wonder if the minister could comment on how he is dealing with that.

Here he is: he's the minister responsible for the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the entity named under the treaty, and he's also actively engaged in the negotiations which may see the downstream benefits come back to British Columbia, and some of them -- perhaps all of them -- will be used by B.C. Hydro. Will those benefits be purchased by B.C. Hydro from the people of British Columbia? And if so, how is the minister going to handle any potential conflicts in that regard?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, any conflicts are resolved by the fact that there's a cabinet committee and a report to cabinet on this question, so I'm not the sole minister responsible for it.

Secondly, one shouldn't get too carried away with a technical debate. B.C. Hydro is owned by the government of British Columbia, and any profits it makes are returned by virtue of the new policy we have with respect to dividends and requiring B.C. Hydro to pay dividends to the Crown as the owner of the assets. Therefore if anything we do has a downstream benefit, it benefits B.C. Hydro. It also benefits the ratepayers and the people of British Columbia. I don't sense the conflict-of-interest argument too acutely, but having said all that, as I took pains to point out this morning, it is the entitlement of the government, not of B.C. Hydro.

D. Mitchell: The reason I raise this issue is simply that there may be other potential purchasers in British Columbia of the power that may revert to British Columbia. A private utility like West Kootenay Power, for instance, might be interested in purchasing that power as well. It's important to ensure that there is a level playing field, that there is open competition and that B.C. Hydro, by virtue of being the Crown-owned power monopoly for most of the province, does not have an inside track or receive preferential treatment in terms of purchasing and utilizing those downstream benefits. That's why I raise the issue.

[3:15]

I don't want to belabour the point, but I think the government, in particular the minister responsible, has to exercise some real caution that if those tremendously valuable downstream benefits that are owned by all of us as taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia end up coming back -- in whatever way, shape or form -- to the province, they are dealt with as an asset of the people of British Columbia, not as something that is the divine right of a particular Crown corporation. That's the assurance that I was seeking from the minister.

Hon. G. Clark: I think the member has made some very good points, and I give him any assurance I can that we will be conscientious of that fact, because these are important assets for the future of British Columbia. As much faith as I have in B.C. Hydro, it's important to recognize that we need to maximize them for the people of British Columbia and not for the interests of any particular Crown.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that assurance. Initially, when the Bonneville power authority reneged on the memorandum of agreement that was signed last fall, there was a lot of what might be referred to as sabre-rattling rhetoric. It seemed like a phony war was going on. The minister has now indicated that when he was in the United States last week, in the Pacific Northwest states, he was exploring potential alliances with Americans. He was exploring what might be called strategic alliances with his counterparts in the American states that are adjacent to British Columbia in the Pacific Northwest. I think that's certainly the kind of strategy we should be pursuing: building alliances with our American neighbours, rather than fighting with them or pitting ourselves against them. That certainly isn't constructive in any way.

When the minister goes down to Washington, D.C., next week with his colleague the hon. Minister of Energy, could he indicate to the committee who he plans to be meeting with, what his itinerary consists of and what further alliances he may contemplate building while he is in the American capital?

Hon. G. Clark: Again, these are excellent questions. We were at pains to make this point. I'll make it here; I made it down in Washington and Oregon. Our fight right now is with the Bonneville Power Administration and not with the people of the Pacific Northwest or their governments. We wanted to enlist their support, frankly, in understanding that there are international treaty obligations, which they are obliged to under an international treaty, and that they really should be on our side in this discussion. This is particularly the case if they want to manage the river for fish values, which is their call, but it seems to me that they still need a cooperative relationship with us. We tried to isolate Bonneville, which isn't that hard to do because there is ambivalence toward them. They are breaking contracts with private companies as we speak, and that is generating more hostility toward them.

However, going to Washington is a little different because, first of all, there are more allies of Bonneville there. In part, this is because it is a federally owned corporation or 

[ Page 16023 ]

federal version of a corporation. We need to know -- and we don't really know -- to what extent Bonneville was acting alone, or more or less alone, in their corporate attempt to survive, which jeopardized an international treaty. We need to know if this was an inadvertent consequence and if the State Department and others in Washington weren't aware of it. We need to know if Bonneville has the full support of the American government to protract the negotiations with the province or if they are trying to escape responsibilities they might have under the treaty. We really don't know the answer to that, although I'm quite hopeful it is the former and not the latter.

The Washington itinerary is not set yet. I'll certainly be happy to share it with the member when we get it. We are attempting to meet with State Department officials, Energy officials and some key senators and congressmen of the region. The key senator, I believe, is Senator Hatfield, and his staff person -- Mr. Walker, I think -- is a key expert in this area of the Bonneville question. In addition, there is Congressman DeFazio, a vocal critic of Bonneville and someone we've touched base with, and some of his staff. There is also Slade Gorton from Washington state, who has been looking at this question from Washington's angle. To be candid, I fully expect not to meet with all of those people I just mentioned, but we do want to make some key.... If we don't get a sufficient number of them, however, we won't go. As we speak, we are lining up now to try to make contact. In some cases it will be staff-to-staff contact instead of with myself, and in other cases it will be political contact.

Obviously we also want to enlist the support of the Canadian government in Ottawa, which is what the Minister of Energy is doing. It's also critical to have the support of the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. It's very highly regarded, so we will be working with them as opposed to sort of around them. We need their support and approval to help set up meetings, etc. So far they've been very cooperative. I'd certainly be pleased to give the member a complete itinerary when I get one.

D. Mitchell: I would appreciate receiving that information when the minister can provide it. I think it's quite useful. It may prove very useful and timely for the minister to be making this visit to the capital of the United States. Could the minister tell us who is arranging his itinerary for him? Is it being handled internally with his ministry? Is he using some highly paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill? Is perhaps Karl Struble or someone else of that ilk involved?

Hon. G. Clark: The lead work is being done by Catherine Holt from intergovernmental relations in the Premier's Office. I think she is working with the Canadian embassy.

Incidentally, we had excellent high-level meetings in Washington and Oregon on short notice. We were aided considerably by Art Goddard, at the Canadian consulate, who lives in Seattle. He came with us on the trip and was instrumental, which I think was helpful. We need that kind of support.

On the question of lobbyists, we have not engaged lobbyists at this time, although we have had a discussion with someone I'm not prepared to name at this time, who was helpful to the government regarding the softwood lumber dispute. It may be that we have to engage some assistance in dealing with the quagmire of American politics. That's how they do business down there.

D. Mitchell: I know that it's very common for both provincial and federal governments to use the assistance of experienced lawyers, advocates or lobbyists on Capitol Hill. One only wishes that the Bonneville power authority had similar government relations intelligence when they were dealing with the government of British Columbia -- the quagmire of British Columbia politics, as the minister might refer to it. They obviously didn't have that assistance initially. Maybe they could have used some help. Maybe the minister would like to recommend some names to them, I'm not sure.

Hon. G. Clark: How about David Mitchell?

D. Mitchell: Maybe after the next election, I'm not sure.

With regard to the dispute between Bonneville and B.C. Hydro, the two entities under the Columbia River Treaty, it seems to me there is potential under the terms of the treaty itself to resolve this dispute. There is some sort of dispute resolution mechanism in the treaty itself.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: Yes, that's right. I think the minister is referring to the Permanent Engineering Board.

Could the minister tell the committee whether or not any consideration was given to using the Permanent Engineering Board for the Columbia River Treaty as a form of dispute resolution between B.C. Hydro and Bonneville Power in order to settle this thing without escalating it to the level that it's now come to?

Hon. G. Clark: Given the knowledge the member has on this subject, I'm disappointed that he doesn't know the answers to these questions. That means that I haven't done a good enough job.

The answer is absolutely yes. We in fact went to the Permanent Engineering Board, and they're about to release a report very shortly, which I think will be very helpful to us, simultaneous with our discussions.

Let me put it another way. There are some areas in dispute under the agreement, particularly the size of the entitlement and some technical questions, where the Permanent Engineering Board is the forum for settling it. They were reviewing some of these questions, and we arrived at an agreement which made those points moot.

Now that the agreement is in jeopardy, we have actually gone back to the Permanent Engineering Board for an adjudication of fact on some of these questions, and we anticipate winning several of them. Its membership has changed a little bit, and we're not as confident of winning as we were a year or so ago. The membership consists of four people. I think it's the federal Deputy Minister of Energy or assistant deputy minister for western Canada, and John Allan, who was the Deputy Minister of Energy here and is now an environmental assessment deputy. He's a roving back.

Anyways, we are pursuing that angle, but the problem with the PEB is that they don't have decision-making authority; they have recommendation authority. If they find that the treaty has been violated, even if it's finding a fact, unless the party that's violating changes its tune accordingly, it then moves up to the International Joint Commission for 

[ Page 16024 ]

imposing a solution. So it's a kind of interim step, which we certainly have to utilize to get to the IJC for resolution. It's enormously helpful and may well prove critical, but it isn't a final step in the process of solving disputes.

D. Mitchell: I just have one final question on this subject. It's with respect to the need for the Legislature to be kept abreast of this situation while these negotiations are ongoing. We have the opportunity right now, because these estimates are called for debate in the House, to have this kind of discussion. If not for that, I fear there probably wouldn't be any discussion in the House.

We all know that question period as a forum for intelligent discussion is a joke, quite frankly. As important as this issue is, it probably wouldn't come up in question period. And even if it did, there is no room for a meaningful exchange in that forum.

When the minister returned last week from his exercise in diplomacy in the Pacific Northwest, I was disappointed that he didn't deliver a ministerial statement in the House. Hon. Chair, you might find it interesting that I'm disappointed, because recognizing the mean-spirited insecurity of the Liberal opposition, I probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to respond to such a ministerial statement in any event. Given the continued and consistent mean-spirited jealousy and insecurity of the Liberal opposition, independents don't often receive leave -- granted by government, granted by the third party, but not granted by the Liberal opposition, interestingly enough -- to give responses to ministerial statements.

Having said that, out of respect for the Legislature and given the significance of this issue to the province, I still believe that when the minister returns from his trip to Washington, D.C., if the Legislature is still in session, a ministerial statement of some kind would be warranted, regardless of the outcome of the consultations that take place. I wonder if the minister might be prepared to make that commitment right now in committee.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, just subject to the business of the House and where we're at, in terms of concluding debate. I think it's a fair comment, and I'd be interested in any comments the member has about how we can keep people informed in an intelligent way. It is a bit delicate because of negotiations or discussions that we may have -- we can't share all the tactical questions -- but I'd be delighted to share information as I've done today. I think we only benefit if all members are appreciative, not that we're doing the right thing, but that there's intelligent debate on the question. There hasn't always been that on this matter.

D. Mitchell: I just have one further question. It's not on this subject, and if the minister is prepared to answer it now, great. If not, I'd defer to a different portion of the estimates.

It relates to a study that was done by his ministry, the Ministry of Employment and Investment, called Project West. I received a copy of the study, which was heavily severed, through the freedom-of-information process. It deals with the possible transfer to the private sector of a major corporation in the province, B.C. Rail.

I raise it during these estimates for two reasons: first, it was commissioned by the ministry, or it was received by his ministry, in any event; second, when I tried to raise this matter with other ministers, including the minister responsible for B.C. Rail and the Minister of Finance, who also had been involved in receiving similar proposals and studies, they directly and indirectly referred me to this minister. So here we are.

I have something that the minister has probably seen: a study done by Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banking firms in North America, referred to as Project Whistler. It was prepared by Goldman Sachs last year, on July 11, 1994. It's a rather detailed evaluation of this major Crown corporation operating in the province of British Columbia, B.C. Rail, and how that Crown corporation might be successfully transferred, through a combination of a share purchase program, to the private sector in British Columbia.

I just wonder if the minister could comment on why his ministry would be receiving such information and whether or not he can give the committee any update as to what plans, if any, there are for the privatization, in whole or in part, of the B.C. Railway Group of Companies.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm tempted to say that I would suggest the member ask the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, but I wouldn't do that.

The Crown corporations secretariat commissions a variety of reports on Crown corporations as part of their mandate to seek efficiency and public policy objectives. In B.C. Rail's case, there's been some detailed work, which the member refers to, around options for the question.

I think I've said this before. B.C. Rail faces significant challenges, for two or three reasons. The first is that the advent of deregulation at the national level, the elimination of the Crow rate and some of the changes coming are forcing a radical restructuring of the rail industry. It will look quite different a few years from now than it does today, including, obviously, the privatization of CN and/or mergers with other railways. That will put increasingly competitive pressure on BCR.

Second, BCR has a large part of their net income -- I think something like 50 percent or 40 percent -- coming from northeast coal, and when the prices are renegotiated in a few years, there is a view, which I hesitate to give in detail, that there will be downward pressure on freight rates as a result of renegotiations on the price of coal.

[3:30]

So the combination of those two factors means that a very healthy corporation with low debt -- because the Socreds wrote off the debt -- and with a good operating profit, albeit around $40 million a year, can very quickly go from being a profitable corporation to being an unprofitable one. I don't think the taxpayers are particularly interested in subsidizing this corporation.

It's prudent in light of that for the Crown corporations secretariat to be looking at strategies for B.C. Rail a few years from now on how they're going to respond to the competitive pressure that I've just referred to. There are a variety of ways of responding to that, and they certainly don't all involve privatization, but some aspects of it have to be explored in terms of making sure that decision-makers are fully informed about the appropriate course of action to recommend as a shareholder for B.C. Rail. No decision has been made by government at this time.

[ Page 16025 ]

D. Jarvis: I think I started about five hours ago, and I haven't an opportunity to speak yet. You have to be quick around here. You know, one trip to the washroom and you lose your spot.

There have been a lot of questions. I planned to come here early this morning and give a straightforward set of questions and all the rest of it, but I've been derailed back and forth. So I'm going to have somewhat of a protracted question period, if you don't mind.

Hon. G. Clark: I do, but there's nothing I can do about it.

D. Jarvis: I know, unfortunately.

I'm not one that goes into long speeches, as you're probably aware, but I have to comment on a couple of things that were said earlier -- for example, from me to the third party with regard to the Alcan situation. I'm glad you brought up the fact that he should have asked the member for Prince George-Omineca how he feels in regard to the decision on the KCP.

I have to mention something about the Bonneville situation. I feel rather upset by the fact that we were forced into the unnecessary wrap-around-the-flag debate as to whether we're good Canadians or not, which the minister brought forward for several days. Theoretically, this was a mistake on the part of his advisers; they weren't aware of the situation that was developing.

The minister has said that we had a legal opinion to the effect that the memorandum of agreement was a valid agreement. Of course, that opinion came from Lawson Lundell, Hydro's lawyers, who sat down and made the upped agreement for the memorandum. Naturally they would support the fact that their agreement was a valid agreement.

Hon. G. Clark: Careful, careful.

D. Jarvis: I'm not being careful, that's a fact. But I'm a bit concerned because we're British Columbians, too, and we've been around here just as long as you have. We're concerned with the fact that we're....

Hon. G. Clark: Longer, actually.

D. Jarvis: Yes, my family has six generations in this province.

I feel it's an unfortunate situation. I'm concerned that you're not going to get the help from Ottawa that you really want. I don't think they're going to exchange any diplomatic notes or anything along that line. I think they'll treat it as a commercial disagreement, and that's probably what's going to happen, unfortunately.

I want to know what is going to happen. We know Bonneville is going to go down. We don't know for sure, but we can assume that it's going to collapse within.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Don't worry, it can't survive. Newt Gingrich will not allow it to survive, believe me. What is going to happen to the system that is built in to the treaty to negotiate any problems that occur? Has his department looked into this aspect to see what is the best way out of it? Who's going to look after the distribution of power after BPA is gone?

Hon. G. Clark: First, let me say -- I don't say this in a nasty way, but I do actually have to say this -- that I really think it's unfortunate that the member would malign Lawson Lundell. I like to malign lawyers generally, but I have to say this is a large professional law firm, one of the largest in British Columbia. They do outstanding work, and they're experts in this field. I just have to say, in their defence, that I don't believe you could get them to make public comments or legal opinions that they don't stand by. I think the member should refrain from attacking the integrity of a law firm, which I think you've really done in this regard.

Having said that, Bonneville Power may not survive in its current form. I think there are several options about where it goes. One of them is privatization, the Newt Gingrich solution. I think Senator Hatfield stands in the way of that. He is a very powerful Republican Senator in Washington and very concerned about Bonneville. It is likely, in my view, that they will survive in some form, probably as a transmission company which is required to act as a common carrier. That's a debate for later.

It doesn't really matter -- and I think it's important that the member should know this -- to British Columbia whether Bonneville survives or not, because we have a legal treaty with the United States government which obliges certain things to happen, including returning power to the British Columbia border at Oliver. If Bonneville is not there, that treaty doesn't disappear. The treaty is not with Bonneville; it's with the American government.

Obviously it makes it more complicated to determine who is going to build the line and how it gets built if the entity prescribed in the treaty is no longer able to perform that function. But that does not negate the assets or the rights the province has under that treaty. It just means we have to pursue different avenues to enforce it. Largely, the International Joint Commission would be where that would be enforced.

That's part of the reason we're going to Washington to discuss it with them. It's kind of nasty to say this, but we're going to meet with the organ grinder rather than the monkey. The people who are responsible for Bonneville Power Administration are in Washington, D.C. So we have to discuss with them how they're going to live up to the treaty, and failing that, then we will seek our legal remedies under the International Joint Commission.

D. Jarvis: Naturally, I wasn't really trying to malign Lawson Lundell. But one wonders, sometimes, if there is a conflict of interest when you have one law firm looking after B.C. Hydro, the downstream benefits and the KCP project and making legal opinions as to whether what they do is correct. There could be a consideration of a conflict of opinion in that sometimes.

In any event, going back to one question, we were talking earlier this morning about the Palo Alto situation. I understand that is a short, firm contract with Palo Alto. It's for about four or five months a year over a ten-year period, but it's a short, long-term, firm.... You know what I'm driving at, 

[ Page 16026 ]

anyway. The BCUC gives approval to Hydro for Powerex to do this. From what I understand -- I'm trying to get this straight -- it's not necessarily confirmed that the power is going down there. It's essentially just a backup. How is B.C. Hydro going to charge them for the transmission on it? Or is this all a little contract just sitting in the back here to back up everything in case worse comes to worst?

Hon. G. Clark: Powerex has now entered into the agreement, and they're obligated to provide that kind of peaking power we talked about. Remember, we have a marketplace now developing, and because Powerex is obligated to provide that power, it can provide it from B.C. Hydro, and there'll be some wheeling charges, both through B.C. Hydro and through the system in the United States, or it can buy power in the United States and provide the power there. B.C. Powerex will be looking at all those options to find the best spread between what we buy it for and what we sell it for. B.C. Hydro, in a way, has to compete for the business that Powerex would provide.

In terms of the ratepayers in British Columbia, it's important that you and the ratepayers understand that there's no cross-subsidization. So if there's power purchased from B.C. Hydro and sent south, then Powerex must pay B.C. Hydro the wheeling cost through their system, and there's no cross-subsidy associated with that.

D. Jarvis: There were some questions earlier today about transmission capabilities. Fortunately during the lunch-hour break, I got back early, and I got a lot of answers from the CEO, Mr. Sheehan. There were a couple of things I wanted to go back over.

We have sufficient power lines to put power down into the United States, but I wonder how we are going to open up this province to IPPs. That comes into sort of the unbundling of Hydro and all the rest of it. The BCUC has called for a review. Is the minister aware of the stage we are at in that situation?

Hon. G. Clark: Cabinet approved an order-in-council asking BCUC to do a review of energy markets. As this member knows, an energy review is underway. I understand a report will be given to the Minister of Energy sometime in the next month or two. It deals with precisely some of these questions.

I think the member knows this, but it is not clear -- not just in British Columbia but around North America.... These changes are happening, and people are working them through as we speak. There isn't a blueprint that you can just pick up and say: "Here is how it is going to look." The market is being introduced in a variety of ways, and at the end of the day, one never knows precisely where the market will go on some of these questions.

I have to say this on the IPP question: we have opened our transmission lines up to wholesale wheeling, which means that an IPP can come in right now, and we are required to wheel it through to a utility. An IPP right now could build a plant in British Columbia and export down to Bonneville through B.C. Hydro's system, and we'd allow it.

What we have not allowed as of yet is what is called retail wheeling. If we had retail wheeling, that would allow an IPP to start up today, go to a pulp mill, take that load away from B.C. Hydro and supply it direct. That is retail wheeling. It is not that we are necessarily opposed to that. I think one has to be careful; it may well be good public policy at the end of the day. But we have to be careful that the sunk costs that B.C. Hydro has invested in this huge system, which is one of the best in the world, are not jeopardized by large players peeling away from B.C. Hydro, which could cause significant rate shock in B.C., because B.C. Hydro has all the infrastructure to maintain. At the margin, someone coming off and picking off some of the bigger players....

What that would lead to, and what it has led to in telephones and natural gas, etc, is a lower price for large industrial consumers with market power and a higher price for the captive residential consumers. We are not about to move into that very readily, so we are moving more carefully on retail wheeling. On the wholesale side, we are leading the country, so we don't have anything to apologize for. We are moving in a market direction, but I think we have to be very careful about that last step.

That is part of this review. The government will get the information. If it recommends retail wheeling after this review, the government will have to make a decision on this question. I can tell you, as the Minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, that we don't want to jeopardize this magnificent system we have for the sake of providing competition for a few big players, if it means higher rates for my constituents. We just have to move carefully; that's where we are.

D. Jarvis: I understand the transmission lines between the United States and Canada are now open; you can freely move power back and forth. Do the same rules apply to them as far as commercial...?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a different question, but when we did this RFP for private power, Bonneville could have bid on it. Anybody from Washington State could have bid on it. I'll be candid with you: as a politician up here, I was a bit nervous. It's a two-way street; we can't say that we want access down there without giving them access. We are giving them access, but we are not giving them access to our industrials. We're giving them access to B.C. Hydro's future purchase of energy. That would be extending retail wheeling down there. They are moving, I think it is fair to say, toward retail wheeling faster than we are. My position is that we should take advantage of retail wheeling down there and not allow retail wheeling up here.

D. Jarvis: That would certainly put the IPPs at a disadvantage in this area, would it not? That is closing the shop.

[3:45]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there is no way they can compete with B.C. Hydro right now anyway. I don't think that's fair, and I think they would acknowledge that. Second, if we are successful in this American marketplace, then it's quite possible they could build an IPP here for export into Washington or Oregon, where power prices are higher than in British Columbia. Using B.C. Hydro or Powerex to help shape their pattern, we're potentially in a position in this deregulated marketplace in the United States to really take advantage of our competitive advantage.

I can tell you that we are actually looking at some of those and at working with IPPs. They will build an IPP in British 

[ Page 16027 ]

Columbia -- maybe natural gas -- and create jobs. Powerex or B.C. Hydro would backstop them with some shaping, maybe some storage and some ability to give some peak power. They would export it directly to a company down in Washington State and take the load away from Bonneville.

D. Jarvis: On those earlier requests for proposals, last March I guess it was, they ended the 48 or 50 bids you had without question and assurance that these requests for proposals would be considered?

Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely. That's not to say they're all going to be happy. We have so many requests and so much power, so we're only going to take some 300 megawatts. That only takes a few of the lowest-priced ones, but we would certainly plan to do that.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister clarify if are we looking at just 200 megawatts, I think it was?

Hon. G. Clark: Two hundred to 300.

D. Jarvis: So, it's 200 to 300 megawatts. Are we going to have three? Two? One? That's the big question.

Hon. G. Clark: I honestly can't answer that, but they are so competitive that after we get through negotiations, my hope would be that it would be more than one.

D. Jarvis: If the minister can tell me, I would like to know who is going to make the final decision? Does the announcement come out of the Premier's Office and then out of the Minister of Investment's office as well? Who will make this decision?

Hon. G. Clark: B.C. Hydro will make the decision. That has to be scrutinized by the B.C. Utilities Commission as well as the integrated resource planning group, so there will be a lot of scrutiny on B.C. Hydro's position, and we don't intend to interfere. Where the province has a role to play in giving advice to B.C. Hydro is in ensuring that they adequately capture some of the costs we canvassed earlier on environmental and social questions, because even as good corporate citizens, Hydro would be looking more toward the bottom-line market price. The government may wish to ensure that other values are considered at the same time.

D. Jarvis: I assume, then, that the proposal will be on Vancouver Island, and you hope it would be over here.

Hon. G. Clark: Don't assume that.

D. Jarvis: If it is over here, are the social costs being factored into the pricing of it, like we had on the lower mainland?

Hon. G. Clark: We take a variety of factors into consideration in evaluating the bid. First, there is the price delivered to Vancouver, and that's the most important. It is overwhelmingly important. Second, however, if being on Vancouver Island saves B.C. Hydro even a deferred savings, in the sense that they don't have to build new power transmission lines across the bottom of the Island, then we give credit to the proponents and give them a higher price. We give them a competitive advantage of 2.5 mills for the offsetting savings. So if they're 2.5 mills higher, which is 0.25 cents a kilowatt-hour, than a project in Vancouver, we would do it on Vancouver Island.

Similarly, where there is some environmental benefit, we can give some credit, etc. In this case, that's not a social savings; that's a genuine financial saving to B.C. Hydro that we simply allocate to bidders on Vancouver Island.

D. Jarvis: We're going rather fast here, and I'm jumping from spot to spot. I'm sorry about that. Here we go. I know you're concerned, and I think the whole IPP industry is concerned, about the balance of the request. There can be anywhere from 45, or 48 actually, down out on the streets.

There's a lot of value out there. As you say, their average price is down around 2.5 cents to 3 cents. Has the minister given any consideration to what's going to happen to all this industry that's out there, ready to go to work and produce jobs and create revenue for the government? Are you going to give us an access?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, it's free enterprise, you know. If they're not competitive, they don't get the job. We'd like to work with them on accessing the big American marketplace. Look, there's a lot of pressure from these companies to build independent power projects, and I'd love to do them all. I make no secret about that. We've got 3,000 megawatts of proposals, and the majority are very competitive -- very competitive. It would be ludicrous for us to bring on stream a couple of thousand megawatts; we can't use it.

We can bring a few hundred megawatts on stream productively, but there's absolutely no demand. Where is there a demand? There is a demand in the United States. We might be able to work with them to export there. There's a demand of 150 megawatts a year growing in British Columbia, which in the future would bring on more private power. As much as I would love to, we just can't go ahead and contract to a big power project or a co-gen project somewhere where there's no market for the power.

D. Jarvis: I'm trying to get a picture of what's happening out there, because I'm getting conflicting stories. Is Alberta there in the midst of it? California is in the midst of it, or close to considering it. We're doing a study; we're waiting for the results.

I can only assume that with deregulation all through the United States, there's got to be a demand for power. These things just don't happen overnight, so it's going to take a period of time. What type of encouragement is the government or Hydro showing them that this is the way we're going? This is the way that B.C. Hydro is going. What kind of direction are we going in? Are we going to remain as this closed shop that we have over time?

Hon. G. Clark: In the Pacific Northwest and California, there's actually a surplus of power right now. That's partly because the economy is not as robust as we might like. It's pretty much linked to economic development and growth. We have, as I said, a 2 percent energy growth, and we've had lots of population growth in the booming economy. They have not had that advantage. There's a surplus of power right now, in the short term.

[ Page 16028 ]

Secondly -- and this is important -- you can bring on new power sources much quicker than you could before. A natural gas plant went up in...what was it, 18 months? You can actually go from start to finish, green field to a brand-new huge power plant in 18 months. So people are looking ahead and saying: "Well, I'm not going to contract for some big hydro project that's ten or 20 years away, with this surplus right now and with the ability to bring on power fairly quickly with cheap natural gas."

There is a lot of opportunity, and we want to work with IPPs to exploit those opportunities, but we should not assume that it's just some big gravy train. It's very, very competitive right now.

D. Jarvis: Unfortunately, it appears that it costs more to ship value-added products like electricity out of this province because of regulatory commissions and all the rest of it.

They make chips down in the southeast corner of Washington or the northeast corner of Oregon. There's a big potato-chip manufacturing place there. The town is Dennison or something like that; I can't remember. Mr. Sheehan would know if he had an opportunity to tell us. I understand that they have a plant there that uses B.C. or Alberta gas and is supplying 500 tons of fish and chips a day in the American northwest and southwest, and they're building another plant across the street. They're projecting that they're going to produce power for 2 cents.

Hon. G. Clark: U.S.

D. Jarvis: Yes, U.S. So the electricity market is losing out to gas.

I just wonder if there is any thought or discussion as to how we're going to overcome this competition. We have two of our natural resources competing against each other. I think Alberta may beat us out, because Westcoast Energy hasn't taken the initiative in building another pipeline. They don't want to spend the capital, whereas the Americans and Albertans are spending it.

Hon. G. Clark: There's no question that it's an irony that cheap Canadian gas is competing.... There's no question that we're competing with ourselves, in a way, with a cheaper energy source. But that's what happens when you have a deregulated marketplace. When you had a situation where government regulation controlled it, the previous NDP administration put a big tax at the border and generated about a billion dollars in revenue for the people of B.C. We don't have that luxury anymore. It's a completely wide-open, deregulated marketplace. It's driven the price down, and there's a surplus of gas. If we don't provide it from British Columbia, if the province took unilateral action, New Mexico and Alberta could fill the void -- snap! -- like that.

The challenge is to create energy with natural gas up here and export it. It is a big competitive pressure, because it's cheaper to transmit gas than electricity.

D. Jarvis: Is the deregulation in the United States causing you to downsize the value of our downstream benefits?

Hon. G. Clark: No, it hasn't -- a very good question. The reason for that, though -- one could debate this -- is that that's a 30-year contract. There is a sort of formula looking at prices. We've put a price in at 3 cents (Canadian). That's the assumption we've used, with some inflation over time. Three and a half cents (Canadian) is about 2.8 cents (U.S.). The current short-term market is slightly lower than that, but no one expects it to stay down that low over a very long period of time. I think we're on the conservative side. When I said $5 billion to $6 billion, I think it's still an accurate number.

D. Jarvis: I have another quick question on Stave Falls. I understand there's an environment problem there with regard to requiring more water for fish environment, I believe it is, from the Alouette. Is that going to readjust your configuration as to whether Stave Falls is viable?

Hon. G. Clark: The member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has been in to see me several times on this question, so I am actually quite aware of it. The short answer is no, we don't believe so. We want to move very carefully on that. We're doing a major study right now of the fish in the Alouette River. Unfortunately, including for myself, I don't think that study will be completed until September 1996.

The reason for that, just so we're clear, isn't that we're taking a long time doing the studies; it's that it's an empirical biological study. You have to have some seasons and take counts, etc., over some time to get a sense of it. I think it's fair to say that after the results of the study are in, we will make our efforts to deal with either mitigation or increase of the flows. In the absence of that, we don't want to take capricious or premature action with respect to flows until we do the baseline data analysis.

[4:00]

The Stave Falls generating plant is extremely cost-effective. Any change to the flow regime does have an impact, but even under a worst-case scenario, from all of the information we've received, it will not rise above the avoided costs of a natural-gas-fired plant. So even though the costs of natural gas are coming down, even though you could argue that there may be some costs imposed as a result of environmental or fish mitigation, Stave Lake still comes out as a low-cost producer.

D. Jarvis: I have another quick question. I have constituents in my riding in North Vancouver who have their residence and/or school under Hydro transmission lines. I understand that Hydro has adamantly refused to remove the lines, which is perhaps understandable at times. These are people with genuine concerns that there is something occurring as a result of what is being emitted from the transmission lines. For a minor amount, they can do a reconfiguration of the lines -- about $60,000. Has Hydro considered doing that to allay the fears of all these parents and their children?

Hon. G. Clark: Having represented Vancouver East for five years before my current constituency, I know there's lots of concerns about power lines up in the northeast sector of Vancouver. I actually encouraged the residents there to go to the Utilities Commission for a full review. The Utilities Commission has come out with a ruling that says there is no evidence of harmful effects, and there was a full hearing on these questions with respect to the EMF radiation.

Furthermore, they fairly politely rebuked B.C. Hydro for spending ratepayers' money on some mitigation efforts that 

[ Page 16029 ]

they've been looking at. They've come down pretty squarely on the side of the B.C. Hydro and that there isn't any evidence.

Having said that, I am still concerned about people being concerned about it. I think B.C. Hydro, as good corporate citizens, are looking at ways -- we have to be careful because we're a regulated utility, and we've now been criticized for it -- where there can be some modest expenditure of funds to try to reconfigure or help out with respect to allaying concerns that people living near transmission lines have.

D. Jarvis: We know that governments and agencies aren't always correct. We've seen examples right from Agent Orange on. So can I assure my constituents somewhat that Hydro may consider looking into a social situation where there is some type of reconfiguration or something in order to allay their fears? Is that what I interpret from you?

Hon. G. Clark: I'd go further, actually. If there are any specific concerns your constituents have, they should get in touch with Dr. Gibney at B.C. Hydro, who will actually go out and measure EMF. He will even provide some meters to make sure that people get a sense of that. We take it seriously. These are our customers, and we want to allay their concerns if there are any modest mitigation efforts we can make.

Having said that, the reviews now are increasingly showing that there doesn't appear to be any health hazard associated with it. There's more and more empirical evidence, which is why the Utilities Commission made the ruling they did. If the member or any of his constituents want to, I'd certainly be happy to have B.C. Hydro look into any specific case.

D. Jarvis: Earlier this morning we were talking with the Leader of the Third Party, when he brought up the Mackenzie situation. It's rather interesting that he's so sure that the government should do something for that area, but not necessarily for the Kootenays. That's another subject we can get into later, but I had to throw it in.

I have been informed that there's a possibility that with regard to the supposed shortage of power we're having here, because we're importing it to offset the situation in the province, the lines coming down from the Mackenzie area could be overloaded and all the rest of it. Mr. Sheehan explained to me that with the new technology, this is certainly not the case anymore. On that premise, we can boost up more power coming out of there. There shouldn't be any reason to consider that there would be any reduction down below the 2,150 level. I would assume that was the reason that the minister's department loaned them the money to build that nice big barge up there, which can only exist at the 2,150 level. Is it safe to say that it's pretty well a foregone conclusion that the Mackenzie reservoir will not be drawn down?

Hon. G. Clark: It is safe to say, certainly right now, that there is no danger of 2,150.... The snowpack is normal, and we are storing water in the reservoir. We are buying cheap power in the market from time to time -- 3 mills, which is 0.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. We buy it on the marketplace and store it in the reservoir, so we don't want to draw it down. But the point I've made before and will make again is that the reservoir is critical to the Hydro system. It is what gives us our competitive advantage, and we cannot give up the right to draw the reservoir down under certain conditions, even though we anticipate it's a one-in-20- or one-in-40-year occurrence by historical standards. It may happen from time to time. It would cost tens of millions of dollars and negate the big advantage we have if we were to eliminate the possibility of drawing it down. We don't see any reason to drop it down below that level for the next few years.

D. Jarvis: Is there any question of there being voltage instability in this province, which would burn out our transmission lines?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the CEO and president to answer that question.

J. Sheehan: Voltage instability can be a problem even at Deep Cove, for instance. We had problems there for a number of years. Instead of being the standard voltage, which is between 108 and 120 volts for the distribution system, at the end of a radial line you can have significant weaknesses. We had problems there, and we had problems on Bowen Island. You must correct those. If you put a lot of load at the end of a line, then you are going create more and more voltage instability. You have to augment it and come back in order to stay within the standards we have prescribed. Compared with most systems, ours is probably much more stable, but we have problems at times. We have it in Prince Rupert, which is at the end of a line. We are going to have it at the end of any radial lines as a matter of trying to manage within the standards.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister or his staff tell me what the situation with Alcan is now? Can they briefly tell me how many megawatts they were producing from the old power and how much is on what I understand is a very tentative contract with B.C. Hydro right now? There's a contract with B.C. Hydro, but B.C. Hydro was going to ostensibly forgive it for a long period. Forgetting about KCP, which is gone, what is being produced through Alcan right now?

Hon. G. Clark: The long-term electricity purchase agreement, as I recall, was for 286 megawatts. We have an interim agreement, which is extended monthly, for 200 megawatts of power. That's at about 3 cents a kilowatt-hour or roughly 35 mills. I don't know if you want to wander into this debate, but the 286 megawatts is contracted. At the time it was contracted the price looked very good. As you can see from earlier discussions, the price right now is not as good; therefore it is in our interests to minimize our purchases. But they have a contractual right to make us take 280 megawatts. If they provided us 286 megawatts from their existing source, they would have to shut down some potlines to provide it, so we have reached a tentative agreement to take only 200, which is in our interests because it is less than 280. It is also in our interests because they don't have to fully shut down a potline, although I think one of them is half shut down, to provide the surplus power. This is part of broader negotiations with Alcan. At this time, it's moving on a month-to-month basis.

D. Jarvis: Can the minister tell me if B.C. Hydro is paying any part of Mr. Eliesen's salary at this time?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that. I think he works for a joint venture between B.C. Trade, Westcoast Energy and ABB called Asia Power. It was at the same salary level, I believe, that he had before -- $190,000 or so.

[ Page 16030 ]

D. Jarvis: I was trying to find out something about BCHIL. This Team Canada concept was out there a few months back, and this Canada-China Power Inc. was formed. Why aren't we allowing them to go into Pakistan and China and places like that? For what purpose would B.C. Hydro be getting involved in that?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to ask the CEO to answer that question.

J. Sheehan: The previous arrangement we had, which I suppose was called Team Canada, was basically Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, ourselves, Agra Monenco, and one of the other large engineering firms. It was through that consortium that we had a number of consulting assignments in China.

Ontario, I understand, has backed out of it. We now have arrangements with Quebec and the same two consulting firms. We are doing some further consulting in China. There's also one in Malaysia, where it's again ourselves, Hydro-Quebec and the two engineering firms.

That was specific to those projects. We have other projects where we have other partners, whether it be in India or Pakistan. The Pakistan project that we're going ahead with is solely our own with a Pakistani partner. We are using a Vancouver consulting and engineering firm, Kilborn, on that one. So we will form different partnerships depending on the projects available.

That Chinese one started out with the Three Gorges project, which we've all decided to back away from. That doesn't mean that we don't have other projects in China that we're looking at, purely on our own, without any partners. We're not tied to all; China's not exclusive to the consortium. We have different combinations.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister advise us of the net earnings of BCHIL last year?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll get that information for the member, unless he's determined to get it now. I'd rather provide it later.

D. Jarvis: I would be more than prepared to see it later. Is it possible I could get a copy of the fourth-quarter summary variance review?

[D. Schreck in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I have no idea what that is, but the answer, I'm advised, is yes.

W. Hurd: I just wanted to briefly revisit some of the issues surrounding the renovation of the Waneta, Brilliant and Keenleyside dams. I know we had a discussion in depth about this issue during the debate on the Columbia Basin accord, and....

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, I just want to make sure: can we finish Hydro? That's not Hydro; that's Columbia Power. If we can finish Hydro, then we can have more discussion about that question. Lorne Sivertson, CEO of Columbia Power, is here. Is that okay?

W. Hurd: I'll just return briefly to Hydro, then. If my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour has already asked this question, I'm sure that I will be advised of that.

[4:15]

I just want to confirm Hydro's use of outside legal consultants during the last fiscal year. I note that there is consistently an entry under Columbia River downstream benefits for legal bills for B.C. Hydro. I know that the minister during the estimates debate earlier took great pains to differentiate the return of downstream benefits from the ongoing activities of Hydro. I just wonder if he could explain the rather large sums to Lawson Lundell for legal advice for the negotiations that occurred over a period of months and years with BPA?

Hon. G. Clark: First, Hydro will be repaid any expenses associated with that, because it's part of the province's entitlement. Second, this is very complex work. The memorandum of negotiators' agreement has to be transformed into legal text -- I know we've released it publicly and I'm sure the member has a copy. It's very technical and complex work, and it requires a particular expertise and time and technical negotiations with BPA. Unfortunately, these lawyers are expensive.

W. Hurd: Given the fact that the legal bills were put through Hydro for these negotiations and represent a recoverable amount, maybe the minister could just confirm who they would be recoverable from. Would they come from the Ministry of Finance or what?

Hon. G. Clark: The money is to be recovered from the province from payments on the downstream benefits when they start to flow. Just so the member knows, when we're travelling to Washington, D.C., Washington State or Oregon, Powerex also picks up some of the costs, which go into an account like any normal transaction. When the results of our work happen and the money starts to flow, then it's a recoverable and the province pays.

W. Hurd: I'm just looking for direction from the minister. I had a series of questions about the B.C. Utilities Commission and its rules for new project approval. I don't know whether it would be more appropriate to address those issues outside the parameters of the discussion about B.C. Hydro, or whether we should just proceed with them.

The Chair: The Chair might advise that the ministry responsible for BCUC is not currently before us, but for those matters within the scope of these estimates....

Hon. G. Clark: Actually, I was going to say that. I'm not inclined to answer questions around BCUC, not because I want to evade them -- frankly, I would probably like to answer them. But really I don't think it would be productive, because I'm not administratively responsible for BCUC.

D. Jarvis: I want to know a few more things about BCHI -- I hadn't left it. It was announced that the CEO went to New York to raise about $40 million for the Pakistani venture. I just wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of a structure is being set up along that line. Is it going to be registered where it is now? Is it still in Grand Cayman? Is there any protection in B.C. for the people who buy shares in this?

Hon. G. Clark: Those are good questions. Maybe I can short-circuit some of them by giving a sense of this project. B.C. Hydro International will be going into a joint venture 

[ Page 16031 ]

with a Pakistan company, SEL. That's how business is usually done. The project costs are in the neighbourhood of $160 million, and it's a thermal plant. The amount of equity required in that project is roughly $40 million. That $40 million in equity will be about $20 million from our Pakistani partners. So it's a $160 million project, roughly $40 million in equities, $20 million from our Pakistani joint venture partner and $20 million from B.C. Hydro. Our intention is not to have $20 million come from B.C. Hydro International, but only to put in a small amount -- maybe $3 million or $4 million, or maybe up to $5 million (Canadian) -- and the rest to be raised in the private sector here in British Columbia. There would be no government guarantee and no subsidy from the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

The full $120 million remainder will be borrowed by the joint venture company and is being guaranteed by the World Bank, among other international sources. There are also all kinds of interesting and complicated transactions, including international credits from the turbine manufacturers, the World Bank, etc. What's happening is that for somewhere around $5 million (Canadian) or so, or less than that, we should have a quarter interest in a $160 million project, the debt of which is guaranteed by the World Bank.

Is there a risk? Yes, the risk is the $5 million, and it's a risk to other private players in British Columbia who would be investing in this. Absolutely. It's just a straight commercial risk. The rate of return negotiated is 24 percent return on equity. British Columbia Hydro and the government's interest in these projects is obviously to make some money, but more importantly, it is to generate jobs. This will generate dozens of jobs...

D. Jarvis: And fees.

Hon. G. Clark: ...and fees here in British Columbia, for ourselves, for Kilborn Engineering and other engineering firms in British Columbia. We obviously want to minimize any risk, although there's always some, and to maximize the job and spinoff benefits here in British Columbia.

That is the nature of the deal. We haven't decided fully how the private sector funding will take place in terms of raising private placements, but we expect to have partners and investors. We have lots of people already interested in investing in the project because of that.

The rate of return does fluctuate somewhat. It goes down if we don't complete within two years -- a penalty, if you will. So 24 percent can pretty quickly become a 22 percent rate of return. And there's a bonus if you complete within two years. There is some currency risk that has potential to bring that rate of return down a bit further, just to canvass all the opportunities, but this appears to be a very attractive deal.

The guarantee by the World Bank and others really helps to insulate us from any political risk with respect to working in these countries. There always is that. Pakistan has never reneged on any agreements or government contracts they have signed, regardless of turmoil, changes in government, coups or the like. There will be a contractual relationship with the Pakistan government, there's a contractual relationship with our joint venture partner and there's a guarantee from the World Bank. All that is designed to attempt to insulate us from any problems that might arise.

Lastly, we've instructed B.C. Hydro International to do environmental and ethical screens, and they have engaged some consultants, including Prof. Murray Rankin, who members might be familiar with, and others. We are obviously not interested in investing in companies that are destroying the environment, and we want to make sure we have high standards in that regard. It's not always easy because there are challenges associated with doing business in these countries, but we expect B.C. Hydro International to follow a tough line and do screens before they are allowed to make such investments.

D. Jarvis: This may perhaps be a silly question, but why is Powerex run as a separate company, albeit as a subsidiary? Why is it run as a separate company from B.C. Hydro?

Hon. G. Clark: It is really important that there not be any cross-subsidies. I'd say that as a citizen, and I'm sure you agree. You have to set up a separate entity that draws on the expertise of B.C. Hydro but compensates Hydro for doing so. You have to set up a separate entity that takes some risk internationally and doesn't draw on the ratepayers in British Columbia to subsidize that risk. In my view, we have to insulate it from the business of B.C. Hydro providing service in British Columbia. You have to maximize the job benefits, the spinoff benefits and hopefully some revenue, and you have to minimize any of the problems associated with doing business internationally -- and there are some. I might even go so far as to say I would like to see it move further away from B.C. Hydro, with some contractual relationships back to B.C. Hydro to make sure that we don't get into it.

In the early years, my suspicion -- and the CEO probably disagrees with this -- was always that B.C. Hydro International took advantage of some of the expertise at B.C. Hydro and has not fully compensated them. They were doing some consulting work internationally and generating a little revenue. If you start moving in to take equity positions and joint venture partners with B.C. and international companies, you want to make darned sure that this does not have any negative impact on the people of British Columbia's huge asset and the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

D. Jarvis: I have just one last question before I turn it over to my associate. Is B.C. Hydro paying bonuses this year to their vice-presidents?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

W. Hurd: Just to explore a little further this interesting relationship between B.C. Hydro and the negotiation of the return of the downstream benefits, I notice from press reports today that B.C. Hydro has recorded a $15 million loss in power generation as a result of the spilloff from the Libby Dam. Given the fact that the Libby Dam runoff is governed by treaty, I just wonder how that loss is dealt with in terms of B.C. Hydro's accounting obligations and how it might be recoverable. Is it listed as a non-recoverable asset or an asset to be recovered at a future time.

Hon. G. Clark: We've had this dispute on the Libby Dam for some time now, and we've had correspondence -- which we could share with the member if he's interested -- going back some time. We believe they're violating the Columbia River Treaty in the way they're operating Libby Dam. We believe any costs associated with that have to be borne by 

[ Page 16032 ]

Bonneville or the Americans, because they're impacting on our ability. It's a dispute, but it has not escalated to the level of the other dispute.

We've taken steps now, both in Ottawa and with Bonneville, to inform them of our position in this regard. At the end of the day, we will in all likelihood either resolve it or have to proceed through the dispute resolution process with respect to the Columbia River Treaty.

I want to make it clear to the member that this is not something that Bonneville has done in response to anything we've done. This is something they've done in response to the Endangered Species Act in the United States, and one that predates our current dispute with Bonneville.

W. Hurd: Is that $15 million a figure that's subject to audit or verification? Is it something that Hydro intends to catalogue or record in any way? Given the fact that it's obviously subject to change as more water is released, and $15 million is a considerable amount of money, with the potential of being more, I wonder how Hydro was going to deal with this in terms of its annual report, earnings projections or any other type of reporting that it might do.

Hon. G. Clark: It would only show what earnings we have in the annual report, but we'll be booking it as an outstanding claim.

Believe me, I want to assure the member that this will be the best-documented spill in the history of B.C. Hydro. It will be hotly disputed, both the value that we are claiming and the cost associated with it, as well as other legal arguments that the Americans might make with respect to the pre-eminence -- they might argue -- of the Endangered Species Act over an international treaty. All those are going to be subjects of debate.

[4:30]

We are taking great pains to document it, which is probably why you saw it in the newspaper. We will be putting it in our annual report as a claim against Bonneville Power Administration with respect to the operations of the treaty.

W. Hurd: Again with respect to B.C. Hydro, it's my understanding that before Hydro can embark on a major project, they're required to go through an integrated resource management process. That doesn't apply to independent power plants. Does Hydro have any requirement before it purchases from IPPs?

The minister has talked at length, and so has the Minister of Energy, about the standards that are in place for Powerex to do business with foreign projects. I just wonder, in dealing with a purchase from an IPP, what the rationale is for the fact that there is no integrated resource plan. Is that a correct assessment of the IPPs in the province and their relationship to Hydro?

Hon. G. Clark: First, we do have an integrated resource plan. Yes, we do run it through a consultative process that the BCUC has set up to screen it. Any IPPs we purchase have to go through that screen. Any new facilities we bring in, like Stave Lake, have to go through that. It's an advisory process; it's not a mandatory one. We don't accept any notion that they have veto power, but the Utilities Commission wants to assure that we're consulted with respect to our bringing in new sources of supply.

At the end of the day, the IPPs that we purchase, the ones we've been talking about, will have to go before the integrated resource planning consultative committee and assure them that we're taking prudent action. I don't worry about that, because we will be able to convince them, obviously, that we're taking the least-cost power at the appropriate power sources.

With respect to exports, it's not part of the integrated resource planning process. But if we brought on a new project to export, or even if we didn't, we need an energy removal certificate, and we need an energy project certificate for bringing on new sources of power. It doesn't have to go through the IRP process, but the Minister of Energy can in fact require a hearing if she decides to. Often for smaller projects it wouldn't require one, but she can do that; it's her prerogative. There is a cross-ministry process which requires environmental impact and other screens that the Minister of Energy requires be satisfied before she'll issue the permit.

By the way, that's exactly the same as an IPP. If somebody wanted to build an IPP to export to the U.S., they need an energy project certificate and an energy removal certificate as well.

W. Hurd: To further the discussion, Hydro obviously requires that to be in place before they would purchase from the IPP. I want to clarify the position of the new Columbia Basin corporation with respect to its dealings with B.C. Hydro. Obviously the corporation will be marketing its power through B.C. Hydro.

The minister will be aware that one of the controversies in the interior was -- and I could be wrong on this; I'm just asking the question -- whether this new power entity would have to go through the integrated resource planning process, which, as the minister knows, is subject to a whole range of litmus tests like cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact -- the whole range of activities. Since Hydro is obviously the purchaser of the power that will be generated from this project, would Hydro be bringing any pressure or influence to bear to require that this new entity go through the integrated resource management approach?

Hon. G. Clark: If B.C. Hydro were to purchase power from Columbia Power, that would make it subject to the IRP, because it would have to justify buying power at a certain price relative to other options. If it's not to buy power from the Columbia Basin Trust or Columbia Power Corporation -- and I don't believe at this point that it will -- then it's not captured by the IRP process. Nor is Columbia Power or Columbia Basin Trust the regulated utility, because it's not a utility. It would simply be an owner of generating capacity, more akin to an IPP.

Having said that, if you want to construct Keenleyside or Waneta or Brilliant, it requires an energy project certificate and an environmental review process -- exactly the same as anywhere else. If the Columbia Power Corporation or Columbia Basin Trust joint venture wants to export the power to the United States, then it requires an energy removal certificate.

W. Hurd: Can the minister assure the committee that those processes would be as stringent as the ones that Hydro 

[ Page 16033 ]

is required to go through before it brings a new project on line? I'm aware that the integrated resource management plan appears -- on paper, anyway -- to be a very stringent one that calls into question conservation, socioeconomic assessments and, most importantly, a cost-benefit analysis.

Given the importance of this project to the people in the Kootenays, and the fact that it is a joint venture with the province, I'm just seeking assurance from the minister that the requirements for the burden of proof to support the project would at least be as stringent as the process that Hydro goes through.

Hon. G. Clark: Unfortunately, yes. I can confirm that.

W. Hurd: I had a couple of questions about that project, and this might be the opportunity to go into them.

Hon. G. Clark: We're finished Hydro. We're on Columbia Power, then ferries.

W. Hurd: I have a couple of brief questions. Since we dealt with this issue in the House, obviously the applecart has been turned upside down, so to speak. The province, as I understand it, is still committed to fund the $1 billion over ten years. Now that we don't have a firm agreement with the return of downstream benefits, I wonder if the minister could take a minute to clarify whether the economics of the project have changed.

I know when we debated this issue in the House, the minister made much of the fact that we were using the downstream benefits to achieve some equity financing in the project, which changed the unit costs of power quite dramatically. Now that we're in a comfortable situation to potentially make a projection to 1998 of what that entitlement would be worth, what does that do to the economics of the renovation of the three dams?

Hon. G. Clark: It has no impact on the economics. Let me just remind the member again, that it's $1 billion worth of projects. I think it'll be $1.4 billion if you count interest on construction and everything else. On the project, half of that billion would be equity -- that's $500 million -- so it's not a billion in terms of equity, it's $500 million. Half of that will be Columbia Basin Trust, and the other half will be the province of British Columbia through Columbia Power. Just remember that it's half equity and, of that, it's split in half between the two entities.

The economics are still the same. I'll just remind the member that if we were to 100 percent debt finance the Keenleyside project, the cost per kilowatt-hour would be roughly 4.4 cents. If we were to take half of it in equity and take a return on equity in the neighbourhood of 8 percent or 9 percent, the price comes down closer to 3 cents. You've got those numbers? I'll get that information for the member, so that we've got it on the record.

Again, to refresh the member's memory, if we sell the power at 4 cents a kilowatt-hour, it gives us a 9.5 percent rate of return on equity. If we sell it for 3.5 cents, it gives us about an 8.14 percent return on equity. These are Dominion Securities and Richardson-Greenshields numbers. If we can sell the power for around 3 cents or 3.5 cents, the rate of return on equity is 8 percent to our equity share and 8 percent to the region.

W. Hurd: I understand that those numbers the minister is quoting are substantially different from the ones in the 1991 B.C. Hydro energy forecast plan. Is that just the result of plugging in the so-called free -- I can't use the word "free," because nothing is free -- benefit? Clearly I think the 1991 energy plan had the Keenleyside Dam up to more than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour, and the Waneta and Brilliant dams looked even worse. I wonder if the minister could explain what methodology Hydro might have been using in 1991 compared to what we are dealing with today. Is it just the equity from the downstream benefits? If that is the only rationale, I'm curious to know how we can possibly project benefits through to 1998 -- assuming that an agreement doesn't transpire, which is the worst-case scenario -- and an equity contribution to these three projects without having those firm numbers in place.

Hon. G. Clark: First, the downstream benefits are still ours. They are still an asset; they are still worth $5 billion or $6 billion. All we are really dealing with is when the money starts to flow to British Columbia. If in fact the money flows a little later than we anticipate, then it's true that the province would have to, if you will, lend some money to the Columbia Basin Trust or Columbia Power to construct it in advance of the money flowing. But that is normal business practice. The underlying economics of those projects are still there, particularly if we negotiate a long-term electricity agreement with a purchaser. Even the member would probably end up supporting it if we had a long-term electricity agreement that would guarantee the sale of that power.

Having said that, I would like to ask the CEO of Columbia Power, my assistant deputy minister, Lorne Sivertson, to give the member some numbers, because I appreciate that there are different numbers floating around out there. We have done an enormous amount of work, mostly with Dominion Securities, doing various scenarios and getting various computer-generated numbers. We have to convince the Columbia Basin Trust that this makes sense, and they were also very sceptical initially in terms of the numbers. I think we've done that, because the numbers are accurate. I'd like to ask if we could turn it over to my assistant deputy minister.

The Chair: The Chair will recognize the CEO of Columbia Power, who will follow the tradition of standing and identifying himself for Hansard.

L. Sivertson: My name is Lorne Sivertson. I'm the president of Columbia Power Corporation, and I work for the Ministry of Employment and Investment, as well.

The figures that B.C. Hydro have shown in their system plan for the Keenleyside project, for example, have varied. The 1991 review showed figures above 5 cents, as I recall. In 1994 the B.C. Hydro system plan showed two figures for Keenleyside: 5.1 cents and 4.5 cents, depending on how they treated water rentals. One was corporate cost and one was social cost.

[4:45]

We have taken Hydro's basic engineering numbers, and our engineering and financial advisers have looked at the capital cost and pared it down somewhat. We are looking at this from more of a financial point of view. Our numbers right now for the cost of energy from Keenleyside.... Meeting tests for interest and debt service coverage, which particularly 

[ Page 16034 ]

would be the case for the utility project, would produce a number in 1995 dollar terms of anywhere from 4.1 cents to 4.4 cents. This is all for the energy at the Selkirk substation.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

W. Hurd: I wonder if the president of the corporation is aware of -- and perhaps the minister could answer this question -- the CRTC-government of British Columbia analysis of the joint venture hydro development in the lower Columbia which was undertaken by Peat Marwick Thorne. It was prepared for the Crown corporations secretariat and, I understand, was released in September 1994. Having had a chance to review it, I think the report was somewhat skeptical of the economic benefits of the project. They were questioning some of the hidden environmental costs of the Keenleyside renovation, in particular some of the impacts that might occur downstream and even into the United States. I wonder whether I could ask the minister or the president of Columbia Power exactly what he would read into this report and whether there are any areas in it that need concern the ministry and the province.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, that report was commissioned. I don't believe it's particularly skeptical, but it points out some of the challenges facing the possible development of those. Then we used that information and fed it into the more detailed financial analysis required to enter negotiations. That was done jointly by Dominion Securities and Richardson Greenshields, although I believe most of the work lately has been done by Dominion Securities. With respect to some of the specifics, I will ask the CEO to deal very quickly with some of the questions that might help allay the member's concerns.

L. Sivertson: The environmental issue you referred to, I think, is specifically the excavation downstream from the Keenleyside Dam at a site called Tincup Rapids. The level of the stream was going to be reduced to improve the head for the dam and generate more energy. That is the largest environmental issue at this point in time. We are of the view that we will not proceed with that part of the project. That was a $15 million additional capital cost, and it made a minor improvement in energy. We're not going to proceed with that at this point.

W. Hurd: Continuing with the Peat Marwick Thorne report, a reference is made in B.C. Hydro's report to storage costs that the new entity may face. I could quote the passage here, but Peat Marwick Thorne indicate that they expect the joint venture will be charged or credited with a storage fee, because water is stored in B.C. Hydro dams. Since Peat Marwick has highlighted that potential cost, I wonder what we're looking at in terms of fees payable to B.C. Hydro for storage costs.

Hon. G. Clark: Again, I'll ask Mr. Sivertson to respond.

L. Sivertson: The KPMG report refers to an 8-mill charge per kilowatt-hour of storage. In fact, we are working with B.C. Hydro to come to an entitlement arrangement for power from Keenleyside, a firming charge that would take some of the energy in return for shaking and firming up the energy supply, so there would be no additional cost to that in the analysis. It was simply a deduction from the total energy that Hydro would take as their commission.

W. Hurd: I have another question related to the Peat Marwick Thorne analysis of the project. It indicates that in the early stages of the project, cash flow might be non-existent or low and insufficient to pay interest charges, making additional borrowing necessary to meet full interest obligations. Since this report goes back to the fall of 1994, which was not that long ago, I just wonder whether the new entity or those involved in it need be concerned.

The minister suggested that that's not an unflattering portrait of the new entity, and he doesn't regard the report as being a skeptical one. But certainly when I read the points being made that cash flow may be non-existent and insufficient to pay interest charges and that additional borrowing may be necessary to meet full interest obligations, that indicates to me that the project is having a great deal of trouble justifying its existence. So I wonder whether that assessment by Peat Marwick Thorne is based on old information, or whether it is reason for concern about the viability of the project.

Hon. G. Clark: These are good questions. I think I'll have my CEO answer them, because he can give more details.

L. Sivertson: All the analysis we're doing for the price that Keenleyside requires -- and it's been discussed earlier -- is based upon meeting general required financial targets of an average 1.3 cents coverage for debt servicing. The price of anywhere from 4.1 cents to 4.4 cents builds that in so that the project can pay its bills and cover its debt-servicing cost from the first year.

W. Hurd: I wonder if there's been any action taken, any adjustments in the project, as a result of the analysis by Peat Marwick. I look at it from a general standpoint, and it really seems to call into question the economic viability of not only the Keenleyside expansion but also the Waneta and Brilliant expansions as well. It talks about, for example, operation and administrative costs and market risks.

I guess I would ask assurance from the minister again. He's already given me this assurance, and I'm satisfied when he says that the requirements for this new entity will be at least as stringent as B.C. Hydro. But given the fact that the cost-benefit analysis has been called into question not only by the Peat Marwick study but also by the study that was done for the B.C. Energy Council by Michael Margolick and Associates, will the economics of the project be subjected to an open public process so that some of these concerns can be identified and reported to the public? Will there be some sort of forum, whether through the B.C. Utilities Commission or some other vehicle, so that some of the concerns that are identified in the consultant studies, in particular the Peat Marwick study done for the Crown corporations secretariat, can be adequately addressed by the public?

Hon. G. Clark: Several things. One is that this was a study which we commissioned which said that the projects were viable, and it suggested a series of problems that had to be overcome. It was a preliminary study. We've done a lot of work since then which continues to prove its viability.

[ Page 16035 ]

Any contract that we enter into with a B.C. company, including West Kootenay Power, for purchase of electricity must be scrutinized by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That gives the opportunity for full public debate. Further than that, and I think more importantly, the Columbia Basin Trust, the whole act, has a whole series of accountability questions -- annual meetings, etc., -- and all of this information is fully available for public debate. So I think that any action that is taken will be scrutinized very carefully, and we don't have any problem with that.

W. Hurd: Just one final question. With respect to the cost-benefit analysis that has been done so far, is the viability of the project based on projections for the recoveries for export power or power that's generated and sold within the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: Either one; it depends on the price we receive. What we've tried to do is make sure that there's not a negative return on equity through an agreement with Powerex, where Powerex agrees to take the power at a sort of fail-safe price. Opportunities to sell firm power to West Kootenay Power exist, and if we get the right price, we will enter into it. So it's either way.

I have to say that given the new marketplace in the United States, we have interest throughout the United States for this power. It's very competitive; so it's all a question of price. If someone in the United States -- a public utility district or something -- wanted to purchase all the output of Keenleyside, the price was right and we could make the deal, we would do it there. If West Kootenay Power wants to buy the power at the price that makes sense, we will do it there.

W. Hurd: Just referring once more to the Peat Marwick study, the data and methodology used seemed to indicate a great deal of work was done by B.C. Hydro on this particular project. The minister has acknowledged that. They provided cash flow data; they did a financial evaluation based on a projection of capital; B.C. Hydro analyzed a sophisticated computer model for performing these projections. Clearly B.C. Hydro was involved in this project in a major way. I wonder how those costs might be recovered. Did Hydro bill them at all? I can't imagine that B.C. Hydro would undertake this kind of work for any other IPP in the province, such as West Kootenay Power or anyone else. I just wonder whether these costs will be recoverable.

Hon. G. Clark: No, they won't be.

W. Hurd: I know Hydro is a responsible corporation that the minister always advises us is cost-effective down to the last detail, but I guess the question has to be asked in this set of estimates: If they are providing that kind of expertise on behalf of an independent power producer in the province, why wouldn't they decide to recover something for the time, effort and staff time they put in?

Hon. G. Clark: I see two things. Hydro spent millions of dollars looking at the Site C dam and didn't proceed to build it. Hydro has to, as part of their integrated resource planning, look at all these options. Obviously Keenleyside is one they've looked at extensively, so it's not surprising that we take advantage of the work they've done.

More importantly, the Kootenay Canal plant has to be integrated with the operation of the Keenleyside Dam. They have a vested interest in ensuring that the operations of the Keenleyside Dam are consistent and maximize the power in our entire system. I don't think you can justify all the early work done on Keenleyside Dam with that, but you can certainly justify a large portion of it on the basis of the fact that it's one integrated system.

W. Hurd: Finally, since we won't be actually getting cash in hand from the downstream benefits agreement for the foreseeable future....

Hon. G. Clark: Don't count on it yet.

W. Hurd: Well, I hesitate to say this, but I have less confidence in the minister than he has. It's a shocking admission, but nevertheless, it's true.

Since we may not be getting cash on hand and the province is committed to funding the project for the first two fiscal years, I'm wondering how those interest costs might be recoverable by the province from the money that the Premier assures us in the House is committed, but which may not be actually recoverable from the money that was going to come to us for downstream benefits.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a hypothetical question, because we don't know if there are going to be payments up front. If there's no up front payment, we're prepared to make the commitment, and it has to come out of the consolidated revenue fund. It means that the payment we receive in the future will be larger -- albeit in future dollars, not in today's dollars. I think it's a moot point, because we're still attempting to secure an agreement with the United States.

W. Hurd: Speaking of that agreement with the United States, or the lack thereof, I asked this question of the Minister of Energy, who was involved with the negotiating team. Maybe I can ask the minister as well.

It refers to the "Memorandum of Negotiators' Agreement." I may just have a draft copy here, perhaps not. Item 3 on page 2 indicates:

"The legal and technical teams be requested to complete drafting of the definitive agreements by December 31, 1994, and if definitive agreements are not drafted and executed by all parties by December 31, 1995, the transactions contemplated by the Statement of Principles not proceed and negotiations between the parties be terminated."

The question I have with respect to the minister, who, I would assume, directed some of the efforts of the negotiating team, is: when the agreements were not signed by the end of 1994 and it was clear that there was a clock now ticking, can the minister advise us in hindsight whether the negotiating strategy changed at all, given the fact that by the end of 1995 this negotiator's agreement would have lapsed of its own accord? Clearly the danger signs were there by the end of 1994.

We could get into a discussion of why that precipitated this chain of political events, but we won't revisit that debate from the House. I just wonder whether there was any direction or change in strategy during the intervening six months before the agreement collapsed, when it became apparent that in six months -- if I read this clause correctly -- it would have ended anyway?

[ Page 16036 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a fair question. There is very technical legal work being done, as the member knows. We talked about this earlier. When they were not making the progress we would have liked, obviously people like myself were putting pressure on the technical teams through our negotiators to get on with their work.

The question we had -- and I think it's fair to say it was certainly a question we were looking at -- was: is this simply a division on technical questions or were they trying to revisit the whole agreement?

[5:00]

Up until just before they informed us of their reneging, our firm view, and their stated view to us, was that it was not an attempt to renege on the agreement. There were outstanding technical issues which the lawyers and technicians couldn't quite resolve. I can't remember the chronology exactly, but I'm sure the member opposite might. At one point, our chief negotiator, Marvin Shaffer, phoned the chief negotiator and said: "We've missed the deadline on the technical question. What's happening on that?" The answer was: "There are two or three technical issues." So the chief negotiators agreed to meet with the lawyers present to actually resolve the remaining technical questions to get on with the legal work required to complete the exchange of notes. It was in that chain of events, when the chief negotiators met to deal with the technical agreement some months after the December deadline, that they informed us: "Well, no, it wasn't really just technical questions we now want to get out of this agreement or renegotiate something different." That's what precipitated the chain of events.

It's true that when the deadline was missed, it caught our attention. We were of the view, our negotiators were of the view and our lawyers were of the view that it was simply because there were some technical or legal questions that were not resolved. They were having trouble resolving them and had to kick them upstairs to the negotiators to resolve them. To be honest with you, I still don't know whether that was the case or whether they were lying to us and all along wanted to renege on the agreement. I think they didn't make the decision to cancel the agreement until shortly before they did it, and it was a technical dispute that was taking place at the time.

W. Hurd: The government press release of June 14 indicates that the government of B.C. suggested that Bonneville was to seek ratification of the agreement from the United States government. The question has to be asked: If the legal and technical agreements were not in place, even up to the point where the agreement finally collapsed, what exactly were they to take to the U.S. government?

Hon. G. Clark: The legal and technical agreements were not in place, but they were very close to being in place. What the negotiators, Sue Hickey and Marvin Schaffer, had agreed to was one meeting of the chief negotiators that would have settled all the technical questions. The lawyers could then complete very promptly thereafter. That would have been required to go to both our national governments to have an exchange of diplomatic notes in order to complete the deal.

W. Hurd: Even though the legal and technical agreements were not in place, as the minister has acknowledged, and there was no expectation necessarily that they would be in place right away, the government, in its press release of June 14, still indicated that they were to seek ratification. I wonder if the minister could offer a rationalization as to why this one-year deadline existed in the "Memorandum of Negotiators' Agreement."

Given the fact that the benefits were not to be returned until 1998, why would the negotiators sign an agreement that placed a 365-day restriction on meeting these legal and technical agreements? It seems like an unrealistic time frame. The minister has indicated that they were routine agreements, and that he had every expectation that they would be signed within a matter of a week by the negotiators. Why the one-year time frame? It seems an inordinately short period of time to realize some of these technical agreements.

Hon. G. Clark: My experience is that if you don't give lawyers deadlines, they'd still be talking today. I really think it was an attempt by the parties -- the negotiators -- to bind and bring closure to this arrangement. That was our interest, and we were attempting to bring closure to it. I don't think it was unrealistic. In fact, they were very close to completing and would have done so, I'm convinced, if they had not decided to renege on the agreement.

W. Hurd: Just one final question, again referring to clause 3. Had the company, BPA, elected as a strategy simply to run out the clock? Had the December 31, 1995, deadline come and gone, my reading of the agreement is that it would have collapsed of its own accord. Is that a fair assessment of the agreement? The "Memorandum of Negotiators' Agreement" had only about eight months to run of its own accord before it would have been back to the drawing board anyway. Is that a fair assessment of what actually collapsed in May 1995?

Hon. G. Clark: Not quite, but let me put it this way. I'm a bit surprised. If Bonneville's only legal out for failing to exchange the notes was to have said, "We made our best efforts with our national government or with our technical teams to come to a conclusion, and we failed to do so," they may have been in a stronger legal position than they are today. We would still have had an argument; it would have been a debatable point. Although there's a time deadline, there are also requirements for best efforts and to fulfil the "Memorandum of Negotiators' Agreement." But it is true that a tactic BPA could have followed would have been to simply pretend that: "Well, we're still sticking to the agreement, but we couldn't get these technical issues resolved in time -- too bad." They could have also said: "We have all these issues resolved, but our national government won't approve it." That would have been more problematic for us from a legal perspective. It wouldn't have been easy for them to do that, because there are all kinds of tests, but that could have been one course of action.

That's similarly true with some of the private sector transactions they're failing to live up to right now. There are legal arguments. They have chosen in every case so far not to pretend that these things are breaking down on technical grounds. They've been coming right up front and saying they're reneging on the agreement, which they did to us, as well.

W. Hurd: I think we talked earlier in the estimates about the tremendous changes being forced upon the Bonneville 

[ Page 16037 ]

Power Administration: the $7-$8 billion debt load they have and the fact that they owe the federal government hundreds of millions or possibly billions of dollars. It's my understanding that the ranking Democrats that used to protect the administration in Washington are gone, having been swept aside in the last congressional and senatorial elections. I wonder whether the negotiators for the B.C. side couldn't have seen the dramatic changes that were occurring. As I understand it, the U.S. government actually wanted to privatize BPA, but couldn't because it was $8 billion in debt. They are now toying with the notion of a subsidiary corporation that would be totally deregulated, like the Alberta energy corporation, and that would compete in a deregulated market.

I wonder whether it was realistic, once the December 31, 1994, deadline passed, and recognizing the tremendous changes that were being forced on this administration, to expect that the same agreement could have possibly survived through the entire fiscal year or whether the company, not knowing what kind of pressure was going to be placed on them from Washington.... Was it realistic to have expected the one-year time frame to have simply come and gone? One would think that if the U.S. federal government was going to force this company to undergo these massive changes, then it would take a dim view of them even meeting a treaty obligation to Canada, which would bind them to a fixed agreement. Is the minister at all concerned that the U.S. government may have played a role in short-circuiting this agreement, given the fact that they knew they were going to change the total structure of this company that owed them billions of dollars?

Hon. G. Clark: No, we are not. The reason for that is really simple: this has nothing to do with Bonneville Power at the end of the day. It is a treaty obligation they have to make. We're still not concerned about that, because it doesn't really matter what happens to Bonneville Power at the end of the day. It obviously makes it more challenging for us, and we knew that, but they have a treaty obligation. It's not some frivolous thing; it's not some commercial deal. They have to provide it to us. If it's not Bonneville, somebody else will, because we can enforce this in international law.

W. Hurd: I appreciate the answer from the minister that we will get the power back, but given the incredible shrinking status of Bonneville Power, it might not even be around in its current form to meet the commitments. I know this doesn't fall within the minister's competence or jurisdiction, but I wonder why, given that fact, the government would have sought to put $250 million into its operating budget for 1995-96, and why it would have signed an agreement such as the Columbia Basin accord based on what it must have known was a totally revolutionary situation occurring south of the border. It just seems like a leap of faith, and I know the minister is not fond of making leaps of faith when it comes to taxpayers' money. I just wonder why that occurred, but I realize that this would be revisiting a debate we have already had in the House.

Hon. G. Clark: I will conclude by saying: why would we not? If we hadn't made an agreement for $250 million this fiscal year, as we did, and had a big signing ceremony with the head of Bonneville Power and then not put it in our budget, I wonder if the opposition would have accused us of hiding some windfall profit at some future date. I think we would have been attacked for not including a revenue estimate which we reasonably expected to receive.

The committee recessed from 5:11 p.m. to 5:17 p.m.

D. Symons: When Victoria Line began in 1994, it started with a general manager and staff of six. The original group developed a business plan. Is that business plan available for scrutiny, and how many full-time, year-round employees are now with Victoria Line? How many are involved in marketing, planning, accounting and other forms of administration?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the CEO of Victoria Line, Sandy Peel, to answer that.

S. Peel: There are four full-time employees and two contract employees working part-time. With respect to marketing, we have one individual. Personnel and accounting is one individual on a personal service contract, which would not be full-time during the off-season.

D. Symons: I think you answered the next question very nicely there. Thank you.

Are the captain and first officer of the ship part-time or full-time employees? I'm suspecting that the crews of the ships are indeed part-time, but I'm wondering about the captain and first officers. Are they on a full-time basis?

Hon. G. Clark: The captain is full-time, and the officers are not.

D. Symons: I'm assuming, as I said earlier, that the shipboard and dock crews are probably part-time, and I'm wondering what their work year might be. It's not a year in this case, but they're probably hired on contract or salaried for a period of time. What operating year have you got them on? Their first day and last day will give me the spread. I'm curious about whether you have two crews, how you provide for days off and the length of the working day. I'll throw all that labour stuff together.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the CEO to answer.

S. Peel: We have two crews. The rotation is normally ten days on and five days off. The working day is 12 hours. All crews, with the exception of the full-time people that I mentioned, are on an on-call basis during the seven-month off-season.

D. Symons: So the on-call situation, really, would assist the rentals you seem to have. These employees, if they're available, would then come in when you're doing a special cruise.

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct. The only other instance is a minor refit, a little touch-up paint here and there before they spruce up the boat for launching.

D. Symons: What was the total cost of the Vancouver Shipyards refit of the Queen of Burnaby for its emergence from the cocoon as the Royal Victorian?

Hon. G. Clark: Two point eight million dollars.

D. Symons: The tender bid, I believe, was $2,002,240, so you're saying it went somewhat over bid. By the time you add 

[ Page 16038 ]

the cost of the vessel, the refit dock facilities, etc., what were the total capital costs to get the Royal Victorian up and sailing?

Hon. G. Clark: No, they did not go over budget. The shipyard was doing some work, and then it did what we call tenant improvement work after the fact, which added to the cost. I gave you the full capital costs, not just the shipyard component. Some of the work was done in-house, in other words.

In terms of the full capital costs, aside from the one we just mentioned, which was the full retrofit cost, there were also costs associated with the terminals at both ends. Those terminal costs in Seattle were reduced significantly by the innovation. I think Broc Robertson, on my right, was involved in that in part. Frank Rhodes was the managing director.

Where we do not have 12-month docking privileges in Seattle, we simply have a period of time when we need the dock, so it can be used for other things at that time. So that worked out, too. An operating lease for the capital costs was paid for by the Seattle Port Authority, and we pay an operating cost associated with that.

The vessel was purchased, as you know, from B.C. Ferries, so B.C. Ferries was kept whole. The total cost of that was $6.3 million. The equipment costs were about $860,000, and the leasehold improvements, which include the terminals I was talking about, were roughly $941,000, for a total of $8.16 million in capital costs. That's what we carry on our books now, which results in a depreciation on our books. We depreciate all those assets every year.

D. Symons: The one figure I maybe missed is the value that was placed on the ship when you bought it from B.C. Ferries. What was the value on that?

Hon. G. Clark: It was $3.5 million.

D. Symons: That's what the book value was.

The Chair: Hon. member, through the Chair, please.

D. Symons: I got what I wanted. That's the important thing, isn't it?

The Chair: You're recorded oddly in Hansard, that's the problem.

D. Symons: A year ago Victoria Line indicated that their subsidy for the first year's operation would be less than $750,000. In fact, the minister said last October that the line only lost $717,000. These figures ignore this $8 million figure you gave me on capital costs. Therefore I think the actual loss from a bookkeeping value would be over $1 million if you take in the capital cost, the depreciation and so forth. Wouldn't the correct bookkeeping procedure be not to use the $717,000, but to include it in the portion of the capital costs that should be included in that year?

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct, but we said that this is investment in tourism in the region. As a government, we've essentially said that we're prepared to invest a capital amount from the B.C. 21 special account, but we're not prepared to subsidize the operating of the vessel. So we've been reporting on the operations of the vessel, and the difference between the two is largely depreciation. I think the member is generally correct in that.

D. Symons: Of course, $717,000 sounds less than $1.1 million or something, I suppose.

The ridership was 20 percent below what the minister projected. I think you had about a 50 percent capacity ridership, and you were projecting 70 percent for the first year. What's the minister's projection, if he can look in his crystal ball, for the ridership? You made an announcement just today on how it's going. What is the subsidy for this year? Would you give us what you're projecting and what subsidy you're putting in?

Hon. G. Clark: The member is not correct. We did have less ridership than we projected, but the revenue per passenger was significantly higher than projected -- in fact, dramatically higher. We used B.C. Ferries' cost revenue per ridership, which is around $4 or $5, and I think it was $16 or thereabouts that people spent on board the ship. So we gained on that score.

This year we are up 15 percent in passengers to date. We will not be up 15 percent during the summer months, because we were operating at almost full capacity in July of last year. We expect and hope to do better in August, given that last year in August we did very poorly as a result of the Commonwealth Games or some other phenomenon which we're not quite sure of. We have projected, I believe, a 5 percent increase in ridership in our business plan, and we're up 15 percent.

In addition to that, our revenue per passenger is up. That means we are still going to lose money on the operating side this year. We've made no secret of that; that's in our business plan. We anticipate losing, if current trends continue, about $300,000. So to be conservative, I would anticipate losing about $400,000 this year, which is pretty well bang on what we forecast and published in our business plan.

D. Symons: In February, Victoria Line had fairly intense labour negotiations over this year's contract for the summer workers. I'm wondering how Victoria Line's contract compares to that of B.C. Ferries workers.

Hon. G. Clark: It's generally less.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for a very concise answer. I'm wondering why there appears to be a different standard. What's fair for B.C. Ferries workers is not fair for those working on the Royal Victorian? Can the minister give us some explanation for this, when they are both providing a service on similar ships? Indeed, one of them is exactly the same ship, redesigned.

Hon. G. Clark: The member can't have it both ways. You can't criticize the government for losing money and then demand that we pay more money to the people who work on it. This is not B.C. Ferries. B.C. Ferries provides an essential service and has developed over time. This is a purely incremental tourist service, which will not be subsidized by the taxpayers over time. We will not do that, and the employees know that. The service will shut down if it doesn't break even on our business plan and start to make a profit very shortly.

[ Page 16039 ]

My instructions to Victoria Line negotiators is: negotiate whatever you like as long as the corporation starts to break even and make a profit very quickly. Not a penny more of tax money will be invested in Victoria Line, and that means they are on a very tight time line to break even. That means the wages will not exceed B.C. Ferries in all likelihood. It's not a personal thing. I'd be delighted if we could pay those rates, and maybe someday we can, but at this point it's still losing money, and we can't justify any kind of wage increase.

D. Symons: The minister is talking more and more like a Liberal every day. We'll invite you over.

You mentioned earlier about revenues being greater than you had expected. I assume these are shipboard sales and so forth, and sales are obviously considerably greater when they're on the ferry for a longer period of time. Are these all run by the Victoria Line, or do you have any independent operators there? Are they franchised out or anything of that sort? If not, is there any consideration that it might be a way to go? Could you bring a little private competition on board, where private operators could contract out to lease space on the ferry and operate in that manner?

Hon. G. Clark: It is important to remember that everyone who works on the ship also has lifeboat duties and other skills. That's the nature of operating a vessel. We have to be very careful in contracting out services to a doughnut shop or something, having them pay their staff differently and not being up to speed.

[5:30]

We expect that on-board ship sales this year are up to about $18 per person. A lot of that is duty-free, and it's run by Victoria Line. We have an excellent arrangement with Starbucks and with Beautiful B.C. magazine for the gift shop. While we run them, they are up to the standards and specifications of the private sector, and both those companies are outstanding operators with outstanding reputations. That's part of the reason our shipboard sales are higher than we anticipated.

D. Symons: At that point, that's all I have on the Victoria Line per se. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:31 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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