(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1996
Volume 2, Number 5, Part 1
[ Page 915 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
I. Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have two people to introduce. I hope members will understand that my heart and soul and mind is in British Columbia and committed to it. Having said that, it gives me great honour to introduce my Member of Parliament for Vancouver South, an effective Member of Parliament and also -- perhaps it's not as much -- a really great benefactor to the local people in Vancouver South. I'd like the House to welcome Herb Dhaliwal. I notice he's sitting on this side of the House.
While I'm up, I'd like to introduce an old friend of mine who is a retired teacher from Killarney, a high school in my riding, and a great fighter for social justice and the rights of minorities in Canada and other issues. I'd ask the House to welcome Ron Joe.
Hon. A. Petter: With us in the gallery today is the U.S. chargé d'affaires, Mr. Thomas Weston, and Consul General Gallagher. They're in Victoria today to discuss the important bilateral relationship of British Columbia with the United States and, in particular, to discuss our ongoing concerns regarding the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I'd also like to note that U.S. Consul General Gallagher, who has served the last several years in Vancouver, will be moving on to a new assignment this summer, and we wish him well in his future endeavours. I'd like the House to join me in those wishes and also to join me in welcoming them to the galleries today.
G. Farrell-Collins: I, too, want to congratulate Mr. Gallagher on
I'd also like to extend a welcome from this side of the House to the Member of Parliament for Vancouver South. I notice he's on that side of the House, and I assume that means that the next time the government stands up to chastise us about our federal cousins, they can just turn around and do it.
G. Brewin: In the gallery today is a constituent and good friend, Lynn Murray, and with her is her brother and his wife from Montreal, Quebec: Donald Murray and Linda Murray. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Weisgerber: In the gallery today is the chair of the B.C. Central Credit Union, Mr. Henry Jansen. He bears a striking resemblance to John Jansen, who served Chilliwack for a number of years as a member of this House and as a cabinet minister. Joining Henry is Richard Thomas, the vice-president in charge of government relations for the B.C. Central Credit Union. Please make them both welcome.
S. Hawkins: Visiting the House today are two guests of mine. The first is a very important person in my life. He has been a great source of encouragement and inspiration. He is a pillar of support and one of the main reasons I'm sitting here today. That's my husband, Ralph Hawkins. The second is our legislative assistant, Terri Cunningham. She's also an important part of my life these days. Would the House please make them welcome.
V. Anderson: I'd like to also join in the welcoming of my Member of Parliament, who is the chairman of the caucus from British Columbia and is involved in the task force on aquaculture. The other dignitaries I'd like to welcome today are my daughter Carol, her husband, Weldon, and their son, Mackenzie, who is just two. From Saskatchewan, I would like to welcome my niece Val Stacey, her husband, Allen, their children, Erin and Allison, and another cousin, Kyle. We welcome them all here from sunny Saskatchewan, where it's raining today, to rainy B.C., where it's sunny today.
The Speaker: I thank the member for parallel structure. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith.
J. Pullinger: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce friends of mine -- strangely enough, they're also friends of yours -- who are with us in the gallery today. It's funny how that happens. Anyway, I'm delighted to welcome a young man, Chae Papp, who brought along his dad, Ashley Humphrey. They're from my riding. I'd ask all of you to please help me make them very welcome.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Today I have six special guests to introduce. First there is Wayne Proctor, who is the manager of lending services for the B.C. Central Credit Union. My guests are helping to deliver the Forest Renewal-B.C. Central Credit Union bursaries. Along with him are five people who were presented bursaries by Premier Clark and Mr. Proctor this morning: Melanie Hart, who has just completed grade 12 at Georges P. Vanier Secondary in Courtenay; Heather Hutton, who has just graduated from John Barsby Secondary in Nanaimo; Melissa Nottingham, a grade 12 student at Frances Kelsey school; Mark Breingan, who has just completed grade 12 at Dover Bay Secondary in Nanaimo; and Darci Roy, who has just graduated from Robron Secondary in Campbell River. Please welcome these bursary recipients to the House.
E. Conroy: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the people of British Columbia to my constituency of Rossland-Trail, where the B.C. Summer Games will be taking place this weekend.
B. Penner: It's my pleasure to introduce two people from Chilliwack who are visiting here today, Wilf and Frieda Penner. For the last 30 years they've been raising a son who happened to get elected to the Legislature on May 28. I think that perhaps nobody was more relieved than my parents that I was, in fact, successful in my election campaign, because now they don't have to worry about me quite as much. I'm out of their life to a certain extent.
R. Thorpe: And in ours.
B. Penner: My comrades point out that now they have to put up with me. Would the House please make my parents welcome.
K. Krueger: With us in the House today is my favourite constituent from my favourite constituency, my best friend since we were teenagers, my staunchest political supporter and my wife of 21 years, Debbie Krueger. I'd like you to make her welcome.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to welcome two constituents to the Legislative Assembly. Suan and Miep Booiman are here from Surrey-White Rock. Mr. Booiman is a longtime letter writer to the government, Mr. Speaker, and he's here to see firsthand whether all the corre-
[ Page 916 ]
spondence he has generated has made any difference to the governing party.
[2:15]
E. Gillespie: I would like to add my congratulations to those of the Minister of Forests to Melanie Hart, a resident of the Comox Valley who today received an FRBC bursary. She's accompanied here today by her mother, Davina Hart. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. Evans: I know hon. members will begin to notice the trend that when cultural people come to visit the precincts, they come and visit me. I have another
Interjections.
Hon. C. Evans: These folks know who has taste here. I have an opportunity today to introduce an aspiring young composer, Patrick Covernton, who is here visiting the Legislature today with Pratik Moday. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. S. Hammell: I'll join the sentimental part of the afternoon. In the gallery is my sister, Val, who's my best friend and was my campaign manager. Would the House please make her welcome.
G. Robertson: FRBC bursary winner -- I've got to read the name -- Darci Roy's family is in the gallery this afternoon: Darci's mom, Kathy Roy, and Darci's sister, Bambi Roy. They hail from Campbell River, and I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them this afternoon.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm rising today in the House with great regret to advise members of this chamber that last night British Columbia lost one of its great citizens. John Albany, who was the former chief of the Songhees band, tragically passed away as he was unable to escape a fire in his residence in Esquimalt. I had the privilege to work with Chief Albany for the past 13 years and I know that he is -- was -- a source of inspiration to his people, a fierce defender of his culture and an individual who possessed a remarkable ability to bring out the best in people. I know that the people of the Songhees band are in a state of shock as a result of last night's events. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you express our condolences to the Albany family and to the people of the Songhees nation on whose territory this House is situated.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I shall certainly be prepared to do that on behalf of the chamber.
DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARE OR KNOWN
TO SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, over the last few days, the increasing attention to the deaths of young children in the care of and known to the Ministry of Social Services has drawn attention to British Columbia's child welfare system.
I am here today to set the record straight and to clarify a number of incorrect assumptions. The tragic loss of young lives is deeply disturbing. All members will recognize that family tragedies such as these must be handled with care and compassion. I think it would be instructive and helpful for all of us to step back and revisit the facts as they are known by me and by the other external agencies in reviewing these deaths.
When a child in care or a child known to the ministry dies, a number of immediate steps are taken to ensure that a proper review of the circumstances and events leading up to the death of the child are in place. Let me be very clear for all members of the House that in terms of terminology, a child is anyone -- child, teenager or young adult -- under the age of 19 years. A child in care is one who is under the direct supervision of the ministry. A child known to the ministry is a child who is currently or has previously been part of a family services file. In plain language, this means that they or their family received some level of support. It could be from homemaker services, services for people with mental handicaps or special needs day care, or it could be as serious as a complaint received by the ministry raising concerns about the family situation. This could be recent involvement, or it could have been a number of years since they had any contact with the ministry.
With this in mind, the process is very clear. The office of the chief coroner has primary responsibility for reviewing the deaths of children in British Columbia, and as a ministry, we have developed new protocols that support the work of the coroner. Upon learning of the death of a child, the social worker immediately informs the district supervisor and the police. The social worker and district supervisor must complete a written report within 24 hours. The report includes the circumstances surrounding the death, any information suggesting the child may have died as a result of abuse or neglect, and information about the ministry's involvement with the child or the child's family.
Within 48 hours, the director of child services determines and informs the regional director of one or more of the following three things: whether there will be a management review by the regional director, whether the director will initiate an inquiry, or whether the audit and review division will initiate a review. At the same time, the social worker and the district supervisor must ensure that the office of the coroner is informed of the circumstances of the child's death, and that the ministry provides the coroner with information concerning a child's death, by identifying any unusual or suspicious circumstances.
Further, the social worker and the district supervisor complete a case review and, within ten days, forward a written report to the office of the director of child services. This written report includes detailed information on the child's history, the ministry's involvement and a status report on the coroner's involvement, whether charges under the Criminal Code have been laid or are anticipated, and if any plans are in place for further investigation or further action. This is what happens when a child in care or a child known to the ministry dies.
Since the release of the Gove report in November of 1995, 14 children in care have died, and another 35 children, youth and young adults known to the ministry have died. I want to assure all members of the House that these protocols for dealing with the death of a child have been and are being carried out with respect to the deaths of these 49 children. In some cases, as we discussed during the estimates and during question period earlier this week, this review process has been completed. In other cases, we continue our work with the coroner and the police.
I also want to assure all members of the House that since the Gove report, we have taken additional steps to respond in
[ Page 917 ]
a comprehensive manner when a child dies. An important part of these new steps has been the enhanced working relationship with the office of the chief coroner. My ministry has recently developed a memorandum of understanding with the office of the coroner that clearly identifies the way in which we can support each other when investigating the death of a child. This MOU clearly sets out the process whereby the chief coroner and the ministry will investigate any and all circumstances leading to the death of any individual under the age of 19.
With respect to the Child and Family Review Board, I would like to apologize for the confusion that my remarks engendered earlier this week about their independence. It is independent in the same way that the Securities Commission or other government bodies are. I agree with the chair that the review board is independent. However, Judge Gove has set a higher standard, and that is why the work of Chief Justice Gove and the office of the transition commissioner is so very important. The OTC, headed by Cyndi Morton, is finalizing recommendations for government to establish a new process that assures British Columbians of an independent, impartial review of child fatalities in this province. I want to assure members of the board and all members of the House that I have complete confidence in the Child and Family Review Board. I have decided that should extraordinary cases come to my attention after review by the coroner, I will refer the matter to the board on an interim basis.
Nothing has come to my attention to this point to suggest that any case should be referred for further review. As the investigations of my ministry, the coroner and the police report on individual cases, each one will be assessed and a determination made quickly as to the need to refer the case. I think all members of the House can agree with me that when we are dealing with the circumstances of the death of a child, a youth or a young adult, whether they are known to the ministry or in the care of the ministry, this is indeed a very sensitive issue.
Hon. Speaker, I wish to table a document.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition in response to the ministerial statement.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the statement falls far short of what I think the 49 children either known to the ministry or under the care of the ministry could have expected. I believe it falls far short of what the government undertook and what the government promised to the people of British Columbia when Justice Gove's report was tabled.
Just to quote from the minister responsible of the day, she said quite clearly that the government would do "everything we can to prevent another child from suffering as Matthew did during his short life." Justice Gove was very clear. Justice Gove, hon. Speaker, said quite clearly that the death of every single child known to the minister or in the care of the ministry should be investigated promptly. It should be investigated in a way that we would be sure that it's thorough, so that we understand what's going on. I would just like to quote from the commission's report:
"Matthew's suffering and death was not unique. Many other children living in similar circumstances, known to the ministry through a child protection report or a request for services but not in the ministry's care, have died of unnatural causes. Some were killed by caregivers or other family members, some died in suspicious circumstances and some took their ownlives.... They... are the 'invisible ones.' They died of abuse or neglect, alone and in obscurity."
On this side of the House, we agree that we should do everything we possibly can to prevent those occurrences from taking place -- every single thing. When a child dies, we should investigate. We should investigate independently. Again, Justice Gove was very clear on what he expected to take place -- what he said should take place and what has not taken place eight months after his report being tabled. He said quite clearly that a body should be established which will receive every report of a critical incident -- children who die or are seriously injured -- which should include any children who are in the care of the ministry or otherwise known to the ministry through a protection report or a request for services. Deaths and serious injury reviews should proceed promptly and should be coordinated with other investigations or proceedings.
The minister stood today and told us he is working with the coroner. Hon. Speaker, we're not questioning the expertise of the coroner, but let's go back and look again at what we heard about review mechanisms external to the ministry. The coroner is specifically referred to on page 136 of Justice Gove's report. The coroner is no substitute for reviews. In 1993, 535 children in British Columbia age 19 or under died. The coroner, acting under section 9 of the Coroners Act, examined 312 of those deaths. In Matthew Vaudreuil's case, the report was a one-page report from the coroner.
We all share an obligation to the young people of this province. We just heard today the minister confirm that 49 young people have died that were either known to the ministry or in the care of the ministry. There has not been one independent review -- not one -- that has been instigated by this minister.
One thing we should all do is put the care, support and protection of children at the top of our priority list. The top of the minister's priority list means that on day one he goes in and he says: "What is the status with regard to our children? What is the status and how can we protect what has taken place?" Forty-nine children's voices have been stilled, and it has taken our child advocate, the chair of the Child and Family Review Board and the ombudsman to call for this government to act, after eight months.
Let's just put this in context. It's eight months since Justice Gove presented his report. Prior to that, while he was reporting, 19 additional children died during the time the commission was sitting, and only one of those children was submitted for review at the time they passed away. It is simply not good enough. The response of the minister is not good enough. In fact, we see a minister who is scrambling to pretend that he has paid attention.
[2:30]
Hon. Speaker, I believe children in this province deserve to know that every member of this government and every member of this Legislative Assembly is going to put those that are under our care, those that are known to this ministry, at the top of the list so they can be protected and so we can learn.
Justice Gove was very clear once again. He said in his report that children are still killed, and we do not seem to learn from our mistakes. Eight months after that report was tabled, the ombudsman is moved to make a call for this and says: "We must work harder to learn from the death of each child so that we can improve services and prevent the types of tragedies that were unravelled during the Gove inquiry into child protection." This government has still not learned; this
[ Page 918 ]
minister has still not learned. Hopefully, we will see some real action so that the children of this province will be protected.
When any child dies in this province, that should be referred to an independent review board, like the Child and Family Review Board, with people with the expertise, knowledge and understanding to get to the bottom of every single death, so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such deaths from taking place.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: This is indeed a very grave and very serious situation. On review of the information and facts that have come to light over the last number of days, as leader of the PDA and as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I concur that the appropriate place for this to go is the coroner. I think it's important for the coroner to act in an independent manner with respect to the facts of death, and that needs to be done in a proper and considered way. It seems to me that beyond the facts of death, the second side of this issue is one of the facts of care. That, I think, appropriately needs to be reviewed by an independent children's commissioner.
There are two sides to this issue. There is one with respect to the issue of the death of the child, and that must be taken extremely seriously. In my judgment, that must be dealt with swiftly by the office of the coroner, which is the appropriate place for that to be. But there is a larger issue, and it's one that deals with not only those children who have suffered and died but with children who currently are in crisis and in danger of losing their lives. It seems to me that's where all of us must come together and stop the notion of political comment and get down to the business of finding the solution for those children.
What I think the people of British Columbia want to hear less of is the political rhetoric that seems to swirl around who's to blame, and a lot more of getting down to finding out how we can solve the problem for those children today. I hope that this ministerial statement ends this issue to the degree that we can now start to look toward the appointment of an independent commissioner so that the lives of those children can be treated with the dignity that they deserve, and that the families who have been affected by this may also be given the courtesy of dealing with the grief that they must feel.
R. Neufeld: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
R. Neufeld: I'll be brief with my remarks, as many of the things that should be said probably have been said. This is a difficult time. The death of Matthew rings true with me because he lived a good part of his life in Fort St. John, so it comes fairly close to home. These are issues that are hard to deal with in a political arena. I don't think anyone should use politics when we're dealing with the deaths of young children. I totally disagree with that. I think there are other ways that we can reach out to try and do the best we can between ourselves, and I would hope that we would be able to do that. I agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in that I hope that this is the end of it.
Along with that, we must have someone at the helm of the Ministry of Social Services who would look seriously at the deaths that have occurred since Justice Gove's report. Although not all the things that Justice Gove recommended were set in place, there was an independent board, as I understand it and as I was informed, that worked with the Ministry of Social Services to deal with those issues. I would have thought, as a matter of fact, that no one would be the judge as to which files go to that board and which ones don't. I'm disappointed to hear the minister say that today: that he will make the final arbitrary decision about which files go there and which ones don't. I would rather that we see all files of those children in care, or those children who have passed through care in the ministry, automatically transferred over for an independent review. That makes it much easier. There's no criteria that you have to set in place to decide what gets sent over and what doesn't.
So I think that's a move in the right direction. What we should be doing from that point on is trying to find out what we can do better, how we can make things better within the ministry, to try and not have it happen again. We're never going to be able to guarantee it. I don't care who's in government, that's just a matter of fact, unfortunately. But we must learn the best we can from the mistakes that we have and carry on and initiate those programs that will make that happen.
On behalf of the Reform Party, hon. Speaker and members of the House, I appreciate the leave given to respond to this ministerial statement. Thank you.
DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARE OR KNOWN
TO SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY
G. Campbell: Yesterday we heard from the chair of the Child and Family Review Board that he believed the bureaucracy was scared of what they would find if an investigation was carried out into the deaths of the 49 children that have been known to the ministry or in the care of the ministry.
Both Justice Gove and now the ombudsman have suggested that every incident be referred for independent review to an outside agency. My question to the minister is: now that we have heard from the children's advocate in the province in British Columbia, from the chair of the Child and Family Review Board and from the ombudsman that every child should be submitted for an outside review, will he be willing to submit all 49 cases to the Child and Family Review Board for their review, during this transition period until a commissioner is established?
Hon. D. Streifel: I've spoken today with the chair of the board, and I did my apologies for comments that I made that have caused them difficulty. In fact, I've taken an additional step, Leader of the Opposition and hon. members. We have in place the review by the coroner, and immediately upon the death of a child in care there's a referral to the police. Those are the processes that are in place. I have undertaken today an additional step: if anything extraordinary is brought forward through the processes of investigation, it will be referred to this board.
G. Campbell: Unfortunately, I don't believe that is a response which meets either the spirit or the intent of the Gove inquiry or their recommendations. The issue with regard to Gove is to make sure that all of those agencies' investigations are thorough. Mr. Justice Gove was not con-
[ Page 919 ]
fident in the coroner; he would not have been confident in the police. Obviously, if there is a homicide, the police will be investigating. The question I have for the minister is: will he submit all 49 cases of children known to and in the care of the ministry to the Child and Family Review Board while we wait for the transition to be completed so that we can have a commissioner appointed? But until that time, submit them to the review board for an independent analysis of what took place in the ministry, how those children were served and what we can do to prevent further deaths in the future.
Hon. D. Streifel: For the hon. member opposite, as an interim measure on an interim basis, after the work has all been done, the investigative processes by the independent coroner with the new protocol that's in place with the coroner, if there are recommendations that come forward or if there are circumstances that are extraordinary -- again I will repeat, on an interim basis -- we will be referring those cases to this board.
G. Campbell: The issue is: how do you decide what is extraordinary? Justice Gove was very clear that he did not have confidence in either the minister or the ministry to determine what was extraordinary. Again, I am going to quote from Justice Gove. He believed that there should be an independent body that would "receive every report of a critical incident -- which should include any children who are in the care of the ministry or otherwise known to the ministry through a protection report or a request for services who die or are seriously injured." In fact, that group was to determine and ascertain whether the death was suspicious or unusual. And, in reference to what this minister has told us this week, the Gove commission report points out explicitly, once again, that included are all deaths that are sudden. Gove's criteria included:
Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this again for the Leader of the Opposition. We have a new protocol with the office of the coroner to make recommendations, we have the audit review division, and we have the processes that have been involved. These other bodies, the ombudsman and the transition commissioner
B. McKinnon: In January of this year, six-week-old Elijah Thomas of Vancouver was apprehended by the Ministry of Social Services. On March 25, baby Elijah died in the custody of Social Services. Can the minister inform us whether baby Elijah was one of the 14 children who have been reported to have died under the ministry's care since the release of the Gove report, or is he the fifteenth?
Hon. D. Streifel: The question causes me some difficulty. I know the member is new, but there are circumstances where I cannot identify or discuss a specific or individual case. I wish the member would respect that. I offer to the member opposite that if she has evidence that she'd like to bring forward in a confidential manner, then I will assure her that it will be subject to the rigorous processes that are set up, involving the coroner and the other bodies in the review and the final decision. I encourage that member to come forward with this information, as we need help from all sources as we go forward to
Interjection.
B. McKinnon: In March the Thomas family suffered a horrendous tragedy. This case was assigned on May 10 of this year to the audit and review division of the Ministry of Social Services. As of this date, they have not begun the investigation. Can the minister tell us why?
Hon. D. Streifel: Again, it's very, very difficult to discuss specific and individual cases in this forum. There are confidentiality provisions, and there are provisions around legalities. I would encourage the hon. member to bring forward the evidence. I assure her that she'll have full access to the ministry and that she'll have full access to the processes that are in place. She has the option, as well, to proceed on her own to other bodies and other offices. The office of the ombudsman is open to her. I encourage her to respect these, to bring forward these serious issues in a confidential manner and to keep them off the floor of the Legislature for public debate.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Matsqui.
[2:45]
M. de Jong: The Minister of Social Services has ignored the advice of Bernd Walter. He has ignored the advice of Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate that this House has hired and who reports to this House. Today he is ignoring the advice of the ombudsman. For four or five days he has offered confused and contradictory explanations for why he hasn't referred cases involving the death of children in the care and knowledge of the ministry to the review committee. He's only done that for one reason -- and I regret having to say this: to cover his political tail. He's done it because he doesn't want to reveal that he and his government have done nothing to enact the recommendations of Justice Gove to correct the deficiencies in that ministry. He has put his own political interests ahead of his duty to the children of British Columbia. That's what he's done.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members, order! Will the member please ask the question.
M. de Jong: My question to the minister is: why should anyone believe these gasps from a desperate politician that we heard earlier today? Why should we believe that the next time this minister is confronted with a choice between what his duties to the children are and what is politically expedient, he won't take the politically expedient road again? When will he realize what his duties to the children of British Columbia are?
Hon. D. Streifel: In answer to the member for Matsqui, the advice that has come forward and the discussion from the various bodies that the member speaks of are, in some instances, in conflict with each other. In the interim process,
[ Page 920 ]
hon. members, we have the reliance on the independence of the chief coroner. It's a brand-new protocol. It's there to get us through the stage while we're in transition. It's for the transition commissioner and the deputy ombudsman to complete their work to bring forward, within the next short period of time -- perhaps a few short weeks, maybe less -- a new process and a new model that will get us through and deliver on the intention of the Gove report. That is the process that's in place. I commit once again that if there are any circumstances that the coroner brings forward in any of these deaths that are referred to that are of an unusual nature and that require further investigation, they will be referred through the proper processes to the board.
M. de Jong: I want to read to the minister two sentences from a letter that was delivered to the parents of baby Elijah: "Unless the Minister of Social Services refers the matter to us, the investigation cannot go forward. The case was assigned on May 10, 1996, to the audit and review division of the Ministry of Social Services. As of this date, they have not begun the investigation." The date on the letter is July 17, 1996. Would the minister have us believe -- and have the parents of this deceased child believe -- that that is top-priority, that that is an indication his government takes the recommendations of the Gove report seriously, that he really does intend to act on this matter? It's deeds these people need, not hollow words from this minister. When is he going to take some action?
Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I would encourage the member for Matsqui to bring forward these most sensitive issues in a confidential manner. I will ensure that the full capacity of the offices that are available will in fact be there for that member, and I would like to reiterate that we have the processes in place. We have the interim measure of the chief coroner where, all of these investigations, all of these deaths, go in the first instance. Anything that's unusual or beyond the normal circumstances will be referred to this board. I would like to point out to the hon. members that that's an additional step in our interim process that I announced today after discussion with the chair of the board.
G. Plant: We have here a tragic record of inaction, compounded by the statement that we've heard from the minister today. Yesterday the Minister of Social Services criticized the remarks made by Mr. Walter, the head of the board. Today we did hear an apology. However, yesterday the child and youth advocate, an officer of this Legislature, was also sharply critical of the inaction of this minister and his ministry in relation to this important and serious event. We've heard no apology today from the minister in relation to what has happened and what has been said by the expert -- the person who was hired by this House to be an advocate for youth in this province. We now have the recommendation of the ombudsman, who has said: "I urge
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
G. Plant: I'm getting to the question, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Member, I'm simply trying to make sure we can hear your question.
G. Plant: This is too important to miss.
The Speaker: Excuse me, member, you misunderstand. Members, I was trying to get order in the chamber so we could hear the question. Will you please proceed, Richmond-Steveston. Please take note, members: we must hear the question -- on both sides.
G. Plant: What the ombudsman has said today is this: "I urge government to act immediately to name a children's commission to review all deaths."
Why won't this government take real action instead of making promises that amount to nothing?
Hon. D. Streifel: For the member for Richmond-Steveston: we have taken action since Gove. We have the office of the transition commissioner working with the deputy ombudsman to bring forward a model, we have the child advocate, we have the office of the ombudsman -- they're all involved in this process, hon. members. We expect to bring around by the end of the fall a
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Excuse me, minister, I'm sorry. Just as I said to the last speaker that we must allow the questions to be heard, so must we allow the answers to be heard. Please, members, those are pretty basic rules and we ought to follow them.
Hon. D. Streifel: These are very, very serious issues. I have spoken with the chair of the board, Bernd Walter, today. I've apologized to him personally; I've apologized to him in the House. It's been my attempt, if an awkward attempt, to differentiate between the definition of independence that Gove has required and the independence of a quasi-judicial board that has statutory obligations and statutory functions. I apologized on those bases. Hon. members, this is a very, very serious issue.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Petitions
J. Wilson: I would like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia on behalf of the residents of Norwood Road, Quesnel, in my riding of Cariboo North. It is addressed to the Cariboo regional district and the Ministry of Highways. This petition of the undersigned states that:
"We, the residents of Norwood Road, view with consternation and apprehension the proposed road on lot 7, district lot 4508, to allow traffic from a subdivision on district lot 4510 to enter Norwood Road. Previous logging of this area has affected the water table and has caused the creek to flood annually. We are concerned about water runoff, sewage and effects on the environment on the residents of Norwood Road. This area has historically been accessed off the Nazko Road and in our opinion should remain so. We would like information on what authority and what agencies are involved prior to procedures needed for approval of this access."Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House accept their request."
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the Legislature they will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 12.
[ Page 921 ]
The House in committee on Bill 12; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 2 (continued).
J. Weisgerber: Madam Chair, I have several questions around the establishment of the agency. I wonder if the minister could start by describing to us where he expects the agency will be located. Will it be in facilities separate from FRBC? How many people does he expect will be employed initially in the agency?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We fully intend to take the guidance of the people that we are going to consult, and are consulting, on this. One strong possibility is the offices of the resource jobs commissioner or forest jobs commissioner. There are three. So with respect to issues around land use in these regions where we have established resource jobs commissioners, we may well use their offices. We may use Forest Renewal offices in the various regions, or it may be simply a central agency. What needs to happen is that a worker will register for one or more regions or locales in which they wish to be hired, and then when a project looks for employees, looks for laid-off workers, they go to those who have registered in that particular locale. So the consultation will determine the nature and the number of the people required to do the job.
[3:00]
J. Weisgerber: The word "agency" designates an organizational structure. As I said earlier, this being one of the few bills brought forward to this House this year, one assumes that a lot of thought has gone into the decision to bring in this legislation and into the rationale for preferential hiring. Certainly one would expect that, having decided to include in the legislation the creation of an agency -- which isn't necessary by legislation; it could have been done by regulation -- the minister must have a very clear sense of what that agency is going to look like. Is it going to have a board of directors? Is it going to have a CEO? Is it going to have a senior staff person? Will that person work for Forest Renewal B.C.? I simply can't believe that the minister would bring this legislation forward with no greater sense of how he intends this agency, spelled out in his legislation, to function than his first response indicated.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said in earlier comments, we're not presenting a complete design of the agency, because this is enabling legislation. But it does say that an agency must be established and that it would report to the board of Forest Renewal, maybe through one of their committees, perhaps the workforce committee. It would make sense that it reports through that committee of the board. On the other hand, there may be indirect reporting through the resource jobs commissioners. We are at the present time consulting, and that's the way to do it. If we hadn't consulted, then that same member would be over there shaking his head and saying you have to go out and consult. We are presenting a simple piece of legislation saying that an agency shall be established.
J. Weisgerber: As a novel idea, how about going out and consulting, developing a plan, then drafting the legislation and bringing it to this House so that we can debate it. I know it's an unusual concept, but it seems to me one that other governments and other organizations may well have followed it. I just can't accept the
I'm forced to believe that the minister has a very clear picture in his mind, and that FRBC and the people who have driven this legislation, including Mr. Gerry Stoney, have a very, very clear picture of what the agency is going to look like, who is going to represent the board on that agency, where they're going to be located and how they're going to function. The minister denies that. The minister says that's not so. He's an honourable member, so I'm obliged to accept his word on that.
Can the minister then tell us whether he has any sense of what is meant by the words "match eligible workers with jobs"? Can the minister tell us what that matching process will be? Is there going to be a computer bank that lists all the people and all their skills? Will every proponent approved by FRBC have to list all the job functions that will be involved in fulfilling the program or the plan or the agenda outlined in their proposal? Or were these words simply pulled together because they sounded good? They will allow the minister to go back and consult also on how they're going to go about matching eligible workers with available jobs. Is there a plan? Perhaps that is the most succinct way of putting the question.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We intend that the agency advertise locally and ask people to register either individually or through some body that represents them -- it might be their union. The service would be available to both union and non-union members. So we intend to establish a registry, which will then be available through the people who can employ workers under FRBC projects.
J. Weisgerber: That would be one side of the equation. As I understand the minister's answer, he would first of all go to the union -- or the unions involved -- and get a list. He would then advertise in local papers. I expect that if non-union forest workers were out of work or facing work reductions, they might then go and register. How do you then match them? Again, I'll go back to the question I posed earlier. Will the minister require agencies receiving approval under FRBC to list a job description for every position that's being funded? Will the minister require that every position have a job description that becomes part of this agency's bank of information in order to match one with the other?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Quite frankly, I don't know if a job description will be required. Certainly, in the formal sense there needs to be enough information about the skills required for the job. I don't know what is so difficult for the member about the notion of matching. We know there are going to be jobs. In my previous answer I said there was going to be a list of jobs on FRBC projects that will be known to the agency. The agency will have a list, and the agency's responsibility will be to facilitate the matching of available workers with available jobs.
J. Weisgerber: That brings us, then, to subsection (b), which is the facilitation of priority hiring. The minister doesn't know what the agency will look like. He doesn't know who is going to be on the board governing or directing the agency, he doesn't know where the office or offices might be, but still he is legislating a requirement to facilitate the priorities. Perhaps the minister could tell us how he's going to go about facilitating through these undetermined agencies. It brings us back to the question of local hire that was debated in the first section of this legislation. It brings back the questions that have
[ Page 922 ]
already been raised in discussion with the minister on committee stage of this bill. By what criteria will the agency facilitate this hiring? Are they going to send people out to the job? Are they going to assign workers to specific jobs? Are they going to provide the proponent with a long list of people who may be qualified for the job?
The minister is so disturbingly vague about all of these operations that I am compelled to try and get a sense because, as was indicated by my fellow Reform colleague, I think that the rural agencies -- the Peace River, the Kootenays, the North Island, the Cariboo -- should be very, very concerned about this whole process. I think it's reasonable to expect that
Perhaps, Madam Chair, we could develop a sightline with the minister? Is that possible?
The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if we could request that others take their seats. Thank you.
J. Weisgerber: I know it's a bit much to actually be able to see the minister while you're asking questions, but
As I was saying, I think that there is reason for very real concern for British Columbians who might find themselves at some distance from this agency, at a still undetermined location or locations, to know whether or not, and how, they're going to facilitate hiring. Can the minister tell us? He talked about priority, but he rejected an amendment that would give priority to local hire -- incredibly -- an amendment opposed by the Liberal opposition. Can he tell us, then, how this facilitation will take place?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I explained, we're not going to put every little detail of design in here. I can tell you how it might work -- fair enough -- but the same member would get up, if we brought in legislation detailing procedures and processes and so on, and say it's too much detail. What we are saying here is that the agency has to facilitate the matching of workers with FRBC jobs. We would anticipate that through advertising locally people would be able to register. Presumably they can see in the paper or they'll know from fellow workers that this agency is there. They'll know from the debate and any public relations around FRBC jobs that if they're interested in them, then they can apply and have their name on the local list, and when local jobs come up they can apply.
An Hon. Member: You didn't like that option.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I didn't say I didn't like that option. I'm saying that forest workers will apply to whatever agency in whatever
R. Neufeld: What the minister describes reminds me very much of union dispatch halls for union jobs where companies that get jobs just get hold of the union hall and their workers are sent. Can the minister tell me: if someone acquires a job that's funded by FRBC -- and I don't care where it's at; it could be in the Cariboo -- before they can start the job is it anticipated by the minister that they will have to get in touch with this agency before they can use their normal group of employees? Will they have to lay those employees off, go to the agency and ask if they have any displaced workers who could take those jobs? What's going to happen in those cases? This could be a company that has always worked in the forest industry where the people are working steady and have been for a number of years. The company gets an FRBC contract. Can that company carry on with those people and do that job, or must that company go through the agency and say, "I need ten people," and let the agency decide who goes to work on that person's equipment or on that person's job site?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is asking again for a level of
[3:15]
R. Neufeld: The minister says a number of things that really bother me. The leader of the Reform Party, the member for Peace River South, questioned earlier about who would have to register. The minister has now confirmed that it's every worker in British Columbia, because Forest Renewal touches almost everything we do in the province, right from silviculture to stream restoration to fish counts. It's absolutely astronomical. This minister is saying that he doesn't know how the agency is going to be set up, but he is saying -- a whole bunch here today -- that every worker in British Columbia who works for these contractors, including people who work in offices, must register with this agency.
For the life of me, I just can't see starting -- maybe it is the socialist part that I don't understand, because I do have a problem with that -- the numbering and registering of every person in the province so that some soul in Vancouver, or wherever this agency is going to be set up, will have total control over where those people go to work. The contractors that are successful in getting work from Forest Renewal B.C. will have to be beholden to that agency to decide who is going to run their equipment, do their engineering, do their safety inspections and do their ambulance work. This is absolute and total control.
I guess it's probably pretty easy for the minister, now, and the
Why don't you just socialize the whole province? Why don't you, as the government, become the employer of everyone? Because that's basically, I think, what you said at the very end. Why don't you just become the employer of everyone in British Columbia, and dictate where they go to work, when they go to work and how they go to work. It just amazes me how you
[ Page 923 ]
The Chair: Hon. member, through the Chair.
R. Neufeld: Through the Chair to the minister.
You know, the member from Port Alberni spoke to me just before lunch about how incensed he was about the federal government's program for people on UI. A fish plant was being shut down in his constituency and they were short of some help. Instead of taking people from British Columbia, he said, like from the Port Alberni area, and training them to work in a fish plant, they brought them from eastern Canada into his constituency in Port Alberni. He was incensed, and he should be. I think this is the same situation. This is absolutely no different, because this agency is going to be judge and jury. They are going to decide who works, when they work, how they work and for whom they work, and that isn't the way free enterprise even starts to work.
I'd like the minister to explain it to me a little more carefully, instead of with the broader terms he's used, because he obviously has some pretty definitive thoughts in his mind about how this agency is going to be set up, how it's going to match workers and how it's going to work.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's only through an attempt to help some of those members understand what are very simple ideas that I give some illustrations. But I prefaced my comments by saying that the design will be done through consultation. So that has to be taken as a given. Of course, this member is imagining that a lot of people want to go from Vancouver to Fort St. John. If the truth were known, people
An Hon. Member: Cariboo.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, people want to drift from the Cariboo to Vancouver. People may want to move. We're saying that we will facilitate movement within the sector to keep the skills that people have and to give them an opportunity to change as it grows. But, you know, if that member thinks back to the party that he first ran for, that party oversaw 40,000 jobs disappear with no attempt at all to make it easy for those workers. And he says: "Well, if somebody has got a job, they should keep the job." That's kind of what we're saying here. If you have a job in the forest industry, we would like you to have an opportunity to stay in the industry. So I say to those people who work for the hypothetical firm that you are talking about that if they're concerned about losing their jobs -- not because they have one FRBC job but because maybe there are no more contracts in that kind of business in that region -- they may apply to work somewhere else in the industry on another project. It works both ways. I think you have to admit that.
J. Wilson: What the minister is asking us to do is support a bill that is cuddled with warm, cosy words. It allows the government to change the rules every morning when they wake up to suit their agenda. It is totally unfair to ask us to support something that they cannot define. An example is eligibility. We need a clear, precise definition of the word "eligibility," and I would appreciate it if the minister could attempt to give us a definition of that word.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me remind the member that we debated that in the first section of the bill. We're on a different section of the bill. Briefly, we anticipate the consultation procedure will establish eligibility, and rather than having to amend an act every time and wait for the Legislative Assembly, it can be done with regulation, if necessary. It may be done entirely by agreement. If it isn't done by agreement, then it may be necessary for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do it. I can assure you that the rules won't be changed every time we wake up.
J. Wilson: If we proceed with something like
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This act simply states that the
But I have to remind the member that we just can't throw the money out there. There is substantially more money being spent than ever before on these projects. I would remind him that previous governments have created a number of silviculture funds that have all started out and then collapsed. FRBC sets forth a program continuity fund that it is dedicated for meeting a level of expenditures which we approximate to be $400 million a year. It is permanent, and therefore the industry can have some stability.
But I have to remind you that silviculture workers have been planting trees to catch up on the backlog. When the backlog's gone, we can't create a bunch more backlog and keep them working at that. We can facilitate their being worked into other areas -- stand tending. This agency will provide people the training. If they don't have the skills, it will see that they get directed to the training. In some cases, the agency may ask FRBC to do the training. So it will get people there, see if they're trained and match them with the jobs.
J. Wilson: What reassurance do we have that these undefined eligibility criteria cannot be manipulated or twisted
[ Page 924 ]
by cabinet to apply to contractors who apply for FRBC funding or contracts, as well as to those misplaced forest workers?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I really don't understand the question. Perhaps the member would put it again.
J. Wilson: The question is: what assurance will we have that the eligibility criteria, once they have been designed and thought through very carefully by this group, will only apply to unemployed forest workers and will not be tailored to apply to people who are applying for FRBC projects?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The purpose of the bill is to create a set of criteria to establish eligibility. Once those criteria are established, then they will apply to anybody applying for jobs on funded projects. If somebody is already a contractor, they'll already have a five-year contract; presumably the terms of the contract will set out who they can employ and under what conditions. They will then carry on until the end of their job.
J. Wilson: I think the minister has answered my question. What he has said is that eligibility will apply to people who are applying for FRBC funding. These, as they exist, generally are contracts. They vary in nature from a few thousand dollars up to several million dollars. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I understood the minister to say.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Those weren't my words, and again, I'm not sure what you mean. If there is an existing contract, it will have to be honoured. But the whole objective of this bill is to place the priority hiring on projects that come up. If there's a project already filled, then you can't put somebody in there. But on projects that come up, priority will be given to unemployed forest workers. We have to look at the purpose of the bill. I know your party agrees with the intent of the bill, and the intent is clear. We have said that, as a matter of policy -- and now a matter of law -- we will give priority to unemployed or underemployed forest workers, so that they have an opportunity to work in the industry. It won't be without some restrictions and some criteria that are directed towards allowing that to happen.
[3:30]
J. Wilson: I guess I'm not clear on my questioning here. I would like to try to provide an example. I wish to apply for an FRBC-funded contract. I have the expertise to put it together. It amounts to a considerable amount of money. I am going to be put in a position where I have to employ perhaps 100 or 200 of these unemployed people who the minister has committed himself to providing a job for. Will I be under any eligibility criteria from this new agency before I can put my application in and have it accepted?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the intent is clear. Where there are unemployed workers who have applied in that area, and if you intend to work in that area, you may well be required to employ the unemployed or underemployed workers -- that's the intent of the bill.
J. Wilson: Let's carry this a little bit further, then. I have a company set up and designed to employ silviculture workers. They're highly trained. They are at the moment a bit short of work. I apply for FRBC funding to go out and do a silvicultural project. Must I go back and tell my workers: "I am sorry, you have been replaced on this project"? They're looking to me to provide them with as much employment through the year as I can and not just a bit of employment here and there and a part-time job. They're looking for as much employment as I can give -- that's why I get a trained crew together who are productive and who work. Now I'm going to be told by this agency we are creating here: "No, you cannot apply for this funding unless you let your crew go and hire a new crew that will be provided to you by the ministry or by this agency."
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In those circumstances, that crew will become unemployed and therefore will be eligible for projects. We anticipate that there's going to be more work happening. Bear in mind that we're in a position where, having doubled the amount of work this year, we intend to double it next year -- provided the planning's in place, the people have the skills and the managers are out there. There is no surplus right now of management capacity, either to plan the projects, monitor them or manage them. If what you're telling me is
We fully expect that there are going to be more jobs in this field, so people will keep their jobs and other people will be employed who are displaced somewhere else in the industry. We don't expect the silviculture side, generally speaking, to go down at all; it's going to expand. Having said that, the basic silviculture is a responsibility of companies, and FRBC is getting into different kinds of work than the traditional silviculture work that's been out there and that is the responsibility of licensees.
J. Wilson: What I hear is not acceptable to what I believe is the proper way to do this, so I would like to present an amendment to this bill.
I move that the following section be added:
[Forest Renewal BC not to displace existing forest workersOn the amendment.4. (4) However, in pursuing the mandate set out in section 4(1), Forest Renewal BC must ensure that existing British Columbian forest workers are not displaced by any Forest Renewal BC program.]
J. Wilson: It is absurd to say: "No, we will not displace forest workers, because if your company is forced to hire new ones, these workers will be unemployed only for a short time -- in which case we will find them another job under this program, because now they're unemployed and we know we can get them work. It's only going to take
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to speak against the amendment. It's unnecessary. This bill says that priority will be given
[ Page 925 ]
to people who face unemployment. The member completely misunderstands it; in fact, I can't even understand what he's saying.
An Hon. Member: Does he understand it?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I think the bill is very clear that priority is given to displaced forest workers. I'm telling him that the intent of Forest Renewal is to create more employment, but he keeps coming back. He's stuck on this groove in the record that says "silviculture worker, silviculture worker, silviculture worker." What he's talking about is a surplus of tree-planters. Tree-planters have been catching up in British Columbia. The very party that's made up on that side neglected the industry and didn't put a permanent fund in place. You hired people, and it was boom and bust. But finally we've caught up on silviculture work, and so now we will
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll bet you had a card, too. You might not have, but you're one of the few who didn't have a card in the Social Credit Party.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm talking about the Social Credit Party failing the forest industry and the forest land base. Finally you've got a government with the courage to put a permanent forest renewal fund in place and give priority to people who are working in the industry. We're dealing with unnecessary amendments here.
J. Weisgerber: I'm inclined to support the amendment. The difficulty I have is that it restricts itself to existing forest workers, and I believe that the amendment would be far more responsible if it were to guarantee that all existing British Columbia jobs would be protected by this legislation.
I have no difficulty with finding jobs and filling in jobs for unemployed British Columbians, but I think that this minister would be very wise to accept the amendment but strike out the words "forest workers," so that he would indeed guarantee that any existing British Columbia job would not be taken away as a result of this legislation. If he were to do that, if he were to offer a friendly amendment to the amendment, then it would indeed be consistent with the thinking of Reform members of this House, at least.
W. Hurd: Speaking to the amendment, I think it really plugs a concern with respect to the entire Forest Renewal corporation, where you have laid-off workers who may be replacing silvicultural workers in the field. The concern expressed by the member for Cariboo North is legitimate. The minister will be aware that one of the real concerns about the forest worker agency would be that it would require the hiring of older, laid-off forestry workers from harvesting and manufacturing facilities, replacing their jobs with silvicultural jobs, which, as the minister knows, are based on an entirely different set of agreements -- a competitive piecemeal type of work. So I think the concern that the amendment attempts to address is a legitimate one. We may find the province having what amounts to a hiring hall of displaced workers who will be replacing workers from the silvicultural field who may already be eligible or who may have already applied for Forest Renewal B.C. funding through the company they work for. I think that the need and the concern have been clearly addressed.
The minister will surely be aware that there has been some criticism within the corporation with respect to silvicultural work. The people who are being matched to that work are older forestry workers who may not be that well suited for it. I think the concern that's being expressed here is a legitimate one, and I certainly urge the minister to give serious consideration to this reasoned amendment.
[3:45]
T. Nebbeling: I would also like to quickly indicate my support for the amendment -- in particular because of the debate we had this morning on section 1, where we were trying to find an element of satisfaction and comfort in relation to the question of what indeed a forest worker represents. During that debate on section 1, the minister acknowledged that people who work in the silviculture industry, but who do not necessarily hold a ticket with the IWA, are forest workers. That is in Hansard. With that statement in mind, giving me the satisfaction that that group will not be
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 35 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Hurd | |
| Sanders | Plant | Stephens | |
| de Jong | Coell | Anderson | |
| Nebbeling | Whittred | van Dongen | |
| Thorpe | Penner | Weisgerber | |
| Neufeld | Barisoff | Krueger | |
| McKinnon | Masi | Nettleton | |
| Coleman | Chong | Weisbeck | |
| Jarvis | Abbott | Symons | |
| Hawkins | C. Clark | Hansen | |
| Reitsma | J. Wilson | ||
|
NAYS -- 37 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Janssen | McGregor | |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Farnworth | |
| Robertson | Gillespie | Doyle | |
| Lali | Sawicki | Randall | |
| Sihota | MacPhail | Dosanjh | |
| G. Clark | Miller | Petter | |
| Priddy | |||
Section 2 of Bill 12 approved on the following division:
[ Page 926 ]
| YEAS -- 37 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Priddy | Petter | |
| Miller | G. Clark | Dosanjh | |
| MacPhail | Sihota | Randall | |
| Sawicki | Lali | Doyle | |
| Gillespie | Robertson | Farnworth | |
| Smallwood | Conroy | McGregor | |
| Janssen | |||
|
NAYS -- 35 | |||
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Hurd | |
| Sanders | Plant | Stephens | |
| de Jong | Coell | Anderson | |
| Nebbeling | Whittred | van Dongen | |
| Thorpe | Penner | Weisgerber | |
| Neufeld | Barisoff | Krueger | |
| McKinnon | Masi | Nettleton | |
| Coleman | Chong | Weisbeck | |
| Jarvis | Abbott | Symons | |
| Hawkins | C. Clark | Hansen | |
| Reitsma | J. Wilson | ||
Section 3 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 12, BC Forest Renewal Amendment Act, 1996, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. Cashore: I call second reading of Bill 8.
Hon. D. Miller: It's my pleasure to put forward Bill 8. As I indicated in first reading, the bill contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation. There are some basic housekeeping provisions designed to meet specific needs in the communities of Vancouver and Comox and to ensure the validity of the regional district and Islands Trust land use bylaws.
In addition to these administration provisions, the bill addresses two longstanding concerns. The first of those is that it provides the greater Vancouver regional district with new tools to finance and recover costs for major infrastructure projects. Under the legislation the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district, which is GVRD's infrastructure arm, will be granted powers similar to those available to other regional districts and municipalities to employ development cost charges. Development cost charges are a widely used method of ensuring that growth is, to some extent, self-financing, that new development contributes to the public costs of the infrastructure required to support that growth. In the lower mainland, B.C.'s fastest-growing region, the regional government hasn't been able to effectively use this traditional tool because of some historical peculiarities, and this legislation addresses that.
It is a pressing issue because of the need to finance major sewage treatment facilities on Lulu and Annacis islands. Both the province and the federal government have made substantive contributions to these projects. The amendments in this bill ensure that the affected local governments and the development industry will contribute, but because of concerns that development cost charges are making new development and housing unaffordable in some parts of the lower mainland, the bill also permits individual municipal governments to opt out of the regional development cost charge if they feel that passing on the charges to developers will make the provision of affordable housing more difficult.
The other issue the bill addresses -- again, a longstanding issue -- has to do with Vancouver wards, which has been really a longstanding and divisive issue since the seventies. As part of the bill, we are legislating for the purposes of a referendum on wards in 1996 that a majority will be defined as greater than 50 percent. We're not really attempting to influence the outcome of a referendum on wards -- that's really a local issue and should be determined at the local level -- but given the history here, there remains a great deal of confusion and frustration because of the 60 percent threshold for acceptance used in previous referenda, when a simple majority should be enough to decide the issue once and for all. Really, in the bill I guess we're making a statement of principle about fair process.
With that, I'm happy to move that Bill 8 be read for the second time now.
G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to lead off the official opposition's response to Bill 8. As the minister has said, for the most part Bill 8 is a relatively straightforward piece of work. It could, I guess, be described as a housekeeping bill for the most part, but there is, I'm afraid, one very notable exception to that rather straightforward and routine nature of the bill, and that is its final section: section 35. I suspect that this section will soon be known as the infamous and ill-advised section 35. We do have some concerns about it, as the minister would likely expect. We will certainly have a number of questions about sections 1 to 34, but the provisions contained therein appear to be routine and quite unremarkable; in fact, some of them are innovative and useful and welcome.
I would suspect -- and I'm sure the minister will confirm this in due course -- that sections 1 to 34 attempt to meet requests from local governments in regard to problems they have experienced. The same certainly can't be said for section 35. Section 35 defines what would constitute a majority vote in the event that the council of the city of Vancouver conducts what is termed a "neighbourhood constituency referendum," more commonly known as a ward system referendum. Section 35, I submit, is a most curious, discordant and ill-conceived addition to this relatively straightforward bill. I have a number of concerns with respect to section 35, and I suspect that some of my colleagues will have some concerns as well.
Generally speaking, section 35 is an absurd, unnecessary and uninvited intrusion into the jurisdiction of the city of
[ Page 927 ]
Vancouver. Obviously someone or some group requested the minister's interference in this matter, and I'll let the hon. minister explain the origins of this request, should he choose to do so, subsequently.
[4:00]
What we do know is that Vancouver city council did not request the minister's interference in this matter through section 35 of Bill 8. We understand, in fact, that the first notice received by the city in respect to section 35 came about two and a half hours prior to the bill being tabled in this House. This, I think, can only be described as a shabby and quite distressing treatment of the duly elected council of one of the largest municipalities in this province. Surely any municipality, Vancouver or otherwise, deserves more than two and a half hours' notice from the government about something rather fundamental like this.
On this side of the House, we believe in enhancing the autonomy of local government through mechanisms like the community charter. If section 35 is any indication, this government obviously wants to take local government in the opposite direction. We've certainly seen past examples of the abject failure of this government to consult with the local government before introducing legislation which affects them. With respect to the final section of this bill, that's certainly the case again.
I expect that with respect to sections 1 through 34, the applicable local governments knew weeks, perhaps months, in advance that this legislation was forthcoming. Not only did they expect it, I'm sure they actually wanted it. The same cannot be said for section 35. In the latter case, in section 35, the legislation attempts to override the intent and direction of the duly elected council of the city of Vancouver.
We on this side of the House don't propose to enter into the debate over whether the level of support required to gain the electors' assent on a given question should be 50 percent plus one, 55 percent plus one, 60 percent plus one, or any other figure. That should be irrelevant, I think, to those of us who have the honour of representing our constituencies in this House. Reasonable and informed citizens of Vancouver will be engaging in a debate on this matter in the months ahead. That is where that debate should take place, not in this chamber.
The Vancouver Charter contains a number of provisions related to the conduct of elections in the city of Vancouver. For example, section 138(2) provides that: "The Council may, by by-law, provide that all or some of the Councillors be elected on a neighbourhood constituency basis." The Vancouver Charter does not, however, provide any reference to the need for a referendum on this matter, nor does it define what majority would be required for successful passage of a referendum bylaw. That is currently left to the duly elected Vancouver city council, and we believe that is entirely fitting and appropriate.
The city of Vancouver has been engaged for some time in a very thorough consideration of this matter in advance of a plebiscite in conjunction with this November's municipal elections. This is obviously a commendable approach, given that the council already has the authority under section 138(2) of the Vancouver Charter to introduce a full or partial ward system. The crux of the matter is whether it is the Vancouver city council or, alternatively, this NDP provincial government that is better placed to determine the city's course with respect to the ward system. It's entirely clear to this side of the House that it is the council of the city of Vancouver that has the right and the responsibility to set the course for the city in this regard. In November, electors in Vancouver will judge the course adopted by their councillors in a municipal election. This government will not be subject to the same accountability. The provincial government, in my view, should abandon this ill-advised foray into the affairs of local government and butt out of an area where the province has no business intruding.
I had the privilege to serve for 17 years in local government, and the voters had regular opportunities to pass judgment on my performance. I believe that the hon. minister had the same opportunity in Prince Rupert. When I was elected to this House, I realized that I was giving up the right to directly affect public policy at the local level, and I would have thought that the hon. minister would take the same view. What we are seeing in section 35, however, flies in the face of that.
What we see in section 35 is the province attempting to fix the content of a local bylaw or policy. Again, there is no electoral provision which this government is attempting to fix in this case that does not exist. They are attempting to influence city policy or city bylaws, something which I believe is most inappropriate, and I believe that view is shared by all on this side of the House. This is not a case of amending electoral procedure as set out in the Vancouver Charter. It is an attempt by this government to override the informed judgment of the duly elected council of the city of Vancouver. There is nothing in statute through the Vancouver Charter that sets the level at which a question is deemed to have achieved the assent of the electors. In short, there is nothing in statute to amend. What we see in section 35 is this government, like Big Brother, stepping in and saying: "We don't like what the city council is doing by policy. We think we know better what they should do."
Sound arguments can undoubtedly be advanced on both sides of the question of whether a ward system is preferable to an at-large system. Sound arguments can also be advanced on both sides with respect to whether 50 percent, 60 percent or any other majority should be required to pass a referendum of this sort. Again, that is not a debate for this chamber. That is a debate for the citizens of Vancouver and their duly elected council. Under the existing provisions of the Vancouver Charter, the present council of the city of Vancouver can, if they wish, put a full or partial ward system into place. Under the existing provisions of the Vancouver Charter, the new council of the city of Vancouver, when they are elected in November, can put in place a full or partial ward system. The existing council of the city of Vancouver can, if they wish, submit a referendum or an informational plebiscite to the electors in November, in concert with the municipal elections. The new council will then give whatever effect they deem appropriate to the advice of their electors.
In this ill-conceived foray into local government policy, the minister will succeed only in making himself and his ministry look foolish. I'm sure you're saying to yourself, Mr. Speaker, why should today be any different than any other day?
Interjection.
G. Abbott: I could tell. I was reading that.
Normally, this government confines itself to misgoverning in areas of provincial public policy. With section 35, this government stumbles and bumbles its way into the realm of local government policy as well.
[ Page 928 ]
As the hon. minister knows, the Union of B.C. Municipalities proposes that local government be extended constitutional recognition as an order of government in Canada. If the hon. minister proceeds with section 35, I submit that he certainly won't need to respond in any formal way to that proposition. If he proceeds with section 35, the hon. minister will be saying that this government is not content with the amendment of provincial statutes related to local government. If he proceeds with section 35, the hon. minister will be saying that his government is prepared to second-guess local government policy wherever they find it wanting.
As I have said, this is an unwarranted and unacceptable incursion into the realm of local government. Local government issues should be resolved in due course by the electors in those municipalities. In conclusion, I urge the hon. minister to give serious consideration to striking section 35 from Bill 8. Only through the removal of section 35 will Bill 8 win our support.
I. Waddell: I rise to make a couple of comments on this matter. I am from the city of Vancouver, and I appreciate the remarks of the member for Shuswap. I don't know a lot about Shuswap, but I do know a bit about the city of Vancouver. I notice that the opposition didn't have the member for Vancouver-Point Grey stand up and talk about this
Interjection.
I. Waddell: I know, but I don't see the other members speaking on this. Perhaps we will hear from them as well. I hope to hear from them.
An Hon. Member: Stand by.
I. Waddell: All right, I'll stand by. I hope to hear from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, and I hope to hear from the member for Vancouver-Langara. Meanwhile, I'd like to suggest to the member opposite that he look at the editorial in the Vancouver Province today.
An Hon. Member: Now, there's a reliable source.
I. Waddell: The member says that it's a reliable source. It supported the member's party in the last election. Would that make it reliable or unreliable?
Interjection.
I. Waddell: Well, I'm quoting it today as a reliable source. But the member should pay attention to it, because it likes the member's party. Here's what the editorial in the Province said, and I think it speaks for itself, because the member for Shuswap said that this was a shabby treatment of the city council. All we require is that if they have a referendum, they must have 50 percent -- and that they have a fair referendum and don't play around. Here's what the editorial says:
"Owen, of course, is with the right-of-centre Non-Partisan Association, which has a stranglehold on council under the at-large voting system now in place. Many pundits suggest the rival, left-leaning Committee of Progressive Electors would fare much better under a ward system -- and to head off that possibility, Owen and his NPA cabal have insisted that a 60 percent majority of referendum voters is necessary before wards can be introduced."
Interjection.
I. Waddell: I'm not saying this; this is the Vancouver Province newspaper. It's their editorial.
Let me repeat that, because it's from an editorial of a newspaper that supported my friends opposite here in the election:
That's what the Province, one of the major papers in Vancouver, says about it. They're not NDPers, and they're not supporters of the present government.
"Woe betide the mayor and the rest of the NPA if they try yet again to thwart the will of the majority come November."
I say that there's a lesson there for the Liberals as well. That's the editorial in the Province. It's pretty straightforward. The bill could have done a lot more: it could have forced the question. It could, indeed, have said: "Have wards." All the bill is doing, in light of the manipulative behaviour of the present city council of Vancouver, is simply saying: "Have a fair vote." I believe the Province editorial, and I think that members of the Liberal Party should read it very closely.
C. Hansen: I'm going to take up the hon. member's invitation for the members from Vancouver to participate. I have been a resident of the city of Vancouver for the last 17 years. I have voted in every civic election. I have voted in every referendum that has taken place in the city of Vancouver in those years. I think the thing that bothers me the most about this bill before us today is that particular section, which is really
That is what I want to speak to. As the member for Vancouver-Fraserview said: "What the citizens of Vancouver want, they should not be denied." But I think the point is that what the citizens of Vancouver want is up to the citizens of Vancouver. It is not up to the 75 members of this chamber to dictate to the citizens of Vancouver how they should structure their referendums and how they should structure their governance.
[4:15]
Section 35 in this bill points out the blatant hypocrisy that we see from the NDP government. If the federal government was to come in and start to tell the provincial government how we should run our governance in this province, the Premier of this province would be rightfully indignant. He would be calling press conferences; he would be calling the federal government things like "pigheaded" and "intransigent." That, quite frankly, is what the citizens of Vancouver should be calling the NDP government today, because they have no business dictating to the citizens of Vancouver how we should be running our referendum and our governance.
[ Page 929 ]
I find it very interesting that this is Bill 8. This bill has been drafted and printed for many weeks. We saw Bills 1 to 7 introduced; we saw Bills 9 to about 14 introduced. Bill 8 didn't get introduced. Why? Because it was printed and it wasn't timely for them to introduce it. They did not consult with the city of Vancouver; they did not contact the mayor's office; they did not contact any of the councillors in the city of Vancouver, I expect -- save one. Then, in the morning before the bill was introduced in this chamber, the Minister of Employment and Investment makes a call to the mayor of Vancouver, not in consultation but basically to say: "This is what we're doing to you this afternoon." That's not how to run government. That's not how to build a relationship with the municipalities in this province.
I also find it curious that when you read through sections 1 to 34 of the bill, there's a certain tone to that language. I can respect the fact that this legislation was written by professionals, by qualified draftsmen who have obviously been doing it for many years, who do the housekeeping bills for the government and for this ministry -- until you get to section 35. The language of that section is totally inconsistent with the rest of the bill. It is obvious that somebody, for purely political motives, has come in and drafted that section as an add-on to this piece of legislation.
It's bad enough that the provincial government is going to impose upon the city of Vancouver a certain type of governance, but it's even worse when it is being imposed for purely political motives. Quite frankly, I think that for the provincial government to take this action is an insult to this House and an insult to the professionals in the ministry who have drafted a piece of housekeeping legislation that's been well thought out and well presented. To tack on this section 35 for such blatantly political motives is totally unjustified. I hope that the minister will seriously consider withdrawing section 35 before we proceed to committee.
G. Farrell-Collins: The odd time in the Legislature -- the odd time -- a real debate actually breaks out. I was hoping we'd have one today, but I guess the other members from Vancouver aren't going to engage in a debate. That's unfortunate.
I think the member's comments were good, because when you read through the bill and come to page
I don't think, and certainly our party doesn't think, that it's the role of the provincial government to intrude into decisions that are best made at the council level. I heard the member for Vancouver-Fraserview speak, and I heard him quote from the Province article. I'm tempted to pull a few other Province editorials and read them into Hansard, like the one that called for the resignation of the Finance minister three weeks ago, but I won't do that. I'll stay on topic.
What I will say, though, is that I think the people in Vancouver are pretty smart voters. I wish they were a little smarter and had elected a few more Liberals. We had a provincial election, and they elected ten MLAs: four on our side and six from your side. That's what the voters do; they decide. I give the people credit in Vancouver-Little Mountain, my riding, Vancouver-Burrard and Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, for making decisions that are wise.
Every three years now -- it used to be every two years -- they go to the polls in a municipal election and vote on a council. It's true that the referendum issue about the ward system has been bounced around since 1938. I think that was the year the first referendum came forward. I don't know about the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but it was definitely before I was born. One of the things that the people in Vancouver who are going to vote during the election campaign decide is whether they want a ward system. It has been on a referendum from time to time, and it seems to come back, as referendums tend to do in this country. But if the people in Vancouver don't like the way the municipal council is dealing with the referendum issue, and if they agree with the member for Vancouver-Fraserview and the Province newspaper that the council is manipulative and not dealing upfront with it, and if they don't like the way they're dealing with this issue, then get rid of them. Just vote them out; just don't elect them. They don't have to elect them.
I don't partake in municipal politics other than to vote; I never have partaken in a political way. But the people in Vancouver can decide. If they don't like the way their council is dealing with this issue, they can get rid of them. This ward issue has come up time and time again, and the issue of whether it's 60 percent or 66 percent or 50 percent plus one is something that should be decided by the representatives of the people who elect them. The people in Vancouver elect council members.
If they get angry enough about what we do in this House, and if they get angry enough about the budget deception we saw during this election, and if they get angry enough about the raiding of the Forest Renewal fund, and if they get angry enough about the way this minister is handling the Social Services ministry, they'll get rid of the government. That's the way it works.
If the people in Vancouver feel strongly enough about the ward system, if they
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: It could be very rational.
If they rationally decide that they don't like what the council in Vancouver is doing with the ward system, and if they feel they're being manipulative, then they should get rid of them. But that's their choice. That's the choice of the voters. It's not the choice of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to draft a section onto a bill and tack it on the back and tell them the way it should be run. It's up to the voters in Vancouver to make that decision.
Now, I'm not opposed to or in favour of the ward system. To be honest, I haven't given it a lot of time and a lot of attention.
An Hon. Member: It shows.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not afraid to admit that.
It's not up to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make that decision for the people of Vancouver. It's up to the people of Vancouver. He is making the decision. He's making the decision on how the referendum is to be run. How the referendum is to be run -- the determination of the percentage for the referendum, if I can be precise for the members opposite
[ Page 930 ]
-- is something that should be done by the elected representatives of the people of Vancouver, not by the 75 representatives from all across the province of British Columbia.
I suspect the minister will have a little bit of a rough ride, having passed this section, when he goes to the UBCM convention. There will be a whole host of municipalities out there that are going to go: "Hang on a second. If they are going to do this in the city of Vancouver, what are they going to do in Shuswap? What are they going to do in Richmond? In Matsqui, Powell River, Bulkley Valley?" I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to have a rough ride.
Now, the government is going to support this section, vote on it, pass it through, and we'll have a referendum this fall -- probably; maybe we won't. Who knows? That's for determination by the city. At the end of the day, I don't think the minister believes wholeheartedly in what he has done. He has stepped in and imposed his will on a city that he doesn't live in, that he doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with and that he doesn't even vote in. This decision should be made by the people in the city of Vancouver, and it should be left to them to make it. If they don't like the referendum number, if they don't like 50 percent, if they don't like 60 percent, if they don't like 66 percent, then they can get rid of the council. That's how democracy works.
M. de Jong: Picking up where my colleague left off, I also don't believe that the minister, in his heart, believes that the principles contained within section 35 are worthy of a vigorous defence. They are, in fact, indefensible. I hope the member for Vancouver-Fraserview won't be offended that I, as a non-resident of Vancouver, would rise to participate in this debate.
I come from an area of the province where we went through a referendum process time and time again, dealing with a pretty fundamental issue concerning the amalgamation of two communities, Abbotsford and Matsqui. Those referendums passed or failed by various numbers, but the people in those two communities made a decision about what the threshold would be. They made a decision about what the requirement would be to proceed with the amalgamation of those two communities, and it wasn't imposed on them by the government. At the end of the day, it worked better because the decision was made by local people, was seen to be made by local people and had the legitimacy that flows from that.
When I read this section -- and I share the observations of others in this House that this last-minute addendum to the act has been done for some purpose that is clearly political -- it reminds me of something I read in a biography of Harry Truman. Harry Truman had been President for two or three years, and he was writing a letter back to Independence, Missouri, in which he commented on a phenomenon he called "Potomac fever." And he posed the question: what is it that prompts members of the American Congress, when they arrive here after they've been elected, to suddenly think that they know better than everyone else, that suddenly they have had some divine bestowal of knowledge on them that qualifies them beyond all other people in the country to have intrinsic knowledge about an issue that allows them to better decide on it? He said the only thing he could come up with was that something magical happened when they crossed the Potomac River. Potomac fever, he called it.
I think the British Columbia equivalent is Juan de Fuca fever, and I think the minister is suffering from a bad case of Juan de Fuca fever. I'd be happy to make a referral to our member from Vernon, a qualified physician. If he's in need of treatment for his Juan de Fuca fever, I'd be happy to make that referral.
That is what the minister is demonstrating in this case, this notion that simply by virtue of one's presence -- in this case, on the front bench of the government -- they know better. They know better than the people of Vancouver. They know better than the people of Abbotsford. During the course of his remarks, he said: "Well, after all, this is only a question of fair process. This is really just addressing an issue of fair process." But it's his notion of fair process. It might be quite legitimate to say that 50 percent is the threshold by which a referendum should pass. But you know what? In this case, it's none of his business. It's just none of his business.
[4:30]
I know the minister will find this very difficult to believe, but one of the lessons I learned from my parents is that it's as difficult, if not more so, to know when not to speak as it is to know what to say when you do speak.
Interjections.
M. de Jong: I'm getting a sense that people on this side of the House are having difficulty with believing that.
That really is a lesson that some of us learn in our personal lives, but it's equally applicable in the case of government. There are times, there are instances and there are issues when we as the state, as the government, simply have to acknowledge that it's not our role, it's not our business. We have to trust those -- in this case, local politicians, local electors -- who make those decisions. In our eyes, they might make the wrong decision. It might not be defensible. But guess what? We don't have to defend it. God knows we've got enough to do in this chamber. We've got enough issues to deal with. We don't have to go looking for issues that can be and should be dealt with at the local level. We've heard some of the, I think, quite valid arguments that have been made about where this might lead, and I think the minister will be asked those questions. I'm sure he will attend the UBCM, and those questions will be put to him.
I was thinking: what is the measurement? Aside from the political rhetoric, what would be the measurement by which we could measure this government's commitment to local autonomy, and how does it apply to a bill of this sort? We hear them talking about Closer to Home when it comes to health care. Well, this isn't Closer to Home. We know that. That's pretty obvious. It's trite to say that it isn't.
Earlier in the debate I saw the Minister of Aboriginal
It is a principle. It is a principle centred around the issue of local autonomy. It is a principle that has deep roots in our
[ Page 931 ]
democratic process, and the significance of what the government is doing here today has been noticed and will be noticed by local governments right across the province. I caution the government, and I caution the minister. He has heard the warnings and concerns from this side of the House. He has a choice, and I would recommend to him that he avail himself of the choice he has in terms of severing what we find to be an offending section.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak to Bill 8, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1996. We're here at the present moment to talk about the principle of this act. As mentioned by other speakers, the majority of this act responds to requests from local municipalities and undertakes to assist them in those things that they have already expressed their desire to do. At the same time, there is one section of this bill that reminds me of another bill we stood up to discuss at midnight one time in this House. I think I had to say to the same minister that what he was doing at midnight on that particular occasion had no principle. I am sure the minister remembers that. The result was that we had a very violent evening until the Attorney General came in and, fortunately, calmed the situation somewhat and got us back on the track.
An Hon. Member: It was past my bedtime.
V. Anderson: I'm not sure if the minister is always just past his bedtime or when he gets up in the
This bill contains a clause which is unlike any of the others in the bill. It's unlike one that I would expect, although maybe it's not one that I should be surprised to expect from this particular government. I say that I would not expect it because in health care, in education and in many other activities of this government, they have said that it was important that people should be consulted and that actions should not be taken until there had been consultation with the authorities involved, whether it's a non-profit society, a community group, a municipal council or whatever else. That's a model that they have been proud of, at least in their wordage: undertaking and listening to the people.
Even in this present session, when they brought forth some of their legislation -- which has been an about-face on many occasions -- they did so because they said they were listening to the people. But here, without consultation or consideration, they brought forth an amendment to the Vancouver Charter, in effect, without talking to the people of Vancouver or to the municipality and the people who are responsible.
Not only that; they have, I think, attempted to build some credibility with the municipal organizations across this province. In one simple measure, they have destroyed that credibility, because they say to those municipalities: "We'll work with you, we'll agree with you, and we'll support you as long as you do it our way. If you're not willing to do it our way, then Big Brother and Big Sister are here with the big club to take away your authority and power and to say: 'Do it our way.' "
I've talked to citizens of Vancouver on the east side and the west side, and I've worked on both sides of that city. One of the things the people on the east side, particularly, don't appreciate is somebody on the other side of the city telling them what to do. Even less will they appreciate somebody on the other side of the water -- 65 out of 75 who don't even live in Vancouver, or, shall we say, 33 members of the government House who are not part of the city -- trying to tell them, city members, what to do and to take away their authority and their responsibility as citizens.
I think there's a very clear message from those 33 members. Perhaps the six members on the government side of the House who come from Vancouver can speak on behalf of the people they have talked to, but the other 33 members of the government side certainly can't say they're talking on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver. It's not only unprincipled, but it's disrespectful. It's disrespectful of these persons to try to force upon the citizens of Vancouver something that they haven't even discussed in any formal or consultative way with them.
They have denied the principle of free and collective bargaining and the principle of collective decision-making within the city, and they have denied the citizens the opportunity to make their own choice. This is very regretful not only for this government, because if people lose their respect for the government, which they're fast doing, then they lose respect not only for one issue but for every issue that the government brings forward. Certainly the government has not that much respect left from many of the people of our communities, and it doesn't dare lose that much more of it.
They lose the respect not only of the municipalities but also of the people around the province, who will say to be careful of what happens in the back rooms of this government in Victoria, because they will say one thing, principled, up front, "Yes, we're listening; yes, we believe you should make your own decisions," and then they will come back and make their decisions for them.
I was interested in the byplay which goes on across the House. When the accusation was made, falsely or not, that the minister had actually written this clause, he said -- if I understood the minister: "No, I didn't write it. It wasn't me." Who is doing the homework for the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he disavows this very critical motion that's here before the House? I think we have to ask, as we've asked before -- and perhaps we haven't asked it enough in this session: who is pulling the strings of this government from behind the scenes?
An Hon. Member: The majority of the people.
V. Anderson: The majority of the people. Hon. Speaker, the first time I ran for this House, it was on the east side of Vancouver, and I ran against the hon. member who is now the Premier. He was just a junior not known by anyone at the time, but he also had the opportunity to run with the very hon. member, Mr. Williams. So on the coat-tails of a more senior and experienced member in a two-seat riding, as it was at that time, he was able to get elected, and history knows what goes on from there.
One of the concerns has been about who has been directing this government from behind the scenes, and there has been a fair bit of speculation that the hon. member who was a member of this House and is no longer a member of this House was pulling strings for many years. Lately, we've not heard anything about that, but we must raise the question again: who is it in the city of Vancouver, not in an elected position, who is pulling the strings of this government? Who is trying to dictate, in a very old-fashioned way, with a you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours kind of process? When we have a motion come like this, which is against all principles, against all practice, against the very relationship of the honesty of working together and cooperation between the municipal and the provincial, then we have to question not only this particular part of this bill in principle but also the principles of those who have brought it forward.
P. Reitsma: I'm speaking to section 35. This government prides itself on preaching consultation and closer cooperation
[ Page 932 ]
with municipalities and regional districts. However, it is clearly on their terms only.
[4:45]
An Hon. Member: No, it isn't.
P. Reitsma: Yes, but it is. It's practising confrontation and dictatorship. I see the minister is leaving; of course, he can't stand it, I suppose.
Interjection.
P. Reitsma: I guess I should wait until the minister has the time. He doesn't have the time; that's good. I think this is a very classic example of preaching one thing but practising another. I know that the NDP cherishes greatly the principle of fairness. It's a very clear promise by them, preaching consultation and working together.
Local representatives are elected to do what they do best -- that is, to make local decisions for the common good of the local people, the community. And the voter trusts them; that's why they're elected. The local representatives know better. We've talked a lot about off-loading, and one off-loading I do not like is just this: the opportunity for local council to make decisions on behalf of the people. I've had the privilege of being a mayor of two cities: in Port Alberni for two years and Parksville for still another nine years. As a matter of fact, I wasn't re-elected in Port Alberni; otherwise the member who defeated me would be here today. She would have been just an excellent representative on our side, but that is the will of the voter. That is what we want for the local communities. People don't want big governments dictating their political agendas. There's no respect for that.
I would ask the minister to live up to the promise of consultation, not confrontation or dictatorship. I ask myself if this is only the beginning of a hostile and unfriendly takeover bid of the municipalities by this government. I wonder to myself: what is next?
There's a wonderful opportunity on this side to help this particular government keep a promise for a change -- that is, leave it up to the local governments. We'll endorse the promise that you made, and that is consultation and listening to local people. This side is anxious to see, for once, this government keep a promise.
M. Coell: I'm pleased to add some comments to this debate on the principle of the bill before us. As some of the speakers have said, there is some good intent in parts of it, but it is truly soiled by the final comments and the final amendment. I think that the amendment to the charter of Vancouver is an arrogant slap in the face to municipal government, no matter whether you're in Tofino, Prince George, Vancouver or Saanich. This piece of legislation put into this bill takes a slap at municipal government like nothing I have seen.
I can also tell you that instead of telling municipal government what they should be doing, this particular government should be listening to them and asking them how they could improve their style of government. The municipalities in this province have a better credit rating than this particular government. They have money in the bank to pay off all their debts.
I can tell you that when I was the mayor, I went through five Premiers, and ministers went by the month. Municipal government is stable; it acts in the best interests of people. This government could learn a lot by asking them: how could we improve what we're doing? Not by taking a very arrogant piece of legislation, and not just by slapping
Mr. Speaker, the minister who is doing this may think it's kind of funny or cute, but I can tell you that the municipal politicians in this province don't take this lightly. They take it as arrogance from this government. When you're trying to work with
The Speaker: Member, through the Chair. You continue to offend that rule, and I would just caution you.
M. Coell: I apologize. Through the Chair, municipal governments can teach you a lot. Why don't you listen rather than pull off an amendment like this that insults them all?
G. Wilson: I must say that originally it had not been my intention to get into this debate on this bill, because it was just so much housekeeping. It seemed to me that most -- in fact, all -- of what's in here deals primarily with what one sees as pretty fundamental and democratic changes. But I have to tell you that of all the self-serving crackle I hear from time to time in this building, this commentary coming from this official opposition, through the implementation of what has to be a completely fair and democratic majority position of 50 percent plus one, is unbelievable. Because they would have to believe that nobody understands the dynamic of the urban politics of Vancouver -- understands what we're clearly dealing with here. Quite clearly, what they want to
Interjections.
G. Wilson: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has his opportunity to stand up and speak. I would appreciate him giving me the courtesy to take mine.
What we're hearing from this side is that they want a moneyed minority who have control of council to continue to control council. They don't want -- and they haven't had over the years -- the freedom to implement a system that is more equitable and more fair in a city that has a vast ethnic, economic and social diversity, and that tends to consistently elect, from one side of the city, a power base that controls and maintains that council. They don't want that changed. That's exactly what they're saying.
An Hon. Member: They all vote.
G. Wilson: I hear them say: "They all vote." In fact, they don't all vote, and they don't all feel the level of intensity, and they don't have the money that comes from one section of the city as opposed to the other.
I'll tell you what's interesting. If you look at most
[ Page 933 ]
gamation of Abbotsford and Matsqui. You know what percentage was required? Fifty percent plus one. Why? Because that's a sensible majority vote. When we had the district municipality of Sechelt developed, there was considerable concern with respect to the weighted vote, with the larger population in the district of Sechelt and a lesser population with respect to the regional district. What was decided? Was it decided that we should have a weighted or blocked vote? No, what was decided is that we should look to the region as a whole, and we should move to 50 percent plus one. That was decided by the municipal
Interjections.
G. Wilson: ...after the Minister of Municipal Affairs intervened to determine what that vote should be. And if the Liberals would listen up, they would understand that. What we are seeing in this debate is a farm team of this group over here in potential disruption, because finally there may be more equity in the city of Vancouver, through the voting process. They're going to have to come up with 50 percent plus one, and not a greater amount.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Excuse me, members. I realize we're approaching the traditional spike in the day at 5 o'clock, and emotions are running high. So perhaps we could all take a deep breath and then allow the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to continue without too much interruption.
G. Wilson: It's truly amazing. I heard from one member -- I think it was the member for Vancouver-Quilchena -- who stood up and said: "The UBCM recognize that the municipalities want to constitutionally be a new level of government."
Interjection.
G. Wilson: My apologies -- it was the member for Shuswap.
We look at that and at the ramifications of that. I recall quite distinctly when the now Leader of the Official Opposition, who was at that time the mayor of Vancouver, made the presentation to the commission.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Yes, it was. It was the same time when he said that Canada is built on special deals, and he has no problem with a special deal for the province of Quebec. It was that same speech.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: He did. I'd be happy if you'd come up and look at the videotape of it, which I have in my office, if you choose.
The point is that at that time it was clear that there were some levels of division of power that were necessary between the authority of the municipalities to make decisions on their own, and the senior government, the government of the province of British Columbia, to implement fair measure. Fair measure is the key here. It's not that we are suggesting, I don't believe, in the context of this bill and this particular section, that fair measure should be abridged. We are suggesting that fair measure should be implemented when a council and a history of councils have refused fair measure being accepted, because it's in their own political interest to make sure that it is not.
An Hon. Member: Throw them out.
G. Wilson: I hear the member say: "Throw them out." Hon. member, the reason that that council continues and persists the way they do is that they have election-at-large. It is difficult for people who are on the east side, who are less wealthy, less able to advertise, less able to become active and less able to get to the
I'm surprised that members opposite not only want 60 percent, they want it to be done by televote: "Let's have a televote for council." Then you can never check the records, because you can never find out who voted out of phone banks and off SIN numbers of people that actually never existed. Why would you go that route? That's the kind of route for the democratic process that the members of the official opposition want.
Hon. Speaker, this section, as I read it, is nothing more than saying that we are going to finally require an equitable situation of 50 percent plus one, with respect to the provision of the implementation of a ward system. If the people choose it, they may finally have an opportunity to get it. If they choose not to have it, they don't have to have it. This does not diminish the right of council to make decisions. This does not take away those rights the council apparently has within the charter. All it does -- and this is what this senior government should be doing -- is implement a measure of fairness in a voting proposition, to make sure that a moneyed minority cannot consistently have their way over a less fortunate majority. What I've heard in the sanctimonious commentary from this group over here in the official opposition, trying to protect their political farm team, is absolutely unbelievable.
The Speaker: The member for Delta South on second reading.
Interjections.
F. Gingell: Yes, I'd like to speak on second reading, hon. Speaker, if I may. Obviously, the Minister of Employment and Investment seems to have some basic problem with my right to stand up in this debate and add my two bits' worth. I'm terribly sorry that the minister is so angry about it -- that he has to jump up, run out and come back. What a load of nonsense!
The Speaker: Members, this is much beyond the purview of second reading debate. Could I suggest that the two House Leaders talk and that we address second reading.
[5:00]
F. Gingell: This issue isn't about whether the ward system in Vancouver is right or wrong. It's about who should decide what the rules should be. There are all kinds of issues in this world dealing with change, where you require a 50-percent-plus-one vote to determine them. It's up to the people of Vancouver and their elected representatives to determine
[ Page 934 ]
what those might be. When you are dealing with change, you have to deal with it sensibly. When I was on the school board in Delta, we held a referendum on the issue of moving two schools -- one in Tsawwassen and one in North Delta -- from the regular calendar to the continuous school year. Clearly, this was a major change. It wasn't an issue of 50 percent plus one. The whole way that we did things was going to be changed, and we felt it appropriate to have a much higher level, to feel that we had the right kind of support for this major change. Who made that decision? The school trustees. Who were the right people to make that decision? The school trustees. It was up to them to measure and feel out the response of the community.
This isn't about whether the ward system is right or wrong; this isn't about some farm team. This is about a basic right that local government has to determine how they shall handle a particular issue. This government wants to act like Big Brother and lay down the law. I think that is wrong, and I think that in this particular issue, they are making a mistake.
When you get to UBCM in a month and a bit, it will be interesting to see what kind of reaction there is from local government. I will hold my peace, because I don't want to take up any more time, in view of the concerns of the Minister of Employment and Investment, until after that time. But I am sure we'll have an opportunity to speak more to it then.
The Speaker: Thank you, members. Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose remarks will close debate.
Hon. D. Miller: If I displayed some intemperance in the last few moments, it's because I thought I had been advised by the hon. House
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I understand the nature of spontaneity in debate. In fact, I was going to
I was interested in some of the remarks made by members opposite. In fact, I was a bit fascinated, because I thought a variety of themes emerged during that debate. There was an initial attempt, I think, to have a consistent theme that we should not be involved. But then several members moved off that and strayed into what I think is really the issue -- which I'll get to, hon. Speaker. I was delighted to learn from the member for Saanich North and the Islands that municipalities in this province are indeed flush: they have loads of cash in the bank. I believe that member confirmed that municipalities have loads of cash in the bank.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Loads of cash in the bank, I think it was.
I also recall the member from Whistler talking in a previous debate about paying for some rather large piece of infrastructure in that municipality. I think he said they paid $26 million in cash. Lo and behold, that certainly is going to be an interesting topic at the UBCM meeting. Having been there before, I am quite aware that although they may indeed talk to me about this issue contained in section 35, I suspect that there may be some consistency in the discussions by people from regional districts and municipalities, and that, quite frankly, will relate to how much more money we may be able to transfer from the provincial coffers to the municipal coffers. So I will advise them that I've discussed the matter with the member for Saanich North and the Islands, and his advice to me as the minister is that municipalities are flush -- that they've got loads of cash in the bank. Perhaps we'll deal with that separately. Rather than go after
Going back to the comments, I was -- and I'm sure all citizens of the province were -- delighted to learn that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has voted in every election. I think that's an admirable example he's setting, particularly for the young people -- but not exclusively the young people -- in our province. In fact, he looks like a young person, so I'm really pleased he's set that good example. It's unfortunate that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain could not also claim that he's voted in every Vancouver election, since he recently fled his riding in the suburbs to move into Vancouver. I'm sure over time the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will actually learn something about Vancouver politics. Maybe we can have this debate next year; I don't know. I certainly hope that, as I go up to Penticton, all those municipal leaders don't beat me up too badly, because I need help on these kinds of questions.
Getting back to the issue that all members talked about, I was pleased -- and I hope, with respect to committee
I want to put it this way. I'm not a sophisticated person. I think I'm a rather simple person. I think that one of the things that is incumbent upon leaders is to provide leadership. Occasionally, in doing that, it may be that someone thinks you're stepping on their toes. I guess that's the price you pay for leadership.
An Hon. Member: It's called dictatorship.
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect to the member for Parksville-Qualicum, I think there is a subtle difference between dictatorship and leadership. Perhaps there are appropriate moments to use the term "dictatorship," and appropriate moments to express your displeasure with what's being done, but don't confuse the two. You can overuse language, hon. member, to the point where it has no meaning, and none of us want to do that.
For me it's a simple matter. Is it appropriate for the senior government in the province to provide a modicum of leadership with respect to these kinds of questions? When we look around, I notice the last person who spoke started to talk about getting into a justification as to what percentage might be appropriate in certain circumstances. I take a very simple view of life. These are fundamental questions. They're pretty basic; they're not that complicated.
I know the member for Matsqui spoke at some length, and yet I note that when there was a vote to have an amal-
[ Page 935 ]
gamation of Matsqui and Abbotsford, the 50-percent-plus-one rule applied. Clearly, that member thinks that's appropriate. He must. But what he did today in speaking is carefully avoid taking a position on that substantive issue. I have never heard so many members rise and talk about taking a principled position to avoid taking a position.
I would say the question is very simple. Do the hon. members believe that it's sufficient for the voters of Vancouver, in registering their opinions about whether or not to have wards, to have a simple 50 percent plus one as the rule that governs that decision? I know they will avoid that in this chamber, but I know those hon. members from Vancouver cannot avoid it in Vancouver. I'm sure, in the various discussions that no doubt will ensue in the city of Vancouver, that somewhere, sometime, somebody might actually have to ask them their opinion about whether they think 60 percent is too high a threshold and 50 percent plus one is appropriate. I hope that they will be able to answer the question simply, and not bob and weave on the issue of principle. I'm not one to predict what might ensue, but I'm reasonably sure that they've done a good job today of avoiding taking a position. I'll leave it to the bailiwick of Vancouver to determine whether that's something they're concerned about or not.
Therefore I really think it'
An Hon. Member: It's a city now, by the way.
Hon. D. Miller: City, municipality -- the subtle distinction escaped me. Thank you, hon. member.
If they don't want to have a referendum, they don't have to; they're free to choose that. If there's a result of the referendum, they don't have to implement it. Right? We're simply giving some leadership. It's unobtrusive. I think we're charged with that. I recall, in a speech I made several years
We're not simply elected here to follow a line; we're elected for our opinions. Unlike the members who spoke on the opposite side today, members should not be reluctant to give their opinions on this substantive issue and should not hide behind speeches about principle.
Having had a thoroughly delightful afternoon, albeit longer than I had predicted, I am happy to move that Bill 8 be read a second time now.
[5:15]
Second reading of Bill 8 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Janssen | McGregor | |
| Smallwood | Farnworth | Robertson | |
| Gillespie | Doyle | Lali | |
| Sawicki | Randall | Brewin | |
| Sihota | MacPhail | Dosanjh | |
| Miller | Petter | Priddy | |
| G. Wilson | |||
|
NAYS -- 32 | |||
| Weisgerber | Penner | Thorpe | |
| van Dongen | Whittred | Nebbeling | |
| Anderson | Coell | de Jong | |
| Stephens | Plant | Sanders | |
| Hurd | Farrell-Collins | Reid | |
| Gingell | J. Wilson | Reitsma | |
| Hansen | C. Clark | Hawkins | |
| Symons | Abbott | Jarvis | |
| Chong | Coleman | Nettleton | |
| Masi | McKinnon | Krueger | |
| Barisoff | Neufeld | ||
Bill 8, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Miller: On behalf of the House Leader, I call second reading of Bill 17.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996, contains amendments to a number of statutes. I'll provide a brief description of each of them.
The B.C. Forest Renewal Act is amended to alter the composition of the board of directors of Forest Renewal B.C. At present, it is provided that the board shall be composed of one or more members of the executive council, and not more than 15 other directors, all to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This amendment will replace the provision for "one or more members of the Executive Council" with a provision for "not more than 3 members of the Legislative Assembly." This amendment will provide for a clear maximum of three elected officials who may be appointed to the board of directors, and at the same time will enhance the flexibility of those who may be appointed to include Members of the Legislative Assembly who are not members of the executive council.
The amendments to the Columbia Basin Trust Act will ensure the financial viability of new power generation, transmission and distribution facilities constructed by the Columbia Power Corporation and the Columbia Basin Trust. New regulation-making powers will empower the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to pass regulations exempting from property tax those lands and improvements which the Columbia Basin Trust acquires when developing new power
[ Page 936 ]
facilities. In lieu of taxes, the Columbia Basin Trust will pay grants to the surveyor of taxes, to municipalities, or to other local governments.
This bill also makes two amendments to the Employee Investment Act. One amendment reduces the provincial tax credit paid to investors in employee venture capital corporations from 20 to 15 percent, to parallel a reduction in the federal tax credit announced in the recent federal budget. The other amendment parallels a reduction in the investor incentive tax credit: the combined federal and provincial tax credits have been reduced from 40 to 30 percent.
Provisions in this bill form part of the integration of midwifery into the British Columbia health care system. The amendments will clarify that admitting privileges in hospitals apply to physicians, dentists and other health professions who are specifically prescribed by regulation, thereby eliminating the present uncertainty about what is meant by paramedical personnel. In order to reflect the expanded nature of hospital privileges, references to "medical staff bylaws" are changed to "medical staff bylaws and other practitioner staff bylaws." References to the medical appeal board are changed to hospital appeal board.
I will now address amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. These amendments are being introduced to protect the interests of consumers and to protect government revenues that are being lost as a result of the sale of illicit liquor in licensed establishments. The major thrust of these amendments is to provide the power to obtain reasonable samples of liquor being sold through licensed establishments, without having to meet the criminal law test of reasonable and probable grounds.
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, you could taste it, too.
Such power exists in almost all other jurisdictions in Canada and has been used very successfully in Ontario. Revenue Canada believes that 355,000 cases of illegal spirits entered British Columbia in 1994. According to the liquor distribution branch, this represents a loss to the province of between $35 million and $40 million. These smuggled products also escape the GST and PST, so the loss is even higher, and this is for illicit spirits only. It doesn't include the revenue lost through illicit wine and beer. It doesn't include the revenue lost when a licensee sells illicit or watered-down liquor to a patron. These amendments will protect this revenue. They will protect the interests of licensees who obey the laws and deal only in legal liquor, and they will protect the interests of consumers who have no way of knowing if the liquor they purchase in a licensed establishment is the legitimate product they expect it to be.
Further provisions in this bill amend the Trade Development Corporation Act. As you may be aware, on March 7, 1996, Premier Glen Clark announced the closure of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation. Its functions have been combined with existing organizations to create the new British Columbia Trade and Investment Office. This amalgamation creates a more coordinated and effective approach for industry development, investment and export activities. Placing the Trade and Investment Office in the ministry will ensure a link with the government's strategic priority of long-term job creation. Provisions in this bill related to the Trade Development Corporation Act allow for this change.
The government finalized a new deal on the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline project in December of 1995. This deal completely restructured the province's financial involvement in the pipeline project, leaving Squamish Gas Co. as the only remaining utility under the old rate stabilization facility arrangements. Given the sensitive nature of the negotiations, the government was not able to introduce supporting legislation for certain aspects of the financial restructuring in the 1995 legislative session. This bill amends the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act in three ways. First, it provides flexibility to facilitate a possible restructuring of the remaining financial obligations as they apply to Squamish Gas Co. Second, it ensures that the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline special direction is effective and legally valid, and can be amended to accommodate any restructuring of the Squamish Gas arrangements. Third, it ensures that the special direction is legally valid, retroactive to the day it was issued. In summary, these amendments are necessary to ensure that the financial restructuring has been completed to date and remains enforceable, while providing for future restructuring of the government's small remaining financial obligation to Squamish Gas.
The final amendments in the bill are transitional provisions which apply specifically to the November 1996 elections for new school districts. On December 2, 1996, the number of school districts in the province will be reduced from 75 to 59. Transitional provisions are required to enable the new school district boundaries to apply during the upcoming school district elections. Hon. Speaker, I now move the bill be read a second time.
G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, the whole idea of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is problematic. It seems to me to be generally undesirable unless its use is confined to enactments which may truly be characterized as housekeeping in nature.
There are in this act some provisions which may, fairly speaking, bear that characterization. There are some others which will not. I expect there will be vigorous debate about some of the sections in this act, and I look forward to that debate, as I'm sure the minister does too. I know there will be some concerns raised in relation to the changes made to the definition of health practitioner in the Hospital Act, among other things.
The fact that there are substantive amendments to other legislation in this bill makes it difficult to come to a general position on the bill as a whole. I don't really propose to do that. I therefore expect that the majority of debate on this act will take place during committee stage.
[5:30]
The Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, I recognize now the Attorney General, whose comments will close the debate on second reading.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 15.
[ Page 937 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I rise in this debate as the minister responsible for disabilities. It may not have caught the eye of the opposition that matters
As hon. members know, this bill is a continuation of a series of changes that government is making. The purpose of those changes is to change the welfare system as we know it, in order to make it more reflective of the realities of the 1990s. In the other pieces of legislation that we've introduced -- the family bonus and the Youth Works legislation -- we have started to reconstruct the welfare system that has served this country for the better part of the last 40 years, but that no longer serves it well.
Particularly with regard to individuals suffering from disabilities, the case -- I think well put -- was made by people suffering from disabilities that the previous regime was demeaning and inattentive to their concerns, and they were right. As a result, this legislation will replace outdated language and criteria which have not changed for the last 20 years. Our policies under the previous regime discouraged employment and economic independence by forcing people with disabilities to declare themselves permanently unemployable, a process and a term that they found unacceptable and for which this government recognizes a need for change. As a result, there are changes in this legislation to those definitional provisions. More important, this legislation moves disability benefits outside of the welfare system and, in so doing, transforms both the psychology and the substantive approach taken to individuals afflicted with disabilities. It is long overdue, and certainly welcome on our part, that the bill is now before this House. With that said, I move second reading.
M. Coell: I rise to add comment to this bill. I would say that for the most part the opposition agrees with the intent and the principle of this bill, but I would like to stress a couple of points. The Ministry of Social Services, in giving up many of its obligations, is truly being transformed. I think there are a number of reasons for that, and the one that comes to mind is that over the past decade this particular ministry has more than doubled in size and in financial obligations. I hope that the government is not just dismantling the Ministry of Social Services to hide the fact that they're incapable of managing it and keeping it within a financial framework.
A number of bills were put forward under the umbrella agreements for the Ministry of Social Services, this being one of them -- and a very minor one. But I can tell you that for the people with disabilities, this is a very important recognition. I think that for many people who have suffered lives with disabilities, this act will bring them some comfort, knowing that they have been taken seriously in their request. I know many groups in our province have asked for this type of legislation.
There are a number of areas in the legislation, however, that the government may have difficulties with, and we will deal with those at the committee stage. We may have some amendments for this bill that we believe will help it function better for the people of this province with disabilities. I hope the minister -- whoever the minister is, whether it is the Minister of Social Services or the minister who presented this here today -- will be able to answer questions and also take into consideration some of the amendments we have. With that, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.
V. Anderson: I would like, for a change, to commend the government for this particular act. I know that persons within the community who live with disabilities all of their lives have been working for a great many years to get this kind of recognition and this kind of awareness that they have particular needs. They also have opportunities within the community that for years they've been prevented from using or taking advantage of. Many of those folks may be able to work part-time. They may be able to develop skills, but in the past the special opportunities that they needed to develop those skills or to work in a system that was set up for persons who could take full-time employment, persons who did not have difficulty getting into buildings and a lot of other
I just want to affirm the validity of the principle of this bill. The definition of disability, which has been worked out in cooperation with the community and which will no doubt be modified and expanded over future opportunities, is a very significant and important beginning.
The essence of the bill is contained in the first page. Then beyond that we have the regulations, and we fall back not only into the same difficulties that face the persons with disabilities, but the same regulations and bureaucracy that face everyone who has been caught up in the B.C. Benefits system. So on the one hand, we commend the essence of the recognition of people with disabilities but are frustrated by the bureaucracy and regulations, which will deny, in effect, as it denies to others who get caught in the system, the full opportunities which should be available to them. We will discuss those regulations over and against the intent and the recognition that the bill gives.
Hon. P. Priddy: I rise to support Bill 15, the Disability Benefits Program Act. I want, actually, to take a bit of a different look at it. I do agree that the time has come to modernize and to update our social safety net. B.C. Benefits legislation values the social safety net and changing socioeconomic circumstances at the same time.
I want to look at it from a personal perspective for a bit. I've spent over 30 years in this country standing beside people with disabilities and their families. Very often in the Legislature we talk about what it means for people with disabilities. I want to talk about what it means to me; I want to talk about what this piece if legislation means to my community. It means that every person has gifts to offer to their community. Because of the way that people have been
This removes some of the barriers that have prevented people with disabilities from contributing those skills to their
[ Page 938 ]
communities. The very worst kind of isolation that people with disabilities have suffered because of the system is isolation from their community. They've always been the recipients of something: legislation, benefits, largesse, charity, whatever. This gives them an opportunity to give back to a community. The many disabled people who are part of my life have said to me: "I can't just receive. I need an opportunity; I have a strength to give to my community." This will remove some of the barriers to doing that.
I want to tell a personal story about a woman who I've known since she was about 12. She is a woman with Down's syndrome. My colleague from Port Alberni has the pleasure of having her live in his community. Her mom is a friend of mine. She's now 25 years old, and she works part-time and goes to school part-time. Since I was diagnosed with breast cancer, she has been writing me twice a week, every week, without fail, to make sure that I get the kind of support I need. Nobody said to her: "You're limited. You're unemployable. You can't do these things." So the kinds of things she's been able to offer -- not just to me, but to her whole community -- are tremendous, because those barriers weren't there for her as they've been for many other people. So the gifts to communities are what we get back from this legislation, not just what we give by this legislation.
I also want to mention that I tell these stories because there's a phrase used by a man named John McKnight: "Institutions learn by study and people learn by stories." In my life, with people with disabilities, I learn by the stories, not by the institutional studies. It's important for me to talk about these people who are in my life, about what they give to my community.
This very, very, very innovative legislation takes people with disabilities out of the welfare system and says: "Yes, sometimes you need support, and it will be there for you. Sometimes you won't need that support, and therefore you'll be able to move on with the things you want to do, and you won't be hampered if you need that support again." It is the most innovative legislation I've seen. I'm very proud of our government for bringing it forward, but I'm also very grateful to all the communities in British Columbia, who will be able to see the gifts and talents that people with disabilities will bring to their communities.
R. Neufeld: I want to put a few comments on the record in regard to Bill 15, the Disability Benefits Program Act. In its basic form, the Reform Party supports the intent of this bill and what the government is trying to do with it, because it does remove people with disabilities out from under the welfare system and into a
[5:45]
I would like to bring to the
Although I know it's difficult to deal with those issues -- it's not easy -- I think they should be explored a little more in-depth. I think we should have a great amount of empathy for people that find themselves in these unfortunate conditions and do what we can to help them, without trying to say: "You have to sell your house" -- or those kinds of things -- "before you can receive anything." Some things in this bill dictate those kinds of moves. Of course, each individual and each party has a better way of doing it, I'm sure.
I have to commend the government on a start. Only from there can we work through the legislation, work out the glitches later on and, hopefully, come up with something that works well for everyone in British Columbia. With that, I'd like to say that we will be supporting Bill 15, the Disability Benefits Program Act.
M. de Jong: The success by which any legislative initiative of the scale encompassed by this and several other bills can be measured will be incumbent on the legislative framework that the government of the day introduces and on the implementation of that legislative framework. I think the sentiment of the House is clearly that there is a hope that the legislative framework -- and we will be investigating it and examining it in greater detail through the committee -- is fundamentally sound. We will look at that. Hopefully, it is. Beyond that, we get to the question of implementation and that, of course, will call for some strong leadership on the part of government and the minister responsible.
I know the Minister of Education made a comment earlier alluding to some kind of printing error. We've heard from two ministers, but not from the Minister of Social Services. We heard from him on Monday. We heard him say how proud he was to be the minister tabling the bill, and how it's the first of its kind in Canada and one that he believes will pave the way for national reform of programs for persons with disabilities. He went on to say that these bills collectively create a legislative framework for the implementation of B.C. Benefits, the government strategy to renew the social safety net. Those are all laudable goals and goals that we share, but it strikes me as odd that the minister responsible for that social safety net isn't here, isn't speaking to the bill, isn't setting out what his vision for implementation would be.
I don't know what the explanation for that is, but it does say one thing: in my mind, it really throws into question the leadership that is going to be required to implement this legislative framework in its entirety and effectively. I can't see it being there. If the minister, for whatever reason, isn't prepared to speak to his own
I guess the point is that if the Ministry of Social Services is sailing without a skipper -- and I think the word "scow" has been used with respect to the official skipper -- then it's destined to run up on the rocks in short order, and that is not the kind of leadership that is going to be required to see this through successfully. He has an opportunity to speak to the legislation that he introduced with such fanfare on Monday. Much has happened since Monday. He was at the reception, and he was touting this as a new and radical direction of reform for both British Columbia and Canada. But now he is either disinterested or feels that he is incapable of speaking to the legislation, and that's not good enough. That is not the
[ Page 939 ]
kind of leadership the people are looking for, and it is not the kind of leadership they deserve.
If it sounds like a challenge, it is. It is a challenge from the opposition benches to the minister responsible. There is other legislation coming, and the challenge is: if the Minister of Social Services believes in this legislation -- that it's worthy of implementation, that it's going to improve the social safety net in British Columbia, as he said on Monday -- then speak to it. Tell us that, and tell us how it's going to improve the lot of British Columbians who need to avail themselves of these services. If he can't do that, or if he's unwilling to do that, then perhaps it's time the government either
Given the hour, hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved unanimously on division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Now, I hope this isn't controversial, but I move that this House stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjourned.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 3:03 p.m.
On vote 27: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).
D. Symons: Just picking up where we left off before the lunch break, I was astounded to hear the minister, because I assumed the answer to my question at that point was "none," when I inquired as to how many electric cars or zero-emission vehicles -- which I would assume would be electric -- were being used by ADMs and people in the top echelons of the
Hon. P. Ramsey: I too am astounded. I'm astounded that the member doesn't know that there are no electric cars on the general market for purchase, either by ministry staff or any other British Columbian, right now. I'm astounded that he would assume that somehow these can be created and purchased out of thin air. That's astounding, truly astounding!
Let me say very clearly, though, that there is a pilot project for testing of electric vehicles. GM is going to be piloting a car here, I believe, starting later this month. Some 20 vehicles are being supplied to British Columbians to test, and then they will be passed on to somebody else to test, to really get a feel for what an electric vehicle -- a zero-emission vehicle -- might look like.
As for transportation within the ministry, there are some 700 vehicles used by the ministry -- everything from cars to trucks to 4-by-4s to fish tankers. I don't even know what a fish tanker is, but I imagine I'll see one before too long on the job. As far as senior staff go, only the deputy minister has a car allowance.
D. Symons: I'm astounded to hear that the minister isn't aware that there are electric vehicles available, maybe not by the manufacturers. Indeed, the previous Minister of Environment periodically drove an electric vehicle to work. At least, that's what I'm told. There have been conversions and they were used. It would seem only prudent to me that when the ministry has gone ahead and is on record as promoting the use of zero-emission vehicles, they would be in the forefront of testing those vehicles, whether they be supplied by the auto makers -- who are actually fighting this move because they think there are going to be horrendous expenses to
But as to the conversion of vehicles, there are people in Victoria who drive electric vehicles. You read articles in the paper, periodically, about them. Has the ministry not considered doing a few conversions and testing them before they force this upon everyone else in the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are indeed a number of experimental vehicles and conversions that have been done. For a brief time, the previous minister did drive one. I think that's what the member is referring to. I think all British Columbians look to the days when such vehicles will be widely available in the market. At the present time, the committee that works with me on reducing emissions and moving towards low- and no-emission vehicles is putting together some broad programs to move towards natural gas and propane use on a wider basis by government vehicles, and we will be spearheading that initiative within government.
D. Symons: I'll leave the electrical vehicles; we'll have time to come back to them next year, I suppose.
I wonder if you might tell me when your ministry is going to urge the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, through the motor vehicle branch -- sorry, that's with ICBC now, or will be -- to get buses and commercial vehicles tested. Apparently your ministry said -- promoted, anyway -- that it was optional, and it's been optional now for approximately a year. At what point is that option going to change into a requirement?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member, I think, knows, we've been pilot-testing emission testing for commercial transport and buses. We hope to be moving towards more rigorous testing this fall.
D. Symons: In the same vein, the new fast ferries that are currently beginning to be constructed by this government are
[ Page 940 ]
using, I believe, diesel-turbine power. Your predecessor pinpointed diesel engines from marine vehicles and B.C. ferries as a major source of pollution. I'm just wondering why your ministry would not have encouraged them to go to gas turbines or something of that sort, with much less pollution being put in the air than from the current ferries. There would also be less pollution than from the diesel, which this government seems to have chosen. It seems that the fast ferries put about four times as much emissions into the air as a conventional ferry. You seem to have chosen the wrong technology. Using those fast ferries will only increase the amount of pollution that's coming out of the ferries on this coast.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry is engaged in ongoing discussions with B.C. Ferries about making sure that we have good emission controls on those, as well, and is exploring alternative fuels with them.
D. Symons: For the minister's edification, the actual power units for those ferries have already
If we could move on to another item, I'm wondering about contaminated sites. In a Peat Marwick report that came out near the beginning of this government's first mandate, there was a recommendation that you develop a centralized registry of contaminated sites. That particular executive summary report on environmental costs identified somewhere, it said, in the neighbourhood of 1,600 known and potentially contaminated provincial sites. Has that centralized registry been made?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The data is within the ministry right now. Actually, the number will probably be higher than what Peat Marwick was suggesting -- maybe in the order of 3,000 to 4,000 such sites. We're right now in the process of getting it on line so you or anybody else can call it up on the Internet.
D. Symons: If it's going to be that available on the Internet, maybe the minister would be able to answer quite quickly the next question. Can the minister confirm that the site on which B.C. Ferries has chosen to construct its fast ferries in North Vancouver is a contaminated site?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff are unable to confirm that. They'll get back to me and to the member.
D. Symons: If you can't confirm it, you can't answer the next question, but you could answer it as well when you are confirming the other one. Was an environmental assessment done on that site before B.C. Ferries signed the contract for the Vancouver Port Corporation to build their construction shed on that site? Could you add that to what you're doing? I would assume that this government, which has brought in environmental legislation, requires the private
Hon. P. Ramsey: If you're concerned about it being a contaminated
D. Symons: This government has brought in some fairly tough environmental regulation, which I agree with. I am concerned that it seems to apply quite frequently to the private sector but doesn't apply to itself in the public sector. That's why my question is: when this government entered into an agreement with the Vancouver Port Corporation to use that particular site, did it insist that there be an environmental assessment done on the site before it began to build there? If the minister can answer that, I'd appreciate it. It's very important that the rules this government brings in apply to all, not just to some.
My other question is on used paint disposal. I don't believe this question has come up before. There has been an ongoing problem since the government initiated this 50-cent-a-can eco-fee on paint. When you buy a can of paint, you pay an environmental fee for returning it. I know that the B.C. Paint Care Association has been dragging its feet, I guess we could say, in setting up enough depots around the province to make it convenient for people to take in their half-used cans of paint. So I'm wondering if the minister might be able to tell me if the government has been monitoring the B.C. Paint Care Association's providing of these depots.
[3:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: To hark back to the member's response to a previous answer, this ministry and the people that serve the province in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, as they do environmental assessment and other functions under the legislation, do not distinguish between private and public operations.
As far as the paint care program goes, yes, that's monitored carefully. The 50-cent fee is something the association itself decided to levy. There are currently 82 depots across the province. We continue to monitor problems with making sure that they're accessible to the public.
D. Symons: I think 82 depots around the province are hardly enough to be effective for people returning paint in the city of Vancouver alone, let alone the province.
I'm just wondering if the minister, if the ministry is monitoring it, would be able to tell me how much has been collected by this eco-fee that's been put in place and possibly how much has been spent. I'm certain that the government would not allow the paint industry to charge a returnable fee on it without monitoring it and seeing that that fee is used for the purpose for which it's collected. Could you tell us how much has been collected since the inception of that plan and how much has been spent on a collection system?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I understand that perfection is always to be desired, but the member, I think, realizes that this is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has this sort of industry-run system. I think it is the way we need to go in the future -- to ask those who produce a product to be responsible for its return and safe disposal. I think we're on the right track with these sorts of initiatives.
Staff indicate that the association has collected in the range of $2.8 million in fees, and our information is that they've spent 50 cents of every dollar on the program.
D. Symons: On to the question I asked previously, regarding a contaminated site. I'm wondering if the minister might give me the rationale for exempting the Vancouver Island Highway from environmental assessments. There has been some contamination in various places along the highway -- runoff from highway construction and things of that sort. Why was that particular project an exception, when the environmental review came in before the highway was the current project being built -- through HCL and so forth?
[ Page 941 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: That was one of those projects -- there were several, private and public -- that had already been permitted and was in the process before the new legislation was proclaimed.
D. Symons: With all due respect, I would think that there are many parts of that particular project where the contracts were not let at that stage. There are still parts of the project today where the contracts are not let, and it would be quite easy to say from that point on that we want to have the same environmental assessments that anybody else that's doing construction in this province is going to have to face.
We find that HOV lanes are being brought into Highway 1. I gather that somewhere in the environmental review assessment you'll be able to tell me the figure. I believe there's something in a
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member is right that the HOV lanes fell
D. Symons: The minister mentioned a passing lane. I think two HOV lanes, 17 kilometres in length, are hardly a passing lane; that's a pretty long pass. Again, it just seems that there are instances where the government -- since most highway construction in this province is done by the government -- seems to exempt itself from what it's requiring the private sector to do. Can the minister enlighten us as to whether there are any other exemptions that I haven't mentioned so far? We seem to have found two, and maybe there are others that the minister could enlighten us on. What exemptions do other government agencies have from the usual environmental assessments that are normally required? Are there any others?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The act specifies a number of thresholds, depending on the type of project, before a full environmental assessment is required. I can gladly provide the member with the full regulation and the act, which specifies in detail what those thresholds are.
D. Symons: My only request was: do thresholds that apply to the public sector also apply to the private sector? If they are the same for both, that's not what I'm after. I'm after where there seems to be exemptions for the ministries or for the government. I assume he's saying none.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The act and regulations contain no such provisions.
D. Symons: I hope I will be reassured by hearing that.
Another question revolves around Cypress Bowl, the provincial park there. A park master plan, or concept plan, was due August 3, 1995, and Cypress Bowl Recreations was charging cross-country skiers as well as the downhill skiers. Lo and behold, I think last ski season they even started charging a fee of $29 to people who were hiking in the park in the winter. So I'm wondering if, as a result of that review, anything has come out.
I note that the first mention of it was: "Master Plan to be Created for Cypress Park." It goes on: "A master plan will be created to guide conservation and recreation in Cypress Provincial Park, John Cashore, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, announced today." That was dated February 4, 1992.
I find another one, dated February 25, 1995, that says: "Province Initiates Special Planning Process for Cypress Provincial Park." We have a three-year difference in there -- three years and three months, approximately -- and now it's a year later than that. Can the minister give us some idea of what has come out of that? Will the public be allowed access, without having to pay, in order to hike in Cypress Park and to take part in other recreational activities where the facilities aren't necessarily supplied by Cypress Bowl Recreations, which do put in ski hill operations there?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member, being from the North Shore, knows how long and
D. Symons: Richmond.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Oh, I'm sorry. You just get to look at it, not live there.
C. Clark: If you can see through the smog.
Hon. P. Ramsey: On a clear day you can see almost forever.
Two responses. First, obviously this is an issue of longstanding contention among various factions who want to see various uses in the park. The park master plan is now complete; it is ready for approval. We're looking at some slight alterations in the format of its recreation area master plan. We're going to submit that to further review and make sure we've got all issues resolved. We hope to get that done this fall. The issue of free public access is one of the issues that we expect to see included when this work is complete.
D. Symons: Having skied in that area for a time when my children were younger, before they got to be able to ski better that I could, I used to go up there, and there were none of those. That's at the time, I guess, when Cypress Bowl Recreations Ltd. took over the facilities from the parks branch. For a while it seemed to work very well. It was very reasonably priced and all the rest, but over the years they seemed to have tightened their mandate, shall we say, on ownership of the mountain, to the detriment of the average person going up there just to enjoy a day on the mountain. The road and all the rest of the facilities, I think, were initially put in by the government. This company seems to be trying to make its financial ends meet at the expense of all the people on the mountain.
I want to move to the last topic, marine log salvage. It's been an issue, particularly for me in Richmond, on the North Fraser. I used to boat down there before I got the current job. My boating days seem to be very shortened now, particularly this summer. I gather that there is a report being done on this. Submissions were due by the 30th of this month. You are doing a review of the regulations. I wonder if you might tell us when it comes out, because we do have a problem there.
Apparently the logging companies are responsible for much of the debris in the Fraser River. You can see by the
[ Page 942 ]
sawed-off ends that it's been done during the logging process. If a salvage operator comes and picks up one of those logs and tries to take it anywhere to sell it, the logging industry as an industry claims ownership of it. But if they don't think it has any sort of commercial value, the logging industry will ignore it, say it's not theirs and leave it up to somebody else to take. The boat injury, the beaches or whatever happens with that
The logging industry really seems to have it both ways in this. They claim those of their logs that are basically a result of their logging practices in the water, which they think they want back. They pay a small finder fee to the salvager, but the majority of the other
Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff have reminded me that we did deal with this matter slightly earlier in estimates. Staff are working with the Ministry of Forests to explore other options for disposing of wood waste that's drifting down our rivers.
D. Symons: I have just one last question on that. My last trip to Iona Island was a few years ago, but what they were doing at that time was putting it into a heap and burning it. So I do hope you will find better ways of disposing of it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's exactly the problem we're dealing with.
L. Reid: I'm again delighted to participate in estimates for this particular minister. I have two questions, and I certainly won't take much of this minister's time.
In terms of forestry pilings that are found in a number of British Columbia lakes, obviously placed there by forestry companies for opportunities to secure logbooms and the
We have huge issues with constituents. They write to the Ministry of Forests, who advises them to write back to the Ministry of Environment, who advises them to write back to the Minister of Forests. The paper trail is significant. I'm hoping the minister can outline the best course of action. How do they inquire as to how to have those pilings removed from their lake frontages?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure I have a good answer for the member. That's one that, five weeks into the job, I haven't stumbled across or run into yet, and I hope I don't; it sounds serious. I will look into that and see if I can provide the member, perhaps informally, some information on what to advise her correspondents.
[3:30]
L. Reid: I would appreciate it if the minister could direct his remarks to whether or not a plan exists and who is responsible.
The second issue I wanted to raise was the removal of gypsum drywall around the province, and the fact that there seems to be a great deal of money spent on cleaning up after people who illegally dump this product. I know the minister is aware of it, because a number of pieces of correspondence have come to this ministry -- certainly over the last number of years, but over the last number of months, as well. The costs, I think, are significant. I think the ministry, if they believe that these are significant ways to enhance the environment, will follow suit.
What troubles me is that after much
That's basically the first paragraph of the letter. It's written by Alex Thomas.
The second one is from Coe Lumber and Building Supply, also of Vancouver:
This is written by Mr. Mark Lau, who is the manager.
Irly Bird lumber stores around the province,
What troubles
Hon. P. Ramsey: To myself?
L. Reid: Yes.
Hon. P. Ramsey: When?
L. Reid: June 11, 1996: "Thank you for your letter requesting a meeting with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, the Hon. Paul Ramsey. The minister has asked me to send you his regrets, as his schedule will not allow for a meeting." It seems to me that if indeed all of these issues are important, you will grant this individual a meeting, and you will ensure that that environmental enhancement is in place for all British Columbians.
[ Page 943 ]
The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, could we try and address all remarks through the Chair. The use of words like "you," unless you are speaking to me, are not applicable.
Hon. P. Ramsey: You have given us good advice, hon. Chair. First, to the Chair, I apologize for the really inappropriate informality. I think it's because this member and I have dealt with each other on so many issues for so long in another portfolio and another critic position.
I just want to thank the member for bringing this issue to my attention. I was not aware of it. From the description that the member gives, I think this is a worthwhile project. I am not quite sure what assistance we can provide Mr. Boyce in pursuing his endeavours. I do understand that he is struggling financially, trying to get it off the ground. Staff have met with him. When time permits, and perhaps when we're out of estimates, either I, or a member of my office staff, will endeavour to meet with him.
L. Reid: I thank the minister most sincerely. I know that this constituent, Mr. Boyce, would be delighted to find out what the next steps might be in terms of bringing this on line. As noted, it is an experimental process at the moment. There are six or seven sites. If it ended up with 20 or 30 by the end of the year, I think it would be a fine thing in terms of protecting the environment.
B. Penner: I have a question for the minister that goes back to a matter that was raised a little bit earlier. It had to do with Cypress Provincial Park, and the issue had to do with the operator in that park charging people a fee, or purporting to do so, for accessing public lands through their operational area.
Specifically, what brought my attention to this issue was the Vancouver Sun article dated January 26, 1995, section B, page 1. There was a headline in the paper, something to the effect of: "$29 Fee for Hiking Cypress Bowl." Just to relate a little bit about the incident for the record, a person contacted the newspaper after deciding to go out snowshoeing in winter and, when going through the area up into the mountains to hike beyond the ski area itself, was stopped by a person employed by the park facility operator demanded they produce a ticket. The hiker explained that they were not using the lift facilities but were merely intending to go for a hike. Nevertheless, the employee persisted and said that they were under directions that anybody entering upon that locale had to have a ticket regardless of the purpose of their visit.
I think that the ill-conceived notion of this idea is borne out by the fact that, when the hiker persisted, the employee of Cypress Bowl ski area said: "Well, then you can just buy a $10 rope-tow ticket, and I'll let you through." Clearly then, the amount that they are charging is not related to the activity, if they were content to go with a $10 ticket after initially insisting on a $29 ticket.
Now, I am familiar with the practice in both Manning Park and Cypress Provincial Park. The operators, or the contractors, in those parks charge a modest amount to use cross-country ski trails, and you are required to have a ticket if you are accessing those trails, at least the ones that are groomed. However, I am just wondering what the minister, first of all, can say in response to that. What can the ministry do if, in fact, a condition of their licence or permit allows them to charge people for simply going through the ski area? What can the government do now?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I have the same reaction that the member opposite has to being charged 29 bucks to go for a snowshoe in a provincial park, particularly since it's pretty hard to do downhill skiing in those snowshoes.
The issue, as I understand it, is that the commercial use permit for Cypress Bowl that the operator had back in 1985 did permit them -- not require them, but permit them -- to charge such a fee. We are, as you know, renegotiating that and the park plan with the operator, and one of our goals is to ensure public access without charge to a public park when they are not using the commercial facilities.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister can indicate when the new agreement is expected to be signed or completed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We expect to have that work concluded this fall.
B. Penner: Just to clarify, then, the existing agreement that the Cypress Bowl operator has does permit them to charge a fee to anyone entering -- I guess it's a certain designated amount of land there -- near the ski area.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This permit issued in the mid-eighties does, at least in the operator's interpretation, give them the ability to charge those fees. We are right now attempting to negotiate with the operator a master park plan and some real clarification of all permits that allow them to operate in Cypress Provincial Park, to ensure free public access to parkland where they're not using the facilities provided by the commercial operator.
The member may also be interested to know that the negotiations we're undertaking are being undertaken while a court case involving the ministry and the park operator over the application of various permits is in abeyance. So we're attempting to resolve what has become a very litigious issue and to do it in a way
B. Penner: I don't want to belabour this point, but I do feel it does raise a matter that's an important principle -- that is, public access to public lands. I'm not going to stand here today and pretend that I'm advocating this, but I would encourage the minister and his officials to consider the following. The Legislature of British Columbia is paramount, is supreme, and if need be, the province does have jurisdiction and legal authority to override contracts that it appears to be bound by, if in fact it chooses to do so.
I know that it is not done very commonly; I would discourage its use except in the most exceptional circumstances. However, I think we have to keep in mind that that authority is there, and presumably it's there for a reason. It wouldn't be there unless it was to be used on certain occasions. So I would caution the minister and his officials not to make any rash movement in that regard, but I would just remind the government again that that power does exist, and it should be exercised, I suppose, from time to time in the public interest. If it's perceived to be in the public interest, and there's no other way around this particular dilemma, then certainly I would encourage the government to at least consider that as a potential option.
The minister is probably aware that a very popular hiking destination in that area is The Lions, perhaps one of the most visible landmarks in Vancouver. There are two routes to The Lions. One starts at Lions Bay -- it's more difficult, and I can
[ Page 944 ]
attest to that; the other starts at the ski area itself. I believe it's necessary to go through the area designated as the downhill ski area in order to access that trail; that's the most common route to The Lions. To take this lease agreement to its silliest conclusion, then, the operator would be in a position, perhaps legally, as it stands now, to charge hikers to go through their area even in the summertime. Obviously we can all agree that that's simply unacceptable.
Those would be my comments on that matter. I'll just sit down and listen to what the minister has to say in reply.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with the principle that public access should be open. Some time ago, a previous minister appointed Mr. Bryan Williams to consult all parties and to seek to resolve these issues without further court action or legislation. The government has accepted the recommendations contained in Mr. Williams's report. I think the operator is generally satisfied with them, and we're working toward, I hope, some new plans and permits. That work will be concluded this fall.
I agree with the member on both his points: legislatures do have the authority to override contracts and legislation, and they should only do so in very extraordinary circumstances. The federal government's attempt to deal with the Pearson Airport contract through legislation comes to mind as a cautionary tale for those of us who would jump to legislative remedies.
C. Clark: We don't have a Senate in B.C., Barry.
B. Penner: That's right. We don't have a Senate yet, and I hope we never do.
I've just had one of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff graciously deliver, to the minister, a series of photographs which I took yesterday on my way to Chilliwack. I'm moving now to the issue of air pollution -- or I was. I'll leave the minister with those photographs.
The Chair: The minister will have an opportunity to look at them as we go to the House to vote.
The committee recessed from 3:45 p.m. to 3:56 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions pertaining to the minister's announcement tomorrow of the worst-polluters list, which is released every year. I was marooned in Committee B on another bill, and I'm not sure whether the matter was raised this morning. But the ministry does release a list of companies, firms and municipalities that are in substantial non-compliance with their waste management permits. I noted from the media that release of the most current list is due tomorrow.
I wonder if the minister could just take a minute to advise the committee of the criteria for being named on that list. Are we looking at companies that are out of compliance with their permits for a certain period of time each month? Is it out of compliance completely with their permits? I wonder if he could just advise the committee about the nature of this list, which the ministry has traditionally spent a lot of time compiling, obviously, and then holding a press conference to release it to the public. I wonder if he could just take a minute to explain the methodology that's used in compiling the list that's released every year.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I need to try to straighten something out. The story in the Province was good; the headline was wrong. What's being released tomorrow is the first real report on water quality in a number of British Columbia rivers, lakes, foreshores, and the like. There is no "worst polluters" list being released tomorrow. What the member is referring to is the semi-annual report of those who are in non-compliance with their permits. In that report, we do seek to name those who are either significantly out of compliance a few times or out of compliance a little bit for a long time. We're looking at both frequency and excessiveness of violation. We also seek to indicate what the polluter is doing about it.
W. Hurd: I know, however, that before anything can be discharged or emitted, there is a waste management permit required. I'm just trying to determine on that list, which appears to be a list of individuals, companies and municipalities that the ministry feels strongly need to be
[4:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: To repeat, the list is comprised of those who are excessively in deviation from the permits they have to discharge wastes. We're not looking at people or corporations or municipalities whose discharges are within the permitted levels. Criteria are rather technical. They do, in lay terms, include how much they've exceeded and how frequently. Those are the two things we've looked at. Those who may be put on such a list are informed in advance and asked to respond. At times they make a case that it isn't an excessive concern, and they're not put on the list.
W. Hurd: Then perhaps the minister can just explain the process by which companies, individuals or municipalities that are identified as being candidates for the list are provided with the opportunity to provide input on remediation measures. Can he describe that process for the committee? Are we dealing with any sort of ongoing consultation here, or is it a matter of the ministry receiving the statistical information from the branch and compiling its own list? I wonder if you could describe the general process that flows before the list is released and an individual or company or municipality or, in some cases I'm aware of, an Indian band, even, ends up on this rather infamous list.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry, as you know, monitors compliance with waste discharge permits. If holders of permits are found to be out of compliance with them, we notify them. If the amount which they're out of compliance is excessive enough, either in quantity or in duration, they may be a candidate for the infamous bottom ten. They are informed by letter that they may be a candidate and are given a chance to respond and talk to the ministry about how we work with them to make sure they're not out of compliance in the future.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could just take a minute to elaborate for the committee the nature of the regula-
[ Page 945 ]
tory review, or the ongoing assessment, of emissions, of discharges. Would he characterize it as essentially a self-regulatory system? Under the waste management permit, it's my understanding that those with a permit are required by the nature of the permit to report any spills -- to in essence provide the information to the ministry on which they would then take action. I wonder if he could just describe what we're dealing with, in terms of the amount of self-reporting versus what the ministry may do as an independent auditor in the case of waste management permits in the province. Would he categorize it as a self-regulatory system, or is it half-and-half? Is it a situation where the ministry undertakes most, if not all, of the audits, to determine compliance?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate the member's interest in this. I understand that he's demonstrated this interest to previous ministers in previous estimates on precisely this topic. I think he probably knows very well how the ministry monitors compliance with permits. If he wishes, I can provide him the opportunity to meet with staff and receive some technical briefing on the matter. But really, I don't think having the back-and-forth here is a productive use of our time.
W. Hurd: The estimates are designed to promote that kind of back-and-forth flow of information.
We've just discussed a worst-polluters list that the ministry compiles every year. It's taken on the proportions of a show trial at times in the past few years. I'm just trying to determine whether the people on the list are required to produce the information that gets them on the list -- whether it's a self-regulatory system that gets them there or whether it's an audit that the ministry actually does on these permits on an annual basis. They've been identified by letter as being candidates for the list. Does that letter flow from a regime of routine audits that the ministry does? Or are we dealing with a self-reporting system, where the holder of the permit will advise the ministry that yes, on 15 or 20 days of this month and the last month, we've been substantially out of compliance. I'm just trying to determine whether or not we have a system of self-regulation of the permit that rewards honesty by putting people on a list.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Any holder of a permit has, of course, to monitor their organization's own compliance with it, so they know whether they are in compliance with it. The ministry audits. It's a regulatory regime -- those who hold permits gather data on their own performance and provide that to the ministry. But it's not self-regulation, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Well, I wonder if the minister can tell us, because there are many large industrial firms in the province, as the minister knows, that have the capacity to test their effluent and to undertake a battery of tests to determine if they are in compliance or
Hon. P. Ramsey: Any holder of a permit has to have the ability to monitor its adherence to the permit, and the ministry has access to that information.
W. Hurd: If I understand the minister correctly, the permit that is issued spells out the way in which data collected by the company is to be remitted to the ministry. Is that part of the waste management permitting process in the province? I'm just trying to determine -- again, to my own satisfaction -- how much of the information about the permit is generated from within the ministry and how much of it might be relied upon to be provided by the individual holder of the permit.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Both the regulations under which waste permitting is done and individual permits specify the reporting process.
W. Hurd: Then with respect to the people who appear on the list that the minister has indicated is semi-annual, or once every six
Hon. P. Ramsey: Anybody who holds a provincial permit is required to do the monitoring and reporting.
W. Hurd: So would it be fair, then, to say of those people who end up on the list that, even though the permit they are violating may require them to undertake certain things, the information that allows the ministry to act on the transgression and place them on the list is in fact required to be generated by the applicant as a condition of continuing to emit or discharge or whatever else they may be doing? It's essentially a system that requires the holder to forward the information on which the ministry bases its compliance audit.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Holders of permits are required to monitor and work hard to report. The ministry does audits of that information.
W. Hurd: I just have a few other questions about the list. With respect to the remediation offer that comes from the applicant, does the ministry, as part of its assessment or placement of applicants on the list, monitor or comment on the progress that the polluter may be making? I mean, is a time frame required as part of this list? I'm certainly aware, and I'm sure the minister is as well, that in the past there have been names on the list -- the greater Vancouver regional district is a classic example -- that routinely show up. They have shown up on the list year after year after year. Yet the means to get them off the list simply revolved around commitments from senior levels of government that at the time weren't in place. So I wonder, when you're dealing with applicants that might require participation of another level of government or of a regional district, whether there's any recognition of that in the compiling of the list or in a comment that might be available to provide some direction for the public when they pick up the list or read a newspaper account of it and assume that everyone on the list is wilfully flouting the pollution laws of the province or the permit under which they operate.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The list contains information about whether it's the first, second, seventh or tenth time that people have appeared on the list. This very often specifies the nature and the severity of the infraction. It talks about remediation measures or ongoing work that could occur.
R. Neufeld: I just didn't want the estimates to flash by us this quickly, so I thought I better leap to my feet and ask a number of questions.
[ Page 946 ]
I want to go back to dams -- just some information that I received today -- and to the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. I guess it is the water
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
R. Neufeld: All of the information that I've received to date has been that the water level in the Williston reservoir would drop by ten feet when it started to be drained on June 24. I think that right now we're at about four feet, so we've got a way to go to get to ten. My latest update -- in fact, yesterday -- says that they were drilling three holes in the upper berm, even though it says that they won't start doing anything with drilling in the dam until the level reaches 2,190. We're at 2,192.8. I have another one today that says the water comptroller has approved two more holes. Just to bring me up to date a little bit, why are we changing from what I understood originally to be approximately a ten-foot drop? We're still quite a way from 2,190. It may not seem that much here, but in the lake it's a tremendous amount of water. Maybe just give me an update on why we're doing that.
[4:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a lot of technical things here, hon. member. I'm quite willing to provide staff to make sure that you, and anybody who's concerned about this issue, are fully up to date on all the details of it. We want to be as absolutely open as possible about what the comptroller has ordered or authorized and how B.C. Hydro and this ministry are working together to ascertain what's going on at the Bennett Dam.
The water level right
B.C. Hydro is also undertaking what's called sonic testing. I'd be glad to get staff to explain some of the technical differences there. Those are the holes that have been authorized before the level reaches 2,190. I'd be glad to provide staff to the member to explain, in whatever detail he requires, the nature of the work going on at Bennett Dam and the comptroller's involvement in it.
R. Neufeld: It just seemed we were getting away from the original plan. All of a sudden, in two days, we've gone to drilling five holes: two in the crest and two in the downstream face. It just kind of astounded me that all of a sudden we are doing this when the level has not reached what we want it to. I appreciate the minister telling me that, and I'll take him up on it.
I want to just follow up a bit on what the member from Surrey had asked questions about earlier. That had to do with the water quality in some of our lakes. I particularly want to know the minister's opinion about Okanagan Lake, where all the homes on the west side, where the reserve
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to just touch briefly again on the Bennett Dam. The comptroller had always expected that there would be some of these test holes for sonic drilling, as it's called, done while the water level was being lowered. The invasive drilling that is going to occur once we reach 2,190, as I understand it, is a different procedure entirely. I will renew the offer that we have made both to you and the member for Peace River South to provide you with briefings on this on whatever basis you require. The only thing I would ask is that if there is any concern in the communities around the dam about any of these matters, please do flag them for me. We attempt to be in regular contact with municipalities and the folks who are in the Bennett Dam area.
On the issue that the member raises around water quality, I think it is a legitimate concern. The report that I'll be releasing tomorrow looks at over 100 different water bodies in the province, both still and running, and assesses their quality for a number of purposes. Without getting too much into the details, one of the issues that I think the member raises very accurately is the sort of non-point pollution that occurs when you have a large number of septic fields in proximity to a body of water. We do a lot of permitting of actual discharges and dealing with point source pollution. It's this more area-based pollution that I think is our next challenge. This is complicated, as the member notes, when the land is under federal jurisdiction and provincial law, and regulatory frameworks don't apply.
R. Neufeld: I agree. I know that provincial environmental laws don't apply. Would the minister go so far as to put on the record that he believes that provincial laws should apply on aboriginal land in situations such as we have just described?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If only we could rewrite constitutional provisions so quickly. Actually, without straying too far from these estimates, under the Nisga'a AIP, provincial law would apply. I hope that we can, either through cooperative work with first nations or between us and the federal government and first nations, get into a uniform regime for both environmental law and other laws of general application.
R. Neufeld: The minister is very perceptive, because I want to get to the Nisga'a agreement a bit in dealing with the environment. The issue about the environmental rules in British Columbia applying to all is important to all of us, especially when we're talking about the quality of our water.
As I understand it, the Nisga'a agreement would start using our environmental rules for the first five years, the same as the Forest Practices Code, and then it will revert to Nisga'a law. Obviously, if we look around the province now and see what's happened with reserves and on lakes, they don't comply with the rules of the province. They obviously have no intention of doing that. I wonder how the minister feels about what would happen after the initial five years of the Nisga'a agreement if it was implemented in the form it is today, and how the ministry would go about trying to enforce the environmental rules as we know them today in those same situations.
[ Page 947 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member's understanding of the AIP and mine differ substantially. I asked staff just now if they were aware of any such five-year phase-out of the application of the standards of provincial and environmental law. They are not, nor am I.
B. Penner: To go back to where we had left off before the division bells rang a few minutes
Yesterday I travelled to Chilliwack for the day by air, and the first photograph that the minister has is a picture taken over Georgia strait looking east. You can see Mount Baker. Along the foothills of the mountains, you can see the first indications of smog beginning to show. The second photograph is taken, basically, directly over Abbotsford, looking east towards Chilliwack, and there you can see the smog has now become severe. The third photograph is basically over Chilliwack itself, and the minister can clearly see the state of the air pollution over Chilliwack.
Now, my predecessor in the Legislature, the former member for Chilliwack, Mr. Bob Chisholm, routinely introduced a private member's bill entitled An Act to Introduce a Minimum Ethanol Component for Gasoline. I haven't yet followed suit, because I'm still investigating the technical merits of such a bill and the proposals contained therein. I'm just wondering whether the minister and/or his staff are familiar with my predecessor's bill, whether they've looked at it and what their conclusions are.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier in the estimates, we canvassed some of the air quality issues at some length. I'll repeat a little bit of the things I said then.
I think the member correctly identifies transportation emissions as probably the greatest factor in air quality. In the Vancouver airshed, approximately 75 percent of pollutants come from transportation. It's our biggest problem.
As the member reviews the technical merits of ethanol -- and there are some merits to it -- he might also wish to review the technical merits of the fuel regulation that is now being enacted in the province to provide cleaner-burning fuels in gasoline. He might also wish to review the impact of requiring access to low- and no-emission vehicles to purchasers in the province, as well as, we hope, the impact of doing some further work on reducing emissions not only from the domestic car user, through AirCare, but by moving that over and also doing testings on commercial and bus transportation. There are other initiatives as well. I mentioned the Scrap-It program and a variety of other initiatives. In the whole range of areas, one of the biggest factors we have to deal with is transportation.
In a larger sense, the member and I will probably be discussing this in future years. Every five years we're adding a city the size of Regina to the lower mainland, and that places considerable strain. So even as we lower emissions from vehicles, even as we improve the cleanliness of the fuel we burn, even as we add low-emission vehicles, the number of people and the number of vehicles increases. Communities that are up the Fraser Valley from Vancouver proper clearly get the worst of it. There's a lovely funnel there, and the airshed just pushes it all up. Earlier, I read into the record some of the figures from, I think, 8 o'clock this morning, and the air warning that was issued today.
We have a long-term problem here; we really do. There are a variety of facets of trying to deal with it. On the larger issue -- and I am going on a little bit more than I expected -- I think one of the big problems we have here is just straight growth strategy. Where do we put people and the places where they work, not only to provide transportation that is as environmentally friendly as possible but also so that the need for transportation is lowered. So there's a whole range of issues around how we get a handle on this. The analogy that I used this morning is that at times it feels like we're trying to run up the escalator that's taking us down. We keep improving the emission standards that we have, we keep requiring tighter controls on that, but the growing population keeps diminishing the effect of those initiatives. So we've got to run even harder to get to the top of the escalator, before it takes us to the basement.
B. Penner: I'll ask a bit more of a technical question. It's in relation, again, to my predecessor's private member's bill. The proposal in that would-be enactment was that by law, there would be a minimum requirement of 10 percent ethanol blended with gasoline in any quantity of gasoline sold in the province. He claimed -- and I've seen it reported elsewhere -- that a fuel mixture of this sort would reduce noxious emissions by 40 percent. That sounds like a large number. If it's true, that sounds very good. I'm wondering whether the minister or his officials have looked at this proposal and whether they agree with those statistics or those estimates.
[4:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is an approach, among others, that the ministry is examining as it looks at cleaner-burning fuels and other initiatives to lower emissions. I'm not sure that the bald-faced claim of "40 percent down right now" is accurate, but it clearly does have benefits, and we're looking at that and other initiatives.
B. Penner: I'll close my questions for the minister on this topic. I would now just like to indicate a few things for the record. I do intend to follow up in writing to the minister, and hopefully that could be passed on to your staff, in terms of the technical merits and whether or not there has been any research conducted by the ministry and the various technocrats in the ministry as to the benefits, real or imagined, of ethanol-blended gasoline.
I am aware that Mohawk gas stations do sell a gasoline which they promote on the basis that it is environment-friendly, and I believe it does have this percentage of ethanol in the gasoline. In speaking to some officials associated with Mohawk in Canada, they tell me that one of the difficulties is that the supply of the active ingredient, which is grain, is great. Canada has a surplus position in terms of grain; we're fortunate in that regard. Perhaps not this year, but overall there tends to be no shortage, and in fact we often have difficulties finding markets for our farmers' grain in Canada. But apparently it is a very intensive process, and at least to date, the technology has proven difficult in converting the grain into the ethanol in sufficient quantities as to be economically viable at the retail level. Now, that's the explanation that's been given to me. However, Mohawk's been doing it.
One suggestion that I might have is that, in terms of encouraging private producers to pursue this product of ethanol-blended gasoline, the government may wish to consider either a slightly reduced tax on fuel which is blended with ethanol -- assuming, of course, that the technical merits can be proven -- or, in the alternative -- although I wouldn't
[ Page 948 ]
propose this or push it too strongly -- a higher tax on those fuels that do not contain this element of ethanol. Again, all of that is predicated on there being a technical merit to gasoline having ethanol in it. Those are the remarks that I have on the estimates for Environment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to thank the member for his very thoughtful remarks on some of the complexities of this issue. I promise not to tell your leader that you've advocated higher taxes. I will only say this: I share your concern. There are a number of problems with the ethanol proposal as I understand it, but write to me formally and I will get ministry officials to respond. Among the concerns I'm aware of is that the economic feasibility of this depends at least in part on what the market for grain is.
We've just been coming out of a very long period in which grain prices have been depressed in the country because of world markets. It looks this year as if those markets are going to be exceedingly good for grain farmers in this province and across Canada, and that would, of course, diminish the economic viability of ethanol proposals. There may be other sources, though. One thing being experimented with is the production of ethanol from wood waste. Given some of the discussions we've had earlier in this committee about wood waste, that too is an avenue that may eventually bear some fruit.
You're right -- the problem of sufficient quantity of ethanol to make such a blend is part of the issue, as well as the economics of such a production and hence such blending. I would encourage the member to write to me, and I will ensure that we respond.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister please give me an overview of the involvement of your ministry in the Apex situation in the Penticton area?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a variety of involvements. The Apex project -- Apex Alpine -- sits on Crown land. It holds water licences from this ministry, and this ministry is involved in producing the guidelines for an environmental audit in Apex and the surrounding area.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise if all of the work that your ministry was looking at doing and all of the requests made of the parties have all been completed, or is some of it still pending completion?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The environmental audit framework was released in draft form a little while ago, and comments have come back. We expect to release the final version in the very near future, within weeks.
R. Thorpe: Looking forward to these estimates, could the minister please advise to what degree involvement in Apex -- and the requests on the mountain -- have been budgeted for involvement by the ministry for the coming year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Any work undertaken will be part of normal regional budgets. It wouldn't be a significant amount.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister confirm for the record that the Apex resort and the ensuing area has complied with all of the environmental requests that have been placed upon it?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise that in broad terms, yes, Apex has complied with Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks requirements pursuant to their operations. There were some minor problems, but they seem to have been rectified.
R. Thorpe: The minister indicates that the environmental audit document will be released in a couple of weeks. Would the minister undertake to provide this member with a briefing by staff on that document when it is released?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It will be provided.
R. Thorpe: I'm switching gears here significantly, but I'm not leaving the impact on the Okanagan.
For a number of years now your ministry has been studying and researching expanded deposits. Could the minister please advise us of the current status of those deliberations?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've indicated that I have instructed my parliamentary secretary, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, to work on this issue on my behalf, to meet with those concerned about it and to advise me on the next steps to be taken.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister give this committee an indication of the priority that this subject receives within the ministry and with your parliamentary secretary? Is it a top priority? Is it down the list somewhere? Where does the project place in terms of priorities?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand that the parliamentary secretary sees this as one of her top priorities. From my discussions with a variety of people, it is clearly in our interest to resolve this longstanding discussion one way or another.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister clarify the last part of his statement? Did he say that he sees a resolution in the near future? Did I interpret him correctly?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, this whole issue of expanding, in some way, our ability to recapture and recycle containers rather than landfill them has been an ongoing issue for municipalities, manufacturers and those who are broadly concerned with environmental issues in this province. I think it's time to get to an option and a decision on it. As I say, it's one of my parliamentary secretary's top priorities.
R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister or his staff realizes that this is certainly a very, very complex issue. I personally worked on it for a couple of years. I would like assurance from the minister that we will keep it in line with what I believe are some of the thrusts that were mentioned in the throne speech: small business, competitiveness and meaningful job creation, especially. I would like the minister's assurance that before a resolution is put in place, he will very carefully review the implications for small businesses, especially those in the Okanagan.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That factor and many others will be fully considered.
[ Page 949 ]
R. Thorpe: This is potentially a very far-reaching subject with significant impacts in many areas. It's often the case that when programs are developed in boardrooms, they're wonderful there but really have some operational problems when they get into the field. Would the minister think that it would be astute, before a provincewide program is put in place, for meaningful pilot projects to take place within the province so that we can see that whatever this resolution may be, its intent really does work?
[4:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it would be very premature to commit to an implementation program right now. Clearly, how any such scheme would or could be implemented would be one of the matters under close scrutiny as to what experience we have with pilots in this province already, other jurisdictions and how any scheme might be phased in.
R. Thorpe: I want to make sure I understand your words. That wasn't an overwhelming yes, was it, Mr. Minister?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It was a polite way of saying that future
R. Thorpe: I have great concerns that people who for the most part are not out in the operational world, but who on paper may understand the issues, do not really understand the real issues and do not understand the challenges of meeting weekly payrolls. I strongly urge the minister -- and I ask the minister to undertake this on behalf of small business, in keeping with this government's overall policy to work with small business -- to seriously consider pilot projects, knowing full well that parts of this province are not the same. There are significant differences throughout this province that must be considered. I would ask the minister to encourage staff to consider those and to encourage pilot projects before full implementation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his representations. I intend to work with all who are concerned about this issue.
R. Thorpe: As you said earlier, this is on the priority list of your parliamentary secretary. It's on my priority list also. Therefore I would appreciate it if the minister could make an undertaking that the parliamentary secretary working on this project would undertake, or that you would ask her to undertake, that I be kept advised in a timely manner as this project unfolds, and that perhaps even input could be asked for as the projects unfold.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As a preliminary step I will ask my parliamentary secretary to meet either formally or informally with the member.
R. Thorpe: Changing gears completely here
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: Well, it's a five-speed, so we're getting into third gear now.
Will your ministry achieve its estimated FTEs for the 1996-97 year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
R. Thorpe: The Premier indicated that the government would reduce staff by 2,200. How many of those FTEs are in your ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: On page 115 of the estimates book, it shows reconciled last year's FTEs and the projected '96-97 FTEs. It shows last year's at 2,383 and this year's at 2,325. One of the difficulties here is that the configuration of some departments has changed -- some have gone out; some have come in. It is probably the best comparison.
R. Thorpe: So is the minister saying, or am I understanding him correctly, that your portion of the Premier's commitment to reduce FTEs by 2,200 is reflected in the 2,325? Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Does your ministry monitor its budget on a monthly basis?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Could you advise at what time into the next month, after the close of the month, you and your staff have, as near as you can, actual expenditures versus your budget?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Very briefly, for the first six months, branch operations watch their own budgets. In the sixth month of the fiscal year and beyond, they report on the
R. Thorpe: Could you clarify the reference to the six-month factor?
Hon. P. Ramsey: For the first six months of a fiscal year, branch operations are expected to monitor very carefully their own budgets that they have been allocated -- that they are staying within them. For the rest of the fiscal year, the final six months, they are required to report monthly to central financial control, and data is compiled for the entire ministry. That compilation is usually finished and available to the executive of the ministry by the third week.
R. Thorpe: Then can I conclude that in the first six months there is not a consolidated report to central finance?
Hon. P. Ramsey: You are accurate. There is no consolidated report. Any significant variance by any branch operation must be reported during that first six months.
R. Thorpe: So when we look at a total expenditure of $234 million -- almost a quarter of a billion dollars -- the minister is saying that there is no consolidation for the first six months. Is the minister saying that ministry staff do not know financially where they stand against their budgets on a consolidated basis during that first six months?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Each manager responsible for any of the regional operations must monitor his or her budgeted expenditures on a month-by-month basis, and must report to headquarters any significant variation. The question is: at what point do you want to make sure you get the whole picture? I'm unaware of any report by the auditor general that has
[ Page 950 ]
suggested that adequate financial controls are not in place, and I believe the ministry has a good record in monitoring budget expenditures.
R. Thorpe: I didn't suggest that you didn't have a good financial record and good financial discipline. I wonder why you would mention that, but I'm not going to pursue it.
Does the minister review on a monthly basis the overall financial state of the ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been in the job five weeks now, I think. What I do require is that my deputy reports to me any financial difficulties or any significant pressures that we are seeking to cope with. I rely on my senior executive to make sure we are within budget, and I hold them and my deputy accountable for that.
R. Thorpe: Do the minister or his staff have any idea how many statutes and regulations impact on his ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I do, because I remember my briefing book from when I took over. What I can't remember are the exact figures.
R. Thorpe: We can wait for a few seconds until you find the page in the book, if it's in the book. Because I'd like the answer.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Approximately 50 acts. About 37 acts are the direct administrative responsibility of the ministry, and there are about another dozen or two that we have some responsibility for and involvement in. There are numerous regulations under most of those statutes.
R. Thorpe: Do you believe that the number of regulations and statutes that you and your staff have to work with should be streamlined?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Periodically, usually under the direction of the Attorney General ministry, government looks at opportunities for consolidating legislation and regulation. I understand that the Attorney General is considering such a governmentwide initiative for some time in the future.
R. Thorpe: Sometimes it's difficult, I guess, to get an answer. I don't know if that was a yes or a no -- probably a maybe. I'm sure that a number of people in British Columbia at large are concerned by the amount of regulation out of your ministry and the crisscrosses, the knots and the strangleholds it puts on people. Does the minister or any of his staff -- and I realize he has been there only five weeks now -- have any personal concern about the number of regulations and statutes impacting on his ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recently signed off on a cabinet submission on a regulation, which was exactly that sort of consolidation of a variety of initiatives that the ministry had in place before. Such work is a normal part of ministry operations. Indeed, there's a small department within one of the branches of the ministry which is constantly working on such initiatives.
R. Thorpe: Would the minister be willing to ask his staff to meet with me after this process and perhaps give me a briefing on those regulations and some of the streamlining they are looking at?
[5:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it might be more appropriate if the member identified particular issues of concern to him, and I could advise staff to advise him what work we're undertaking.
R. Thorpe: The minister, I believe, answered that a part of his office looks at this on an ongoing basis. I believe that one of the thrusts of government is to attempt to take some of the stranglehold off small business operators that are complaining of overregulation. Is the minister suggesting that he doesn't want to cooperate in the review? He wants me to have to do all that legwork and not allow government-paid staff to brief me on this?
Hon. P. Ramsey: A very brief letter, hon. member, saying that you'd like that sort of information will be quite sufficient. I find this quite fascinating. I must confess that for the last two days I've been faced with questioning from the opposition benches which demanded in area after area after area more regulations by government. Now this member stands up and says: "Let's have fewer."
R. Thorpe: Mr. Minister, I'm not so sure that's what I said, but if that's what you believe I said, then perhaps I haven't explained myself properly -- or perhaps you should listen better.
People are suggesting, and I'm sure you've heard about
Interjections.
The Chair: Members, order, please. The Chair is listening, if your remarks could be directed to the Chair.
R. Thorpe: Again, Mr. Minister, if I understand what you've said, if I write you a letter requesting a briefing, then I would be able to meet with your staff that deal with regulation review. I will not have to go through the tedious exercise of looking at each regulation. In fact, your ministry does want to work in a cooperative manner.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We always seek cooperation.
R. Thorpe: Minister, seeking and achieving are two different statements.
An Hon. Member: And sometimes you fish and there are no fish.
R. Thorpe: You're right, there's no fish. Whose fault is that?
Could you, and staff in the broadest sense, advise me how much is budgeted in total for communications and advertising within your entire ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The public affairs and communications branch of the ministry has about 28 FTEs and a budget around $2.8 million. It includes a resource library, which I had the pleasure of touring. Since so much of the work the ministry does is highly technical, the library is a resource that both the ministry and others elsewhere use. It doesn't just produce material. Its great strength, I think, is producing a variety of factual information for people concerned with environmental
[ Page 951 ]
issues, and reporting to them. I would say they've had a good deal of success in that. The member just asked for gross budgets. That's the gross budget for that department of the ministry.
R. Thorpe: Based on that answer, can I conclude or can you confirm that all communications and advertising costs are, in fact, consolidated within that department of the ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are some smaller amounts in other branches of the ministry for publications -- for publication costs, really, for materials that are specific to them. For example, Fish and Wildlife has a budget for the production of hunting and fishing regs; Parks has a budget for the production of parks brochures. But other than that sort of very routine branch communication stuff, to my knowledge everything else is consolidated in that figure.
R. Thorpe: I think the minister said about $2.8 million in broad terms. How does that number compare with the actual amount incurred last year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's almost identical.
R. Thorpe: On the $2.8 million, and forgetting the other regs, etc., does the ministry have full control of that communications budget, or is it coordinated through another government office or ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry has control of that fund. I would also note for the member, though, that on issues of cross-ministry importance, we liaise with other ministries and with central agencies of government. One example might be publications relating to the Forest Practices Code, which this ministry and Forests work very closely together on.
R. Thorpe: I'd like to ask a couple of questions about page 119 of Estimates, on administration and support services, salaries and benefits. Could the minister give us some explanation as to why salaries and benefits are up some 9.4 percent?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are a variety of ins and outs. The biggest increase was because of former employees of B.C. Systems Corporation who moved to the ministry. About a million dollars worth of salary costs were transferred to the ministry along with the FTEs. Those FTEs are reflected, of course, in the figures you and I discussed earlier.
R. Thorpe: I would like just a bit more clarification. So the minister is saying that those B.C. Systems
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the member's understanding is correct. Those staff were working within the ministry, though they were counted under B.C. Systems Corporation. They and the budget for them were transferred to the estimates of this ministry.
R. Thorpe: Just one more little clarification on that particular issue: if the salaries have been grossed up by approximately a million dollars, where would the offset savings be found?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think it would be the next line down on 119, operating costs, because in the past, B.C. Systems would have billed us for those salaries.
R. Thorpe: Looking at policy, planning and legislation, I notice operating costs have increased some 62.2 percent. I wonder if you could let us know why that increase of over 60 percent is there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are several sources of that. The biggest portion of it was to enhance the branch's ability to deal with Aboriginal Affairs and interim measures.
R. Thorpe: In dollar terms, could you tell us what you've set up for budget to deal with these aboriginal issues that you just mentioned?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Aboriginal Affairs portion of it came as a grant, probably $400,000. We had some increased expenses to get the clean air strategy into place -- about another $100,000 to $150,000 -- and we had some other expenses with various other initiatives that the branch was carrying out.
R. Thorpe: B.C. Environment shows some $19 million in recoveries. In the broadest sense, other than the words that are at the back on the STOB, could you give me some idea of what those recoveries are and where they come from?
The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:23 p.m.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In response to the member opposite, I think the question you had was on the amount listed as recoveries within B.C. Environment of some $19 million. Recoveries from environmental regional operations were: around $13 million from the sustainable environment fund, which went to fund program delivery of environmental protection program costs out in the regions; approximately half a million dollars to fish and wildlife habitat protection from a Ministry of Forests resource inventory committee, and various silvicultural recoveries from various watershed management regimes: Skeena, Columbia, DFO projects, and minor wildlife recoveries; another million to the fish and wildlife habitat protection branch for regional environmental operations; and around $4 million from a variety of mitigation programs -- Hydro reservoirs, hatcheries and the like. Those are the major recoveries that make up that amount.
I would say, hon. member, that all this information was provided to your critic in the briefing. You can get it from her as well.
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: He only adds them, Fred, so that I'll keep going.
Could the minister advise me on what monitoring procedures are in place, how your department and staff ensure that those recoveries occur and on what basis you are monitoring those recoveries from the different sources you mentioned?
Hon. P. Ramsey: By the same process that I described earlier for monitoring budgets on a monthly basis.
R. Thorpe: So if it's the same process that you're
[ Page 952 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Branches monitor those recoveries. If there are any major exceptions to budgeted expectations, those are reported. If necessary, full rollups can be done in a week.
R. Thorpe: The minister refers to exceptions -- and variances, I believe, was the other word used earlier. Could you explain what you consider to be a variance? Is it a million, is it half a million, is it two million? How do you define that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: While there is no hard definition of that, anything that looks like it's going to be 5 percent out at the end of the year is surely cause for concern in reporting.
R. Thorpe: Obviously I have some interest in fiscal issues. I just want to make sure that I understand. Your staff is monitoring all the time, but perhaps not reporting all the time. So if they are aware of any significant variances, actions are taken. Is that correct? And that's done throughout the entire year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is correct. We're in full compliance with the Financial Administration Act, and the controls which I've described are in place.
R. Thorpe: I know the minister has been here before, but I haven't, so I would expect him to be just a little bit patient as I try to understand this fiscal approach.
In one year, how often would you be briefed on a budget revision? If a budget revision was necessary, how often would you receive such a briefing?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll start receiving such reports around halfway through the fiscal year. The deputy and I have already discussed a number of financial matters, and we discuss them on an ongoing basis.
I'm sorry if I appear impatient with the line of questioning; I don't intend to. My difficulty is that, unlike the member, I am not a professional accountant. That's not my field of expertise, and as I've said on some other areas, I find this sort of back-and-forth through me worrisome, because I'm attempting to convey technical accounting information in a field in which I'm not expert. I understand the member's interest in this area. If he wishes, I can offer senior financial staff to meet with him and provide information on financial controls, budgeting and reporting within the ministry. It might prove more satisfactory to him than this layperson's interpretation of some of the arrangements that financial staff carry on.
[5:30]
R. Thorpe: I will accept your invitation to have, hopefully, an in-depth and timely financial briefing by your staff in the near future. So thank you very much.
I have just one other little question, moving out of this: the habitat conservation fund. I believe there's been some concern with this fund in the past. Is the minister aware that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has expressed concerns -- knowing that he's been the minister for only five weeks -- to the previous minister about this fund?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate that we can't be everywhere at once. This matter was canvassed thoroughly in estimates earlier. The establishment of the Habitat Conservation Trust fund, which you and I and all members of the House voted on in the not too distant past, as well as the plans that we have to work with that trust to expend the remaining money in the habitat conservation fund, I think will address the concerns that have indeed been ongoing by the Wildlife Federation and other partners in the fund. I would ask the member to review Hansard; we've canvassed this matter thoroughly.
R. Thorpe: When I do receive faxes from constituents, I believe it's my responsibility to voice some of those concerns, and I will exercise that right, as I'm sure you will for some of your constituents.
So based on your answer -- I very much appreciate your using the word "partners"; obviously you were referring to the B.C. Wildlife Federation -- they can expect that your staff will interface with them on an ongoing basis to ensure that their voices are heard in some of your future decisions. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: On any number of issues we liaise with the federation. I believe I'm meeting with them some time this week or next.
B. Barisoff: These are actually some local issues. A concern that I got just today was that first nations people are shooting elk in the Christian Valley area. It's been a major concern in that area since some time last year. I wonder whether the minister knows anything about it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I don't at the present time; I haven't been briefed on it. I'll attempt to get briefed on the matter.
B. Barisoff: I just want to move on to a few other things. One is the waste management plan that the regional districts are putting out throughout the Okanagan and Boundary country and the impact that it's having on small communities. It seems to be an awfully onerous plan for small communities to adhere to, yet it's probably all right for maybe the Surreys and the Vancouvers and the metro area. Does he have any comment on that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: A very brief one. I think reducing our waste stream by 50 percent is important for those of us who live in rural areas as well as those of us who live in the major metropolitan centres.
B. Barisoff: I agree that reducing waste by 50 percent is probably an excellent idea, but in places like Greenwood and Midway, their tax increases go up by 50 percent to pay for these costs. In small communities it's almost the same kind of equipment and everything that they need to do both. It doesn't seem fair to the rural areas of B.C. that they have to adhere to such stringent guidelines and pay those kinds of costs on their taxes.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We hope that some of the regional planning will obviate the excessive costs community by community. Obviously it's a joint effort both by the regional districts and by the ministry. They submit waste management plans to the minister and the ministry, and then we ask them to work with us in implementation.
B. Barisoff: Having been part of one of those groups that looked at some of those regional plans and having to read the lines and lines of documents that came through, I can't under-
[ Page 953 ]
stand why the minister would allow ten or 20 different plans that really are the same thing to be produced all over the province, costing each regional district an excessive amount of money to adhere to, with the costs then being put back onto the taxpayers. Is there any plan or any thought that we could have had one plan come out of the ministry that would have sufficed for all of the regional districts in the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, I believe that in the early days of looking at waste management reduction, such an option was considered. Being from a rural area myself, I could almost anticipate the reaction of regional districts to the ministry saying: "Here's your plan; do it." Great would be the howling.
B. Barisoff: Yes, but the problem is that when you look at that, great may be the howling, but the costs now coming back onto the local taxpayers seem to be exorbitant. I'm not talking about the Prince Georges or the Pentictons or the Kelownas or areas like this; I'm talking about smaller areas like Greenwood, Midway and Rock Creek, where they have to adhere to these same kinds of guidelines that the ministry is imposing on the entire province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member might have missed the point. My experience with regional and municipal governments is that, while they recognize senior government's role in setting broad guidelines and goals, they wish to be involved in designing local plans to meet those goals. I believe that asking them to produce plans -- and there's considerable variation among them; the goals are the same, but there's considerable variation in which strategy receives what emphasis -- was the appropriate way of doing it. I want to assure the member that I'm aware of the strain on smaller communities. I might mention in my riding: Bear Lake, McLeod Lake, Hixon to the south, Klukas Lake. I'm very aware there are smaller communities grappling with these issues.
B. Barisoff: I just want to touch on the water quality in Osoyoos Lake, which happens to be the warmest lake in Canada. Yet I don't think the Ministry of Environment is doing their part in making sure that the sewer
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm informed by staff that we've been working with Osoyoos on a liquid waste management plan for that area. The issue, as the member describes, is not how we work with them on the technical issues but the funding issue of who coughs up the bucks for appropriate sewer upgrades.
B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering, though, because you are government, if the Ministry of Environment
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to assure the member that staff in this ministry liaise regularly with Municipal Affairs and with officials and elected officials from municipalities, and we do represent to Municipal Affairs and other branches of government what we see as priorities for cost-shared arrangements, where we have funds to implement cost-shared arrangements.
B. Barisoff: Actually, I think I'm looking for more of a commitment by the minister to look at this particular problem, because of all the problems that exist in the province -- not because it's in my riding -- I think this is probably one of the more severe problems: the fact that a lake of this magnitude has absolutely no sewers around it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: What I will commit to is making sure that I examine the situation in Osoyoos Lake as well as others as I get fully briefed on these issues around the province. I recognize it's of great concern to this member and his constituents. I don't have the provincial perspective to say this is at the top of the list at this time.
B. Barisoff: I appreciate that comment, and I will look forward to having the mayor of Osoyoos contact you.
C. Clark: I see we've got about four minutes before we break, so I have just a couple of very quick questions that I hope can be answered really fast. I wonder if the minister could advise this committee about the status of the environmental protection act.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We already covered that, hon. member. You must have been out of the room. We are working our way through the third or fourth draft of the
C. Clark: Could the minister also advise when we might expect to see that in some kind of draft form? Will there be time for public input on the act between when we get to see it and when it gets introduced in the House?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Work on the legislation will be ongoing this fall. I hope we will be able to take proposals forward for consideration by cabinet some time before the '97 session. Public input, once it's introduced, is too late. We'll be seeking a variety of input on these issues through that fall period.
C. Clark: Is consideration being given to an environmental bill-of-rights as part of that act?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand that's one of the options under consideration.
C. Clark: I wonder if the minister could be a little clearer on one of those issues, particularly if the environmental bill of rights is included. I know it was highly contentious; it's a highly charged issue. There's a very wide diversity of views out there that really span the spectrum, and it's something that would have a huge impact across the province and on all the different economic activities that go on here.
[ Page 954 ]
What I want to confirm with the minister is the nature of the public input process that would be allowed on the bill so that we can ensure that the legislation reflects, or at least is sensitive to, the concerns that have been expressed, not just about the protection act but also about the inclusion of an environmental bill of rights. The reason I'm concerned about this is that it was my understanding that the bill-of-rights portion had been shelved by the previous minister and was no longer under consideration.
[5:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are straying rather far afield from this year's estimates and this year's ministry operations -- well into the area of future policy and legislation. The only thing I would add to my comments is that I think the member has accurately characterized some of the concerns around a bill of rights, and we'll go into those and other issues, both consultation and deliberations on the environmental protection act.
C. Clark: I don't think it is really straying into the area of future policy to ask what the ministry has planned for public input. I mean, that's in the next year, presumably. We could try and attach a cost to it if we want to fit it into the estimates more formally. I think that's a fair question to ask within this process, and I hope the minister can answer it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is one of the areas I simply haven't had time to make decisions about and direct staff on. As the member knows, there was a fair bit of consultation by the previous minister; it was fairly wide-ranging. I need to assess what has already been done, where we are and what next steps need to be taken. I have not signed off on any process at this point, but I intend to have such a process.
C. Clark: And
The Chair: Hon. member, you'll have to move the resolution.
C. Clark: Okay. I will move the resolution, but before I do that, I will just go on the record to say that on this side of the House we strongly recommend to the minister that there be a thorough public input process on this, because it's going to be a very, very important piece of legislation for British Columbians.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.