[ Page 7311 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Tej Kainth, who is a student at New Westminster Secondary School. She is job-shadowing me for the day to see what the life of a politician is like, as well as other jobs related to politics in this Legislature. She is from a family which are neighbours of mine -- the Kainth family. They live on Dublin Street in New Westminster. I understand that she is about to be acclaimed as the president of the student council at New Westminster Secondary School next week or next month. Will the House join me in making her welcome.

G. Campbell: I have heard today that Tong Louie, a well-known British Columbian -- and someone who has contributed greatly to our community, to our province and to our country -- has passed away. I am sure that you will know, hon. Speaker, that Mr. Louie was the recipient of the Order of Canada, and a recipient of the Order of British Columbia. He was involved in numerous volunteer activities, from higher education and community activities to the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Sun Yat-sen Garden. He was a real citizen and made a huge contribution to our province. I would ask that the Speaker send the condolences of the House to his family in appreciation of his years of public service.

The Speaker: I'd be happy to do that, hon. member. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I say thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward recognition of the passing of a very important Canadian citizen, Tong Louie. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined his numerous accomplishments, for which we will greatly miss him. But he also had a wonderful sense of humour and a very great joy about him, and an inclusiveness. The last time I was with Tong Louie -- as people may know, he was the owner of London Drugs -- we were doing a dedication and he said to me: "Joy, make sure you tell them that they can get one-hour photo processing." He said that as a joke as we were having our picture taken together. His sense of humour, his vibrancy, will be greatly missed, and we would join with the Leader of the Opposition in asking you, hon. Speaker, to bring our condolences to his family.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I will be delighted to do that on behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure today to introduce eight lawyers from the Ministry of Attorney General. I understand they are being coached by the Law Clerk, Mr. Izard, on the parliamentary system and how this House functions. He actually ordered me to do the introduction, so here it is; here are the names. The lawyers are: Nancy Brown, Louise Carvalho, Lone Erikson, Lauren Knoblauch, Katherine LeReverend, Jean Walters and Brian Young, and a co-op student, Nan Aulakh. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery today we have seven community leaders from the Sea to Sky corridor: the mayor of Squamish, Corinne Lonsdale; the chair of the Squamish regional district, Susie Gimse; the mayor of Pemberton, Cathy McLeod; the mayor of Whistler, Hugh O'Reilly; the chamber's past president, Ron Anderson; and Wendy Magee, who is the manager of the chamber in Squamish. Mayor Broughton is there as well, I believe. I can't see her from here. Oh, there she is. I would like to ask the members to make this group welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House today two very special people in my life. Watching from the gallery up there are my daughter, Marlise, and her husband, David. They were married in the Legislature a little over a year ago, in the Ned DeBeck Lounge. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Joining us today in the Legislature is my constituency assistant, Tina Bains. She is here on a course, and I would be pleased if the House would make her welcome.

J. Smallwood: Joining us in the House today is one of the people that care very much about education in Surrey, Mr. Jim Chisholm. He is a school trustee. I would ask everyone to join in making him welcome.

G. Hogg: It's my pleasure to introduce and welcome two residents of Surrey-White Rock who are in the precincts to receive their 25-year certificates for service to this province. Victoria Green has been a probation officer in this province for 25 years. Her partner, Bill Ellis, is the local director of the disordered offenders unit in Vancouver. I wish the House to make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I ask the House to help me welcome 55 grade 11 students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver. They are here for a visit to find out about our great decorum and the manners we have for each other.

Hon. C. Evans: On a tour of farms a couple of weeks ago in the Okanagan I was pleased to meet a peach- and cherry-grower named David Tauzer, who has come down here to see how politics work. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Robertson: With us in the precincts this afternoon is Chloe Burgess, my constituency assistant. Chloe is down taking courses in Victoria. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

B. Penner: Today I have the honour of introducing my staunchest supporter and most reliable volunteer worker. This person is also the father of three of my nieces and my little but very energetic nephew. It's my privilege today to introduce my brother, Reg Penner, who is in Victoria today to check up on his little brother. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the precincts today are a number of elders from what's commonly known in English as the Anaham people from the Chilcotin. They're here with Chief Leslie Stump. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 7312 ]

Oral Questions

MEETING OF PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY WITH ALC CHAIR

My question is to the Premier: how can he deny that he knew anything about a meeting between his principal secretary and the chairman of the ALC to discuss Six Mile Ranch, when he set the meeting up?

[2:15]

In recollection, what happened was that at the helijet one day, Mr. Miller was sitting next to me and said that we should get together to talk about the issue. It wasn't before the commission at that time, I don't believe. I said, "Phone Adrian Dix," which subsequently led to -- I gather -- a meeting.

It is a very minor point. We're not worried about it at all. We have been completely transparent on this. I would just remind the members opposite -- again -- that we've been completely transparent about the issue of Six Mile Ranch. We hired Murray Rankin. We put in the press release: ". . .to work with the Land Commission and the developer to try to make this project work within the confines of the Land Commission." We subsequently. . . . We know the opposition at that time said that we should invoke provincial interest. We were considering it. The minister then did the due diligence to proceed with a public inquiry around this issue by the appointment of Mr. Perry to look into the question of Six Mile Ranch.

It's all transparent; it's all available. We're interested in pursuing this development. We think it works. We think it creates jobs in Kamloops, hon. member. We think the members opposite should be consistent. I say specifically to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson that he should rise up and defend this project.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his first supplementary.

G. Campbell: It may be dangerous to get your information from the Vancouver Sun; it's far more dangerous to get your information from this Premier. This Premier said explicitly -- and I quote Hansard for this Premier's information: "I have no idea whether my principal secretary discussed it with the Land Commission. I have no idea." Yet the Premier himself set up the meeting between Mr. Miller and his principal secretary. Can the Premier explain why, after setting up a meeting between his principal secretary and Mr. Miller, he had no idea whether a meeting took place?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Mr. Premier, don't begin, if you please, until order has been restored.

Hon. G. Clark: The member opposite or others can try to read much into this, but every day or every couple of days I'm on the helijet. People sit next to me, and they discuss questions all the time. I quite often say: "Please phone my staff" -- on various subjects that come up. I did it in this case. I certainly had no recollection at the time that I rose in the House. I went on and answered the question by saying that I couldn't confirm or deny it. My principal secretary meets with people all the time. I don't keep track of all of his issues.

This is an important issue. We've handled it aboveboard. It has been completely transparent. I know the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has a loud voice. Please use it to defend the Kamloops project.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his second supplementary.

G. Campbell: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson does have a loud voice, and he will always use it to call for the truth.

Three times in this House the Premier denied any knowledge of a meeting that he arranged and set up. After his own office set guidelines to say that no one should interfere with quasi-judicial processes, the Premier goes and sets up a meeting between his chief political adviser and the chair of the Land Commission. Why would the Premier deny that he knew anything about a meeting that the Premier set up?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I know they're trying to make much of this, but I didn't know a meeting had actually taken place at the time the question was raised. These things happen all the time -- every day, dozens of times a day. The issue of having meetings and discussing it. . . .

I want to be clear once again that the act that we brought in, which prohibited cabinet appeals, gave cabinet the power to declare something in the provincial interest. We were clearly considering that. It was entirely appropriate to discuss with the principal author of the legislation, Mr. Miller, how and when we would go about doing that. I thought members opposite were in favour of that. I know the member for Kamloops-North Thompson wrote specifically to say that we should declare this in the provincial interest. He has a loud voice, but I can't hear it. Let's hear the member for Kamloops-North Thompson defend what we're trying to do, which is create jobs in Kamloops, instead of trying to go on this wild-goose hunt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, what the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has done time and time and time again is defend his community and defend this project -- within the law. I know that's difficult for the Premier to understand.

The Premier's chief political operative had a meeting that was set up by the Premier with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission to discuss the Six Mile project. Can the Premier tell us how many times Adrian Dix met with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission? And when did he report his findings back to the Premier? It has now been a week. Do you have that information for us?

[ Page 7313 ]

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: This is very dangerous, hon. Speaker, because I'm getting my information from the newspaper. But I read in the newspaper that the chair of the Land Commission indicated that he met with Mr. Dix and that there was a discussion about provincial interest. He did not feel any pressure at all with respect to that meeting. Again, I'm being careful, because I'm reading what was in the newspaper. But that was my understanding, so I have no problem with that at all. Clearly it's appropriate for my staff or the staff of the government or of the Minister of Agriculture to canvass this issue fully and to proceed with invoking a section of the act which heretofore had not been invoked.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on his first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the Premier set up the meeting. The Premier has had a week since his first denial to find out how many times Adrian Dix met with the commission and what was done about it. He doesn't need to get his information from the newspaper; all he has to do is talk to his chief political operative. That's what he should be doing.

The Speaker: And your question?

G. Farrell-Collins: What the Premier doesn't get is this. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question is required.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be there well within the same time as the Premier takes to answer the question, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. member, one moment, please. Would you take your seat for a minute. All members are aware of the many rules around question period. First and second supplementaries are to have very limited preambles. I know the member knows that, and I just remind the member of that point and ask him to produce his question. Proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, when David Poole spoke, people knew it was Bill Vander Zalm talking. When Adrian Dix speaks to the Agricultural Land Commission, they know it's the Premier speaking. Will the Premier tell us how many times Adrian Dix met with the commissioner, what was said, and when he reported back to the Premier?

Hon. G. Clark: I know that the Leader of the Opposition nominated Mr. Vander Zalm to be mayor of Vancouver, but I find it insulting that he would compare David Poole and Bill Vander Zalm to myself and Adrian Dix. But I suppose that from the Liberals it's a compliment, so I should take it that way.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not worried whatsoever about Mr. Dix's conduct in this matter. It is quite clear; it is on the record. We've had discussions. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, I wonder if I could. . . . I hesitate to intervene, but we're hearing a lot of noise from the other side. I remind that side that one person at a time has the floor.

Hon. G. Clark: We're dancing on the head of a pin with respect to this question. The real issue is: should it be declared in the provincial interest or not? I want to hear the members opposite on this question, particularly the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. We are determined to try to create jobs in Kamloops, and that's what this is about.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT GUIDELINES

In his report to this Premier, Doug McArthur, addressing what the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin did, said this: "This situation must be corrected immediately by developing specific and unambiguous guidelines on this question and it is my intention to do so on a priority basis." The Premier has been searching the canyons of his mind lately. Can he remember? Did Mr. McArthur ever get around to making those regulations? Did he ever get around to bringing them to cabinet? Because there is at least one minister over there who never read them, Mr. Premier.

The Speaker: Hon. member, through the Chair.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know what's more disgusting. I think it's the members opposite trying to create an issue where there isn't one. Let's be clear: they want to play politics; we want to create jobs in Kamloops -- and everywhere else in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplementary.

M. de Jong: History is laced with leaders and politicians who believed that you can justify the ends by the means, and all of them were scoundrels -- every single one of them.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not appropriate. Hon. member, I'm sure you're not impugning motives.

M. de Jong: I asked the Premier if his deputy followed through on the promise that he made in the report to this Premier to table guidelines that could guide the conduct of ministers, like the Agriculture minister, who can't tell right from wrong on their own. I asked him if they were ever tabled.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat.

M. de Jong: Will he answer that? Will he table them here now today?

The Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 7314 ]

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO
HANDLING OF SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

Interjections.

G. Campbell: For the last week we have had denial after denial after denial. Stories have changed virtually overnight. It is clear to anyone who is watching this that there is only one way to get to the bottom. There is only one way to find the truth about what took place here, and that is to have an open public inquiry where the Premier and his staff, the minister and his staff and the Minister of Environment and her staff testify under oath. Will the Premier call that inquiry today?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, we might need a public inquiry to find out what the Liberals' position is on this issue. I look forward to the testimony of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, because he's been silent in the House this session.

This issue has had more public debate and more scrutiny than any other issue on the land reserve in my memory. We've had Prof. Murray Rankin looking at the question. It's had public debate. We've had letters from the opposition demanding that we take action. We've had people in Kamloops demanding that we take action. We've studied it; we've looked forward to it. It's been rejected by the Land Commission. There was another application. We then put it forward and said: "Should it be declared in the provincial interest?" We hired Mr. Perry to review that.

There has been more analysis, more discussion and more open debate on this issue than on any other issue. There's nothing to hide; we have nothing to hide. We look forward to making the decision, and I can't wait to find out what position the opposition will take.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement. But before I do that, I seek leave from the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: Up in the gallery today are Arthur Griffiths, chair of the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympics bid; Bruce MacMillan, executive director of the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Bid Society; and Rick Antonson, CEO of Tourism Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Minister, proceed with your statement.

Ministerial Statement

TOURISM INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[2:30]

Statistics show that more than 235,300 British Columbians are now employed in more than 15,700 tourism-related businesses in the province. That means the tourism industry now employs one in eight workers in this province. Employment in the all-important accommodation sector was up 5.6 percent, and strategic marketing in key markets like the United States will continue to help the industry create even more jobs for British Columbia.

Tourism is a major player in the government's three-year plan to stimulate the economy, make B.C. more competitive and attract investment. This year's provincial budget targets small businesses, including tourism operators and the important role they play in creating more jobs for British Columbians. Record numbers like these send a clear, positive signal that British Columbia is open for business, especially in the tourism industry.

The Speaker: Replying to the ministerial statement. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: First of all, let me say that the official opposition believes that one of the province's future development strengths is tourism. As a free enterprise alternative, the official opposition truly supports Tourism B.C. We support secure, known, multi-year financing, and we support a board truly independent from government.

This government has apparently just awakened to the fact that we have a tourism industry in British Columbia. In fact, we have untapped opportunities. This government must address the issues facing the tourism industry today. It's time for action. It's not time for more studies, and it's certainly not time for political rhetoric. It is time for action now.

The future holds significant opportunities for jobs in the tourism industry, especially when we have youth unemployment at 18.6 percent. But for. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat for a moment, please. It's very difficult for anyone to hear with the general hubbub that's going on. I encourage everyone to save their conversations for some other time. The member for Okanagan-Penticton continues.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

But for jobs and employment to grow, we need investment -- not investment maybes and not photo ops, but real investment now. Unfortunately, investment in B.C. is severely hampered today by excessive taxation, inflexible employment standards, excessive red tape and uncertainty with respect to land use. Instead of the minister discussing what happened

[ Page 7315 ]

Orders of the Day

MINING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading continued)

Where does all this coal go? Well, we ship to more than 35 countries globally. Fording Coal has investing in the Elk Valley and in the economy in the communities in the Elk Valley and in the province by rebuilding their raw-coal breaker. For those of you who don't know what a coal breaker is, it's a 52-metre-diameter thickener. They also invested in a new magnetite-mixing building. In 1996, Coal Mountain underwent major enhancements to its coal-breaking, transport and computerized processing systems. Mines are using space-age technology in the Elk Valley -- and, more importantly, it's being used to increase revenues for this province.

GPS locational systems to monitor drilling patterns for blasting overburden, to establish mine grades and to monitor the location and the productivity of mining equipment are also being used in the Elk Valley. Huge new graders are being used and have been purchased by Fording River. They sweep over 50-foot roadways in two sweeps.

Hon. Speaker, what does it mean for the Kootenays? Well, to begin with, it means over 2,500 jobs for the Kootenays. This means economic stability for the Kootenays. It means thousands of direct and indirect jobs for those people who live in the Kootenays. It also means millions of dollars in return of revenue to the province and for the Kootenays.

These investments that the mines put into the Elk Valley, and for the province of British Columbia -- do they look like the bleak picture that the opposition has been painting about investments in British Columbia? I don't think so. The Mining Rights Amendment Act is intended to attract investment and to create jobs. The opposition may not very well like that, but that is exactly the intent of the Mining Rights Amendment Act. This act, along with other mining initiatives, demonstrates this government's commitment to mining in British Columbia. It ensures access to lands for exploration and mining, and it ensures compensation -- that is, pay for mineral tenures that are expropriated in order to create parks. It addresses those recommendations that are outlined in the Mining 2000 initiatives. It addresses a mining advocate and a mineral exploration code. These commitments and our action are significant for the mining sectors of British Columbia.

At this time, I would just like to read a couple of quotes from industry and from those involved in the mining association. "Our industry is a significant contributor to the economic and social stability of B.C.," said Livingstone. "With joint government-industry cooperation, we will continue to be a driving force behind a prosperous British Columbia." Another quote from the industry: "The mineral exploration code's one-agency approach to the management of exploration and its exploration-specific standards and procedures will greatly simplify the administration and the mine-finding process," adds McKnight. Yet another quote: "The recognition of compensation rights due to park creation is a milestone that has a major positive impact on investor confidence in British Columbia," said Doug Horswill, chair of the Mining Association and vice-president of environment and public relations for Cominco Ltd. And also, from information from the Mining Association: "How can we help" -- and this is information that was given to us -- "support the government's intent to bring in legislative changes for mining, as promised in the budget speech?"

Mining is important to British Columbia, and through continued consultations with labour, with the industry, with government ministries and with stakeholders, we will continue to show our commitment to this very valuable, vital industry and resource, its employers, its employees, its communities, our communities and our province.

I did want to add that though we have tried to oversee and tried to deal with many of the challenges that we have had in the past with mining, especially in British Columbia, this isn't to say that all these challenges have been met -- far be it. We still have many more challenges that we have to meet and to discuss. In the continuance of our discussions with industry, employees, environmental groups and communities, I anticipate that the outcomes will be very positive.

I support the Mining Rights Amendment Act, and I hope in all sincerity that the opposition will also support it. I believe that they realize and that they do know that this is a very important act for the industry, the communities and the province.

J. Weisgerber: This legislation, Bill 12, appears to be well received by the mining industry. The fact that it was introduced on a day when the Mining Association was here in Victoria, the fact that we had an opportunity to discuss this bill with executive members of the Mining Association, indicates that it is certainly a step in the right direction. I believe the mining community feels somewhat relieved by the introduction of this bill. They believe that the government is at least extending a hand to them and attempting to build confidence in British Columbia as a jurisdiction where they can do business.

It is certainly a welcome departure from the position taken by the previous government, the Harcourt government.

[ Page 7316 ]

[2:45]

It was only yesterday that this government was outraged by the federal Liberals' unwillingness to go retroactive to 1986 with respect to compensation for hepatitis C victims. One wonders if a deal signed by the Minister of Health, criticized by the Premier -- but, more importantly I think, criticized by Canadians as being patently unfair. . . . Here's a government that's chosen, on this hepatitis C thing, to hide behind the flimsiest legal argument and to deny Canadians a right to compensation. When I look at a piece of legislation coming out of this House, coming out of this government, that deals with compensation and brings in a very artificial time line. . . . There is nothing magic about the introduction or the proclamation of this bill. Someone who's property is confiscated subsequent to that is no more entitled than a person who lost their claim in the Tatshenshini and has to rely on the goodwill of someone to process their claim for compensation. So that's the first thing.

This legislation should be amended to clearly deal with, and to clearly outline the Premier's verbal commitment to, retroactivity. I must say that I think that is a major, major flaw in this bill. I'm not going to vote against the bill, because I think it has the support, generally, of the people who are affected by it. On those grounds I am going to, albeit reluctantly, vote for the bill. I make no apology for that.

The other area where this legislation needs to be improved -- cries out to be improved -- is in the area of the appointment of a single arbitrator to deal with clients. First of all, I'm not really comfortable with an appointment of a single individual to make a judgment which is binding on all of the parties. There is no outline for an appeal mechanism. One assumes there may be an appeal to the court, although if you read this legislation, it would suggest not. I wouldn't want to have my investment riding on the chance that I might get to court if I disagreed with this arbitrator. That is wrong. The fact that you have one individual makes it a much greater roll of the dice than a tribunal, which is often the preferred method of bringing some stability, some wisdom and some cross-section of interest into this thing.

What I am most concerned about is the way the appointment is going to be made. The appointment of this single arbitrator is going to be made entirely and solely by the minister. Now, one would assume that Mr. Barrett may well indebt himself greatly, because I suspect he sees many little $725-a-day jobs coming down the road. And others who depend on this government's largesse may well expect to have a toss at becoming a mining arbitrator. One could say: "What would Mr. Barrett know about the mining industry, other than that he drove it out of the province once?" Would that be the qualification? Well, for a fellow who says he can't saw a board straight, and who is now the person inquiring into leaky condos, driving the mining industry out of the province may make him far better qualified to be an arbitrator on mining claims than to be the lone investigator on leaky condos.

So in all seriousness, if there must be a single arbitrator -- and I regret that the government has chosen that route -- then it is absolutely essential that there be an official list of approved arbitrators. Someone going forward to arbitration should have the comfort of knowing that there are five or ten or 15 British Columbians -- preferably British Columbians, at least. . . . One wonders who in Ontario or Manitoba might need a job or who in the Yukon Territory may find themselves unemployed and needing work as an arbitrator. Let us hope that this single individual is going to be a British Columbian. Let us hope that the government will seriously commit itself, by way of an amendment to this legislation, to create a mechanism to identify qualified arbitrators.

I believe that there should be a list of arbitrators developed by the B.C. Mining Association, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and the province of British Columbia. The province shouldn't have foisted on them an arbitrator that they wouldn't be comfortable with. Neither should a mining interest, perhaps a prospector or a small claim holder have foisted on them someone whose only qualification is that they meet the criteria of the minister. We need to have a list of arbitrators. Someone placing themselves in the hands of that arbitrator -- putting their interests in the hands of that single arbitrator, whose decision is binding -- must have the comfort of knowing that there are qualified, objective individuals identified in advance from whom the minister is obliged to select the arbitrator.

As I speak on this issue, I find my commitment to the bill weakening. As I stand here, I find myself talking myself out of support for the bill, because indeed these issues of retroactivity, these issues of how the arbitrator is selected and what qualifications there are for that arbitrator, seem to go to the very heart of this legislation. They seem to go to the very heart of what is important to bring mining stability back to this province. As the Mining Association of B.C., prospectors and miners around this province consider this issue, one wonders: if they were to come back next week and host another reception, would we hear the same level of enthusiasm for this legislation, now that they've had an opportunity to consider it?

I suggest to you and to all members of this House that this bill would get far more acceptance, far better approval, if the issue of retroactivity were brought into the bill. An amendment like that would have to be considered a friendly amendment, given the comments made by the Premier. And this issue of the selection of the arbitrator needs to be addressed.

I will leave it at that point. I will go and mull over my commitment to this bill between now and when the division bells are called. But I want to tell you that I believe this is a very, very serious issue that needs the attention of. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 7317 ]

P. Nettleton: I would be remiss if I were not to take full advantage of this opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents that I have the privilege of representing in the riding of Prince George-Omineca, which has two mines -- one active and one in the works. So I will do just that, and speak in support of mining generally and specifically of the two projects within my riding.

Looking in the gallery, I see a number of young people. My guess is that they're probably somewhere in the range of grade 6 or grade 7. Am I right?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

P. Nettleton: Right -- and bright-eyed, probably with hopes and dreams in terms of their futures. It may even be that some of them have given some thought to what they would like to do with their lives, in terms of a career.

The question comes to mind: will there in fact be any jobs in the mining industry for young people such as the young people who are in the gallery? Certainly it is my hope that in fact there will be jobs in mining here in British Columbia. It is our hope -- I'm sure it's the government's hope as well -- that this piece of legislation to which we are speaking will go some distance to doing just that: creating some opportunity within the mining industry for young people such as the young people here today.

The first mine I would like to refer to is the mine in the community of Endako, which has been sold recently by Placer Dome to Thomson Creek Mining and a Japanese minor partner. It directly employs 240 people and has a considerable impact not only on Endako but on Fraser Lake and the surrounding area. It is my understanding that this mine, which has been in operation since 1965, has at the present time a minimum life expectancy of some ten years. In terms of dollars and cents, it injects somewhere in the range of $50 million into the economy, not including wages, in goods and services. So it has a significant impact not only on the community of Endako-Fraser Lake but on the whole region. It's a significant player in terms of the economy of Prince George-Omineca.

The second project that is currently under consideration is the Mount Milligan project. I would hope that I could be something of an advocate in terms of the government's involvement in this particular mine, in terms of their ongoing discussions and negotiations with Placer Dome. It is a 60,000-tonne-per-day open pit copper-gold mining operation. The project is located 155 kilometres northwest of Prince George and 86 kilometres northeast of Fort St. James. Fort St. James, then, would be the closest community to this mine. I have the privilege of living just outside of Fort St. James, and I know from talking to the residents of that community that it is certainly their hope that this mine will go ahead.

It will cost an estimated $444 million, with a mine life of approximately 14 years. The primary product of the mine will be a concentrate containing 18 percent copper and 37 tonnes of gold. Hydroelectric power and natural gas play a major role in the ongoing discussions with the hon. minister -- discussions between Placer Dome and the government involving power. Hydro power will be transmitted along a right-of-way that will connect the electric power line of the B.C. Hydro Kenney Dam substation with the minesite.

[3:00]

I can emphasize the obvious, which is that communities situated within the vicinity of the project will benefit from the company's policy to hire locally, and both the mine and mill will operate 24 hours a day, on a two-shift schedule. Again, it is my hope that this mine, which is presently under consideration, will proceed.

Speaking to the question of mining in British Columbia generally, which would include the Milligan site, I know that there are a number of significant challenges to the current government. To name a few, the high cost of operations, which would include hydro and transportation costs, is certainly a challenge for the current government. Markets are a consideration in terms of whether or not a mine goes beyond consideration and enters the construction phase. Markets fluctuate.

For any of the young people who follow commodity markets or stock markets -- perhaps they have heard their parents referring to the stock markets at times -- I'm sure they are all familiar with the fluctuation of the dollar relative to the American dollar and other foreign currencies. But markets are something which affect the economic viability of mines such as the Milligan mine in my riding, next to the town of Fort St. James where I live. So that's something that the mining industry must consider in terms of whether of not to proceed.

High taxation is again a critical factor. When mining companies that have opportunities not only here but in other parts of the world compare taxation structures, British Columbia hasn't been particularly competitive globally. That is certainly something that needs to be addressed -- and needs to be addressed sometime soon.

Costly regulations. It has been the view of the mining industry that it has been overregulated. It's highly taxed and overregulated, and this has been a real problem in terms of whether or not to proceed at a number of sites.

Of course, last but not least is the whole question of native land claims. There is a lot of uncertainty in and around the issue of native land claims. That's particularly critical, I would say, in light of the recent Delgamuukw decision, which again has cast something of a question over the whole question of land claims, treaties and the role that first nations will play in the development of resources -- mining, in this case -- throughout our province.

I recently attended, prior to the Delgamuukw decision, an aboriginal mining conference in Whitehorse. Again, it was my sense that there was, at that time, no real consensus from the point of view of first nations in terms of what role first nations would play in terms of economic development, particularly mining. That the conference was set in Whitehorse, which is within the Yukon Territory, which is some distance ahead of us in terms of addressing this whole issue, was particularly of some interest. But again, young people will certainly be. . . . This will be an issue that your generation will face, as does ours, in terms of working through the questions that surround the whole question of native land claims. That is something we would like to see addressed.

In closing, the only comment I would make to the minister is that I would certainly like to see an admission by the

[ Page 7318 ]

J. Sawicki: I just want to rise to speak briefly about Bill 12. Actually, what motivated me to do it is that I'm quite disappointed at the debate that has happened thus far from the opposition side. That is because what I have heard thus far addresses a very narrow range of concerns around a piece of legislation such as Bill 12, which, let's face it, gives the right to mine and gives private rights to public resources. I think that we in this House need to debate that.

The member that spoke before me alluded to the young people that are here in the gallery. I think that that is a good reminder, because what we do here when we pass legislation like this is try to plan for the future. But I'm sure that while those young people are extremely concerned about having jobs in the future, about being able to stay in their rural communities if they happen to live in rural communities.. . . Mining can certainly be part of that future. Young people are also concerned about the big picture of what kind of world they're going to inherit from us. Whether we are talking about mining, forestry or any other extractive industries, I think that we also need to keep in mind that broader picture of sustainability and the environmental impact of these extractive industries.

Interjection.

J. Sawicki: Most definitely it's the same with the ALR.

Some of the broader issues in second reading. . . . I'm only going to allude to them, because I know that I'm going to have an opportunity during committee stage to ask the minister some specific questions. One of the points that I had to remind myself of when I read this legislation is that this does affect exploration and that we're not talking about changing the environmental impact process that we go through to actually move from exploration to mining. I think that's an extremely important one.

I will have some specific questions at committee stage in terms of those access issues, because -- while not wanting to get into specific sections of the act, but speaking to the general purpose of the bill -- the purpose is the ensure that those companies which have legitimate claims are actually able to get access to those claims. I support that principle. But I will ask some questions on the checks and balances, as to what the public input is into the access and the conditions under which that access takes place.

On another general matter -- and this is a little by way of the comments that I started on -- when we're talking about the general purpose of this kind of legislation, we need to put it in the context of the other land use discussions we are having every day in this province. In the last several years. . . . I am very proud to be part of a government that brought in tables around this province to work out land use conflicts and to work out who gets to use resources and for what purpose. People sat around those tables representing all of the stakeholders. I'm sure the mining industry was there, as were the forestry industry, community groups, environmental groups and several other stakeholders. They had been sitting around talking, through LRMP processes, about how to share those resources and how to make sure that use can coexist with other uses.

I want to make the point that this act. . . . While I certainly support the intent of this act to give some security and stability to the mining industry and to promote exploration and job creation in our communities, I'd like to hear the minister -- either in his concluding comments or when we get to committee stage -- put this act in the context of those land use discussions that are talking place and that have taken place. While this act applies to areas outside protected areas, we know that in your community, hon. member, and in mine and in many other communities there are still lots of concerns as to how these activities will take place outside protected areas.

I will close my comments with that, hon. Speaker. I haven't mentioned the section that deals with compensation. It's always important to have due diligence when we're talking about public resources, and I don't think we are unaware that there are many British Columbians who have real concerns about the public having to buy back public resources. I will leave those specific questions, which I'm sure the minister will be able to address during committee stage.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into the debate on this bill this afternoon. First of all, I think we should put a couple of things into perspective in our minds this afternoon. If you've ever driven on a road or you have a cement foundation in your home, if you wear any jewelry or you wear glasses, you are wearing something that is a product of mining. Mining isn't just minerals. It is also gravel; it is also sand. It is the extraction of materials that we are taking into our communities and that we require as part of our growth and development as a society.

What we have to understand here today is that the environmental impact of mining on a landscape in today's society, with the stewardship we have with the mining industry, is somewhat less than what people might think it is. I have now toured six minesites and have seen how they're reclaiming their properties and doing their stewardship of the land. I must say that in British Columbia we probably have the best mining technology in the world. We export that, unfortunately, to many countries around the world because we are not doing enough mining here.

Let's put it in perspective. Mining is the number two resource industry in this province. It's a $4 billion-a-year industry, and it earns $208 million for the companies within this province. But, more importantly, it pays $480 million in taxes to government, taxes that are used for schools, education, health care and those types of services. In British Columbia, there are 30,000 people who are supported directly or indirectly by mining jobs. The average salary in mining is somewhere over $70,000 a year, so let's put that in perspective. That is equivalent to around half a million jobs at minimum wage.

What we have here is an industry that is a pinprick on the environmental landscape of our province but that creates a

[ Page 7319 ]

First of all, mining is facing today a difficulty getting investment into this province. I'll give you an example. I was at a meeting with some people from the mining industry. They gave me their example, and their example was very simple. They said: "You know, we don't have security of tenure. We don't have security or comfort of investment when we invest in British Columbia." We were down in New York recently, and we sat in the room. . . . You know, there are only a few majors that really can finance the building of a mine in the international marketplace. They made their presentation, and about three-quarters of the way through it, one of the people that was there to make an investment decision asked the question: "Did you say that this mine was in British Columbia?" The answer was yes, and he said: "Thank you for your time. We don't invest in British Columbia because you do not have security of investment for us. We do not feel comfortable going there."

[3:15]

What we also lost at that time was 500 direct jobs, 1,500 indirect jobs and an expenditure of half a billion dollars, plus a $150 million annual expenditure. We lost a mine that would have worked for a life span that was predicted to have been 50 years, with $1.6 billion in tax revenue. If you remember the debate yesterday with regard to the tuition freeze and post-secondary education, that $1.6 billion would pay for the operation of all colleges and universities in this province for an entire year.

We have to realize that we're talking about an industry that has impact on our communities. We're talking about an industry that. . . . When you're making a wage of $70,000-plus, you're able to take out a mortgage and buy a home, to buy a car and the big-ticket items. That then creates other jobs within the community and within our society, because there's a trickle-down effect in direct reference to that as well.

It is important that we understand that this industry does want to be an industry that participates in this province's future, to the extent that they've actually gone out and worked out how the future of mining in British Columbia, including mining jobs in this province, could be dealt with. They predicted they could generate 22,000 direct and indirect jobs if certain things were allowed to happen for them. Some of those things are contained in this bill -- and some of them aren't.

The mining industry wants to be assured of access to land. They want to know that there's some security of tenure -- that when they are able to find an ore body, they have the ability to make the investment and go forward with their project. They want to know that there's security of mineral tenure -- that when they do find an ore body, we are going to work with the environmental issues of the day to try and make the ore body work for all of us.

They want the creation of a competitive tax structure. Taxes which discriminate against investment, such as the corporation capital tax and non-profit-related taxes, need to be eliminated to improve the competitiveness of their industry, which is a global price-taker. That's their analysis on it.

The development of an efficient, transparent permitting process. You know, everywhere we go, we keep hearing. . . . I know that as legislators we would love to stand up in debate and say that we're going to have another hearing or put in another regulation, because we're going to react to some press conference or some statement made by somebody. But every time we do that, we put that burden on industry, and we create more difficulty for them to do their jobs.

Obviously, native land claims is one of their issues, which is an issue that I'm sure we'll debate in this House in this session and in sessions to come.

Competitive electrical rates -- we've dealt with some of that, relative to how we're attracting or want to attract industry into this province.

They want us to see streamlined regulations, so that we can all move forward. The result of this would be $60 million to $75 million a year of exploration, which would find one new mine. Exploration expenditure, if it were to grow, would exponentially find more mines and then create more jobs. We would hit the 22,000 jobs.

I think the message here today has to be this: the mining industry has a place in British Columbia's future. It has an absolute place within our environmental regulations. And it has a place with us as legislators, to stand up and work with the mining industry for the success of our province. It is important that we put in a tax structure and that we look at how competitive we are worldwide and how we're going to secure the tenure for people, because that's how we're going to make this one stabilize.

Before I close, I just want to do a couple of little quotes. These are survey results that have been done by Angus Reid and different agencies; one of them is from the Fraser Institute -- okay? One of them is on what is specifically driving away investment in British Columbia. It was found that uncertainty about land use was rated as the most serious problem. A full 92 percent of the companies surveyed indicate that land claims uncertainty is a strong deterrent to new investment, and 89 percent consider uncertainty about protected areas a strong deterrent to new investment. Obviously we have to be aware of this. We can't hide under some rug and say: "Oh well, here we go again. This is just some survey from the Fraser Institute." The fact of the matter is that uncertainty in tenure of land and uncertainty of access to the resource that you're investing in are deterrents to investment.

In addition to that, we need to include government policy, including legislative clarity, interpretation and administration of regulation. That was another thing that 70 percent of respondents were concerned about, and why they don't want to invest in British Columbia.

But I think one of the most disturbing ones was a survey for the Vancouver Board of Trade. That survey indicated that 24 percent of the participating firms in that survey, from a wide spectrum of industries, plan to move out of British Columbia in the next two years. I don't know where they're going to move, but I'd like them to stay here and to keep their jobs here.

So it's vital that we stand up and make a point today as we move through this legislation, to realize that this can't be

[ Page 7320 ]

I was sitting the other day with a member of my constituency whose family has been involved in the mining industry, in equipment and drilling bits and that sort of thing, for the last 30 or 40 years. Their biggest business now is export out of Canada, simply because they had to make that move a number of years ago when the industry started to die here. We need to bring that industry back. We don't need him to be able to tell me how wonderful Santiago is. We need him to be able to tell me what a great thing it is to do business in this province -- in the north and in the resource sectors of this province.

I think it's absolutely vital that, as we move through the debate and some of the discussions we have, we remember this: mining, to this province, is half a billion dollars towards health care, education and social programs. Mining in this province could create another 22,000 direct and indirect jobs. Mining in this province is producing the equivalent of half a million minimum-wage jobs today. Let's wake up, smell the roses, stand up for this industry and work with them -- within the stewardship of what we require them to do environmentally -- to make it a success in the future.

F. Randall: I just want to take a few minutes on this matter. I might just say that I certainly agree with many of the comments of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. He certainly mentioned all of the major issues. Before he leaves, I was going to suggest that he join our mining caucus; but obviously he's gone.

I just want to say that I strongly support Bill 12.

An Hon. Member: Where have you been up until now?

F. Randall: Where have I been? Well, here and there.

Hon. Speaker, I think one of the biggest problems that we continue to have is the perception created by elected representatives in this Legislature being very negative on so many different kinds of legislation, which are endeavouring to improve this province as much as possible. It certainly gets out in the media. People are negative, negative, negative. I think a lot of the problem we've got in this province is perception. I think we are doing a good job. I think the next few years are really going to show an awful lot of activity in this province.

I just want to mention, on mining, that we're all aware that the world prices determine an awful lot of what's going to happen in British Columbia. If the prices are down, there are lots of mines that are not in a position to operate. I agree with the comments about well-paying jobs.

I'm personally a strong supporter of the mining industry. I've certainly done all that I can to listen to their complaints. I can just think back a year ago to when we had comments about having to go through two environmental processes; they had both the provincial and federal to go through. The minister has been able to work out an arrangement to harmonize the two processes. Currently in this province, in fact, Prosperity is the first mine going through the one environmental process, which is going to substantially reduce the amount of time it takes for approval. The approvals take years. That has to be reduced substantially in this province, because time is money.

Also, on the matter of roads, one complaint that made a lot of sense, going back, was that if they were going in to drill, they had to put in a road up to the Forest Practices Code standards, which I felt was ridiculous. The minister agreed with that. That will be or is being changed now. There's no need, in my opinion, to spend that kind of money putting a major road in if you're just going in to drill. So there were certain things that were raised, and we've made an effort to try and deal with every one of these problems. I might say they're legitimate concerns and common sense.

Also, I think the mining industry is very supportive of having a minister responsible for mining and energy; that was certainly an issue. The Mining Association felt neglected because there was no mining title in any of the ministry names. That has been changed. I can tell you -- what's in a name? -- they are certainly very happy that they have got recognition with a good minister, a strong Minister of Energy and Mines in the province. There's been a lot of comments from the other side of the House with regards to this being just a little step. I think it's a pretty big step, and it's taken a lot of work to get to this particular point.

On the matter of compensation for claims, this also is being dealt with. I feel very strongly on this issue. I think if individuals have claims and those claims are eliminated, then certainly there has to be compensation. I've argued with many people that parks aren't free. If you're going to make a park, it costs money. And you'd better figure out what it's going to cost before you make it a park.

There were comments made by the member for Peace River South. . . . I notice in the bill that the arbitrator has to have prescribed qualifications. So they can't just put anyone there. A person has to be familiar with dealing with that kind of arbitration, have arbitration experience and be familiar with the industry.

I just want to read a letter I received by fax from the Mining Association, which is the organization that we're certainly all concerned about endeavouring to make things much better for. It's addressed to the editor of the Times Colonist. They were very upset about the negative reporting in the Times Colonist with regard to this matter. Again, the media contribute a lot to the perception of what goes on in this province.

[3:30]

"In addressing some serious issues threatening the future of mining in B.C., Premier Clark and his government have come down on the side of real people, real families and real communities -- without compromising the environment. Environmentalists are upset, claiming betrayal and predicting ruin. Nothing new there. But what is new is a welcome change in attitude by a government that now recognizes the needs and desires of real people and is prepared to take action on their behalf.

"Jobs and the promise of greater economic opportunity may not fit the future vision of the Sierra Club et al, but it is what most British Columbians want and desperately need -- a chance to get ahead, to build a better life for themselves and their families. The government is responding accordingly and I say, 'good for them. . .they're on the right track. . .people do come first.'

"Government policy and attitude play a big part in creating investor confidence in our industry. Sadly, that confidence has been lacking" -- and we know where a lot of that comes from. "To boost investor confidence, our industry developed a seven-point plan to create 22,000 jobs over ten years. Your editorial scoffs at such a notion, which is unfortunate. Sincere efforts to

[ Page 7321 ]

create wealth, opportunity and jobs deserve better treatment. True, we may not get there, but at least we're trying, and so is government.

"Working with the earth, respecting its magnificence and beauty, and putting its resources to use to better the lives of all who live here, including those who actively protest against it, are honourable endeavours. The mining industry has been making a positive contribution to the betterment of people's lives for over 140 years in B.C. We're proud of what we have accomplished and the contribution we have made. The government, through their actions earlier this week, has given us a fighting chance to continue that legacy."

Interjections.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I can hardly hear myself over the chatter across the way. Is there a problem?

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

F. Randall: I just want to give credit to the minister responsible for doing a lot of work on this. He is very, very understanding. I just want to say that I support this bill, and I would certainly urge all members of this Legislature to vote in support of it and not just say it's a teeny little bit. It's a big bit.

T. Nebbeling: I will indeed be brief, and brief means speaking short on this issue. The reason I want to rise is that I'm really amazed how the members on the government side have the ability to take something and give it a spin that would give people who are not familiar with all the details of the bill the idea that something revolutionary is happening, that something very different is happening.

When the member opposite, who spoke last, opened by saying: "My biggest problem is the creation of a perception of doom and gloom by the members opposite. . . " And for him to then go on to create a perception of well-being in the mining industry and with the people who work -- or used to work -- in the mining industry. . . . That gives me a reason to stand here and briefly talk about the fact that one of the biggest problems we truly face is when this government does something, and it is small, and tries to present it in such a manner that the rest of the world has to believe that this is the big turnaround for the mining industry. Well, for the member opposite, Madam Speaker, I can tell you that this little step will not create the jobs that have been lost over the last number of years under this government. It will not open up mines that have been closed over the last number of years while this government was in place.

This government talks constantly about creating opportunities for the mining industry, but when it has an opportunity to do something real, moneywise, they're not home. I want to give one example as far as opportunities for the mining industry to come out of the hole a little bit. I want to give one example where the government could have done something for the mining industry and, because of greed, it failed to do so. That was when we were discussing Bill 6. Bill 6 was triggered in part by the mining industry, by the same people that the member opposite used when he read a letter from the president of the Mining Association.

The mining industry went to this government four months ago and said: "Government, you have been overcharging us $170 million for hydro. You have charged so much that we are at the brink of failure in certain mines -- Huckleberry, Gibraltar. We think it is time that you refund us, as a mining industry, the dollars that you have overcharged us over the last years." They were looking at a total of about $55 million for all industries, be they mining or pulp mills. When this government found out that the mining industry was asking for a refund -- not a rebate -- and a downgrade in rates so that it would be more competitive, so that it could keep more money to cover the cost of the operation, this government took away the authority of the one true commission that could have dealt with that request by the mining industry. It took away the Utilities Commission's right to look at that issue of overcharging the mining industry. It looked at the mining industry and said: "Sorry, we're not going to allow the Utilities Commission to make a decision. We will, through order-in-council, determine how much you're going to get as a rebate." Rather than getting that 7.5 percent reduction in rates they were asking for, the government gave them a rebate of 1 percent -- a fraction of the dollars that should have stayed in the mining industry.

So when I hear this government saying: "Look at us. We're doing so well for the mining industry. We've given them the breaks they need to flourish again as an industry. . . ." It's paper; it's nothing but paper. The time when you had an opportunity to do something for the mining industry was in November and in February of this year. And the government said: "No. Forget it." They took the money that they overcharged the mining industry -- it is not that they were asking for a freebie; they had been overcharged -- and they manipulated the Utilities Commission out of power and took the money.

Today they claim that they are the saviours of the mining industry. I think that's the true perception of what is happening here. The members opposite should be ashamed of it, because they are not the friends of the mining industry or of the people who work in the mining industry. That's the key. We're talking about jobs -- true jobs -- and you are not willing to participate in the process to save these jobs.

Madam Speaker, that is what I wanted to quickly say. I said I was going to be brief, but I had to get it off my chest. The phoniness of the arguments opposite really offend me and are offending a lot of people in the mining industry.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciated the grace and tact of the previous speaker with respect to some of these questions. My goodness, the distortion of public policy contained in that short speech was truly mind-boggling. Perhaps I can try to deal in a rational way with some of the issues that did arise in second reading debate. Obviously I'm very, very pleased by the enthusiastic support of all members of the House for this bill. Certainly it makes my job easier, as the Minister of Energy and Mines, knowing that all members of the House are eager to see the bill pass. I look forward to its passage through committee stage.

I'd like to touch on a couple of points that I think are of general interest to the public with respect to the mining sector -- first of all dealing with the issue around energy costs. It is a well-known fact -- I would have thought that most members of the House were aware -- that the energy costs in British Columbia relative to most other jurisdictions in the world are amongst the lowest in the world. I didn't know that the member didn't know that. But when I was in Japan last year talking to people, I discovered that for the consumer and industry alike, the energy costs over there -- your electric bill -- are about ten to 15 times higher than they are here in British Columbia. That is truly one of our competitive advantages.

Notwithstanding the fact that the major industries were lobbying for a significant reduction in their energy costs, we

[ Page 7322 ]

In any event, that's been one of our historical advantages in this province. I don't think you should get too carried away, because if you do a quick check in terms of energy costs in other jurisdictions, you'll quickly come to the realization that we have a very distinct competitive advantage. We're not really bragging about this, but we enhanced that. I was the minister who brought in a bill last year called Power for Jobs. I'm not certain what position. . . . I just can't recall where the opposition was; they seemed to be all over the map. Our idea was that we had 1,400 megawatts of power coming back from the Columbia River Treaty, and we wanted -- and gave it force in a bill -- to allocate that power to try to attract industrial investment in our province. I think the members opposite had all kinds of wild ideas about what ought to happen with that power. And so, consistency. . . .

I do know the issues around the Huckleberry mine and the Mount Polley mine very, very well. I've had many discussions with the principals of those operations. I attended the opening of those two new mines. If you listened to members opposite, you'd think there hadn't been a new mine opened in B.C. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Last year there was more investment in mining in British Columbia than there had been historically for years. Last year the investment in British Columbia. . . . Two brand-new mines opened: Mount Polley up in the Cariboo country and Huckleberry south of Smithers -- 100 direct jobs per mine, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, spinoff jobs.

We've got a major project, the Kemess project. I just got a letter from Peggy Witte, and she tells me she's aiming for May. I say more power to her. That's a significant investment -- more jobs in this province. Those naysayers over there. . . . On top of that, when this government took direct action and sat down with Princeton Mining and the four Japanese houses and made a decision to make a $15 million public investment in the Huckleberry mine, who did we find opposing it? The opposition. If we had listened to them, there wouldn't be a mine there. I don't know. It's a bit hard to take sometimes.

By the way, if I could pass on a literary tip. . . . If members are interested in an outstanding novel, it's fictional, but it quite correctly deals with the early coal-mining days in Great Britain. It's called The Rose by Martin Cruz Smith. I highly recommend it; it's a very good book.

I want to acknowledge the work of my parliamentary secretary, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. That member has spent his life working for working people in the trade union movement. He's done an outstanding job. He's interested in jobs; he has devoted his life to that. I can tell you that as my parliamentary secretary for Energy and Mines, he's done an outstanding job. He has an outstanding reputation in mining circles, and he deserves a lot of the credit for some of the work that we've put together here today.

In all candour, we did not bring this bill forward with trumpets blaring. We made an announcement with the mining industry. If you read what we said, we said the mining industry had issued a challenge to create 22,000 jobs over the next ten years if we could do certain things together. If you read what we said, we said we wanted to work with the mining industry to help them realize their goal of creating 22,000 jobs. I know that the members quoted the mining industry and 22,000 jobs. And I know that, on another topic, they're dead opposed to quotas. They're dead opposed to people standing up and saying: "We think we can create so many jobs if we do certain things." But again, consistency.

[3:45]

Mining responsibility is in everybody's interests. And one of the members described, I think very well, the fact that we do mine very, very well in this province. Some outstanding examples of the best mining you'll see anywhere in the world are here in British Columbia.

When we made our announcement, I used as a backdrop a very large blown-up photograph of the Eskay Creek mine, which is up in northwestern British Columbia in the Tahltan traditional territory. One of the things I like about that project that is it does leave a very soft footprint; it's not a huge scar on the landscape. In fact, it's very tidy. It's not a deep underground mine. It's a very rich mine; it's about twice as rich as any other gold mine, I think, in Canada. The people at Homestake, the company that runs the operation, have done an outstanding job. They've entered into a very respectful agreement with the Tahltan first nation. There are obvious opportunities. They are the largest employer of first nations people, I think, on a per-capita basis, in the province. There are agreements. For example, the Tahltans have the catering contract; they have direct employment. There's a road into that project, and I think it's important that we remember that, because roads are opposed by some people. It's a gated road; only people who are authorized can get through and use the road. The Tahltans are involved in every aspect so that you don't have illegal poaching and those kinds of activities on the land.

It's a model, in my view, for what we should be doing, not just in mining but in other resource sectors: entering into those kinds of respectful agreements that make sense and that provide jobs and opportunities, where they can be realized, for first nations. That's one of the objectives I have; it's one of the objectives my ministry has as we proceed to work with the mining sector to try to see if we can't expand the economic pie and look at new projects.

We have, by all accounts, on our environmental assessment process. . . . Certainly the principals of Redfern's Tulsequah Chief project have been very straightforward in their comments about the process and also about what they see as kind of a change. And I think it's fair enough for opposition members to say: "Well, you've changed now." We'll get into some debate, I guess, about too little, too late. The fact is that mining is a very important part of this economy, and it's one that we want to see expand. We're working with the industry, and there is a cooperative attitude. I think that is important. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 7323 ]

We've been working for quite some time on those things. It's clear we have some competitive advantages with respect to the VSE, which is the capital market for mining. Despite their reputation in the past, my discussions with the VSE lead me to conclude that the regulatory framework around the VSE and mining juniors is as good as you're going to find anywhere. This goes to the issue of investor confidence, which is critical in the resource sector. To some degree, we can see that investor confidence has been shaken by factors that are beyond our control. Certainly anybody that I talk to in the mining business refers to Bre-X. They refer to that, because that has cooled off and dampened people's willingness to invest in mining. They're leery of it. These kinds of things do inestimable damage in terms of our objective.

So we've got to work together. I've talked to people in the VSE and in the mining industry and others about promoting B.C. as a very stable environment. We are very, very good at extracting very low-grade ore in a competitive manner. I don't think members should automatically, sort of by rote, go through the things that they've heard and don't like. Rather, look at what we do. Look at how good we are at extracting very low-grade ore and at being competitive and selling that internationally. . . .

An Hon. Member: What does that have to do with the bill?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, perhaps nothing, but I think everybody was wandering.

This bill will not solve every problem that everybody can identify with respect to the mining industry. What this bill does is make a statement of principle -- and I think it's a very important one -- that we think mining is an important part of our economy and that we want to encourage that. Then it deals with a couple of ways that will improve the working climate out there on the fiscal side.

I look forward to committee stage. I know that members have lots of questions about the bill and its construct. Hopefully, we can answer those in a reasonable manner, and we can go on to pass this legislation and work together -- to have our differences in the appropriate forums but to work together when it comes to B.C.'s interests. No MLA in this House should do anything but consider working for the interests of this province. We can have our political differences in this forum, but when it comes to British Columbia, let's all put it first.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Second reading of Bill 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 69
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
Janssen	Weisgerber	Penner
Nettleton	Anderson	Jarvis
Whittred	Neufeld	Reid
Abbott	de Jong	Farrell-Collins
Campbell	C. Clark	Gingell
Sanders	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Thorpe
Symons	van Dongen	Barisoff
Dalton	Masi	Krueger
McKinnon	J. Wilson	Reitsma

NAYS -- 1
	G. Wilson

Hon. D. Miller: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, by leave now.

The Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

An Hon. Member: Nay.

The Speaker: A nay has been heard. In view of the fact that the motion has to be unanimous, we need another motion.

[4:00]

Motion approved.

Bill 12, Mining Rights Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 10.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, if I may, in this chamber I call Committee of Supply instead of second reading of Bill 10. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Doyle in the chair.

[ Page 7324 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

R. Neufeld: We had left off our last estimates talking about regulation and how it affects the industry and what movements the government is making in that direction.

Hon. D. Miller: Are you talking about oil and gas now?

R. Neufeld: Yes, oil and gas -- the energy part of the oil and gas industry. Maybe just for the minister's information, we'll continue that and get that finished and slip into the mines part here in a bit.

We had discussed the impediments of overregulation and uncertainty in the northeast as it relates to the industry. Although the industry is doing well, I don't think that means we should rest on our laurels. I think we can improve it and can in fact do better. If you look at anything the Premier has said on record. . . . The minister himself said that it's going to grow in the next few years, but from every facet of the oil and gas industry, we read reports -- and they're not condemning reports -- that say that one of the biggest hindrances are (a) aboriginal land claims, and (b) the regulatory process that has to take place within British Columbia.

In the throne speech, the government talked about reducing regulation. In fact, as far back as 1996, they put out press releases about reducing regulation. Just recently they have formed a business task force to cut red tape; it is comprised of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and a number of other people. I had asked the minister. . . . I had shown him the handbook for British Columbia's oil and gas industry -- I don't have it with me again. Maybe the minister could tell me: are there portions of it that you're seriously considering removing? It's fine to say, on one hand, that we're going to reduce regulation. Okay, we'll buy that. On the other hand, what regulation is coming out of the system that will enhance oil and gas activity in the northeastern part of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: I do recall the member having the handbook and trying to make the point that because it was rather thick, somehow that represented cumbersome regulation. In fact, I don't believe that was the case. We pointed out in response that the book was developed in consultation with industry and contained a number of sections that could be pulled out, depending on the type of activity that the people using it were engaged in. I think there were copies of all relevant acts and handbooks dealing with specific elements of the oil and gas sector. I think the real challenge on the regulatory side, is to some degree, implementation.

There are ways in which you can approach the issues of regulation. One way is the bureaucratic way. My description of a bureaucracy is that when someone comes forward and says they'd like to do something, the answer they get is, "No, you can't do that," and they're left to themselves to find out how they can do it. My view of a situation that's non-bureaucratic is someone coming forward to ask that question, and the response is: "No, you can't do it that way, but if you take this section, you can do it."

In other words, it's facilitating. It's not using regulation to delay, stall and not make decisions but is using it to assist people to realize their objectives. It's really that kind of attitude and approach that we want to take in the oil and gas sector in order to have a more streamlined process, so people can get those applications processed in a timely way and get decisions. It's not so much what's written on the paper all the time, but what's critical is the people that are doing it, how they're doing it and how that is constructed in an organizational manner. I believe that the discussions we've held with the oil and gas sector will result in a change that will be widely applauded.

R. Neufeld: I have a KPMG report here, "Overview of the British Columbia Oil and Gas Industry," prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Westcoast Energy and the B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines. Page 2 of the report says, "The regulatory framework governing the upstream oil and gas industry in British Columbia is complex," indicating that there is some difficulty with the regulatory system. On page 3 it talks about the regulatory environment, and it says: ". . .by establishing a stable regulatory environment."

To me, when I read those, it's not perception that I'm working on; it's actual. . . . There must be something that's changing within the ministry, I would think. Are we looking at changing something within the Forest Practices Code to encourage more investment? Are we looking at the Ministry of Finance and the area of taxation that would help this industry, or at the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks? Are those the areas we're looking at?

I hear from most people in the industry that they do want to see some of the red tape gone. When I listened to the throne speech and to all the ads by the government on TV and radio talking about cutting red tape. . . . Is it the opinion of the minister that when we're talking about cutting red tape, it means that we're just going to leave all the regulation that's there -- all those processes -- in place, but we're going to bypass them? Or are we actually going to remove some of the regulation that is hindering the advancement of the industry? That's where I want to come from. Is there really some meat and potatoes on the table about which regulations are going to come out of the handbook or all the other regulations associated with the legislation that governs this industry?

I'm not saying for a minute that we should remove it all. I understand fully and know well that there have to be some regulation and legislation that govern this industry. But if we're talking about trying to get investment into British Columbia being such a positive thing -- and the minister talked earlier about how we should be talking about getting investment into British Columbia -- then I don't think just saying "removing red tape" is good enough. What we really have to demonstrate to the industry is that within a year or a designated time period, there's going to be a whole bunch of pages missing out of this handbook, and there'll be a whole bunch of pages missing out of the regulations -- much the same as with the Forest Practices Code, which I spoke about earlier. I'm told by your own government that it is actually going to save industry $300 million a year from unnecessary regulation. Those kinds of things are where I'm coming from.

Maybe the minister has something coming forward. Maybe if I read in between the lines, there's something that's coming in the future that you can't tell me about but that's actually going to mean there's going to be a reduction in the paperwork, a reduction in the actual regulations as they exist today for this industry. Maybe you could just clarify that for me a little bit more, please.

[ Page 7325 ]

My sense of most regulation is that there's a reason why it was put in place -- to protect fish or whatever the reasons. But the hon. member must receive correspondence from constituents. I know I do. I certainly knew, particularly when I was a member of the opposition with not a lot of staff. You know, sometimes you got a big volume of letters in, and quite frankly, sometimes it took you a long time to get to the last letter that came in because of the sheer volume of work you had.

[4:15]

An Hon. Member: Free enterprise works.

Hon. D. Miller: The member from North Vancouver talks about free enterprise. One of the industrial people I talked to in the oil and gas sector said: "Look, if you really want to see bureaucracy at work, go inside a major company. That's where you'll find more bureaucracy than you can shake a stick at." It's not exposed to the light of day, but by their own admission, very large corporations are as bureaucratic, if not more bureaucratic, than government. It's always, to my mind, a more invigorating debate when you free your mind. I try to do that and don't accept by rote. I'm trying, in a rather oblique way, to respond to the member's question.

Can we, by the way in which we construct the regulatory framework -- not necessarily the rules, but the process -- improve it? Can we make it speedier? We are engaged with industry. We are at the table in discussions. They are identifying from their point of view where they think improvements can be made, and we are taking their advice and seeing ways in which we can change our processes to meet the issues that they've raised.

I fully expect, as I indicated last week, that in the reasonably near future we'll see the end result of that process. I do think it's an approach that's new, one that people, and the industry particularly, will really like. I really am a little bit prohibited from speaking too much more about that, since it is the subject of these discussions with CAPP.

R. Neufeld: I accept the minister's explanation about what's taking place. With all the fanfare about cutting red tape that went around -- all the TV ads and radio ads that I've heard since the throne speech and the budget -- I'll look eagerly in my in-basket, as the member for Peace River South says, to see the announcements on a regular basis from the Ministry of Energy and Mines in regard to the removal of roadblocks from this industry as you continue negotiating with CAPP in the near future. I'm sure we'll look at them again next session, when we deal with estimates and how far we've come from the book that's about this high. Are we down to one that's really a handbook or a shirt-pocket book that we can actually work with? We'll leave that one for the time being.

I briefly want to ask a couple of questions around WCB regulations as they relate to the oil and gas industry and drilling rigs. The minister is well aware that there's not one drilling rig that's based out of British Columbia; they all come from Alberta. We've had experiences in the last year where rigs that have been working in Alberta hit the border to come into British Columbia to go to work and required a huge amount of upgrade, not just in safety but in some other issues surrounding the operation of those rigs. In one case, they turned the rig around and sent it back to Alberta. They wouldn't allow it in, because the company said they couldn't afford to upgrade it. Those are probably some impediments that we have in British Columbia also that I think we have to look at closely.

The minister talked about an open border and being able to try to work a little bit closer with Alberta. I don't think I'm advocating that we should not be taking safety as a serious issue, but I had the occasion to find out whether Alberta. . . . It's mind-boggling the number of wells they drill in Alberta in a year, compared to British Columbia, and their rate of injuries in the workplace doesn't seem to be much different from ours. I wonder if that's an area that we can maybe seriously look at: allowing that equipment to move back and forth. Unless that particular rig had a history of a lot of accidents, that's a different story. But apparently it didn't. It was just the makeup of the rig, how it was structured and those kinds of things, that made it very difficult for that rig to operate in British Columbia, because it would have to upgrade a huge amount.

Hon. D. Miller: Just going back to the previous question, one of the keys to cutting red tape is to make sure you don't do it lengthwise. [Laughter.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's very seldom that I get that kind of appreciative response to my jokes.

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: Oh, don't go there.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I won't. I'm tempted, but I won't.

I'm not personally familiar with the issue the member describes. I really just have a couple of comments. I do believe that our system here works reasonably well. I understand that the injury rate in the oil and gas sector is at the bottom with respect to all other industries, and I think that's a good testament to the men and women in the WCB and the people in the industry. Certainly that's true in mining. Mining, I think, is absolutely the lowest. If you compare mining to forestry or to any of those other heavy activities, our safety record -- even though it's marred by tragic accidents, as we saw up the Island here recently -- is very, very good. So without knowing the circumstances, I'm quite prepared, if the member has more information, to get the reasons or the rationale used with respect to that particular incident.

In other areas we have moved to look at harmonizing with Alberta where we think it's appropriate. We have, in many instances, harmonized some of our regulatory frameworks and those kinds of things with the province of Alberta. To the extent that that makes sense for the industry, which moves back and forth across the border, I think that's a good trend. We'll continue to look at opportunities where we can do that.

[ Page 7326 ]

I want to go on to the Mediation and Arbitration Board. Maybe the minister could, just for my information before I even start asking some questions about it, inform me of what changes were made recently to the Mediation and Arbitration Board and the reasons surrounding them.

Hon. D. Miller: I will be getting just a touch more information, but I do know that we have added a staff position to have the people who actually do the arbitrating free to do that, rather than processing applications and those kinds of things.

There was a review in 1996 and a number of recommendations that came out of that review. The one I just talked about is the hiring of the board administrator. In other words, we are trying to make the process work a little better. I understand from all reports that the board is running smoothly and is actually meeting the needs of landowners and industry. I'm not aware of any major issues around the board, but perhaps the member has other questions he'd like to pursue.

R. Neufeld: Can you tell me who the present members of the board are and how they're appointed -- what qualifications they had to have to be appointed to the board? What qualifications does the administrator have, to have that position?

Hon. D. Miller: My assistant deputy minister is actually writing -- we don't have a briefing note with the names -- the names out for me. We'll give them to you as soon as we have them. So if the member wanted to pursue additional questions.

R. Neufeld: Okay, we'll just leave that for a few minutes.

The other issue that I would like to know about the Mediation and Arbitration Board. . . . If there an annual report? If there is one, could I have a copy of it?

I'll just go on to a few things about what happens to landowners specifically as it relates to the oil and gas industry -- that being mostly farmers in the northeast. In the process, when a well is drilled on site or when it is being produced afterwards, there is an agreement in place between the landowner and the oil company or whoever it happens to be. If there is a major spill on that land of whatever -- oil from the well or things of that nature -- and there is some environmental damage, who is actually responsible for the cleanup of that? And who enforces it and makes sure its done? Does the landowner have any input into whether they are satisfied, at the end of the cleanup, that it's been done properly or not?

Hon. D. Miller: The offending company is responsible for cleanup. That is enforced by my ministry. Prior to my ministry giving a release that the work has been done properly, we consult with the landowner. They have to be satisfied.

R. Neufeld: I understand from the response that the landowner actually does have some input at the end of the day as to whether they will accept the cleanup or not.

If we go back to the Mediation and Arbitration Board, when an arbitration takes place and the oil company actually appeals the arbitration, is that in fact possible? If it is, who is responsible for the costs that the landowner would incur in going to court to deal with that issue?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: In that case, the court deals with the apportionment of costs.

R. Neufeld: The court deals with the cost? In the case I'm talking about, the costs actually went back to the landowner. The ministry refused to deal with the costs. The landowner had to expend a fair amount of money and time to deal with an arbitration that had been appealed. Is there anything in the new process, with the way you've changed the Mediation and Arbitration Board, to deal with those issues -- if they come again?

[4:30]

There generally are some issues around the question of landowners. I know that last year, when I brought forward the new Builders Lien Act, we did have a brief discussion on some issues that the member is familiar with. In other words, if you are a private landowner and a gas company gets the rights to drill on your property, yes, we do have a process of determining through the Mediation and Arbitration Board what might be fair compensation to you. In the case as I recall it, if there was some reason why the private drilling company was to default on moneys owing to other people, the landowner could conceivably be in the bite or become responsible for those kinds of costs. It's a very, very tough issue to try to deal with in legislation, and unfortunately -- despite a lot of effort -- we weren't able to get that resolved or clarified so that we could have a section of the Builders Lien Act that deals with it. It's still in the same kind of process. No one has yet determined what an appropriate legislative framework would be to resolve that question.

R. Neufeld: On the issue of how landowners are compensated for well sites, when the Mediation and Arbitration Board does go in to mediate that kind of disagreement, how are the rates arrived at? Are rates paid to the farmers? Do you take the average of what the market's been paying for the last while, or is there a rule of thumb that the Mediation and Arbitration Board goes by as to the quality of the land or where it's situated or those kinds of things? How do they arrive at that basic figure? To my knowledge, I don't think that rates for farmers -- specifically for land that oil companies use -- have changed over time. I could be badly mistaken, but to my knowledge, it's much the same as it has been for years. Is there a way that. . . ? Does the minister think that maybe it should change? How would you do that?

Secondly, how do we compare to provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan when it comes to many of these same issues? Of course, with the number of wells that are drilled there, they have a huge amount of knowledge and background as to how those rates are set.

Hon. D. Miller: Just to go back to a question the member asked some time ago, the members of the board are: Ivor Miller; Connie Shortt, the vice-chair; Ray Rutherford, the chair; Bud Hosker; and Ewart Loucks.

[ Page 7327 ]

R. Neufeld: The minister talked briefly about pipeline issues as they relate to the northeast. I'm sure the minister's staff are aware of the number of questions that I've had asked of me about compensation for pipeline access over the last year. There have been an awful lot of pipelines being built, and quite a number of landowners have contacted my office, saying that the paltry amount -- that's how they put it -- that they receive for access doesn't cover the inconvenience that they have over time. Many in the oil and gas industry say that once a pipeline is buried and covered back up again, it doesn't affect the value of the land. I think, in one case, one fellow close to Taylor has something like 30 lines running across a quarter section of land, he said, and it does affect the price of the land to a great degree. How do we deal with those issues? I can't remember the dollar amounts that clearly, but it's really not very much compensation that those people receive for a pipeline going across their land -- other than restoring the land to what it was before.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, those are issues that are negotiated by the landowner with the companies. Normally, if there are huge complaints, they find their way into my office. I'm not suggesting that everybody's perfectly happy, but it doesn't appear to be the topic of significant letter writing or those kinds of things. But landowners enter into those agreements themselves, and if they feel that there are violations, they do have recourse, either through the courts or through the Expropriation Compensation Board -- or through the Agricultural Land Commission if there have been some violations with respect to agricultural land. I'm always happy to look at problems that individuals might have, but it's not something that's been drawn to my attention as a general problem.

R. Neufeld: Well, I guess that for the number of pipelines that are built -- if you take it in relation to that -- maybe there's not a lot. But there are some specific ones that do have some problems.

In the case of pipelines crossing farmland, does the Mediation and Arbitration Board deal with that also? The minister said that these are all generally-agreed-to costs or prices. That's not what I've been led to believe. Some of these folks have said that some of these costs have been thrust on them without their ability to do anything about it.

Hon. D. Miller: The Mediation and Arbitration Board deals with what are called the flow lines -- short lines, generally, to wells. The Expropriation Act deals with the major pipelines. So they're handled under two different sections.

R. Neufeld: So the major lines, then. . . . Let's take, for instance, Alliance Pipeline. You would classify that as a major line; the Mediation and Arbitration Board wouldn't deal with that. If a landowner got to the point where he or she could not negotiate with Alliance, they would go to expropriation. Is that the process the government would follow on behalf of Alliance Pipeline? Is that how the process would work?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I'm not familiar with the various provisions of the Expropriation Act, but the issue would be dealt with under the Expropriation Act. Again, I'm not familiar with the act, so I can't really give you a recitation of the provisions dealing with this kind of circumstance, but that's the act that would apply.

R. Neufeld: Okay. I'm not familiar with the Expropriation Act either, but I'll explore that a little bit more.

The last issue -- and we had some discussion about it last year, and you alluded to it a bit -- is liens on property as they relate to pipelines and the effect that that's had on some property in the northeast. I know that there were some changes to the Builders Lien Act, but as I understand it, it hasn't taken care of it yet. Are we actually looking at something for this session so that it can be looked after?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't believe we are. While I am no longer the minister responsible for the Builders Lien Act, I've not been engaged in any work on that point. I know I did describe it, in an answer I gave a few moments ago, as being a very complex issue, one where we were unable to come to some ready and simple conclusions with stakeholders with respect to the language that could be used in the legislation to deal with the problem. It's a matter that's going to have to be pursued over time, and hopefully, that can be dealt with and eventually included in the Builders Lien Act.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that the Builders Lien Act is not in the purview of the Minister of Energy and Mines and petroleum resources. I'm not too sure that something that has to deal with pipelines is not within. . . . In fact, that is within your jurisdiction. I'm hoping that you, as minister, will continue to push the minister responsible so we can get some resolution to this little piece of red tape and so those people that have been affected negatively by liens on their property because some pipeline company hasn't paid its bills. . .doesn't take place anymore. I know that it's easy enough for us to stand in the House here and say: "It's not my responsibility; it's someone else's, and we're trying to deal with it." This isn't a new problem; it's an age-old problem that was there before the NDP came into government. But it is an issue that affects people. As we see the industry increase and see a lot more pipelines being built, it could become more of an issue all the time for landowners. Far too often in these cases we take for granted the chaos that's caused for someone who is trying to sell their land but can't because there's a lien against it, and it has nothing to do with the person that actually owns the land. In fact, it upsets the lives of some people dramatically.

The other issue is sour-gas wells and their proximity to communities. I know that there has been a major issue around Fort St. John in that instance. Also, farm families, wherever they happen to live in the northeast, are affected by sour gas. There's also been a study on one of the reserves -- the Blueberry, north of Fort St. John -- in regard to sour gas and what effect it has on people. I'm just wondering where that process is. The last news release that I saw on the issue was March 19 of this year -- from your ministry. Maybe the minister could bring me up to date a bit on where we're at. As I understand it, we're looking at a lot of the recommendations that were made in Alberta as they relate to sour gas, because of the experience that Alberta has had in this area. Maybe the minister could bring me up to date a little bit on that.

[4:45]

[ Page 7328 ]

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman, we clearly have to deal with the outstanding issue of the Kaiser application. Since we now have the report, we will be examining Kaiser's application in light of the report.

R. Neufeld: I look forward to seeing the final report on this issue.

I want to go into the estimates book and get a quick explanation of the resource revenue sharing agreements, 1997-98. It's $810,000 this year -- it's doubled. It has to do with the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act. Does this also include some of the other bands that the ministry has negotiated with? Is that why the increase is there, or what has taken place to increase that amount?

Hon. D. Miller: No, the agreement pertains to the Blueberry River and the Doig River Indian bands and Fort Nelson. The agreement is specific and unique with them. The increase that the member noted is as a result of increased activity and is therefore their share, if you like.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that answer. The reason the question came up is because all that's listed in the estimates book is the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act. I'm not taking exception to it or anything; I know it's been there for a long time. Why wouldn't the explanation include the Blueberry and the Doig, and then a person could actually understand it? Is there some reason why those two bands can't be named in here?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer to the specific question is simply that at the time this was printed, there was some potential for other agreements. So rather than limit it, it was left open-ended. The Fort Nelson agreement goes back quite some time, to 1980.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response. Just a couple of things, and then I think the member for Peace River South has some questions on energy and so does the member from Vancouver.

One thing I'd like to ask is: what effort has gone into training in our colleges on behalf of the Ministry of Energy as it relates to working in the oil and gas field -- those kind of things? I think there is a program in place; probably there are some recommendations for some added things to take place. I think they're excellent programs. They work well within our colleges -- in Fort St. John specifically and, I believe, in Dawson Creek -- to try and train young people from the north in as close a setting as possible to what actually takes place in the field so they can actually access some of the employment and the good job prospects that are out there. Maybe the minister could tell me a little bit about what his ministry does to promote that process through the college system. Is the ministry working on any new programs that are going to take place in this coming year or in the future to encourage that in the colleges?

The other part is to start getting into the classroom, long before the kids graduate out of grade school, the importance of the energy industry in the province of British Columbia, so when they come out of school at grade 12, there is a different perspective on the value and benefit of the industry. That is not just for the northeast but for the province as a whole. Those are things that go a long way towards what the minister talked about before: the positive part of British Columbia and the positive things that can happen if we look at some of these industries in a positive light.

Hon. D. Miller: Very good question; in fact, it's an issue that I feel very strongly about. In other words, broadly described, the opportunity for young people in northern British Columbia to gain the kinds of skills they need so they can have access to the jobs that exist in northern British Columbia. I don't say that to discriminate in any way, but it seems important that we provide as many opportunities as possible to our young people in the north. There are some very, very good jobs -- technical jobs -- across all kinds of industries in northern B.C., and certainly in the oil and gas sector. My view is that we ought to do more on that as well as in capacity-building on the aboriginal side. I strongly believe that the more of that we do, the better off everybody is.

I'm encouraged by some of the work that has taken place in northern B.C. When I was in Fort St. John -- well over a month ago now on the first visit -- I went to Northern Lights College. I sat in on a meeting that was being held with various stakeholders -- industry and others -- to develop a training program for oil and gas workers. That's a good example of the involvement of the college. My ministry has been fairly active in terms of trying to make material available for the classroom, so that people are aware of the energy and mines sector of our province, and they will continue to do that.

I had a very good discussion last week -- not extensively at this point -- with the president of UNBC, Charles Jago, about these ideas. He was describing some of the work that the university is doing in conjunction not only with the colleges but also with various aboriginal bands, and he is meeting with considerable success. I think that's an area that I want to talk -- once we get there -- to the northern commission about, because it seems to me that all of us in northern B.C. might want to look at this in a bigger-picture way and see if we can coordinate the activities of the K-to-12 system, the college system, the university system, the government, the private sector and the aboriginal communities to become a bit more focused in these areas. We've done a fair amount of work.

When I was Minister of Forests, I approved some funding for the Nechako school district to develop a curriculum on forestry so that it could be taught in high school -- in fact, to take the curriculum that had been put in place as a result of the. . . . I think it was the superintendent of schools in the district and the district forests manager who really drove the agenda. Much to my delight when I was there, they were teaching forestry in high school. I had been promoting this theory that if you could get enough of that training in grades 11 and 12 and you could actually qualify -- I don't see any reason why you can't do that -- you could graduate from high school with about one year of college credits. There's no reason why you can't do these things, except that people get

[ Page 7329 ]

R. Neufeld: I'm pleased with those remarks, because I think it is a very important part of what we have to do in the north, not just for the northern kids but other students from other parts of British Columbia who have maybe never experienced living in the north -- allow them to go to colleges and learn to be gas field operators, heavy equipment operators or any of those kinds of job opportunities that are there.

Far too often. . . . Again, I'm not trying to build a wall between British Columbia and Alberta. But there are so many people who come from Alberta into British Columbia to do that work and then go back home again, that I think we can work in many ways to try and encourage more of that industry to actually operate out of British Columbia in the oil and gas industry, as it increases over time.

The other huge impediment, I think, to getting into our school system -- getting into it a lot sooner than when they leave school -- is issues surrounding the energy industry, the benefit it is to British Columbia and that there are good, well-paying jobs out there that can be had just for the asking.

I look forward to hearing from the minister as the year progresses and working with him on these issues. I know that there are quite a few people in Fort St. John in the industry who are very interested in these kinds of things -- to try and get it going, to work together with the colleges, to improve it any way they can and to work with the ministry to do that. I think that basically ends the questioning I have that has to do with the Energy side of your ministry.

[5:00]

The minister is aware that we have a large office there. We have in fact a large office in downtown Fort St. John, owned by the government of British Columbia -- the people of British Columbia -- that's half vacant and that maybe could house some of these people and provide that service to people right in Fort St. John. It may show more willingness to look seriously at this industry, as it contributes to the well-being of the province. Maybe the minister would like to just wrap up on that a little bit for me.

Hon. D. Miller: In fact, every year starting about the end of March and moving on into June, July or August, I'd be happy to go to Fort St. John and do all my work out of there, quite frankly. But other duties prevent me from doing that. Fort St. John is the headquarters. If you're doing work in any other part of the province, it is handled out of Fort St. John. We don't have plans to do any significant relocating of staff. I think, with some of the ideas we're kicking around, there may be some increases, but not significantly.

I do support the member in what I think is the basic premise he's advancing, which is: to the degree possible, why don't we have people who work for various government ministries closer to where the work takes place on the ground? It's not a bad principle. If we can look at those opportunities. . . . I think you've got to be careful. I mean, some people go crazy and suggest you can move the entire ministry up there. It's impractical to suggest that. But I'm always open to ideas to increase opportunities for government to be. . . . Closer to the people is a good way of putting it.

R. Neufeld: One last question. Through the estimates procedure, there were three items that I recall asking for copies of. Maybe I'll just put it on the record so that we can get those as soon as possible. One is the business plan from last year for the ministry; the second is the letter from Mighty Peace Oil Services in regard to the Sierra-Desan road; and third is the backup papers regarding the maintenance on the Sierra-Desan road and the dollars that were spent this past year. The minister had explained that it was three times what was budgeted or something. If I could have those three items, I'd appreciate it very much.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps a Page may wish to take the letter from Mighty Peace Oil Services. I can give that to the member right now. My staff are aware of the commitment I made to get the material to you, and that will be followed up.

I'd like to thank the member for the discussions we've held during these estimates.

J. Weisgerber: What I want to talk about this afternoon is alternative fuels and ethanol in particular. I will take some guidance from the minister with respect to areas that fall into the purview of the Minister of Finance versus his ministry, particularly as we talk about taxation issues. As the minister will recall, I was very much opposed to the decision last year to cap or to put a limit on the number of years in which alternative fuels, primarily propane, are going to enjoy tax-free status. I think that in the long run we're going to see a significant reduction in the amount of propane that's used, particularly in the northeast. With pricing increases, the cost benefits have narrowed. Now, with people looking at less than three years before moving into an area of road taxes, I think it's going to substantially cut down the number of vehicles being converted to propane.

I raise that simply as a point of background. That decision appears to have been made, and I would certainly understand if the minister were to suggest that that's a decision made by the Minister of Finance and not by himself. But I raise it because the issue I want to pursue today is the promotion of the production of ethanol in British Columbia.

We have at least one fuel supplier, Mohawk Oil Co., which uses ethanol as part of a blend of gasoline that's quite popular. Unfortunately, it's not produced here in British Columbia; the ethanol is brought in from Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Most, if not all, of that ethanol is produced from grains.

In the late eighties there was a proposal to have a grain ethanol plant established in Dawson Creek. For a number of

[ Page 7330 ]

There is currently quite an aggressive plan for a woodwaste-ethanol plant in Chetwynd. The proponents have been working on it for a number of years now. The technology is in place; the financing appears to be in place. But the viability of the proposal hinges on some road tax relief for fuel containing ethanol.

Maybe at this point it would be important to find out whether this discussion is appropriate here or whether it should all take place with the Minister of Finance -- whether this would be an issue that the proponents would bring to the minister either in his capacity as Minister of Northern Development or in his capacity as Energy minister. Perhaps the minister would respond.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I think the discussion, although it may get into areas with respect to taxation that I'm just not qualified to handle, is an interesting one. Certainly as Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development, it is one of those issues that I would like to pursue.

In my former capacity as Minister of Employment and Investment, I did meet with the group -- and I apologize; I've forgotten all of their names now -- from the Peace who were promoting the concept of ethanol production. I know my former ministry looked at that. Again, I'm going from memory; I don't have a briefing note here to remind me. I can't recall the specific issues that they'd identified as barriers, but I know they are still a very active group. I want to look at that again, plus the issue that the member talked about with respect to Chetwynd and ethanol from wood waste.

If I as the minister, working in conjunction with proponents and my colleagues, can develop something that in our view is reasonable -- it makes good economic sense -- then those are the kinds of things that I like to assist in driving forward. The fact that it hasn't happened up to now suggests that there have been issues that. . . . I'll make sure I check on what they are.

I think the greater opportunity, and maybe a coincidental opportunity, is on the grain side. Certainly if we can continue to make progress to have Dawson Creek as the gathering centre, I think that not only is ethanol something that may be pursued but grain-cleaning is as well. The potential to look into other agribusiness that might want to locate in that kind of a centre. . . . So I think there may be a number. . . .

On the tax side, I guess the difficulty is always. . . . I mean, the propane tax issue is a classic example of where government said: "Yes, we're going to bring in a tax break to induce or assist, at the request of the industry, the establishment of propane as an alternative fuel." Because of the cost of converting your automobile and the need to have propane refilling stations at strategic locations so that people could continue to use it no matter where they went, it was reasonable to say: "Okay, let's have a tax break" -- I can't remember how many cents it was -- "for a defined period of time." Everybody agrees at the front end: "Oh, that's great; we're going to have a ten-year tax holiday. We'll be able to build the industry." At the end of the ten years, when you go to remove the tax exemption, they all say: "What are you doing? This is no good. You shouldn't be doing this; you're killing our industry." People tend to forget the objective when they started and really are after a permanent tax holiday.

I don't mind the concept of using that lever. But I think it is important that you have a very defined plan so that at the end of the time the tax incentives are used, you've got something that can stand on its own feet and meet the private sector test. So I'm open to all kind of ideas with respect to the issues you raised.

J. Weisgerber: Well, there's no doubt that people will always resist taxation. The day that they cease to do that is the day I will really become worried. If people start to say, "Go ahead and increase taxes; I don't care," then I think that we would be in a time that neither of us is ever going to see. So I accept. . . . But I also think that it's important to understand that alternative fuels -- whether they be propane, methane, ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen or any other alternative fuel that comes along -- always need an incentive at the front end. Clearly, if they didn't, the thing would happen, and no one would come to government. I'm not aware of any alternative fuel that simply came on the market, was taxed and became mainstream. As a result of that, we have continued to use non-renewable fossil fuel as the primary fuel for transportation. Any time we're going to move away from that, the government is going to have to take an active role, in my opinion. That role is almost inevitably a taxing role, to help bring down some barriers by way of taxation.

That's where it will be at. I guess one could argue that Mohawk brings the gasoline in, and they don't look for a break; they simply buy the ethanol. I would argue that the break is in the producing provinces. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba see the economic and environmental benefits to ethanol, and they have already provided the incentives, which make it a viable industry there and allow us to buy ethanol at a price that makes it competitive in our market. If we're prepared to allow that to continue and if we're happy with that situation, then indeed there may be more companies that get into ethanol.

[5:15]

I also think that whether we're talking about wood wastes or grain, they're both ethanol, and there are some positive elements both to production from wood wastes. . . . With respect to wood wastes, the thing that works best for ethanol production is bark, preferably green bark. Aspen bark is particularly useful, as are the parts of aspen that are left in the bush. The limbs, branches, etc., make a very good feedstock for ethanol. I think there's a great opportunity in Chetwynd, where there are substantial areas of aspen being harvested, to tie into that with an ethanol plant. We shouldn't say that that would then somehow eliminate the possibility of another group of entrepreneurs looking at grain production or at grain as a feedstock in Dawson Creek or some other part of British Columbia, but it would most likely and logically be in the Peace. As my friend from North Peace likes to think of Fort St. John as the oil capital, we kind of like to think of

[ Page 7331 ]

When you get into grain as a feedstock for ethanol, the by-product is a very good animal feed. There is a waste product, if you like, that can be used for poultry or any kind of livestock. It has a very high protein content. There are some real opportunities to build on that. But again I have to say that it comes back to taxation. From the numbers that I've looked at with respect to the ethanol producers, they're doing precisely as the minister predicts they would do. They said: "Yeah, we're going to need a window of opportunity, and then we would be prepared to see a tax phased in." I have no doubt that were all that to unfold, consumers at least would say: "Gee, extend it. Do it for a longer period of time. Give us a little better break." But I don't think we should be cynical about that. With that understanding, we should move forward.

I'm just looking at my notes to try to determine. . . . What they think is necessary in terms of a tax reduction or tax break would amount to less than what we approved back in the eighties to encourage ethanol use. At that time, we were talking about 2 cents a litre on fuel that contained at least 6 percent ethanol. At the time the talk was about an ethanol-methanol blend, which seems to be the most popular additive, in a quantity of 10 percent combined ethanol-methanol and 90 percent gasoline. So 2 cents a litre on that mix would have been effectively a reduction or credit of 20 cents a litre toward the cost of ethanol.

I think what these folks are asking for is a reduction of the road tax on the ethanol portion only. So if we were talking about 6 percent ethanol, they would be looking at the elimination of road tax on 6 percent of the cost of a litre of fuel. It takes a little bit of mathematics. But if I'm correct in that -- and I believe I am -- then it seems to be a fairly modest request.

I know that it would be, at the end of the day, the Minister of Finance who might have to make that decision. But I don't think these folks are asking for something that's pie in the sky; I think it's a reasonable proposal. I would encourage the minister to continue to meet with these folks and to look for ways to make it a reality, to create another industry in British Columbia and to bring some more jobs into the Peace country.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, really, all I can say is that I'm quite happy to look at some of these concepts. It's kind of interesting. I mean, if it's really a break on 6 percent, you sort of instinctively think: gee, that's so marginal. Why would that be a make-it-or-break-it. . . ?

Regardless of that -- and I'll say this as a general statement -- I have a very strong interest in promoting the expansion of the economy in northern B.C. If that is in the Dawson Creek area with respect to agriculture and the kind of spinoff industries that the member describes, then I want to pursue that. So I'll make some effort to become more acquainted with the issue and see where. . . . If it looks like there's some promise, maybe we could do some work to identify opportunities. Then I would be pleased to kind of promote that.

D. Jarvis: I talked before in the House -- I guess last week -- and mentioned briefly what your job as Minister of Energy entails. How deep do you go in Energy, in the sense that. . . ? I don't mean down. But across the board, what does your job entail? I mean, what is in your purview? I'm a little bit reticent that if I don't ask questions here, I won't be able to ask them anywhere else -- in another minister's job.

I want to know if your job entails -- let's see, how would I put it? -- the supply and demand of energy across this province. Is that your job? I appreciate that something like Hydro may produce the majority of it. But are you in charge of all of it? Are you in charge, for example, of Keenleyside, as to how they're going and what they're going. . . ? Are you the one that can push the button that says stop or go? You know what I'm getting at. I don't expect you to be the top dog, because there's someone else who thinks he is, and we all know who that is.

Anyway, I was just wondering just how far you go and how much you control in Columbia Power. The Premier is always talking about different smelters that require energy and all the rest. . . . Are you the one that tells them: "Look, we have so much of this and so much of that, and you're allowed to do this and allowed to do that"? Where may I go with my questions to you?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, in my last ministry they called me the minister of everything. I sometimes felt like it too.

In a very narrow view, let's look at what the legislative mandate of the Ministry of Energy and Mines is. Clearly we talked about the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Mines Act, etc. -- in other words, those areas that pertain directly to the industrial sector. But by its very name, Energy has a large connotation, particularly now as convergence between electrical and gas utilities is more and more the word.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, no, it's an interesting concept and one that, again. . . . Interestingly enough, B.C. Gas, for example, used to be part of B.C. Hydro. It was spun off to the private sector. If you look at the recent decision of the Utilities Commission with respect to the southern crossing, they're essentially telling the two utilities to get together -- at least on the planning side with respect to gas requirements. There are efficiencies as well. We've seen examples in other jurisdictions, as well, where gas and electric utilities are combining. They both offer an energy service to their customers.

What I intend to do is be very active with my colleagues -- for example, with my colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment, who is responsible for B.C. Hydro. . . . It seems to me that there are cross-ministry issues here, clearly, with Crown corporations. B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation. We're looking at ways in which we can use our energy, be it gas or electricity, to stimulate economic development.

That's a very generalized description. I don't like to be too narrow in my approach. If questions in these estimates occasionally stray into areas that I think technically belong to another minister, I'm happy to try to give an answer and be as open as I can in terms of these questions. I guess my advice is: don't confine yourself; don't be inhibited. If I think it's an area that's outside my expertise or my ministry, then I'll simply say so.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister for his remarks. That sort of leaves it like an accordion, opening and closing. Now that the minister brought it up, there was a question about Burrard Thermal, which is ostensibly going to be fired by gas. That is probably one of the main reasons why the southern crossing is necessary. Has the minister given any thought to. . . ? There is a definite problem, and I imagine that B.C. Gas will pursue this further because they can't get storage in the lower mainland. They feel they need that gas, basically, just to supply

[ Page 7332 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't think so. I think that the Utilities Commission decision directed B.C. Gas and Hydro to look at these questions. But the reason you have a Utilities Commission on these kinds of issues. . . . Is it legitimate for, in this case, B.C. Gas to spend $300 million or $350 million to build a southern crossing that would link gas into the Westcoast system and have the capacity to provide additional gas to the heavily populated lower mainland areas -- and to some degree beyond, into the U.S. market? The question the Utilities Commission is seized by is: is this expenditure reasonable? Those kinds of capital costs become part of the broader question of rate of return for a utility. All the commission was saying in this case is: "Look, you haven't made the case. Get together and start to do some planning with B.C. Hydro not only with respect to the potential repowering of Burrard Thermal but also with respect to the co-gen -- or at least one of the co-gens, possibly two -- that have been announced for Vancouver Island."

In at least one case, the Fletcher Challenge case, B.C. Hydro will be the purchaser and supplier of gas. You can see, looking at the volume that Hydro may be acquiring that it makes a heck of a lot of sense for the Utilities Commission to direct that work take place. Then they said: "Come back to us." Whether they do that on the basis of LNG or pipelines remains to be seen.

As for Burrard Thermal, the issues are really fairly straightforward. It is an integral plant in the Hydro system; it provides peak power. It is a subject of some concern in the lower mainland with respect to the discharges -- the air issues. Hydro has been working on a program of scrubbers to reduce those emissions, and I think they're working very diligently on that question.

[5:30]

D. Jarvis: I guess certain statements that you have made are probably correct, but my own feeling is that B.C. Gas would probably be thankful for the decision that has come down -- to have that exchange. One of the reasons, I had presumed, was that they were worried about what would happen in the long run. In the event that something happened with Alliance Pipeline -- and the demand on there would be out of Chicago -- it would extensively cut off the supply coming down into Vancouver or into the lower mainland. Consequently, the prices would have to go up. It's not that the supply would be cut off, but the demand would put the price up, and the price would affect the people in Vancouver.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't believe that was the case. I don't know that B.C. Gas necessarily offered the opinion of being particularly concerned about Alliance. There are some other issues around that; I won't get into them. There were really a couple of proposals to deal with the peak demand for gas. The member is aware, no doubt, that Westcoast had proposed -- and as a matter of fact, may still be proposing; I've lost track of the issue in the last number of weeks or months -- to build an LNG facility. It was clear that it was for what they call the peak-shaving; they had to have enough. But only for a very brief period of time during the year do you need that additional gas to fuel residential homes and businesses, etc.

Again, the question the Utilities Commission has asked itself is: is this the best plan, given the cost of building those facilities? The companies then quite rightly say: "In terms of our rate of return, we're going to have to have an increase in the price of gas to consumers." Those issues are really very complex. While I can touch on the surface of them. . . . Believe me, in the kinds of briefings I've had with my staff and with the private sector on some of these things, you have to really focus. It is quite a complex issue.

I'm talking too much, Mr. Chairman; I'll sit down.

D. Jarvis: That would lead me, then, back to the power end of it, the electrical power in this province. The Premier has been making a few statements around the province in the last little while in regards to Alumax, Dow Corning, Alcan, Alcoa; there's a smelter here and a smelter there, everywhere a little smelter, all over the country. It would lead me to a question. I've made a couple of notes, because sometimes it's confusing to me too. But he's made all these announcements about aluminum smelters and the surplus power. There's a big question out there. From the information that has been given to me at different times, there is no surplus of power in British Columbia, and that leads to: why?

The essential ingredient in that equation that refutes the Premier's announcements is that there's a difference between energy and capacity, a difference that he and the NDP seem to fail to recognize or even relate to out there. All these projects will require power in the next five to seven years, by the time they're built and ready to go. So we're going to have demand on our power situation. We say now that there's no surplus at this point. The KPMG study suggests that with the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty, we'd get about 1,400 megawatts of power, but that is considered capacity. So when you start adding up all the mills that we propose, we're getting into a problem.

In actual fact, under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty, starting in April of this year, 1998, B.C. is entitled to receive roughly 530 megawatts of electricity. Of this -- we're talking capacity now -- 200 is allocated to Power for Jobs and 175 to Alcan, through the Kemano settlement. That leaves roughly 150 megawatts left over, and an aluminum smelter will take 400 or 500 megawatts.

Now, KPMG has clearly made either a great big massive mistake in their analysis or they haven't -- one or the other. I'm not too sure about that. I think they have. They cover it by saying that the extra energy needed comes from B.C. Hydro surplus. There's no surplus. How do we know this? The last consultant report for electricity market reform -- you know, that task force -- stated that the surplus will disappear by 2007. Then a press release on Keenleyside went out just a short while ago, in December, and it stated that surplus electricity will be absorbed and more power will be needed by 2003. So they say that there isn't a surplus of power out there; it's used up. If there's no surplus, how can we build all these aluminum smelters without damming the major rivers? Why are we building Keenleyside? That's not a very profitable thing, when you come down to it; maybe I'll go into that later. Could the minister please respond on that, if possible?

[ Page 7333 ]

I think that the announcement the Premier made about the 150 megawatts, I think it was -- if I'm not mistaken -- for the Keenleyside project is welcome news for the Kootenays; it's welcome news in terms of the thousands of hours of person-years of employment during construction. The announcement that we made last year or the year before on two new co-gen projects on Vancouver Island, each in the 300-megawatt range -- an additional 600 megawatts. . . . You can see that there is additional capacity being developed as a result of activities undertaken by the government and B.C. Hydro. It's also clear to me that we have the ability, given the significant gas reserves in British Columbia, to develop additional electrical energy using the combined-cycle gas turbine technology I referred to. I'm not the least bit concerned that British Columbia does not have the means to develop energy requirements to suit the expansion of the economy, particularly on the industrial side, as the member talked about. I think that's highly desirable and that it's exactly the right agenda in terms of building the economy.

Beyond that, I believe the marketplace will change dramatically. I think electricity will become more of a marketplace commodity subject to marketplace rules. We have to approach that very, very carefully, because we have a significant competitive advantage, and have had for many years, with B.C. Hydro. I'm very proud; we should all be proud. We've had the opportunity, obviously, with significant hydro resources, to dam some of our rivers. That has caused problems, and we're trying to redress that, particularly in the Kootenays, with the Columbia Basin Trust and the resources we've allocated there. But we are in an enviable position, unlike, say, Ontario Hydro, with the huge problem they've got with their nuclear assets and the billions and billions of dollars that that utility and the Ontario taxpayers, I suggest, are going to have to deal with -- a bunch of stranded assets that are badly in need of significant repair. We don't have that.

We have much more flexibility. We have generated significant revenue to Hydro, hence the Crown, as a result of taking advantage of our export opportunities during peak flows. You get those years when you get lots of snow and then lots of rain, and you get a lot of water, and you can't use that electricity or that energy in a domestic way. You can export it. Hydro has been pretty aggressive. They obtained a FERC ruling last year that allows them to sell directly to customers in the U.S., rather than simply at the border, which they think will provide more opportunity for Powerex to look at those kinds of sales. We've got flexibility, mixing and matching, looking at the export market when surpluses are available, committing to the domestic market, as the projects that the Premier. . . .

I must say, very briefly, that the Premier is really very dynamic with respect to pursuing opportunities to expand our economy -- very dynamic. He's relentless in his pursuit of job opportunities for B.C.; he's in the air lots; he flies to where the customer is; he makes the pitch for B.C. personally. I think he's doing just an outstanding job trying to build the economy of this province.

D. Jarvis: Yes, the Premier is very dynamic, flying to Dollywood and all over the world. But he's announcing these photo ops continually, and I was trying to find out whether it's possible for him to really create all these smelters that he's hoping will come to British Columbia. He's now up to. . . . Let's see, there's Alumax, Dow Corning in Golden -- there's another new one -- Alcan in Kitimat and Alcoa. Last year you were even talking about a tidewater copper smelter. Everyone wants smelters in this province, but there certainly isn't enough power. We know we don't have power unless we're going to go to Site C or something like that.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Our friend from Kingsway is just about turning over in her grave.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, one must wonder sometimes. Anyway, I'll explain it to you later.

So am I to understand that I have to go to Employment and Investment and talk to the minister in charge of Hydro in order to discuss specifics on Keenleyside and the Columbia Basin Trust, how much power is in this province and whether B.C. Hydro will allow -- through their innovations over the years to make this such a productive province, thanks to the Socred government which created it. . . ? I was in the House watching when they took over B.C. Electric. Your party was against it. Right from Strachan, I can remember. . . . I was sitting up there watching Mr. Strachan down here saying that it was the worst thing that could ever happen to British Columbia. That's a fact.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I was just a kid, yes. Actually, I was very young.

What I'm saying to you is that you as the Minister of Energy and Northern Development, and the Premier, who is the minister of everything, cannot really do anything without the permission of B.C. Hydro as far as expanding into smelters and development throughout this province. You have no control over how much power will be available for it.

[5:45]

For example, we directed that there should be a freeze on any increase in Hydro rates. The Premier did that a couple of

[ Page 7334 ]

Recently, as a result of the dynamic leadership of the Premier, we instituted a reduction -- a rebate. If I'm not mistaken, we were criticized by the party opposite for interfering with B.C. Hydro.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We simply said that we are the voice of the people, as the duly elected government, and it was our determination that we ought to pass on to the people of this province the benefits of Hydro's performance. So we did that.

I think I may have offended the rules mightily with respect to straying into territory that is clearly under the purview of my colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment, who is directly responsible for B.C. Hydro. I know when we have estimates, as I did -- I had a delightful time in estimates; well, maybe not so much the first year -- that officials from Hydro are available. The technical expertise in the ministry rests with the Minister of Employment and Investment, so I'm sure he'll be delighted to answer the questions that you've now telegraphed that you want to ask him.

D. Jarvis: I just have two brief questions. I guess the hour is late, and we'll start again on Monday. Because of the new ministry created here and all the rest, you said that you had no business plan. I was really surprised that you would not have a business plan.

Hon. D. Miller: In fact, we did have a business plan for last year. We promised to table that or make that available, but the change that was brought about in the ministry necessitated a fair amount of work. We are developing that. But I've outlined the mandate and I've also indicated. . . . And I understand the need for business plans; I really do. I think that as a corporate exercise, you've got to determine what you want to do, how you're going to do it and those kinds of things. I think that's very, very important. I tend to be a little bit on the rough side sometimes, and I tend to want to say: "Let's do things; let's get things done." I'm not the kind of guy that sits around and looks at the paper on the desk all the time. We want to be dynamic.

I talked about the dynamic leadership of the Premier with respect to some of the initiatives we now see being announced. The mining initiative, which I believe every member of this House is going to support enthusiastically, is happening because we have a sense of direction. We sat down and put together a deal with the mining industry, and as a result of that, we're hoping to change the climate to attract more investment, create more jobs, etc. We know that very soon, in the reasonably near future, we will announce a major initiative with respect to the oil and gas sector in this province. I heard it described on the news this morning. I was driving into work, and I heard the CBC news and they talked about the "boom" that was taking place in northern B.C. There's 3 percent unemployment.

I had a young person come to me the other day and say: "Mr. Minister, I want to find a job. Do you think you could help me find a job in the northeast?" I said: "Darn right. I'll do my best." Business plans are important. But you know what? Doing things is important, getting out there on the job and doing it, like my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who went up north for a week and then went back a couple of weeks ago and delivered. He said: "I listened to you, and half of the Highways budget for B.C. was delivered to northern B.C. as a result." My colleague didn't sit around saying: "Where's the business plan? My goodness, what will we do without my business plan?" He got on with the job, and he delivered the goods.

So we've done it in mining; we're looking at the oil and gas sector. There are other opportunities in other sectors of our economy, in northern B.C. and generally in the energy and mines field. We'll have the business plan. But we want to focus our energies on getting out there and getting the job done.

Given the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Conroy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WOMEN'S EQUALITY

Hon. S. Hammell: It is my pleasure to present the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality for 1998-99.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff members from my ministry who are here to help me with this process. Valerie Mitchell is my deputy minister. Catherine Holt is my assistant deputy minister. And Scott Seivewright is our director of finance. As well as the staff with me today, I would like to recognize the dedicated work of ministry employees and the work of the many women and men in communities throughout B.C. who support the work of my ministry.

[ Page 7335 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

This year my ministry's mandate continues to reflect women's priorities. We will continue to focus on economic security for women and economic equality between women and men, a society free from violence against women and a health care system that respects the diversity of women and responds to women's needs.

Last week was Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. It was proclaimed in perpetuity four years ago by our government, and many municipalities -- 48 so far that we know of this year -- have also proclaimed this week. The week was an opportunity for the provincial government, municipalities and the women's community to draw attention to the appalling level of violence against women in our society and to work together to stop it from happening. Violence against anyone in any form robs society of its humanity. But violence against women is epidemic. Every day, in every town and city in this country, women are humiliated, threatened, kicked, punched, assaulted, beaten and murdered. During their lifetime approximately one in two British Columbia women is a victim of sexual assault, one in three of wife assault and one in five of other types of physical assault. Women between the ages of 20 and 34 experienced 42 percent of all assaults. Violence affects women of all ages, all races, all walks of life. Violence has no regard for socio-economic status.

We must increase our efforts to change the attitudes, behaviours and social conditions that allow violence to happen. In January of this year I invited a broad range of people from a variety of sectors -- business, unions, municipalities, school boards, the media and the women's community -- to sit down with us and to talk about new ways to prevent violence against women. The group came up with some very good ideas, and I'm pleased to say we formed some new partnerships. These links are the beginnings of some very exciting new initiatives -- some of which I announced last week as part of Prevention of Violence Against Women Week; others I will announce in the weeks to come.

On April 20, I took part in an announcement of the start of a bumper sticker awareness campaign with the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses, police and the RCMP working in partnership. This initiative is all around the province, with both the RCMP, municipal police forces and all police vehicles, as well as police paddy wagons carrying bumper stickers with the wording: "Prevent Violence Against Women and Children."

On April 21, the B.C. Association of Specialized Victim Assistance and Counselling Programs and the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses and I launched a new partnership initiative. We introduced the first annual awards for building a safer future and a program for prevention of violence against women. As a society we can very often try to change behaviour through guilt. The focus of this program is on positive recognition of the excellent work that is underway in our community. It will recognize women, men, business and organizations for their work on preventing violence against women.

On April 23, I joined the Victoria Harborside Rotary Club, municipal government officials and the police in launching a campaign to have men sign on to stop violence against women in their homes and in their communities. It is heartening to see so much community involvement in stopping violence against women, and it is integral that men and women work together to break the cycle of violence.

Last Friday, April 24, I released criminal harassment and stalking information in Punjabi and Chinese. These materials were released last year in English, and we have worked in partnership with the Attorney General to support their production and distribution to ethnic communities so that more B.C. women will have access to the information they need. We have also reprinted "Keeping Women at Work Safe" in Punjabi, Chinese, Korean and Spanish. Awareness and prevention are the keys to increasing safety for women in the workplace. This poster provides women with practical steps they can take to prevent and avoid violence at work.

This week we are hosting a workshop in Vernon to increase understanding of prevention of violence against women and to build on the prevention symposium by sharing information at a local level. This is the first of several workshops to be held throughout the province to provide opportunities for community partnerships.

The list of recent activities may sound exhaustive, but I just see it as a good start towards creating a society in B.C. that is free from violence against women. In order to support a growing focus on prevention, my 1998 budget includes $610,000 that is dedicated to a wide variety of prevention activities, including community-based projects developed under our A Safer Future for B.C. Women program. These funds will go directly to prevention projects and building partnerships, so we can move beyond awareness that violence against women is a crime to making it completely socially unacceptable and ultimately not part of the culture of our British Columbia.

While working to prevent violence against women before it occurs, we must, though, maintain our support to women who have experienced abuse. Therefore the vast majority of my ministry's budget is allocated to providing direct services to women survivors of abuse. We will continue to provide support for sexual assault programs and women assault programs, treatment for men who have assaulted, counselling for women who have experienced abuse, aboriginal family violence programs, transition houses, safe homes and second-stage houses. In fact, more than 82.5 percent of my ministry's budget is allocated to intervention and prevention services. The balance is allocated to ministry operating costs. I am pleased to tell you that we were able to tighten our belts a little more this year by moving to less expensive office space and making other administrative savings so that we could absorb a small decrease in our overall budget while increasing our services in the community.

We have been able to dedicate operating funds to two more transition houses -- one on Saltspring Island and one in New Westminster -- to add to the province's network of safe places for women leaving abusive relationships. That brings the total number of transition houses, safe homes and second-stage houses in B.C. to 86 -- a 59 percent increase during the term of this government. That increase of 59 percent is in addition to 80 new counselling programs, core funding for 38 women's centres, and a 216 percent increase in sexual assault and women assault programs -- all since 1991. In 1970, not a single one of these services was available to women leaving abusive relationships.

[ Page 7336 ]

[3:00]

B.C.'s policy is grounded in the Criminal Code and provides police and the Crown with a proactive charge policy. Participants were adamant that violence against women must remain a criminal offence. Participants said that they support our current Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. They would like to see the government enhance current remedies and ensure a more consistent application of this policy rather than introduce new approaches. It was useful to hear that the community supports the current policy, and I am committed to ensuring that it is enforced throughout the province.

The Attorney General and I have made it clear that violence against women and children will not be tolerated, and we have taken steps to ensure that this crime is treated seriously and effectively by the justice system. The latest measures to protect women are the improvements to the restraining orders central registry and the proactive registry notification that an assailant is being released from jail.

Work and independence, and the financial security that they bring, are a priority for B.C. women and my ministry. When we are able to take care of ourselves financially, we are much less vulnerable to a range of other issues, including violence. With financial independence, we have more ability to leave a violent relationship. Therefore, to continue this government's progress towards economic equality we will continue to focus on programs that support women's economic independence. The ministry's recent Money Smarts for Young Women initiative is an example of our efforts in this area. Money Smarts seeks to educate young women about the unique financial challenges that they will face over their lifetimes. It encourages them to think about their educational choices in terms of their financial future, and it gives them practical advice about day-to-day financial issues. The program also includes a guide for teachers and community educators so that the program can be incorporated into the career and personal planning curriculum and offered in community centres and other educational facilities. This program has received tremendous response across the province, as well as in other provinces. Over the next year we'll be expanding our network of partners involved in distributing the materials and promoting their use across the province.

My ministry will continue to provide bursaries for women enrolled in post-secondary women's studies and in academic and vocational programs where women are underrepresented. Women in B.C. now receive 56 percent of all bachelor's degrees and 50 percent of master's degrees -- the highest percentage of any Canadian province. This a consequence of the fact that this province has been increasing funding for post-secondary education, while in all other provinces -- except Saskatchewan -- funding has been cut. Clearly women are now getting the opportunity to participate in post-secondary education in greater numbers; however, there are still clear patterns of specialization. Most students in engineering, applied sciences and math are men, while most students in social sciences, education and health are women.

Whatever their educational qualifications, women earn considerably less than men, although the gap narrows slightly with a higher level of formal education. The most recent Statistics Canada information tells us that B.C. women earn 74 cents for every dollar earned by a man. B.C. women worked until April 8 of this year to earn as much as men did last year. My ministry continues to seek opportunities to change these stats.

We continue to support the mandate of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, which ensures that women have access to apprenticeship opportunities that lead to jobs in the trades where wages are better.

My ministry recently committed $50,000 in funding to the BCIT women's training program for aluminum vessel construction. Twelve women will have an opportunity to learn new skills and to move into well-paying jobs in a field that has traditionally been seen as a preserve of men.

Women feel that they have made some gains in the area of health. Women's health concerns are no longer ignored by the medical profession, but improvements are still required. That is why my ministry's third area of focus this year will be women's health. My ministry is represented on the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health, and I'm very pleased to bring the resources of my ministry to that table to make sure that violence against women is seen as a health issue, to advocate for gender equality in women's health services and to advocate for safe access to health services for women.

I am disturbed to learn that some people in the community have launched a campaign, using what amounts to terror tactics, against a legal medical service. Our government has always stood for the principle of choice with regard to reproductive health services. We are committed to ensuring that citizens of this province have access to legal health services in an atmosphere of dignity and respect, free from fear or harassment. My colleague the Attorney General has asked the criminal justice branch to review the situation, and the branch will report back to him.

Public education is an important aspect of our work in the health field. Last year we launched a public awareness campaign to warn young women about the dangers of the latest date-rape pill, called Rohypnol. As we researched our approach to this issue, we decided that our first priority was to warn the community, so in December we conducted a media awareness campaign and circulated information via the Restaurant and Foodservices Association. We also made sure that health professionals and women's organizations had information about the dangers of Rohypnol. Our next step is to release information to schools and post-secondary institutions. An information brochure is in the final stage of development.

In conclusion, I'd like to spend a few minutes reviewing the changes to my ministry's budget. We saw an overall reduction of the budget from $38,032,000 to $37,449,000, which is a reduction of $583,000 or 1.5 percent. This decrease was absorbed entirely from the ministry operating costs. The reductions were primarily in corporate services and represent

[ Page 7337 ]

However, I'm proud to say that despite these cuts we were able to increase our contributions to the community. In the 1997-98 budget, 81 percent went directly to the communities in the form of contributions. This year over 82.5 percent of the budget will go to the community, and two new transition houses will receive operating budgets. The reduction in operating costs was achieved by reducing the following budgets: travel by 36 percent, contracts by 35 percent, systems operating costs by 14 percent, building lease charges by 31 percent and computer purchases by 55 percent.

In this budget the ministry is able to be fiscally responsible by reducing the overall budget and still maintaining funding to our Stopping the Violence Against Women programs, as well as to our economic equality and health initiatives.

L. Stephens: I'd like to make a few comments before I begin my questioning. But first, I'd like to thank the minister's staff for preparing some information for me and for delivering the budget briefing, which I received about an hour ago. So it's going to be difficult to. . . . We're going to be repeating ourselves here, I think. I don't know how useful this is going to be for me at the moment, because I have other stuff prepared. So just bear with me.

I think it is important to evaluate where we've been and where we're going in relation to women's issues and women's realities. In response to the Vancouver Sun poll, it was very clear that the issues that affect women are violence and economic opportunities. Women are saying very clearly that jobs and violence are the most important issues to them at the moment. They've said that the jobs are the key to their financial independence, their strength in relationships and equality. We know that personal financial security is extremely important and means that we all have increased choices -- and choices are what it's all about.

One of the biggest challenges we face is trying to impress upon the young women that are in our high schools now and growing up an understanding of the importance of education and a good job as a key to long-term well-being. The issues the minister has identified are important issues for women, and I think she has identified the majority of them. But there's a difference of opinion on some of the ways that we can address those issues. In the area of jobs, high taxes and red tape discourage investment in this province. That means that women are usually first to lose their jobs, and it certainly means that there are fewer jobs created for women. So those are the issues that I'd like the minister to take up with her colleagues.

On the issue of safety, the other initiative I'd like to see her pursue is the violence legislation. I think that until we have violence legislation in this province, we're going to continue to see the kinds of statistics that keep coming forward. For the committee's consideration, there is legislation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and Alberta has just this spring introduced their domestic violence legislation.

So I'd like to see more commitment on the part of the government to deal with systemic barriers and attitudes in the justice system and in the community at large around the issues of violence and job opportunities. From all of the past and the present information that we've gathered, it's clear that women don't feel safe in their homes, on the streets, in their workplaces or in their leisure activities. We must deal much more aggressively with violence-against-women issues. We also have to make sure that we put in place the kinds of policies, practices and procedures that will encourage and assist women to become financially independent. That includes education, job opportunities and financial management of their affairs.

With those few words, I'd like to begin the questioning of the minister. We're going to start with the total government investment in Stopping the Violence programs. Could the minister could give me this number, including the Ministry of Women's Equality, the Attorney General and all the other interministry programs that are in place to stop the violence against women?

[3:15]

L. Stephens: Could the minister tell me what the total amount of contributions funding is?

Hon. S. Hammell: The total for contributions is $30,949,000.

L. Stephens: Could the minister break down those contributions? Where are they all going?

Hon. S. Hammell: Transition house program, $20,050,000; counselling programs for women who experience violence, $4,593,000; women's centres, $1,603,000; bursaries, $13,500; community-based prevention programs or activities, $610,000; public education, $271,000; in-service training, $200,000; aboriginal violence and family violence, $2 million; women's sexual assault centres, $863,000; treatment for assaultive men, $538,000; and CSSEA funding, $204,000.

L. Stephens: As we go through the estimates, we're going to go through these programs separately. We'll be talking about those numbers as we go to each of the programs.

I'd like to move on to the operating assets area of the ministry's budget. Could I have the amount for public servant travel?

Hon. S. Hammell: It is $125,000.

L. Stephens: Is that an increase or a decrease, and could the minister elaborate on what kinds of parameters are around public servant travel? What's allowed and what isn't?

Hon. S. Hammell: It's a decrease of $70,000. Over 62 percent of the travel budget is allocated to regional programs; the remaining 38 percent goes to the rest of the ministry. The parameters are. . . . We follow all the regular guidelines of government. Most of our travel is out in the regions for our regional program people to move around within their region to service the contracts that they are in charge of and to work the communities that they are in charge of.

L. Stephens: How much of this amount is for the minister's travel?

Hon. S. Hammell: Very little.

[ Page 7338 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: None of this is actual travel for the minister.

L. Stephens: Does the minister have a travel budget?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. It's with the government. Actually I think it's housed within the Finance ministry. All executive travel flows from there.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could tell the committee how much her travel budget will be for this year. What budgeted amount does she have for travel this year?

Hon. S. Hammell: What the member needs to do is check with the Finance minister for the travel allowances for ministers in general.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry not have a budget amount to be used for the minister's travel, her own travel, as opposed to. . . . What it sounds like is that there's this big pot and presumably the ministers all take whatever they need from this pot. It doesn't seem very efficient to me. So is there a budgeted amount for ministers' travel, and if so, what is this minister's amount?

Hon. S. Hammell: There will be a budget, and the Finance Minister will allocate it. We have not received it yet.

L. Stephens: Could I ask the minister if she would be able to get that information to me when it is available?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

L. Stephens: Corporate services. Could the minister outline the changes to corporate services?

Hon. S. Hammell: The total for corporate services is $3,430,000 as compared to last year's $4,011,000.

L. Stephens: What's the difference between the two amounts? Is this strictly cost cutting? If so, what got cut?

Hon. S. Hammell: There's a total decrease of $581,000. There's been $16,000 removed from the deputy minister's office and $6,000 from communications. The executive director in management services has a $12,000 decrease, and that includes the travel. Finance and administration has a $414,000 decrease; information management has a decrease of $121,000; and human resources has a decrease of $12,000. That is a total decrease of $581,000.

L. Stephens: The professional services contracts. Could the minister talk about what kind of professional services have been employed or will be employed by the ministry over this next year?

Hon. S. Hammell: They've been broken down in this way. Under corporate services there's $109,000; under policy and evaluation there is $50,000; and under programs there is $65,000, for a total of $224,000.

L. Stephens: What kinds of contracts would be let under the policy designation?

Hon. S. Hammell: It depends. Oftentimes as we move through the year, exactly what we do is more clearly defined. Last year we did some consultation with youth related to Youth Works, provided materials promoting women in trades and technology and provided support for women in business.

L. Stephens: Would this funding include contracted services for research projects or information-gathering reports?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. For example, this year we are going to do some research on the health costs of violence.

L. Stephens: Have those contracts been let?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: The programs division. What kinds of contracts have been let for the programs division?

Hon. S. Hammell: Just for clarification, is the member talking about transition house contracts or. . . ?

L. Stephens: No. I'm inquiring about the professional services that the minister referred to. There were two kinds of contracts, policy and programs -- not the regular transition house programming that the ministry does but rather the ad hoc kinds of information that the ministry gathers from time to time, I presume. It would be contracts for program proposals.

Hon. S. Hammell: There are two that we will be focusing on: completing of the program standards for all transition houses, and developing an evaluation framework. So both of those are ongoing work around standards.

L. Stephens: Could the minister be more specific about developing an evaluation framework? Is it to do with program standards, or what is it to do with?

Hon. S. Hammell: There will be an evaluation framework developed for the Safer Future grants, as well as developing a framework for when we've completed the program standards.

L. Stephens: When does the ministry anticipate having both of these completed?

Hon. S. Hammell: It should be completed this year.

L. Stephens: Are there any other professional fees or services contemplated in this year's budget?

Hon. S. Hammell: None, other than the ones I mentioned.

L. Stephens: So there are no fees for professional services, such as legal or management services, information management systems, or anything like that?

Hon. S. Hammell: I think you're looking for. . . . Professional services include contracts for services such as independent audits, evaluations and communications support to the ministry. So that's the other possibility.

L. Stephens: That is what I was referring to, so could the minister elaborate on those professional contracts?

[ Page 7339 ]

[3:30]

L. Stephens: We'll talk about that when we get to advertising and publications; it sounds like that is what that is going to fall under.

Can the minister then give some specifics on what those audits or professional services may be and what is budgeted in this year's allowance?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me talk first about the audits. The audit is $15,000 of the larger total. That may be where you have some part of your own ministry audited, or you may go out to audit a program that you're delivering, if there were some kind of concern. We have in the past done the odd audit when it was necessary, given that we partner with the community.

In the other area, where we're talking about communications, two of the things that come right to mind are the business plan and the annual report.

L. Stephens: The communication support and the business plan. . . . Is the business plan contracted outside the ministry, or is it prepared by ministry staff?

Hon. S. Hammell: It is prepared by ministry staff and published outside of the ministry.

L. Stephens: I will ask the cost of those publications when I get to them.

I want to go back to the audits here for a moment -- $15,000. Are there any audits of programs planned for this coming year?

Hon. S. Hammell: No, there has been no decision to do any particular audit at this point. You always have some money in reserve, in case it is necessary to go out and do that -- either externally or internally.

L. Stephens: Advertising in publications. Could the minister give us some numbers on the anticipated advertising costs for this coming year?

Hon. S. Hammell: Not everything is written in stone for this year, so I will give you some of the examples that we would probably carry forward. Women's Equality fact sheet -- there are two updates on that. Women's Equality newsletter -- there are three issues of that. Special events -- there is some work around International Women's Day and December 6. There are posters and booklets on women in science, trade and technology. There is a fact sheet on youth, a transition house brochure, translations, transition house updates, prevention grants, rewrite and reprint of brochures, and applications. Those are some of the examples.

L. Stephens: Is there a budget amount for those advertising initiatives?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, it's $155,000.

L. Stephens: Publications. Could the minister tell me if the publications are different than what you have here?

Hon. S. Hammell: The STOB 40 budget is advertising and publications. The majority of our work is done in publications.

L. Stephens: So the ministry has no communications or advertising budget outside of the newsletters and the various pieces of literature that the ministry requires to communicate with contract holders and various non-profit groups that the ministry is responsible for.

Hon. S. Hammell: It comes out of this budget.

L. Stephens: Building occupancy charges. There have been some changes there. Could the minister let us know what the precise changes are, and for what?

Hon. S. Hammell: The building lease charges have been reduced by $200,000, which is a 31 percent decrease, by moving to a smaller premise.

L. Stephens: Are there any other costs that have changed in relation to the building occupancy?

Hon. S. Hammell: There are some other additional savings -- one is in telephone charges -- as a result of the move -- and systems charges due to reduced costs. So, yes, there are some others.

L. Stephens: Could the minister elaborate on what the systems charges would be -- I presume computers, information systems and those kinds of things -- and why there would be a reduction?

Hon. S. Hammell: Some of it is an actual reduction in numbers, and another factor is that we are leasing.

L. Stephens: About the asset acquisitions as a result of this move, could the minister outline in more detail the asset acquisitions part of the budget notes here?

Hon. S. Hammell: In this year's budget, $85,000 will go to software upgrades and system development costs. The furniture and the cost of leasing such equipment as faxes and copiers will be $33,000.

L. Stephens: The software upgrades are the. . . . Does the ministry have in place their information databases, their information-gathering system?

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Let me elaborate. It's for information-gathering purposes, to provide the ministry with accountability measures in relation to the programs they deliver.

Hon. S. Hammell: If you are referring to the management information system, yes, and we are collecting the data.

L. Stephens: Is the ministry information system completely functional at this time?

[ Page 7340 ]

L. Stephens: When will the audit be complete?

Hon. S. Hammell: To clarify, soon -- it'll be a couple of months.

L. Stephens: We're going to talk a little bit about the FTEs. Perhaps the minister could go through the changes. I understand there are changes -- reorganization of the ministry -- along with the move. Could the minister go through the deputy minister's offices, finance, information, human resources, communications and all of those different components of ministry operations and list out the changes there, along with the FTE numbers and the dollar amounts, either plus or minus.

[3:45]

L. Stephens: And the dollar amount that the budget has been reduced?

Hon. S. Hammell: $143,000.

L. Stephens: $143,000 for two FTEs.

Hon. S. Hammell: That's all costs in, with benefits.

L. Stephens: One further question on the data management system. What kind of a process is the ministry in to make sure that the computers are ready for the year 2000? Is there an ongoing initiative within the ministry to deal with that? If so, what is it? What's your time line? When do you figure you'll be ready? And how much of an added cost is there to preparing?

Hon. S. Hammell: The year 2000 challenge has been fixed in our ministry; we've completed the project. And exactly what it cost, I'll get to you.

L. Stephens: Well, I'm going to have to congratulate the minister, because I'm sure hers is probably the only ministry in government that can stand up and make that boast. I would encourage the minister to do that, because there are an awful lot of businesses and organizations that are going to be going down to the wire, if not over the year 2000, and be unable to come to grips with it even then.

Could the minister talk a little bit about the information management of the ministry and whether or not there are going to be any changes there whatsoever, with the new reorganization?

Hon. S. Hammell: No, we did not go through. . . . We moved to a new facility, but we did not reorganize within the ministry. The existing organization is fine.

L. Stephens: So there were no changes to the ministry staff other than the two FTEs that we spoke of earlier, and it was just a simple physical move of the ministry over to new facilities, with no corresponding organizational restructuring of the ministry itself.

How many FTEs in corporate services, in policy and evaluation and in programs?

Hon. S. Hammell: Corporate services has 32. Policy and evaluation has nine.

L. Stephens: One final question on the contracts. Is there a dollar amount that contracts must be tendered? Is there a floor or a ceiling to the amount of money that contracts must be tendered?

Hon. S. Hammell: There is a government policy of $25,000.

L. Stephens: I want to move on to transition houses and transition house programs. We'll start with the transition houses and then go on to the safe homes and second-stage housing. In the transition homes, what is the budget for this year?

Hon. S. Hammell: It's $20,050,000.

L. Stephens: The number of contracts?

Hon. S. Hammell: Currently there are 59.

L. Stephens: New ones coming up?

Hon. S. Hammell: There are four contracts in the process of being developed, with the latest two being Saltspring and New Westminster.

L. Stephens: And the two previous ones? What stages of contract fulfilment are they in?

Hon. S. Hammell: The other two that we have made commitments for are Haida Gwaii and Bridge Housing at second stage. The staff is currently being trained for Haida Gwaii, so that is being put into place. And Bridge second-stage is going through the zoning process as it's moving forward through Housing.

L. Stephens: I think the Haida Gwaii has been in. . . . They've been working on that for a very long time. What is the holdup with the Haida Gwaii? Why is that one not open? It's been at least a year since that one has been authorized.

Hon. S. Hammell: They have trained the staff, they've bought the furniture, they have the facility and they are just in the process of moving towards opening it. It is being developed by the community, and you know, their pace is our pace to some extent.

L. Stephens: The continuing agreements with the transition houses -- are they all in place?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have service contracts, and all our service contracts are in place.

L. Stephens: These are continuing contracts; they are not yearly contracts, which is what was required before. Can the minister elaborate on the new contracts that have been put in place? The government has had a governmentwide contract restructuring, as we all know. What kind of effect has that had on transition house contracts?

[ Page 7341 ]

L. Stephens: At first the minister said yes, and then she said no. So are the contracts that are in place continuing contracts? Or are they the yearly contracts that we had before?

Hon. S. Hammell: I was very careful with my language. I said we have service contracts, and those are renewed yearly. Continuing contracts are not in place yet. The process is going through the system and will receive Treasury Board approval and be put in place sometime in the near future. If you ask me how long, I won't be able to answer.

L. Stephens: Define the difference between the continuing agreements and the service agreements?

The Chair: We'll just take a recess for a division.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

L. Stephens: We were talking about continuing agreements and service contracts. My understanding of service contracts is that there's a clear framework for accountability and performance expectations. The contracting agreement has a policy emphasis on mutual service, accountability and service continuity. The implementation of continuing agreements is during the process of contract renewal. So what stage is this at?

Hon. S. Hammell: If we get the agreement from Treasury Board to proceed, we will implement it as these contracts expire.

L. Stephens: We're going to have to talk about this a little bit more. Define what your continuing agreements are going to consist of. What kinds of accountability and performance expectations will be required in these continuing agreements?

Hon. S. Hammell: The continuing contract has program standards in it, an accountability framework and an ability to monitor on an ongoing. . . . Because it's a continuing contract, at three years there is an evaluation. The handbook for contract reform has a continuing contract in it, and they use our example of a continuing contract as a model. We'd be very happy to get that for you.

L. Stephens: I presume these continuing agreements will serve a number of purposes. One is that the societies that run the transition houses don't have to come back every single year looking for money to keep their programs going. As you know, they get a contract today and they started the contract negotiations yesterday for next year's. There are no accountability measures set out, as well, as to what kinds of programs should be delivered, how they should be delivered, whether they are effective and all of these other things that go around taxpayers' money being given out in contributions to make sure that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck. So I'd like to know what kinds of accountability measures are in these continuing agreements.

Hon. S. Hammell: You're correct when you say that contract reform emphasizes continuing rather than annual service contracts. It does reflect the need of a community to be able to plan and see a service continue over a period of time, as well as then being able to develop the skills necessary for the delivery of that service. There are program standards in the continuing contract, as well as an accountability framework. What I can do is actually give you a continuing agreement, and then you can take a look at it and see specifically what each aspect is. In the contract handbook there is also an example. Did we not give you that last year? Okay. Well, we should also get that to you.

L. Stephens: Program standards and continuing agreements are two different things. The continuing agreements set out the terms and conditions for those contracting non-profit societies -- whether or not they will be funded and how they will be funded. Program standards determine the standard of the service that is being delivered. Now, perhaps the minister -- because we're talking about two different things here. . . . We'll get to program standards because I understand that this is an initiative that is underway as well.

So it's just the continuing agreements I'm concerned about. I hear the minister saying that they are in progress and that they are not implemented as we speak. They anticipate these being in place within the next couple of months. How is it going to be implemented? Is it going to be one-third a year? How does the ministry intend to implement these new three-year continuing agreements?

Hon. S. Hammell: We're going to do them all at once.

L. Stephens: The ministry is going to implement the continuing agreements, the service agreements and program standards all at once. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Hammell: No, the continuing agreements.

L. Stephens: I understand that this continuing-agreement policy has already been approved by Treasury Board. Staff are shaking their heads no, that's not the case. My information was that it had already been approved and that it was beginning to be implemented. But if that's not the case, could the minister just reiterate again what the expected time line is and whether or not she's at Treasury Board advocating for this to happen as soon as possible?

Hon. S. Hammell: We are one of the ministries that sit on the contract council. We are advocating that this move. . . . There is unanimous approval that moving on it has gone forward to Treasury Board. That's where it will sit until Treasury Board deals with it.

L. Stephens: Organizational standards are a part of it as well. I understand that this is to make sure that non-profit societies that come forward with proposals are in fact able to fulfil those agreements. Could the minister talk about what is required from a non-profit society around those organizational standards?

[4:15]

[ Page 7342 ]

L. Stephens: Part of the organizational standards requirements would include an accountability framework, I presume. Could the minister talk about the accountability framework? What kind of mechanisms are going to be put in place to provide that kind of accountability information to the ministry?

Hon. S. Hammell: The organizational standards are part of the accountability framework. What I have here is the accountability framework. What I will do is give this to you.

L. Stephens: I appreciate that offer, and I look forward to receiving the document. But I would like the minister to respond to the issue of monitoring performance. In that accountability framework, what must the non-profit societies that run transition houses do to provide the ministry with performance criteria, program evaluation and client outcomes? I would presume that results are part of this framework. Could the minister just tell me what the transition houses or the societies need to do to provide outcome measurements in this accountability framework?

Hon. S. Hammell: The processes of monitoring and evaluating of community contracts have three objectives: to provide assurance that the contractor meets the expectations or deliverables of a contract, using data that is routinely generated; to provide assurance of service quality -- that is, to ensure adherence to program and organizational standards; and to provide assurance of cost-effectiveness and value for money.

The framework formalizes the expectation of accountability of both the government and contractors, introduces government reliance on contract controls and evaluation processes, as well as third-party assurances wherever appropriate, and acknowledges that collaboration between government and contractors is essential to an effective accountability framework. It is intended that monitoring and evaluation processes are applied in an integrated manner to avoid duplication of work. This is especially important given that several parties have a role and responsibility for aspects of accountability as defined. These include the contract manager, the contractor, central agencies and licensing bodies.

L. Stephens: The information that goes back to the ministry. . . . Are these the primary components of this accountability framework around the societies: identifying how many women have been served, how many children have been served and what kinds of programs have been delivered? What are the components that make up this accountability framework? What kind of data are you going to be collecting through this accountability framework?

Hon. S. Hammell: The assurance will be obtained by measuring actual client outcomes against expected client outcomes using performance measures that have been identified in the service schedule to the contract. Performance measures should be based upon data that is routinely collected, such as with our MIS system. Where data required for outcome measurement is not routinely generated, monitoring may need to focus on output data as identified in the service contract or schedule. Reporting by the contractor will be based on the identified performance measures, and monitoring will entail a review of such information by the contract manager. Information provided by a contractor will be verified by interaction with a contractor, site visits, etc., and by specific audit procedures performed by the contractor's external auditors.

L. Stephens: The government as a whole is undergoing and has undergone an accountability initiative. This particular ministry spends a lot of money, through contributions and grants to various organizations in the community, to provide services to the people in the community. Contract reform was designed to make that much more efficient and much more effective. The need for accurate data collection on these services and the results of the money that is being expended by the ministries, particularly this one, has brought in the need for accurate accountability mechanisms. That's what we're talking about here. What I want to know and what I want the minister to tell me is what this ministry is doing to put in place the kinds of accountability mechanisms that will tell the ministry whether or not the amount of taxpayers' money that is being expended in her programs -- worthwhile programs -- is in fact. . . . What are we getting for that money that we are spending? Are we making sure that the organizations out there are abiding by the terms of this agreement?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let's just see if we can get some sense out of what we're talking about. We have been working with this sector for a number of years around program standards and moving this sector of the community into working with an MIS system and working with us around program standards. We are as partners developing those standards that will be referenced in any continuing service agreement. So over time, in partnership with the sector, we will develop program standards. Organizational standards exist, and when we have the signal from Treasury Board to proceed, we will begin implementing continuing contracts.

L. Stephens: Well, we've got a number of components to this accountability thing. One of them is the management information system that has been set up and is functioning. The other one is the program standards, which are ongoing.

If the minister says that she is pursuing program standards in an evolving way, I will accept that. However, what I want to know is. . . . There has to be a baseline of program standards. What are acceptable program standards? Is there a policy that says that these are the standards that programs in transition houses must meet? The minister said that she is going to give the transition houses three years to come up to these standards, if that's what I hear her saying.

Records management is also part of this. Counselling practice guidelines are also part of this. There's a whole bunch of components to this accountability stuff, and all I'm trying to do is find out where it all fits in and what point in time we're at in this whole accountability process. That's all I'm asking. I'm simply asking where each of these components is at this point in time.

Hon. S. Hammell: First, I think we should reject the notion that there is no accountability; there is accountability in the system as it stands. We have ongoing monitoring by our ministry staff, and we have an MIS system that is up and operating. We have been, in partnership with the sector, developing the program standards that are outlined in the accountability framework. All of that is in process, and we are working with our partners. We are moving along toward

[ Page 7343 ]

[4:30]

L. Stephens: The people and the organizations in the transition house sector are all hard-working and well-meaning people, and they are doing a tremendous job with the resources that they have available. No one's questioning that; no one's talking about what may or may not be going on. It's the ministry's role to make sure that the money that is being expended for these programs is in fact showing some results or that there is certainly accountability for the money that is going out there. That's all I'm saying.

The transition houses have a responsibility to be accountable to their board members, but the ministry has a responsibility to be accountable to this committee. That's all I'm asking. I want to know what the ministry is doing to be accountable to this committee. I've asked about the specific components of this accountability framework that I know that all of the ministries are setting up. So we've got draft records management as a result of federal legislation that has come in around what records can be subpoenaed and what can't be. That's part of all this accountability stuff. I want to know what's going on there with draft records management. Do we in fact have a records management policy, guidelines for people in the transition houses?

I also want to know about the counselling practice guidelines. There are issues around what is or what isn't acceptable. These are all just items that you use for best management practices. That's all I'm talking about: best management practices and the best management practices of the government. That's this accountability framework. That's all I want to know. What is in place in these areas to allow the ministry to in fact know what is going on out there for the money that they are giving to these different organizations?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me try to go through this again. We have standard contracts, and in those contracts are certain obligations that any contract puts forward on behalf of the person who's assuming the contract. We have our MIS system; we have regular on-site monitoring; we have organizational standards. We are in the process of developing program standards, and we have periodic audits. Those things are the pieces that we put in place to ensure that the people who have contracts with us are accountable not only to the ministry but to the taxpayer.

L. Stephens: What about draft records management?

Hon. S. Hammell: Draft records management is in existence now and will be adopted as part of program standards.

L. Stephens: What is the status of counselling practice guidelines?

Hon. S. Hammell: There is a similar document for counselling guidelines. Again, it will be adopted into program standards. It is currently in the field and being used.

L. Stephens: What kinds of mechanisms are in place for monitoring these counselling practice guidelines? What kinds of accountability mechanisms are there for that particular initiative?

Hon. S. Hammell: Again, they are contracts. There is regular on-site monitoring. They must adhere to organizational standards. The guidelines are out, and there are periodic audits. That will be incorporated into the program standards that are being discussed in general at a variety of tables around the province.

L. Stephens: Who will be doing the audits?

Hon. S. Hammell: Oftentimes the organization has an annual audit. And, as we discussed earlier, we have some facility to do an audit from our ministry.

L. Stephens: What would precipitate the ministry doing an audit?

Hon. S. Hammell: Concern, either through the board of an organization or through our own regional staff or the community, that a service is not being provided appropriately.

L. Stephens: Included in these changes, is there a definition of the role of board members, what board members may or may not do and what kind of information they may or may not have access to?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, there is. It's in program standards.

L. Stephens: Would the minister care to state what those are, to give the highlights of those roles and responsibilities?

Hon. S. Hammell: I can get that document and read it into the record, or I can just give it to you.

L. Stephens: How many women were served in the transition houses in British Columbia last year?

Hon. S. Hammell: Excuse me. I don't appear to have the information at my fingertips. Can you go on? Then I'll come back to this.

L. Stephens: Along with how many women were served, I'd like to know how many beds there are in the transition houses around the province and also the number of women served with day services.

The other question I have is: how many requests have there been for funding new transition houses? How many requests has the ministry received to set up a new transition house somewhere in the province, and where would they be?

Hon. S. Hammell: In our discussion of new transition houses. . . . There has been interest at times expressed from Victoria and from Nanaimo in terms of new transition houses, though sometimes the discussion is not particularly solid. It may depend on other things happening, such as getting some funding through B.C. Housing or something like that. There may be some need to get the project capital before the operating comes in. The two that I have dealt with since I've been minister are in Victoria and Nanaimo. There's also been some interest expressed in second-stage housing. One is from Fer-

[ Page 7344 ]

L. Stephens: Does the ministry know how many women were on wait-lists last year? How many women came to the transition houses when there wasn't any room? Does the ministry have those facts?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'll add that to the information I'm waiting for.

L. Stephens: I'd like to ask this question again. I would suggest to the minister that the accountability stuff is really, really important. If we are going to devise programs for women-serving organizations, we really have to know what the need is out there. Part of the way we know what the need is when women come to a transition house for service, because in most of the communities transition houses are the front-and-centre facility, if you like. To get a handle on this, we've got to have information. The role of the ministry is to have that information and, if they don't have it, to find a way to get it. Otherwise you don't know what you're doing and whether or not what you're doing is what you should be doing.

We need to know how many women are being served in the transition houses. We need to know how many beds there are, how many people are accessing day services and how many requests there have been for funding. We need to know how many people from around the province, particularly in the north -- that I know the minister has travelled there and knows the special circumstances of women living in the north. . . . It seems to me that probably one of the most crucial issues that the ministry has to face today is how to get that information and then how to provide the services these women need where they need it -- the appropriate kinds of services. I would really appreciate any information that the minister could give me around the particular accountability initiatives that the ministry has in place, is contemplating putting in place or has ongoing studies on.

I'd like to ask about the low-wage redress. Last year, I believe, it was $1.6 million. Could the minister indicate what it is this year and whether or not there's going to be any increase to the low-wage redress?

[4:45]

It was very, very clear to us that in New Westminster and on Saltspring Island the community was committed and prepared to provide the service. On Saltspring Island, the transition house had been operating for a number of years through the political will and initiative of the women on that island. We were able to assist that community with their work by a couple of one-time grants, and finally, to come in with the core funding for a transition house. But that need had been identified very clearly, and the community had rallied to support the women, and we were then able to get behind them.

Again, in New Westminster, their coordinating community has identified a transition house as a priority. They have an organization which is prepared to take on that initiative and provide the capital, the building, through which we will be able to core-fund. We know the service is needed in the New Westminster area, as was demonstrated on Saltspring Island.

I just want to be very clear that we do not have the capacity, nor are we assuming the capacity, to in some way survey the province and identify areas -- based on how many people are there, or whatever evidence we would use -- and then move to put in a transition house. Very clearly, we work in partnership with communities, and we respond in many ways to the initiative shown by communities.

In our budget there is no money for low-wage redress; there's no money set aside at this time.

L. Stephens: Well, I guess I wasn't making myself clear. When I asked how many requests there were for funding for transition houses, I was talking about the communities' requests. I mean, I understand that; that's the way it works. The communities identify what services are needed and then get together and come to the ministry and ask for core funding, and they talk about how they can get a facility together and all of these other kinds of things. But that's what they do: they come to the ministry for the core funding that funds the Children Who Witness Abuse programs and does all of those kinds of things we've just been talking about.

I was simply asking if there had been communities that came to the ministry and said: "We want to establish a transition house in Horsefly or Pouce Coupe." How many of those requests have you had? And have you in fact been able to respond to any of them? So all I'm asking is whether or not the ministry has had requests to participate in other transition houses from around the province.

Hon. S. Hammell: Okay, so we're now on the same track. Yes, there have been requests for additional money. One example is Fernie. Someone mentioned to me not too long ago that there would be a request coming in from an area -- and I'm sorry I cannot remember it. There are two other transition houses mentioned at times: one in Nanaimo and one in Victoria. Now, that does not mean that another transition house could not be suggested from wherever -- from Kelowna -- and then we would. . . . So just to be clear: one from Fernie, one from Nanaimo and one from Victoria. I think the other area that was mentioned to me just lately was in the Cowichan region. I said to that person that they had to get a request for funding to the ministry.

L. Stephens: Have there been any deferrals of transition house projects? Have you deferred any?

Hon. S. Hammell: No, not unless we say that the two from Nanaimo and Victoria have been deferred. And I wouldn't say that, because in fact I do not have a solid proposal in front of me. Those two have been discussed in various shapes and forms over time, and I do not have a concrete proposal. But in your discussion you mentioned other areas, and if you were to ask me if there is further need for counselling programs for children who witness abuse, or

[ Page 7345 ]

L. Stephens: How many transition houses are there in the province that deal with mental health issues? How many are there that deal with drug and alcohol abuse?

Hon. S. Hammell: There is one that deals with those people who are having mental difficulties, and there's one for alcohol and drug abuse. So it's one for each.

L. Stephens: Are they in the lower mainland? I believe they are both in the lower mainland. Have any kinds of proposals to provide that kind of service, say, in the Okanagan or in the Kootenays or in the north come forward?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: The minister is too quick for me; I was going to ask whether the ministry itself has identified any of these kinds of services as being needed in other parts of the province, particularly in the north, and whether it has been actively searching for a partnership between a community group in one of those areas to provide this kind of counselling service.

Hon. S. Hammell: No, we haven't.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry have a breakdown, by region, of the location of the transition houses, and of how many houses and how many beds there are in each region?

Hon. S. Hammell: What I can give you is the number of transition houses, and we can get to you the number of beds that those add up to in each region. Of course, every ministry has its own region. . . . On Vancouver Island, there are ten transition houses. On the mainland -- that's from Vancouver to Hope, and north to Pemberton -- there are 23. In the Okanagan -- that's from Hope east to Oliver, north to Blue River and the Alberta border -- there are six. In the Kootenays, there are four. In the Cariboo, there are 11. In the northwest -- from Vanderhoof west to the Queen Charlottes, east to Fort St. James and north to the Yukon border, the Nechako region northwest of Nechako south -- there are five. That's a total of 59, and then we have the four that are in transition.

L. Stephens: The ministry doesn't have any idea how many beds?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, we do.

L. Stephens: But you don't have them with you.

A Voice: No.

L. Stephens: Okay. Are there any increases to spaces in second-stage housing?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: Is there any advocacy on the part of the ministry to try to increase those second-stage housing units -- particularly through B.C. Housing or wherever we may find them? As a matter of fact, I think I recall that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to be buying a couple of apartment buildings in downtown Vancouver to convert to social housing. I wonder if the minister would comment on that and on whether or not those would be available as second-stage accommodation.

Hon. S. Hammell: I appreciate the question. I think that just a little bit of clarification is needed. There may be a second-stage house out there that needs funding. For example, there are some very strong advocates for a house in Fernie, where a second-stage house has just opened. What they would like to see is core funding from the ministry, and that is one of the houses that I have on my list as one that we need to address in terms of meeting the needs of the community. There may be houses out there that we cannot core-fund. The one I can identify clearly is the one they have in Fernie, and they will be approaching us for funding. At this point in time, we do not have that money in the budget.

L. Stephens: How many second-stage houses are in the various regions?

Hon. S. Hammell: There is a total of seven. There are two on Vancouver Island, four on the mainland and one in the Kootenays.

L. Stephens: What about the other regions of the province? There is no second-stage accommodation available there?

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Thank you.

The women's centres. Could the minister tell me how many women's centres there are in each region and the amount of money that goes to those women's centres?

Hon. S. Hammell: There are 38 women's centres. Six are on Vancouver Island, 14 on the mainland, five in the Okanagan, four in the Kootenays, six in the Cariboo and three in the Nechako -- north, west and Nechako south. The total amount we spend on them is $1,603,588.

[5:00]

Hon. S. Hammell: On Vancouver Island, it's $250,000; on the mainland, it's $584,000; in the Okanagan, it's $208,000; the Kootenays, $167,000; in the Cariboo, $249,000; and in the Nechako area, $125,000. I want to make sure you have this part: all of the women's centres are paid the same amount of money, and it's $41,778. Now, once having said all of them, I think there are two exceptions, and they are just minor, in terms of a $200 or $300 difference. The vast majority -- 98 percent -- are $41,778.

L. Stephens: There has been virtually no increase to the women's centres funding for this year. There has been a slight increase, but very little. Could the minister speak to that? How much has been added? It looks like it's a very, very small amount. Would it be for contract costs? What would the added increase be? Cost of living?

Hon. S. Hammell: There is no increase. We put whatever extra money we had into the two new transition houses.

[ Page 7346 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: You are correct; we have scraped here and there to put together a new pile of money to core-fund the transition houses. As we indicated previously, there was a significant savings when we moved -- telephone services and computer services. The vast majority of the money was found in the central part of government -- in the operating money of the ministry.

L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister has given any thought to halfway houses for women. There's one in Vancouver -- Columbia Place in New Westminster. It's a ten-bed residence for women leaving the penal institutions. It's the only one west of Winnipeg, I believe, specifically for women. Men have quite a few facilities available to them. I wonder if the minister could talk about whether or not she sees a need for facilities such as this and whether or not her ministry is involved in any way in addressing this problem.

Hon. S. Hammell: Certainly there is a need. I was very concerned when it appeared that Columbia Place was in some difficulty around financing. I was very pleased when all that was sorted out. Certainly I agree with the need. But it is a very specific service, and it falls, to a large extent, under Corrections. That is why it is under the Attorney General. If you're asking me if I would see that program expanded, that would of course be the Attorney General's decision and would have much to do with his set of priorities. But I would certainly support him doing, that if he so chooses.

L. Stephens: A question I would have is: would the minister be advocating on behalf of these women to the Attorney General for that kind of service? Seeing that there are only ten beds. . . . If you look at the success rate of Columbia Place and the number of women that are leaving provincial correctional facilities with no services and no resources for them. . . . They end up back on the streets, and in no time at all they're back in the correctional institutions. I wonder if the minister has given any thought to that kind of program and whether or not she's spoken to the Attorney General about it.

Hon. S. Hammell: When I look at priorities in terms of budgeting. . . . I look at my budget and I understand the need for more money for children who witness abuse, which is now in Children and Families, and more money for counselling for women. I have the second-stage house that is looking for core funding, and, as well need to be able to find the money for these new transition houses. Then we look at other budgets, and we hear the cry for more money for legal aid. There's a cry for judges. In fact, that in itself affects women, because they're part of the court system -- especially around maintenance and these kinds of issues.

Given the priorities that are out there -- the house and services to women -- I have not personally advocated on behalf of expanding that program, but I have certainly expressed concern when I thought we might lose the one house that we did have.

L. Stephens: On the issue of safe homes, what is the '97-98 budget for the safe homes program?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have 16 safe-home contracts, for a budget of $558,000. The regional breakdown is: two on Vancouver Island; two in the Okanagan; eight in the Kootenays; and four in the Cariboo. There's none in Nechako south.

L. Stephens: Have there been any additions since last year?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: The Nechako south is quite a large territory, from Vanderhoof to the Queen Charlottes, east to Fort St. James and north to the Yukon border. There are no second-stage houses and no safe-home programs in that area, although there are, according to my records, seven transition houses. So are women being served adequately in the northwest and from Nechako south, given those numbers?

Hon. S. Hammell: That area is large in territory and sparse in population. It's very difficult to serve. I mean, there are all the additional problems that women have around abuse when they have great territory to cover to actually reach a transition house or a second-stage, which is after the transition house and the safe home too. I don't have requests for any additional services in that area and have to assume that when I do, then there's clearly a need being triggered.

L. Stephens: I want to talk about counselling programs for women. Can the minister tell me the breakdown? I understand that the Attorney General also has an amount that he contributes. What are the amounts Attorney General and Women's Equality contribute?

Hon. S. Hammell: For counselling services for women there is a budget of $4,593,000. The number of contracts is 80. Those services are offered through community-based agencies such as transition houses, sexual assault-women assault centres and other women-serving organizations. We fund all of those contracts, and the Ministry of Attorney General manages 16.

L. Stephens: The counselling programs are the ones that are undergoing the, if you like, best-practices guidelines. I don't recall whether the minister said that was in place. I don't think it was. I think that one is ongoing.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm sorry I didn't have the sheet to show you, but it was similar to the records management guidelines. They are in the works in the field.

L. Stephens: Are they in the field in draft form, with different groups being able to come forward and participate in the consultations and discussions on what best-practices counselling programs may look like? Or are they a fait accompli and in fact set out or laid out -- these are the guidelines, and this is what must be adhered to?

Hon. S. Hammell: They are in the field as guidelines in draft, and they would be moving into the program standards, as that process is ongoing.

L. Stephens: The minister said that the number of programs is 80. The counselling programs consist of individual counselling and group counselling. Could the minister talk a little bit about those services?

Hon. S. Hammell: The Stopping the Violence counselling services are community-based and provide counselling for

[ Page 7347 ]

It's broken down by region; you may want to know that. This is AG's and my breakdown, but we pay for them all. Vancouver Island has a total of 13; the mainland, 26; Okanagan, 15; Kootenays, 9; the Cariboo, 14; and the Nechako area, 3.

[5:15]

Hon. S. Hammell: What I have is from last year. The potential total of women who could be served if everyone were busy at all times is 10,000. I will get you the specific number.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry have some sense of the capacity for this '98-99 year? Has there been any increase. . . ? There hasn't been any increase in facilities. So the ministry anticipates that the. . . . The potential and the capacity are two different things. I really want to know capacity. I really want to know if the ministry has some sense of what the programs out there would have the capacity to deliver.

Hon. S. Hammell: The potential and capacity are actually the same thing. So what I've given you is the potential or the capacity. What I'll get to you is how many women -- the actual number.

L. Stephens: The counselling notes of the counsellors. Could the minister talk about what's happening here? As the minister knows, there's been federal legislation around what transition house counsellors are required to do and what they are not required to do. Could we be brought up to date on what's happening on that issue?

Hon. S. Hammell: First of all, let me acknowledge that the issue you have raised is a very serious one and one that the women's community has actively worked on -- not only with our ministry but with the federal people -- to ensure women's right to have counselling treated as a private matter and not be subject to exposure in full discussion in front of someone who may have been the perpetrator of some abuse or crime. This is also very serious for us. The record management guidelines deal with this issue. We update those guidelines as court decisions give direction. Those guidelines, as we have mentioned before, are part of the ongoing process of program standards.

In the end, what we expect our counsellors to do is work within the framework of the law. We also support their initiatives in defining what that law will be.

L. Stephens: My understanding is that the transition house counsellors will need to be aware of what the legal requirements are as far as record-keeping and counselling notes, so I would presume that there would have to be a fairly defined policy around that. I hear the minister saying that that is part of the ongoing development of program standards. Will the transition house staff have legal resources available to them to assist them in making decisions around what they should or should not provide?

Hon. S. Hammell: What we have developed are records management guidelines, and those guidelines are out in the transition houses. Those guidelines are what guide them in terms of being in sync with the law, and if there is any change, then what we do is update those guidelines so that they have the most recent information at their fingertips. When I say those records management guidelines are then moved into the program management consultations and discussions. . . . You cannot discuss away what is required by law and modify it to meet your own particular needs. What we would do is incorporate those things that are mandated by the law or by some other authority that we have to adhere to, and those would be part of the guidelines, I assume.

L. Stephens: There are records and then there are counsellors' notes. There are instances when counsellor's need to be careful about what they write because there are some implications to that. So these are counsellors' notes that form parts of the records. That's the issue here, these notes that can or cannot be subpoenaed. That's where the difficulty comes in. Are there explicit guidelines for counsellors around the use and management of counsellors' notes as they pertain to the new federal legislation?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to hear that, because that had all the potential of becoming a very difficult situation for a whole lot of people, including the transition house workers and counsellors.

I'd like to talk next about the women's centres -- the sexual assault and women assault centres. I understand that there was a policy being developed around sexual assault. Could the minister talk about that?

Hon. S. Hammell: Like the VAWIR policy -- Violence Against Women in Relationships policy -- there is a sexual assault policy being developed between the AG ministry and my ministry that is coming to its final stages. When it is complete, it'll come to the Attorney General and me for approval.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry anticipate some time line when that might happen?

Hon. S. Hammell: It's imminent.

L. Stephens: I will be waiting with breathless anticipation.

The budget. Could I have the budget amounts for the sexual assault and women assault centres for '98-99?

Hon. S. Hammell: The total budget is $849,860. Vancouver Island has two centres; the mainland has one; Okanagan has one; the Kootenays have three; the Cariboo has two; and Nechako south has three.

L. Stephens: That's a total of 12, I believe. Is there any partnering here with the Attorney General ministry? If so, what do they contribute to this?

[ Page 7348 ]

L. Stephens: Before we leave the sexual assault-women assault centres, are there any other programs delivered by partnership ministries other than the Attorney General?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. In Health, we do the aboriginal family violence. But that's an MOU. The contract is administered by Health.

L. Stephens: The women's centres. The budget for '98-'99, please.

Hon. S. Hammell: We did women's centres. Do you want to go over them again?

L. Stephens: Yes, we did. Thank you.

The sexual assault-women assault centres. . . . What kinds of counselling programs? What are the qualifications of the counsellors that provide the counselling services?

Hon. S. Hammell: The counselling services are Stopping the Violence programs and women's counselling programs. I did make a fairly detailed description of what that is. Sometimes it's done individually; sometimes it's done in groups. It is largely driven by an assessment of what the woman needs, in discussion with the woman. The qualifications are high school graduation plus a related post-secondary undergraduate degree or diploma, or extensive related work experience while under qualified supervision plus participation in related continuing education programs.

L. Stephens: I wonder: does the ministry have any facts on the multicultural. . . ? Do you have a multicultural component to these programs? There are some cultural differences at times, and I wonder if there is any acknowledgment of that in these centres.

[5:30]

L. Stephens: I want to move on to bursaries and educational programs. Could the minister give us the budgeted amount for the bursaries and how many bursaries there are? We'll start with that.

Hon. S. Hammell: The budgeted amount is $13,500: there are 22 bursaries. The bursaries are provided to the four B.C. universities, 16 community colleges, one provincial institute and the Open Learning Agency. Obviously the bursary program is aimed at reducing financial barriers and giving women experience in pursuing their education. The program supports women in full- or part-time programs leading to a degree, diploma or certificate in women's studies or related course work, or post-secondary training.

L. Stephens: Are there any plans to expand the bursaries program this coming year?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: Are there any other programs under the bursaries designation?

The minister indicates that there are not.

Can the minister talk a little bit about how these bursaries got started and who makes the designation? Is it the educational facilities that choose the recipients of these bursaries?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, the educational facilities choose the bursary recipients. It's interesting that you should ask whether the other program has been expanded. I would assume that if there's any new institution -- like Tech BC or something -- we would acknowledge it and somehow find the money for it. We would need to find some more money there. In fact, a number of years ago, the University of Victoria did press and say: "We do need more money under this area. Hopefully, when budgets can expand more, you will look at this area."

We also have some money available for assisting in training. I gave the example in my opening remarks around the women welders at BCIT. We can sometimes come under a program like that, depending on how tight the budget is.

L. Stephens: I was going to ask if BCIT was one of the institutions that bursaries are given to. And what is the bursary at BCIT?

Hon. S. Hammell: At BCIT, the institution chooses the person. Again, it would be someone who is either in women's studies, or some related activities, or is just doing a straight post-secondary program. So the same criteria would apply. When you get to the second part of the criteria, it's fairly broadly based. As long as you're working on some kind of program at the institution, you become eligible; and then the institution itself chooses who receives the bursary.

L. Stephens: The public education component of the ministry -- how much is spent in that area?

Hon. S. Hammell: This year the budget sits at $271,000.

L. Stephens: Could the minister break down the funding into different categories?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me do that by giving you examples of what we funded last year. It varies depending on need. One example is the translation into Punjabi and Chinese and the public distribution of information on criminal harassment or stalking. That was done in last year's budget and was just released during Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. Another example is the publication and distribution of the 1998 version of "Women Count," a statistical analysis of women's participation in society. I don't know if you have a copy. If you don't, I'll get you one because you should have one.

Another would be supporting the symposium on the prevention of violence against women and following up with a video and a written report of the proceedings. Again, if you don't have a copy of the video, I will get that to you.

The publication and distribution of materials on Rohypnol. . . . And again, the events in recognition and support of

[ Page 7349 ]

L. Stephens: Is any of this in the public education system? Are there any initiatives here that reach into the public education system? If so, what is it, and how much?

Hon. S. Hammell: One that comes immediately to mind is Money Smarts. Attached to Money Smarts is a resource guide that enables people who are teaching the CAPP program to then incorporate four simulations of young women in various situations under which they might be able to take advantage of some of the information in Money Smarts. That could be used not only in the CAPP program but also in community programs. The amount of that in general is $99,000, or about 33 cents per B.C. woman between the ages of 15 and 24. The whole program was that amount.

Actually, just in highlighting that particular program or public education piece, that was also an initiative of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers. The Money Smarts program will be and is being shared right across the country. Where we can use that, we then use some work that is being developed through the other ministries in other parts of the country.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry receive any federal funding of any kind for educational programs?

Hon. S. Hammell: I wish. But we do, in the sense that. . . . Let me give you an example: "Economic Gender Equality Indicators," which was released not too long ago. We held two follow-up meetings around it, one with the women-serving organizations and another with the academics. That publication was paid for by the federal government and shared with all the ministers. We were part of the task group that set the federal government to that task. Our task was the Money Smarts, and we've got a number of letters here thanking us for this from a variety of ministers across the country. Ontario would be doing one other piece of it. So although we don't get money directly into our pocket, we are able to use some of their work. Certainly it allows us not to then go ahead and do that same work ourselves.

L. Stephens: Are there any other initiatives around federal-provincial-territorial partnerships in the education area? Are there any other projects being worked on jointly?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. Now, it depends on how. . . . The ministers have an agenda, and their agenda follows the notion of many of the things we've talked about as we've discussed these estimates: violence, economic equality, some work on health. Some of them may not be directly educational but may have an educational component to them. For example, we worked with all federal ministers on the Canada Pension Plan changes. There may be some need at some point to do a forum around there, so that people become more educated and understand what the issues are. I actually think the federal people are very, very active in all of the areas that I've just mentioned.

L. Stephens: Is your ministry currently -- or as part of these estimates for '98-99 -- going to be involved with the federal-provincial-territorial group of legislators around joint issues of concern?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, absolutely, and let me tell you why. What has happened is that on the economic agenda section, we are just finishing up "Economic Indicators" and Money Smarts. Ontario is bringing forward the piece around entrepreneurs, and we've worked together on the CPP. We will be setting a number of new things that we are going to embark on at our next meeting. As this section closes, then we'll be identifying other things that we will be doing together. That's why I can't be specific about doing this, this and this. We're actually very much in the planning stages of what we will be doing next as a group.

L. Stephens: There were two initiatives that the minister talked about. One was Money Smarts and the other was "Economic Indicators." Are those the only two initiatives that were undertaken last year?

Hon. S. Hammell: No. The third one in that area is the "Women and Entrepreneurship Resource Guide." That is yet to come from Ontario, so I can't speak in any detail about it other than that it's in the planning stages. We have also worked together around the Canada Pension Plan reforms. Our material around stalking was also shared with that group, and they will be picking up some of it. So yes, we have done things together. We have also been working on a framework statement around violence. We are doing a number of things. The specific plans for this year and the next few years have not been finalized but will be at our next meeting. That's the discussion that's ongoing right now.

L. Stephens: When do the meetings come up? When are the next scheduled meetings for these joint get-togethers?

Hon. S. Hammell: Working groups.

L. Stephens: Oh, sorry -- working groups.

Hon. S. Hammell: Normally, there's one a year. Actually, the first one that I went to was on October 31 -- Halloween of last year. At that meeting, people showed some kind of determination to meet again prior to the next major meeting, and that was held just a while ago. The next meeting on the schedule, I think, is in late August. Hopefully, we'll be adjourned -- right?

L. Stephens: Well, I certainly wouldn't want to deprive the minister of any working group initiatives with the federal government -- my goodness.

I want to finish up education, and I see the Chair is looking at the time. I do have a few more questions, so I'll take direction from the Chair. Five minutes?

The Chair: Five minutes.

[5:45]

The schools are a good place to start, and there are a number of programs in the schools around a whole bunch of issues. The minister talked about the CAPP program and Money Smarts. Are there any other initiatives coming forward in this year's budget that will be in the school system? I'm

[ Page 7350 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: First off, I do want to concur with the member that the public education component of this ministry is extremely important. It has to deal with shifting attitudes on two fronts: not only on the violence front but also on the economic equality and basic equality issues. Both of those take attitude changes and shifts from a value base. You do that to a large extent through public education. I think the classic example is the CounterAttack program, where we've shifted people's attitudes towards drinking through a really intense public education program. So I certainly agree with you.

Let me just be very quick, noting the time. We work with the school system through our Safer Future grant. We also work with the safe schools program that the ministry is doing. We also had at our symposium people from the BCTF, as well as from the school trustees. We hope to be doing some kind of work with them in the future. So I think that you're absolutely correct: public education is very important. It is critical to be out there with these issues and talking about them in any and every forum we can, and clearly the school system is one that's very important.

L. Stephens: Noticing the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada