1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2149 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 2149

Oral Questions

Health care user fees. Mrs. Boone –– 2149

Closure of palliative care unit. Ms. A. Hagen –– 2150

Hospital board elections. Mrs. Boone –– 2150

Uranium mining. Ms. Smallwood –– 2150

Meat inspection. Mr. Rose –– 2151

Native education funding. Mr. Jones –– 2151

Tabling Documents –– 2151

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 31). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2151

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Williams

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Miller

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 2170

Mr. Sihota,

Mr. Ree

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce

two constituents from the great riding of Richmond, members of the

Social Credit Party, Nick and Lydia Plotnicove. Please make them

welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: Without question, the Regional District of

Central Okanagan in our riding of Okanagan South is one of the most

efficient and well-run regional districts, and that's in no small way

because of the experienced senior staff. Two of them are present today

in your gallery, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Al Harrison, administrator, and Mr.

Harold Reay, treasurer. On behalf of my colleague the first member for

Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) and myself, I would ask that everybody make

them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to introduce in the gallery today my constituency

assistant, Gail Gotto, who used to be with CUPE No. 947. Two of her former CUPE

people are with her: Beryl Big Canoe and Helen Barnes. I wish you would make

them all welcome.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome to the House today Col. W.E. McKinney and Mrs. McKinney, and

Major W. Hogg and Mrs. Hogg. The colonel is honorary colonel of the

Royal Westminster Regiment, and the major is regimental secretary. I

would ask the House to make them all warmly welcome, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't have an introduction to make, but this

is a great week in Victoria: it's Folkfest, put on by the Intercultural

Association of Greater Victoria. On behalf of my colleagues from

Victoria and Esquimalt and all the residents of Victoria, I would like

to invite all the MLAs on both sides to participate in Folkfest this

week. Before you go home for the long break this week, come down and

enjoy Folkfest.

MR. DE JONG: On behalf of the first member for Central Fraser

Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and myself, I am pleased to introduce to the

House Martin and Grace Gouldthorpe, who are accompanied by two visitors

from Great Britain, Steven and John Hodgens. I ask the House to welcome

them.

MR. SIHOTA: Joining us in the gallery today are two

honeymooners who were married this weekend in Kamloops and will be

living in the Vancouver area, one of whom is my cousin Shannon. I'd

like to have the House join me in extending a very warm welcome to John

and Shannon Moore.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Every minister I know has many staff members of

whom he is very proud and whom he's interested in seeing from time to time.

I'm fortunate to have some of those individuals, one of whom I thought it

appropriate, by virtue of him being in Victoria today, to introduce to the House.

I have with me, over here on business, dealing with regulatory matters, the

director of corporate investigations of the Corporate Relations division. This

gentleman, Mr. Al Dilworth, came to the position after receiving his law degree

and having an outstanding career with the RCMP in their commercial crime

section

— a man of great legal background, a man who, like thousands of other public

servants, contributes his time in the interest of the public. I invite the House

to pay tribute to his presence and the thousands of other civil servants like

him who perform such yeoman service in our interests.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Located in the gallery today are three of

my constituents from the beautiful city of Salmon Arm, one of the

nicest cities in British Columbia and located in the great constituency

of Shuswap-Revelstoke. I would like the House to make welcome Bill

Laird and his wife, accompanied by his daughter Samantha.

On behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon.

Mr. Reid), Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the ninth annual report of the

British Columbia Heritage Trust for the year ended March 31, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the 1986-87 annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the B.C. Systems Corporation for the period ended March 31, 1987.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE USER FEES

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Tomorrow B.C. celebrates Canada Day. Unfortunately, we in B.C. are

celebrating it as $5 Wednesday, the day the regressive user fees kick

in for the elderly and the sick. Has the minister decided to reconsider

the imposition of these discriminatory sickness taxes tomorrow?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, we know we live in an imperfect

world. We also know that money doesn't grow on trees. I don't think I

have to tell the opposition that we have to collect money to spend it.

As far as the user fee is concerned, if we did not take some action

to get some revenue before we can pay it out, we would have a two-tier

system. I am trying to protect our health system, which is considered

the best in the world. I am doing my damndest to protect that system.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary to the minister. More than 24,000

B.C. seniors — nearly 10 percent of the senior population — have

petitioned the government to cancel these user fees. What is the

minister's response to these views? Do these petitions mean nothing to

him?

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, of course petitions mean a lot

to us, and we listen to people all the time. We are no different than

you on that side. We are concerned about what the public thinks of us

and whether they care and whether we care about them — and we certainly

do. The impression that only the opposition cares for the poor or the

needy is a fallacy. I think you know very well that we care very much.

However, as far as the user fee is concerned, there is a safety net

for people who cannot afford it. You may argue that the safety net

doesn't go high enough, that the cutoff is too low; and it may very

well have to be amended. But there is a

[ Page

2150 ]

safety net, and I don't know how many hundreds of

thousands there are in British Columbia who do not pay anything. They

come within that safety net. I believe that I, you and many in this

House certainly can afford that money. We should pay, because the

system will not survive. We'll have a system like they have in England

or New Zealand, which is completely socialistic. If you want a doctor

in New Zealand, you carry Blue Cross, and you must then go to a doctor

who isn't under the government plan.

CLOSURE OF PALLIATIVE CARE UNIT

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the

Minister of Health. The Royal Columbian Hospital palliative care unit

is slated for closure on September 1. This unit serves a very large

population east of the city of Vancouver, the suburban area of greater

Vancouver. Will the minister assure us that he has decided not to

approve allowing this closure until a plan is in place to replace this

service for the terminally ill?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this is my day. Everybody loves

me and I appreciate that. I appreciate your question. However, we're

talking about a very serious matter when we're talking about palliative

care. It's certainly not our intention to have people out on the street

when they need the assistance of other human beings perhaps more than

ever in their life. I also heard the news, like you did, and I've

already asked my people to check into this matter and report back to me

what in fact happened, because I wasn't aware of it. I just wish people

would contact their minister and say that this is their problem. At

least I could have a handle on it and work out a plan like you

mentioned, and I certainly will do that.

MS. A. HAGEN: Another question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister decided, in his response to this issue, to review —

with the staff, professional people and the boards of any hospitals

that may be involved — which setting is the most appropriate for this

palliative care service, given that the majority of people who are in

need of this service are not necessarily elderly, but often in the 40

to 60 age range? Could the minister assure us that part of his review

will look at the most appropriate setting for a palliative care unit in

this region?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are

doing at this time. We have been working on a plan for some time,

trying to reorganize hospitals as to what they're are best suited for.

Perhaps this particular service is best suited to other areas. We are

looking at that and we are already in the process. Why this particular

hospital chose to go public rather than ask us or rather than go along

with our plan, I'm not sure, but it will be investigated and we'll

report back to you.

MS. A. HAGEN: To the minister, Mr. Speaker. When the minister

speaks of this area, he is in fact referring to the suburban area east

of Vancouver — New Westminster, Burnaby, Coquitlam and south of the

river area? I just want to be assured that we're looking at that area.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

HOSPITAL BOARD ELECTIONS

MRS. BOONE: Again to the minister — you truly are loved

today. Last Thursday the Medical Association president asked the

minister to establish a task force to examine public representation on

hospital boards. Has the minister decided to establish such a task

force or to refer the matter to a select standing committee of this

assembly?

HON. MR. DUECK: That call for a task force was from the BCMA,

I understand, or is that what you're referring....? We have not yet

decided exactly in what way. We're constantly reviewing and looking at

health costs and I'm not so sure whether.... The BCMA at this time has

some very bright ideas. I've been in constant contact with them about

utilization, about health care costs. We've had many, many meetings

with the association, especially with the president and his executive,

so what he has in mind at this point in time — I haven't been in

contact with him since. That letter arrived the day he took off on his

holidays, so I'm sorry I can't give you an answer on that.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary. The Premier has publicly agreed

that a task force with representation from the B.C. Medical

Association, registered nurses, the B.C. Health Association and the

ministry is one worth considering. Why does the minister not agree with

the Premier?

HON. MR. DUECK: I've got orders here to watch it!

I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: when you're on the government

side and the Premier asks you to do something, you generally don't

argue. I have not talked to the Premier recently, but like I said,

we've not yet decided. But we will look at it. I want to talk to the

president and see exactly what he's got in mind. I assure you we're not

going to have a task force for just the sake of a task force, which has

happened in the past so many times. With municipal business it was the

same way: you have studies, you have royal commissions, you have task

forces. Then you put them on the shelf and you never look at them again.

I do not wish to do that. If we're going to have a task force, it's

going to be a task force that comes back with facts and figures that we

can look at and do something about. I do not intend to give you a spiel

that we're looking into it by a task force or royal commission, and

that's where it stays. That's what I want to do.

URANIUM MINING

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier,

you said on the weekend that uranium mining is terrible. Has the

Premier decided to reinstate the moratorium?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I was met by a group in

Kelowna who were obviously showing their concern about uranium mining,

or uranium in general. Incidentally, they were a very well-behaved

group. We had a good little chat, and we certainly came to the

conclusion that neither party liked uranium mining, and that all of us

obviously, regardless of where we sit, have some fears about uranium

mining.

[ Page

2151 ]

I also pointed out that we in British Columbia, unlike any other

area in Canada, possibly North America, have regulations controlling

the mining not only of uranium — which is highly unlikely in British

Columbia because there are far better sources for uranium in Manitoba

and Saskatchewan that are being mined without those regulations, and we

all know where Manitoba's is coming from But anyway, what I did say was

that we have the best regulations and that these would be in effect for

mining in an area where there was even a chance of a uranium presence,

and that all things would be controlled and closely monitored. The

danger is probably a whole lot less now than what it was when we simply

had a moratorium.

So I think, while they didn't totally agree with that, they were

certainly receptive to the message, and I was pleased to have the

opportunity of meeting with that fine delegation in Kelowna.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the Premier. It's obvious to

people, as they look at this issue, that the government in the province

doesn't have enough information. We all agree that uranium mining is

terrible; we agree with the Premier on that. I would like to know if

the Premier at the very least has decided to ask the Bates royal

commission to finish its suspended inquiry into uranium mining in this

province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have

sufficient information. As a matter of fact, because of that

information provided by the commission, we in British Columbia have the

regulations in place. As I told the delegation there, they should be

petitioning Ottawa and other provinces to see that other provinces and

the federal government become as progressive and as concerned as we've

shown ourselves to be.

MEAT INSPECTION

MR. ROSE: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it is a health question as well.

Apparently the Mulroney government is going to withdraw its support

for inspectors working under the provincial Meat Inspection Act. Is

that the case? If so, what's the minister going to do about it?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would suggest that we are undergoing

discussions with the federal Agriculture department at this stage,

relative to their proposal to downsize inspections. We are arguing our

case that inspections are a necessary part of health standards for food

production in this country — particularly in the meat sector.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister can confirm that — except

for Dawson Creek and one federal inspector in the Okanagan Valley tied

up in one plant — there is no inspection of meat outside the lower

mainland in the two places I suggested.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of the exact number of

inspector positions that have been filled, but I know there were more in place.

Whether the federal government has decided to fill those positions, I have not

been informed. But they've been made aware several times that it's important

to have the meat inspection carried out.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister confirm that sales of meat

products from uninspected areas are being shipped into inspected areas,

contrary to the act?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If that's the case, I'm not aware of it at this stage.

NATIVE EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. JONES: A question for the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations. As the minister is aware, the master tuition agreement,

which governs funding between the federal and provincial governments

with respect to native Indian education, expires today. We've had

written questions on the order paper for several months now. Over a

month ago, the minister promised that he would bring the substance of

discussions with the federal ministry to this House, and we've seen

nothing forthcoming on either of those. I'd like to ask the minister

why he has been so unresponsive to our concerns with regard to the

master tuition agreement.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The hon. federal minister, Mr. McKnight, was

in Victoria last week. We had a meeting to discuss a number of issues,

among them the master tuition agreement. Negotiations are proceeding

between the Ministry of Education and the federal Department of Indian

Affairs and Northern Development. While the negotiations are

proceeding, I know the question has been on the order paper, but I

haven't been in a position to be able to answer it, because the details

are not yet forthcoming.

We are endeavouring to work on it. We would like to put something in

place very shortly. I believe Mr. McKnight views the matter as a

priority, as we do. He is working expeditiously on the matter. I think

we can have it resolved satisfactorily in the not too distant future.

In the meantime, it would be merely speculation to try to answer the

question.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the consolidated financial statement of the

British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 31.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No.1), 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This morning, hon. members, we postponed a number of sections. We would like to go back and pick these up now.

[2:30]

section 4.

HON. B. R. SMITH:

Section 4 doesn't do what the member is

afraid it did. It doesn't take away some right that a child over the

age of 12 who has signed a consent would have to revoke that consent

more readily. It simply separates, in subsection (9), the consent issue

from the guardianship issue.

[ Page

2152 ]

If you read it carefully, you'll see that you have to take the words

"subject to subsection (7)" out of "for an adoption consented to under

this section, subject to subsection (7)," because they wouldn't modify

anything. The

section was previously aimed at adoptions that were

consented to; now the

section is aimed at voluntary surrenders of any

kind, whether or not they're surrendered for pending adoption. The

superintendent becomes the guardian to give legal status to the child

in terms of guardianship after a voluntary surrender, but it doesn't

erode the child's right under subsection (7). The child's right under

subsection (7) is that they can revoke their consent — a child over the

age of 12 can — without meeting that other onus of showing that it's in

the child's own best interests. Other people can only revoke their

consents.... A natural mother can revoke her consent only if she can

establish that it's in the best interests of the child. But the child,

as I read the section, can always revoke his consent without meeting

that onus.

Taking those words out is not to take away any protection that the

child has to revoke a consent; it is to separate guardianship totally

from the consent issue. Guardianship is protected where there is any

voluntary surrender. I hope I've made that clear. In any event, it

doesn't do what your legal reading of it may have indicated. We

couldn't leave in "subject to subsection (7)," the words you were

concerned about, because they wouldn't modify or pertain to anything.

There's nothing that would be subject to subsection (7) with the

proposed change, but subsection (7) will still apply to every child

aged 12 to 19 who had given a consent. That is, they could revoke it

without meeting the other onus.

MR. CASHORE: I find that helpful. I think it would be more

helpful, though, if there could be a fuller reason as to why this

amendment is taking place. What has precipitated the need for this

change?

HON. B.R. SMITH: The Supreme Court decision of December 1986

left tenuous for the first time the child's legal status before the

completion of an adoption. That's the reason for it. That is the case

that brought forward the earlier amendments to give expression to the

right of a natural father who wasn't married to the mother, but that

decision also left uncertain the child's legal status prior to adoption.

MR. CASHORE: I'll conclude with this: the legal counsel I

spoke to this morning has a different

interpretation of this. I myself

do not have the expertise or the background to make that judgment, and

I will leave it at that.

Section 4 approved.

section 10.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm having some trouble catching up here, but I

believe that the member from Nanaimo wanted to raise the issue on

section 10, which had been postponed.

MR. LOVICK: Would the Minister of Finance be good enough to

share with us the result of the search and investigation that was

carried out in response to my question this morning?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I thought for a moment I was going to be denied

the opportunity to develop the position here.

The problem arises by virtue of some confusion in the various pieces

of legislation — the separate acts — as to the regulating authority.

This Company Act amendment will clarify that matter. Without this

amendment, the Securities Commission would have to regulate real estate

companies that are already regulated under the Real Estate Act. By

virtue of the references being made in those various statutes, a

housekeeping initiative to clarify the matter became important.

MR. LOVICK: To make sure I understand this, is the minister

then telling us that the statute prior to amendment was in effect

redundant? Is that the case?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: With the introduction of the changes to the Real Estate Act, it became redundant; that is correct.

Section 10 approved.

section 21.

MR. CASHORE: I understand that the Attorney was going to

consult on this

section with regard to the Family and Child Service Act

and some of the points that I and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

(Mr. Sihota) raised this morning.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes, I'll give some examples of occasions on

which the workers who represent the superintendent feel that disclosure

of information would benefit the child's best interest. Disclosure of

information regarding sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust —

a schoolteacher — to the responsible administrator, say the district

superintendent. That's probably one of the best examples I can give

you. Disclosure of the identity of a complainant to the police to

assist them in their investigation of a child abuse complaint.

Disclosure of case information to a family court counsellor who is

completing a court-ordered custody and access report. Disclosure of

information to a probation officer for the purposes of completing a

report on a child in care. Disclosure of background information — e.g.

names and birth dates of siblings — to a child in care or a former

child in care. Finally, disclosure of information to an individual

responsible for service to a child in the care of the superintendent —

that is, to a teacher, physician or psychologist.

Those are the types of situations where the superintendent has felt

that he is hamstrung under

section 22 from making those types of

disclosure.

MR. CASHORE: I thank the Attorney-General for bringing

forward that information. It is good and helpful information with

regard to the reasons that such information might be given.

However, that kind of guideline is not entrenched in this amendment,

and given the way in which the issue here has to do with the whole area

of the protection of rights, it behooves us when we do pass such

legislation to include guidelines that ensure that it is manifested

within the confines of that kind of responsible action on the part of

the superintendent or the superintendent's representatives.

I appreciate the answer. I still feel very uncomfortable about us passing this

section at this time.

[ Page

2153 ]

I believe the second member for Nanaimo wishes to make an introduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted for the member to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I am reluctant to interrupt the flow of things,

but I see two very old friends and very distinguished guests in the

precincts today and ask the House to join me in welcoming them. The

first is Mr. Ron Riley, who was an organizer for the Cooperative

Commonwealth Federation, and the second is Florence Riley, who was

secretary to Bob Strachan, the leader of the official opposition some

time ago.

MR. SIHOTA: I still feel uncomfortable about

section 21. I

think that some of the examples that the minister has raised are

legitimate; others are not as legitimate. I don't want to get tied up

on the examples; I just want to step back a bit.

I am sure the minister understands that under the Family and Child

Service Act there is a provision for essentially an extreme ex parte

move on the part of the ministry when it wants to remove children from

their places of care. That has to be substantiated with some

documentation. It's been my experience that some of that documentation

— not in all cases — is extreme and designed to support the application

in front of the court when that's necessary to seek removal and

apprehension of a child,

The Attorney-General and I understand — this is not to impugn

anybody — that there is an art to drafting affidavits. Sometimes the

material encompassed in the affidavit is a little stretched. I have

always had some difficulty in having that type of information boomerang

back and be used against somebody else in a subsequent application.

It's for that reason that I feel that

section 21 goes too far. We're

always walking the same tightrope in these types of cases. There is, on

one hand, the need for the authorities to be able to do their job in an

effective and efficient way, and to act efficiently in cases that

invite immediate action.

So if the school or the social worker or the police officer or the

probation officer needs some information that's legitimate, I don't

really have a problem with

section 21, except that there have been a

lot of cases in my experience — not a lot, but there have been cases —

where the other side of that tightrope also comes into play. The other

tension is the use of information in a way that comes very close to

abuse of that information. Given the way in which information is

secured for family and child service applications, it seems to me the

section is going too far. That's the first point.

The second point is simply this: many of the examples the

Attorney-General uses involve social workers, probation officers,

police, and school officials. The interesting part of this is that much

of that information is used for an application originating in the

Family and Child Service Act, and that creates an interesting paradox.

The examples raised are situations where other people are using that

information, in any event, to bring forward an application. It's a

forerunner to the application. So in a funny sort of way they may be

getting back their own information. That in itself, I think — and I

realize that door swings both ways — attacks the need for this type of

provision, in a funny sort of a way.

So I feel very uncomfortable with the broad wording of

section 21. It talks

about receiving or providing information with respect to any person, and of

course that can go quite far. I just think the

section is too broadly worded,

and I want to reiterate my call earlier on for a

section that is better crafted

than the one that's before us. I certainly intend, if it's forced, to

vote against it. I would hope that we can withdraw it and come back with something

that's a little more livable.

[2:45]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I must say that I tried to think of ways

that I could limit the ambit of it without losing the ability of the

superintendent to do things to protect children or to disclose

information specifically to protect children. It's very hard to get any

kind of limiting ambit, except the concept that it must be for the best

interest of a child; unless we were to limit all of it by requiring the

approval of a judge before it was disclosed, which we could do. I'd be

prepared to consider that.

But that sort of thing, while it protects against these abuses that

both you and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) so correctly

point out are there, also has the inescapable tendency of providing

work for our profession, and I'm always trying to find ways of not

doing that in legislation. We've got court applications required for

all and sundry things on the statute books; maybe the fewer the better.

But I'd defer to you.

MR. SIHOTA: I was conferring with my colleague. I think an

application before the courts would be an appropriate safeguard. I'm

quite content to support it on that basis.

HON. B.R. SMITH: That being the case, I will move an

amendment to

section 21, so that following the words "the

superintendent may" appear the words "after obtaining the approval of a

judge of the Supreme Court."

"The superintendent may, after obtaining the approval of a judge of

the Supreme Court, disclose...." I would move that amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

section 36.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister said this morning

that there were several ways in which this

section has been changed.

I'm not clear how any of them are, but I'll just ask one question. It's

not really part of this inquiry. I notice that subsection (4) reads:

"The government is not liable on a guarantee or indemnity given in

contravention of subsection (3)." The way I understand that, if the

government makes a mistake and gives a guarantee which exceeds the

authority of some regulation, then the government's guarantee is no

good. Who's asking questions? Is somebody out there that has a

government guarantee concerned about the validity of these guarantees?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, it develops that apparently

there is some confusion about the ability to give guarantees, and the

wording of the current legislation is to clarify the matter. The

amendments are designed to clarify and remove any doubt on the matter.

But the current wording, prior to amendment, has apparently raised

doubts in some quarters.

[ Page

2154 ]

MR. STUPICH: I'll just try once more, Mr. Chairman. It may be

that the minister would rather not answer; I don't know. Is somebody

asking questions about the legality of these guarantees? The government

has been doing this for decades, and I've not heard of anybody

saying,"Is this guarantee worth the paper it's written on?" or saying

that it isn't worth the paper it's written on. How is it that it arises

on June 30, 1987, that we're asking questions about whether the

guarantees given over the last two, three, four or ten decades, as I

say, may not be worth the paper they're written on?

I suppose I should take up your time, Mr. Chairman, and tell.... Not necessary?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that this

clause is already contained in

section 56(4), and that it was deemed

advisable to include all of these relevant references in the same

section. It's a housekeeping amendment, and it presently exists under a

different section.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I knew it was there, but the

minister didn't know it was there. I really just picked on that as one

section, to say: well, what's different? This clause is exactly the

same — well, perhaps the commas aren't all in the same places — as in

the original provision. What I'm trying to find out is: what new

authority or what new guarantee is the government giving, or what new

ability is the government going to have to guarantee something that

hasn't been there before? As the minister correctly pointed out, that

section is in the old one. What's new in there? That's really what I

was asking.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It doesn't add any new authority. It doesn't change the status quo, but it is intended to clarify the situation.

MR. CLARK: I just want to follow up a little bit. I'm

wondering how it clarifies it, because we're having some difficulty.

I'd like the minister to try to explain a little more clearly how this

section clarifies it from the previous section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Could I have the question repeated, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CLARK: We're just having trouble identifying how this

clarifies the previous section. I wonder if the minister could go

through it again and more clearly articulate what has changed.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman,

section 56(

l) gives us the

explicit authority,

whereas under the previous act it was only implied.

There was apparently some question in recent history surrounding the

authority. The intention here is to provide specific authority, to

avoid any possible confusion.

MR. CLARK: Coming across my desk recently have been a number of changes,

orders-in-council, regarding B.C. Hydro and guarantors and indemnities. With

respect to this

section of the act, I wonder if this has any bearing on that

at all.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The intention of the amendment, of

course, is to apply to all situations for which I'm a

fiscal agent. But Hydro did not specifically prompt this amendment.

Sections 36 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

MR. CLARK: I'm not sure whom to address; I guess it's the

Attorney-General. The rationale for changing this — is it simply a

technical change to do with the fact that the head office is not

located in Vancouver any longer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The old legislation said, "located in

greater Vancouver," and as we all know, it's in Burnaby. That's why we

had to make the amendment.

Section 41 approved.

section 42.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the government could advise the House

what the justification is for this, Mr. Chairman. This is supplying

domestic water to the United States of America, crossing the 49th

parallel into Point Roberts. Historically the government of British

Columbia has not wanted to get into this kind of international

relationship in terms of delivering water to that small end of the

peninsula — and I think with good reason.

The job of the GVRD is to look after the needs of the people in

Canada within the GVRD. The little peninsula of Point Roberts has

undergone a great deal of land speculation over the years; that

continues to be the case. The prime limitation to urban development in

Point Roberts is water supply. What you're talking about down there is

a desert in the summertime, which is a population limitation on Point

Roberts. The alternative is some kind of pipeline from Bellingham or

something like that, or some kind of deep well that goes forever.

That's their problem in Point Roberts.

The question is: does this government want to provide for land

speculators in the Point Roberts peninsula? Check the land ownership.

You'll certainly find some significant, good Socred supporters down

there from the lower mainland who are large-time speculators in land,

who hold the bulk of the undeveloped land in Point Roberts and who will

become overnight millionaires as soon as you deliver Canadian water

across the border.

This is a mini-scale of the problem of the southwestern part of

North America today. I wonder if you've thought about the kind of

values you're delivering in a pipe across the 49th parallel through

Delta municipality. If you think about the infrastructure that is in

place for the GVRD water system and the kind of multimillion-dollar

capital investment it represents, is it any wonder that, if you get at

the other end of the spigot, you too start getting in on those millions

of dollars invested by the citizens of the greater Vancouver region —

not by the people in Point Roberts, not by the handful of Canadian

speculators who are down there. Really, this is little different from

the grand issues of water transfer from water rich British Columbia to

water-poor areas in the southwestern United States. This is a nice

little mini-example of what the game is.

You think about the infrastructure in water in the greater Vancouver

region. There's the Cleveland Dam on the Capilano River. There's the

whole pipe system under the First Narrows, which now has to be rebuilt

over to the city of Vancouver. Then there are pipe systems across the

Fraser River, through Delta municipality. There are supply systems

[ Page

2155 ]

in the Coquitlam River watershed, and on and on —

an incredible multimillion-dollar infrastructure. Are you willing to

deliver that for pretzels across the border to a handful of speculators

in Point Roberts? It appears to me that you are.

The former administration refused — that is, the administration of

W.A.C. Bennett. The administration of '72-75 refused, and it's

been refused to date. What new evidence has come forth that justifies

this kind of transfer of water resources from Canada to the United

States?

They've already done a little number down there in Point Roberts.

They got rid of our favourite little home-grown monopoly, B.C.

Telephone, and they've decided they're tying in with Whidbey Island or

some other little local utility down in Washington state. Fine; so be

it. It's another sovereign country, a sovereign jurisdiction, and so it

should be for water supply. If they can get water from Whidbey Island

as they can get their telephone system, fair and good; that's fine. But

that's the United States of America. That's not Canada.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

We have no obligation, as the owners of that utility system in the

greater Vancouver region — or as the province, the owners of the water

— to deliver water to Point Roberts. Have you ever checked the property

ownership maps in Point Roberts? That's who you're delivering the

millions of dollars to — some of them well-known, prominent Social

Credit people from Delta who are the significant landowners in Point

Roberts in Whatcom County. This is little different than the games that

have gone on in the Los Angeles basin all of this century. You transfer

water to those water-poor areas, those deserts, and the people who own

title to the land become overnight millionaires.

[3:00]

If you're a good negotiator, then maybe you would negotiate the

difference in land values that are the result of the water supply

system being delivered. But let's be fair about it. Let's do it on a

fifty-fifty basis, Mr. Minister. Establish land values in Point Roberts

on those big, dry acreages right now, before there's water — and they

can't subdivide or develop while there's no water — and then we'll see.

As those land values accrue, we'll split them fifty-fifty between the

province of British Columbia and those owners.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would make a good deal.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's a reasonable deal. They've still got

lots of money in pocket, and there's new revenue for us, for our

utilities and for British Columbia, the owners of the water.

MR. REE: They're not rich.

MR. WILLIAMS: What's that? They're not rich? Ho, ho, ho!

They're not rich, not at all — very clever. Get up in the debate, if

you feel like it, in a few minutes.

You know, this guy, this minister over here, is the man who has been

fronting the negotiations on South Moresby. He keeps upping the ante:

$106 million isn't good enough; $150 million may not be good enough. He

has been demanding $200 million from the people of Canada for a park in

South Moresby.

What kind of bargaining has he done with the Americans when it comes to serving

Point Roberts? You tell me, Mr. Minister. Are you getting guidance from your

leader on that negotiation, or is it all okay? Is it a nudge and a wink to their

good Socred members from Delta who are the big landowners and will become overnight

millionaires as a result of the delivery of water across the 49th parallel?

Are you the same kind of tough fighter for provincial rights when you're

dealing with landowners — speculators — in Point Roberts as you are when you're

dealing with the federal government, who want to provide a significant national

park in the Queen Charlotte Islands? I think not.

This is no insignificant issue. This is not any minor amendment to a

bill. We have not delivered water domestically to the United States of

America from this jurisdiction, from that region, throughout this

century. We have not delivered water across the 49th parallel for

domestic and development purposes, and that's what this amendment will

do. This is a question of our rights and privileges as owners of the

resource in Canada. You will indeed be making a handful of people super

rich.

I ask the minister: have you checked out the landownership pattern

in Point Roberts? Do you know how the benefits are going to be

distributed in Point Roberts? And why shouldn't the people of Canada,

the people of British Columbia in that region, share in the huge

windfall in terms of land values that will result from this decision?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as is typical, the member sure gets

upset when he suspects that some development's going to take place.

This legislation simply allows the GVRD to sell water. They are the

seller. Point Roberts is going to finance a five-million-gallon

reservoir to be built in Delta by the GVRD, which will be used to

balance the Point Roberts and Delta water supplies. The GVRD will

realize a financial benefit of $40,000 per annum by becoming the water

supplier.

If you want us to start tracking land development in the United

States, maybe that's your policy, but I don't really think it's ours.

It's a sovereign country, Mr. Member. If you want to inject yourself

into dealings in another country, that's your business, but it

certainly isn't the business of the province of British Columbia.

Just let me impress upon you again that this is a GVRD sale to Point

Roberts — their water system. We have simply put enabling legislation

in place.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who is injecting whom into what jurisdiction,

Mr. Minister? Don't fudge and say it's the GVRD. The GVRD is a creature

of this province. It's your act, and the question of transfer of water

to Point Roberts or to the United States is a provincial issue.

This is like negotiating on the Skagit. In 1960 you guys sold out

the Skagit for pretzels — a few thousand dollars for flooding in Canada

— because you didn't think about what the power was worth. You talked

about some scrub timber, and you got paid for scrub timber on the

Skagit. It has since cost us an arm and a leg in terms of power to pay

off the Americans, to prevent the flooding of the Skagit in that same

lower mainland. The issue is exactly the same: incompetence in

negotiating; absolute incompetence in terms of not knowing what you're

selling. You need an informed buyer and an informed seller, and you've

got an informed buyer down there and a totally uninformed seller in the

form of this minister. He simply doesn't know what he's selling. He

gets up and says: "Oh, well, it's $40,000 per annum." Forty

[ Page 2156 ]

thousand per annum is like a corner grocery store,

and what we're talking about is millions and millions in increased land

values at Point Roberts.

Development is effectively frozen in Point Roberts because they

don't have any water. It's as simple as that. What do you think it

would cost to extend a water pipe from Bellingham to Point Roberts?

What do you think it would cost to extend a water pipe from Whidbey

Island to Point Roberts? It would probably be a billion-dollar

exercise. That is the kind of negotiation one should think about: what

are the alternatives? If the Americans really want all this development

in Point Roberts, okay, it's their jurisdiction. But what would the

alternative cost them? That's precisely the way Canada should be

negotiating on everything to do with the Americans. What is the

alternative for the Americans in terms of cost? Don't price it on the

basis of some little reservoir in Delta. It's absolutely incompetent

and extraordinary that nobody has it together over there in terms of

the kind of bargaining opportunity you're faced with. When it comes to

extending electricity generation to the Americans, what we should be

thinking about is the cost of the alternative in the United States, in

terms of dealing with pollution and everything else. And so with this.

We must ask ourselves what the alternative costs the Americans. You're

not asking yourself that at all.

What we have is the country bumpkin dealing with the Yankee trader

again. For a hundred years we keep electing administrations in this

province that are the country bumpkin against the Yankee trader. The

Columbia River Treaty lost us hundreds of millions of dollars.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, hundreds of millions. The Skagit lost us

tens of millions of dollars because of the same kind of incompetence,

not knowing what you were selling and what its value was.

When I think of that handful of landowners and the kind of gravy

train this represents for them.... Who has shares in George Hodgins

Realty, for example? One of the major landowners on the Point Roberts

peninsula, a solid Socred backer to the core. Well, you know, George is

already wealthy, but George is going to get it multi times again

because he's the major landowner down there — good, solid Socred

support. I'm sure that really doesn't have anything to do with the

issue at all — hardly at all.

The minister gets up and says: "It's not me. It's the GVRD." But

that's his creature. And then he says: "But it's really okay, because

we're getting $40,000 a year." Forty thousand a year! That's just

peanuts. I don't know where you get your advice from, Mr. Minister, in

terms of....

MR. SIHOTA: He's just left. Just keep on talking.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe he's gone out for help. Maybe he's getting some advice belatedly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here he is.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wish you'd gone out for advice earlier, Mr. Minister,

in terms of this particular issue, because the reasonable thing for a minister

to ask would be: "Well, gee, how come it wasn't done before?"

How come Mr. Williston never agreed? How come Mr. Williams never agreed? How

come even old patsy Waterland never agreed? But they didn't, and if I were

minister, I'd tend to be a little conservative and cautious on things like

this and say: "How come none of those other people through the century

thought it was the right thing to deliver water to Point Roberts?" It hasn't

been asked; it clearly hasn't been asked.

It is unreasonable. It doesn't make sense. You don't see the kind of

bargain for what it is. It's that kind of blind-sided, small shopkeeper

mentality that pervades this administration, an administration that

ends up charging seniors $5 to go and see the chiropractor, that

says,"After all, money doesn't grow on trees," and then they give the

trees away that are worth money. It is a shopkeeper mentality that

counts the pennies and loses the millions. It really, really is.

You're giving away millions here, Mr. Minister. If you want to help

out the seniors and the people who need chiropractors and physiotherapy

and so on, just charge the Americans what the stuff is worth. You won't

have to have any fees for seniors, Mr. Minister of Health. You won't

need any fees at all. The answer is: money, indeed, does grow on trees

if you just see the trees for the forest. That's all. But we'll get

into that lesson next week.

Meanwhile, we're back in the Ministry of Environment which is the

old waterworks agency of British Columbia. As we indicated during the

estimates, they don't even look after the waterworks very well, because

for $40,000 a year....

Lord, why don't we offer to privatize the inch of the pipe at the

49th parallel? Now there's a golden opportunity, gentlemen, for real

entrepreneurship, real privatization. One inch of the pipe between the

reservoir and the 49th parallel: let's ask the private sector what it's

worth. You could then form the Point Roberts Waterworks Company Ltd.,

and the Point Roberts Waterworks Company Ltd. could then say to Mr.

George Hodgins Ltd., who owns the bulk of the dry land down there

that's just crying for water: "What's a chunk of the pipe worth,

George?" George would say: "Well, right now my land is worth, oh,

$3,000 an acre without water and without subdivision and development

rights; but with a chunk of the pipe I suspect it might he worth

$150,000 an acre or better, maybe $200,000. So you know, it would be an

awful lot more."

Then it's a matter of saying: "Well, I guess it's worth, then,

$70,000 an acre to me, or $100,000 to me, to have water; and for a

chunk of that pipe I'll give you $100,000 an acre." Then you have to

ask yourself: what's the acreage in Point Roberts? So it's this way:

you write down $100,000 and then you multiply by the number of acres,

and you draw a line under it and then you do it across, and if you're

into technology you might even use a computer to be sure of your number

work — because the Canadians do have trouble with those Yankee traders.

So $100,000 times what? Undeveloped acreage in Point Roberts. A

thousand acres? What is 100,000 times 1,000? How many millions is that?

I'm having trouble. It's 100 million. Wow!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's more than forty thousand.

MR. WILLIAMS: Even if the figures are a little bit

exaggerated, Mr. Minister, we're talking about hundreds of millions

here over time as a result of an inch of the pipe.

[ Page

2157 ]

Now I've been joshing you a little bit, but the fact of the matter

is that if you boys — and ma'am — over there were really serious,

because I know you're ready to privatize just about everything that's

going, and probably have without authority or statute, but that's

another story....

If you asked the private sector what that pipe was worth in the

hands of a private company, then you would, indeed, get the answer. Now

I haven't even checked; is it a private water company in Point Roberts?

[3:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it's Point Roberts Water District No.

4. I'll advise the committee that if they look at further sections, the

GVRD may enter into further agreements, and if the member thinks they

should extract a higher price, I guess they could.

MR. WILLIAMS: There you are, you see. There's really a need

for leadership at the provincial level. This is still a community of

municipalities we're talking about, and there's no question they have

very able engineers and traditional civil people. But I'm sure none of

them have bargained internationally for water before. I think there's a

real need for leadership here on the part of the province, because this

is a natural in terms of some decent negotiations in terms of those

huge land values.

We did this arithmetic here, and we're clearly talking tens of

millions over time, and it appears to be much more than that. You've

been willing to trade it off, or the GVRD — through you — appears to be

willing to trade it off for the $40,000 per annum. That clearly is out

of whack.

There's one side of the equation which is the business of how much

the land increases in value down there; but there's the other side of

the equation which is the amount of investment and infrastructure in

the GVRD in terms of the water system. It's mammoth, because it's a

century of public works we're talking about here, a century of public

works from the Capilano River system to the American border. That's an

incredible amount of capital that has increased in value over time

beyond the book value by leagues.

I urge the minister to reconsider this. If this

section was stood

down, and you began some really serious negotiations, I think you would

be flabbergasted at the kind of opportunity it represents for proper

bargaining in terms of a tremendous asset held by the people of British

Columbia. It is just a taste of the value of the resources of British

Columbia in the future.

We don't want the Americans to see us for the fools we are and have

been, in terms of international negotiations on our resources. The

little Point Roberts one is just one more example of inadequate

negotiation, not seeing the opportunity it represents, not seeing what

the alternatives would cost the Americans, and not seeing what the

benefits are for the Americans. You have to measure the alternative

costs, and what the benefits are for them; then we can come in

marginally under those costs and they still have a good deal. We might

even cut their costs in half; they'd have a super deal, and we'd have a

very good deal.

That's the kind of competence we need in dealing with our neighbours

to the south. They appreciate competence, and they know a decent

bargain when they get it. But they also know when they've run into a

patsy, and that should not be the case with respect to Point Roberts.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll just state it again. If the member

looks further down the bill to

section 45, he'll see that the GVWD owns

the water.

Section 45 gives them the right to make an agreement, and I

think the member, who makes a very persuasive argument, should be

approaching the GVWD with that argument.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: On this side of the House, the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) made the statements more eloquently than

I do. Maybe I could just probe with the minister whether any homework

has been done in this regard.

For example, does the Minister of Environment know what the

alternative costs to Point Roberts are for alternative supplies of

water? In other words, does the minister know what the estimate is of

the worth of the water to Point Roberts? Has there been any of that

analysis done by the minister, before we pass this section? Have there

been any estimates of the population growth as a result of increased

water access to Point Roberts? Have there been any estimates of the

ramifications of increasing the population in Point Roberts?

For example, I happen to know someone who lives in Point Roberts,

works in British Columbia, but pays taxes in the United States.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: He may be a Socred. I don't know his politics.

All I know is that we are embarking on a

section which is going to

increase the population of Point Roberts, and which could have

implications for British Columbia. The question is: has any of the

homework been done, even if you accept — which I don't at all — that we

should defer this to the Greater Vancouver Water District? But even if

you accept that for a second, there may be implications for the

province, in terms of having a higher population in that little

peninsula, because they may in fact be working here and paying taxes in

the States. Has any of that work been done, and has there been any

analysis as to the alternative costs for Point Roberts? Has there been

any cost-benefit analysis, in other words, which is the normal practice

in government before we embark on trading in any commodity — whether or

not we're getting a good deal? If any of those studies have been done,

could we see them before we pass this section?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't have that information here. The

agreement was struck in 1986 with the former minister and also the

governor of the state of Washington. I presume you could find out that

information from the Greater Vancouver Water District. You're a

Vancouver MLA, and I presume they would be willing to discuss that

information with you. Also, under the upcoming

section —

section 45 —

allowing them to negotiate, you could get that information from them.

But the costs of an undersea pipeline would be very high.

MR. LOVICK: I'm just a bit concerned when I hear the minister

say that effectively we ought to defer to the GVWD on this thing. Is

the minister then telling us that should, let us say, the GVWD decide

that it can get a rather healthy price,

[ Page 2158 ]

we are saying to that body that it has the autonomy

to negotiate with the Americans and get a deal which has a tremendous

potential economic impact, and the provincial government will step back

from that and say: "Well, you earned the money; therefore it's all

yours and we won't touch it?" Are we saying that that body is indeed

autonomous to that degree?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) has eloquently described the pipeline system that the GVWD

has in place. It's their pipeline system. It's their water. This is

simply governing legislation. Who else would the water belong to except

the water district? It is being supplied to the Point Roberts Water

District. It's local autonomy; your second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) talks about it all the time.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, now I'm beginning to feel a certain

tremor. The earth is beginning to move somewhat. Look, we're talking

about international matters of jurisdiction — about jurisdictional

dispute, if you like, on international grounds. We're also talking not

about ownership on the basis of who owns the conduit, for heaven's

sake; we're talking about the resources of this province. Those

resources don't belong simply to the residents of the GVWD, unless we

can somehow come up with a system of determining ownership of water

resources by saying,"Here's where groundwater stops and starts, here's

where rivers begin and end," and we know precisely where every ounce of

that water came from. It seems pretty clear to me that we don't know

that, and therefore we assume, as a matter of course, that the

provincial government has jurisdiction over that resource.

If I say nothing else that might have some appeal to the minister,

let me try this simple appeal to logic. If the enabling legislation to

make this happen — to give the GVWD this kind of power — must be passed

by this Legislature, then it necessarily follows that this Legislature

has control of, and an obligation to husband, those resources. Does

that not follow?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess you could make that argument.

Would you propose, then, that the province of British Columbia take

over the Greater Vancouver Water District? Is that your proposal?

MR. LOVICK: No, I'm certainly not suggesting that, Mr.

Chairman. I'm surprised that the minister would engage in that kind of

freshman debate technique. That's obviously a red herring; that's not

the issue. The issue is whether the provincial government, through the

Ministry of Environment — and perhaps other ministries as well — sees

the opportunity that has been pointed out here and will do something to

work directly with the GVWD to ensure that the people of this province

get full value for that resource. Frankly, Mr. Minister, I'm not sure

that the jurisdictional lines are as clearly drawn as you seem to think

they are. I'm not sure, in fact, that the Greater Vancouver Water

District does indeed have that much claim on the resource. I have a

hunch that if anybody chose to do so, it could end up in a Supreme

Court battle that would go on for a number of years.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't want to get overwrought or anything. I

just suspect that.... One, we're advised in the statute that this is

actually a Ministry of Municipal Affairs matter. It isn't fair, after

you.... Somebody's upstairs handling this stuff.

The issue is the jurisdiction of Crown provincial, and the water

resources are Crown provincial assets, clearly. The mandate of the GVRD

is clearly within the region, and doesn't go beyond the 49th parallel.

So the question of going outside the province, or outside the GVRD, is

an issue for legislators; that's why it's before us today. That issue

is clear. I just suspect that they have not really thought about all

the implications of what they're doing; that it's being seen simply as

a narrow water service engineering question. And that's. a tradition, I

think, of most engineers: to not really appreciate the broader economic

questions.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll get to Hornby Island yet. It's about a

month away, from the looks of things right now, with all these minor

amendments and little statutes that you keep bringing in, just as

you've done today. Our summer is getting frustrated by the government.

I suspect that they haven't really thought about those broader

implications. For example, there's the International Joint Commission;

trans-boundary matters end up being in their jurisdiction. It seems to

me that once we get involved in cross-border activity, and then we want

to pull out of it, we're into an IJC problem.

There may be a time down the road, once Point Roberts has water,

when the demand keeps growing; you're dealing then with the size of the

pipe. As Point Roberts' demand increases, the size of the pipe across

the Fraser has to be increased — both arms of the Fraser. The size of

the pipe at First Narrows has to be increased, our reservoir supply has

to be increased, and so on. So at some point, if you proceed with this,

we may feel that it doesn't make any sense to continue delivering water

to Point Roberts, because the cost of the new supply will be excessive.

Or there may not be a supply. Then we have a very serious problem on

our hands.

[3:30]

I suggest that we would end up in the hands of the IJC, and still be

obliged to service that little peninsula, no matter what the density

was. Yet, in effect, we were the authors of the problem by providing

the water in the first place, by being the good guys, if you will, and

we end up carrying the can down the road. That doesn't make any sense.

So I think there's that question: the IJC, future demand, the

capability to meet that demand, and the cost of meeting that demand.

But beyond that, as they get more development in Point Roberts, it

raises questions of pollution. What we're talking about is this little

peninsula south of the 49th, and the pollution ends up in our bays and

waterways. So we have all of Boundary Bay — a major regional park at

Boundary Bay — that would be impacted by pollution from Point Roberts.

I don't think those questions have been addressed, Mr. Chairman.

Then there are the other questions about demands in Delta for other

services. The hospital is in Delta. There is no hospital facility in

Point Roberts, and on it goes. So there are these ancillary demands in

Canada for people residing in the United States. There is this whole

string of demands there that I can see coming down the road, and

problems that impact on Boundary Bay and Tsawwassen in terms of

pollution.

MR. ROSE: And traffic.

[ Page

2159 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Traffic through the Tsawwassen neighbourhood.

So as a trade-off for the $40,000 it just starts looking foolish. I

don't want to harangue the minister, because this came through

Municipal Affairs. But it does seem to me that at the very least, this

is something that should be looked at in more detail. Ideally, it

should go to a committee of the House for genuine, thorough review. It

would be a reasonable thing to go before a committee of the House. I

don't think it's a critical matter. Point Roberts has gone along for a

century or more with its existing water supplies.

So if the minister were prepared to consider something like that, we

could have a real look at the longer-term implications, because I think

they're fairly serious. That's really why it's never happened before.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to do

that, and pull this

section of the act. I think most of the arguments

have been put. However, there are a couple that haven't been put. If

there's a big increase in population density there, highrise or

whatever.... It's also part of a salmon resource; it's also a waterfowl

refuge. That's the only place where eel grass grows, and that's what

the black brant, which is a rare species — a practically endangered

species on this coast....

It seems to me that if there's a big population density increase,

and highrises and retirement places, that has all kinds of implications

for traffic and traffic patterns throughout the lower mainland. The

people currently living in Tsawwassen will not put up with the kind of

arterials they have now. As the member for Vancouver East pointed out,

the $40,000 per year return pales in comparison with the costs evoked,

in my mind, in terms of services, should there be a massive population

increase.

You may say that the GVRD has this jurisdiction and the power to

bargain, but it seems to me it has implications beyond that. It's an

international agreement. It goes beyond just a B.C. water resources

agreement. It would seem to me to have at least some — although small;

perhaps a drop in the bucket compared to rediverting a river....

It's very difficult to talk to the minister when he's engaged in some other conversation.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know, you're keeping an eye on me and an ear on him.

Regardless of the persuasive powers of my hon. friend who has just

come back from an extended trip — and I wish him bon voyage on his next

one — I wonder if it isn't worthy of further consideration than we can

give it today. Yes, we can ram it through. You've got the power to do

it, but you're not going to have us vote for it, because we think it

should be delayed.

It's not necessarily that we want to turn off the tap on our American friends

— what few live there; it's mainly Canadians who live down there, and I'm

told that mainly Canadians are the landowners. But aside from being unneighbourly,

there are substantial costs for us to face, and I don't think we've

looked at the implications of it. I think that perhaps the most charitable thing

I can say is that it seemed to be a neighbourly thing to do, without having

a look at the implications for our own back yard: the sewage going into the

salmon runs; the Tsawwassen.... and all the possible pollution in that whole

Mud Bay-Boundary Bay area — areas that are very important to us.

I think it certainly bears some further examination. I don't know —

perhaps the minister can tell us — whether or not this has been cleared

through Ottawa, because it's an export of water across an international

boundary. I don't think there's any question about that, and there is a

federal implication.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he checked it?

MR. ROSE: I don't know if this has been checked out, but perhaps the minister could tell us about that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I can't advise you of the

international implications, but look at these sections. As I said, 45

indicates that negotiations may carry on. I think your arguments, if

they are persuasive, could be made to the GVWD.

Secondly, there is a very good benefit to Delta from this, because

that's where the reservoir is, and it gives Delta more reservoir

capacity. As a matter of fact, I've just been advised that the New

Democratic members on Delta council voted for this. So you're kind of

flying in the face of your own party, and it would appear to me that

you're flying in the face of the people of Delta and the council of

Delta as well. There is substantial benefit to Delta from this

development. You talk about negotiations and make your point to your

colleagues on city councils and to the GVRD and the Greater Vancouver

Water District — make your presentation there. We see it as a benefit

not only to people living in Point Roberts, but also to the citizens of

Delta.

I can advise you at this time that I have no intention of postponing

or setting aside this section, or the other three sections that deal

with this.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm reluctant to.... I'm dealing

with the member for Prince George South as the Minister of Environment

and responsible for waterworks. I defer to his service to this House as

House Leader for the government and the good works he has done in that

regard. But I do think that it's incredibly tacky to have a note

delivered to you that deals with the question of some vote in Delta

municipal council that happens to include some New Democrats. That's

not the issue at all. It's one thing for people at the municipal level

to be looking at little local municipal problems. That's their job by

and large. It isn't their job to look at questions of jurisdiction

provincially and internationally, or the question of resource. I think

it doesn't do you or your staff justice to have these little, tacky

notes about New Democrats voting one way or another in some small

municipality. I don't think it does any of you a service.

What I would hope is that you would have a staff that could do the

complex analysis to give you the proper advice. It doesn't take an

expert to clip the Delta Optimist ,

you know, which might have mentioned that one New Democratic alderman

voted in favour of a reservoir. It's a nation of file keepers we've got

here in the bureaucracy instead of competent, high-level people who

understand what negotiations are about internationally and

transprovincially and all the rest. My God! Clipping the Delta Optimist and giving powerful information to the minister. It's really tacky.

We implore you to reconsider. There is a new room being built just across the way here. It's called the committee room.

[ Page 2160 ]

You've spent a lot of money on it. You're putting

all kinds of communications devices in there. There could be a

reasonable handling of this at a committee meeting so that we could

understand the benefits to the Americans and the likely future costs to

us. Both numbers are big. I think the benefits for the Americans are

big, and I think the costs for us are big as well. That's the

reasonable kind of thing for committee review, and I urge it upon the

minister. I urge the minister to take the attitude that the House

Leader has so often taken in recent months.

MR. CLARK: I just want to review, because it seems to me that this is a logical one for committee study and it makes a lot of sense.

We have the minister now saying there has been no cost benefit

analysis conducted. We have the minister saying that we don't know what

the impact will be on land prices in Point Roberts. The minister said

we don't know how much undeveloped land is in Point Roberts. He said we

don't know what the alternative costs are for Point Roberts to get

water from any other source. He doesn't know the estimated worth of the

water in Point Roberts. He has said that he doesn't know what the

increase in population will be as a result of increased water services.

He has said that he doesn't know any other ramifications of increasing

population in Point Roberts. He has said he doesn't know what impact

that will have on our tax revenue in British Columbia as a result of

more people, probably Canadians, living in Point Roberts. There is no

hospital, as I understand it, in Point Roberts, so we don't know, if

there is increased population in Point Roberts, how much impact that

will have on hospital costs, which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Dueck) talks about so greatly, even though they don't pay taxes here.

We don't know what the impact will be on increased pollution in Point

Roberts as a result of a significant increase in population. We don't

know what other services in Delta will be needed as a result of

population increase.

We have all of these unanswered questions, and the minister is

saying he is still not prepared to stand down the legislation, that we

still have to pass it, because that's up to the Greater Vancouver Water

District.

Clearly these are unanswered questions, and it makes a lot of sense

to go to a committee. It may well be that it makes sense for us to sell

water to Point Roberts but at a significantly higher price. It may be

that we shouldn't sell water there at all.

We have some other unanswered questions in terms of the impact of....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: There is the federal question which I didn't

address, either. There are about ten major questions unanswered in this

House today, yet the minister is not prepared to stand this section, he

is not prepared to put it to committee, and he wants us to pass it with

some kind of faith in what the intent is.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There seems to be a gold-rush mentality

here with respect to what I guess can be considered unjustified

enrichment in Point Roberts. Point Roberts does have a community plan

which limits what development can take place, and that's known to

members. I know it's also based on greenbelt areas set aside and many

other aspects that form a community plan. It's my information that the

increase in population will be limited.

In terms of the IJC question, the IJC does not come into play unless

a question is referred to the International Joint Commission by the

American Congress and by the House of Commons. This issue was not....

MR. LOVICK: What do you think would happen if we cut off their supply?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What would happen is that the agreement

between the GVWD and the Point Roberts Water District No. 4 would have

been broken, and I would imagine civil litigation would look after

that. It's an agreement between two water districts.

MR. ROSE: I invite the minister, while he's flying home or

flying to Vancouver, over the next three or four days, after he stands

this clause, to fly over Tsawwassen and Point Roberts and compare the

two. Tsawwassen is fully populated in terms of residential development;

there is nothing but grid patterns and houses. It's overbuilt; it's

complete. The only thing holding back similar development in Point

Roberts.... The climate is salubrious; it's superb. It has nothing to

do with the community plan, which my hon. friend said is really based

on the availability of water and the way of disposing of sewage. The

only critical thing holding back that development, to make Point

Roberts another Tsawwassen, is the lack of proper water and sewage.

Right now it's trees and a yacht basin, a few cabins and a beer

parlour. That's it. The reason it's not more is that it is virtually a

sand-dune. You fly over it and you see the difference.

[3:45]

That's what we have to concern ourselves with, the traffic patterns

and what you do with the people and the shopping centres and the

hospitals and everything else associated with that. It may be a good

idea. Maybe that's where land should be developed, rather than in the

farmland around Ladner or Delta. Maybe that's where it belongs. I don't

argue that point. The point is, are we getting a decent return for it?

Have we considered these things? That's what we need to study. It will

suburbanize all right, because it's one of the nicest places to live in

British Columbia if not the world. It will be very attractive once

water is put on it.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to come at it from a different angle. I

know what the minister said — I just wish I hadn't heard it; I'll

pretend that I haven't — with respect to the consideration and

postponement of this section. We've done that for other sections since

this debate started.

I'll come back to why I'm saying that. It's too bad the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) is not here, because it would be an

interesting discussion; only he and I like to have these types of

discussions. There really is a constitutional issue here in terms of

the ability of the province to delegate this power, the power to sell a

resource to a foreign jurisdiction. First of all, there's a question as

to whether the province.... I think the question is resolved legally.

The province can certainly engage in that. But whether or not it

can delegate that to a third party, a lower body, one of its own

bodies, in this case the water district, and whether that's

constitutional, is totally another issue that has not been discussed.

[ Page

2161 ]

There are two cases. I took the liberty of quickly running to the

library and pulling them both. There's the famous Nova Scotia

interdelegation case, and the case known as the P.E.I. Potato Marketing

Board case, none of which I'm sure the minister is aware of so I don't

intend to get into debate on the applicability of those cases to this

situation. As I say, it's too bad the A-G is not here.

Quite honestly, there is a question as to whether this move on the

part of the provincial government can be deemed ultra vires. It seems

to me to be well beyond — certainly a questionable delegation of its

power. If someone's got an opinion on that, I'd like to hear it. The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is not here. She is

really the taskmaster on this thing. I want to implore the minister....

I don't want to repeat all the economic arguments and all that kind

of stuff, because I can come down with some nice lines myself. But

what's the rush? Why does this have to be passed today? Why can't we

sit back and wait until we get some input from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and get some better understanding of the discussion?

Why can't we postpone it and proceed with other provisions of this

legislation, at least until the Minister of Municipal Affairs is here

to defend her legislation? I know the minister is otherwise engaged,

and that's why I'm still on my feet.

I could tell you a little about the Potato marketing case in Prince

Edward Island and the Nova Scotia interdelegation case, if I can find

those sections again. The P.E.I. potato marketing case is a famous one,

I think, for those of us who have studied this type of law, which I

hate to admit I did. It's a case involving the sale of potatoes from

P.E.I. to the United States. That was struck down by the courts as

being

ultra vires. So my question to the minister is: what's the rush? Why

can't we postpone this section, go through the other provisions of the

act, and come back and take a look at this when the appropriate

minister is in the House, with the view, I would say, of just pulling

it all out until such time as we can deal with it in a different forum?

Could the minister explain, through you, Mr. Chairman, why we have to

deal with this matter now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, we're dealing with it now because it's in the bill, and that's the way it's going to go.

MR. LOVICK: Sir Edmund Hillary of the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right: because it's there. Very good line.

I'm not going to entertain postponement of 42, 43, 44 or 45, but

with respect to the constitutional question, I'll have an answer for

you shortly. We have legal opinion of our own.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister willing to stand it down pending that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, yes, we'll postpone 42 to 45 until we get that answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sections 42 to 45 are postponed.

section 46.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the Minister of Health could explain this section.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in the past if a hospital

wished to spend any money on capital expenditure, it could not exceed

$500 material and labour, which was a very insignificant amount. And

this has been on the books for a long, long time. We're now changing

that. The minister may prescribe a larger amount, and we're thinking in

terms of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000. When they have a smaller repair job,

they won't have to come back to the minister to have it put in writing.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour it, but I've have some

difficulty with removing a specific dollar amount and letting the

minister have the discretion. You remember there was a famous debate in

this House some years ago — "not a dime without debate" — and there

seems to be a trend in terms of giving ministerial discretion. Why did

the minister not decide to simply increase the $500, rather than make

it at your discretion? In other words, how high could you go? Could it

be $100,000 or $50,000, or is it only nominal amounts you're talking

about?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, it's not a matter of spending

without debate. That money has to be paid by the provincial government

in any event. What we're saying is that they do not have to come to the

minister when they want to spend $500, which was a ridiculous amount,

and I can assure you it will not be more than $5,000 at the outset,

which is a lesser amount than $500 was years ago. It's just a

convenience, because it was very inconvenient. For example, Vancouver

General would come back and say: "We'd like to spend $500; will you

give us that in writing?" It was a ridiculous amount.

MR. CLARK: It seems to me that substituting "an amount

determined by the minister," is not a specific amount, and they still

have to ask you anyway. Unless you're going to send a letter to all the

hospitals saying,"The amount is now $3,000," they still have to ask you.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we intend

to do. It will be in the act that they can now spend a certain amount

of money and do not have to come to me, and that I reply in writing.

MR. CLARK: Do they have to come to you?

HON. MR. DUECK: They will not come to me. At this time they

cannot spend in excess of $500 without the written permission of the

Minister of Health. That amount will now be.... We haven't decided yet,

but it's going to be in the range of $3,000 to $5,000. If they don't

exceed that, they will not come to me in writing. It seems reasonable.

MR. CLARK: I'm not arguing that it's unreasonable; believe

me. "An amount determined by the minister." Previously they had to get

permission from you if they wanted to spend more than $500, but unless

the amount is specified, you have to tell them — not in the act, but at

some predetermined point — that this year it is $3,000, or something

like that. Will it be uniform throughout the province?

HON. MR. DUECK: That is correct. They will be advised. The

amount will not be in the act, but we will advise them of the amount in

writing. The reason it's not in the act is

[ Page 2162 ]

that it can be changed. When you put an amount in the act, you have to go through legislation, and that is what happened here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I really think you want information. If you

knew the expenditures that these large hospitals have from time to

time, it was an actual waste of paper and time. If a smaller hospital

with 100 beds came to me and wanted to spend $500 at today's inflated

prices.... It was ridiculous that we had it in there, but it hadn't

been changed since it was put into writing. We feel this is the time it

should be changed.

Section 46 approved.

section 47.

MR. WILLIAMS: The next

section involves the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who has a long record of

being away from this chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's here.

MR. WILLIAMS: She was here a few minutes ago. At the very

least, one would expect the courtesy of her attendance in requesting

some $60 million. I raise for the attention of the House Leader that

the Minister of Economic Development isn't in the House, and she was a

few minutes ago.

In this

section she-is requesting a mere $60 million, which is $60

million on top of the $50 million she was already granted for new

industry — subsidies of various kinds to new industries and new

technology in the province. I don't know if this minister reports to

cabinet at all, but she sure doesn't report to the House very often. We

have some trouble with saying "yes" to $60 million without having the

honour of her presence. We may not get many questions answered — that

seems to be the style of the minister — but we're willing to go through

the exercise of trying to get her to explain how she could spend

another $60 million when she has already spent $50 million, and she's

busy selling land in Songhees, B.C. Place, Riverview, the Westwood

Plateau, and I just don't know where else. Clearly she is very busy and

does not report often.

The opposition cannot simply nod assent on this one, Mr. House

Leader. We feel that the minister has a genuine obligation to report on

how she handled the last $50 million and what on earth she sees in

terms of spending the next $60 million. Will the House have the

minister here? Can this be stood down until the minister is present?

HON. B.R. SMITH: All right, we'll stand it down.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 47 is postponed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call sections 42 to 45. I'm going back to Delta, to the water district.

section 42.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've been advised that extensive study was

done on the whole issue of this pipeline to Point Roberts. I know now

why Delta council.... By the way, the information on Delta council

voting did not come from my staff but from an MLA in the House who is

also a municipal politician and was able to tell me what took place in

council.

The real benefit here.... The member talks about millions of

dollars, and he's absolutely right. My information is that this will

save Delta $13 million in waterworks infrastructure. The water district

of Point Roberts is paying for the installation, so there's a

remarkable saving to Delta, Mr. Member.

[4:00]

In terms of the constitution, the best advice we can get from our

constitutional experts is that the province has the authority to

delegate this authority. Although we're not allowed to seek nor advance

legal opinion, I can advise the member that the advice we have is that

the province does have this authority constitutionally.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: We jumped from $40,000 a few minutes ago to

some millions in capital, I presume. Was it just a matter of the

minister not being aware previously that there was an additional

capital expenditure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me clarify that. Point Roberts Water

District No. 4 pays for the capital expansion. They further pay GVWD

$40,000 a year. They save Delta.... In other words, they do works in

Delta to the cost of $13 million, so there is a saving to the

municipality....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, they also service Delta. That also is

infrastructure within Delta itself, and that cost is $13 million, saved

by the municipality of Delta in infrastructure they'd have to put in

place.

HON. B.R. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: May I introduce in the gallery a former

minister of the Crown, a former member for Prince George North, Mr.

Jack Heinrich and his wife, Linda.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we could, on the opposition side, welcome

the former minister as well, and it's nice to see him looking so

healthy without the burdens of that miserable Ministry of Forests and

Ministry of Education during the restraint era.

At any rate, on this issue it's still not clear. Is there going to

be a direct payment made by Point Roberts or their water district to

the municipality of Delta or the water district?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the contractual agreement just recently,

there was some discussion about the storage of water on the Point

Roberts side of the border. An agreement has been drafted between Point

Roberts and the OVWD that the storage facilities will all be in Delta.

GVWD will control the gallonage that goes to Point Roberts. Point

Roberts will pay for the infrastructure which will save Delta, in water

delivery systems, some $13 million.

[ Page

2163 ]

MR. BLENCOE: First, as municipal affairs critic for the party

I must put on the record that I assume there is a very good reason for

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) not being here

today. Be that as it may, I'll let that go.

I'd just like to ask the minister one question, or perhaps the

member for Delta: has the agreement been signed already or is there

agreement in principle? Is this the reason why you're having some

problems here this afternoon?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The GVWD, Point Roberts and Delta may not enter into an agreement until the amendment has gone through.

MR. CLARK: I'm not sure who to address these questions to. What is the total capital expenditure required to service Point Roberts?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe it's in excess of $38 million just

for infrastructure on pipeline. I believe there is another $3.5 million

or $4 million for the storage facilities. But it's all being paid for

by Point Roberts.

MR. CLARK: So what the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries

is saying is that they're paying $38 million and of that, $13 million

would have been required by Delta in any event to upgrade the services

for Delta. That's $13 million out of the $38 million. Is that correct?

That's correct.

MR. LOVICK: As I sit here and I watch the procedure unfolding

before us, I become almost apoplectic. Look, we have learned more in

the last three minutes than we did in another hour's debate, and we did

that simply by the fortuitous circumstance of having a municipal

politician from Delta enter the chamber. The obvious question, then, is

that if we can learn that much in that short a time, surely if ever

there were a case for something to be brought to committee, this is it.

We are not trying to get in the way of the project if indeed it

benefits the citizens of Delta and the citizens of the province. We on

this side will be among the first to leap up and say "Hooray." What we

are saying, however, is that the more we learn, the more convinced we

are that this House ought to have the opportunity to study this matter

in detail. Certainly at the very least, we ought to have the Minister

of Municipal Affairs in attendance.

I would therefore again urge the government House Leader to please

consider that request and perhaps refer this matter to committee. We

suggest that is the appropriate, sensible, rational approach — or

postpone it.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The members know that when you do an omnibus

bill, and you do so in the dying weeks of a session, sometimes

ministers facilitate the administration of these bills who aren't the

ministers responsible for the policy. So you'll have to bear with that.

I will say on behalf of the government that we will table in this place the

agreements between the Greater Vancouver Water District and the Point Roberts

Water District. From perusal of my briefing notes, this appears to have been

a commitment made to the governor of the state of Washington late last year

that this would be permitted. Delta and the water district have had fairly extensive

negotiations in which this infrastructure will be paid for by Point Roberts,

and it will include the reservoir in Delta as well. We would be pleased to lay

that agreement before this House.

Normally, with contentious sections of a bill like this, I would

just say that we'll stand them down — and we can certainly stand it

down. But I think this

section should go through in this session. It is

in the interests of the province and Delta municipality and the water

district that this commitment be carried out. It's also important that

it be public record as to exactly what's happening. I quite agree with

you. But I see nothing sinister in local government being charged with

carrying out this responsibility, provided that this House and the

public have full knowledge of what's going on. So I would certainly

make that commitment on behalf of the government.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General. Would the

Attorney-General agree to table all the documents that pertain to this

transaction and to assure this House that the transaction will not be

concluded — no work will be done — until those documents have been

tabled and reviewed in this House?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me that can be done in relatively short order.

HON. B. R. SMITH: I can't make the latter commitment, because

the state of these negotiations may not be concluded. It certainly

isn't formally concluded until there is the empowering that this

section would give.

Certainly the documents should be made public following their

completion. Some of the members opposite who are questioning ministers

on these sections have also had local responsibility. If you were in

these negotiations, you wouldn't table those bills in the provincial

Legislature and have Big Brother looking over your shoulder before

you'd done the job you were being asked to do. I think you'd take great

offence to that. We do try to keep our hands off, to some degree, in

local matters.

This has a provincial and an international ambit, and I think it's

appropriate that the documents, when concluded, be tabled in this

House, and the questions can be asked on them. Of course, the

Legislature, remaining supreme, can pass the legislation or amend it.

MR. WILLIAMS: As this thing unravels, we start getting a

taste of what the values are in terms of this facility for Point

Roberts. You now say it's not $40,000 per annum, but there's a $13

million capital lump, or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a saving.

MR. WILLIAMS: A saving; not the same. Okay, I missed that. So

it's a saving of $13 million. Those aren't real dollars, in a sense. I

mean, those aren't cash on the barrelhead.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, okay. But at the same time, it's not the

same thing as direct dollars. But you know, it's a taste of what it

means for those landowners down there. If this is what they're willing

to pay just in terms of infrastructure,

[ Page 2164 ]

that's a beginning of the taste of the huge increase in land values

that is anticipated — and I think properly anticipated. There's a lot

of increased value per acre. As our House Leader said, it's virtually a

sand-dune. Without the water, it isn't worth a heck of a lot.

When I last checked the maps down there, the biggest single owner

was George Hodgins. I don't think that has changed. He owns the big,

undeveloped lump of land down there, and George has been around in

Delta for some time. He came there before the tunnel and married into

the establishment of Delta. That's a lot of money to be made, and the

land George owns isn't worth much right now. It's not worth much at

all. He has made a lot of money in Tsawwassen, and he owns the bulk of

the undeveloped land in that

section of Whatcom County — the last time

I checked.

If you fly over that, you see that big, empty area in Point Roberts,

and most of it in that northwest

section is his. You see the border,

you get all that development in Tsawwassen, and you get zip south of

There's barely anything there. So there's much to be gained, and much

of it will be gained by one individual or one company.

There's no justification for rushing this through, absolutely none.

It's reasonable that it should go to committee. It's clear that there

are huge benefits to be made here, that there's a windfall capital gain

to be achieved by primarily one corporation, which is all the more

reason to look at it carefully and give it the scrutiny it deserves.

The bulk of the analysis has been by engineers who are utilities

managers; that's not the kind of analysis my colleague from Vancouver

East refers to in terms of simple cost-benefit analysis, which has been

around for decades — none of that's involved here — or some kind of

analysis in terms of appreciation in land values. It's very substantial.

Again, it's not reasonable that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) should not be here for this debate; it's

essentially her

section of the statute.

So I think the opposition's requests have been reasonable. We are

getting more facts as they unravel, but it is still far from

satisfactory.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There were a number of issues to be

considered. The landowners are not a concern at all. The issue was,

number one, traffic: how much traffic could be borne on 56th Street in

Tsawwassen? That has been identified. The second key issue is that

Blaine is quite willing to supply water to Point Roberts, no questions

asked. But what we see in Delta.... And some of your colleagues, all

friends, saw the value of the infrastructure that was proposed by the

GVWD, Point Roberts and Delta. Delta would save $13 million in

infrastructure direct costs to its taxpayers. But all issues were

looked at, including traffic, which we saw as one of the key ones,

identified and supported by all members of council.

MR. CLARK: I guess the problem — to the Minister of

Agriculture — is that we've been going after this for a while and we

were told that none of those studies were done. We haven't been privy

to any of them, so we're being asked to vote on something that we

really don't have the facts about. Now we find out that a traffic study

was done — which is reasonable — and it would be nice if we saw that

ahead of time or had been apprised of it when we first asked.

Maybe the Minister of Agriculture could tell the House whether there

have been any other socio-economic impact analyses. For example, as I

understand it, most of the people in Point Roberts use the hospital in

Delta. How much increased population will result from increased

serviceable land as a result of water? How much of that will impact on

services in Delta? How much of that will impact on hospitals, for

example, which are a provincial responsibility? We need those kinds of

analyses so we can be assured that this project is justified.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The agreement calls for a maximum increase

in population of 4,000. That is to be controlled by the contract

between GVWD, Delta and Point Roberts.

MR. CLARK: So could you explain that? Is it 4,000 population or 4,000 serviceable lots?

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Population. So what do you do, turn the water off

when they hit 4,000? Is that how it works? You've made an agreement

that will limit the population of Point Roberts. What percentage of

increase in population is it that we're looking at?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not precisely sure of the exact number, but that could be easily sought out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can get that without going to committee. I can report it back to the House if you want it.

MR. CLARK: I'm surprised at the agreement. It would be nice

if we had the agreement here, but I'm surprised that there's a

tentative agreement reached, presumably waiting for passage of this

section.

The Greater Vancouver Water District has entered into an agreement

that limits the population growth in Point Roberts. Or have they

reached an agreement that says they will only provide enough water for

a certain growth in population? It seems to me that you can't simply

say: "You can't grow any more." Presumably the agreement is that the

Greater Vancouver Water District will provide water for X number of

residents, and if they grow beyond that, they have to get water

elsewhere.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Madam Chairman, through many months of

negotiations, the agreement called for so much water to be delivered

per day to Point Roberts. If Blaine supplies the water, there is no

limitation; there will be a total water service to Point Roberts. Now

how do you control traffic?

MR. ROSE: I think the information that the Minister of

Agriculture, after a long, close association with the Delta council....

It's the kind of information this House should have had before we

attempted to debate and embark on something that's far larger and far

more complicated than we had anticipated. If we'd had this information

a couple of hours ago, we might have completed this bill by now. I just

think that when something as important as this, which has federal, if

not international, implications.... This House

[ Page

2165 ]

just can't be confronted with this, in the state that it is in. It

doesn't refer to anything except certain amendments, here, there and

somewhere else, with another body, which is a creature of this House,

dealing with it.

It's just a rotten way to run a railroad. I protest this as

vehemently as I can, because I think it's an insult to the members of

the House when we're asked to make decisions of this magnitude on such

a skimpy bit of information, not even knowing what's in the thing.

These bills are often called housekeeping measures. Well, there's a

hell of a lot swept under the rug on these housekeeping measures.

Whenever a housekeeping bill comes down, it's a red alert, as far as

we're concerned. It's not good enough. It's just not good enough. I

think it's an insult to the members of the House not to have adequate

backup information when we're dealing with something.

This isn't just a huff and puff job on my behalf, although it may

sound like it. If I sound like the former member for New Westminster,

I'm sorry. But it is an insult to this House to have this, and we could

have been by this thing an hour ago. I don't like it in the first

place, but at least we could have been by it an hour ago.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the question is: what's the dimension of the rat here? What's the size of the rat we're dealing with?

It is absolute nonsense to have the Minister of Agriculture

lecturing this House on what this deal is supposed to be. It's simply

not good enough. You're the minister of waterworks, Mr. Minister. You

should know these details. That's not good enough. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs brought this thing in — she's not here. That's not

good enough either,

We're talking about turning out millionaires from these landowners.

So the question is: who are the landowners? The Minister of Agriculture

says: "I don't want to talk about the landowners." Well, I don't blame

a person from Delta not wanting to talk about the landowners — because

that's who benefits, and that's what we should be talking about here.

Why is the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (NU Mercier) so interested?

Does he know landowners down there? Do you know landowners down there,

ML Minister of Agriculture?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you please address your comments through the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Madam Chair. Through you, Madam Chairman,

how many landowners down there are good solid Socred citizens? That's

the question. Who are the owners of water frontage in the GVRD that sit

on those committees? Who from Delta is the main player? We already said

who the main player is: George Hodgins Realty, the long-time Socred man

down there who supports what goes on in that community in terms of real

estate wheeling and dealing.

This is incredible. We are talking about a great deal of money and a

great deal of appreciation, and the question is: who are the winners?

You can shake your head all you like, but this is the nature of how

people get rich quick in a Socred society in British Columbia. By being

the lucky, fortunate person that happens to own the land in the

lottery. That's the lottery that always gets won. All the poor average

working stiffs pay out tens of millions of dollars in this province for

your damned lottery out of Kamloops, and it isn't worth anything in

terms of a real opportunity to make a buck. They're the biggest suckers

in the block.

But there are ones who always win the Socred lottery, and they're

the key landowners. Through the years in this chamber we've gone

through this merry-go-round in terms of Delta land-dealing — the

Spetifore land deal, the ALR land deals; the same sort of whirl and

game in terms of turning out millionaires on moose pasture or sand

dunes, and that's what this game is all about. I can understand why you

don't want to talk about who owns the land. You should be embarrassed

by who owns the land, because they're the main beneficiaries. They all

have strong Socred credentials, as did the wheelers and dealers in the

Spetifore land deals as well. That's why we raise this. And to bring

this up in the dying days of the session is not satisfactory at all. We

were advised that these were minor matters. We do not perceive these to

be minor matters at all.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Madam Chairman, we're going somewhat far

afield — into the ALR, into lotteries and many other things — and I

think you tend to see too much in a provision of this kind. I would

suggest that we postpone 42 and endeavour to make progress on the other

sections, and maybe some more light can be shed on 42 to 45. We did

postpone it once, and all we've done is to renew the fury of the storm,

which appears to be blowing over a much broader landscape than it was

originally aimed at. So along with 47, which is postponed, I would

suggest that we postpone 42 to 45.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Sections 42 to 45 are postponed.

Sections 48 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 52.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to say for the record that I think

this is a much needed change, and I'm certainly glad to see it in

there. As a lawyer I've had quite a few difficulties on this, and I was

wondering when, if ever, it would come about. I'm glad to see that it's

consistent with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. It's

much overdue.

HON. B.R. SMITH: After 27 years there is still no agreement

as to the total effect of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in

Peter Kiewit Sons, and contractors who have completed disputed work

over those years under protest have done so at some jeopardy. This will

now eliminate that jeopardy and make it clear that you can perform and

complete your work under protest, without prejudicing your claim. I

think that was a good recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, and

I really am pleased to see that the opposition support it.

Sections 52 to 54 inclusive approved.

section 55.

MR. CASHORE: This is probably one of the few times in my

experience, given my background, that I'll have the opportunity to

comment from the depth of my professional experience. I think the

second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) has conducted quite a few weddings

in his career, but

[ Page 2166 ]

being much older than he is, I'm sure I've conducted many, many more.

I just didn't want this

section 55 on the banns of marriage to go by

without some comment. I certainly endorse this move. The reading of the

banns of marriage is a very quaint custom within the church which goes

back to an earlier day, but I think it harks back to a time when our

community organization was much less complex. I note also that in those

churches that wish to continue to publish the banns, this doesn't

preclude them from doing so. However, it requires that everybody have a

marriage licence. I certainly think that's appropriate and a step in

the right direction, and I'm glad this change is being made.

Sections 55 and 56 approved.

section 57.

MR. CASHORE: I notice in this section.... I do agree with the

intent of it. It states that: "Books for the registration of marriages

under this

section ('marriage registers') shall be supplied free of

charge...but remain the property of his office and shall be returned

to him on demand or on the holder ceasing to be authorized to solemnize

marriage."

I find that somewhat ambiguous, because the holder could in fact be

a religious denomination, a congregation, or some other entity that has

the authority to....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, but my understanding is that while only a

minister or a commissioner for conducting marriages may perform

marriages, the marriage register remains with the church and does not

go with the minister when the minister leaves. It seems to me that this

wording doesn't clarify that.

[4:30]

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, I think the only thing that

has changed from the old

section 1s that instead of the director

inspecting marriage registers, he may delegate that authority. That's

the only change in that section.

MR.. CASHORE: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman. As I understand it,

the minister's comment is related to

section 57, which deals with

section 21(3) of the Marriage Act. My comment was in reference to

21(2). The point I'm making is that the marriage register does not go

with the minister when the minister leaves the church.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, I understand it's the same in the old act. So there's no change.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The reason for the repeal of those sections

is to eliminate the mandatory requirement for the director to inspect

marriage certificates. That is a task he would most invariably

delegate. So it's to take away that obligation of the director to do

the inspections.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to move on to (3). As I understand this

change, it means that instead of there being an annual inspection, it

shall be as often as the director considers necessary.

I spoke to the executive director of a major denomination yesterday,

and as is apparent in all professions, sometimes we have a situation

where a person in a profession, vested with responsibilities, is going

through a rough time — perhaps burnout; I don't know — where sometimes

sloppiness occurs. I understand that in this one major denomination,

about every year or two there is a situation that has to be looked

into, where it's discovered — say, during a divorce proceeding — that

the register wasn't properly entered and had not been properly attended

to.

If this is a cost-saving measure, so that inspections wouldn't have

to take place as often as once a year, I think it would be far more

appropriate to put a time in there, rather than to leave it open-ended.

In instances where people need the availability of those records and

those registers, it's far too open-ended this way.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, it does not require a time. It just says,

whenever the director considers necessary. But it's not believed there

will be any actual change in the actions taken by the director. If it's

necessary, he will inspect or delegate that inspection. So I don't

think your fears are really warranted.

MR. CASHORE: The point I was making is that under the

legislation as it is now, there would be an annual inspection. I think

that annual inspection, not being open-ended, made certain that those

records were in proper shape; and if they weren't, somebody got them

into shape by virtue of their being inspected annually. I can

understand extending the term to, say, two years, but I worry, if it's

just left to the discretion of the inspector, that given restraint and

staff shortages and everything it could go on for years and years and

years. There's nothing here to say that that would not be the case.

HON. MR. DUECK: You make the point that if people are

irresponsible, you could have irresponsible people not doing their job

and perhaps going on for a lengthy period of time. But I believe that

if you have people who are irresponsible, they would no longer be in

that position.

We felt that the yearly inspection was an onerous sort of thing.

Sometimes it wasn't done. It just didn't make sense on an annual basis,

so we left that out. But our policy has not changed.

Sections 57 to 63 inclusive approved.

section 64.

MR. CASHORE: First of all, as the former chairman of the

mental health review panel of B.C., I would like to say that I find

these changes for the most

part very worthwhile; there is an effort

here to bring them in line with the developments that are taking place

towards a uniform mental health act in Canada. I affirm that, and I

congratulate the minister for moving in this direction. I think that's

most appropriate.

I would like to ask the minister to explain, under

section 66 — this

will also be in reference to some other sections where this wording

shows up — the reasoning behind striking out "application" and changing

it to "request."

HON. MR. DUECK: Sections 64, 65 and 66 are consequential to 67; that is really the main body of the change. If

[ Page

2167 ]

I could just refer to that one, maybe the other sections will become clearer.

Sections 20(

l) and 20(2) of the act are being amended to eliminate

reference to the written application made when a person is

involuntarily admitted to a provincial mental health facility. The only

requirement for involuntary admission should be the certificates, in

the prescribed form, completed separately by two physicians. The

written application serves no real purpose, is not used in other

provinces and was criticized in a recent court decision.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate the explanation. For the record, I

think it's important that that explanation is available for the record,

and I agree with it.

Are we on

section 67?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're on

section 64.

MR. CASHORE: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we'd moved along to

section 67.

HON. MR. DUECK: I went to 67 because the others are consequential to 67. So really it should be 67 before we address 64, 65 and 66.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Should they be included together?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes.

Sections 64 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the change in

section 67, I think

this is a very good thing. I can recall conducting hearings when

patients had been transferred to Riverview Hospital from a particular

emergency ward, and it was fairly apparent that the same person was

filling out all the applications. In my opinion it was a redundant

process.

However, I would not want to let this

section pass without referring

to a philosophy that I think shows up in the mental health review panel

and does not show up in the admissions process. As mental health law

develops, we will probably see a move in this direction. We're still

taking the risk of decisions about detention being made in the ivory

tower of the medical profession, and that is not in any way to

downgrade the medical profession or the practice of psychiatry.

I believe very strongly that one of the points we must consider in

addressing the issue of mental health is the community component. I

think it would be equally problematic to say that the legalities of

mental health loss should be a matter to be discussed between members

of the legal profession and members of the medical profession.

I'm not suggesting we vote against this, but I do want to say for the record

with regard to the issue of certification and the issue of continued detention

that there should be a representative of the community involved in that process.

After all, we do see that process injuries, and community standards are tremendously

important in trying to deal with almost the mythology of defining how the medical

definitions of mental illness relate to the current standards of community and

the current expectations of community.

For the record, I want to take that opportunity to make this point

at this time. I know we're in a hurry today, so I won't be repeating

that point where it shows up in other contexts dealing with continued

detention or the review panel itself. I'll just make that point at this

time.

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe the member made some good points.

As you know, the national uniform health legislation that's coming

forward will probably address that and there may well be some changes

in that direction.

Sections 67 to 69 inclusive approved.

section 70.

MR. CASHORE: Again for the record, I just want to make the

point that renewal is a kind of an invisible process for the patient. I

think it's important that this be handled in such a way that the

patient is very much aware that that process is taking place. What I

mean by that is that it's not unusual for a patient's continued

detention to be reviewed without the patient being aware of it.

I'm not sure that that's being addressed in this legislation, but I

think it's an issue that we really do need to look at in terms of the

civil rights of those patients.

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, the points are well made.

Section 70

indicates the time involved — like from one year to one month — and

then we go into

section 71, which actually continues on that same

thought. So if you take

section 71 into consideration, then you know

that we're dealing with the time-limit that someone is in an

institution and when it will be reviewed. At one time they were put

into the institution and they would go on for a length of time without

any review. This is changing; in fact, a person in an institution may

get a review and a review again at a much quicker time than they did in

the old legislation.

Sections 70 to 72 inclusive approved.

section 73.

MR. CASHORE: This is my last comment. I think it would be

helpful — and, again, I'm not suggesting an amendment — in reviewing

future changes to the Mental Health Act, or at least in the

regulations, to assure that this process take place toward the end of

the month. It's open-ended here, so that the review of the patient's

condition could take place earlier in the month when sufficient time

had not gone by for him to have a decision that was to his advantage.

[4:45]

HON. MR. DUECK: Obviously the member has an awful lot of experience in this area. It's a fair comment.

Sections 73 to 77 inclusive approved.

section 78.

MR. MILLER: I don't think I have any major concerns, Madam

Chairman. Maybe the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) might be

able to.... Is the wording of the ...?

[ Page 2168 ]

MR. ROSE: The Attorney-General.

MR. MILLER: Oh, the Attorney-General is here, I see. Sorry, I didn't notice he was here.

Is the present wording of the act such that B.C. Steamships is able

to borrow the aggregate of the amounts borrowed since the inception of

the company? Is it a problem? Or is this just housekeeping?

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's just housekeeping. When the act was

passed in 1975, it established that the B.C. Steamship Company could

provide a government-operated ferry service between Victoria and

Seattle. Administration of these sections has been assigned to the

Ministry of the Attorney-General, so it would be with a member in the

capital region. The amendment of

section 64(2) simply clarifies that

the amounts which may be borrowed by B.C. Steamships under this

section

are the amounts outstanding from time to time, and not the aggregate of

total amounts borrowed since the inception of the company. The

aggregate outstanding amount at any time is $10 million.

Section 78 approved.

section 79.

MR. MILLER: I note that the wording in

section 24(

l) is: "On

request of any person and payment of the prescribed fee...." Is it the

feeling then that this has to be included in subsections (2) and (3) in

order to give authority for the collection of those fees under those

sections? Also — and I'll ask them all while I'm on my feet — would the

Minister of Finance explain, if the fees are set by regulation, what we

are looking at — what kinds of fees in order to obtain, in some cases,

something as simple as a single document?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, secti