2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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, MAY 20, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 33, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Speaker's Statement

Guidelines for Members' statements

Second Reading of Bills

Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29) (continued)

S. Simpson

C. Wyse

N. Macdonald

M. Sather

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. G. Abbott

A. Dix

[ Page 12569 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today is a class from St.

Andrew's Elementary School, a grade 5-6 class. They're here with their

teacher Mrs. Grace Higgins and three parents. They're a very special class.

While all the children there are special, there are three children who have

relations to this Legislature in terms of some of the staff who work here.

They have their children in this class. I have a particular person I would

like to note, and that's my nephew Graham Chong.

I would ask the House to please make the class of grade 5-6

from St. Andrew's Elementary School, Mrs. Grace Higgins and the three

parents all very welcome. We had a nice visit, as well, just earlier with

the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, who they, I believe, visit

annually. I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Speaker's Statement

GUIDELINES FOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I've now had the opportunity

to review the Blues of Thursday, May 15, relating to private members'

statements. I am particularly concerned about the content of the statement

given by the member for Delta North and find that the member's statements

breached the well-established guidelines related to such statements.

In particular, I quote a Speaker's decision in the House of

July 2, 1992, in part, as follows: "In reviewing the practice of this House,

however, highly partisan remarks that negatively reflect on individual

members or groups of members in the House have not been regarded as falling

within the spirit and intent of Standing Order 25a."

[1005]

I note here that the Speaker's decision of March 1, 2007, made

it clear that guidelines applicable to Standing Order 25a are equally

applicable to statements under Standing Order 25b. Accordingly, it's the

Chair's opinion that the member for Delta North breached the

well-established guidelines applicable to Standing Order 25B, and should any

member transgress the guidelines again, he or she will be ordered to resume

his or her seat and discontinue the statement.

This is just a friendly reminder before the two-minute

statements come this afternoon.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued second reading debate

of Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008.

Mr. Speaker: And in the other House?

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the

reminder.

We'll be carrying on with estimates debate, and for the

information of members, we'll be debating the estimates for the Ministry of

Health.

Second Reading of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIES AND

PUBLIC PROTECTION) STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to

again join the debate on Bill 29. I would note, for your information, Mr.

Speaker, that I am the designated speaker for this bill.

Bill 29, the Environmental (Species and Public Protection)

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, is a piece of legislation that I believe, in

my view, is somewhat more narrow, certainly, than I think many people had

anticipated when this bill was to come.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

You will know that Bill 29 is somewhat a result of the

Wildlife Act review that has gone on since back in 2007, when the minister

announced the review, released a discussion paper on the Wildlife Act and

encouraged many British Columbians to give him comments, provide comments to

the government, around what people felt the Wildlife Act should be doing and

should be incorporating and what amendments or changes might make sense in

that act.

The result of that is that I believe…. Certainly, from the

discussions I've had with a number of people and organizations since the

bill was introduced, they have all said: "Is that really all there is? Is

that really what the result of the Wildlife Act review is?"

My response to them, of course, has to be that it's what we've

seen so far, and we've been given no indication or reason to believe that

there will be anything else substantive coming. And certainly, the minister,

in his comments introducing the bill, did not suggest that there would be

further changes or amendments coming in a subsequent bill, either this fall

or next spring. So I have heard significant disappointment, not so much

about what is in the bill but about what else isn't in the bill.

Now, the bill itself, Bill 29, does deal with some important

matters. It deals with amendments in relation to alien species. These are

amendments that are important. These are amendments that put significant

limits on the ability to own exotic or alien species. I think we know that

there have been a couple of incidents where there have been very serious

problems related to the ownership of species like tigers, lions, exotic

snakes, poisonous snakes and other kinds of species.

I think it makes good sense, and I don't think that there's

any complaint about the notion that it's time

[ Page 12570 ]

that we put limits on alien species to ensure the protection of the

public and to ensure the protection of those species themselves. This piece

of legislation does go a ways to dealing with that issue around alien

species.

It also goes in a somewhat different direction and certainly

deals with questions around waste management issues and recycling, not

matters that really have much to do with the Wildlife Act at all. They are

separate matters around environmental management, waste management. But the

bill does deal with some of those matters around how that recycling would

all work. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to talk about that somewhat later on

in this discussion.

[1010]

It also provides some new powers for park rangers, designating

them as officers, giving them some of the authority that conservation

officers have, as it relates. It also makes a number of changes related to

the hunting community, mostly related to guide-outfitters but also related

to resident hunters. This is all heading in the direction….

The government, in its White Paper, in its discussion document

on the Wildlife Act review, talked about wanting to add about 20,000 hunters

in British Columbia or to head towards striving towards an additional 20,000

hunters in British Columbia. They make some changes that take steps to get

there and also changes that loosen up some of the requirements and

regulations for guide-outfitters in terms of how they do their business,

where they do their business and some of the processes that they conduct in

doing their business.

The substance of the bill, essentially, ends with those

matters. It doesn't move on to discuss any of the other critical issues that

are in front of us, and that is a concern. It is a concern for people who

looked at the Wildlife Act review and who had expectations that it would

cover more, that Bill 29, as the legislation that flows from the review of

the Wildlife Act review, would cover more, that it would in fact have some

discussions around issues related to species and habitat protection.

Unfortunately, with the exception of the alien species that

are discussed in the bill, it's hard to find a

section of this bill that

says anything substantive around protection of species or protection of

habitat for those species.

I want to speak a little bit this morning about the Wildlife

Act situation. I want to talk about this bill in terms of the species and

public protection, which is part of the title of the bill, and to talk about

the pieces that, sadly, are not included in this bill but that should

reasonably have been expected to be there or to have been discussed in some

fashion as part of the review of the Wildlife Act.

We have a situation in the province where, since

pre-settlement…. Just to give you a sense of the situation we face in

species at risk, British Columbia is one of two provinces that doesn't have

species-at-risk legislation that looks at the value of habitat, that doesn't

look at how we protect our species in a substantive way. That's a challenge

in British Columbia, because we arguably have the most biodiversity of any

province in the country. We have the biggest variety of species in the

country, and we do little to protect them. About 49 species and subspecies

have been lost since pre-settlement in British Columbia, so we have lost

some. There's no doubt.

Today there are about 1,300 species that, based on information

from the conservation data centre, are at some degree of risk in British

Columbia. It's a very large number. That's 1,300 species out of what are

arguably about 3,600 different species that currently exist in British

Columbia.

More than a third of those are at some degree of risk, as

determined by the conservation data centre and by their information. Now,

out of that, only around 68 of those species or so receive any kind of

protection under B.C. laws, and none — not one — has that protection

attached to habitat.

[1015]

If you talk to people, whether it be academics, whether it be

environmental interests, whether it be hunters and people who spend time in

the bush, they will all acknowledge that the protection of species is not

possible without some attention being paid to the habitat that those species

operate and function and live within and, certainly, without some connection

between the interrelationship of species in any given area.

That's not the situation that we face today, so we have a big

challenge in British Columbia because we do have species that are at

significant risk. This is according to the data centre which, as I pointed

out, is the agency that monitors species in British Columbia. Over 1,300

species and subspecies living in the province now are determined to be at

some risk of disappearing.

Among the major wildlife groups,67 percent of reptiles and

turtles are at risk; amphibians, 47 percent; and freshwater fish, 47

percent. They are the most at risk of local extinction from British

Columbia. There are many other wildlife groups in B.C. that similarly

contain high numbers of species at risk, including 43 percent of vascular

plants, 34 percent of butterflies, 33 percent of freshwater and terrestrial

molluscs, 26 percent of dragonflies and damselflies, 18 percent of

terrestrial mammals and 17 percent of our birds.

It's a significant number of species that are at risk. This is

in a province that…. Because of the unique heritage that we have in British

Columbia, because of the wide variety of wildlife that we have in British

Columbia, we need to be stepping up and meeting the challenge around species

at risk. Arguably, and I know that this is the view from academic interests

as well as conservation interests, the piece of legislation we would be

seeing this session around the review would give us some comfort on

beginning to get at the challenge around species at risk.

This becomes particularly important in British Columbia

because we do have a unique heritage here. To give you some sense: 76

percent of Canada's birds are in British Columbia, 70 percent of our

freshwater species, 66 percent of butterfly species, 60 percent of conifers,

56 percent of the ferns and 41 percent of orchids — just to give you some

sense of how diverse our biodiversity is.

The challenge we have now is that we have more than 1,300 of

those species that are at risk based on the government's own data. Yet

unfortunately, we're not

[ Page 12571 ]

seeing anything in this legislation that will help us to deal with that

challenge.

What we know is that there was action taken. In 2004 the

government made amendments to the Wildlife Act. They were amendments that

most people believed would have improved things. They would have helped to

respond to this situation by creating an opportunity to list additional

species. That was the intention of the amendment that was moved to the

Wildlife Act in 2004.

Unfortunately, those amendments, the work of that bill, have

never been enacted. As a consequence, it's essentially a non-functioning

law. It was a law that was intended to ensure some protection and to improve

the protection for our wildlife. Unfortunately, to date, the regulations

have never come into effect to list any of the species, so the amendment is

essentially meaningless.

[1020]

Even if the government had decided when they introduced Bill

29 that they were going to make an announcement at the time that they would

in fact put in force the regulations from 2004, that would have been a step

in the right direction. But the government continues to remain silent on the

species-at-risk question, raising significant concerns for many over the

situation with this bill.

When we look at the review that the bill was based on or that

motivated the bill, we know that there was some great interest — that maybe

we would see some action around the bill. I would note that in June of 2007

the Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia, in

responding to the consultation paper, the discussion on the review, said:

"The Association of Professional Biologists

appreciates that government has recognized the importance of managing

species at risk in the discussion paper. In light of that recognition, the

Association of Professional Biologists recommends that the new act

should…."

So they were recommending what they thought should be in Bill 29.

They made a number of points. They said that the bill should

provide for effective conservation of vulnerable species so that they do not

become threatened or endangered. They went on to say:

"It should require species recovery as well

as effective management of the species' ecosystems, habitats, residences

and individuals. It should meet national standards under the national

Species at Risk Act. It should provide for professional biologists to

determine the biological status of species and to prioritize the species

to be recommended for consideration as threatened or endangered by

cabinet, and it should provide for cabinet to decide which species will be

legally designated as threatened or endangered under provincial

legislation in a timely way."

They went on to say…. This is the Association of Professional

Biologists of British Columbia:

"The revised act should be brought into

compliance with the Canadian biodiversity strategy. In 1992 Canada was the

first industrialized country to ratify the UN convention on biological

diversity. Subsequently, in 1994 all Canadian provinces signed the

Canadian biodiversity strategy, which committed the provinces to conserve

biological diversity to meet the national and international obligations

under those commitments.

"The new act should include a comprehensive

definition of 'biological diversity' consistent with established

conservation biology principles. This definition would include the

definition of 'wildlife' in recommendation 8 of this letter and legislated

authority for the Ministry of Environment to work towards conservation of

biological diversity."

None of those things are done in Bill 29. Bill 29 didn't deal with those

issues of species, arguably the single most important issue that should have

come out of the question of the Wildlife Act review and that should have

been included in the legislation that was meant to implement some of the

recommendations.

It does implement the recommendations that deal with opening

up hunting, both for resident hunters and in easing the regulations around

guide-outfitters. It does accomplish that. It does deal with questions

around alien species, but it is essentially silent in many ways on the

question of species at risk, which is arguably the biggest single issue that

we need to face at this time.

This creates a huge vacuum, and it's a vacuum that is of great

concern. It's of great concern because we know that this is an issue that

the government is well aware of.

We had the Minister of Agriculture and Lands make

announcements back a year or so ago around the mountain caribou. What we

know is that there was a mountain caribou recovery plan put forward by the

government with a significant amount of fanfare. We now know that that plan

is facing some challenges. Today we saw an interim review of the recovery

plan's progress, prepared by environmental consultants for a range of

community organizations and environmental groups that are concerned about

the delays.

[1025]

You'll know that the 2007 strategy stated that the

government's goal was to protect 95 percent of the high-suitability winter

habitat within identified areas. The strategy listed specific commitments

covering public and commercial snowmobiling areas, commercial heli- and

cat-skiing operations, forest policy and forest management, mineral

exploration leases, translocations of caribou from healthy populations to

those in decline and refinement of recovery objectives by management unit.

The purpose of this review that was done was to evaluate the

progress. This scientific review was evaluating the progress on the effort

that was made there after six months.

What they found is that while there are significant amounts of

work being done, the progress appears to be stalled, in fact. It appears to

be stalled for a number of reasons, including issues that relate to the

forest and range and the ability to exceed the 1 percent of commercial

timber harvest land base throughout the caribou range. What we know is that

that raises issues, and I'll look forward to talking about that a little bit

more, as well as issues around its inability to affect the annual allowable

cut and forest operations.

Now, these are significant challenges. There was progress

expected to be made by mid-March. I think March 21 of this year was the date

in terms of getting these plans substantively in place. Those dates have

[ Page 12572 ]

been missed. I know that a number of the organizations are hopeful that

the delays are short-lived and that sometime in the next short while those

commitments that were made to be fulfilled will be fulfilled. But I also

know that there is some significant concern around this.

I know that at the time the mountain caribou recovery strategy

was put in place — certainly the most significant step, I would say, around

species issues that we've seen — a number of organizations, many of the

organizations that had been active around the caribou, opened discussions

with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands on the broader question of

habitat-based species at risk. I know that the minister has made comments.

And I know that in discussions I've had with the Minister of Agriculture and

Lands, he had opened some of those discussions around the species question.

He had opened those discussions and was having an ongoing discussion around

what that kind of legislation might or might not look like.

There was some expectation that there may be steps taken, and

there was some indication from the minister, I think, when these discussions

were initiated that there would be effort to try to bring forward

habitat-based species-at-risk legislation before next year's election. But

in the last few months it has become clear — and I know the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands has indicated to me — that that's not going to be able

to occur between now and May of 2009.

So what we have is…. We had the place where many of the

conservation organizations and regional groups that were hopeful they were

going to see species-at-risk legislation — in fact, accomplishing this

through the Minister of Agriculture and Lands and through his work…. It has

now become clear that that isn't going to occur and that there isn't going

to be the protection for species there. I know that is disappointing for

those organizations and for people who are concerned about our biodiversity.

Then, as that became clearer, the hopes turned to what is now

Bill 29. The hopes turned to the government being able to accomplish at

least some steps towards species protection, even if it was just towards the

listing and the acknowledgment of the species in a more substantive way,

through what is Bill 29. Of course, what we know now as we look at Bill 29

is that we never saw those protections.

[1030]

Part of the problem is that we have a couple of key pieces of

legislation. There are challenges around this. The first is the Forest and

Range Practices Act, which states that biodiversity protection must not

unduly reduce the supply of timber from B.C. forests.

We all know the forest sector is in very challenging times. We

know we need to try to protect that industry, find new ways to deal with

that industry and find new ways to deal with the communities around that

industry. We also know that a sustainability strategy will need to be part

of that.

We on this side of the House have talked about what that might

look like. We've discussed it. The member for Cariboo North and our Leader

of the Official Opposition have discussed those matters in some detail. We

continue, of course, to discuss them pretty much on a daily basis with the

Minister of Forests and Range.

The problem is that there are significant limits put in place

by that act. For example, the government claims that the identified wildlife

management strategy is the tool that is supposed to be available to protect

habitat for species. That's the vehicle available for the government to be

able to protect habitat species. But what we also know is that the

government has essentially told the identified wildlife management strategy

folks that they cannot impact the logging rate by more than 1 percent. That

puts a pretty short leash on the ability to look at protection of habitat.

What we have is what the government would tell us — the

identified wildlife management strategy, which is meant to protect species

from impacts of logging…. Logging often is one of the key impacts on the

habitat of many, many species. We know that. That has been a discussion in

this province for decades. We know that.

You have a policy here that provides little latitude or little

flexibility to be able to deal with those impacts of logging. What you have

is some failure in the law to be able to provide the flexibility to even

have a meaningful discussion around how you get at some of these questions

related to species, how you get at some of the issues that, for example,

affect the mountain caribou — some of the issues that I know have raised

concerns, being as the mountain caribou is furthest along in terms of a

recovery strategy.

It is the strategy that did, arguably, bring the most people

together. It did bring first nations. It did bring environmental interests.

It did bring government. It did bring together corporate and industrial

interests, including forest sector interests, in a discussion around how to

get at this issue. The challenge with it is how to get there without being

able to get through some of these challenging questions around other

policies that exist for the government.

The issue here — and I would note that not just in the areas

based on the harvest land base that may not be affected…. Also, the bill —

or the work that's done around the caribou — says that it may not affect the

annual allowable cut and forest operations in the short term. The short term

is defined as five years or the next timber supply review, which is usually

completed in five-year intervals.

So we're told that not only in the areas that are around the

land base but also in those areas where there is an annual allowable cut

outside that land base, it can't be affected. We know that the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands and the Minister of Forests and Range have restated

the foregoing as a policy of no net loss of short-term timber supply as a

consequence of the caribou management plan.

[1035]

That may be an achievable thing to be able to do, but I know

that in terms of those folks who are most concerned about the protection of

the caribou, they're concerned that they're not necessarily seeing that.

They're concerned that there is no law in British Columbia that

[ Page 12573 ]

protects habitat for species. Bill 29 was the bill that I believe most of

those people were hoping would be the piece of legislation that would

provide that protection for species. But as we've noted and we know from the

bill, it does nothing to be able to in fact protect those.

When the minister announced the Wildlife Act review back in

2007 and put it in place, attached to that document was the review document.

Then there was a piece that talked about regulations related to species. It

talked in a number of areas about what those regulations might be.

I know for certain that while a number of conservation

interests in British Columbia were very hopeful that there would be

stand-alone, habitat-based species-at-risk legislation, they were very

concerned to get anything in place that would improve our circumstances. I

know those groups had said to me that it's certainly not the optimum

situation, but if we can find a series of regulations that begin to deal

with the question of species, then that's a step in the right direction and

something we should do. They looked to do that, and they looked to try to

find ways that they could in fact improve that.

What we know is that as a follow-up to what was there, of

course, there has been concern raised by numbers of people that the

discussion in the review was inadequate. I would quote Dr. Mooers from Simon

Fraser University, who said in his comments around the review:

"I am very concerned by parts of the

legislation dealing with endangered species.To begin, I do not see how

species would be designated as imperilled. Would the federal list be

adopted wholesale, or is there some other mechanism? This seems an

important matter. Having cabinet declare a species as endangered in a

wholly discretionary manner would weaken all other aspects of the law to

the point of making the law irrelevant."

Academics and conservationists have all been telling us for

many, many years that in British Columbia we need to make progress on being

able to move forward on the question of species at risk. When we get to

committee stage on Bill 29, among other things we'll certainly be discussing

what's not in Bill 29 and have the minister explain to us why decisions were

made to leave these issues related to species out of the bill.

Hon. Speaker, as I've said before, I think everybody was

hopeful that the Wildlife Act review, with the

section that talked about

regulation for species, would bring forward something. There was hope around

that. Then the government increased the hope and expectation when the

Minister of Agriculture and Lands, after the mountain caribou strategy was

put in place, began to talk to some of the groups — I know he talked to the

Suzuki Foundation; I know he spoke to others — about something even more

substantive. He began to talk about habitat-based, stand-alone

species-at-risk legislation.

I believe that the groups who had seen the mountain caribou

strategy certainly believed that while it was not perfect, it was a

significant step in the right direction. We're hopeful that the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands would be bringing forward a new piece of legislation —

or his colleague, the author of this bill, the Minister of Environment would

be bringing forward that legislation.

Of course, we know that legislation isn't coming. The message

has essentially been delivered by the Minister of Ag and Lands that that

won't be coming, and you have to wonder why. I know that the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands, when talking about this…. We had the opportunity to

have some preliminary discussion around what this might look like, as it's a

significant interest for me that we see some species-at-risk legislation

that's habitat-based, and the opportunity to talk to the minister and some

of our discussions related to the caribou and in further discussions around

species.

[1040]

I believe the minister had significant interest in this. I

believe the interest is sincere. The questions then have to come as to why

we never saw anything in this session, why we didn't see anything in Bill 29

that would begin to take us down the road and why the legislation adopted in

2004 was never enacted.

I guess it has to come back to a discussion about what the

real balance is at the cabinet table. Clearly, these are decisions that get

made at the cabinet table. These are decisions that get talked out there,

and we have to assume that there are folks in the cabinet who are more

inclined towards a conservation strategy and those who are less so.

All we can assume here is that those folks who might be called

the more green members of the cabinet weren't very successful in being able

to advance their notion of how we deal with biodiversity and how we deal

with species.

What would be called the brown members of the cabinet, those

who want to protect the integrity of industrial and commercial operations as

the first priority, clearly had some success. Certainly, it appears that way

when you look at the decisions of the Minister of Ag and Lands to not bring

forward anything around species. You look at Bill 29, the piece of

legislation that we're talking about today. I know there was great hope that

it would in fact deal with these questions around species, and of course it

doesn't do that. That has been disappointing to many.

What should happen here? This is the question now. What should

we be looking to accomplish? What should be happening in relation to

species? I believe that we do need stand-alone species-at-risk legislation

that is habitat-based. I believe we need to develop legislation. We need to

put in place a law that makes the protection of our species and the

protection of their habitat a priority, that is flexible enough, obviously,

to recognize socioeconomic challenges that we have and that allows the

permitting of other uses that are required in order to allow other

activities to go on.

But when that permitting happens, when it's allowed to occur,

the minister needs to be able to explain in a very transparent and

accountable way how that's occurring, why it's occurring, what scientific

work and analysis has been done to show that this permitting can occur and

the damage that's done to species that are at risk because of these other

uses. If there's damage done, the minister needs to be prepared to put in

place a plan and put a plan on the table that says how that damage gets

mitigated over time and how we move past.

[ Page 12574 ]

What we don't need is…. We're not talking about a piece of

legislation that comes in and handcuffs the government from the myriad

interests that go on around our resources, whether it's forestry, mining,

hunting interests, recreational interests, development interests or other

interests. All of those are challenges and pressures that we are going to

continue to see and feel. What we do need is a piece of legislation that

clearly identifies the species that are at risk and that clearly identifies

how the habitat should get protected for those species.

[1045]

When we talk about that, one of the first things that we need

to do is have a science-based approach to identifying the state of species

in this province. We need to determine extinct species; we need to determine

extirpated species. This is important. We'll talk a little bit about the

issue of global significance in a minute. We need to identify endangered

species, threatened species and those of special concern. These are all

categories that to some degree, in a diminishing order of risk, we're

looking at.

We need recovery strategies for those species that are

extirpated and endangered — and threatened, for that matter. The government

should be putting those strategies in place. They should be identifying and

prioritizing those species and putting in place recovery plans for all

British Columbians to be able to look at and to understand and — in the case

of species of special concern or in some of the threatened species,

certainly — management plans that also explain how those species get managed

and how in fact we move forward in a way that ensures that those species do

survive and, hopefully, that they thrive.

We need to be able to do this in a fashion that is

science-based. It means that we need to apply the resources necessary, in

fact, to be able to put that science and those resources in place that will

support that. When we start talking about what that might look like, there's

a fair amount of advice around to help us with that. There's a fair amount

of advice around what effective endangered-species legislation might

include.

If you were to look at the best practices…. I would hope that

we always strive for the best practices. Sometimes it's a challenge;

sometimes you don't get there. We certainly have seen that demonstrated more

often than not by this government — not getting to the best practice.

If you want to get to the best practice, here are some of the

things that need to be included in such legislation. First of all, it needs

to enshrine the principle that healthy ecosystems are essential to healthy

human societies and economies. What we can't do…. It is disappointing that

we don't talk about this in Bill 29, what Bill 29 doesn't discuss. It does

nothing to make the connection between biodiversity — healthy ecosystems —

and what we do as humans and how we engage in society.

There are correlations. They are deep, and they are connected

in ways that cannot be torn apart. While we may certainly be the dominant

species, we are simply one more species on this planet in many ways. When we

look at what happens with other species farther down the food chain, there

need to be lessons learned by us in terms of our own survival.

We see this today with the discussion around bees. There's a

huge discussion going on globally around the future of bees. We know, of

course, that the role that bees play in pollination is fundamental and

critical to our future. Bees are only one of those species that we would

identify, but a very critical one, yet in Bill 29 there is no discussion

about what we do for bees.

In fact, in Bill 29 there's no discussion around that

correlation between us as human societies, our economies and biodiversity.

We need to recognize that biological diversity is essential to healthy

ecosystems.

The canary-in-the-coalmine discussion often goes on. We know

the discussion around the murrelet; we know the discussion around the

spotted owl. Those are two of the higher-profile species in this province.

We know that the ongoing discussion now is that there are greater pressures

being felt on salmon. We know the role that salmon plays in biodiversity and

in the health of our ecosystems as it moves upstream and upriver and becomes

food for bears and nutrients for our forests. It's a foundation of those

healthy ecosystems.

[1050]

But we don't talk about those issues in Bill 29. We don't

discuss them in any way, shape or form. It's as if they don't exist. It's as

if species-at-risk issues do not exist for this government at this time.

We need to identify, protect and recover at-risk biodiversity

across British Columbia, and this is key. It is time. The time is now for us

to make the commitment that we will protect species in this province and

that we will use science to determine what those species are that are at

risk, the degree of risk that they are at and to put in place plans that

will help us begin to address that and ensure the future of those species in

British Columbia. We need to talk about, protect and recover biodiversity by

protecting habitat.

We often talk about climate change and how it's hard to find a

credible scientist today who wouldn't say that climate change is real. You'd

be hard-pressed to find many credible biologists today who wouldn't say: "If

you want to protect species, you'd better figure out how to protect their

habitat or else you're not going to have much success in protecting those

species."

But we don't make that connection here in British Columbia —

with the noted exception, of course, of the mountain caribou recovery plan,

and we still are struggling with that, as this interim program review has

shown us. There is a great degree of struggle here and challenges around

whether that habitat will get protected and under what terms.

We need to identify, assess and develop recovery strategies

for at-risk biodiversity on the basis of sound science. This is where the

government needs to make the investments. We need to invest directly in the

biologists and the other scientists that we need to be able to do the

assessments of species. We need to draw on outside resources that are

available to us to deal with questions around species and put that in place

in order to ensure

[ Page 12575 ]

that we're beginning to develop the basis of a strategy for protecting

biodiversity and protecting species.

One of the other things…. We talk a lot on this side about the

precautionary principle. We believe the precautionary principle is

fundamental to good public policy. You need to pay attention to it.

Hon. Speaker, you'll know that when the Special Committee on

Sustainable Aquaculture…. When we did our work and made a series of

recommendations around the protection of wild salmon while allowing an

aquaculture industry to move forward in a way that ensured the protection of

wild salmon, one of the things we said in that report…. I'm hopeful that

some day the government will tell us what their intentions are around that

report. But what they didn't do….

What we said in that report is that there's no question that

the large body of science makes the correlation between aquaculture and

issues related to sea lice and impacts on young salmon. While there is some

debate, the precautionary principle makes sense, because it ensures that we

protect those things that could be lost forever — at least until we get that

science right and satisfy everybody that there is a consensus.

Well, when we talk about species…. If Bill 29 had said that

the precautionary principle will prevail when we deal with species in

British Columbia, it would have been a significant step forward. But it

doesn't say that. So we have not enshrined this principle. We have not dealt

with the question, either, of polluter-pays. We need to figure out that

those who choose to create the challenges and the problems need to be part

of investing in the solution.

One of the other issues…. This is an issue that we've talked

about a lot in this House over this session as it relates to a number of

pieces of legislation and work that the government's done, and it would

relate here as well. We've talked about challenges around the government's

secrecy in a whole lot of issues and about its unwillingness to engage

citizens in a whole lot of issues.

[1055]

We also know it's now increasingly the challenges around….

First nations increasingly feel frustrated that they're not engaged in

issues.

What we do know is that if Bill 29 was to deal with species at

risk in an effective way, what Bill 29 would do is require that citizens,

communities and first nations be able to participate in a meaningful and

substantive way. But Bill 29 doesn't do that. Of course, part of the reason

for that is that Bill 29 doesn't deal with this question in any substantive

way at all.

Then those things that should be inherent in any government

legislation, in government practice…. We talk about best practices — things

that should be part of that. Governments should have accountability and

transparency if they have best practices. They should have laws that they're

prepared to enforce and that they have the personnel and the resources to,

in fact, enforce, and they should be funded. If we're going to take on the

challenge of biodiversity, then we need to invest the dollars necessary to

be able to deal with biodiversity. That doesn't happen. Bill 29 deals,

essentially, with none of those things. It deals with none of those matters

at all.

At a time when we're saying that we do need that stand-alone

species-at-risk legislation, at a time when British Columbians are telling

us that they want to protect those species, we have a government that has a

bill in Bill 29 which, in its title, talks about species and public

protection yet is sorely lacking, in its silence on this question.

Instead of saying that we are going to put in protections for

extirpated, endangered or threatened species, it says very little or

nothing. Instead of saying that it will protect habitat for those species,

it says nothing. Instead of putting in place a framework that would ensure

that recovery strategies or management plans could be put in place for

species, Bill 29 says nothing.

When we have a need for an approach that's responsible in

terms of socioeconomic challenges, looking at the reality of economic

development and the need to ensure that our resource base is afforded the

opportunity to move forward and develop, when we should be putting in

stewardship plans and permitting strategies and parameters to be able to

allow that to happen, Bill 29 says nothing. So it is a problem.

One of the other problems that we see around this…. This is a

concern that I would flag when we deal with the whole question of species.

We've heard some rumblings of this from government as they talked about

species. The government is talking about something called global

significance. Global significance essentially says that, yes, a species may

be endangered in British Columbia, may be close to extirpated in British

Columbia, but if there are significant numbers of that species elsewhere in

the world, then it's not an issue for us.

That's not the way that we should conduct ourselves. We need

to say that the biodiversity, the more than 3,600 species that there are in

British Columbia…. We have a responsibility to protect those. Certainly, the

more than 1,300 that the conservation data centre has identified as being at

risk need to be protected, and we need to at least be thinking about how we

protect those species in the context of British Columbia law. But we haven't

got there. We haven't got there to achieve that.

The bill is disappointing in the sense that it deals with none

of those matters — matters that are of critical importance to many British

Columbians, matters that many British Columbians expected to be part of the

response to the Wildlife Act review — that many British Columbians, most

British Columbians, expected the government to take action on.

At a time when the government is talking green on a number of

things, to have made the connection and the correlation between biodiversity

and climate change…. There are connections. There are strong correlations.

Species will be impacted by climate change, but there's nothing here

anywhere in the adaptation discussion that says or even acknowledges that

that's a problem or a challenge that needs to be addressed and dealt with.

[1100]

So it is very disappointing that Bill 29 is so silent on the

single biggest issue that this piece of legislation

[ Page 12576 ]

should have paid attention to and should have dealt with. On the single

biggest important piece, the legislation is almost silent.

It does deal with a couple of other matters, and I'm going to

talk briefly to those. Then I'm sure there are others who want to join in

this discussion and this debate. It does deal with alien species. It deals

with alien species that could create risk to humans and that could certainly

be harmful to native wildlife. It makes sense to be able to manage those and

to prohibit ownership that isn't responsible ownership of those alien

species. That makes sense. It's a good thing that that has been addressed in

this bill, and it's something that we certainly would support.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

It has created additional penalties for poachers and

offenders. That makes sense. We want to limit illegal hunting absolutely,

and making it more costly — making the penalties more significant — is

certainly a way to do that in terms of trying to reduce the impact there.

It talks about giving park rangers, as I noted earlier, many

of the powers of conservation officers. What it doesn't do — and we'll talk

about this somewhat when we get to committee stage — is talk about what is

still the continuing lack of resources in this province around enforcement,

whether it's conservation officers or park rangers.

I understand that since we don't have sufficient conservation

officers in British Columbia to do the job they're required to do, part of

the strategy here is to get park rangers to be doing more double duty on

this.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we still need to have

some discussion about whether it in fact meets resource requirements. We'll

have the opportunity to have that discussion later in this bill, or maybe

we'll get a chance to have that discussion a little bit more when we get to

estimates for the minister sometime later this week or next week.

The other thing it does is provide some flexibility for

guide-outfitters and give them some more freedom and flexibility around what

they do. Again, I hope we have the ability to discuss in some more detail

about what the expectations are around that — the same as the legislation

reduces ages for hunting and provides some opportunities to increase the

base of resident hunters in British Columbia while at the same time, as I

pointed out, giving more flexibility to guide-outfitters to bring folks into

play.

Those issues seem to start to get at the government's

objective in the Wildlife Act review, when they did the review, to say they

wanted to add 20,000 hunters in British Columbia. That has a commercial and

economic side to it. I understand that, and I understand the government's

desire to increase the number of hunters.

My concern is where the balance is here. As I noted at some

length in my comments here, the other side of the balance of that is that

you have the hunting community, and you need to have protection for

biodiversity as a key piece of that and protection for species as a

counterbalance to that.

The bill moves forward to begin to create that latitude and

flexibility and moves the strategy forward to increase the number of

resident hunters on the ground or guide-outfitters and their clients. It

doesn't provide the other side of that mix to deal with protection of

biodiversity and protection of species generally.

[1105]

As I get close to closing up on my comments, I look forward to

having some significant discussion with the minister when we get to

committee stage of this bill about why the government has decided to go in

this direction with Bill 29 and to see if we can get the minister to talk to

us in some detail around that issue of species. The other issue that I am

going to look forward to having some discussion with the minister on when we

get to committee stage is around the Environmental Management Act.

This is a piece that seemed like a bit of an add-on to this,

which deals with issues around recyclable materials and waste management

generally and looks at regulatory powers around that and around regulation

in regard to codes of practice. From situations like what happened a few

years back on Industrial Avenue, I can certainly see why the minister wants

to put some kind of regulatory controls in place, because not much exists.

This bill, then, looks to do that and puts certain

requirements on owner-operators of facilities to ensure that they are

operated properly and that when they are closed down — if they're closed

down — it's done in a manner that ensures the protection of the public and

protection of the environment and requires these owner-operators to provide

certain securities to the minister to ensure that that can be done —

hopefully, not at public expense but at the cost of the potential polluter.

If in fact it's discovered that the facility hasn't been handled in an

appropriate fashion, it's not the public that is out of pocket.

As we know and I understand, in the case of the Industrial

Avenue project in Abbotsford, charges have been laid. We will have

litigation in a court case around that, but we also know that the government

paid a significant amount of money to clean up the mess.

Interestingly, the gentleman who was involved in that company,

I understand, continues to work and operate in that sector. I'm hopeful that

the minister's staff are keeping a close eye on those operations to make

sure that the gentleman in question has adopted better practices than the

ones that he seemed to engage in, in the past.

So that does raise significant questions. Those questions

around the Environmental Management Act and around what this means, around

what the codes of practice should be and how we deal with those matters, are

questions that I look forward to having a discussion on with the minister in

committee stage — hoping, of course, that we get to committee stage on this.

With those comments, I look forward to the rest of the debate

on this bill. I'm sure there are other members who are interested in

discussing the legislation. With that, I will take my place.

[ Page 12577 ]

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to be up speaking

today to Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008. My comments are going to be quite specific to portions

of the act. They'll be around sections 7, 10 and 11, the amendments dealing

with the Wildlife Act.

This House is aware that one of my constituents of Cariboo

South suffered unfortunate tragedy at the paws, if you like, of one of these

alien species. It is with that that I will be bringing together some

comments from the community as well as from the relatives of Tanya

Dumstrey-Soos.

[1110]

Before I actually go into that part, it would be appropriate,

I believe, to acknowledge the efforts of the minister here. I know that the

minister has been in touch with family members. For that, I am appreciative.

I'm appreciative of the sensitivity that the minister has shown around this

particular item, and for that, I extend our appreciation from my part of the

world.

That having been stated, there are some points that I would

like to put in front of this House for the minister's consideration. When we

look at this particular bill, the regulations for controlling alien species

is going to be passed off to the cabinet. As the regulations will be

developed away from the debate here within the House, it is that aspect that

requires me to stand up and make these comments so that they are on the

record.

Some of the concerns that have been raised are around the

retroactivity portions of the new regulations that will evolve particularly,

I believe, from sections 10 and 11. Will alien species that are already here

in British Columbia be exempt? Should that be the case, that again raises

the issue of whether the conditions that are developed — the regulations, if

you prefer — underneath these sections of the act will apply to those

animals if they retroactively are allowed to stay within the community

within British Columbia.

Now, in particular, one aspect here in the regulations that

people from the Cariboo would like drawn to the attention of the House is

that not only do the regulations provide for the safety of humans, they also

should provide for the well-being of the animals that are allowed to be here

within British Columbia. So contained within that aspect of it…. If the

regulations do not apply retroactively to animals that have already landed,

then that raises questions about the safety for individuals here in British

Columbia.

In fact, the tragic case that occurred up in the Cariboo area

has a certain amount of belief and credibility that if a different type of

caging had been provided for this type of animal, possibly this accident

would not have occurred. So that raises the questions in the regulations to

ensure that if there is no retroactivity covering the animals that are

already allowed in British Columbia, that are here, then at least the

regulations that require how they are kept need to be applied to them.

So that is one of the concerns that we would like to be noted

for consideration for the minister at a later date. On a number of occasions

I have raised the point about enabling legislation. Enabling legislation

removes what is actually going to happen away from the House here and the

debate and takes it away to where the cabinet does the business or a

minister, possibly unilaterally on their own, moves upon the items.

Therefore, the ability for the individual electorate, through their MLAs, to

make their points is somewhat bypassed.

Likewise, I do notice underneath

section 10 that dealing with

the alien species, the government ensures that any liability that applies to

the government for alien species that have been defined in the act…. The

government liability is removed.

However, that raises the issue for the past, present and

future about the liability of those individuals who do have alien species

here within British Columbia, and their responsibility for being in a

position to look after the financial well-being of individuals who may be

inadvertently affected by those animals being here.

[1115]

So Madam Speaker, again, when the minister is looking at these

regulations, people from Cariboo South believe that this issue around the

liability is another area that requires due diligence to be applied to it.

Finally, the more important part with any type of legislation,

whether it be at this moment or whether it be in the regulations, is that of

enforcement. To have regulations in place that do not apply for enforcement

raises the very distinctive possibility that all our intentions, as good as

they are here in this House, in achieving a particular goal are not

achievable because no enforcement does take place.

That raises the issue, then, around the aspects of penalties,

about the severity of the penalties. Even then, enforcement is more than

likely the more important part. We've had a situation here in British

Columbia where many, if not most, of the ministries here since 2002 to 2004

have suffered great staff reductions. Therefore, new regulations or new laws

can only be enforced if the means are put in place for the enforcement to

occur.

Now, I do not wish to suggest that the enforcement of

regulations of this nature would fall exclusively to government officials.

We have, in practice, the SPCA, which in the past has become the branch of

the government of British Columbia for the enforcement of the rules and

regulations in this area.

But that then raises another issue that people from the

Cariboo, people that have experienced firsthand the result of inadequate

legislation to look after alien species, have raised: the question about

adequate financial support being provided to the SPCA so that they then are

able, if that is the arm that the government wishes to use for enforcement,

to undertake adequate enforcement of those rules.

We do know that the SPCA receives a very limited sum of money

from the government for enforcement. We do know that that sum of money

hasn't changed substantially for quite a long period of time. Yet this issue

of adequate enforcement for the protection of species other than humans also

is important — that it be undertaken.

[ Page 12578 ]

It is indeed with somewhat of a mixed feeling that I am in

front of the House, feeling that it is important that I bring forward

regulations when in actual fact I would have felt better if I had been in a

position to bring forward discussions upon the actual bill itself. I am sure

that the minister will pay due attention to these points that have been

raised here in the House by myself on behalf of all the residents within the

Cariboo.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for providing me with the

opportunity, on behalf of the residents of Cariboo South, to bring forward

those points. With that, I take my place.

N. Macdonald: Bill 29, the Environmental (Species and

Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 is, of course, a mixed bag,

and my speech is going to jump from place to place to reflect the many

issues that are touched on here. There are amendments to the Wildlife Act,

and I know that it's important to update this act.

[1120]

I do want to start by saying that, coming from Columbia River–Revelstoke….

It is a part of the province, like many rural areas, where hunting and

fishing are tremendously important. Hunters and fishermen — outdoors people

— who are out on the land are really the eyes and ears for those public

lands. In most of our communities they work very closely with conservation

officers and environmental staff to provide information and make sure that

the stewardship that's needed in these areas is done properly.

I think another thing that needs to be mentioned is that

hunting and fishing are culturally very important to our part of British

Columbia and that hunting and fishing still provide an important food source

for many, many people in the area.

The commitment that you have from these groups towards habitat

and habitat retention…. In my area they've been very active on the east side

of Columbia Lake, with Jumbo Glacier — that area. They have been active on

the private power issue, with concerns about developments that aren't

consistent with good environmental practice.

So there have been individuals who looked at this legislation

and realized that there was still far more to do but who would commend the

fact that changes to the Wildlife Act are here in front of the House. The

area has very active rod and gun clubs, very strong and active in

Revelstoke, Golden, the Columbia Valley and Kimberley. Like I say, their

importance is tremendous.

In terms of this legislation, the feedback that has come to

our office includes feedback from the guide-outfitters, especially in the

southern part of the riding. I was contacted by Mr. Barsby, who is a

guide-outfitter, and he commented on the legislation. Basically, he is

supportive. He does say that it's not perfect but that it is a move in the

right direction.

That same sentiment came through from the Southern Guides and

Outfitters Association, through their president, David Beranek. That

organization reviewed the legislation. They've met with the minister's staff

in the Kootenays, and basically, they that feel it is going to help their

operation and provide them with some investment security.

They are not happy, just as we hear from the various rod and

gun clubs, about the level of habitat protection. They have many specific

issues that they would choose to raise with the government and with the

protection of the environment in general. There's a strong feeling that

there need to be more people on the ground and that we have to have a better

idea of what is actually going on. We have to have better and firmer numbers

on the number of animals, and so on.

I have also heard from the Resident Hunters Association, in

particular, about issues that the minister would be familiar with. There

were questions about limited-entry hunting. There are questions from

resident hunters about why they need to enter a lottery when foreign hunters

are allowed to come in without having to go through a similar process, with

a feeling that that's unfair.

Now, there are a tremendous number of very specific issues

that hunters and various groups that represent hunters would still like to

see brought forward and addressed. It is a complex issue and would best be

served by the continuous discussions that go on amongst groups. With that

idea…. I know the minister is in Cranbrook in June, and there are certainly

hunters from the East Kootenays that would hope to meet with the minister

and lay out some of their specific concerns in more detail.

There were also some concerns that came to my office about

animals designated as controlled animal species. Of course, this relates to

larger species such as tigers. The member that preceded me alluded to some

of the background for pieces of this legislation, a tragedy related to a

tiger.

The question that came to our office is from Mrs. Grenier, and

she worries that servals will be included. She has questions about the types

of animals that are going to be included. Again, she wondered whether

servals that are currently owned are going to be exempt, and she also very

specific questions about the savannah, which is a hybrid between servals and

domesticated cats, I understand.

[1125]

The final thing that I would put in front of the House is

something that is not part of the legislation but is of particular interest

near Golden: the Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre. The minister will

perhaps remember that when I met with the minister, one of the things that

we talked about were Karelian bear dogs. There were certainly a large number

of people who organized themselves and put in petitions around regulations

related to the Karelian bear dog.

It can be used by conservation officers to move bears away

from areas where they may be a problem. They're removed using these dogs.

The point that the Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre and those who have

worked with Karelian bear dogs are making is that this is an effective way

of limiting what can be harmful bear-human interactions and making sure that

[ Page 12579 ]

bears are moved away in a way that allows them to survive the experience

and, at the same time, makes sure that people are safe.

Those are the things that I just wanted to put on the public

record and that I would expect the minister would consider as he moves

forward with this legislation. With that, I turn it over to my colleague and

thank the House for the opportunity to speak.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the debate on Bill

29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act,

2008. There are some parts of the bill around endangered or dangerous

wildlife and so on, which I'm sure will be beneficial in dealing with those

kinds of situations. The member for Cariboo South spoke, to a degree, about

that. I wanted, however, to talk about some of the concerns I have about the

bill.

I was fortunate this past weekend to get a chance to go

camping in Skihist Provincial Park up near Lytton. It's another sad

situation with regard to the beetle kill, in that the beetle is spreading. I

don't know whether it's the same species or a different beetle, but it's now

moving into the ponderosa pine and killing quite a few of those. As a

result, the contractors are having to remove trees from the park, and it's a

sad thing to see.

It got me thinking a lot about species during the weekend and

just what effect that mammoth alteration of our ecosystems in British

Columbia as a result of the beetle kill is going to have. It will be

profound. I'm sure there must be learned papers out there about it by now. I

haven't had the chance — and I'm no longer in that field — to really look at

those. But there must be discussion out there by now about what the effect

is going to be on species.

Just noticing, around our campground, the red squirrels

scampering about…. I did have a slight debate or discourse with my natural

history friends on whether they were red squirrels or Douglas squirrels, but

I maintain they were red squirrels.

Hon. B. Penner: Which campground was it?

M. Sather: Skihist. Interior red squirrels — right?

Interjection.

M. Sather: Skihist, up by Lytton.

I just thought: Wow, what an effect the kill of those trees is

going to have on squirrels, because they depend on cones, of course, in

order to live. As the tree dies and those cones are no longer produced, it

will decimate their numbers throughout that range.

That's but one species that will be affected. The other

species that immediately came to mind for me was the pine marten, which

preys to a large extent on squirrels for its diet. I anticipate that they,

too, will be decimated by the pine beetle kill of those trees.

[1130]

The ecological effect of this phenomenon…. Of course, in areas

further north where the lodgepole pine is the predominant species, it has

already completely eradicated large areas. The effect on species is going to

be highly significant — mostly negative, I anticipate.

I heard from my colleague from Cariboo North a while ago. He

made a comment about there being a proliferation of woodpeckers in some of

these forests. I can see that. As those trees die, there will be more insect

infestation. Perhaps that's a group of species of birds that will benefit.

But by and large, there's going to be a loss of a lot of species.

We enjoyed looking at the various kinds of warblers there this

weekend. Wondering what effect and expecting the effect to be negative….

Certainly it's such a complex system, an ecosystem. The kinds of insects

that a given bird, for example, feeds on are different from species to

species. They're evolved to feed on insects from a live tree — to wit,

certain particular live trees. With the loss of those trees, they're

probably going to suffer immeasurably.

Not only do we have a fair number of endangered species now,

but my concern is that we're going to be seeing over the next few years a

whole lot more species that are endangered and at risk. So it's pretty

disappointing to me that the government hasn't come out with legislation

that would actually address species.

There was a much-anticipated review of the Wildlife Act.

Although it has some good things in it, it doesn't really do anything for

species at risk. Although the minister doesn't agree with me on that, I

think it's clear that it does minimal for species at risk. There's nothing

to protect their habitat, and of course, habitat protection is a huge issue.

Although we can't necessarily protect all of their habitat —

to wit, the pine beetle kill — we have to have a mechanism whereby we can

identify those species that are at risk and are becoming at risk as a result

not only of the beetle kill but of any other factors, either natural or

human factors, that will endanger some of these species and are endangering

some of them now.

I know that the member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned that a

number of environmental groups and biologists had expressed their concerns

that there would be some legislation — and this is the only one we have, I

think, that would propose to speak to the issue of dangerous species — to

take into account the need to have a mechanism to fully and meaningfully

address the increased risk to species that's happening in British Columbia.

There's nothing in this, as I say, that enhances species protection.

Of course, related to the beetle kill is the issue of climate

change. Climate change in itself through the mountain pine beetle but

through other effects — such as, quite possibly, increased drought — is also

going to have effects on species. I think now was the time for the

government to really step up to the plate and show that they understood the

risk that species are at, and that they were prepared to protect those

species and do whatever they could to do that.

[1135]

One of the things that have also been mentioned, which I would

like to make note of is: how will species be designated as imperilled?

That's a question that we would need to address. Are we going to follow the

[ Page 12580 ]

federal endangered species legislation or what? But it seems to me that

the government has left us a bit in a no person's land here with regard to

species. I look forward to the minister's comments, if he's going to provide

further comments. I'm sure he will during the committee stage debate of

this. So I would like to hear from the minister why the government hasn't

chosen to act on the recommendations that have been made by many interested

groups and many people who are learned in this area.

The mountain caribou is an issue of great concern — the

protection of the mountain caribou. We've gone from about 10,000 caribou

historically down to about 1,900. The mountain caribou is certainly one of

those species at risk, which I think not this minister but the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands raised quite a bit of hope for last fall with the

announcement of the preservation of habitat for the mountain caribou. I know

a lot of work went into that with some environmental groups to bring about

an agreement to address one of the high-profile species in the province

that's at risk.

However, we're now seeing concern from some of those same

environmental groups that were there at the announcement with the Minister

of Agriculture and Lands about what is actually in fact happening with the

mountain caribou. Of course, we have this overlap in responsibilities now

between the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Agriculture and

Lands when it comes to species at risk. This bill was brought in by the

Minister of Environment, which I historically sort of expected, but

nonetheless….

So we have these two ministries that are responsible. Yet

again, there is a concern out there that the government may not be following

through in the way that folks are hoping they will with regard to

conservation of mountain caribou. Some 95 percent of habitat in sensitive

areas was to be protected as a result of this agreement, but those groups

that were involved say that progress seems to be stalled with regard to

putting in place the measures that will be needed to protect the caribou.

The caveat in that agreement that not more than 1 percent of

the timber land base can be affected by the agreement has certainly had….

Well, I don't know if it's a chilling effect. But it's certainly made it

very difficult, my understanding is, for the scientists involved and

working, of course, with the forest companies — those that are still

remaining in British Columbia — to come to some kind of agreement around

that. There were other organizations that had been critical from the get-go

that affecting not more than 1 percent of the timber land base would be

incompatible with actually protecting the species.

One protected area that has been mentioned is now looking to

be 48 percent smaller than planned, and that has conservationists very much

concerned about how that will affect the caribou.

[1140]

The recreation management end of that agreement. There have

been no closures in places and no stewardship management agreements signed

with snowmobiling clubs, and that is anticipated as a requisite for

completing the plan successfully.

There have been budget shortfalls at the integrated land

management bureau that are creating staffing and resource uncertainty,

threatening to derail the viability of recovery efforts. I know the member

for Cariboo North has mentioned that same issue in forestry in the ILMB.

The government is still considering what's called the aspacial

approach to management of the central Selkirks. According to the

conservation groups concerned, the aspacial approach relies on timber

companies to protect caribou habitat. When I questioned the Minister of

Agriculture and Lands about whether that was the case, he said that is not

the case. It would be very good to have the comments from the Minister of

Environment on that issue.

Just a few more words. I wanted to talk a bit about an issue

that I had brought up with the Minister of Environment last summer, which is

of concern to me. That's the issue of the live capture of birds of prey,

particularly falcons.

In Maple Ridge last summer we experienced…. We were very

fortunate too. Right in the middle of town there's a small grove of conifers

in a housing development, and there was a pair of merlins — a small falcon —

that had nested there. Unfortunately for them, I believe, they happened to

produce a couple of young in an unusual colour phase. They were black, which

is somewhat unusual in that species. In my understanding — I called the

Ministry of Environment — with a permit in hand, people went up the tree and

removed the baby falcons from that nest.

I just think that in this day and age, with all the pressures

on wildlife, this is a practice that needs to be discontinued. There are a

lot of falcons in captivity now that are being bred. For the purpose of

falconry, I submit that those people can use those captive breeding programs

for the birds they need. I know it caused a great deal of concern in my

community, and I was concerned — still am — because this is still permitted.

There has been no change to the Wildlife Act to in any way

inhibit the removal of wild birds from their nests even though it's a

contravention of the act itself. It says that one may not disturb the nest

or egg of a bird. So I would have liked the government to address that

issue.

I know there's another member who would like to address this

bill, so having said that, I will take my place.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on second

reading of Bill 29, the Environmental Statutes Amendment Act with respect to

species and public protection. I've been listening carefully to the debate.

I know the Minister of Environment, when he closes debate here at second

reading and, of course, in more detail when we get to committee stage, will

help me better understand how we can have a species protection act that

doesn't address species at risk or habitat at risk.

I know the minister is very conversant on these issues. It's a

curiosity to me why we would be in this place in the last two weeks of the

session with a piece of legislation that doesn't address those issues, which

the minister and his government committed to back in

[ Page 12581 ]

2004 with the Wildlife Amendment Act. The accompanying regulations to

protect certain species were promised at that time. Here we are at 2008. We

have a piece of legislation before us, and we don't quite meet the mark.

If I've missed the point, I know the minister will correct me

when he gets the opportunity. I look forward to that, but at my cursory

glance and looking at the work that's been done and some of the comments

from stakeholders in the communities throughout British Columbia, there are

some concerns about an opportunity missed.

[1145]

I think it's fair to say…. I give the minister credit in this

case, inasmuch as there's always something that's left out. There's always

one more clause that could have been added to further advance the cause that

the bill is purported to address. I guess we've missed it on this chance,

and I'm sure the minister will explain to the House why leg. counsel didn't

go the whole distance, why we don't see regulations with respect to wildlife

and why, again, we have another framework bill.

It is an important piece of legislation for my community of

Malahat–Juan de Fuca, particularly the guide-outfitter requirements.

Certainly in Port Renfrew, in the furthest reaches of my constituency,

salmon, halibut and other fishing expeditions are very important. Some

kayaking and whitewater rafting, on some days on the San Juan River, provide

economic opportunities.

Where forestry used to be king in my constituency, now we're

looking to tourism — ecotourism. Guide-outfitting is certainly one of the

areas where local residents are trying to enhance their economic prospects

by staying in their community and using the advantages, the bounty that we

are blessed with in Malahat–Juan de Fuca to entice economic activity to come

to the region.

In order to do that, we have to have a coherent strategy. I

know the minister is striving for that with this legislation and in many of

his public utterances. When he does get the opportunity, I'm hopeful that

he'll ease my concerns that this opportunity would have better been spent

addressing the challenges and promises that were made in 2004 rather than

creating higher expectations in the community.

Of course, the Minister of Forests will be aware of this.

Within Malahat–Juan de Fuca, there are enormous tracts of forest land. Many

of those lands have now been removed from tree farm licences and are on the

real estate market, which could have a deleterious impact on wildlife,

breaking up historic corridors where wildlife — mostly deer and Roosevelt

elk, majestic elk that reside on Vancouver Island — come to the west coast

in my constituency for birthing.

To see those challenges in the community, when we have vast

tracts of resource lands or wilderness areas that have been historically

used for forestry and are now alienated from that and are going to be going

towards real estate…. That is going to have an impact on wildlife and

habitat. The government seems on one hand to say, "We're here to protect

certain species," and on the other hand they're saying: "We're here to

protect quarterly profits for Western Forest Products and TimberWest."

I don't know how you reconcile that. Certainly, people in my

community have trouble reconciling that. We speak whenever possible about

our desire to protect the bounty of Vancouver Island and all of British

Columbia, yet the actions of the government seem to give another message

certainly to those that are in the development industry in my constituency,

wanting to take the Songhees development and run it straight out to Port

Renfrew, every quarter inch of coastline to be occupied by homes or clusters

of homes.

That's counter to what would be a realistic and comprehensive

wildlife plan in what is a rural and wild part of the west coast. I know the

minister is aware that the Juan de Fuca Strait from Port Renfrew through

Jordan River and into Sooke is absolutely teeming with opportunity for

ecotourism, teeming with opportunities for those who fish and those who

hunt. I know that one of the objectives — the minister spoke of this — is to

increase the number of hunters in British Columbia. Certainly, that will

have an impact on Vancouver Island.

In order to have, again, a comprehensive view, it strikes me

that you need to have the inventories done. You need to have the regulations

in place so that those who are hunting, whether they be longtime hunters or

those who are just trying it for the first time, have a better understanding

of what they're getting into and what the impacts of their activities are

going to be on wildlife and on habitat.

[1150]

It's the lack of habitat protection that I think most people

see as an incongruity in what this government is up to, whether it be issues

around pipelines — as I see the Minister of Energy — or other issues where

they will have a negative impact on wildlife. That habitat being deleted

from the inventory where you can have wildlife corridors is not only a

challenge for those who hunt and fish but a challenge for those animals as

well.

I read just this morning that the caribou plan that the

Minister of Lands announced with considerable fanfare some months ago seems

to be on the rocks. It's surprising that, having just learned that one of

the flagship policies of the government with respect to lands and with

respect to habitat and wildlife is now dangerously close to collapse, we are

now here addressing a bill that only goes a quarter of the way to meeting

the challenges that were laid out by the government themselves in 2004.

The amendments to the alien species…. Obviously, that's

welcomed — certainly by this side of the House and I think all British

Columbians — although I have, and I know the minister will get more letters

than I do on this…. There are those who feel that alien species have a role

to play in communities, if not in the wilderness and in the wild. I don't

get that, but I know there are people in the community who do.

I'm happy to pass my correspondence pile on this to the

minister if he has credible answers that I can provide to my constituents

about why he brought this forward. I think it's fairly self-evident, though.

We've had incidences with animals that should not be here taking the lives

of humans. We can't tolerate that, and I

[ Page 12582 ]

know the minister had that in mind when he brought this legislation

forward.

But there are responsible owners of animals — exotics. I'm

interested to hear at committee stage how the minister proposes to deal with

those responsible individuals who believe that we're somehow violating their

rights by bringing forward this legislation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But it's the guide-outfitters that are of most importance to

me and to the economy in my community, and I know other members of this

place who depend on ecotourism and other outdoor adventure to bring dollars

to communities that used to be serviced by forestry — none more evident than

my constituency, particularly in the areas of Jordan River right out to Port

Renfrew where an absence of salmon can mean the difference between going

hungry over the winter….

I know that people talk of the halibut getting smaller and

smaller and smaller. As we get closer and closer and closer to lunch…. Hon.

Speaker, noting the time, I move that we keep on going. I'm getting mixed

messages here from….

Is he going to wrap it up? There's a long pause. With that,

I'll take my chair and see what the minister has to say.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of

Environment closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just going to take a few moments —

I see we have about six minutes — to quickly wrap up Bill 29, which I think

is an important piece of legislation. I want to set the record straight and

respond to some of the inaccurate comments made by members of the opposition

in response to this bill.

Bill 29 responds to the throne speech commitment, and just to

refresh members' memories, here's what the Speech from the Throne said — and

the Lieutenant-Governor when he delivered that speech a couple of months

ago: "Amendments to the Wildlife Act will build on the mountain caribou

recovery plan, the Vancouver Island marmot recovery project and the Kitasoo

spirit bear conservancy. Tough new penalties will prevent and punish

poaching and killing endangered species."

That's what the bill does, and it does a number of other

things as well. It responds to concerns that came to the forefront last year

when a young woman was tragically killed by a Siberian tiger, and we've

heard one member of the opposition refer to that already.

The BCSPCA put out a news release, I think a week ago, saying

they strongly support the legislation. I'll quote what Sarah Dubois, the

BCSPCA manager of wildlife services, had to say: "We applaud the Ministry of

Environment for introducing Bill 29 last month, and we hope both parties

will recognize the urgency of this issue for British Columbians and will

support the swift passage of the bill."

Patti

MacAhonic, who is executive director of the B.C. Wildlife

Federation, said: "We're pleased that the amendments to the Wildlife Act

include increased penalties for those who choose to flout the regulations.

Stiffening the fines and penalties will act as a deterrent by sending a

message to would-be offenders that there's a high price to pay for their

misdeeds."

[1155]

As I noted in first reading, these amendments will more than

double most of the penalties under the act for poaching, especially for

offences or infractions involving endangered species. The members opposite

have said this legislation does nothing to protect endangered species. In

fact, it more than doubles the penalties to up to $250,000 on first

conviction and up to two years in jail from one year in jail, as it was

under the former NDP.

So we are clearly taking actions to increase penalties for

things like killing an endangered species, trafficking in wildlife, damaging

wildlife habitat, hunting with poison, hunting with an aircraft, night

hunting, damaging a beaver dam, failing to supervise an underage hunter,

possessing wildlife without a permit, destroying a heron nest, shooting

across a highway, hunting on cultivated land without consent of an owner,

discharging a firearm in a no-shooting area and transporting wildlife

without a permit. Those are all things that we've increased penalties for.

In contrast, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read one brief letter

into the record. It's from a former Minister of Environment. I believe,

given your background, you'll be interested in what this former Environment

Minister had to say. This is from Moe Sihota when he was the NDP's

Environment Minister. He wrote to the head of IWA-Canada at the time, Gerry

Stoney.

Here's what he had to say: "I have indicated on several

occasions publicly that this province and this government do not intend to

introduce endangered species legislation." That was the NDP's position when

they were in office. "We will instead leave this matter up to the federal

government. One of the basic reasons as to why I've taken the view is

because I've recognized the points that you have made as a trade union."

Then he goes on, "Quite frankly, we have no intention of doing that" —

referring to introducing endangered species legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking steps to protect habitat. In fact,

the members' memories may be somewhat faulty because only a few weeks ago,

we were debating Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies

and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008.

When that bill passes, as I hope it does within the next two

weeks, our government will have established since 2001, 57 new parks, 135

conservancies, one ecological reserve and eight protected areas and will

have expanded approximately 50 parks and six ecological reserves, protecting

more than 1.8 million hectares of additional land. That is protecting

habitat. Only the opposition would say that an additional 1.8 million

hectares of protected land is somehow not protecting habitat. It is.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 12583 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection)

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30

this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $13,617,487,000.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I may, by way of introduction, on my

immediate left is Gord Macatee, who is Deputy Minister of Health.

Immediately behind Mr. Macatee is Michael MacDougall, chief operating

officer. To his right are Manjit Sidhu, assistant deputy minister for

financial and corporate, and Wendy Hill, assistant deputy minister, health

authorities division. On my immediate right is Rebecca Harvey, executive

director, health authorities division.

While it is something of a tradition to give long introductory

remarks here, I'm going to not avail myself of that, given the limited time

we have for these estimates.

A. Dix: Thank you to the minister, and welcome to his

staff.

Just to give people a sense of what the next few days are

going to be like, we are going to do mostly health authority questions

today. It will be principally myself between now and roughly four o'clock.

Then we're going to have a number of questions about the Vancouver Island

Health Authority from members from Vancouver Island, followed by questions

about the Interior Health Authority and the Fraser Health Authority today

from individual members.

[1010]

Just a heads-up. One set of questions we'll be doing is

similar to questions we asked in question period the other week around

septic issues. That might be a little off what you'd have people here for,

just in case…. I know the minister is always ready for anything.

Tomorrow we'll be doing Pharmacare, e-health and mental health

issues. My colleague from Vancouver-Kensington will be there tomorrow for

the

section on mental health issues. On Friday my colleague from Delta North

will be dealing with seniors' health issues, long-term care and so on. Then

next week we'll be dealing with public health, the Medical Services

Commission and other things. That's kind of the frame from which we'll be

doing the next few days of estimates here.

I wanted to ask the minister, first of all, whether the health

authority service plans — which last year were presented to him, I believe,

before the end of March — have been presented to the minister. Is he in a

position to table them? I presume he isn't, but where are we at in that

process now?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are in receipt of draft service

plans, but discussions with respect to those draft service plans continue,

and we are not in a position to table them at this point.

A. Dix: Last year, as the minister will recall, those

service plans were eventually released to the public on October 11, 2007.

Does the minister plan…? I think the minister said last year that it was the

first year of that particular change in model, and that was perhaps the

reason why they were tabled so late. Is it the intention of the government

to allow the public to see those plans earlier this year?

Hon. G. Abbott: Our aim is to release those completed

service plans in as timely a way as possible. What the precise date of that

would be remains to be seen. It will, of course, depend on how quickly we

can finalize them.

A. Dix: Last year the Fraser Health service plan was

approved by the Fraser Health board on March 9. The Vancouver Coastal health

plan was approved by their board on March 30, the Interior health plan was

approved by their board on March 21, and so on.

When the minister refers to draft plans, is he suggesting that

these are the documents that….? Presumably, the draft plans have been

approved by the board, of course, but is the minister saying that the

documents that would eventually be released would not be the documents that

have been submitted by the health authorities? Would they be changed

documents, or is it the same process as last year, basically?

Hon. G. Abbott: What the health authority boards would

be approving at that point in time are draft plans. Those become an object

of discussion between the health authorities and the ministry and, when they

are finalized, become the service plans for the authorities.

[ Page 12584 ]

A. Dix: So in terms of their budgets for this year….

Presumably, we're well into the fiscal year now, almost two months into the

fiscal year. The draft plans are more comprehensive. They include,

obviously, budget figures to the ministry. Last year, if I recall correctly,

the health authorities received their budget numbers in January. It was an

unusual circumstance. I think this year the minister released those numbers

to the authorities a few days after the budget — the week after the budget,

I think, at some point.

Those plans have come forward to the minister. Last year, as I

understood the process, there was a deadline of March 31. Were those draft

plans all submitted by March 31 this year, or was an extension granted this

year? Did those draft plans actually come in to the minister after the start

of the fiscal year?

[1015]

Hon. G. Abbott: All of the health authorities were

provided until April 15th to get their draft service plans in, and they all

brought them in within that time frame.

A. Dix: So in terms of that process, the minister will

recall that last year there was a significant difficulty that some health

authorities had and that the government, in fact, had with the budgets,

particularly the Fraser Health Authority and the Vancouver Coastal Health

Authority. If you recall, Mr. Purchase, when he left, talked about a totally

unacceptable budget process. "Our board feels it has been kept out of the

communications loop by government and, quite frankly, questions, at times,

why it exists. The very community leaders we enticed to provide good

governance and business acumen to the management of the health sector now

appear totally ignored."

Has the government made changes? I know that the process has

changed a little bit, in that the health authorities now bring their case

directly to Treasury Board, presumably along with the Ministry of Health.

Have changes in the process addressed some of the concerns that Mr. Purchase

had with that process? It seems to me that April 15 is actually later and

that a lot of people felt, rightly or wrongly, that the process was a mess

last year. Obviously, the chair of the board of Vancouver Coastal Health was

fired. The chair of the board of Fraser Health left. There was a lot of

consternation in January and so on about the budget process.

Yet in spite of all that, in terms of getting the plans in

place, they all seem to have been in place or at least have been brought

forward to the minister. By March this year they were given an extension. Is

it the case that there was greater difficulty this year in producing the

budget? What was the reason for the extension?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the member's question…. I

forgot to thank the member for articulating the flow of issues during

estimates. That is always much appreciated, particularly by staff. I thank

the member for being fulsome in the discussion of where they would be going

at which times. That's very useful, in our regard.

In terms of changes from last year, there are a few changes

that, I think, have been beneficial. One, as the member identified, was the

visit to Treasury Board by all of the health authorities, along with the

ministry, which was useful. In terms of the differences from the previous

year, the health authorities got their numbers in February of this year as

opposed to January of last year. That required a little bit more time for

them to get their draft service plans in. Again, it was not possible in the

current year, I think, particularly given some of financial uncertainty out

of the United States, to give early numbers to the health authorities.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask if the minister can tell us

this much. Are all of the budgets submitted by the health authorities? The

minister said very clearly in last year's estimates, and he's said it

elsewhere, that he would not…. Well, I'll just quote what he said: "We

expect every health authority to balance their budget, and we expect every

health authority to take appropriate and reasonable measures to balance

their budgets."

Are all of the preliminary budgets submitted by the health

authorities for the 2008-2009 year in balance?

[1020]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the issue of whether the

budgets are balanced, again, as we noted at the outset, what we have are

draft service plans. We are still working through those issues. So

obviously, we're working with the health authorities to try to deal with the

pressures that they may face in terms of their budgets. We'll continue to

work through those.

In terms of whether we expect health authorities to balance

their budgets, yes, the government policy is that budgets should be

balanced, and we expect health authorities to work through towards that

goal.

A. Dix: On that note, the minister knows…. We had this

discussion last year. Last year I asked him whether the Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority for the year ending 2007 had a balanced budget. He said

that they didn't have the accounts in at that point, so he couldn't answer,

although he fully expected that they would, in fact, have a deficit budget.

When Mr. Johnstone was fired in January 2007, he was fired —

in part, anyway — because the health authority was $40 million over budget,

or was expecting a $40 million deficit, and the government saw that as

unacceptable. There was a little debate. The minister was away for a week,

and another minister was in place. He said that they might be allowed to run

a deficit. The minister came back. He said that they were not allowed to run

a deficit. The changes were made with respect to Mr. Johnstone after that

point.

Am I correct to say that when the board chair was replaced and

measures were put in place and all steps were going to be taken to bring the

budget into balance, in fact, that $40 million deficit for the fiscal year

ending 2007 ended up being $44 million? Is that the correct figure for the

deficit of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority for 2006-2007?

[ Page 12585 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe that is close to correct.

A. Dix: I just want to understand what happens. Let me

ask about this past year, 2007-2008. It's our general understanding that,

notwithstanding the statement about the expectations about balanced budget,

the service plan that was eventually signed off — I don't know what the

exact process was; the minister signs off or somebody signs off on it —

included a deficit number for '07-08 and that in fact the Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority for the fiscal year 2007-2008 will also be running a

deficit.

I understand that the minister won't be able to tell me the

exact number; that will come out a little bit later. But is it his

understanding that for a second consecutive year the Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority is running a deficit in the neighbourhood of $40 million?

Hon. G. Abbott: Based on the information we have, we

expect a deficit but at a lower number than the member cited.

A. Dix: But is it like $35 million, or is it $20

million? Is it much lower, or is it in the range of $30 million to $40

million?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we are finalizing these things,

but the likelihood is that it would be in the $35 million range.

A. Dix: I just want to understand how it works on a

sort of cash flow basis. I presume what happens periodically is that the

health authority gets a pile of money. Right now, if you add those two

deficit numbers up…. The government has said that they're not going to make

them whole. So they're just accumulating these deficits.

[1025]

Just for the sake of argument, if we say it's $35 million this

year and it was $44 million last year, that's about $80 million of

accumulated deficit over two years. Can the minister explain what actually

happens? At some point, if they were to continue to accumulate deficits,

would the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have a cash flow problem? Would

they be out on international markets? What actually happens when a health

authority runs a deficit?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of whether deficits and,

particularly, accumulated deficits become potential cash flow issues, yes,

they do. The ministry monitors those situations very closely to try to

ensure that they don't become a cash flow issue.

A. Dix: Realistically, I guess, the Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority…. The minister and I debated about what the lift is, since

they're $35 million over budget, maybe, for the last year. If you were to

add that on top of last year's allocation from the ministry to the health

authority, that would mean their lift is in the 2 percent to 3 percent range

this year. The minister would say, and the budget document says, that it's a

lift of 4.3 percent over last year's allocation. I would argue that it's 2

to 3 percent over last year's actuals.

Is there actually a plan to address that deficit figure? Is it

just going to be left out there — that $80 million? Or is there a plan for

the health authority to, I don't know, cut $80 million in services? I doubt

that that would be the plan to address the accumulated deficit. Do they have

to present or are they presenting to the minister a plan in terms of how

they're going to deal with that deficit situation?

Doesn't the minister think…? I mean, I guess it's a broader

question than that. Mr. Johnstone was let go partly because of this issue of

overrun. He was cited, and the minister…. He was the chair of the board. So

in fairness, he wasn't singled out, but he was the only one who was fired.

They had a $40 million deficit. All of the efforts were put in place in

February and March. It was still a $44 million deficit. All the efforts were

put together in the next fiscal year, and there's another deficit.

In retrospect, I guess, is the decision to get rid of Mr.

Johnstone for his $40 million deficit fair, and is anyone taking

responsibility for this year's $35 million deficit? Or is it fair to say,

which is what I would say, that just maybe all these efforts — all the

efforts of Treasury Board intervening in the process, the Ministry of Health

intervening in the process, a new board chair in the process….? All these

new processes, and there's still a deficit. Doesn't that maybe indicate that

there is inadequate funding being voted for, for the Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority?

[1030]

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the member's question

around plans to deal with deficits…. The policy of broader government is

that deficits are not permitted, that every authority is expected to balance

its budgets. Obviously, yes, we do. We work through plans and discussions to

try to ensure that every health authority moves to balance budgets.

In terms of the decision with respect to Mr. Johnstone….

Again, I made a decision based on the situation that I saw at Vancouver

Coastal Health, and I believe it was the right decision. I'm certainly not

rethinking that decision. Whether others share that view or not is, I guess,

always an interesting debate. I believe it was the correct thing to do.

In terms of whether Vancouver Coastal Health has adequate

funding, we believe that yes, they do. We know, first of all, that in terms

of the three years moving forward, the Ministry of Health and the health

authorities will receive…. Some 68 percent of all the new and incremental

spending and revenue of government will be devoted to health. That is a

significant portion of the pie.

Obviously, for my 20 cabinet colleagues…. I'm sure that they

all have areas of public policy and services that they want to deliver, and

they are going to be delivering it within the 31 percent remaining that is

not going to health.

[ Page 12586 ]

The member may want to probe this some more as we move along

here, but there are pretty complex formulas that go into determining what

the distribution of dollars is among the health authorities. We're glad to

talk about that, but we have a population needs-based formula that I think

experts in this field endorse. It looks at a range of issues in determining

what the appropriate distribution of those funds among health authorities

will be.

Further, there is an allocation on top of the population

needs-based formula for things like new capital — for example, with Fraser

Health Authority seeing the new Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre coming

on line in August. There is an incremental lift in the Fraser budget to

reflect that. The same will be true for all health authorities with new

capital projects coming on line during that time.

There is also, on top of the PNBF funding, funding for

government priorities such as the 5,000 residential care and assisted-living

units that are incrementally being added to the stock of residential care

and assisted living across the province. There is a tremendous amount of

work that goes into developing the numbers that will come out of the formula

and the other works that are a part of that formula.

We believe, again, that it may not be any perfect model, but I

think this is a fair and appropriate model and one that we stand by.

A. Dix: Did the minister sign off on the deficit for

this year? Because, in a sense, when you sign off on a deficit for a health

authority in these circumstances, as minister you're saying pretty clearly

that you don't think the allocated funds are okay. If you did, you'd say:

"Oh no, health authority chair or CEO, I'm sending this back to you. Get rid

of the $35 million."

My understanding, if I recall the service plan correctly, is

that the service plan that was sent to the minister, that was released by

the minister or by the health authorities under the direction of the

minister, contained a deficit.

The minister was very emphatic in January of 2007 — no deficit

allowed. There were consequences, because the deficit came in Vancouver

Coastal Health. He was very emphatic last May that no deficits are allowed.

Then, after, in the period between last May and where we're sitting this

May, he signed off on the service plan that had the second consecutive

deficit for Vancouver Coastal Health embedded in it. It wasn't a surprise

this year. That's for sure.

[1035]

He signed off on the deficit, and presumably — I'm just

guessing — next year will be number three. Because I don't see, in the 4.3

percent change — which is 2.2 percent over last year's allocation plus the

extra money, the overrun — how Vancouver Coastal Health is going to get into

balance this year.

I guess what I'm saying is that the minister's policy,

effectively, in practice if not in principle, has changed — did it not? —

when he said: "It's okay to run a deficit in 2007-2008."

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't sign off on deficits. What we

do with the health authorities is…. Regardless of where they start out at

the start of the year, we work with them to try to find ways to improve

their situation over the course of the year, again, with the object of

fulfilling the government's expectation that entities should move as quickly

as they can to balance budgets.

In the case of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, they have a

$2.2 billion budget, approximately. A $30 million pressure represents,

perhaps, somewhere in the neighbourhood of less than 2 percent of their

overall budget, but again, to achieve that is not easy.

We work with the health authorities to try to manage, as well

as we can, all of those issues, but we do respect that it is not always

possible to turn around these things immediately. We work with them to do it

in a thoughtful and responsible way.

A. Dix: The minister will agree with me — I don't want

get too stuck on this — that the target of the Vancouver Health Coastal

Authority in its plan this past year wasn't a balanced budget. That plan was

presumably approved in some fashion by the minister. The plan was a deficit

in the neighbourhood of $37 million, I think. I know we were talking $35

million earlier, so they basically met the plan.

I would expect, I think, in fairness to the Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority, that they would have worked hard to reach that target, but

there are a lot of pressures in Vancouver Coastal Health. They get a lot of

pressures from around the province too. It wasn't just a matter of them

being sloppy. They thought that, with all the different cuts or changes they

would make, they could get to $37 million.

I guess if the minister doesn't sign off on it…. Is he

satisfied that having received a deficit budget, even if he didn't sign off

on it — I don't know what the process is — that that $37 million proposal

from Vancouver Coastal Health, which was agreed to in some fashion by the

government because they didn't say, "You have to balance…?"

We are now some 17 months after the January 2007 departure of

Mr. Johnstone. Is the minister saying he never approved that, he never

expected that and he never agreed to that, or is he saying in fact, in a

sense, that by coming in at $35 million or around that — he doesn't know the

final figure — Vancouver Coastal Health sort of met its contract with him

when they said they were going to have a $37 million deficit, I think, in

the plan?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're clear, we want all of the

health authorities to balance their budgets, and all of the health

authorities have with the exception of Vancouver Coastal. All of those

health authorities have pressures. I could talk for an hour about what those

pressures are.

[1040]

There are lots of pressures. Lots of them relate to the

demographics of our society, an aging society. The prevalence and incidence

of chronic disease in society

[ Page 12587 ]

is growing. The cost of medical technology and all the rest is all quite

breathtaking. All of that makes for challenges for all of the health

authorities.

Whether it's Vancouver Coastal or any other health authority,

we're going to work with those health authorities to assist them in every

way we can to try to, first of all, ensure that services are delivered in

the most cost-effective and efficacious manner and, further, to manage their

resources in a way that permits them to produce a balanced budget.

Again, if that is not on day 1, we'll work with them on days 2

to 365 to try to find ways to improve their financial situation.

A. Dix: I'll assure the minister that I'll get off this

point in a second, but in this case last year's allocation for Vancouver

Coastal Health was $1.931 billion. Presumably they needed — and it's the

board chair the minister put in place that did this — more than that,

because with all their efforts, they came in $35 million short. If you

compare that, what they needed, presumably, to balance…. If they'd received

$1.966 billion, they would have balanced based on last year.

The increase from $1.966 billion to $2.013 billion, which is

this year, is in the neighbourhood of 2.4 percent from last year's actuals.

After all those efforts, the board chair the minister put in to fix the

budget situation — because it had failed under the previous guy, in his

view…. That's kind of what he said in question period. It was really an

issue of accountability. I'm quoting him. "What we did was attempt to ensure

that we got the accountability around that ongoing $40 million overspending

issue."

So the ongoing $40 million issue has become a $35 million

issue. Doesn't the minister agree with me that maybe they just didn't quite

have enough money, that maybe, in fact, Vancouver Coastal Health didn't

quite have enough money in their budget?

Clearly, they must have made lots of effort. The minister

hasn't fired this board chair, so presumably he's satisfied with the effort.

He thinks they've made every effort to get there. Does he not agree that

maybe they're just a little short?

We have this debate about money. The minister always says that

I want to spend more money and everything else. But in this case, this is

his board. This is his allocation, and they're $35 million short. What they

get this year, on top of that…. If you take $1.931 billion plus the $35

million, you really see an effective 2.4 percent lift.

I think they've got contracts, as I understand it…. Probably

contract costs are considerably more than 2.4 percent. Is there any

expectation, when you give the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority a budget

like this, that they're going to balance this year, or are we in a situation

where it's kind of a phony debate, because they're being given permission to

run deficits and the government doesn’t want to admit or make changes that

will allow them to come in and balance?

Hon. G. Abbott: We have somewhere in excess of $13

billion for health care delivery in the province. With that something in

excess of $13 billion, we deliver many different parts of a very large and

complex health care delivery system.

There are issues. I suppose they'd range from Pharmacare

through home care, acute care, primary care. Some of the functions are

delivered by health authorities. Some of the functions are delivered by the

ministry. We have an ambulance service, etc.

It is a huge part of government. It is large and complex, and

there are no unimportant parts of the health care delivery system.

It seems to me that the member is arguing the thesis that

somehow the allocation that goes to Vancouver Coastal Health is unfair or

inappropriate in relation to all of the other things that we do in the world

of health care delivery. It seems to me, again, that his thesis is that if

we just add $10 million or add $35 million or add $100 million, then

everyone will be happy.

[1045]

That is, I suppose, an interesting and striking thesis in some

ways. But the fact of the matter is that government this year is devoting

about 45 percent of its provincial budget to health, and we are further

devoting 68 percent–plus of every single dollar that comes in over the next

three years to health.

So if the member is saying that there's not enough money

there, then fine. He should say that and make that a part of the thesis that

he is developing here. That would be interesting in itself because that, of

course, invites questions. Do we capture those other dollars from other

ministries, or do we get those dollars from increased taxation in some

areas? So that's all a very good question as well.

What we have to do as a ministry is to develop a formula that

sets out in the clearest terms how it is that the pie we are dividing among

the health authorities is a fair and appropriate one. Again, I'm very glad

to spend all the time possible today with the member, talking about the

population needs-based formula — all of the elements that are incorporated

in that, how the provision for new capital is set down, how funding for

government priorities is identified within the allocation to the health

authorities.

But if we take $35 million, and we say, "To make your job

easier, we're going to give you $35 million," we can do that, but it comes

from somewhere. So you know, the member can tell me where that $35 million

should come from. Should we just take a few million dollars away from each

of the other health authorities who, just like Vancouver Coastal Health,

have all those pressures as well? I don't think so.

We've tried to allocate fairly. Should we take it away from

Pharmacare or home care? There's nothing easy about this. We want to work

with the health authorities to deal with the many and difficult challenges

they have, but if the member is saying it's as simple as, "Well, just give

them more money," that's not the way it works. Every area of health care

always needs and wants more money.

A. Dix: In fairness to the Minister of Health, I didn't

say that they could run a deficit this year. He said it. I

[ Page 12588 ]

mean, the money is spent — right? The $44 million in 2006-07 was spent.

And unless I'm mistaken, I'm not the Minister of Health. The minister is the

Minister of Health.

The $35 million overrun this year has been spent. The fiscal

year is over. That money is spent. So when the minister says it's me, I'm

just saying that maybe you want your budget to be more realistic because the

minister is allowing Vancouver Coastal Health to spend it. That money was

spent. It wasn't cut. It wasn't re-allocated. It was just spent, and it's

now sitting there as a debt. It's $81 million that was spent.

I'm just saying that, in a sense, what Vancouver Coastal

Health is maybe saying to the minister…. Because it's their thesis; it's not

my thesis. They said: "This year, we can't do that last $35 million." They

said in 2006-2007: "We can't do that last $44 million." I don't know what

they're saying to the minister about this year, but I bet they're not saying

it's a balanced budget this year. I bet they're not saying it. That would be

my guess, but the minister may prove me wrong.

My point to the minister isn't that I'm saying it. I'm saying

that he's allowed it. That $81 million has been spent. So he can talk about

re-allocating from other places. The fact of the matter is that whatever he

did — nodded, winked, whatever it was — he said, "Run a deficit this year,"

and they ran a deficit this year. He didn't say that the previous year, and

the board chair got fired.

So you know, that's his thesis, I would argue to the minister.

But he wants to talk a little bit about the formula. So I'll just ask him

about the formula. Vancouver Coastal Health has real pressures, as do all

the health authorities. Believe me, we'll get to the other ones shortly.

We're just starting with Vancouver Coastal this year. But Vancouver Coastal

Health Authority, according to the government, is going to see in the next

three years the second-largest increase in population among the health

authorities: 2.2 percent, I believe. I think Fraser Health is the largest,

of course — almost double that, at 3.8 percent.

[1050]

So maybe the minister, because he has been aching to tell us

about the population-based formula, can tell us about how Vancouver Coastal

Health got the smallest allocation with the second-largest population

increase.

I think one of the things we're seeing…. Nurses were telling

me that at Lions Gate Hospital they're just seeing an explosion in that

hospital of the use of the emergency room and the number of admissions

through emergency. So my sense is that…. As the minister knows, those kinds

of admissions cost more, and certainly, that increase isn't reflected here

either.

I recognize that all health authorities face those issues. I

know the minister will say that. But maybe the minister can explain

specifically why Vancouver Coastal received the smallest lift, without

taking into consideration the fact that they were over budget the last two

years and the fact that their population increase is actually, I believe,

according to the Ministry of Health, the second-largest in the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member made reference to quite a

number of issues in his last question, and I'll try to address them all.

One of the things the member should note is that Fras