2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15)

Hon. S. Bond

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31)

Hon. J. Murray

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Vaisakhi Day

P. Sahota

K. Manhas

Collingwood Neighbourhood House

R. Nijjar

Oral Questions

Funding for lab tests

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Referendum on treaty negotiations

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell

B.C. credit rating

R. Sultan

Hon. G. Collins

Drug prescription levels and Medical Plan premiums

V. Anderson

Hon. C. Hansen

Disabled access to parks

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Murray

Second Reading of Bills

Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill

29)

Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Murray

Royal Assent to Bills

Taxation Statutes Amendment

Act, 2002

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2002

Gaming Control Act

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

Registry Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002

Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

[ Page 2775 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hawkins: In the gallery today is a very hard-working constituent of mine.

He's here with the B.C. Real Estate Board meeting with MLAs: Mr. Steve Nicoll.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: We have the great pleasure of having 25 grade 5 students from

Irwin Elementary School in West Vancouver. They're accompanied by Ms. Kathy

Canfield and Mrs. Sarah Forward. I would like to ask the House to make them

really welcome.

Hawes: In the gallery today we have Mr. David Soberpena, who is here to meet

with several ministries regarding the possibility of promoting some trade with

the Philippines. With him is a longtime supporter and longtime friend of mine,

Dan Haughian from Mission. Could the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

Sultan: We have a Royal Banker in the gallery today, checking on our

condition: Ab Hallowell, his spouse Shirley and their daughter. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Hawes: The second half. Also in the gallery today are Mr. Burt Epstein, the

CEO of E.G. Communications, and Larry Scheurer from Euro Developments. They're

here to hold meetings with the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and

Home Care.

I first met

Mr. Epstein several years ago in my riding. He wanted to make a substantial

investment in this province at that time but did not like the investment climate

here. With the change to this government, he is back and wanting to make an

investment here. Would the House make him welcome.

Chong: In the gallery today is a class from the distance education program

in the school of social work at the University of Victoria. The distance

education program has been established for over 20 years and continues to grow

in terms of course offerings and enrolments. It's a flexible, part-time or

full-time course of study offered across Canada and leading to a bachelor of

social work degree.

We have 19

students in the gallery with their instructor, Rena Miller. The 19 students are

Sherry Anderson, Ruth Bikowski, Sandi Cardinal, Maria Clark, Dan Cowan, Robin

Croteau, Linda Czechowski, Lorraine Gassner, Susan Gencarelli, Brenda Gladue,

Donna Hartford, Scott Haryett, Fiona McColl, Lynne McLain, Della McLeod, Kathryn

Sandberg, Christine Southall, Panayota Stamatakis and Jody Studney. Will the

House please join me in making them very welcome indeed.

Krueger: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms asked for an update on the

health of your deputy, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. We really

appreciate the interest that the staff in the buildings and everyone here takes,

including the opposition, in matters such as that. The member for Kelowna–Lake

Country appreciates it very much too.

We have

good news. He told me this morning that he'll be reporting back to work on

Monday. He's going to try and get back in the saddle. He's really grateful for

the prayers and expressions of support he's received from members and everyone

in this place, and he's looking forward to getting back to us. He said that the

cabinet ministers and their staff have been incredibly helpful to his staff

while he's been away from work. Let's bid him a warm welcome back.

Mayencourt: I have a visitor in the gallery this afternoon. She is my very

wonderful sister, Bernice Willoughby. In addition to working on my campaign,

she's been a source of great strength and compassion and just a joy to have as a

sister. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

DEGREE AUTHORIZATION ACT

Hon. S.

Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Degree Authorization Act.

Hon. S.

Bond: I move that Bill 15, intituled Degree Authorization Act, be read a

first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Bond: This bill is a progressive step forward for post-secondary education

in British Columbia. It will lead to expanded learner choice and opportunity and

will enhance the capacity of British Columbia's post-secondary education system.

It will promote quality post-secondary education, and it will protect our

students.

[1410]

The bill

will establish a clear and transparent process for private institutions and

public institutions from other jurisdictions to obtain authority to offer degree

programs and grant degrees in British Columbia. The bill will also expand the

authority of public colleges, institutes and university colleges by allowing

them to offer applied degrees.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2776 ]

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. J.

Murray presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. J.

Murray: I move that Bill 31, intituled Environment Management Amendment Act,

2002, be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today, one that promotes more

efficient delivery of environmental enforcement services offered by this

government. The amendments contained in this bill will accomplish three

objectives.

First, they

will streamline administrative procedures within the conservation officer

service by creating a more efficient process for appointing conservation

officers. Second, this bill consolidates and harmonizes conservation officer

empowerment, enforcement powers and immunities. Third, it will enable more

effective partnerships with environmental protection agencies in other

jurisdictions and at other levels of government.

While these

changes are administrative in nature, they are important for the effective and

efficient operation of British Columbia's conservation officer service.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) VAISAKHI DAY

Sahota: Growing up as a child in India, I had the good fortune of

celebrating the many festivals and religious holidays that marked the Indian

calendar. It felt like there was a festival every day of the year in some part

of the country. This coming Saturday, April 13, is a special day for the Sikh

community. It is a celebration of Vaisakhi.

On this day

in 1699 the tenth Guru Gobind Singh founded the Khalsa Panth. It is about

celebrating universal justice and tolerance, about sharing. It is also about

prosperity. It is also a celebration of the new year, as the farmers in northern

India celebrate the harvesting of the winter crop.

In the

state of Punjab, where I grew up, I still recall Vaisakhi being celebrated with

music and folk dance. Most of my colleagues know that British Columbians also

celebrate Vaisakhi with great fanfare. Both Vancouver and Surrey will be holding

parades. Thousands of Sikhs from across North America will gather in the lower

mainland to be part of the celebration. The Premier, along with a number of my

colleagues, will be part of the occasion.

As we

gather, let us also reflect on the contribution that the Sikh community has made

to British Columbia. People from the Indian subcontinent have been in Canada for

over a hundred years. They have made great contributions to the economic and

social fabric of this province. As I look around this chamber, there are seven

members from the Sikh community, a first in Canadian history.

The level

of success the Sikh community has reached in Canada is significant. Sikhs are

participating in every aspect and facet of Canadian life. This not only speaks

to the hard work and dedication of the Sikh community but is also a commentary

about the country we all call our home and our nation. The greatness of Canada

is that not only do we as Canadians accept all cultures, but we celebrate them

with enthusiasm. We live and cohabit peaceably with one another. We as Canadians

participate in a truly global culture, and we are a nation that is second to

none.

Today I ask

my colleagues to join with me to say congratulations to the Sikh community. In

the words of the great guru, " Wahe Guru ji ka Khalsa, Wahe Guru ji ki

Fateh. Lakh lakh Vadhai ," to the entire Sikh community.

[1415]

Manhas: I too, along with my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, rise

to speak about Vaisakhi, a seasonal and traditional holiday of the Sikh

religion. Vaisakhi embodies the Sikh ideals and values of truthful living, hard

work, the equality of all humankind and compassionate service as integral life

experiences and principles to maintain perpetual union with God while creating a

just social order in this world.

The first

Sikhs came to British Columbia in the late 1800s as part of their tour of duty

as soldiers in the British Indian Army. Many of them were so impressed with this

beautiful land that when they went home, they told their families about the

wonder of British Columbia and made arrangements to move here.

grandfather was one of those people. He came to B.C. as a teenager in the 1920s

and settled in Paldi, a small town in the Cowichan Valley which his fellow

travellers named after their own native village in India. Throughout his life he

sought to live by the ideals which Vaisakhi stands for. From the early days Sikh

pioneers have persevered through hard work and industry and persisted through

some very difficult times.

As British

Columbia's Sikh community prepares to celebrate Vaisakhi this year, it is

important to remember the many important contributions the Sikh community has

made to the life and history of British Columbia. The community has worked hard

and employed many people and contributed in every facet of British Columbia

society. Today there are two government ministers, several members of our

Legislature in British Columbia and many members of our caucus and ministry

staff of Sikh heritage.

[ Page 2777 ]

Vaisakhi

will be celebrated this coming Saturday. The Premier has participated for many

years, and I know he, along with many of my colleagues, will be looking forward

to taking

part in Vaisakhi parades in the lower mainland and all over British

Columbia. I encourage everyone to join in the festivities as the Sikh community

celebrates the 303rd anniversary of the Khalsa brotherhood with celebrations

this Saturday.

COLLINGWOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

Nijjar: We realize the most reasonable direction for our government to take

regarding capital construction is the development of public-private

partnerships, P3s. At the same time, our government is encouraging communities

and families to take responsibility for and ownership of local issues.

I believe

there is an excellent example in my riding, the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, of

residents taking ownership of an issue and of how well partnerships between

business and three levels of government and community can work. Collingwood

Neighbourhood House is an excellent example of what I believe is the future of

development of community centres and schools in British Columbia. The house was

born when residents came together and decided to do something about the

neighbourhood at Kingsway and Joyce, which is known as Renfrew-Collingwood.

Collingwood

Neighbourhood House was developed successfully with a partnership with the

developers at Concert Properties, formerly known as Greystone Properties; the

city of Vancouver, which worked aggressively with the developer to ensure

community needs were met in exchange for the opportunity to develop; the

Vancouver school board, which assists with space for child care and programs; a

variety of community organizations; the provincial government and the federal

government. It was through the initiative and involvement of residents that the

city was able to work with the developer to ensure full neighbourhood amenities

in conjunction with the house.

Because it

was born out of ingenuity, Collingwood Neighbourhood House had the makeup to

adjust and grow through the years. The construction of CNH included future plans

to build the school on the property so resources could be shared between the two

facilities. Now we have been able to celebrate the opening of Graham Bruce

Elementary annex.

I encourage

government to take a close look at Collingwood Neighbourhood House and see how

partnerships can work in the development of joint community centres and schools.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR LAB TESTS

MacPhail: Yesterday we saw that thousands of British Columbians are going

without their prescriptions because of cuts to health care. Today I would like

to ask the Minister of Health Services about a matter involving a British

Columbian living with HIV and hepatitis C. After having to endure two cancelled

appointments for a liver biopsy, Bart Wittke was told that he had advanced liver

disease that requires immediate treatment. A blood sample was taken and sent to

St. Paul's Hospital for a genotype test, but the lab at St. Paul's won't do the

test because the government won't fund it. Without the test, Mr. Wittke can't

get the drugs he needs to save his life.

Will the

Minister of Health Services step in and fund genotype tests at St. Paul's so

that Mr. Wittke's life-saving drugs can now be prescribed?

[1420]

Hon. C.

Hansen: In British Columbia we have one of the best cancer agencies anywhere

in North America. In fact, our outcomes are the best in North America when it

comes to survival rates and treatment. I certainly do not know the details, the

specifics, of the individual the member is referring to, but if she will provide

me with details, I'll make sure it is followed up on.

MacPhail: Mr. Wittke needs the attention now. He has written to this

government. He wrote to his MLA, the member for Saanich North and the Islands,

informing him of his worsening condition. I'll quote from that letter:

"During the 1990s I never encountered any obstructions or barriers to the

delivery of my health care. It has only been during the past year that things

have become unravelled."

Mr.

Wittke's blood sample is sitting at St. Paul's waiting for the minister to take

action. If the test is not done very soon, he will die. It's that simple.

Again, to

the minister: can he not commit today to fund the lab at St. Paul's Hospital so

that Mr. Wittke and others like him don't die waiting for treatment?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'd be very pleased to follow up on this. If the member could

provide me with the details immediately after question period, I will ensure

that it is followed up on.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: To just urge the minister…. I take the minister at his word. My

question is this: will you please do this as soon as possible, so that Mr.

Wittke and others can live a good life?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I undertook to review the material as soon as she can get it to me.

I will ensure that it is followed up on in a forthright manner.

REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

J. Kwan:

Yesterday in this House the Premier said that aboriginal self-government

should be modelled on a municipal style of government. The Attorney General

[ Page 2778 ]

has stated that turnout does not matter. He said that a no vote is not

binding on the government.

To the

Premier: since the government has already determined the position it is taking

to negotiate issues around self-governance for aboriginal people and that a no

vote will not move the government from its position, just what is the point of

asking the referendum questions if the answer does not matter?

Hon. G.

Campbell: One of the things we have tried to do with the referendum is

include British Columbians in allowing us to move forward with treaty

negotiations. I am very pleased to say that as of today, over a quarter of a

million British Columbians have been involved in resolving treaties for the long

term for the benefit of every single British Columbian. That was what we

committed to do, and that's what we're going to do.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

The Premier claims that this referendum is an exercise in democracy, but it is

clear that the fix is in. No, the no vote doesn't count. Turnout doesn't matter.

Faith groups, environmental groups, human rights groups and, most important of

all, the first nations community are all saying that the referendum is wrong.

The Premier

is saying: "Vote, but don't expect us to listen."

To the

Premier: just what version of democracy is this Premier defending when the only

votes that count are the ones that he agrees with?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There was a vote, actually, that took place in the province. It

was last May 16.

This

government said to the people of this province that we would have a legislative

committee that would tour the province and develop questions that were

potentially going to be put on a ballot for a referendum. This government

undertook to the people of British Columbia that we would put a referendum to

them that would help us establish the principles that we would take to the table

to negotiate with the federal government and first nations.

This

government has said to aboriginal people that we are committed to protecting

aboriginal rights and living according to the constitution. This government has

said that it is critical for all British Columbians to be included in this.

[1425]

Unlike

previous governments, which have excluded the people of this province, this

government said that we were going to bring the people into the process of

resolving treaties. That is exactly what we've done. We encourage people to

vote. I'm encouraged by the discussion that's taking place, even if some of it

is misinformed. At least we are having people talking about one of the most

critical issues we face in the province: the resolution of aboriginal treaties.

B.C. CREDIT RATING

Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Finance.

A number of

bond-rating agencies are currently releasing their annual reports on the state

of British Columbia's finances. The bond ratings contained in these reports give

a good indication of how the province's economy is performing and where we seem

to be heading. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how these bond-rating

agencies are reacting to the government's fiscal plan?

Hon. G.

Collins: I thank the member for his question. I'm very pleased to say today

that yesterday afternoon Moody's credit rating confirmed its credit rating for

the province, as well as confirming British Columbia's stable outlook. I just

want to read….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: I have to divert from what I thought I might answer, given the

comments from the member opposite. She says: "You're as good as the

NDP."

Well,

actually, we're somewhat better, because in April of '99 DBRS downgraded British

Columbia. In April of '99 S&P downgraded British Columbia. In April of '99

CBRS downgraded British Columbia. In January of '99 S&P revised from

negative to a stable. In April 1998 CBRS downgraded British Columbia. In May

1997 S&P downgraded British Columbia, and in May '97 Moody's downgraded

British Columbia.

The

difference is: we give them the truth, and they leave us there. We've got a lot

of work to do — a lot of work — but we're well underway.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano has a supplementary

question.

Sultan: These bond ratings dropping off are the most important indicator of

whether people from all over the world decide to invest in B.C.

Can the

Minister of Finance tell us how our bond ratings compare with the other

provinces in Canada?

Hon. G.

Collins: The reality is: British Columbia used to be first. It used to have

the best credit rating of any province in the country, and over the last decade

British Columbia did slip. It slipped. Moody's ranks us second; Standard and

Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating rank us third in the country.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: I hate to disappoint the members opposite with good news, but I'll

do it. This morning

[ Page 2779 ]

Standard and Poor's also confirmed British Columbia's credit rating.

They also

issued a bit of a warning. I want to quote it for members, because it shows that

we have much work yet to do as a province. They state: "The government has

demonstrated strong resolve in undertaking some unpopular measures during its

short tenure in office. However, any slippage from the province's targets that

would slow the pace of deficit reduction and boost the province's debt burden to

higher than anticipated levels would potentially result in a revision to the

outlook for the rating."

What that

says is that we have to stay the course, follow through on the plan, and our

credit rating will be going up, not down.

DRUG PRESCRIPTION LEVELS

AND MEDICAL PLAN PREMIUMS

Anderson: There are reports today that the prescriptions bought by seniors

across the province have gone down 38 percent in the last three months of this

year. Some have suggested that this drop is due to the fact that government

changes have come to the Pharmacare program. Would the Minister of Health

Services respond to this concern?

[1430]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The information contained in some of the media reports is not

accurate. If you look not at the claims submitted to the Pharmacare program but

rather at the number of prescriptions issued in the province, as reflected in

the PharmaNet data, it actually shows that for the first quarter of last year to

the first quarter of this year, there was a change in the magnitude of 0.07

percent. There are as many prescriptions being filled the first quarter of this

year as there were last year.

What we did

see was a significant increase in the number of prescriptions that were filled

in December, which usually happens when there's a change in Pharmacare policy

because of stockpiling that takes place. The articles today are really quite

misleading in that there has been no decrease in the number of prescriptions

filled in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara with a supplementary question.

Anderson: There are many constituents who are concerned about what effect

the changes to the Pharmacare program will have upon premium assistance

recipients. Can the minister explain to us how these changes will affect the

ability of low-income British Columbians to reserve and receive their

prescriptions?

Hon. C.

Hansen: When we made the changes that were announced in December, we were

very careful to protect low-income seniors, the 50 percent of seniors who

qualify for premium assistance. The change in the deductible that was incurred

by those seniors has not changed from what it was a year ago. In fact, because

of the changes that were announced by the Minister of Finance with regard to the

MSP premiums, the threshold for qualifying for premium assistance increases for

230,000 individual British Columbians. As of May 1 we will see an additional

230,000 low-income British Columbians qualify for premium assistance and the

other benefits that come along with that.

DISABLED ACCESS TO PARKS

MacPhail: British Columbians with disabilities are receiving letters from

this government taking away their provincial park passes. Some are describing

this as incredibly mean-spirited and showing just how low this government is

prepared to sink to pay for its reckless tax giveaways to big corporations and

the wealthy. Some people are saying that, but apparently some Liberal

backbenchers agree with that.

Cathy

Woods, a disabled British Columbian, has written to every Liberal MLA asking

them to reconsider that decision. The member for Cariboo South wrote back saying

that he, too, is very upset.

To the

minister for parks: will she stand up in the House, apologize to disabled

British Columbians, agree with the member for Cariboo South and immediately give

back their park passes?

Hon. J.

Murray: Despite the fiscal challenges that we're facing in British Columbia,

we have chosen to maintain the subsidy to seniors for their camping, and we are

maintaining free camping for the disabled of low-income. We actually have the

most generous disabled-camping subsidy in Canada, and we're the only province in

western Canada that provides free camping to low-income disabled people.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: What we did change is that we no longer are providing free camping

to every disabled person regardless of income, so taxpayers will no longer be

paying for a person with adequate income to pay for their own camping. We will

be focusing our resources on low-income disabled.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. J.

Murray: We're very pleased to be able to say that disabled children and

their family members will be able to camp for free as well.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 29.

[ Page 2780 ]

[1435]

Second Reading of Bills

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that Bill 29 now be read a second time.

The

Securities Amendment Act, 2002, proposes amendments to the Securities Act that

will help economic growth in British Columbia. The bill provides a foundation

for attracting capital to our province by complementing rules that liberalize

the environment for raising capital and that anticipate the entrance of

non-traditional trading systems into our market.

The bill

contains four groups of amendments to the Securities Act. It introduces

additional investor protection measures to complement the easier access to

capital and investment opportunities made available under the new

capital-raising exemption rule, which the Securities Commission adopted in early

April.

It provides

a framework for recognizing competing security trading systems to complement a

market operation's rule that the securities regulators across Canada adopted

last December. It increases the maximum administrative penalties that the

commission can impose and increases fines that can be imposed on persons

convicted of security fraud. It makes some housekeeping amendments.

Under the

new exemption rule, companies can seek capital privately from a broader range of

investors than is now possible. Artificial restrictions on the amount raised

have been removed. The rule was developed because existing securities

legislation has not prevented investors from making unsuitable investments even

though issuers faced onerous and time-consuming conditions in raising capital.

The

amendment in this bill would balance the liberalized exemption by giving the

following additional protections to investors. Investors who purchase private

placement under the new offering memorandum exemption would have two days to

change their minds. If an offering memorandum describing an investment contains

misrepresentations, investors would have the statutory right to sue the

directors and officers who signed the memorandum as well as the issuer.

The act

would prohibit anyone selling or promoting a security from engaging in unfair

practices. These include high-pressure selling, taking advantage of an

investor's inability or incapacity to protect his or her own interest, or

imposing inequitable terms or conditions.

The

commission developed the capital-raising exemption rule and these proposed

amendments jointly with Alberta. The rule and related proposed statutory

amendments are largely uniform in the two provinces.

The bill

also provides a framework for recognizing and regulating innovative trading

systems on the same basis as traditional exchanges. With the dynamic changes now

occurring in security markets, we need to give the commission more flexibility

to deal with different types of trading markets with specifically tailored

requirements.

The

commission has worked with its counterparts throughout Canada to develop a new

framework for regulating in the marketplaces. The market operations rule came

into force in December 2001 and will permit the competitive operation of

traditional markets and innovative trading systems while ensuring that trading

is fair and transparent, and eliminating the duplication in the oversight

process.

The

increased competitive environment will increase investor choice, stimulate

innovation and encourage marketplaces to offer better services at lower costs.

The bill complements the rule by updating the legislation and harmonizing it

with the legislation in Alberta and Ontario.

[1440]

The

amendments would more clearly authorize the commission to share information with

other regulators and law enforcement agencies. This is necessary in view of the

increasing globalization of investment trends and the swiftness with which

market misconducts can be repeated.

The

amendments will also establish the foundation for the commission to work with

other regulators on a proposed national registration database. The objective of

the database is to provide significant benefits to registrants and regulators by

eliminating duplication in the application process and significantly reducing

the volume of correspondence between them. The database is proposed by all

Canadian security regulators with the exception of Quebec.

The

amendment would create more meaningful enforcement provisions by increasing the

maximum penalties the commission can impose for market misconduct. The maximum

administrative penalty of $100,000 was set in 1989. This bill would increase the

maximum to $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a company.

This bill

supports the government's objective of a more efficient and effective regulation

that will contribute to the economic competitiveness and the economic growth of

the province. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading.

Mr.

Speaker: Further debate at second reading? The minister closes debate.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after….

Mr.

Speaker: One second. Let us call the question on second reading. The

question is second reading of Bill 29.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your guidance.

[ Page 2781 ]

I move the

bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29,

Securities Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. S.

Bond: I call Committee of Supply.

[1445]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; G. Trumper in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:46 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION

(continued)

On vote 45:

ministry operations, $131,149,000 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

While canvassing the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management about

initiatives that he had for protecting the environment, he brought up

sustainability principles that are being developed by the ministry. As the

ministry ultimately responsible for environmental protection, what role has this

minister or her staff had in the development of those principles?

Hon. J.

Murray: Ministry people at all levels have been involved in the development

of these principles. Staff have been involved. Deputy ministers and the cabinet

subcommittee of ministers of environment and economy have had a chance to review

the principles. So, yes, I have been involved.

J. Kwan:

Are the principles largely economic or environmental in focus?

Hon. J.

Murray: The principles don't fall into categories like that. The principles

are more about what kind of things one needs to pay attention to, to ensure that

a balanced decision is made that incorporates the environment as well as the

economy and social issues.

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management said that the principles would

guide other agencies in making decisions, as those decisions would have to be in

accordance with sustainability principles. How will WLAP be held accountable to

these principles, and what is the accountability structure?

[1450]

Hon. J.

Murray: The sustainability principles are in the process of being developed

at this point. They haven't been reviewed by cabinet and haven't been completed.

Specific questions about the principles are appropriately answered when they are

available for public comment and through the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management.

J. Kwan:

As the ministry responsible for the protection of the environment, could the

minister please elaborate on what she would like to see as an example of a

sustainability principle with a focus on the environment and ecosystem health?

Hon. J.

Murray: Sustainability involves making decisions that take into account

environmental objectives as well as social and economic objectives. One of the

things I believe is that the time is over of seeing the economy and the

environment at two opposite ends of the pole, that we can either suppress the

economy to protect the environment or we can damage the environment in order to

have an economy. I believe that a thriving economy, a healthy environment and a

healthy social situation are synergistic and work together.

One of the

aims of my ministry is to find ways to get away from that linear formula that so

many people seem to follow and that was the basic premise around environmental

protection in past decades. Current environmental policy and thinking actually

debunk the linear formula that says one unit of economic activity equals one

unit of damage to the environment and that therefore the only way to protect the

environment is to suppress the economy.

I think we

have to get away from that way of seeing things. As our population increases and

as people naturally aspire to prosperity here in Canada and other parts of the

world, if we agree that that linear equation is our only option, then over time

we will have a degraded environment. None of us is willing for that outcome.

We actually

need to look at a different way of thinking about the environment in which that

linear equation is not our only option. We need to find ways that we can have

greater efficiency in terms of our use of resources. We need to find ways that

we can bring innovation and technology forward that allow us to have the

economic activity and prosperity and to continuously reduce the impact on the

environment.

I believe

that's the kind of shift we need to make in order to protect and improve the

environment over time. That's the kind of direction my ministry is working on:

sustainability principles that enable us to shift people's thinking and arrive

at the formula that says we can find new ways of doing the business of living in

our communities so that we reduce the impact on the environment while having

economic prosperity. That's an important direction.

J. Kwan:

The reason I ask this minister's take on environmental sustainability is because

in the estimates debate so far, the government has shown how much focus it has

on the economic side of sustainability

[ Page 2782 ]

rather than the environmental side. We in the opposition fear that this

government and this minister's voice is not going to be heard. Members of the

opposition have even gone so far as to canvass about the definition of

sustainability being used. All the answers come back lacking reference to

sustainability of environmental integrity.

The

traditional definition the opposition has been working with is that of the

Brundtland report and the notion that sustainability involves efforts to reduce

consumption of energy and resources to be more efficient with what we take so we

can meet our present needs and preserve the ability of future generations to

achieve theirs.

What is the

definition of sustainability that this ministry uses? Is it the one the

Brundtland report uses?

[1455]

Hon. J.

Murray: The definition of sustainability this government will be using is

part of the project of developing sustainability principles. As we discussed,

that process is underway. I appreciate the member's commitment to the

environmental integrity aspect of sustainability. It is a very important

component, and certainly in my role and my ministry's role we are advocates for

environmental integrity.

J. Kwan:

I didn't hear whether or not the minister utilizes the Brundtland report's

definition of sustainability. Is that the definition the ministry is using?

Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry is involved in the project with the Minister of

Sustainable Resource Management in developing a definition of sustainability

that government will be using. The key concepts around the balance of the

environmental, economic and social objectives, and the key ideas around

maintaining the option of the assets and benefits for future generations will

naturally be included in the wording in some way.

J. Kwan:

I'm still not clear in terms of the utilization of sustainability that this

ministry uses. The traditional one, as I mentioned, is the Brundtland report's

definition, and the minister has not answered whether or not that is the

definition the ministry is using. Could she just advise? If it is, say yes. If

it isn't, say no.

Hon. J.

Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is working with

Sustainable Resource Management to develop government's definition of

sustainability. That work is not complete, but it should be complete soon.

J. Kwan:

That's disappointing, because I would have thought that the minister, who is

the champion for the environment and the protection of environmental integrity

for British Columbians, would actually bring forward a clear definition of what

sustainability means and then move into the discussion with other ministries and

then ultimately form a government position. But this minister is not doing that.

She's actually going to go into the room and say: "Okay, everybody. Let's

just develop one. I don't actually have a perspective which I'll bring to the

table." That's very disappointing for British Columbians.

I'd like to

ask the minister some questions around water quality. Water quality, as we are

all aware following the tragic events in Walkerton, is a major concern for all

Canadians. However, there is a concern that B.C. is moving in directions similar

to that of Ontario, with deregulation and guidelines replacing legally binding

standards. As this ministry is responsible for quality, could the minister

provide the province with assurance that there will be no deregulation of any

standards around drinking water?

Hon. J.

Murray: This Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection identified clean and

safe and high-quality water as one of its top priorities, so the ministry has

added funds to its budget for drinking water quality monitoring. Earlier today I

listed the areas around water management roles and responsibilities that are

this ministry's, because the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and

Land and Water British Columbia share responsibilities around water management.

When it comes to drinking water quality, the Ministry of Health Services has an

important role to play in that that's the ministry responsible for the safety of

drinking water at the tap.

[1500]

My ministry

is responsible for groundwater protection. The ministry is committed to using

the best available science and to setting standards. The drinking water panel

was one of the first projects the ministry undertook after the election because

the issue of clean and safe drinking water is a high priority for this

government and is a concern to everybody in British Columbia. That panel had an

in-depth look at issues around drinking water quality. The recommendations are

under review at this point, and my ministry is involved in that review.

J. Kwan:

Will there be any deregulation of standards around drinking water? Could the

minister just answer that — yes or no?

Hon. J.

Murray: The intent of bringing a drinking water panel into the role of

advising government on drinking water quality issues is to strengthen the

protection of drinking water quality. The ministries may be looking at changes

to legislation or regulation as part of the implementation of the drinking water

panel recommendations, but that's not my definition of deregulation. The

high-level intent is to strengthen the protection of drinking water quality in

British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister support deregulation of water standards?

Hon. J.

Murray: I support having high standards for protection of drinking water

quality. That's what

[ Page 2783 ]

I've been working towards on this issue since eight months ago. The ministry

will have a role in developing the process by which drinking water protection

will be carried out. We'll have a role in regulation and legislation

development. Certain aspects of the standard-setting will be the role of this

ministry.

One of the

things we are doing in this government is having a clear cooperation between

ministries, where we identify what exactly the responsibility is of a particular

individual in a particular ministry so that we reduce the number of gaps and

overlaps in responsibility that we've seen in the past. I think some of those

gaps and overlaps lead to problems. One of the ways we'll be improving our

process is by having very clear accountability for the different parts of that

very complex issue, which is improving the protection of drinking water so we

have safe and clean drinking water.

J. Kwan:

What British Columbians would like to know from this minister is where she

stands on these issues. Is she going to be an advocate around the cabinet table,

or is she just going to be pushed over by other cabinet members who want to

deregulate within government? We've seen deregulation coming from all sides in

all areas of government.

The

question that is critical to the health and safety of British Columbians centres

around our drinking water. This is a simple question. Does the minister support

the deregulation of drinking water standards — yes or no? I've not been able

to get an answer. Maybe the minister doesn't know. It's a simple question. Does

she support it — yes or no?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm very clear that I am an advocate for clean and safe drinking

water and the processes and standards that are required to ensure that in

British Columbia.

[1505]

J. Kwan:

The minister refuses to answer the question on deregulation. She says that she

supports high drinking water standards, yes, but does she support the approach

of deregulating drinking water standards? Does she think that deregulating

drinking water standards would actually achieve a high standard for drinking

water quality in British Columbia?

Hon. J.

Murray: The word "deregulation" probably has as many meanings as

there are people using that word. What I'm clearly an advocate for is safe and

clean drinking water and putting the processes in place that can assure British

Columbians that we're improving how we manage drinking water so that their

health and well-being is protected.

In the

process of reviewing the drinking water panel report, my ministry and the other

ministries are also reviewing the provincial health officer's report on safe

drinking water and the auditor general's report on safe drinking water and are,

of course, watching very closely the information and reports that are coming out

of the other provinces around the issue of drinking water. We're committed to

improving the processes that will protect drinking water in British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

What is the ministry doing to protect regulations around drinking water while

others are wanting to off-load this responsibility?

Hon. J.

Murray: Could the member please repeat the question?

J. Kwan:

What is the minister doing to protect the regulations around drinking water

while others want to off-load this responsibility?

Hon. J.

Murray: No one is talking about deregulating drinking water except, perhaps,

the member opposite. The other ministers and I and all the members of this

government are clear that we need appropriate and effective standards and

regulations to protect drinking water.

J. Kwan:

My question to the minister, for the third time — and I'll say it slowly for

her — is: what is the ministry doing to protect the regulations surrounding

drinking water while the others are wanting to off-load that responsibility?

What is this minister doing?

Hon. J.

Murray: This ministry and this minister are part of a process of reviewing

reports from a drinking water panel, from the provincial health officer, from

the auditor general and from other provinces. We are in the process of looking

at our current legislation and regulations for the protection of drinking water

as well as at our internal processes — the government and our

accountabilities. We are working on improvements. In British Columbia we will be

improving the protection of drinking water.

J. Kwan:

There's nothing in the minister's answer that indicates to me that she's doing

work around the protection of the quality of drinking water. The minister said

earlier that nobody's talking about deregulating. Well, I have news for her. In

the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's January 2002 mini–service

plan released by the ministry on Black Thursday, it was stated under the heading

of "Sustainable Land and Water Management" that the ministry would

"minimize the provincial role in water utility regulation by transferring

appropriate regulatory authority to regional or local government." There's

a lot of confusion here.

[1510]

Since the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is responsible for licensing, they

seem to be moving toward decentralizing and deregulating. I asked the minister

if she supports deregulation. She had no answer for that. I asked the minister

what she was doing to protect water quality, and she hasn't given me any

specifics around that. She talks broadly in flowery language about how there's

going to be a higher standard, but there are no specific plans.

[ Page 2784 ]

Hon. J.

Murray: I'd just like to clarify for the member opposite that utilities deal

with volume of water and tenure, and those are the issues that are in the

responsibility of Sustainable Resource Management. Water quality is a

responsibility of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. We are working

with other ministries in a process to make sure that the regulations and

standards are appropriate and are improved in order to improve the quality and

the safety of our drinking water.

J. Kwan:

The minister can outline again and again, if she wants, about who has what

responsibility. The responsibility of this minister is to be a strong advocate

for the environment on behalf of British Columbians. On the question around

drinking water safety and quality, she has the responsibility to let British

Columbians know where she stands and whether or not she supports the

regulations.

How is she

going to hold the government accountable in making sure the drinking water of

British Columbia is that of the highest standard? What method is she going to

use, and specifically how is she going to get there? So far I have not heard one

answer from the minister that responds to these issues, and I suspect that if I

keep going on all day, I'm not going to get any answer from this minister. That

seems to be the theme so far in these estimates.

Now I want

to turn to another area. Could the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

advise the House on some of the cases where she has stood in defence of the

integrity of the environment against those other ministries that have attempted

to minimize environmental standards for British Columbians?

Hon. J.

Murray: First, I'd like to put out the proposition that in this government,

ministries work together with a common objective of ensuring environmental

protection. Environmental sustainability is a mandate from the Premier to the

ministers and the ministries that Water, Land and Air Protection works with.

For

example, in considering the kinds of environmental safeguards that are needed to

expand the aquaculture industry in a sustainable way, the Water, Land and Air

Protection ministry staff and deputy and minister have worked very closely with

the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries staff and deputy and minister to ensure that

conditions are in place for the outcome we have as a common objective: to

increase the economic opportunities and increase employment in small first

nations coastal communities with a sustainable environmental protection regime.

The

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has some very specific areas of focus

around protecting the environment with respect to this issue, and members of

this ministry have been working in a very focused way to ensure that those

protections are in place and that we have a sound environmental management

regime.

J. Kwan:

So there has been no instance where this minister felt she has had to stand up

and push back against other ministers who have come forward with competing

demands or competing pressures that would potentially put at risk the

environmental integrity in British Columbia. There has been no instance where

those competing demands and pressures have arisen for this minister, so she has

not had to stand up and push forward with her mandate of providing for the

environment first.

[1515]

Hon. J.

Murray: I have a common objective with the other ministers, which is that as

we move forward, we have clear and strong standards for protecting the

environment. In the delivery of that objective, of course, as the member

opposite knows, there are often issues of making decisions and needing to factor

in environmental issues and also pressures to take into account economic issues.

I am a

tireless advocate for the environment. That's my job. I bring that forward in

the discussions with other ministers, and we work to solve problems and come

forward with new mechanisms to improve our approach. We do that in a

collaborative and cooperative way. Our staffs and deputies are also working

together in a cooperative and positive way.

J. Kwan:

In what decisions that the government has made to date did the minister have to

stand up to defend the integrity of the environment against other ministries?

Hon. J.

Murray: Discussions that I have with other ministers at the cabinet table

are not for public disclosure. I will give an example, though, of the kind of

cooperation and results at a staff level.

For

example, tenure reviews incorporate information from the Ministry of Water, Land

and Air Protection staff on environmental protection issues. Over 40 percent of

applications for tenure requests have been refused. That is because part of that

will tie into environmental concerns that are brought forward by my ministry

staff, and decisions incorporate that information.

J. Kwan:

When there's a conflict between ministries, which one overrides? Is it this

ministry or other ministries?

Hon. J.

Murray: I've answered this question in a previous session.

J. Kwan:

With all due respect to the minister, no, she hasn't. I'm asking the minister

the question because I've asked this question in other ministries as well. Other

ministers have advised that on the questions particularly around environmental

protection, we should canvass it here with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection.

So I'd like

to ask the minister: what happens in the case when the information from, let's

say, WLAP scientists conflicts with the goals of the Ministry of Forests?

[ Page 2785 ]

What happens in that situation? Who ultimately has the authority to make the

decision? Is it the Ministry of Forests, or is it the Ministry of Water, Land

and Air Protection?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm happy to answer this question a second time, then.

When there

are conflicts at the staff level, the staff work together to resolve the

conflict. If they're not able to, then the issue comes to the deputy ministers,

and the deputy ministers council discusses the issue, looks at the objectives,

looks at the views at all sides and solves it. If it's not solvable at that

level, it will come to the ministers. The process is: if it's not solvable at

the ministers' level, there is a cabinet subcommittee that can address the

issue, and if need be, the issue can go to cabinet for a resolution.

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

J. Kwan:

So this minister does not have the authority to override contradicting science,

even, that's been brought forward with competing ministries with different

interests? If she is truly the minister of environment with a true mandate to

protect British Columbians on environmental integrity, then she ought to be able

to say: "The science that's provided from this ministry ought to override

that of others, and that would be the science that would be utilized."

That's not the case. The case is that it would go through a variety of

difference places. Ultimately, I guess, it would land at the Premier's office,

and it would be the Premier who'd get to make the decision. That's what we have

seen so far.

[1520]

I want to

now turn the minister to calls that have been coming into our office. Our office

is getting calls on the cancellation of the B.C. parks access passes for British

Columbians with disabilities. As an example, a call just this morning from a

gentleman on level 2 disability in Port Alberni. In addition to finding that his

pass had been cancelled, when he tried to get information from this government,

he was given a complete runaround. He first phoned Human Resources, who told him

to phone Children and Family Development, who then told him to phone the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — this minister's own office.

Apparently, the Premier's office also told him to phone this minister's office.

If this man

is on what is to be called level 2 disability, according to the minister's

statement in the House earlier today in question period, he should still be

eligible for his pass. I would like the minister, first, to confirm if this is

true or not.

Hon. J.

Murray: As the member mentioned, I had an opportunity to say in the House

this afternoon that this government is proud to be the only western province

with a subsidy for low-income disabled that enables them to camp for free. Also,

this ministry has maintained a seniors subsidy for camping.

What we

have done is change the disability eligibility for free camping to include the

low-income component. Before, we were providing free camping to anyone with a

disability, whether there was any financial need or not. We don't believe that

it's in the best public interest to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize campers

that may have a physical disability but have ample means to afford camping.

Also, in

order to not run a completely separate process for qualifying people for camping

under the disability subsidy, we are using the Human Resources definition of

subsidy. People that qualify for benefits under Human Resources as disabled will

be able to camp for free by showing a letter from the Ministry of Human

Resources. The reason Children and Family Development was involved is that

disabled children who are registered with the At Home program under the Ministry

of Children and Family Development are also eligible to camp for free along with

their caregivers.

J. Kwan:

The minister mentioned that there would be a low-income threshold. The threshold

which the minister uses as a definition for qualification is the one that the

Ministry of Human Resources provides for individuals who qualify for disability.

For individuals who are on CPP, which actually pays less than disability 2, and

other disabled citizens, many of whom are not well off: will they be qualified

if they don't fall into the category of disability 2 within Human Resources but

still fall within the realm of low income? Would they qualify?

[1525]

Hon. J.

Murray: The maximum rate for the federal Canada Pension Plan disability is

approximately $240 more than the payment under the disability benefits that are

provincial. We have had a discussion with the federal government to find out how

we can use the federal government's CPP disability designation to also create an

eligibility. The federal government is not willing that there be a disclosure of

information that relates to income qualification. We are still in discussion

with the federal government, because our goal is that people who are disabled

and can't afford to camp should be able to camp for free. We're still talking

with the federal government about how people on their program who are in

financial need can be eligible to camp for free without violating the

information and privacy concerns that the federal government has.

J. Kwan:

The minister has said the maximum CPP is above the rate of those on disability

2. What about the minimum?

Hon. J.

Murray: We're in discussion with the federal government to find out how

people who qualify and are on the CPP disability program can also participate in

the free camping program.

J. Kwan:

For the time being, then, who should they contact specifically? Who should those

British Colum-

[ Page 2786 ]

bians affected be contacting to get information and to voice their concerns

over this government's petty cancellation of the B.C. Parks access program? Is

it this minister?

Is there a

phone number that the minister can share so that people can phone that number

directly? Quite frankly, when they phone the government, they get the runaround.

They are told to be phoning every other ministry, every other office, going

through a lot of red tape. This government purports to want to cut red tape. Who

should these people be contacting?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm very pleased that we're able to offer to disabled people in

financial need the benefit of free camping, which is not something provided in

any other western province. On our website the information as to what is needed

to qualify for that free camping has been posted. I encourage anyone who

believes they might be eligible for free camping to look at the instructions on

the website.

J. Kwan:

This is an actual caller's experience. A caller had phoned the Ministry of

Water, Land and Air Protection — the minister's office. The minister's office

had no information to offer this individual other than to say that the decision

has been made and that there has been a huge outcry at the shortsightedness and

mean-spiritedness of this decision.

Again, I

would ask the minister: who should these people phone? They're on CPP, their

income is lower than the threshold of disability 2, and right now they do not

get access to a pass. Who should they phone? Is there anybody that person could

phone and get a straight answer from the ministry?

I suspect

that these individuals would not be able to get the pass right now from this

government. I would urge this government to have a sober second look at this

decision. Do the right thing and reinstate this small amount — these small

pleasures, if you will — for individuals with disabilities so that they can

have access to our parks and campgrounds at no cost.

Hon. J.

Murray: I just would like to clarify something on this topic for the member

opposite. If a person qualifies for CPP disability payments that are less than

the payments allowed through the provincial government program, they would then

be eligible for a top-up from the provincial program. In that case, they would

be registered with the provincial program and, on request, would get a letter of

eligibility from Human Resources, which they can take to the park and receive

free camping privileges.

J. Kwan:

I may stand corrected on this. I wish it were true. The fact of the matter is,

as I understand it, that if you're on disability, CPP or otherwise, and if your

income is lower than what income assistance provides, you do not get a top-up. I

believe the minister is in error on this piece of information. If I'm in error,

I stand corrected, but I don't believe that's the case.

Again, I

would urge the government to have a second look at this. It is a small amount of

money. It ought to be provided to individuals so that they can seek some

pleasure through low-cost means, to assist them and make sure the parks are not

inaccessible to them by way of financial barriers. I would urge the government

and the minister to have a sober second look at this issue.

[1530]

I'd like

now to turn to another area of discussion, which is concerns regarding the civil

servants for the environment. Is the minister aware of a group called the Public

Service Employees for Environmental Ethics? It was formed last month and

consists of about a dozen civil servants representing the Ministries of Forests,

Sustainable Resource Management and Water, Land and Air Protection.

This

group's main mandate is to ensure that there's an opportunity for civil servants

to raise their concerns with regard to government action that would have a

profoundly detrimental effect on the environment and the public good, so that

they can bring the matter to the public's attention without consequence. Is the

minister aware of this group, and does the minister support the efforts of this

group?

Hon. J.

Murray: I am aware of the group the member is referring to. I have a great

deal of confidence in staff and in the decisions that staff are making, which

are grounded in science. I recognize the importance of ministry credibility and

making sure that there's high-quality information used to support policy. I

encourage the publication of information in professional peer-reviewed journals.

In the new

organizational structure of the ministry, we are providing clear lines of

accountability and opportunities for discussion of science-based proposals from

within the ministry. People within the ministry will have a clear protocol for

who to discuss their concerns with within the ministry, and I am confident that

the accountability channels of communication are clear in this ministry and that

that will satisfy the need to provide information on scientific issues.

J. Kwan:

I'm sure there is a protocol in place, which is basically: "Don't let the

public know about it." The issue here is this. Does this group of concerned

civil servants have the worst to fear? Is their concern about environmental

integrity and its protection in the work the ministry is undertaking now…? If

they do go forward publicly with this information, will they be reprimanded?

Would they be dismissed? What consequences would they face?

Hon. J.

Murray: My responsibility as the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

is to make sure that there are clear protocols for people in the ministry to

express concerns, that it's clear who they express their concerns to and that,

if appropriate, those concerns are acted on. My objective is to make sure the

ministry structure and function ensure that those kinds of concerns

[ Page 2787 ]

that may be raised by people within the ministry are addressed in a way that

is appropriate and acceptable.

[1535]

J. Kwan:

What I heard from the minister is that if they did come forward, there would be

no protection, and they may well be reprimanded if they breach the protocol that

the minister talks about.

In a March

article in the Vancouver Sun , the group actually said they are

concerned enough about the dangers of the government legislation, of relaxing

environmental protection, that they're willing to take the chances of coming

forward. Can the minister guarantee that environmental protection will not be

relaxed?

Hon. J.

Murray: Environmental protection is the basic mandate of this ministry. The

staff and managers' executive and myself have been dedicated, over the past

months, to finding ways to restructure the ministry and update our policies and

approaches to ensure that environmental protection is something we successfully

undertake as a government — through this ministry's focus on standards and

enforcement, through cooperation with other ministries, through clarifying the

roles and responsibilities and creating service agreements between ministries

that make it very clear whose job is what. There are many ways in which the

ministry and myself personally, as the minister, have been working to make sure

that we do as good a job and in fact a better job of protecting the environment

as we move forward. I am very confident we will be able to do that.

J. Kwan:

I'll take that as a guarantee from the minister that environmental protection

will not be relaxed. If I'm wrong, I ask the minister to please rise up and

correct me.

Have there

been any risk management studies into the deregulation process for environmental

protection?

Hon. J.

Murray: Risk management is a concept that weaves its way throughout the

various activities and operations of this ministry, because what it means is to

focus on the issues that constitute the highest risk to the environment. One of

the ways we've included that in our priority setting is by identifying the

industrial facilities that have the greatest impact on the environment and by

focusing ministry attention on the 8 percent that represents 90 percent of the

impact on the environment, rather than spreading ministry resources and focus

across the entire spectrum of activities.

Risk

management is something that ministry staff work with as a concept in creating

their plans, developing their priorities and making operational decisions as to

where to focus. The ministry has not undertaken a formal risk management

analysis of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan:

Has the ministry done a study on the impacts and risks of removing mineral

refining from the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm not aware of any such studies. I am aware of a study that

relates to risk management that's been undertaken in the province of Ontario.

When it's completed, we'll be looking at it with interest to see if there's

anything of value that can be adapted to British Columbia.

[1540]

J. Kwan:

On the issues around performance-based standards, throughout the estimates

process my colleague and I have been exploring, on numerous occasions, what this

government means by performance-based standards, also known as outcome-based or

results-based. So far, the Ministers of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, of

Sustainable Resource Management and of Energy and Mines have indicated that the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is the source of all of these

standards. WLAP is also apparently the agency that will lead in ensuring

accountability with these standards.

A series of

questions were asked around these issues. I asked a question. I will quote this

so that it sets the context for the series of questions that I'll ask the

minister now. The quote goes as follows: "In fact, who will monitor the

performance-based standards that have been established and are being monitored

in some cases by the industry? Who will double-check on that, if you will? Is

that WLAP?"

The

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management stated: "In the case of the

Forest Practices Code it would be Forests. In the other instances, it would be

Water, Land and Air Protection."

Question:

"Would it be the WLAP ministry's responsibility to ensure that the private

sector will hold themselves accountable within the standards that have been

established?"

Answer from

the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management: "Absolutely…. There will

be provisions for compliance and enforcement, which are not carried out through

this ministry. Those are carried out through Forests and through Water, Land and

Air Protection."

colleague asked another question of another minister: "On page 10 of the

service plan, back to goal 2: to maintain high environmental and health and

safety standards. There's performance measures and performance targets laid out.

Where would we find the performance measures, the performance targets pertaining

to environmental standards? Am I missing it? This is where I was looking, but I

couldn't find them."

Answer:

"Again, this would be something that Water, Land and Air Protection would

set the standards for. This ministry would have to meet or exceed those

standards. I encourage the member to pursue that with the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection."

Question:

"What's the minister's time line for this change?"

Answer:

"As we speak."

Question:

"Will there be consultation? Is there going to be public input, industry

input or stakeholder input into those changes? How does it actually

happen?"

[ Page 2788 ]

Answer:

"How that actually happens is…. And I'm not refusing to answer the

question. For the environment side of it, we have the Ministry of Water, Land

and Air Protection, which will develop results-based processes that we have to

meet or exceed. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is charged with

getting that access to the land base. It's part of that minister's process to be

able to make that happen for us."

To the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: does this sound about right? Is this

ministry setting all of their standards as well as enforcing them? What are the

other ministries doing?

Hon. J.

Murray: WLAP's responsibility is to set standards in environmental issues

and to manage requirements and standards under certain acts that the ministry is

responsible for and also to ensure that there is adequate compliance,

enforcement and penalties if necessary.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister provide some clarity about what performance-based standards

are and how they'll be implemented?

[1545]

Hon. J.

Murray: I would be very happy to pass on to the member a

three-and-a-half-page essay and analysis of what performance-based and

results-based mean — some of the concept around them and where they're used.

If the member would be interested in that, I could make sure she has a copy.

An example

of a results-based standard or a performance-based standard is in the area of

aquaculture. In the past, under the previous system of ensuring environmental

protection under the previous government, there was a standard that related to

how much food a farm operator provided to the fish. There was no relation,

necessarily, to the currents or the amount of waste produced by that amount of

feed, so how the industry was being regulated was by the prescription or the

rule that said: "No more than a certain number of kilos of feed for a

certain number of kilos of fish." That would be considered a prescriptive

regulation.

What we've

moved towards is a results-based regulation where, rather than prescribing how

the farm operator should go about managing the feeding of the fish, the

results-based regulation is looking at a way to identify the actual result on

the environment and is proposing that certain chemical and biological measures

relate to the impact on the benthic community. Those measures should be

incorporated into a standard so the farmers are working with a standard that

relates to the actual impact on the environment rather than one that prescribes

how they should feed their stock.

J. Kwan:

Yes, the opposition would appreciate the information the minister has to

share. I would assume that the three-page essay the minister mentioned would be

the cornerstone of how performance-based standards are being defined and

implemented within the ministry.

Could the

minister please comment on how big a role industry and the private sector will

play in performance-based standards?

Hon. J.

Murray: In response to the comment that this essay is the definitive

statement on science- and results-based standards, that's not correct. This is a

guideline right now for internal use, but the ministry, with the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management, is embarking on a project to do a more

comprehensive analysis of what the definition of performance-based and

results-based standards should be and to propose

definitions that would be

adopted by this government. That's a project that's been started and hasn't been

completed.

In terms of

the input from industry on results-based standards, it would be in a particular

standard that was being updated or changed. Industry would have the role of

other stakeholders that are interested in the issue and would be consulted.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

How big a role would big industry and the private sector play in the

definition of performance-based standards?

Hon. J.

Murray: This government is working with specific standards to update them

and to identify whether the standard needs to be changed from a prescriptive

standard to a results-based one. The work internally of identifying what we mean

by a results-based standard is a process that is being looked at right now, so I

have no specific plan to present to the member in terms of a general conceptual

definition of results-based. When it comes to specific standards that are being

developed, the input that industry would have would take a different form,

probably depending on the regulation and the specific circumstance.

One example

I have to offer the member is that in the review of the streamside protection

regulation, I've created a streamside protection regulation advisory group. It

does include members of environmental groups. It includes members of industry

and various levels of government — including municipal, federal and provincial

governments — in looking at the current regulation in order to make

recommendations as to how it can be improved.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister provide a list of who the stakeholder groups are that she has

consulted with to date?

Hon. J.

Murray: Could the member clarify her question? Consulted with on what

project?

J. Kwan:

We're talking about performance-based and results-based standards.

Hon. J.

Murray: With respect to the project of clarifying the definition of

results-based and performance-based standards, that's an internal process at

this point.

[ Page 2789 ]

There hasn't been consultation on that project at this point.

J. Kwan:

How much would it cost industry to come up with action plans to accommodate the

performance-based standards? Will they have to hire professional biologists,

foresters or other scientists?

[1555]

Hon. J.

Murray: If I understand the member's question correctly — what would it

cost industry to provide input on a results-based standard? — that would

depend completely on the standard in question, the kind of input being sought,

whether industry had in-house staff or was contracting to other professionals.

I'm not able to provide that information.

J. Kwan:

What I'm trying to get at is this. I think that large multinationals would

likely have in-house expertise, but smaller companies likely would not, and they

would have to incur extra costs, perhaps non-sustainable costs, to carry on

their business. Will the minister then, in her work developing the sustainable

performance-based standards, be doing analysis in terms of what the cost impacts

might be?

Hon. J.

Murray: No, I won't.

J. Kwan:

When the minister has the definition for performance-based standards, will she

make that available in her service plan?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, that will be publicly available.

J. Kwan:

Why would the minister include results-based standards in her service plan when

she doesn't know what definition she will be using to define performance-based

standards?

Hon. J.

Murray: The shift to performance- and results-based standards from

prescriptive standards is one that's happening in jurisdictions that lead in

environmental policy across the developed world. This is something that is being

seen to be an effective approach to regulating to protect the environment.

I would

like to mention that when the member opposite was in government, Ministry of

Environment staff of the day were already engaged in reviewing some standards

and regulations and making improvements in bringing them to a performance-based

rather than a prescriptive approach. This is a project that has been underway in

the ministry since before the election. We're building on the good work that is

being done. We believe it's an effective approach, and we will continue that

approach in a systematic way.

One of the

regulations that was finalized in the first few months after the election is the

organic matter recycling regulation. That is one that went from a prescriptive

to a results-based model. Much of the work on that regulation was done under the

previous government, so this is something that has been underway. We will

continue with the process of having a more and more results-based approach to

the regulations and standards that the ministry manages.

J. Kwan:

One definition of performance-based management that we have received from

concerned stakeholders is as follows: "…licensees will manage the risk

associated with achieving specified results and…government will hold licensees

accountable…." The concern from groups like the Canadian Environmental

Law Association is that deregulation and the accompanying shifts to

performance-based management are an attack on the public interest, citing the

Ontario experience. These groups contend that far from being a simpler test of

rules, the system is more complex than our current legal regime for both

industry and government administration.

[1600]

I'm

wondering: has the minister examined what other jurisdictions are doing in this

regard? What have been the impacts on these jurisdictions? Could the minister

comment on the claim that the system is actually more complex than the current

rules-based system?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, we are looking at best practices in other jurisdictions. I

agree that it is sometimes simpler to just prescribe, "Do things this

way," or "Do them that way," than to identify the results that

society is looking for in terms of protecting the environment.

That's why

we're taking this approach of moving more to results-based regulations one step

at a time, working on one regulation at a time — to have a good results-based

regulation takes knowledge, expertise and a good basis in science as inputs into

the regulation at the front end. That's why we're working on this carefully.

One of the

other elements that's very important in a results-based approach is that we have

an enforceable standard so it's clear what result was expected and when that

result was or wasn't achieved. That's part of the complexity of doing a good

results-based standard.

I'm happy

to say that with the aquaculture waste management regulation, that's what we're

working towards as an enforceable standard. When we have that in place, we'll be

one of the only jurisdictions in the world with an aquaculture industry that has

an enforceable standard.

J. Kwan:

KPMG Management Consulting conducted an annual poll of managers of over 300

institutions and businesses regarding their attitudes to environmental

management. Repeatedly, for 95 percent of the enterprises, they found compliance

with regulation to be the prime motivation for establishing environmental

management systems.

The

minister has said that compliance and enforcement are big parts of the

ministry's operations. I'm afraid switching to a results-based system will only

increase the demand for compliance and enforcement work. If corporations are

allowed to operate in the system with more guidelines and outcomes and less

regu-

[ Page 2790 ]

lations, then is it clear that the environmental management would suffer?

Hon. J.

Murray: Effective environmental management is the mandate of this ministry.

Our intent and our work are directed toward the outcome of having effective

environmental management regimes and environmental protection.

J. Kwan:

Can the minister guarantee that these performance-based standards will maintain

the current level of protection for the environment?

[1605]

Hon. J.

Murray: My objective is that we have strong protection of the environment

and that we have high environmental standards, clear standards, and effective

compliance and enforcement. We also have a principle in our ministry that ties

into continuous improvement, so we will be working with industry and the public

on the concept that an environmental standard is not something that is locked

in. We expect that enterprises that have an impact on the environment, whether

they be an individual or an organization, will seek eco-efficiencies and other

improvements to continually reduce the impact on the environment. It's our

collective and additive impacts that are a concern to people in society.

One of the

projects that, again, commenced before the election — and I'd really like to

commend the ministry for the work that was done on this project — is pollution

prevention planning. That's a program that we intend to extend. I've had

discussions with members of industry about my enthusiasm for P2 planning. That's

considered a compliance-plus approach in which businesses are no longer managing

to the environmental standard; they're actually looking at all the impacts of

their processes on the environment and working out a plan for reducing those

impacts. In a number of cases, industry has discovered major cost savings

through their P2 plan. I think that's a very positive approach to environmental

management when we are ahead of the regulation.

At the same

time I understand that regulation and standards are important tools, and we'll

be continuing to work with those tools as well as the tools of compliance and

enforcement to make sure the standards and regulations are respected.

J. Kwan:

There's a big switch from government in terms of the models that are going to be

utilized. As we engage in discussion in these estimates, we've talked about a

performance-based, results-based approach. What I would like to do is establish

a baseline for measurement. The minister said that environmental standards are

not fixed; rather, they should be a moving target. One would hope that what the

minister means is that the moving target would actually be one where

environmental standards go up and not down.

Can the

minister provide her assurance to this House that environmental protection

would, at a minimum, be maintained at the current level with the change of the

different models that the government and the minister are introducing, that as a

baseline the current practice is the minimum and that environmental standards

would actually increase with the new models the government is introducing?

Hon. J.

Murray: In response to the member's question about continuous improvement,

yes. In my view, continuous improvement does, by definition, mean continuously

reducing impact on the environment.

With

respect to the question around measuring environmental protection, could the

member please let me know what would be the baseline that she would be using to

measure how well we protect the environment in British Columbia today, so that I

can know how to understand the question as to improvements in that baseline?

J. Kwan:

One example, of course, would be on the question of the oil and gas moratorium.

The fact is that there is an oil and gas moratorium, and there's conflicting

science with respect to the potential impacts of lifting that moratorium. So the

baseline is that right now there is a moratorium, and there's protection of the

environment. There is no risk in terms of harming the environment. As we move

forward with a performance-based approach, as we move forward with new

government policies and direction, there's something to which you can measure

against. Would whatever the government introduces based on best science actually

put the environment at risk, for example? That would be one place I would look.

[1610]

Another

area that I would look at would be farm fish. There is the closed containment

approach. Scientists have come forward and said: "Here are the protections

for the environment, and here's how they work." That's a baseline in terms

of measurement. If you move away from the closed containment because the

moratorium is being lifted on that issue, there are going to be further impacts

on our wildlife, particularly our salmon and fin stock. Those are just some of

the base measures.

I would

assume, then, that this government would be utilizing the base measures that

community experts in this area have identified from the existing science now in

place and that further action by this government would not further erode our

environmental standards.

Hon. J.

Murray: Just a point of clarification, closed containment is not the current

baseline for the operating process of the aquaculture industry.

The

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is managing a pilot project that has

to do with trial in closed containment, but net pens are the current model for

aquaculture. There are environmental impacts from waste based on the practices

and regulating approach of the prior government that are not acceptable to this

government.

[ Page 2791 ]

One of the

downsides of the moratorium on the aquaculture industry was that farms that were

poorly sited were not authorized to change locations. There were farms sited in

places that didn't have enough current or depth to deal with the waste being

produced in the farm. Those farms should be sited in places where the

environmental impacts will be eliminated or reduced. Part of our approach will

be to re-site the farms that are poorly sited and to have standards, which we

haven't had in the past, for the impact of salmon farming on the environment.

J. Kwan:

I wasn't going to get into the closed containment question. New technologies

have been found, so that ought to be a standard which the government is

utilizing to determine the baseline of measurement with regard to farm fish.

The science

on this issue has been put forward, and I think the information has even been

brought to the minister's attention. We've had debates in this House. My

colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has introduced a motion on this issue of

closed containment fish-farm technology.

The

question has been asked of the minister by the media around the issue of sea

lice, which are a major problem caused by fish farming. When the question was

asked, the minister apparently replied that it is a natural problem, but it is

also intensified by fish farming. That is the issue around sea lice.

It is my

understanding that the minister went on to say that a study was done by an Order

of Canada scientist that said sea lice were not a major threat. Other scientists

have come forward to dispute that. They have said that the study the minister

referred to is quoting a scientist, Dr. Dick Beamish, and that the information

apparently has been misquoted. That was pointed out by a biologist, Alexandra

Morton, who identified that the study looked at only seven salmon. Alexandra

Morton's study around fish farms looked at 924 wild salmon over ten weeks and

found that 45 percent of the sample was doomed because of sea lice. Sea lice

"suck the juices, suck the life" out of fish. Young salmon are

especially at risk after leaving the river.

[1615]

Morton

continued to explain the sea lice problem, which wildlife salmon transmit to

farm salmon, where the population intensifies. Every 21 days in a fish farm,

there's an exponential jump in population of sea lice. In the spring when the

young fish go past the farms again, they're swimming through a cloud of sea

lice. There is much debate in the broader community around this.

Yes, there

is a pilot. The pilot has set new environmental standards with respect to farm

fish, and I assume that ought to be the base mark that this ministry and this

minister would adopt in the best interests of environmental protection and, of

course, in the best interests of wild stock salmon. We can, I suppose, debate

about where the measurements should be, but I think the minister knows where

those measurements and the bases and the standards should be.

What I was

trying to do in this new era of the Liberal government was establish the

baseline in which one could measure the performance of this government, so one

could go and hold this government accountable. If the minister wishes to look

backward in time as opposed to forward in time in terms of the new technologies

that have come forward, I guess the minister could do that. Quite frankly, that

is not acting in the best interests of British Columbians in the area of

environmental protection.

I'd like to

ask the minister this question. How can this government proceed with developing

an improved regulatory framework when the land use planning, the keystone to

performance-based management, is not anywhere near ready? With deregulation

already occurring, how can this minister get rid of the current regulatory

framework when its replacement is not yet ready and is actually some years away?

Hon. J.

Murray: With regard to the conversation around pilot projects and baselines

and performance, I would like to note that this government is the first

government in B.C. history to lay out performance measures for environmental

accomplishment and to set targets. These are set in our service plans.

There is

also a progress board that is reporting on environmental indicators to the

public. The government also has a three-year strategic plan that incorporates

environmental indicators, which I think are very important tools for

accountability and for measuring the government's performance and progress in

terms of protecting and improving the environment.

With

respect to the shift from the current regulatory regime to a new regulatory

regime, that's something governments naturally do in the course of reviewing

regulations and improving regulations. The current regime stays in place until

the new regime is adopted. At times, there may be interim guidelines and

standards or interim operating instructions that may need to bridge the two, but

we will not be abdicating our responsibility for managing environmental

protection during a transition from one regulation to another.

J. Kwan:

I get no comfort whatsoever from the minister's promise or the New Era

document promise. Through this set of estimates, here's what we have

established. The minister does not have a regional budget. She doesn't know what

that is. The minister has no definition of sustainability. The minister has no

definition of performance-based. She has no baseline from where she's going to

establish these measures of protection for the environment in British Columbia.

[1620]

I have,

quite frankly, very little confidence in terms of the direction this minister is

going and very little confidence in terms of what this government is doing to

the environment. You would think that the minister, who is responsible and whose

mandate is to protect our environment, would have these base measures, would

have guidelines with which she will go forward and have concise and clear

definitions of what she's

[ Page 2792 ]

going to move forward with. What we have seen so far is that there aren't

any. All the flowery words that the minister spouts from the New Era

document don't, quite frankly, give comfort on this important issue.

It sounds

to me, as well, that a major component of performance-based management is

heavily dependent on the stewardship of corporations. The Walkerton tragedy

should certainly refute that society can rely solely on stewardship.

Furthermore, how trustworthy are big multinational corporations? Does the

minister believe that stewardship is an adequate replacement for law? What would

the legal framework of this proposed results-based regime look like?

Hon. J.

Murray: Our objective is to have legally enforceable standards. That's what

we'll be continuing to put in place as we improve the standards and the

regulatory basis for protecting the environment in British Columbia. There's

been several examples of results-based regulation that do have legally

enforceable standards. These will not be voluntary standards; these will be

legally enforceable standards.

J. Kwan:

Can the minister guarantee that industry and the private sector will hold

themselves accountable and act with a high level of stewardship towards the

environment and ecosystem integrity?

Hon. J.

Murray: Where we have a standard, we will hold individuals and organizations

accountable for respecting that standard. We will have tools for enforcing the

standard.

J. Kwan:

What are those tools?

[1625]

Hon. J.

Murray: In compliance and enforcement there is a set of tools, and they will

be used as appropriate, depending on the situation. The tool might be feedback

to an individual or an organization about the results of the monitoring. It

could be education if the non-compliance is inadvertent or through not

understanding the options or the practices that can actually accomplish that

standard. It could be industry peer review in some circumstances. There's also

publication of non-compliance information.

As things

become more serious and of more concern, there could be warning letters issued.

The individual or organization could be ticketed and fined for non-compliance,

and there's also the tool of taking the situation to court and prosecuting,

should it get to that level.

J. Kwan:

This is where the performance-based system proposed by the minister really

starts to make a little sense. An extremely strong compliance and enforcement

regime would be crucial as a sense of deterrence that would need to be

maintained in this after-the-fact system. Audits after projects are done will

only detect poor practices after they occur; the damage would already have been

done. Therefore, to ensure proper compliance, audits will have to be done at the

interim stages.

What are

the projected costs associated with audits both in the final and interim? Surely

this must have been reviewed and studied by the government as this is a

direction they want to move forward in. What about the administrative burden of

reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of audits? How much has been put aside to

deal with that aspect?

Hon. J.

Murray: I'd just like to clarify for the member that compliance and

enforcement are not processes that kick in after the fact. For example, in

aquaculture the ministry will be monitoring and sampling the water and the

benthic community around the farms — ongoing. Industry will be required to

monitor chemical and, at times, biological indicators and be transparent with

those results.

The purpose

of compliance and enforcement is to avoid problems, and that's why there's

feedback. There's education. There are a number of levels of working

cooperatively with the individuals and organizations to make sure that the

standards are respected.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to offer the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection a word of

caution and advice. Throughout this set of estimates process we have learned

that water, land and air protection is going to face heavy cuts and immense

pressures from other development-oriented ministries. This government seems to

be proceeding without due care and diligence for the environment and public

safety. If they had, they would have listened to the warnings that have arisen

in Ontario as a result of the Conservative government's approach to

environmental management.

The

minister is no doubt aware of the tragic events in Walkerton that killed seven

people and caused the illness of over 2,000. The deaths ranged from

two-and-a-half-year-old Mary Rose Raymond to 82-year-old Edith Pearson,

representing the most vulnerable in our society. This tragedy touched on the

entire country and ultimately led the Ontario provincial government, its Premier

and the Minister of Environment to take full blame for the events.

What caused

this tragedy? The inquiry led by Justice O'Connor found that the Ontario

government and its Ministry of Environment was at fault. Ontario's Premier

himself said: "I, as Premier, must ultimately accept the responsibility for

any shortcomings of the government of Ontario as identified by Mr. Justice

O'Connor." Then he went on to say: "Walkerton was a wake-up call not

only for Ontario but for municipal governments, other provinces and countries

around the world."

[1630]

Here are

some of the key findings from the report: "The provincial government's

budget reductions made it less likely that the Ministry of Environment would

have identified both the need for continuous monitors…and the improper

operating practices of the

[ Page 2793 ]

Walkerton" utility. O'Connor continued to say: "I'm satisfied that

matters as important to water safety and public health as those set out in these

guidelines should instead have been covered by regulations which, unlike

guidelines, are legally binding."

The justice

went on to say:

"Had

the Walkerton PUC been found to be in non-compliance with a legally

enforceable regulation as opposed to a guideline, it is more likely that the

Ministry of Environment would have taken stronger measures to ensure

compliance.

"The

decision to proceed with the budget reductions was taken without either an

assessment of the risks or the preparation of a risk management plan. But

there is no evidence that the specific risks…arising from the fact that

the notification protocol was a guideline rather than a regulation was

properly…addressed."

To the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: her government has been proceeding

at breakneck speed to deregulate and slash budgets. I can only hope that when it

comes to the environmental issues, proper, thorough and intense studies have

been done on the risks and their management.

This point

is not just for water quality; it stands for all environmental issues.

Regulations exist for a reason. Yes, some may say that they're outdated. Some of

them may well have become outdated, but slashing the budget and deregulating by

up to some 30 percent is downright dangerous and potentially deadly, as seen in

Ontario.

I urge this

minister to step back from this government's agenda and seriously look at the

issues objectively. Is balancing the budget as important as people's lives and

the well-being of our community? I would submit that the answer is no. I would

hope that's the same answer from the minister.

I'm just

checking with you, hon. Chair, on whether or not the minister was planning on

responding.

Hon. J.

Murray: I wasn't clear what the question was.

J. Kwan:

My question to the minister is this: is balancing the budget as important as

people's lives and the well-being of our communities?

Hon. J.

Murray: These are not mutually exclusive objectives. I'd like to confirm to

the member that safe and protected drinking water, quality drinking water

processes, is a high-level objective for this government as is balancing the

budget. The ministers are working together with the common purpose of achieving

both of those goals.

J. Kwan:

Turning to a June 30, 2001, Globe and Mail article: "But slashing

and hacking away at a big and complicated organism like government is like

battlefield surgery. You're bound to cut an artery once in a while. If you're

lucky, no one dies."

Is this

minister prepared to take the responsibility for any harm to the environment or

to the public, like her counterparts in Ontario? Has this government learned any

lessons from the Walkerton tragedy? Cutting budgets and slashing regulations is

not the easiest answer, and it can have dire consequences.

[1635]

Hon. J.

Murray: I'd like to assure the member that this ministry has increased the

budget that's devoted to drinking water. In the headquarters operations, the

total of the budget last year was about $2.5 million. That's been increased to

$3 million in this coming year.

Another

point that will provide some assurance to the member is that in British

Columbia, we have a different system for managing the quality of water coming

out of the tap. That is the responsibility of medical health officers for the

testing of drinking water and for the protocols around notification of any

problems. Also, the medical health officers have the authority to order action

immediately if they should have any concerns. Our existing system is a better

one than was found in Ontario before the Walkerton crisis.

Notwithstanding

that, we're very committed to improving the protection of drinking water

quality, which is why one of the first things we did was put together a highly

respected and qualified drinking water panel to look at all of the complicated

issues from source to tap in terms of the protection of drinking water. We are

reviewing the panel's findings as well as other reports on drinking water

quality. These deliberations take full account of the results and the analysis

coming out of Walkerton.

J. Kwan:

The issue is not just about drinking water. It is about drinking water as one

component, but it is also about other safety and health risks that British

Columbians would face relative to the environment. Actually, the judge who

presided over the case cited it very clearly. This is her quote: "I'm

satisfied that matters as important to water safety and public health as those

set out in these guidelines should instead have been covered by regulations

which, unlike guidelines, are legally binding." We ought to learn from the

Walkerton experience that it is not just a drinking water issue, but rather a

broader issue relative to the health and safety for all British Columbians.

The

minister is fond of saying there are increases in the ministry, but if you look

at the three-year plan within the ministry, we actually see a substantial

reduction both in FTEs and in funding. In the area of planning, innovation and

environment we see the budget for '01-02 go from $17 million to $11 million for

'04-05. It's a substantial decrease in one area.

Other

areas: in the wildlife program, staffing levels are reduced by 74 FTEs. This

represents only 32 percent of the program as it existed in the mid-1990s. There

will be only 225 staff charged with the responsibility of maintaining fish and

wildlife populations and the habitats for the entire province. This is

compounded by the cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. and four more regions

impacted by the cuts to wildlife programs: Vancouver Island, 50 percent; lower

mainland, 43 percent; Cariboo, 40 percent; and Skeena, 32 percent.

[ Page 2794 ]

Workers

remaining are proportionately more heavily burdened with administrative and

regulatory tasks. There is less time to conduct field activities — so much for

best available science. The area management function to manage and monitor

valuable habitats is being placed in the underfunded and understaffed parks

program.

Fisheries

program — cuts to nearly 30 percent in all; Vancouver Island region, cut by 60

percent; the lower mainland, 50 percent.

The urban

salmonid habitat program, focused on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland,

had the goal of ensuring sustainable wild salmon stocks and habitat in populated

areas of the Georgia basin. The program paid over $3.3 million to fund 252

projects with 89 local stewardship groups. How does this jibe with the

ministry's commitment to seeking stewardship partnerships? The volunteer

stewardship hours are estimated to be valued at $4 million. No project

applications are currently being undertaken or funded.

Watershed

restoration projects which lead to road reactivation or rehabilitation, slope

stabilization and habitat restoration — 575 high-priority watersheds are yet

to be completed. The program has been cut.

[1640]

Another

area is the habitat protection program. Cuts overall are 23 percent. Once again,

regions are disproportionately affected: Vancouver Island, 35 percent;

Kootenays, 33 percent; lower mainland, 42 percent. Traditionally, the habitat

protection program dealt with urban-rural or fish-wildlife-forestry issues.

Parks

program. The parks system has doubled in recent years, but the WLAP ministry has

cut 63 FTEs. This will leave only one field officer per seven parks, the

heaviest cut of the four programs — 34 percent overall. Vancouver Island loses

51 percent of staff. The lower mainland loses 45 percent. All 13 district

extension officers are cut. These are the people who provide public outreach and

ensure public safety.

On the

question around protection for British Columbians in the area of environment, I

actually have very little comfort from the words of the minister and the

direction of this government. I have to be very frank. I have very little

comfort in this area. Can the minister stand up today and say she's prepared to

accept the responsibility for damage that relaxed regulations, budget cuts and

understaffing will cause? Is she confident that the road the government is on is

the right one and that the minister should be moving forward without deviation?

Have

adequate risk analysis studies been done? The minister earlier advised that

there hadn't been risk analysis done in areas of the ministry. Will the

deregulation and budget-slashing process be put on hold until risks have been

properly assessed and managed? The Ontario Minister of Environment had it wrong.

The government thought it was right, but they were wrong, and the Walkerton

report has proven that.

Hon. J.

Murray: This government has been clear that in reducing the regulatory

burden that has mounted in this province — and in my ministry alone there has

been a doubling of regulations in the past decade — we are committed to

maintaining environmental standards. In fact, we've talked about maintaining the

highest environmental standards. That's a clear objective for this government

and for my ministry, so there are some focuses that we've adopted in order to be

able to maintain high environmental standards. We've said we will adopt a

scientifically based, principled approach to environmental management that

ensures sustainability, accountability and responsibility.

We are

restructuring the ministry. We're rethinking many of the ways we've approached

our responsibilities, and we are doing things differently. I am very confident

we are doing things better. We're reducing gaps and duplication so we have a

more focused use of resources. We've identified the ministry's priorities, and

we're focusing resources on those priorities. We're clear that we are committed

to doing the right things and doing the right things right. There are some

things the ministry has been doing that we won't be doing any longer and that we

shouldn't be doing.

I have just

one example. A very small example of that is the subsidy for firewood in parks.

One of the things I heard again and again as I visited the parks offices around

the province is that free firewood costs the taxpayer, and when the firewood is

free, there is no limit to the size and frequency of fires in campgrounds. What

then happens is that responsible campers are camping in an area that has smoke

and haze all throughout the campsites, because there is no need for people who

like a large roaring fire to decide whether a dollar is best used to have a

campfire or to do something else. They just have a great big fire because the

taxpayer is paying for it.

[1645]

There are

some things we can do that make sense for the environment and save us money.

That's one small example. We will be setting priorities. We'll be making sure we

have clear standards, and we will be enforcing those standards. We are committed

to protecting and improving the environment as we move forward, and I'm very

optimistic about some of the non-linear and creative problem-solving and

thinking that's been coming forward from the ministry. We'll be working with

scientists and with non-profit groups. We'll be working with industry

associations. We'll be working with other levels of government and with other

ministries to move forward towards the common objectives we have.

We have one

environment. The federal government doesn't have an environment, the city an

environment and the province an environment. This is one environment. So we will

be working much more closely together with other levels of government so that

the environment is protected and improved as we move forward.

J. Kwan:

These standards the minister talks about — will they be brought into law? Will

they be brought into legislation?

[ Page 2795 ]

Hon. J.

Murray: Some will be legislation, some will be regulation, and some will be

policy.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister know which sets will be which? I'm sure her answer is going to

be that she doesn't have that information yet, but I thought I'd test the floor

anyway.

Hon. J.

Murray: Could the member repeat the question, please?

J. Kwan:

Does the minister know which piece will be brought into law, into legislation,

and which will be guidelines and which will be regulations? I'm sure the

minister probably doesn't have the answer to that and likely will say something

about that information being brought forward in due course, but I thought I'd

test the floor.

Hon. J.

Murray: The answer to that question depends on what category of

environmental protection she's referring to. If the member has a specific area

of environmental protection she's asking about, I'm happy to answer it.

J. Kwan:

I'm talking about all areas that the minister is responsible for in terms of

environmental protection. Which area does she know now will be brought into law

by way of legislation, and which would not? Does she have any idea?

The

Chair: I caution the members. The Committee of Supply is not for the

discussion of legislation or a debate about legislation or the need for

legislation.

J. Kwan:

I suspected as much. I suspected the minister actually doesn't know which would

be brought into legislation, which would be in policy only and which would be in

regulation. I was testing the floor to see what the minister's answer would be.

The

minister as well as other resource-based ministers have pledged to uphold high

environmental standards. However, they're under immense pressure from the

Premier to deregulate. What, then, are these standards going to look like? We

don't know. Are we talking about guidelines? Maybe. Maybe not.

This method

of environmental management is the exact mechanism that Justice O'Connor blamed

for the Walkerton tragedy. All of these ministers have also relied heavily on

the fact that they're moving towards results- or performance-based standards.

There are also many concerns and loopholes around this issue that the government

seems to be ignoring. All we know so far is that this management method is

unproven, risky and actually more administratively intensive and expensive.

For a

minister responsible for environmental protection to stand up and say that her

government's actions are in the best interests of environmental integrity and

public safety is, quite frankly, preposterous. We all know that it is about

balancing the budget. We all know it's about the bottom line. British Columbia

is on the same path as Ontario, and this minister knows it.

[1650]

This

province deserves and needs to see that the ministry has undertaken a thorough

and intensive analysis of the risk to public safety as a result of these budget

cuts and deregulation process. The Walkerton tragedy and the Justice O'Connor

report cannot and should not be ignored. The minister can spout flowery words

from the New Era document, but the fact remains that this ministry is

faced with substantive cuts to our environment. She's faced with substantive

cuts to her ministry in all areas. I've put onto the record some of those areas.

We see in

her own budget that there's a huge reduction around the issue of enforcement.

The minister says, "Don't worry; be happy. The environment will be

fine," but from the opposition side we are concerned. We're very concerned

because the minister, quite frankly, has not been able to answer many of the

questions the opposition has put forward. She's not able to advise us what the

regional budgets are. She's not able to provide basic

definitions that this

ministry will be utilizing to set sustainability, performance standards and a

results-based approach. She has not been able to come up with a firm approach

that this ministry and this minister will be committed to. All of that will

simply be brought forward to be done in consultation with other ministries whose

interests are completely contrary to that of this ministry.

Without a

baseline, I fear that this minister will go to the table and will easily

compromise what the demands are from the pressures she's faced with from the

Premier's office and from her colleagues. The result would then be a lack of

environmental protection in British Columbia, and British Columbians would be

faced with health and safety risks because of the action of this government.

Hon. J.

Murray: In the New Era document, we have a statement that comes from

the Premier: "It's time for a new era of environmental management based on

sound science, cleaner air, cleaner water and sustainable practices. It's time

to unite British Columbians to find solutions to our common environmental goals

and challenges." Statements like this, as well as instructions from the

Premier to the ministers to maintain high environmental standards, provide a

touchstone for me and for the executive, managers and staff in the ministry as

we move forward in our work.

Of course

it is a challenge to reduce a budget. There's a metaphor for the challenge that

we face now. Had this province been returned to fiscal accountability in the

mid-nineties when every other province in Canada systematically reduced their

deficits and debt…. Had we done that at that time, it would be as though we

had the early stages of cancer and we were treating it through diet and herbs.

What in

fact happened is that the previous government proceeded to suppress the economy

until this economy in British Columbia was by many measures

[ Page 2796 ]

the worst economy in Canada. The previous government continued to ratchet up

spending wildly until spending was out of control. It counted on a one-time

spike in electricity prices as though it were a legacy that would continue year

after year and ratcheted up spending to spend every penny of that one-time

windfall.

[1655]

What we've

inherited as a government is not a minor malaise, economically and fiscally.

We've inherited a major, major challenge. Rather than early-stage cancer with a

mild treatment, the analogy is that we're facing major surgery, radiation and

chemotherapy because of the advanced stages of economic malaise and fiscal

overspending in British Columbia. That has led, as well as our commitment to

maintain our health care and maintain our Education ministries — though, in

fact, we're spending over $1 billion more on health care this fiscal year than

was spent last year…. Because of this government's commitment to health care

and education, the reductions to become fiscally responsible have fallen more

heavily on the other ministries, and my ministry is no exception. That has

created a fiscal challenge for me as a minister and for this ministry. We've

used that challenge as an opportunity, because we've had to find new ways of

doing things. We've had to find ways of doing things differently. We are finding

that the approaches we are shifting to give us confidence that we can actually

do a better job.

We are very

determined to protect the environment, and we have a touchstone in the

instructions that the New Era document provides for cleaner air, cleaner

water and sustainable practices. As we move forward, these touchstones of high

environmental standards and sustainability inform each of the projects that we

undertake and each of the regulations and legislation that we review. As we move

forward, we will be doing the job that we need to do: protecting the

environment. We'll be improving the environment. I know that we can do it with

the approaches that we're adopting. [Applause.]

J. Kwan:

We must be in the ocean. I hear the seals. They're here again.

I'd like to

just close with this statement. The fact of the mat