H1021pm 04

H1021pm 04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 21, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 17, Number 4 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 21, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 7409 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7409 Alternative route to Pemberton area B. Penner Fred Randall House J. MacPhail Economic development in Burnaby J.

Nuraney Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7411 Management of Coquihalla Highway and cost of proposal J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Health care service levels J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Emergency surgical services in Kootenay area B. Suffredine Hon. C. Hansen Recruitment of nurses G. Trumper Hon. S.

Hawkins Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7414 G.

Trumper Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 7414 Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, financial statements, year ended March 31, 2003 Auditor General of British Columbia, audit report on Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7414 Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73) (continued) J.

MacPhail Hon. S. Hagen Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7416 Environmental Management Act (Bill 57) J. MacPhail Hon. J. Murray D.

MacKay Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7435 Environmental Management Act (Bill 57) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7435 Environmental Management Act (Bill 57)

7409 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Hagen: It's my pleasure and privilege to intro- duce to the House today Eugene Hodgson, Tony Duggleby and Paul Manson of Sea Breeze Power Corp., who are meet- ing with various government agencies today with regard to the investigation of a wind power plant on Vancouver Is- land and also wind data on Crown land on Vancouver Island. Would the House please make them welcome. D. Hayer: On behalf of the Surrey caucus, I'm pleased to introduce to this House Surrey's finest hard-working firefighters.

Joining us today are Tim Baillie, vice-president of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association; Lorne West, president of the Surrey Firefighters Association; Larry Thomas, treasurer; Mike Starchuk, secretary; Capt. Jon Caviglia, vice-president; and Joanna Fletcher, executive assistant to the fire chief. Will the House please join me in welcoming these hard-working firefighters to this House. [1405] Hon. B. Barisoff: Today it gives me great pleasure, particularly as a former firefighter myself, that I can intro- duce Mike Richards and Wayne McKenzie, who are fire- fighters from the Penticton Local 1399.

These people are the ones who are going into burning buildings when we're trying to get out. If the House could give the ones that my colleague introduced and these two gentlemen a very fine round of applause. B. Kerr: I stand with a relieved smile on my face today because my son lives in Pemberton, but that's not the story. Friday was the due date for his wife for their second child, and there was great concern on my part about what would happen when this child decided to arrive into the world.

My daughter-in-law didn't seem to be too con- cerned, but on Sunday, when the water was actually ris- ing up over their driveway, she decided it was time to helicopter out. Shakespeare said — how does it go? — all things are well that end well. I want the House to wel- come the newest Liberal supporter, Jordan Kerr. R. Lee: We have four Burnaby firefighters in the House today. They are in Victoria to attend the British Columbia Professional Firefighters Association meetings. In the gallery we have Joe Robertson and his wife, Sherry. Joining them later will be Michael Hurley, John McQuade and Jim Peever.

Would the House please make them very welcome. Hon. R. Neufeld: It's with pleasure that I get to intro- duce two gentlemen from northern British Columbia. You will know that I don't get up there very often. I don't have that opportunity, so I'm really proud today to introduce two professional firefighters from Fort St. John, whom I visited with earlier: Tom Worton and Curtis Redpath. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to welcome to the chamber today Mr. Michael McCoy.

Michael is the executive direc- tor of Touchstone Family Services in Richmond and has been in this sector for more than 30 years — outstanding expertise that he shares with each and every soul in Brit- ish Columbia. I'm grateful that he's come. Please make him welcome. R. Stewart: It's my pleasure, as well, to introduce two professional firefighters from my community. Ray Skucas and Randy Hamel have come over to the House today to speak with various members. I've had a chance to chat with them over lunch. Would the House please make the two of them welcome. Hon. G.

Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House the president and CEO of the Anemia Institute, Durhane Wong-Rieger, and the western program coordi- nator of the Anemia Institute, Lynn Roodbol. Would the House please make them welcome. R. Visser: Today we've heard a lot of words to de- scribe firefighters — "brave" and "the finest" and "profes- sional." Actually, mine is "pesky." They're friends of mine from Campbell River: Reid Wharton, Scott Kratzman and Ken Dawson. I've known some of them all my life, and they’ve spent many hours convincing me of their superior ways over the last day or so.

I'd like to make them wel- come. Also, we have Al and Marilyn Grant here today from Campbell River and their son and grandson, Bob, from Australia. They're visiting. So would the House please make all of those people welcome. Hon. G. Bruce: During this past summer I worked very, very hard to try and find some more friends. I have four candidates that I would like to bring to your attention here, who have joined me this afternoon. Jim Anderson and Diana Chadwick, and Kirk and Ann Mitchelmore are here, and hopefully they'll consider me to be their friend.

If you could help me along, I would appreciate it if you could give them a very warm welcome to the precinct. [1410] L. Mayencourt: O n be hal f o f m y c o ll e ag u es f ro m t he Vancouver area, I'd like to welcome our firefighters, who were also a little pesky over the past year but very persis- tent and very dedicated gentlemen, who have joined us today. Unfortunately, I don't know all of their last names, so I'm just going to use their first names: Rod, Mike, Dave, Gord and Jeff. Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) ALTERNATIVE ROUTE TO PEMBERTON AREA B. Penner: Over the past few days many of us have been saddened by the tragic loss of lives and property

7410 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 destruction caused by flooding along the Sea to Sky corridor. The sense of isolation caused by the interrup- tion of road access has only made matters worse, so I've been pleased by the quick response to this crisis from the Ministry of Transportation and the Solicitor General. In January of this year I joined my colleague the member for Chilliwack-Sumas on a four-wheel drive adventure. We explored an alternate route connecting the lower mainland and Fraser Valley to Pemberton, Whistler and the southern interior via Lillooet.

The existing Forest Service road runs along the west side of Harrison Lake from Highway 7 at Harrison Mills, north to Highway 99, just east of Mount Currie and Pemberton. The total distance of what we like to call the Sasquatch Highway is about 175 kilometres. Along the way, the scenery is beautiful, yet the actual topog- raphy along the road right-of-way is fairly benign.

Following discussions involving my colleague from Chilliwack-Sumas, the Transportation minister and her senior officials, I sponsored a preliminary meeting with s t a k e h o l d e r s t h i s s u m m e r , o n A u g u s t 1 5 , i n H a r r i s o n Hot Springs to discuss the possibility of establishing a hard-surface secondary highway along this low- elevation corridor. First nations representatives from the north end of Harrison Lake told me they are eager to improve the lives of their people, who now live in isolated conditions few of us can even imagine — no telephone service, no B.C.

Hydro electrical supply, an ambulance service that is hours away and only spo- radic sightings of police officers. These are facts of life for people living north of Harrison Lake. Private sector groups attending the meeting were also interested, including the Hemlock Valley ski area, the Abbotsford Airport Authority and small hydroelec- tric power developers. Clearly, the possibility exists for a public-private partnership that would allow British Co- lumbians a chance to see and enjoy a great part of their province.

In September mayors, councillors, Fraser Valley MP Chuck Strahl and our Minister of State for Community Charter joined me on a caravan tour of the route. Once in Pemberton, we met with chamber of commerce offi- cials, some first nations members, as well as consult- ants hired by the province to identify economic oppor- tunities and costs associated with improved road ac- cess. The study should be complete in a few weeks, and perhaps some day you will be able to see for yourself what a real sasquatch looks like. FRED RANDALL HOUSE J.

MacPhail: I want to speak today about an event I attended late last month in Burnaby, an event that marked the opening of a new facility as well as cele- brating in many respects the life of a truly dedicated p u b l i c s e r v a n t w i t h w h o m I , a n d m a n y o f u s a s w e l l , had the privilege of serving in this House for ten years. I'm speaking of the opening and dedication of the Fred Randall House in Burnaby, named after former Burnaby- Edmonds MLA Fred Randall. Many in this House also sat with Fred on both sides.

Those who did will know of his dedication to many causes and, in particular, to helping the most vulnerable in our society. After retiring as MLA prior to the 2001 provincial election, despite knowing that he was dying, Fred devoted an amazing amount of energy toward raising money and awareness for the main- stream association for proactive community living. Fred particularly wanted a facility in Burnaby that was dedicated to youth with developmental, physical or psychiatric challenges.

Fred wanted those youth to have a home that they could call their own in their own community, and now, thanks to the legacy he left be- hind, they do. I'm sure other members of the House will recall that when Fred wanted something for his community, he became an unstoppable force. Not only was Fred an incredibly effective advocate for his community and his causes, but he was extremely modest about his own involvement.

While I know he would be incredibly proud to know that the association named the facility after him, I also know that he would have wanted the focus to be on the others who worked with him to make this facility a reality — people like Dr. Donald Rix; the firefighters of Burnaby, which makes it very appropriate today; and the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades. I know he would be thrilled to see that his wife Aileen and his kids, Brad and Barb, picked up where Fred left off when he passed away in July 2002, and that they are now making this happen. To all of the Randalls: well done.

Fred was the em- bodiment of the spirit of public service, and now he lives on through this wonderful new facility. [1415] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN BURNABY J. Nuraney: Some more good news about Burnaby. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony at Metropolis at Metro- town, a regional shopping centre in Burnaby. This de- velopment will cost $80 million, and it will become the second-largest shopping mall in Canada. This devel- opment is another proof of the return of confidence in our province.

The president of the Urban Development Institute recently said that we are experiencing an ex- citing era in British Columbia with the rebirth of eco- nomic activity. Don Mattrick, the president and founder of Elec- tronic Arts, at a luncheon held in the Burnaby Board of Trade recently, announced an expansion of his com- pany, adding another 2,300 jobs in the next two years and bringing the total workforce to 3,300 people. These people will all have computer skills. BCIT, on the other hand, is stepping up to the challenge to train the re- sources needed, by adding more seats to their com- puter science program.

I also had the opportunity this morning to partici- pate in the joint announcement between BCIT and Metrotown, launching a program to train marketing and retail management. This program will offer formal

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7411 training for marketing and management in the retail sector, a first in our province. We are now seeing more of these partnerships between the private sector and public institutions. SFU also has embarked on a very exciting university project — a residential development around the campus. Burnaby is buzzing with renewed excitement and development. Our province is poised for economic growth in the areas of construction, mining, oil and gas exploration, high-tech industries and others.

This is the direct result of the initiatives this government has taken in the past two years, and I feel very confident that British Columbians will experience renewed faith in the future of our province. Our fair city of Vancou- ver was voted as one of the best cities in the world to live in, and we are well positioned to move forward to make our province the best in Canada. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY AND COST OF PROPOSAL J.

MacPhail: The Minister of Provincial Revenue is responsible for the waste-buster site, a site that has been created to get rid of waste where there's no value for money. Today we learned that the B.C. Liberals wasted $6.5 million of taxpayers' money on consultants to help them privatize the Coquihalla Highway. To the Minister of Provincial Revenue, Mr. Waste- buster, I ask this question: could he stand up and ex- plain to British Columbians how blowing millions of dollars on the failed Coquihalla privatization scheme is good value for money, and was it ever submitted to the waste-buster site? Hon. G.

Collins: I'm glad to answer the question on behalf of the Minister of Transportation. In fact, gov- ernment spent approximately $6.5 million in the prepa- ration and evaluation of the potential Coquihalla part- n e r s h i p . A b i g p a r t o f t h a t , p r o b a b l y u p t o h a l f o f i t , will continue to be used by the Ministry of Transporta- tion for a number of issues. Certainly, the traffic surveys and the asset condi- tion surveys that were done on the Coquihalla will continue to be used for future maintenance and reha- bilitation of the Coquihalla Highway in the years to come.

Tourism planning in the region — the traffic study, where people come from and where they go to on the highway — is also of value. Quality assurance standards were developed for the Coquihalla project which will be applied to future operations, maintenance and rehabilitation contracts throughout British Columbia, not just with the Coqui- halla. As well, the generic concession agreement is something that we expect to be able to use or possibly use with the GVTA or other bodies as they look to ex- pand upon future partnerships in the transportation sector.

There are other projects and other uses, as well, for the information that was done. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. [1420] J. MacPhail: Boy, the Minister of Finance must be constrained for the first time. He's forced into a mes- sage box. No wonder this government is in such trou- ble in its message boxes. What he forgot to mention, though, was that according to media reports, $1.2 mil- lion of this $6.5 million of wasted money was handed to KPMG, who — we all know — are big donors to the B.C. Liberals.

Now, that $1.2 million was paid to KPMG for so-called business advice and direction. Can the minister…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Let us hear the question. J. MacPhail: I betcha it won't be the waste-buster's man who stands up and asks this question, but can the minister responsible for the waste-buster site tell us what business advice taxpayers got for that $1.2 mil- lion? We paid for it. Did anyone actually, after the col- lapse of the failed Coquihalla privatization, send it to his waste-buster site to say that it was wrong? Hon. G.

Collins: I n f ac t , t he wo rk t hat K P M G d i d on this project will be used with other concessions, as I said earlier. A great deal of advice, legal work, account- ing work and business work needs to be done as you go forward with partnerships for concessions for all sorts of transportation projects, so I expect most, if not all, of that information will be usable. But I remember another $1 million bill that the province of British Columbia got from KPMG, which was actually the $1 million…. Interjections. Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I'm loud, but I'm not that loud.

It was a $1 million contract that Glen Clark and the NDP government, of which she was a part, commis- sioned in their very first days in office to tell them how to get their costs under control. Had they followed that advice, I doubt they would have racked up the $17 billion in debt that they did in their ten years. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: I do remember our government pay- ing for good economic advice that said tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Perhaps they should have dusted off that and listened to that exactly.

7412 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 Well, the Minister of Finance is really skating, and he's skating on thin ice. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Please proceed. J. MacPhail: He's mixing up all of the money that's been wasted. He's stirring it up, and he thinks that maybe the mud will make it look like they didn't do anything wrong.

Well, the government knew that the Coquihalla privatization scheme was a non-starter from the beginning, but they were so desperate for cash to pay for their high-income and corporate tax cuts — failed, I might add — that they pressed ahead, flushing away millions of dollars, increasingly scarce tax dollars, down the drain: $730,000 blown on legal advice, $225,000 on marketing direction, $854,000 to study the highway. But the government won't say how much was spent on advertising this botched boondoggle. That's right. This government refuses to tell taxpayers…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. member, please put your question now. J. MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Because this government refused so far to tell how much of their money is spent, telling the government…. Mr. Speaker: That's now. Interjections. J. MacPhail: Was the government right and the community wrong? Can the minister…? Can any one of you who's left behind stand up and say: why won't the Liberal government come clean? Tell British Co- lumbians how much more of their money they blew on advertising the failed Coquihalla privatization scheme. Hon. G.

Collins: In fact, all of the government's advertising costs are disclosed in the public accounts, as they've always been, and they will be. But I must say I am intrigued, and I'm glad she pointed me to my message box, because I almost missed it. Perhaps I will have to file a complaint with the waste-buster website. Perhaps they can tell me how it is that the NDP spent $747,000 on a Coqui- halla Highway project when that minister was in power, and perhaps she can explain what we got for that money. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, whose time is being eroded by her seatmate. [Laughter.] [1425] HEALTH CARE SERVICE LEVELS J. Kwan: The government MLAs might think it's funny wasting money, scarce tax dollars… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: …that are needed in the health care and education systems. People in Kamloops are outraged by this waste, especially when they see health care and education services being cut, and so are the residents of Nelson, who have seen their hospital services cut to the bone.

Two weeks ago the member for Nelson-Creston stood up and told this House that health care in Nelson was in great shape. He says: "Don't worry. Be happy." He claimed that emergency room care had improved. Wrong. He claimed that fewer patients are now trans- ferred outside of the Kootenays. Wrong again. The president of the Kootenay Lake Hospital medical staff, Dr. Andrew Murray, heard the member in this House and has demanded that the member correct his state- ments. To the Minister of Health Services: who is right — the member for Nelson-Creston or the president of the medical staff at the Kootenay Lake Hospital?

Hon. C. Hansen: I welcome the opportunity to clear up a few things about how the health care system is working in the Kootenay-Boundary region of the province. The emergency department in Nelson has not been reduced and, in fact, has seen several improve- ments, including additional monitored beds and sev- eral thousand dollars' worth of physical upgrades to the facility. The only services that have actually been moved out of Nelson as a result of redesign are the areas of general surgery and ICU, which have been moved to Trail so that we can consolidate those services to get better care in the region.

As a direct result of this redes- ign, we now have more effective care for all patients and all residents who live in the Kootenay-Boundary area. We have been able to attract an additional five specialists into the region, and that is resulting in better care and in less burnout for physicians. Do you know what, member? It's actually provid- ing more care for residents of the Kootenay-Boundary region right in that area, so that they do not have to travel as often to other parts of the province to get the care that would have had to take place under the ar- rangement set up by the previous government.

So, yes, we are going through some changes… Interjections.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7413 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …in the health care delivery sys- tem throughout the province. As a direct result of that… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. C. Hansen: …there are more patients getting the care they need, when they need it and where they live. Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: So the people who provide the medical services in the area and the people who live and need the services in the community are wrong, according to this minister.

Well, today in the Alberni Valley resi- dents are driving over the Alberni highway to Nanaimo to protest the government's shutting down of beds and services at West Coast General Hospital. The cost of those cuts is $400,000 — a fraction of what this government blew on the failed Coquihalla privatiza- tion scheme. As a result, residents of Alberni are losing vital health services. To the Health minister again: what's a better use of taxpayers' dollars — providing health care services in the Alberni Valley area or paying off big Liberal con- tributors for failed privatization schemes? Hon. C.

Hansen: I know the member's colleague sitting beside her served as a Minister of Health in this province, and I can tell you there is never enough money in a Health budget, as I'm sure she could attest to. I cannot tell that member how much I would love to have in the Health budget of B.C. today the $454 mil- lion that that government wasted on fast ferries in this province. Two weeks ago the member asked me if I would m e e t w i t h a d e l e g a t i o n f r o m P o r t A l b e r n i a n d g i v e them the assurance that their hospital would not close.

I stood on my feet and said yes, that first of all I would give them the assurance that their hospital would not close and, secondly, that I'd meet with them. [1430] When I did meet with them, they presented me and the member for Alberni-Qualicum with a petition of 9,000 names that asked that I as the minister would assure them that their hospital would continue to pro- vide service in the Alberni Valley and that it would continue to have surgical capacity. I said to them that I could give them a 100 percent unqualified yes to both of those demands in the petition. EMERGENCY SURGICAL SERVICES IN KOOTENAY AREA B.

Suffredine: My question, coincidentally, is also to the Minister of Health Services. A recent case at Kootenay Lake Hospital in Nelson highlighted the im- portance of emergency surgical services there. It has been suggested that without the intervention of local surgeons, the outcome might not have been as positive. Some of my constituents believe they may not have access to emergency surgical services when they need them. Can the minister tell this House what is being done to ensure that West Kootenay residents have timely access to emergency surgical services? Hon. C.

Hansen: I am familiar with the particular case the member refers to. There was a medical review done by physicians and other medical professionals to review the decisions that were made in that case. I can reassure the member and his constituents that the Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital, located in Trail, was ready to receive that patient — they were on standby — and that it would have been totally appro- priate and medically safe to transfer that patient to Trail, who would have got the care she needed in a timely fashion.

A decision was made to provide care to that patient in Nelson by a surgeon who happened to be there, and again, the medical review shows that that was also an appropriate medical condition. I think the bottom line is that the patient had a suc- cessful outcome and would have had a successful out- come regardless of whether the surgery had been pro- vided in Trail or in Nelson. RECRUITMENT OF NURSES G. Trumper: My question is, again, to the Minister of Health Planning.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report that said nurses are working full-time in Canada and that more nurses are staying and working in British Columbia. This is good news for patients in British Columbia. However, our nursing workforce is aging and will be retiring in lar- ger numbers than in other provinces over the coming years. Can the Minister of Health Planning tell us what her ministry is doing to ensure that there are enough nurses to care for patients in British Columbia? Hon. S.

Hawkins: Unlike the NDP, which did noth- ing to address the nursing shortage, this government actually thought it was a priority, and we invested $21 million in August 2001 to retain, recruit and educate nurses. We invested in continuing and specialty educa- tion. The Minister of Advanced Education has added more than 1,800 seats. The NDP cut seats in the decade that they were in power. We initiated a loan forgiveness program and in- vested in mentorship programs and in aboriginal nurs- ing strategies.

In fact, we've invested $59 million since August 2001 to make sure nurses stay in this province to make sure patients are looked after. We also gave nurses a 23½ percent increase in wages and benefits. The good news is that the Canadian Institute for Health Information has supported what we are doing

7414 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 here today. B.C. ranks first when it comes to recruiting nurses to B.C., 91.4 percent of nursing graduates are staying in this province, and B.C. saw a net increase of 538 m o re nu r s e s i n 2 00 2 t han t he p re v i o u s y e a r — all good news for patients in B.C. [End of question period.] Petitions Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Alberni- Qualicum has the floor. G. Trumper: I would like to present a petition from the Alberni Valley regarding the proposed cuts to ser- vices at West Coast General Hospital.

Tabling Documents Hon. C. Clark: I ' m p r e s e n t i n g t o d a y , o n b e h a l f o f the Minister of Advanced Education… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the mem- ber who has the floor. Hon. C. Clark: …a report of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission entitled Financial Statements of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission for the year ended March 31, 2003, as required by

section 9 of the Industry Training and Apprentice- ship Act. Along with this statement is an audit report of the auditor general of British Columbia. [1435] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 73. Second Reading of Bills SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 (continued) J. MacPhail: I'm rising to not discuss Bill 73, Sus- tainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, because once again we see these Liberals showing absolute disdain for parliament — absolute disdain.

They don't show up to answer questions, they table legislation one day, and less than 24 hours later they ask to have it debated. That's exactly what's hap- pened with this legislation, Bill 73, Sustainable Re- source Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Last night there was a very ugly exchange between the Government House Leader, the Minister of Fi- nance, and me about House business. He claimed that this government was better than any previous gov- ernment about the respect they showed for parliament and this chamber. What a mockery his words make of the reality in this Legislature.

Bill 73 is 16 pages long. I will read into the record what changes this government is making and to what legislation. The public and the opposition have had less than 22 hours to even read the legislation, let alone figure out what it means. The nerve of the Government House Leader to somehow suggest that they treat this House with respect,

whereas the previous administra- tions didn't, is just simply…. It's hard for me to…. Well, I can't stomach it, Mr. Speaker. Today is a perfect example of why it is hard to stomach how much the Government House Leader and this government disrespect parliament here in British Columbia — let alone question period, where question period makes a mockery of holding a government to account. Now we're in second reading debate of a piece of legislation that nobody has had a chance to figure out. And the minister stands up….

I bet you that the minister doesn't even know what's in the bill, because his comments at second reading were ridiculous — absolutely ridiculous — on how he skated over some issues. Here's the legislation being amended by this gov- ernment, and they've given less than 22 hours' notice. The only thing worse that could happen is if they in- troduced this legislation tomorrow for committee stage and rammed it through. That would be such an abuse of parliament I don't think even this government would risk doing, because the world is watching.

The world is finally watching with interest the disdain this government is showing for parliament. Here's the legislation that's being amended: the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Assessment Act…. There are major changes to the Assessment Act. The Assessment Authority Act. There are major changes there as well, many of which affect every sin- gle homeowner's and landowner's ability to exist in this province. [1440] They're amending the Community Charter. That's very interesting. I wonder whether that's the original Community Charter legislation.

Is it the Community Charter redux edition, or is it the Community Charter lite version they're amending? Before we adjourned the House for last week, they introduced a brand-new Community Charter after the previous one had been on the books four months. What Community Charter version are we dealing with that they're now amending again? The Land Act, the Land Title Act. Well, we know what disdain this government has for land titles offices.

We know how ineffective the lower Vancouver Island MLAs are in delivering services to their community through the land titles office, so they probably want to have a look at how the Land Title Act is being amended and what it means for their community. Is it a further erosion? Is it a further erosion of the access to public services for lower Vancouver Island residents?

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7415 Will the members from lower Vancouver Island be standing up and questioning the minister closely on this about what it means for their community, or will they sit silent and fail their community once again? Those amendments go on and on and on, page after page. Oh, here are more amendments, to the Local Government Act. Gee, I was just up before lunch deal- ing with amendments to the Local Government Act brought in by the Minister of Agriculture. Can they not get their act together, this government?

Are they in such a state of chaos and confusion and disarray that they've got to keep trying, day after day, to get it right and hope nobody will notice the draconian changes they're trying to make? Oh, here's a good one: the Oil and Gas Commission Act, and the Sustainable Resource Management Stat- utes Amendment Act, 2003. Why should we be con- cerned about changes to these pieces of legislation?

We've got a situation where this government has basi- cally said: "We're going to put all of our environmental regulations and our land use decision-making into the hands of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Man- agement." The Minister of Forests is not going to have responsibility for these, and believe you me, the Minis- ter of Water, Land and Air Protection is being shoved aside in any land use or environmental questions. What does it mean for the Oil and Gas Commission Act — these amendments that were given superpowers for environment regulations by the Minister of Sustain- able Resource Management?

Well, we don't have time to examine it. We don't have time. The Taxation Act, affecting rural areas; the University Endowment Land Act…. Gee. Oh, here's a good one: the Water Act. Boy, I've got a lot of questions from Bill 57 on water, and here we have amendments to the Water Act that directly affect Bill 57, the Contaminated Sites Act. Yes, the Contami- nated Sites Act has been on the books for several months, and we'll be debating it this afternoon, but I suspect this legislation the government's ramming through will affect the contaminated sites legislation.

Certainly, I know the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management doesn't know that. I can pretty much guarantee he doesn't know that, and I can pretty much guarantee that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, when I ask her questions about that, won't know it either. That's pretty significant. Those amendments go on and on and on, page after page — amendments to the Water Act. Why would this province care about the Wa- ter Act? Why would they care? They're planning on pri- vatizing certain aspects of water control, water admini- stration and water quality in this province. Who knows?

Maybe that's what this legislation does, but who would have a chance to even look at that? Then we have the whole amendment to this act that amends everything at the very end. That goes on and on and on. [1445] Well, it is shameful, disdainful and embarrassing — the continuing and ever-escalating abuse this govern- ment shows of this Legislature. Bill 73 epitomizes that abuse and disdain, but it does not stand as the only example at all. I can hardly wait to see when the government's going to bring this bill to committee stage. If they do it tomorrow, it will be the ultimate insult to parliament.

But they're quite comfortable in insulting and ridicul- ing anyone who dares to stand up and ask a truly le- gitimate question in here. It will be an absolute insult to the people of British Columbia. You know, the backbenchers, the government cau- cus members in this chamber, stand up and ask stooge questions. The minister offers pat answers. Then they can't even hold it together themselves. They're forced to table the points of view from the outside world, the citizens of British Columbia, in the form of petitions.

We just saw a perfect example of that, where the opposition asked the Minister of Health a question about Port Alberni health care. He stood up and said: "Oh, everything's fine." The member from Port Alberni asks a stooge question, and he says: "Everything's fine." Then she's forced to table a petition — a new petition — where the citizens are saying: "Hey, wait a minute.

Everything's not fine." The minute this government is forced to hear voices from outside this chamber — the chamber of silent government caucus members who do none of the work in their own constituencies — when there's a voice of reality from British Columbians, it just shows how wrongheaded and failing the government's agenda is. I know that this government cares not a whit about the opposition being given time to talk to people, to do the research, to have a thoughtful discussion in holding the government to account. We are forced to do this at the committee stage.

There will be detailed questioning at the committee stage. I just say to this government…. I'd actually say it to the Premier, but the Premier, of course, won't show up anywhere. The Premier will go to such extremes around the world to avoid coming here. I would say to the Premier that it is absolutely essential that the Pre- mier finally live up to his commitment to openness and accountability, and allow this parliamentary system — this B.C. legislative chamber — t o d o i t s j o b p r o p e r l y on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, and stop ramming legislation through. Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair has allowed more than considerable latitude to the member regard- ing this debate. Second reading is to discuss the bill in principle, but the Chair also takes umbrage at the re- marks regarding question period and "making a mock- ery of holding government to account." I just want the member to know that. The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management closes debate. Hon. S. Hagen: As they say, silence is bliss. I will enjoy looking forward to the spirited debate that we'll have as the bill goes into committee, but it gives me great pleasure at this time to move second reading.

7416 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 73, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, 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. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 57. Committee of the Whole House ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 57; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:50 p.m. On

section 1. J. MacPhail: Could the minister please introduce her staff? Hon. J. Murray: W i t h m e I h a v e E r i k P a r t r i d g e , Sohee Ahn and Terry Roberts. J. MacPhail: Okay. I was interested in knowing what they do in terms of…. Is it possible for me to know who the advisers are and what they're advising on? Hon. J. Murray: Erik Partridge is director of envi- ronmental management. Terry Roberts is the manager of the development of the act. Sohee Ahn is legislative officer/drafter. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that.

I've reread the comments of the minister at second reading about why they're doing what they're doing in combining two pieces of legislation. Just to reiterate, the Environmental Management Act is a combination of the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act. Really, 90 percent of this legislation is a complete and verbatim reiteration of those two pieces of legislation — so fair enough. That's why the debate will focus around certain clauses.

Even though the piece of legislation is huge, it is really just a combination of those two previous pieces of legislation with some changes that the minis- ter touted at second reading. One of the changes she touted at second reading, which I'm going to explore a bit right now under sec- tion 1, is that she said they're moving to a model of risk management. I remember other members of the gov- ernment caucus also standing up and saying that this is wonderful that the government is moving to a system of risk management as a new approach.

They were taking great pride in this being a new approach to en- vironmental protection. I was a bit taken aback by this debate, because I didn't see any definition of risk management in

section 1. I also know there's lots of literature that I've found in my research on risk management. It's a model that ex- ists in the previous two pieces of legislation and around the world. So I want to explore that bit about risk management and risk assessment with the minis- ter. How does the minister define "risk"? — because it's not contained in the bill. [1455] Hon. J. Murray: In this legislation "risk manage- ment" is a model, and it's not a defined term. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your indulgence. Through to the minister: I just didn't hear the last part of the answer. Hon. J.

Murray: My answer was that risk manage- ment is a model and not a defined term under this act. By "a model," what that means is that we're using a classification scheme that has been developed by min- istry staff, using certain risk factors to determine whether to permit a facility or activity or to have it operate under a code of practice or under the general prohibition against pollution.

The classification scheme includes risk factors such as significant potential for harm to human health or the environment, the environmental impact assessment rating factor used in the permit-processing procedure currently, degree of public concern about this kind of facility or activity, consistency of permits in the indus- try or activity, value of a site-specific review and the number of operations in the industry or activity. J. MacPhail: From the frameworks of risk man- agement that exist throughout the world now, upon which has the ministry relied? Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry staff reviewed legisla- tion from a number of jurisdictions. My request was to look at the jurisdictions that are considered exemplary and advanced in terms of their regulatory practices. Different parts were drawn from different jurisdictions in what my ministry considered to be the best practices from various areas. J. MacPhail: Could the minister name some of those, please? Hon. J. Murray: California, Oregon and Massachu- setts are some of the ones that were reviewed. J. MacPhail: Were any Canadian jurisdictions re- viewed? There's quite a substantial body of frame- works in Canada. Hon.

J. Murray: Canadian jurisdictions are Alberta and Ontario. As the member probably is aware, there

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7417 has been a significant amount of work done to review environmental regulations and practices in Ontario over the last three years. J. MacPhail: Well, thank you. The minister is aware of the report, so I feel comfortable asking her questions about it. Also, I am pleased. It may be implicit ac- knowledgment that while the government caucus members may think this is breakthrough and new, it really isn't at all.

Risk management has existed in parts of British Columbia, with some substantial differences, since the 1970s and exists substantively throughout Canada as well. It will be a comparison between what exists elsewhere in Canada and what the government is changing here that I'll be exploring. There are other jurisdictions that actually do define risk management in legislation, but this government chose not to. Let me ask the minister, then…. She used examples in her second reading of high, medium and low risk.

How will she define what industries fall into what category when, indeed, the regulatory powers of this bill are left up to the minister? [1500] Hon. J. Murray: The definition of which industries or activities will fall into which category of risk will be determined through a regulation, and as with the act itself, the ministry will be consulting with both indus- try and environmental groups as well as municipal government in developing that regulation. J. MacPhail: Well, okay.

So once again we have a government where we're debating legislation, and the substance of what the government is touting as change h a s n ' t y e t b e e n d e t e r m i n e d o r w i l l b e d o n e i n r e g u l a - tion. That's interesting. When is this bill going to actually be put into effect, and what are the public consultations that are occur- ring around

definitions of high, medium and low risk? Specifically, when are the meetings occurring, who is the minister talking to, and when will the results be tabled publicly? Hon. J. Murray: We'll be beginning the public con- sultations next week — Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We'll be meeting with dozens of groups, including municipalities, business groups and envi- ronmental groups. J. MacPhail: Let me quote from the basic frame- work for risk management that came out of Ontario. The minister referred to it, so I'm pleased she has read this.

This is called Basic Frameworks for Risk Manage- ment: Final Report, March 28, 2003 , and it was prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Environment, to which the minister just referred. Let me just start with what they say in the executive

summary around basic frame- works for risk management. The reason I'm quoting this is because it relates to what the minister just said about what work still needs to be done on this legisla- tion and when. Page 1 of the executive

summary: "A good risk management framework should enhance and improve risk management by (1) making it more transparent and understandable to stakeholders, (2) making its processes more efficient and (3) allowing for sharing of best practice in the implementation of risk identifica- tion, risk assessment and risk treatment." Does the minister agree with that analysis? And how will that be achieved, given that none of the terms of risk are defined in this legislation? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, I do agree with those princi- ples that the member has just noted.

We will be devel- oping our categories of risk management, and the transparency will include…. The results of our public consultations will be posted on our website. J. MacPhail: This report was done for the Ontario government by the Network for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. I went to the website to see if the government of British Columbia is a member. Let me identify for you who are members of this: the Alberta government, the Ontario government, Health Canada, Hydro One out of Ontario, the Canadian Pe- troleum Products Institute, Imperial Oil, Inco, the Min- istry of Environment from Ontario.

Those are some of them. I noted that given the fact the government is proudly saying it's moving to a framework for risk management, they're not members. I did take this off the website a couple of days ago, so…. What partnerships does this government have with people who already have a risk assessment framework in effect? [1505] Hon. J. Murray: We've been drawing from informa- tion and advice from jurisdictions including those that I've mentioned in Canada — including Australia, in fact.

I would, I guess, like to make the somewhat obvi- ous statement that this ministry can learn from many organizations without actually needing to be a mem- bers of those organizations. J. MacPhail: O h y e s , I ' m s u r e t h e y c a n , a n d t h a t ' s why I'm trying to find out who the ministry is working with and what work is actually being done with whom to fill in the blanks left by this legislation. Once again we see that so much of the main work to institute prin- ciples of risk management will be left to the cabinet to be done through regulation. One of the reasons why I was asking about what the

definitions are for high, medium and low risk is from reading this report. Again, it's in the introduction of the report from the Network for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management: "Risk management is unique in that it focuses on uncertainties that an or- ganization faces: uncertainties in the probability of occurrence of events, uncertainties in the value to the organization of consequences of events and other un- certainties that fall outside the normally expected range of variation. Generally, risks are low-probability but

7418 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 high-consequence events that can cause major disrup- tion to the organization." So they're actually defining levels of risk there. The minister has said — even though she talked at length about low, medium and high risks in her second read- ing remarks to this legislation — that will be left up to her to set by regulation. I ask the minister this: when dealing with human and environmental health, why did the government choose to not better define these levels of risk? Hon. J. Murray: There are compounds.

There are standards in various jurisdictions as to what levels of those compounds constitute what magnitude of risk that changes from sector to sector. We will be working with our business, environmental and municipal stakeholders to identify, based on a framework, a model here in terms of what the risk factors are, but we will be looking at it from sector to sector, and we're comfortable that this is the correct approach. J. MacPhail: I a l s o h a v e h e a r d t h i s m i n i s t e r s a y over and over again, both inside this House and out- side, that all of her decisions are science-based.

Will these determinations be science-based? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, we'll be working with a sci- ence advisory board as well as scientists from Envi- ronment Canada and from other post-secondary insti- tutions as we move forward and develop this regula- tion. J. MacPhail: How does that fit in with the consulta- tions the minister is about to hold? [1510] Hon. J. Murray: Scientists give us information about their research — the numbers in terms of parts per million or billion of certain compounds and the impacts of those compounds given the receiving envi- ronment, whether it's water, land or air.

The consulta- tion takes that scientific data and discusses the data, compares it with the risk factors and makes some rec- ommendations. J. MacPhail: Sorry. Who makes the recommenda- tions? Hon. J. Murray: Through the course of the consul- tations, we will be getting feedback from the various stakeholders that we'll be consulting with, and I will be m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s w i t h m y m i n i s t r y a s t o w h a t t h e regulation will finally say. J. MacPhail: Because the minister named not one scientist in who she was going to consult with when I asked how she would consult on the regulations….

I'm not sure municipalities have the expertise to offer sci- e n t i f i c a d v i c e . S o I m u s t s a y , M r . C h a i r , i t ' s q u i t e a murky little process that the minister is going to go through in my…. Well, I would prefer that it would not be murky, but it sounds like a pretty murky process of who exactly she's going to consult and what advice she will actually receive. I have another document here. It's from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The minister listed three, I think, jurisdictions in the United States upon which she is moving forward to base her risk manage- ment model.

I wasn't actually going to use it until she said that those were the jurisdictions she was looking at. Here's what it says — the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency that has guided the state risk manage- ment process. It says: "Risk assessments don't give ac- curate estimates of risk. They do, however, give upper limits on risk.

Just because a risk can't be measured with existing scientific methods doesn't mean that it's unimportant from a public health standpoint." So it was on that basis that I asked what basis science would play, because the minister says over and over again — always — that her decisions will be science-based. Well, let me ask this. Given the fact that there is some evidence that science can't determine risk, who will have the final say in determining what level of risk applies to what industry? Is it the minister? Hon. J.

Murray: We'll be working with the Ministry of Health, which does the work of identifying substances and their statistical impact on human health, and we'll be working with the ministry of the environment feder- ally and comparing the feedback from those organiza- tions and using that as part of our decision-making. J. MacPhail: Okay, now we have the Ministry of Health at the table. Who else is at the table? Perhaps the minister could just tell me the whole list of people who will be at the table, because there are two groups that have just been added that weren't added as part of her first group.

Tell me everybody. Rather, don't make me ask; don't make me beg. Tell me everybody. Hon. J. Murray: I would be happy to compile a list of all the organizations and individuals and scientists that will be part of our consultation process and our science advice as we move forward and make that available to the member. J. MacPhail: Well, I don't know what I can do. I'm not quite sure why. I just heard the minister say this process is starting i n a couple of weeks . I would have assumed that list would have been readily available. Will the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management be there? Hon. J.

Murray: That's not part of the plan at this point. This is developing science-based standards. The ministry does have PhDs in science within the ministry and will be working with some of the organizations that I've already mentioned. J. MacPhail: In the United States model, the goal of risk management, the U.S. Environmental Protection

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7419 Agency clearly states: "Good risk management empha- sizes public health protection as a primary goal. Stat- utes and regulations seek to ensure that standards are established at levels associated with risks that are con- sidered sufficiently low to protect public health." [1515] Is that a goal that the minister will be sharing in establishment…? We know it's not in statute. She has already said she's not going to put it in statute. Is that a goal she will emphasize as a primary goal in establish- ing of regulations? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it is. J.

MacPhail: That's good, because then it goes on to say here in that same goal of risk management: "Non- scientific factors enter into the regulatory process, in- cluding technical feasibility and economic, social, po- litical and legal factors. The risk characterization and these factors are used in the analysis of whether or not to regulate, and if so, to what extent." Does the minister agree with that? Hon. J.

Murray: All of those factors the member opposite listed are factors that are taken into account with government decisions, yet standards are based on the scientific and the health risk and environmental risk science, as I mentioned before. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I forgot to take the minister up to accept the minister's offer of the list of people — the full list. I'd appreciate that as soon as possible, cer- tainly before the consultations begin. I would appreci- ate that.

The other jurisdiction I looked at besides Canada and the United States about risk management, risk assessment and management in the environment was the United Kingdom, which has had a system of envi- ronmental risk assessment and management in place for some time. I have the actual regulations that apply in terms of determining risk management from the United Kingdom, and they're about 60 pages long. Be- cause the minister has said this is going to be results- based risk management, what areas of regulation does she contemplate covering in determining risk assess- ment and the factors of risk? Hon. J.

Murray: The risk factors we're basing this work on are the ones I previously noted — significant potential harm to human health or the environment and so on, the environmental impact assessment rating factor used in the permit-processing procedure. I have already provided that set to the member. J. MacPhail: I didn't hear terms like risk financing, risk communication or risk assessment. These are terms I found throughout other models of environmental risk assessment and management as well. "Source identifi- cation" — I didn't hear that, or "risk control." I'm just looking at the ones that were absent.

Where did the minister get the set of factors that will be risk assess- ment? Is this a made-in-B.C. set? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it is. This is the result of a sub- stantial consultation that the ministry has conducted over the course of a year on this issue. A number of the items that the member was noting were missing are actually part of the first point I described, the risk fac- tor that is the significant potential for harm to human health or the environment. J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, I very much will be watching that process with a great deal of interest.

I'm not quite sure how I'll monitor it, because I don't know exactly what's going on, but I'll await the minister's compilation of the list of people who are involved, and maybe I'll talk directly to them. [1520] There's a definition in this definition section,

section 1. It's the definition of hazardous waste or…. No. Actu- ally, it's not. "Hazardous waste" replaces the term "special waste," but it's not defined in the legislation. Why not? Hon. J. Murray: The definition of hazardous waste is found in the regulation that governs the regulating of haz- ardous waste. The change in title is to make British Co- lumbia consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada which do call this hazardous waste and not special waste. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm encouraged by that answer. So will the special waste regulation be just now re- named the hazardous waste regulation? Hon. J.

Murray: There's a substantial degree of con- sultation going on between now and the coming spring on our special waste regulation. We'll be making amendments to it, and yes, one of those amendments will be to change the name to hazardous waste. J. MacPhail: W e l l , w h a t w i l l t h e m i n i s t e r b e c o n - sulting on — the special waste regulation? Is that what it will be? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, that's correct. J. MacPhail: Well, the special waste regulations index is four pages long. Has the minister had a chance to…?

Will she be consulting on every single aspect of the special waste regulation that is now in existence, or will she be putting forward a regulation that is more or less than this? Hon. J. Murray: We'll be consulting on the entire regulation. We'll be hearing from the range of stake- holders, again, from environmental groups to industry, municipalities and post-secondary institutions. The idea is to get feedback on what needs to be updated in the special waste regulation. J. MacPhail: Ninety percent of this bill has been in existence for decades. The minister just said that the

7420 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 reason why the name "special waste" has been changed to "hazardous waste…." Why is there change around the regulation that's attached to that? Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Chair, I didn't understand the question. Could the member repeat it, please? J. MacPhail: Well, I was trying to determine whether the change in definition from special waste, which has been in existence for decades, to hazardous waste was part of some other package of change.

The vast, vast majority of this legislation is just a rewrite — and I make no criticism of that; that's fine — or amal- gamation of two previous bills. When I asked the min- ister whether she would just rename the special waste regulation as the hazardous waste, it was to determine whether the new hazardous waste regulation will just become the same as what existed before, and she didn't give me comfort in that area. I'm asking: if it's just a renaming to match us up with other jurisdictions, why is she choosing this regulation to go out and consult on? Hon. J.

Murray: Because there are improvements that need to be made in that regulation in order to do an effective job of regulating hazardous wastes in Brit- ish Columbia. J. MacPhail: And what are those improvements? Hon. J. Murray: That's what we intend to conclude out of the consultation we're contemplating in the fu- ture. J. MacPhail: Well, the minister didn't pose it as a question to see whether there are changes that need to be made. The minister said there are improvements that need to be made. It's not a judgment call. It was an assertion the minister made. What are the improvements?

The minister clearly has some ideas around that. [1525] Hon. J. Murray: The environmental groups and industry alike have given me feedback and feedback to m y s t a f f t h a t t h i s i s a r e g u l a t i o n i n n e e d o f b e i n g u p - dated and improved. That's why we are undertaking a consultation that gets the details of that input, and that's why I assert it does need improvement. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I'm asking for the specifics. What did the environmental groups say? What did industry say? Hon. J.

Murray: For the member's information, we do have on our website a discussion paper on the spe- cial waste regulation that outlines the framework for the consultation we're embarking on. That will provide a set of issues that we're getting feedback on and that w e r e b a s e d o n w h a t I ' v e h e a r d i n t e r m s o f p o t e n t i a l improvements and potential changes. J. MacPhail: Yes, I've actually been to the website, and I have seen that. There's much more to discuss here, so I guess I won't belabour this point.

But I'm trying to find out from the minister why she chose this particular regulation to change, when 90 percent of the bill and regulations have not been changed. What led her to believe that there were improvements? The discussion document on the website is as a result of her concluding that change is necessary. The discussion document does not in any way list the feed- back or the request for change. That's why I'm trying to figure out why this particular regulation is getting spe- cial treatment, because that's what we're debating here — changes to the previous legislation. Hon. J.

Murray: We're reviewing and developing 13 regulations and codes this year, and we will be re- viewing our whole set of regulations over time. That's part of what I committed to do coming into this job two and a half years ago: to review legislation and regula- tion and make sure that it's up to date, that it incorpo- rates best practices, that it enables this government to do an effective job of protecting the environment and, at the same time, that it supports the other goals that we have as a government. J. MacPhail: Were the 13 regulations and code pur- suant to this piece of legislation that we're debating?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, they are. J. MacPhail: I was unclear what the minister meant by a code, so…. Hon. J. Murray: The codes will be the regulatory regime for the medium-risk facilities and activities. Those codes will need to be created, also, as part of the consultation. J. MacPhail: Okay, so codes are new. Could the minister please describe…? There are codes dealing with medium risk? Could the minister explain how that will work? Hon. J. Murray: Activities and sectors that are deemed to be medium-risk, out of the consultation that we described earlier in this debate, will be regulated by codes.

Those will be enforceable codes that we will be developing over the coming time period. As a code is developed and finalized, then that sector and that set of activities will no longer be required to have facility-by- facility permits, but they will be operating under a clear code of practice. [1530] J. MacPhail: So is this a code for the forest industry or a code for a cleaning facility? Hon. J. Murray: Sector-specific codes of practice will be applied to businesses such as the fish products processing industry, the plastics products industry and

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7421 the structural concrete industry — to give some exam- ples. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I see that code of practice is listed anyway and defined as what the minister means as a code of practice. I guess we'll explore that more under

section 22 of the new legislation, at which time I will be asking her for the full list of codes that are to be developed. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. J. MacPhail: I s s e c t i o n 3 n e w ? I t ' s u n c l e a r t o m e whether this is a new power. I'll read it into the record.

Section 3 is "Director includes delegate," and it's the clause that allows delegation of power by the director. Hon. J. Murray: This

section needed to be added because decision-making power had been transferred from the regional managers to the director. Therefore, it was necessary to empower the director to delegate his or her authority, and that could be to a manager. J. MacPhail: So is the answer, then, that yes, it is new? And if so, why? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it is new, and I gave the rea- son why. The member was distracted for a moment there and may not have heard. The reason this is added is that formerly the regional managers were the statu- tory decision-makers under this act. That has been transferred to the director, and this

section enables the director, then, to delegate those powers. J. MacPhail: Yes, I appreciate the minister repeat- ing it. She's right. I was distracted. Okay, there's been a name change, and much of the legislation is about that name change — changing "regional manager" to the term "director." But what made the minister now give powers of delegation to what was formerly the man- ager, now the director? Hon. J. Murray: What this act does is centralize the statutory authority in one person's hands, and that's the director. That person won't be making all the deci- sions, however.

That decision-making will be dele- gated to the managers in the regions. Having the statu- tory power in the director's hands, though, enables the director to ensure that the decisions being made in the various regions are consistent and are within the direc- tion and framework as set by the province. J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm confused about how delega- tion of power from the director to others provides con- sistency. How does that work? Hon. J. Murray: The director maintains the statu- tory decision-making power.

The delegation enables the managers to make decisions that they are delegated to make within the policy and direction that's been set. J. MacPhail: Okay. How did it work before, then? Much of this legislation is about name change only. [1535] Hon. J. Murray: Before, the regional manager in each region had the final statutory decision-making power. The repercussion of that is that there could be a different

interpretation and a different decision made, given the same factors, from region to region. There was an absence of consistency. This is a way to make sure we have consistent decisions at that statutory decision-making level, while the delegation to the re- gions means there won't be just one person that is enter- taining the decision-making, because that's not practical. Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved. On

section 6. J. MacPhail:

Section 6 is the first

article in

part 2, "Prohibitions and Authorizations."

Section 6 is entitled "Waste disposal." The opposition has had quite a bit of feedback — unsolicited, I might add — on this particu- lar article, clause, section. I'll read the first

part into it: "6

(1) For the purposes of this section, 'the conduct of a prescribed industry, trade or business' includes the operation by any person of facilities or vehicles for the collection, storage, treatment, handling, transportation, discharge, destruction or other disposal of waste in relation to the prescribed industry, trade or business." It's new, and as I understand it, it's up to the minis- ter to determine by regulation what a prescribed indus- try is. That's why I was asking earlier about how the min- ister is going to determine levels of risk and what in- dustries fall within what level of risk.

So much is being left in the hands of the cabinet and this particular min- ister as opposed to clearly stating it by statute. Given that this bill gives the minister alone — not the L-G-in- C, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but the minister alone — the regulatory authority to determine what is a prescribed industry, what assurances can the minister provide that the application of risk in the determina- tion of a prescribed industry will be a transparent process? Hon. J.

Murray: The regulation that describes which facilities and sectors are considered high risk, which are medium and which are low will be passed by cabinet. That is not at the minister's discretion. J. MacPhail: Later on I will be getting into some interest around…. This bill is unusual, in that there are regulations created by the L-G-in-C, Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council, and then there's another set of regulations made by the minister. This is one that's being made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If that's so, could the minister follow me through on that?

7422 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 Hon. J. Murray: It's

section 21(1)(h). J. MacPhail: I do appreciate the quick reference, but prescribing for the purposes of

section 6(2), industry, trades, and businesses…. Oh, I see. That is the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council. All right. Well, fair enough. Then it's going to be cabinet making them. What process is cabinet going to go through? Hon. J. Murray: Cabinet will go through the usual process in approving a regulation. [1540] J. MacPhail: It's not me asking this question. I just told the minister that we've got a lot of feedback from this, particularly from environmental, non- governmental organizations who have deep concerns about this. The minister is aware of that.

I said: "What will be a transparent process?" The minister has said that she's got a consultation process on setting up the regulations, etc. But what will be the transparent process in this one particularly? This is the nub of the issue about prescribed industries, trades or businesses. Everything in this legislation flows from this definition. Hon. J. Murray: I accept the comment that this is a very important part of the new legislation. I agree that it is. That's why we had the discussion under

section 1 of the consultation — the bringing in of scientists from the ministry of environment; the advice on human health risk from the Ministry of Health; the discussions with environmental groups, municipalities and indus- try; and the posting of those discussions on our website in a transparent way — which will contribute to devel- oping this regulation once it gets to cabinet. Cabinet debates the regulation, as it does others, and makes a decision. J. MacPhail: What role will the industry, trade and businesses that are affected by this regulation play? Do they have an appeal process? Hon. J.

Murray: No, they don't. J. MacPhail: Okay. That's the answer to my second question. My first question: what role do they play? Do they sit as an equal with others at the consultation table? Hon. J. Murray: Everyone's equal in the consulta- tion. We'll be talking to stakeholders that are interested in this regulation, and we'll be looking forward to what they have to say. J. MacPhail: What ranking of priority does the es- tablishment of regulations have? Where will this defi- nition, "establishment through regulation," rank in terms of priority of consultation? Hon. J.

Murray: This is our highest-priority regula- tion, so it'll be taking place first. J. MacPhail: Will this definition of the conduct of a prescribed industry, trade or business be established before moving on to any other regulation? If so, what's the time line for establishing this? Hon. J. Murray: We will be working on a number of the regulations in parallel, but this is the priority regulation. It will need to be completed before the act is brought into force. We're aiming for completion in January or February of this coming year. J. MacPhail:

Section 6(4) of the waste disposal sec- tion that we're debating now reads: "Subject to subsec- tion (5), a person must not introduce waste into the environment in such a manner or quantity as to cause pollution." When I read this, I searched to see whether this was a repetition of anything in previous legisla- tion, and it isn't. The reason why it struck my interest was that this

section jumped out at me as one that seems to place the onus on the cause of pollution rather than on the existence of pollution. [1545] This definition of waste leads one to believe that all waste is pollution. I would expect that there would be many who would disagree with that. Why was the concept of causation introduced into this clause, rather than by linking waste to pollution, because all waste isn't pollution? Hon. J. Murray: This comes directly out of the Waste Management Act. It's

section 3(4). J. MacPhail: Okay, I don't have the act in front of me. Could the minister please read it out, then? Hon. J. Murray: In the Waste Management Act,

section 3(4) reads: "Subject to subsection (5), a person must not introduce waste into the environment in such a manner or quantity as to cause pollution." As the member has mentioned, 90 percent of the new act is the same features that are in the Waste Management and Environment Management acts.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. J. MacPhail:

Section 7, carrying on in

Part 2, "Prohibi- tions and authorizations," is entitled "Hazardous waste — confinement." Now, this

section is the same

section as

section 4 of the current Waste Management Act, with the exception that the current

section 4(3) of the Waste Man- agement Act is omitted. I'll just read that into the record. I did write that one down. The current

section 4(3) of the Waste Management Act states: "If a special waste is re- leased from or escapes from the confinement required by subsection (1), it is, for the purposes of this act, deemed to have been introduced into the environment." Where is this covered elsewhere in the legislation? Hon. J. Murray: I am advised that this was consoli- dated into the introduction section, and "introduce into the environment" is defined in the

definitions.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7423 J. MacPhail: O k a y . Y e s , " i n t r o d u c e i n t o t h e e n v i - ronment" means…. This is in the new act. It says, "in relation to waste, includes discharge, emit, dump, abandon, spill, release and allow to escape into the environment." I thank the minister for that answer. Perhaps, then, my question should be: where else is this? Why was it consolidated? Is there an effect else- where in the legislation? Hon. J. Murray: Better drafting to have

definitions all consolidated into one place. What was 4(3) is essen- tially defining "introduce into the environment" of a special waste. [1550] J. MacPhail: Yes, I accept that. Just to go back, be- cause transparency is very important in this area. Under the old act, special waste was defined, and in the old act,

section 4 talked about what happens with special waste. That's where the concept of "deemed to have been intro- duced into the environment…." In this particular case hazardous waste, which replaces special waste defini- tion, isn't defined, and therefore there's nowhere in the new legislation, as I see it…. Or maybe the minister can point to where in the legislation it talks about hazardous waste, which hasn't been defined, and what it means in terms of part of the definition being deemed to have been introduced in the environment. For clarity it's important. If part of the definition of hazardous waste is to include "introduce into the envi- ronment…." There is no linking in the

definitions, and there was in the old act between "special waste" and "introduce into the environment." Hon. J. Murray: The definition of hazardous waste is in the regulation, and I'm not really clear what the substantive issue is here. In the previous Waste Man- agement Act,

section 4(3) talks about "if special waste is released from or escapes from confinement" — and so on — "it is…deemed to have been introduced into the environment." Special waste is a category of waste that's defined in the regulation. In the new act it talks about waste and that "introducing into the environment" includes discharge, emit, dump, abandon, spill, release or allow to escape into the environment in relation to waste.

I think the member's concerns are addressed in that releasing waste into the environment is defined in sec- tion 1, and hazardous waste is a subsection of waste that is defined in the special waste regulation. J. MacPhail: Then the minister is a better person than me. But we'll just have to wait and see how this unfolds. I've spent quite a bit of time dealing with leg- islation, and this leapt out at me as being less clear. If the minister feels like it's clearer, then we'll just have to see how it unfolds.

Section 7 approved. On

section 8. The Chair: The minister has an amendment on sec- tion 8. We'll deal with that first. Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 8 standing in my name on the orders of the day. [SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed

section 8 and substituting the following: Hazardous waste management facility 8 A person must not construct, establish, alter, enlarge, extend, use or operate a facility for the treatment, recycling, storage, disposal or destruction of a hazardous waste except in accordance with the regulations.] On the amendment. J. MacPhail: As I understand it, this government amendment will actually mean the wording in the bill will now be the same, back to what it was in the cur- rent act. Is that right? Hon. J. Murray: This amendment to

section 8 cor- rects a drafting error in the first reading bill by replac- ing the language in the bill with the correct language from the existing Waste Management Act. The lan- guage in

section 8 excluded from the regulation certain activities such as treatment, recycling, storage, disposal and destruction, which are in the existing act. These activities are necessary for a comprehensive scheme for hazardous waste management facilities. This House amendment corrects this error. J. MacPhail: Thank you for confirming that it does return it to what the current act is. So was it simply a drafting error, or was it pointed out in your consultation that things were missing? Hon. J. Murray: It was a drafting error. Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved. Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved. On

section 14. J. MacPhail: We are still under

part 2, "Prohibitions and authorizations."

Section 14 talks about permits. As I read it, sections 14(3) and 14(4) are new, and

section 14(3) introduces the procedure for codes of practice to eliminate a permit. This is what we were talking about earlier on in our discussions about codes of practice. [1555] Mr. Chair, for people who are interested,

section 22 talks about the minister making regulations "establish- ing codes of practice for industries, trades, businesses, activities or operations." But

section 14(3) actually es- tablishes the code of practice, where it talks about a code of practice that is established in regulations in

7424 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 relation to the industry, trade or business that applies for the permit or amendment. I'm going to ask my questions about codes of prac- tice under here. Can the minister tell me whether there are examples elsewhere where there's a ministry code of practice used instead of a permit system? Hon. J. Murray: In Alberta. J. MacPhail: How does that work, then? Is the min- ister going to follow that model in Alberta? As I under- stand it, this code of practice eliminates the need for a permit. Hon. J. Murray: That's correct.

When there's a code of practice, the requirement to issue a permit is elimi- nated, so it is an alternative to that. [K. Stewart in the chair.] J. MacPhail: Yeah. I mean, we are kind of trying to do something for the public here, so I was just wonder- ing whether the minister could explain the difference. What used to take place under having to go for a per- mit that is now being eliminated, and how will the code of practice work? Hon. J.

Murray: Under the previous regime, every facility needed to negotiate a permit with the ministry, whether that facility or that activity had negligible or no risk of damaging human health or the environment. T h a t t i e d u p m i n i s t r y s t a f f t i m e , a n d p e o p l e i n t h o s e organizations were tied up with the process of negoti- ating a permit on a facility-by-facility basis.

The code of practice will be drafted to apply across a sector, and all of the members of that sector will adhere to that code of practice, which will be an enforceable set of expecta- tions for protection of the environment by that sector. J. MacPhail: So in order of importance, I guess we could say that the definition of the industries, trades and businesses in terms of categories of risk is first in importance, and then these codes of practice would be the second level of importance, because that code of practice will determine how one lives up to the risk category in a legal way.

Will any industry bodies, busi- nesses or trades be subject to the need for individual permits now, or is it all sector-based? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, there will be some sectors where individual facilities will still be required to get a permit. Those are industries like smelting, like pulp production. Sort of major industrial facilities will still require a permit. J. MacPhail: How does the ministry organize itself? Are there two different groups of staff, one that moni- tors compliance with a code of practice and another that issues permits? How will this work? Hon. J.

Murray: The compliance function is carried out by different staff than the permitting function, and the compliance staff will be monitoring the adherence to the rules — whether it is the permits rules or the code of practice. It will be different staff that issue permits than those that do the compliance function in the ministry. [1600] J. MacPhail: What role will first nations play in establishing these codes of practice? Hon. J. Murray: We haven't begun our consulta- tions on codes of practice at this point.

As we get to the stage of doing that, we'll be developing the list of ap- propriate stakeholders to consult. J. MacPhail: We have had feedback from first na- tions around their hope and belief that they should be involved as a stakeholder in establishing both codes of practice and those…. I assume — maybe I'm wrong on this — that part of the consultation will determine who gets subject to permitting and who gets to work under a code of practice. Is that correct? Hon. J. Murray: The initial consultation will be identifying which of the sectors will be governed by permit and which by codes of practice.

The consulta- tion in the development of a code of practice will be a separate process. J. MacPhail: Yes. Thank you. Will the consultation on development of codes of practice include any input from the general public? Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it will.

Section 14 approved. The Chair: At this time, with agreement, we'll have a five-minute recess. The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:09 p.m. [K. Stewart in the chair.] Sections 15 to 20 inclusive approved. [1610] On

section 21. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank you for your accom- modation. I appreciate it — and to the minister.

Section 21 begins the

section on regulations for the purposes of this part that we're discussing, which again is "Prohibitions and Authorizations," so this is the first of several sections in the bill that provide the regula- tory powers for various parts and divisions of the bill. It provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the power to make regulations, but

section 22 then gives the minister the right to make regulations regard-

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7425 ing codes of practice. What model are these — the two avenues of regulation-making — based upon? Hon. J. Murray: Various jurisdictions, including Alberta, have divided regulation-making powers into different levels to reflect where flexibility is needed in terms of updating and making changes. J. MacPhail: Where does this exist elsewhere — the dual stream of regulation-making? Hon. J. Murray: Well, I did mention Alberta, but other jurisdictions as well. J. MacPhail: No, I meant here in British Columbia. Hon. J.

Murray: We're not aware of other legisla- tion that has the two streams. The contaminated sites regulation did have two streams that were the direc- tor's ability to make certain decisions on and the Lieu- tenant-Governor-in-Council to make another set of regulations. J. MacPhail: Well, the reason why I'm exploring this is, one, because of its unique nature and, two, be- cause so much of this legislation will be done through regulation and there's no ability to discuss it in this chamber.

Therefore, the public is not only required to rely on the goodwill of the Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council — i.e., the cabinet — but now must also, I gather, rely on the goodwill of openness and transpar- ency from the minister of the day in this portfolio. [1615] My third point on this — those are the first two — is that at the end of each of the regulation-making descrip- tion sections, there's a repetition that says that

section 139 — "Regulations, general rules" — applies for the purpose of making regulations under this section. So we have regulations done by the Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council, and there are about 22 categories that allow for the cabinet to make regulations. They're also given the ability to have the general rule-making apply for that, and then the minister has about 24 subsections where she can make regulations. Then she also gets access to

section 139, the general rules for applying for the pur- pose of making regulations under this section. It does seem to be the delegation of a lot of power outside of the context of statute, and that's why I was looking for a model other than Alberta, in any other form of legislation, where this exists. It's unusual, and the minister's explanation, other than it exists in Al- berta, just doesn't…. It's not calming my concerns. Per- haps the minister can explain what 21(2) and 22(2) are there for. Hon. J. Murray: These are standard clauses that are in most legislation, which govern regulation-making powers. J.

MacPhail: Well, again, I've been away from legislation-making for quite a while, but the difference between this government and previous governments is that clauses 21 and 22 in legislation would often negate the need for

article 139. You either have regulation- making — the general rules — o r e l s e y o u h a v e t h e specific rules as are listed here under 21 and 22. In this particular case, this government has not only now had two streams of regulation-making, which is unusual, but then we have the general regulation- making as well. Did anyone comment on a government putting so much into regulation-making, as opposed to legislation, in your consultation? Hon. J.

Murray: In the consultation there were a number of comments, both pro and con, from envi- ronmental groups and comments, both pro and con, from industry and business. By far, the majority were favourable to this concept, as it introduces responsive- ness and flexibility into the regime. J. MacPhail: So the vast majority were in favour of two streams of regulation. Hmm, that's interesting. I have no way of challenging that statement, but I see the people on the other side say it's absolutely true. I'm a bit taken aback by the people who deal with….

I can understand the industry wanting two streams, but I would be surprised if municipalities, ENGOs or first nations believe that two streams of regulations are their preference. What happens when there's a conflict between regulations in

section 21 with regulations in

section 22? [1620] Hon. J. Murray: I don't see that there would be con- flict.

Section 22 is the minister's authority to establish codes of practice. Those would be governing different sectors than the regulations would be governing, so I don't see that there would be conflict. Just a note in terms of the rationale. The highest- risk activities and cross-government issues are incorpo- rated in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulation- making powers.

Section 22, the minister's regula- tions, which are the codes of practice, are related more to ministry-level issues, and they are policy- level issues. J. MacPhail: Let me just say something that jumped out at me where there could be a conflict. In

section 21, there are quite specific regulations made around pack- aging and disposal of that packaging. In

section 22, there will be regulations around audits of that packag- ing and disposal of packaging. The minister doesn't see that there could be conflict between those two — about when to audit, if to audit, how to audit, what to audit? Hon. J. Murray: The one is how you handle the packaging, and the other is how you check the han- dling of the packaging. J. MacPhail: Let me read into the record, then, sec- tion 21(1)(s), regulations made by the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council: "…requiring prescribed indus-

7426 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 trial, commercial and institutional operations or classes of operations to conduct periodic packaging or other waste audits, and prescribing the terms and conditions of the audits, including to whom reports should be made and other reporting requirements." T h e n i f y o u l o o k a t m i n i s t e r ' s r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h codes of practice, it says…. I'm sorry; let me make sure I've got that. The other one was

section 21(1). This is

section 22(2)(u): "…requiring prescribed industrial, commercial or institutional operations or classes of operations to conduct periodic packaging or other waste audits, and prescribing the terms and conditions of the audits, including prescribing to whom reports should be made and other reporting requirements." No potential overlap there? Hon. J. Murray:

Section 21(1)(

s) is dealing with operations that are not covered by a code of practice,

whereas

section 22(2)(

u) is dealing with operations that are subject to a code of practice. It needs to be dealt with differently, because we are considering the two different streams that we were discussing before. [1625] J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware that one applies to organizations or trades that need a permit and another that will be subject to codes of practice. But what hap- pens if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has more rigorous tests for those subject to permit than for those established by codes of practice? What happens when there's a difference and there's a conflict? Hon. J.

Murray: There may well be more rigour in the audits of the higher-risk operations and sites, and that's appropriate. So there may well be less rigour in the ones that are listed here for the purpose of

section 138(2)(s), because those are deemed to be a lower risk of problem. J. MacPhail: I guess what I'm asking is: are there challenges that can be made in terms of application of regulation between the two streams? I can't find out from the minister who is going to be in either stream, so this is a hypothetical debate — believe you me, not by choice. I'd love to know who the higher-risk organi- zations, trades and businesses are going to be, requir- ing permitting, versus those who will be subject to codes of practice, but I can't. That information is not forthcoming today.

Let me ask this: has the minister received any legal advice on potential challenges to the two different streams and the two different applications? Hon. J. Murray: The Attorney General's depart- ment says this scheme works. Sections 21 to 38 inclusive approved. On

section 39. J. MacPhail: This begins a new

part 4 in the legisla- tion called "Contaminated Site Remediation," division 1, "Interpretation." We therefore have a new set of defi- nitions and

interpretation for this part. Now, the minister had an advisory committee on contaminated sites. I actually have that report here, but I know the minister's very familiar with it. It was pub- lished in 2003. The chair was Margaret Eriksson. I'm wondering whether the minister can tell me the cost of the minister's advisory panel on the contaminated sites final report. Hon. J. Murray: The cost of the panel process was approximately $500,000. J. MacPhail: How much was Ms. Eriksson paid? Hon. J. Murray: I don't have the exact figure for the chair, but we can certainly get that for the member, if you'd like. J.

MacPhail: Well, yes. I'd like it now, if I may. Oth- erwise, I'm going to report a figure that is rumoured. And $500,000 for a report is an interesting amount. I'd like to know what portion of that $500,000 went to Ms. Eriksson. Does the staff not have that available? Hon. J. Murray: No, the staff doesn't have that fig- ure here, and yes, we can get it. J. MacPhail: Good. I hope we get it during this de- bate, please. It does seem to be unusual that the minis- ter wouldn't have that available. Now, the minister hinted in her second reading speech that contaminated sites will be dealt w

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1021pm 04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1021pm 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	502627ecefa4f184f66db8e5f98f9db65b653b3a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).