2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Robert Abernethy

Hon. P.

Bell

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

World Health Day

Sather

Easter and Vaisakhi

D. Hayer

Status of oolichan stocks

Hammell

Citizenship ceremonies

Krueger

2008 North American Indigenous

Games in Cowichan

Routley

Coquitlam passport program

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Emergency services at Vancouver

General Hospital

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

Cubberley

Class size and composition

Horgan

Hon. S.

Bond

Robertson

Lobbyists registration

legislation

Fleming

Hon. W.

Oppal

Karagianis

J. Kwan

Farnworth

Petitions

J. Brar

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Thorne

C. Wyse

Farnworth

Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Robertson

Karagianis

H. Lali

[ Page 3817 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two guests to introduce, who are visiting the House from Vancouver. John Perchall is head of industrial sales at ICI Devoe Coatings in Vancouver, and Sue Madden has just retired from a lifelong career in nursing. They are here in Victoria to visit their son, who works in my office. I'd like the House to thank them for their parenting skills and also welcome them to the House.

[1405]

R. Hawes: In the precinct today are His Worship Gordie Robson, the mayor of Maple Ridge, along with one of our former colleagues and now a councillor in Maple Ridge, Ken Stewart; Councillor Linda King; the CEO of Maple Ridge, Jim Rule; and the municipal engineer, Andrew Wood. They're here to meet with a number of ministries on a number of issues that concern Maple Ridge. Could the House please make them welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: In the House with us today are members of the Coalition to Save Eagle Ridge Bluffs at Horseshoe Bay. I had the pleasure of meeting with these folks earlier today, and I hope the House will please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: Those of us who sit in this House and meet in this building know how incredibly blessed we are to have such exceptional staff to look after us and to look after this building. One of those very special staff members — one who starred in the DVD Ode to Joy MacPhail — who always has a smile on his face and a kind word to say, is going off on April 17 to run in the Boston Marathon.

I know that all of us in this House, particularly my colleague from North Coast and I'm sure everyone here, want to wish Curtis Daley all the very best of B.C. luck as he goes off to run in the Boston Marathon.

M. Sather: I wanted to join my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission in welcoming some members from Maple Ridge that I had the pleasure of meeting with a few minutes ago: Mayor Gord Robson, Councillor Linda King, city manager Jim Rule and municipal engineer Andrew Wood. Would the House please help me in making them welcome.

M. Polak: Well, the best thing that ever happened to me is sitting in the gallery today. I'd like the House to welcome my daughter Miriam Polak and her friend Luke Patterson.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome my friends and constituents Baljit Dhillon and Piara Dhillon.

J. Nuraney: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome 25 students from Maywood Community School in Burnaby. They are accompanied by Ms. Bradley, Ms. Rashid and Ms. Naklicki, who are here with some volunteers. The students are here to learn something about how the government operates. It gives me great pleasure to welcome them to this House. Let me also say that this school, apart from being very good academically, has an excellent program for outreach into the community and helping the new immigrant community in our riding. Will the House please join me in welcoming the great students from Maywood Community School.

S. Simpson: I'd like to introduce Eric Lorenz and Howard Beele. Eric and Howard are from the Sierra Club of Canada. They're here, as well, today with the Coalition to Save Eagle Ridge Bluffs at Horseshoe Bay. I would hope that all members would take an opportunity to meet with them and talk about the issues they have.

Hon. I. Chong: Last week I had an opportunity to have lunch with members of the Lady Laurier Club, a club of women who have interests in politics and who've also raised money for scholarships. Unfortunately, their numbers have diminished over the years, and their club is not active as much anymore. They try to meet on a regular basis, and of course, I try to accommodate that here. I see in the gallery today two of those members, very good friends of mine, Anne Bryden and Frances Chapman. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Tributes

ROBERT ABERNETHY

Hon. P. Bell: It's with great sadness that I rise to advise of the passing of Dr. Robert Abernathy. Dr. Abernethy was a well-respected veterinarian and research pioneer, a graduate of the University of Guelph. Dr. Abernethy moved to the Cowichan Valley in the 1960s where he practised large animal veterinary medicine.

[1410]

In 1981 he solo-practised large animal veterinary medicine, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He'll be remembered as a pioneer in researching how to improve milk production in cattle. This was a subject that Dr. Abernethy became well known for in his field of veterinary science.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask that you express our deepest sympathies to his wife of 41 years, Sallie, his three children and the family and many friends of Dr. Robert Abernethy.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) WORLD HEALTH DAY

M. Sather: Tomorrow, April 7, marks World Health Day. The World Health Report , first published in 1995, is

[ Page 3818 ]

the World Health Organization's leading publication. The main purpose of the report is to provide countries, donor agencies, international organizations and others with the information they need to help them make policy and funding decisions. The WHO held the first World Health Assembly in 1948 and decided to celebrate April 7 as World Health Day.

The theme for World Health Day this year is health human resources. Tomorrow we celebrate health workers around the globe. Health care workers are crucially important for producing good health through the performance of health systems. Good health care is also dependent on good governance of the health care system to sustain human health resources.

Priorities for action this year include educating and training health workers, supporting and helping health workers, enhancing the effectiveness of the health care workforce, and tackling imbalances and inequities.

Health care workers are the heart of the health care system, but the health workforce is in crisis. The results are evident — clinics with no health workers, hospitals that cannot recruit key staff. There is a chronic shortage of health workers as a result of underinvestment in their education, training, salaries, work environment and management. This has led to a severe lack of key skills, rising levels of career switching and early retirement.

This year World Health Day is devoted to the health worker crisis. On this day around the globe, hundreds of organizations will host events to draw attention to the health workforce crisis and celebrate the dignity and value of working for health. We join with the World Health Organization and other organizations to celebrate World Health Day 2006.

EASTER AND VAISAKHI

D. Hayer: Next week Christians around the world celebrate Easter, the day Jesus rose from the dead. It is a renewal. Easter, like Vaisakhi, is held in spring — the season of new life and new beginnings, a time to celebrate what has gone before and what will come. Because of my wife Isabelle's Christian background — she is of Spanish and French ancestry — I know that in the Christian faith this important day is also one of bringing families together, of renewing their faith, of renewing their ties and renewing their purpose.

Similarly, we of the Sikh faith celebrate our beginnings, our future and our togetherness during Vaisakhi. This is a time to celebrate new beginnings, a time to celebrate new things — just as nature is doing right now outside the windows of this chamber and outside the homes of people all across our great province.

In our country Easter is a time for everyone to rejoice, regardless of their faith or ethnicity. I encourage everyone in this province to join in this celebration not only of the Christian religion but of the coming renewal of spring. It is a time of prayer and also of rejoicing for all the wonderful things that have happened in the past and what will be coming in the future.

I encourage all members of this House and all British Columbians to reflect next week on their good fortune, get together with their families and friends, and make this Easter and the Vaisakhi celebration a time of happiness and good wishes.

STATUS OF OOLICHAN STOCKS

S. Hammell: There is a thin elongated silver fish that has swum up the Fraser River since human minds can remember. They have come to spawn and for centuries have signalled to the native community the end of winter and the birth of a new year.

[1415]

The oolichan was once so thick that when members of the Stó:lô Nation looked from the top of Chilliwack Mountain, they described two long silver bands on either side of the Fraser stretching for miles. There were millions of silver fish, worth their weight in gold as they were fresh and nutritious food for a community who had survived another wet, dark winter. For that reason they have been called salvation, or saviour fish.

Once caught by the natives, the oolichans were eaten, dried and smoked, or rendered to produce oil or grease that was used as a condiment, preservative, medicine and sacrament, and was a highly nutritious food source. Research now says that the oil of this fish is incredibly close to the fat found in the human body. The oolichan is almost 20 percent oil by weight and is called the candle fish as it is so dense in oil that when dried, it can be lit like a candle.

As these silver fish migrated in the millions up the river to spawn in the gravel beds, they were food for gulls, eagles, seals, porpoises and even killer whales. But this unique fish is almost gone. My friend Jimmy Adams of the Katzie Nation, a fisherman for 50 years, said he didn't even try to catch oolichan last year. In two years he got just enough for a few hundred pounds.

This has happened in our watch — a legacy of our generation, a triumph of industrial values over our environment, a candle going out. Our legacy.

CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES

K. Krueger: This week is bookended for members of this Legislature by two significant events calling to mind the treasured freedoms which are enjoyed by British Columbians and the high price that others have paid for us to enjoy them.

On Monday the private members unanimously supported a motion recognizing the genocide of Armenians from 1915 to 1923 and designating April 24 as a day of remembrance for the 1.5 million victims of that genocide.

On April 9 we will honour the Canadian soldiers who fought, many of whom died, in the battle for Vimy Ridge. The capture of Vimy is deemed by many to be the moment when Canada came of age, as the bravery of our troops and the ingenuity of their leaders seized a position which had cost the lives of many thousands of Allied soldiers. It has been a week to re-

[ Page 3819 ]

flect on how good it is to be a Canadian and a British Columbian and to be thankful for the sacrifices made by people who have gone before us and established the foundations of the rights and freedoms which we enjoy and treasure.

As we celebrate the bright and beautiful mosaic of our society, where virtually every nation of the world is represented, I want to speak in praise of those who continue to enrich that mosaic by taking the oath of Canadian citizenship in our province.

I attended a citizenship ceremony in Kamloops recently, organized in Ralph Bell Elementary School by the woman who is my favourite teacher in the whole world. Her name is Debbie Krueger. Eighty-four new Canadians came to us from 23 different countries and made the wonderful decision to join us in building B.C.

My first citizenship ceremony as an MLA took place on Canada Day in Kamloops. As I welcomed the new Canadians that day, it struck me that they had made themselves a birthday gift to Canada. I felt that way about new Canadians ever since, and I see each ceremony as a time of renewal and enrichment of a society so wonderfully diverse that racism has no place — unmasked in its ugliness and preposterousness by the beauty of B.C.'s mosaic.

I want to encourage members to attend every citizenship ceremony they can to encourage new Canadians as they are enriching us.

2008 NORTH AMERICAN

INDIGENOUS GAMES IN COWICHAN

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the House about an event coming in 2008 — the North American Indigenous Games, which will be held in Cowichan Valley.

I invite all the members to the most beautiful part of B.C. to enjoy our hospitality and also witness the spectacle of bridge-building between cultures. The Indigenous Games will showcase more than 7,000 athletes competing in 16 sports and will complement very handsomely the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in 2010.

[1420]

For thousands of years before contact with outsiders, indigenous peoples held games throughout this continent. The games obviously led to many of our modern sports, and that's well understood by people in British Columbia. But it's not well understood, perhaps, that the games also were a curriculum for a society — a way a society passed down its treasured qualities of honesty, courage, respect, personal excellence and gratitude for the guidance of parents, elders and communities. They prepared children for their lives ahead. It's important for all our peoples, indigenous and otherwise, that we recapture those values whenever possible.

The NAIG Council itself is an excellent example of bridge-building between cultures, with equal representation between Canada and the United States.

I'll invite all the members to come to Cowichan in 2008 and enjoy a spectacle in bridge-building between cultures and a celebration of sports and ethics.

COQUITLAM PASSPORT PROGRAM

H. Bloy: This year marks the third year of the Coquitlam passport to events and attractions program. This award-winning tourism marketing initiative showcases over 100 events and festivals taking place in Coquitlam this year. I have once again been appointed an ambassador for the city of Coquitlam and, as such, am proud to show off the passport this year.

Some of the great events taking place this year in Coquitlam have included the volunteer festival, of which I visited all 52 participants. The Festival du Bois was great again this year, including an exceptional display by the francophone Scouts.

We also have many more events to look forward to, including the Como Lake Festival, Rotary's Amazing Race, the West Coast Chocolate Festival, the fifth annual Korean Heritage Festival on June 17 and the B.C. Highland Games on June 24.

People can take their passports and have them stamped and win prizes from some great Coquitlam companies like Ikea, Go West, Best Western Coquitlam Inn, the Executive Plaza Hotel, Bell Canada and the West Coast Chocolate Festival.

It was my pleasure to provide all members of the House with a copy of the 2006 Coquitlam passport so when they visit Coquitlam, they'll be able to enjoy the many benefits.

I would like to thank Mayor Maxine Wilson and her council and especially tourism director Barb Stegemann, who was the driving force behind the Coquitlam passport program. Their hard work in promoting Coquitlam as a tourism destination is a great benefit to visitors and residents alike.

I want to invite all of my colleagues and all of the citizens of British Columbia to come to Coquitlam and enjoy.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

C. James: The opposition has a letter from emergency room doctors at Vancouver General Hospital. This letter tells patients that doctors have lost confidence in the ability of VGH to provide emergency care. If the doctors at VGH have lost confidence in emergency care, can the Minister of Health explain why British Columbians should have confidence in his government's ability to provide quality health care?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising this issue. We haven't actually received a copy of that letter. We understand it's been around since January, but we've never actually received it. If the opposition leader would leak us a copy of the letter, I think that

[ Page 3820 ]

would be remarkably useful, so we could appreciate the contents of it. It hasn't been leaked to us yet.

I understand the letter purports to be from emergency room physicians, but we also understand that the letter is unsigned at this point in time. So again, if the member would forward it to me, I'd be very appreciative.

In terms of confidence, I think the one thing that even the opposition leader can take confidence in and take pride in is that British Columbia is by some considerable measure deemed the best overall health care system in Canada by the most comprehensive analysis of health systems ever done in this nation. British Columbia's health care system is number one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[1425]

C. James: This letter has been passed out to patients in the emergency room. You would think that the Minister of Health of all people, if he was in charge of the health care system, would actually have a copy of the letter that's been handed out.

I'd like to actually share a few statistics that the Minister of Health doesn't share with British Columbians. If the government is doing such a great job, why does B.C. — according to the Conference Board of Canada — have the lowest patient satisfaction rate in this country?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

C. James: Why does the Province , in an

article last week, show B.C. and Vancouver "at the bottom of the heap if you're looking for timely health care"? Why do most people in Vancouver worry that they won't get quality health care? Quoting from the letter from emergency room doctors to their patients, they are "publicly declaring their non-confidence in the ability of VGH to provide safe, timely and appropriate emergency medical care."

To the Minister of Health: why would emergency doctors be putting these concerns out?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't understand why the Leader of the Opposition and the loyal official opposition find it so hard to be proud of a great health care system in this province. I really don't understand that.

I don't know why the Leader of the Opposition, for example, in an NDP news release of January 13, 2005, would say the following, and I assume she's not being quoted out of context, given it is an NDP news release here. She says that Manitoba "is leading innovation and change and providing a model for the rest of Canada in terms of what can be achieved when New Democrat values are put into action." Manitoba was number ten in the very comprehensive analysis that was undertaken of health systems across this province.

The member may want to take any number of subjective analyses and say they're incorrect. The fact is that all of the objective indicators — and there were 119 of them in the Conference Board report — said we had the best health care system in Canada. Why can't she be proud of it?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The people who work in our health care system do take this issue seriously. They work very hard, and it's a very serious state of affairs when doctors who work in our health care system are handing out letters to patients expressing their concern because they don't feel they're being listened to by this government.

This government always points fingers everywhere else. I'm sorry, but it's been five years. It's time this government actually took responsibility, actually took a look at the health care system and took a look at the challenges in the health care system.

I would like to quote again from this letter sent last week. The doctors say: "We believe the current approach to deal with VGH overcrowding results in poor and undignified care in the emergency department, both for admitted patients and for new patients."

Hospital after hospital in crisis. The public is losing confidence, and the minister stands here and tells us that everything is just fine. Everyone except the Liberals knows there is a problem. When will the minister listen to people and fix the issue in health care?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the lecture from the Leader of the Opposition on how we should do these things. If we aren't talking to the nurses and the doctors and the paramedics and the health professionals in this province, how is it that we just negotiated successfully — for the first time in history — collective agreements for tens of thousands of health care workers and professionals in this province?

[1430]

How is it that we have — without anybody asking — the number-one ranking in this country, by a considerable measure, about the best overall health care system? How is it that the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada says we have the best cancer system not only in Canada but around the world? Why can't the Leader of the Opposition be proud of that?

The reason is that she doesn't do her homework, and I quote her from CKNW, the 15th of February, 2006. "In fact, we saw innovation in the public system right next door in Alberta, where they're starting a public-specific surgical unit to deal with orthopedic waits." Mr. Speaker, that's a private clinic. She's referring us to a private clinic.

Do some homework.

Interjections.

[ Page 3821 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Cubberley: It's interesting that the minister says the Conference Board is a reliable source of opinion on B.C.'s health care system but says it's a source of subjective opinion when we put in front of him that patients have the least satisfaction with their health care system in B.C. But the guys on the other side in this House always want to have it both ways.

This isn't a laughing matter. When emergency room physicians come forward and say, as a majority, that they feel obligated to publicly declare non-confidence in the ability of the VGH emergency department to provide safe, timely and appropriate emergency medical care, that's something the minister should be listening to.

They also say in the letter that the approach taken to hospital overcrowding continues to involve "an excessive, inappropriate and unsafe use of the emergency department to house admitted patients." This is being distributed to patients.

What is there about this that the minister doesn't understand? This is a serious problem.

Hon. G. Abbott: The advice I received was that the notion was advanced that it would be distributed to patients. I don't know that it has been. We have not even received a copy of the letter. We understand that it exists — that it exists since January — and that it purports to be from emergency room physicians, but the letter is unsigned.

Again, we know there are periodic challenges, periodic spikes of demand in emergency rooms around the province. Every health authority is working very hard on flow management in their emergency rooms.

I can tell you that Vancouver General Hospital has seen, over the last two years, an increase of about 23 percent in demand in their emergency rooms. So they have at times some very serious issues to address, and they are. They've added 12 new acute care beds. They've added a geriatric nurse triage unit. They have added more ER facilities, in the form of a $3.3 million investment.

We'll be investing much more. Because of the great economy we have in this province, we will be devoting $1.8 billion over the next three years for long-overdue reinvestment that that government neglected for a decade.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: The letter that we have is dated April 3. The minister says he's been aware of it since January. He might want to look into it sometime.

You know, health care workers and hospitals….

Interjections.

D. Cubberley: I hear some chirping, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the question.

D. Cubberley: The hospital system is trying to deal with the crisis inflicted on it by this government's cuts, and they're doing everything they can. One way they're trying to deal with the fact that there's too much demand for too many beds is to negotiate an overcapacity protocol so that the hospital can be operated beyond its capacity. What this letter substantiates is that they're over the capacity of the overcapacity protocol.

You know, when doctors try to communicate with you and tell you that the quality of patient care is "poor and undignified," when they tell you that they're "outraged with the deplorable situation," when they say it involves "excessive, inappropriate and unsafe use of the emergency department…"

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

[1435]

D. Cubberley: …and all the minister can do is decline to respond to the question…. What is there in this that the minister can't take seriously?

Hon. G. Abbott: The members across the way frequently and, I think, irresponsibly throw out a lot of nonsense about health care cuts. That's the furthest thing from the truth. When we took office in this province, the budget for the Ministry of Health was $8.3 billion. Today it's $12 billion.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: That speaks to part of the challenge. The other part of the challenge was a decade of neglect by that NDP government with respect to health human resources. For a decade they left the number of nurses being trained in this province at the same level as when they took office. It is only under the leadership of this government that we have seen a 62-percent growth — a 2,511-seat growth — in the number of nurses. International medical graduates — two under that government. Today — 18 international medical graduates in this province.

CLASS SIZE AND COMPOSITION

J. Horgan: Last fall teachers left their classrooms and told the people of British Columbia that we had a class size and a class composition problem. Last week I appealed repeatedly to the minister in this place to make that her highest priority. It's not just the BCTF, and it's not just the official opposition that has concerns. This week the NPA chair of the Vancouver school board wrote to the minister and appealed to her to find more funding to address this serious problem.

My question to the Minister of Education is this. When will she tell this House and her NPA allies when she will take this serious problem and address it?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, day after day after day in this House, all we hear is negative doom and gloom, pessimism. In fact, not ever can we stand up…

[ Page 3822 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …and listen to the fact….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, minister.

Members, we've listened to the question. Let's listen to the answer.

Minister of Education, proceed.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact — and it is the fact, and the member opposite canvassed this with me infinitely in estimates — education funding is at the highest level it has ever been. It's ironic that at a time when we're actually sitting down and having dialogue about issues that are critical, the members opposite can't simply stand up and say: "Let's do what's important for students in this province. They're the centre of this decision."

Mr. Speaker: The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: On April 3 Ken Denike, the chairperson for the Liberal-dominated NPA school board in Vancouver, wrote to the minister urging additional funding to address the class size and composition challenges in the city of Vancouver.

The quote goes as follows. I'll read it slowly so the minister can comprehend it: "Without this additional funding.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, would you withdraw the statement.

J. Horgan: I'll withdraw the statement, hon. Speaker.

And I will repeat it slowly for all those on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca continues.

J. Horgan: NPA Chair Ken Denike said as follows: "Without this additional funding, the progress made this year on class size and class composition cannot continue, and the expectations of the Learning Roundtable on education will not be met."

Again, I ask the Minister of Education: is she going to start to listen to her own political friends and recognize that the Premier's commitment from last fall will not be met without a serious infusion of resources into classrooms?

[1440]

Hon. S. Bond: The reality of the situation is clear, and the member opposite knows the story well. Enrolment in British Columbia continues to decline dramatically, and in fact that's a challenge we're going to face. It's anticipated we've lost, as of this year, 37,000 students in this province, and per-pupil funding is at the highest level ever in the province.

Of course school districts have challenges. But the member opposite certainly didn't listen to the voice of school trustees previously. Let's look at his quote about who should actually participate in the round table and make meaningful decisions, because he can't say it one time and not mean it the next. Listen to this: "The discussion should be with teachers. They're the ones that have the kids in their hands, not parent advisory committees and not school trustees." How does that measure up with the question today?

G. Robertson: Cost pressures downloaded by this government onto school boards are eating up their ability to make much-needed improvements. The minister talks about the Learning Roundtable, but doubts have surfaced about its ability to actually deliver results because this government won't commit.

In case the minister missed it the first time, Mr. Denike's concern is that without additional funding on top of her many re-announcements, the expectations of the Learning Roundtable will not be met. Is the minister prepared to brush off the second-largest school district in B.C? Or is she finally going to take action and make a firm commitment today to reduce class size and composition?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite should do his homework before quoting comments out of recent news reports. Let's look at the Vancouver school district. In fact, the enrolment in the Vancouver school district has dropped by 2.1 percent, and their funding has increased by 9.1 percent over the same period of time.

In fact, we're not prepared to dismiss the views of all of the stakeholders. The fact of the matter remains that there are differing views about how to address the issues of class size and composition. We want to continue that discussion. There is no easy answer. We're not prepared to listen simply to the loudest voices.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: In Vancouver the problems are real. They're real for my kids. They're real for the parents, the educators and the students. All are concerned, and they want action.

Let me just return to what the chairperson of the NPA school board in Vancouver has stated very clearly in a letter: "Without this additional funding, the progress made this year on class size and composition cannot continue, and the expectations of the Learning Roundtable on education will not be met."

In case the minister needed a little more information about the Vancouver school district, there are over

[ Page 3823 ]

1,000 classes with four or more special needs children, over 2,500 classes with four or more ESL students and well over 2,000 classes with 30 or more students. The minister promised action in the fall. She has not delivered. How much longer do the students and parents have to put up with a minister that has no plan for class size and composition?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's an interesting question from a member opposite as part of a group that actually dismissed the value of the round table out of hand, thinking that it would have absolutely no purpose.

We are concerned about class size and composition in this province. In fact, we believe that parents, teachers and administrators should actually work together to come to those decisions. I would challenge the member opposite to find a consistent view about how best that should be done. But I can assure you of this. What we're concerned about is making sure that students get the best opportunities that they can have in this province. We're going to continue to work towards that goal, and in fact that's what's happening at the round table. It's an ongoing dialogue, and that work is underway.

[1445]

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION

R. Fleming: The lobbyist registry act that was adopted in 2001 was amended at committee stage by then Attorney General Geoff Plant to correct what he identified as a critical flaw to the legislation — an omission that failed to "ensure the naming of all public office holders who will be contacted or are being contacted by the lobbyist."

Fast-forward to May 2003. The government does a complete about-face. The lobbyists registry is stripped of the requirement to disclose public office holders — ministers and their staff — who are being lobbied.

Question to the Attorney General: why did his government reduce the transparency and reporting requirements and water down this legislation only 22 months after it was adopted?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Lobbyists Registration Act and the registry that accompanies the act were brought into effect by this government. They're important tools in ensuring transparency, fairness and ministerial accountability.

Prior to 2001 there was no such act. I find it somewhat inconsistent that the members opposite are so exercised by the apparent shortcomings of this legislation, when they had before them a private member's bill. But obviously, it wasn't important enough for them to carry through with the legislation.

M. Karagianis: The Lobbyists Registration Act that was put in place in 2001 had a very crucial change made to it in 2003. It in fact reduced the scope of the act's transparency. That occurred a mere six months before the shocking raid on the Legislature and the investigation of senior political staff in this government. In fact, the then Attorney General said that the amendment in 2003 would address concerns "brought to government's attention by the users of the registry about onerous registration requirements."

So my question to the Attorney General is: can he confirm if in fact Pilothouse or anyone else from the lobbyist industry lobbied the government so that they could significantly alter and change the whole point and purpose of their registry?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know what part of my explanation from yesterday that member doesn't understand. Her question was fine until she started naming people who are obviously going to be Crown witnesses in the upcoming trial. In the circumstances, I can't answer that question. I'd like to answer the question, but I can't because it's an improper question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I do. I will actually re-ask this question. I'll sort of redesign it here. Given my previous comments that the legislation was changed, according to the previous Attorney General, because of issues and concerns brought to them by lobbyists, I would ask the Attorney General: who in the lobbyist industry lobbied government to make these changes that were critical changes to how the lobbyist registration works? Who lobbied government for that?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's rather unfortunate that the NDP didn't ask that question when the legislation was amended. I assume there were members in the House at that time. They didn't see fit to bring that to argue against any potential amendment.

I would point out to the hon. member that there is a registration process, and if there are changes that ought to be made, then the suggestions ought to be addressed either to the Attorney General or to the Privacy Commissioner.

[1450]

J. Kwan: My question is simple. For the Attorney General, the question is: who lobbied the government to change the lobbyists registration so that the government would actually allow for this change to take place just six months prior to the raid on the Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: The legislation was brought into effect in August 2001. The registry was opened in October 2002. In the interests of openness and transparency, changes were made. The member was here; I wasn't. I'm sure she's in a better position than I am…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. W. Oppal: …to find out who lobbied, if anybody did lobby, or if government re-examined its own legislation.

[ Page 3824 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The bill was brought in through a miscellaneous amendment bill by the then Attorney General Geoff Plant. I'm sorry. There were only two members on this side of the House then to question the government. It's true. It might have slipped through. But we're asking the question now. Will this Attorney General commit today to make sure there is an all-party committee to review this lobbyists registration that is clearly showing flaws in the system?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wonder why they were reduced to two members. Is it because they were a good government?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, could we have quiet.

Hon. W. Oppal: The government would welcome any recommendations to improve the system. We're always looking for ways to improve the system. It was this government that promoted fairness by having fixed elections, by having other Crown agencies adopt policies of openness. We're prepared to listen to members opposite. If there are any suggestions in order to improve the legislation, my door is open. I've met with members of the opposition regarding other legislation and other matters relating to the Attorney General's ministry, and my door is still open.

M. Farnworth: Well, the Attorney General's door may be open, but this House is wide open to the people and the public of British Columbia, which is where this business should be done. This side of the House has made suggestions that the act has flaws in it, and they need to be addressed. It doesn't matter about 2001; it's here today, 2006. It's time the government recognized it.

The question again is: will the Attorney General support referring that piece of legislation, the Lobbyists Registration Act, to an all-party committee to review it and make improvements?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm dedicated to improving this legislation. If the members opposite have any constructive comments about how the legislation can be made more transparent, we're prepared to listen to the members opposite, to get advice so we can amend the legislation and make it better so it will serve British Columbians better.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Brar: I would like to table a petition signed by over 200 students of Kwantlen University College about rising tuition fees. Keeping in mind the tradition of this House, I will only say one line, which states: "I owe $25,000 in student debt. Can I afford to graduate?"

[1455]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in Committee A, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and in this chamber, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP

AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $152,559,000 (continued).

S. Simpson: I'd like to finish up, a little bit, on a couple of the questions we had related to alternative energy, which we spoke about earlier today. After that I'm going to ask one of my colleagues, who has a couple of minutes of questions related to a local matter…. We've got a few of those this afternoon, and the colleagues understand that some of them may be coming from different places and may require answers later on, but they want to make sure they get those questions in before we finish for today.

I want to go back to the question of the IPPs and the Ashlu River. When we left, the minister had gone into a fair amount of detail in discussing how that had unfolded up until this point in time. As the minister pointed out, I guess it was back in January of 2005…. We know that, in fact, the Squamish-Lillooet regional district made the decision to reject the zoning application that would allow the Ashlu to go forward.

That was followed by a number of letters, by correspondence, from the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mr. Reimer, and by letters by Mr. Banera, who, I believe, works as the director of IPPs for the Ministry of Energy and Mines. They both corresponded. I believe that Mr. Banera had meetings with representatives of the regional district encouraging reconsideration.

We then know that Ledcor, who is the company in question here, reapplied with what was essentially

[ Page 3825 ]

exactly the same application that had been turned down. I had the opportunity to read a report put forward by the regional district staff on that.

The staff, at that point, made a number of recommendations to the board, and the board held firm on the question of not approving the reapplication but rather, in fact, asking the government to do the following. They asked the Minister of Energy to come forward with a comprehensive plan for IPPs, a plan that looked at the whole region and looked at the use of all the rivers in the region and how they should be used — whether it was appropriately for power, whether it was for recreational purposes, whether it was for habitat protection purposes.

I understand that went to the Minister of Energy, but it would seem to me, and I'd enjoy the comments of the minister on this, that the question of an inventory of all of those rivers — which more appropriately are the responsibility of the Minister of Environment — as to which are appropriate for what uses, should be done by this ministry, possibly. Could the minister tell me whether he believes it's appropriately his responsibility to do that inventory of appropriate uses on rivers?

[1505]

Hon. B. Penner: The member should be aware that his question implied — and I don't know if he meant this, but there was an implication — that if there is a small hydro facility located on a creek or river, that that somehow is a mutually exclusive use of that geographic area to any other use. In fact, the member may be familiar with other run-of-the-river projects — such as Furry Creek, for example — built just above an award-winning golf course and above a residential development.

I suspect most people using the golf course, even going to the clubhouse or living in the community, aren't aware that just literally a stone's throw away is a run-of-the-river project. It is compatible with other uses.

Similarly, I've been to the Upper Mamquam hydroelectric project. Even during the construction phase, people were recreating in that area — going right past the construction site with mountain bikes, long-distance running and hiking. Apparently, no complaints were received — even during the construction period, never mind the operational. So the projects are not necessarily mutually exclusive to other uses of the land base.

My understanding is that some time ago B.C. Hydro did contract for a high-level analysis of potential water courses in terms of power development. But that's fairly high level. There are literally hundreds of thousands of streams, creeks and rivers in British Columbia, and that's something we can all be grateful for.

The model that the government has is that individual proponents bear the cost out of their own pockets for approving all the studies to indicate whether or not small hydroelectric projects are compatible with other uses and can be done in an environmentally sustainable way. In the case that the member's referred to, the Ashlu Creek project, it's my understanding that the proponent has spent somewhere in the order of $6.4 million to date.

I'm not sure if the member's suggesting that government and taxpayers should be footing that bill, but the model that government has is that individual proponents that come forward with a specific application bear the costs of fish studies, wildlife studies, public consultation processes that must occur, discussions with first nations and agreements that may be signed with those entities, and other work that needs to be done.

S. Simpson: It's my understanding that on the list that the minister speaks about, there are about 400-and-some-odd rivers, I believe. I know it's available on Hydro's website, and it gives a good indication of each of those rivers, what its capacity is, where it could be used for power and what its potential is. I accept that that's actually a pretty big benefit for anybody who's looking at doing an IPP. You can go and see which river hasn't been applied for yet, and maybe you find a pot of gold at the end of the river.

The concern that people have isn't even so much at this point about single rivers. What you have in the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, as I understand it, is in excess of 60 applications in that regional district and that area generally for access to rivers for IPP purposes. What I'm being told, and what makes eminent sense to me, is that this is a bit like the wild west and the gold rush where all of these applications are being made, and there is no indication or no confidence here that somebody's saying: "Okay, this is obviously a very lucrative and very interesting opportunity for people, and for business interests, who are making these applications."

It's time for us to catch a breath and say we have this raft of applications. Does it compound a problem where one or two or three might not be an issue, but 50 might? Do we need to look at the overall effect and look at an overall strategy for the region when you get 50, 60 applications in a region?

[1510]

The question I have is, first: does the minister think it makes sense that if you have that volume of applications, you should be looking at it in some coordinated way when the volume is that great? Second, if the minister does think you should look at it in a coordinated way when you have that volume of applications, should it be the Ministry of Environment who looks at it? If not, who should?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that quite a number of applications have been made, but I also want to caution the member and anybody following the debate that an application does not a project make. There's considerable atrophy or drop-off in terms of what ends up being an application versus what comes out the other end of the process.

In part that's because the process is pretty rigorous in terms of the various environmental checkoffs or screening that needs to be done. Depending on the size of the project, it may trigger a Canadian Environmental

[ Page 3826 ]

Assessment Act review, as in the case of the Ashlu Creek project that the member refers to. Others…. I believe there's a project on the north end of Harrison Lake that's been put forward into the environmental assessment process because it crosses the 50-megawatt threshold. That will go through an environmental assessment office process.

Even so, any other water licence still triggers a review by the water stewardship division of the Ministry of Environment, led by the comptroller of water rights. That process calls in cross-ministry analysis and cross-jurisdictional analysis. We'll get comments from DFO, where that's applicable, or the Canadian Coast Guard. I'm not aware, the Ministry of Environment's not aware of any significant adverse environmental impacts that have occurred as a result of run-of-the-river projects to date.

That's not to say that we give blanket approval to new applications. New applications go through the rigorous process that I've just described.

We believe it's appropriate that individual proponents pay the cost for getting the detailed assessments done, whether or not there are fish in those particular rivers or any impacts can be mitigated, whether or not there are bear or other wildlife impacts that need to be addressed and mitigated, whether or not the Canadian Coast Guard has concerns from a navigational perspective, whether or not DFO has concerns — again, from a fisheries perspective or a habitat perspective. The model that the government has is that individual proponents must bear that cost.

[1515]

Of course, in addition to all of those criteria and potential showstoppers is basic engineering. The reality is that people can apply for a water licence, but at the end of the day, the combination of engineering and economics means that, I think, a majority of the projects simply don't happen. While on a map you can see that there are many creeks and rivers, the reality is that the majority of those creeks and rivers and streams will not actually lend themselves to a project that will develop electricity, at least not under today's economic climate and the prices that exist on the marketplace for electricity.

Again, I don't want to be remiss in not mentioning, because it's very significant, that we require consultation with affected first nations, and they play a very important role in overseeing those projects.

S. Simpson: Well, the first thing the minister will know is that the vast majority of these applications, in fact, are under 50 megawatts, so they don't require that kind of consultation. They're done largely in private because the vast majority fall under 50 megawatts. I would be interested to know how big the Ashlu application is.

My question for the minister here, though, based on what he's said to this point, is: am I to understand that the minister does not believe that the government should be concerning itself with an integrated approach to dealing with water licensing for IPPs that looks at regions, looks at the water bodies and makes some determination about cumulative impact? While every one of those applications may be assessed to some degree — and the assessment is limited if it's under 50 megawatts — there is, to the best of my knowledge, no cumulative impact analysis done at all. So we don't compare those.

We don't add up the impacts here. I don't believe that occurs. I stand to be corrected. But is the minister saying that's not important?

[1520]

Hon. B. Penner: Certainly, the Ministry of Environment is always concerned about what the potential environmental impacts are from activities on the land base. That's why the process is as thorough as it is. I take some exception to what the member says — that if a project is under 50 megawatts, somehow it gets a free ride. Far from it.

The water comptroller, who's sitting right beside me, makes it very clear that projects go through extensive scrutiny and follow much the same process as would be the case if they went through the EAO. It gets assessed in terms of impacts on fish. It gets referred to the DFO, gets referred to the Canadian Coast Guard for navigational impacts, gets referred to the Agricultural Land Commission if required, to the Ministry of Forests, to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Of course, they have to have a contract to begin with, in most cases with B.C. Hydro, if they want to get onto those power lines that help move electrons in the province.

Those processes are pretty rigorous, and to suggest otherwise would hint that perhaps the member hasn't spoken to people who've actually tried to get a project moved forward. I'm told it's not an easy process. It is a challenge to go through all of that and also reach agreements with first nations — which, in the case of the Ashlu project, was successfully done in terms of getting an agreement with the first nation to actively support that project.

In terms of the other aspect of the member's question, I am advised that in terms of land use plans, there are government-to-government discussions still taking place. I'm not leading that, so we'll see what comes from that and what discussions take place between governments.

S. Simpson: First of all, I didn't suggest a free ride, but the scrutiny is reduced. Maybe just to check on that, the one thing I'm told is that as we get under 50 megawatts, in fact, the process is different. The difference is that the public is not engaged in the process in at all the same way if the project is under 50 megawatts.

The minister speaks about first nations interests, and the minister is right. The Squamish Nation is supportive of this project because they have worked out an arrangement with Ledcor, as I understand from my discussions with the Squamish Nation. However, the minister will also know that the people who live in that community who are not part of the first nation are not supportive, in general, of this project, and their interests need to be considered as well.

[ Page 3827 ]

The question I have, then, in regard to this is, first of all: can the minister tell me what the difference is in the public consultation process between a project over 50 megawatts and a project under 50 megawatts?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll get some of those details, but the member might be interested to know that it was the NDP that raised the threshold from 20 megawatts to 50 megawatts in terms of engaging the EAO process.

S. Simpson: I know that this minister, like most of his colleagues, when he doesn't have an answer or isn't comfortable with the answer that he has to give because it embarrasses the performance of his government, goes to the past. But we're used to that.

I'll ask one further question in regard to this. The minister didn't deal with the question I asked. Could the minister tell us: does he believe that the Ministry of Environment has a responsibility to ensure that the cumulative impacts of run-of-the-river IPPs are assessed and that there is a strategic plan in place to ensure the integrity of those rivers before those water licences and contracts are let? If he does believe that's important, then what's the role of the Ministry of Environment in ensuring that does occur? And if he doesn't believe it's important, will he tell us that?

[1525-1530]

Hon. B. Penner: I understand the member is understandably sensitive around the fact that it was an NDP government that more than doubled the size threshold, taking projects from 20 megawatts up to 50 megawatts before triggering an environmental assessment office review. Presumably, that government did so because they felt it was the bigger projects that required more of a public process. I would expect that that was the public policy rationale that was given in the Legislature at the time. We can go back and look at Hansard if we want.

The water licensing process and all the criteria that are involved in getting that licence are available through the Ministry of Environment website, and I invite anyone who is following this debate to go take a look. It's a couple of clicks away, and you can find what the requirements are in order to get a water licence. It is strenuous, and it can be a condition of your licence, if you're an applicant, that you hold public open houses, that you provide information to the public and that the public be allowed to provide comments before water licences are issued by the comptroller of water licences.

In the case of the Ashlu river project — that's the one that the member keeps referring to — I'm advised that there were in fact six public open houses that were held to share information with the public. I believe the proponent also established an office that was open to the public to come and get information on the project at their leisure, when they saw fit to do so.

Those are all available. They're under the existing legislation, and that's how the process works. Again, if the member wants to see what the various criteria are in terms of issuing a licence from an environmental perspective, he can simply click a couple of times on the website and find that information.

Now, I've said already that I am always interested in what the environmental impacts are on these rivers and streams if these projects go ahead. Again, it's always an "if." Just because somebody makes an application doesn't mean that a licence is granted, doesn't mean that a project gets built. There's considerable attrition, dramatic attrition, between how many licences are applied for and how many get issued and how many projects actually end up being built at the end of the day. That's something fundamental to understand.

But it'll be a cost borne by the individual applicant to prove out whether or not those projects can be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Our objective, at all times, is to make sure that any impact to rivers and fish or other wildlife attributes or ecological attributes are minimized and that the integrity of the river is maintained. That is always our overriding objective, and we're not deviating from that.

S. Simpson: I just want to ask one more question about this, because I think I've got about as much information as I'm going to get, or not get, from the minister on this. I have one last question that relates to this issue. Probably a simple yes or no answer will do, if the minister is so inclined. The question is: does the Ministry of Environment have any policy requirement for there to be an analysis of the cumulative impacts on rivers in a region in regard to these applications for IPPs?

[1535]

Hon. B. Penner: The water comptroller, before issuing a water licence, does consider the impact on river systems and the cumulative impact that any combination of IPPs may have on a particular water stream or watercourse.

The Mamquam River near Squamish is an example. There are actually two small hydro projects operating on that river. Both of them have gone through the assessment process, and it has been determined that those two projects operating on that river are sustainable from an environmental perspective. They were given a water licence in order that a power project could operate.

I think we have to step back for a moment and put things in a bigger context. Prior to lunch I heard the opposition member say that we do need to get on with generating clean sources of electricity. British Columbia is now a net importer. That's not a good situation for the province to be in. It exposes us to price spikes, because we're importing 12 to 14 percent of our electricity, most of it from the United States of America.

If and when their economy in the northwest gets going as quickly as ours is, we can expect that they'll start to experience some increased needs for electricity. All things being equal, the price will increase. The more we can do on our side of the border to generate more electricity, the more insulated we will be from those price shocks, should they come. And there's

[ Page 3828 ]

every expectation that five to ten years from now, they will.

That's why our government has actually taken steps to generate more electricity in British Columbia. We're not building power plants in Pakistan; that's not on our agenda. We're building projects here for British Columbia's needs so that we can become self-sufficient again in electricity.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, if you wish to make comments, do so from your own seats.

D. MacKay: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. MacKay: In the gallery today I have 25 grade 4, 5, 6 and 7 students, who are very keen and energetic and very polite, from the small community of Quick, which is near Smithers. They are accompanied today by their teacher David Conway and two women who are also along as…

[1540]

M. Sather: Chaperones.

D. MacKay: …chaperones. Thank you.

My golly, I'm sorry. That name escaped me. Chaperones was the word I was looking for. The two chaperones are Darlene Russell and Rhea Rowe. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Thorne: Today I have a few questions on the Coquitlam River, specifically, and I also have a few questions on riparian area regulations to follow. The ongoing status of the Coquitlam River as an endangered river is of great concern to the residents of Coquitlam and the surrounding area. Lately there's been some talk about the river becoming a permanent member on the ten-most-endangered-rivers list. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on that.

Hon. B. Penner: I am aware that that river has been identified by the Outdoor Recreation Council. On a number of occasions it's made their list that they put out for public attention and comment.

The ministry works with stakeholders across the province on a variety of different projects related to river enhancement — whether it's additional opportunities for spawning or rearing channels and that type of thing. It's one of the reasons why we've established the living rivers trust fund to help fund projects for a variety of rivers and streams across the province.

Currently, there is $7 million in the trust fund. I'm hoping we will soon be able to complete our election commitment from last May to triple the amount of money in the living rivers trust fund so that additional work can take place along rivers and streams. I don't know if there is a specific application at this time for funding to the living rivers trust fund related to the Coquitlam River, but I can check on that.

D. Thorne: Thank you to the minister. I'm assuming that the minister and the ministry are aware of the Coquitlam River and its ongoing status as an endangered river. This is nothing new. This has been going on for many, many years. There are, no doubt, many reasons for that — an urban river of its kind with a B.C. Hydro dam at the end of it.

However, the science has shown over the years that the primary problem in the area with the river is the gravel mining, the pits along Pipeline Road that are silting up the river. Certainly, I'm assuming that the Ministry of Environment has been working with the Ministry of Mines and DFO.

There is also a lot of concern on the part of Coquitlam residents about this river slipping between the cracks of ministerial jurisdiction and federal and provincial jurisdictions. Assuming that these ministries are working together, I'm wondering what dealings the ministry has had with these different ministries and levels of government and with the gravel mining industry on this issue along the Coquitlam River to address the endangered river. If this information is not readily available right now, I'm prepared to receive it in the very near future, if that would work better for the minister.

[1545]

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, we will endeavour to get you that information.

D. Thorne: Thanks to the minister. I have another question, my last one, on the Coquitlam River. It's a very specific question. I'm wondering what the Ministry of Environment is doing to ensure that the fish in the river are maintained, and I'd like to know the specific science that backs up what is happening right now with the river. That answer can also come with the other one if you don't have it specifically today.

[L. Mayencourt in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that B.C. Hydro, which has some role in operating the Coquitlam River dam, made some changes to their water use plan that resulted in a change in flows designed to improve conditions for fish in the river. But I also understand there were those in the area opposed to those changes, perhaps out of concern that water levels might be too high.

So I understand that there is some controversy about that change in the water use plan or the operation of that facility, but I don't know any more detail than that other than that situation may be getting reviewed or may even be the subject of an appeal. I will endeavour to get the member the information that she seeks about specific initiatives to enhance fish habitat.

[ Page 3829 ]

D. Thorne: There was some concern, actually, from city council. I was a councillor at the time that those recommendations came in from B.C. Hydro. That is still ongoing — the water use plan. Thank you for that information in advance.

Now my questions about riparian area regulations. It's my understanding that DFO has not signed off on the science supporting the RAR assessment methodology. The assessment methodology has been presented as the guiding document for determining setbacks under the RAR. In particular, DFO has indicated that they have not been provided with adequate scientific rationale to justify the large woody debris component of the methodology and has asked for such information from the province for three years. I'd like to know: what is still required by DFO to sign off on the RAR?

[1550]

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that DFO officials have agreed that development proponents, following the process laid out in the RAR, would be considered to have exercised reasonable due diligence under the Fisheries Act. The written support has been promised, and we're expecting to receive that shortly. I understand that there was a meeting just last week and that mutual support was indicated.

D. Thorne: I'm glad to hear that you've managed to work through the difficulties with DFO. It has taken some time. I look forward to seeing the changes in the RAR. That being said, the SPR is considered by DFO — and I know this — and the majority of provincial staff and qualified professionals and conservation organizations to be the best possible approach to protecting fish and fish habitat.

Why are local governments and the UBCM being urged to adopt the RAR if components of it have not been found to be scientifically defensible in all cases? That's my first question.

My second question is: why are they being urged, especially when municipalities already have bylaws in place that meet or beat the RAR — in other words, based on the previous SPR — or are moving towards SPR-based bylaws…? I'm really interested in why the province would be urging — I'm trying to find a word to use there — when we know that the SPR beats, in all cases, the RAR. Some people have already adopted it.

Again, if this information is not available today, I'll be very happy to receive it in the near future, because I recognize you may not have been expecting these questions.

[1555]

Hon. B. Penner: Certainly, I can follow up with a more detailed explanation in writing about how the RAR works. Generally, my understanding is that the intention is to rely on independent science around particular creeks and streams as to what the best approach is, rather than have a one-size-fits-all approach. That's the intention behind the RAR, but I can follow up with the member in writing and get more specifics to her.

As indicated in my first answer, we do have assurances from the DFO staff that we've been talking to that they support the approach, and we expect to receive additional information from them in due course.

D. Thorne: The one-size-fits-all approach is probably problematic for some people, but when we know by the science that the one-size-fits-all approach is the best approach in pretty much every way scientifically, then we have to wonder why municipalities that have adopted SPR — or based on SPR to beat the RAR — are now being urged to change their bylaws and adopt the RAR. I do look forward to that information, and that's my specific question: why are these municipalities involved in discussions with Victoria when they already have their bylaws in place?

I have one more question, and I just have a small

preamble about the assessment methodology. It's my understanding that the version of the assessment methodology available to the public and being used to train professionals on determining the riparian setbacks is outdated and has been revised. Is it not a concern, given decisions around setbacks and development, that they will be getting made with obsolete protocols? I'm also wondering: how can the public access this most recent version of the assessment methodology and be made aware of what has been changed?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member has reached a certain conclusion which is based on an assumption, and I'm not sure it's necessarily supported by the science. She's of the belief, evidently, that SPR is the best thing in all cases. My understanding from the information we receive from scientists is that that may not necessarily afford the best protection in all cases. That's why there's a new model.

The training that the member's asking about is being done, in conjunction with Malaspina College, to help train ministry staff, local government staff as well as qualified environmental professionals to be called upon to assess individual creeks and streams to determine what the best type of approach is for that particular watercourse. That's the work that's ongoing.

As we find out if there are changes that need to be made, we are prepared to tweak it at the margins, but I understand that, fundamentally, the training is proceeding very well. If there are additional updates that need to be done, they will be done as a matter of course, but the process, I'm told, is well underway.

D. Thorne: Well, I'll repeat my last question: how can the public access the most recent versions of the assessment methodology and be made aware of what has been changed, if in fact there have been changes? There are many people who would like to see those changes and what is now being used for training and determining the decisions around setbacks and obsolete protocols.

I'm going to leave it there and thank the minister very much. I look forward to receiving the information that I have requested, including the last question.

[ Page 3830 ]

[1600]

C. Wyse: So that he knows where the questions are coming from, I have a series of questions, minister, around the proposed relocation of the GVRD landfill site. Some of these questions are simply for the record.

The first question. What is the lead ministry on this project, and what other ministries are required to sign off on this project?

Hon. B. Penner: Under the legislation we have in British Columbia, the Minister of Environment must sign off on solid waste management plans put forward by municipalities. In the case of the plan by the GVRD, there's the additional review by the environmental assessment office that would take place.

C. Wyse: Thank you for the information.

This review, as the minister is aware, was sent back to be reviewed based in part upon not sufficient consultation with first nations in the first go-round. That contributed to three delays.

My question to the minister is: what steps has the province taken to ensure that the required first nations involvement in the proposed GVRD landfill occurs this time?

[1605]

Hon. B. Penner: I've had a number of meetings with people from the GVRD in relation to this issue. But more so, staff have also met with the staff of the GVRD to help them better understand what their requirements are in terms of first nations consultation. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation have been dealing directly with the GVRD, I think, at the staff-to-staff level and is providing advice as they approach first nations in the consultation process.

C. Wyse: My question to the minister is: given that he is the lead on this item, is he satisfied that due process has been granted to first nations in this go-round in dealing with the proposed relocation of the GVRD, with first nations?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not sure I heard the member's entire question, but I think he asked, basically, how things are going. My understanding is that things are progressing reasonably well. There may still be some issues that need to be ironed out.

I received a letter not long ago from a lawyer representing the first nations indicating that things are improving in terms of the information flow. I think the extra consultation has proven to be beneficial.

C. Wyse: Once more, I thank the minister for that information.

I'll try to combine my next two questions into one. Given that two proponents for sure will likely be making presentations — from the proposed Ashcroft landfill site and likewise from the Highland Valley copper site…. One of the questions that does exist within the various communities is — and to the minister: are the requirements that were set for the proposed Ashcroft Ranch site the same requirements that are also being assigned to the possibility of the Highland Valley copper site?

[1610]

Hon. B. Penner: Under the solid waste management plan, what the minister must consider before approving such a plan is whether adequate consultation has taken place, whether the project itself is technically feasible and whether it would be environmentally responsible.

The members have referred to the possibility of another project coming forward. I'm advised that there has been some interest expressed to the EAO about another project, but there's no formal application at this time from the project or the proponent that the member refers to. It's entirely possible that as the GVRD looks for options, as they're required to do under the solid waste management plan process, there may be other suggestions or ideas that come forward from other proponents about how best to handle the waste that's generated in the GVRD.

C. Wyse: Once more, I'm very appreciative of the information that's been provided.

What I'm looking for, though, are assurances that the requirements from the various proposals will, in essence, be a level playing field for what is put in front of the GVRD and, therefore, on to you, hon. minister.

Hon. B. Penner: In fact, the ministry is working on an ongoing basis with the GVRD to make sure that there is a level playing field out there for competing ideas about how best to handle waste from the GVRD.

C. Wyse: I'm going to try and wrap up and put my last two questions together for the minister, though I am recognizing that they are not necessarily connected. So we can go back and redo them.

Is the process on schedule? That is, is it presently being undertaken within the time frames of the EAO process for the GVRD? Leading into my secondary question: when does the minister expect a decision on this matter? As the minister is aware, this item has some time urgencies around it, and I want to know when he thinks he will be making a decision, recognizing that this other process for the GVRD has its time lines — therefore, that two-part question.

Hon. B. Penner: The GVRD, I'm told, is well aware of the time constraints and is looking at options to see whether they can get more time out of the existing landfill to allow them more time for the first nations consultation they're working on.

My comment earlier was that I've heard that some of the more recent meetings have been more constructive and positive in tone, so that's to be saluted. Hopefully, that's a sign that the process is proceeding, but it has taken time, as I understand it, to establish the proper working relationship so that constructive con-

[ Page 3831 ]

sultation can take place. I don't have a specific time line for the member.

C. Wyse: As I've discovered here, things are often very fluid, particularly when it comes to time lines and scheduling, so I am appreciative. I'm attempting to determine from the minister…. His ministry set down the time lines of when the proposal from the GVRD was to be back in front of his ministry. What I'm attempting to determine in my question is whether that time line will be met.

[1615]

Hon. B. Penner: I've just been trying to identify specific time lines here for the member. We don't appear to have those dates in front of us, but I'd be happy to provide a more detailed update to the member in writing once we can determine where we're at in terms of those specific dates.

It did take a while to get the process started last summer. I know the ministry met with the GVRD on several occasions to explain why additional consultation was required. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation was involved, at our request, to help the GVRD fully understand and meet their obligations in terms of additional consultation. That process, I'm told, is underway, and there have been some positive comments that I've gotten back recently from representatives of the first nations as a result of those meetings. So I'm hopeful things are moving, but it may be taking longer than we initially anticipated.

C. Wyse: Normally, when I come to estimates, Chair, it would not be my intention to finish up by making a statement to the minister, but given the fact that he is going to provide me with a letter, it forces me to make this statement.

The issue that we're dealing with here is a solid waste disposal that is rapidly coming to a closure. This issue has been in front of the province and the Ministry of Environment for a very long period of time. My recollection, which would stand for correction, is that the ministry has set down the end of June for this process to be completed. I will wait to see what the results are, but assuredly, if those deadlines also fall off the track, then there are some pressures that come into place for all of the lower mainland in dealing with this issue. This issue is very significant.

Though it may be taking place, in part, in the rural riding of Cariboo South, there are also some very significant issues around it.

As I wait for the response from the Minister of Environment, I do want to leave with this House the urgency around this issue — the significance of this issue, with it involving discussions with first nations and also dealing with the solid waste management disposal for approximately half the province. I would like to thank the minister for his time.

Hon. B. Penner: We do recognize that it's an important issue. The process is in the hands of the GVRD. They must make sure that they deal with this matter in an expeditious manner. My understanding is that things are moving reasonably well.

I've indicated several times now that after their meetings with the first nations, following the help they've had from my ministry as well as the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, the GVRD has reached out and has had meetings that have been constructive with the local first nations. So that's a positive indicator — certainly a different place than where we were at about nine months ago.

[1620]

M. Farnworth: I have a few questions I'd like to ask the minister. It's on an issue that was raised a few moments ago by my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville concerning the Coquitlam River, a river that, as the minister probably knows, is the western boundary of my riding. It is something that I've known since I was a small boy, and I have considerable interest in its health and future well-being.

I have a number of questions. One of the questions I have is around the ministry's approach to the restoration of salmon stocks that have been extirpated from various river systems in the province. What's the ministry's policy for encouraging the restoration of extirpated salmon stocks?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm just awaiting the arrival of some additional staff. My understanding is that salmon are primarily the lead responsibility for the federal government through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but we do work in partnership with DFO on a number of rivers and a number of projects in assessing the most productive opportunities in terms of habitat enhancement work that can take place.

I referenced earlier the living rivers trust fund, and that program is being ramped up. There's also funding that sometimes becomes available through the Habitat Conservation Trust fund. Every year there's a list of projects that they put forward. I don't have that list here. There may well be projects coming forward for the Coquitlam River, though, if my memory serves me correctly.

I know that we've recently entered into some form of an agreement, I believe with the DFO and the Ministry of Energy and Mines, to do some kind of coordinated review about the impact that gravel operations may be having in and along the Coquitlam River. I don't have the details of that, but I'm just generally aware that there's a recent development on that front.

M. Farnworth: The minister's correct. DFO does have a lead role. I guess my question is in terms of the provincial…. The province certainly has an input, and DFO would certainly be interested in the province's views in terms of the restoration of salmon stocks.

That was a question I'm wondering about. Does the province offer an opinion? Do they let the federal government and the DFO know, for example, that they are in favour of seeing extirpated salmon species and stocks restored to some of the major river systems? I

[ Page 3832 ]

would say that the Coquitlam is one of those, particularly on the lower mainland.

[1625]

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that there are some fish in the Coquitlam River but perhaps not as many as we would all like to see. I know the member used the term "extirpated." I don't know if he means that the fish are gone entirely from that river or not. Frankly, I'm not sufficiently familiar.

I'm told that the ministry does support salmon enhancement and restoration in the Coquitlam River, that we partner with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and that we do communicate on a regular basis with DFO about what our priorities would be from a provincial perspective. Again, to go back to the member's question about the Coquitlam, we do support restoring salmon into the Coquitlam River.

M. Farnworth: I'll lay it out for the minister in this context. Yes, there are fish in the Coquitlam River. There are two species, definitively, right now: coho and chum. There's also been some re-establishment of chinook, though whether that's been successful over the long term, I think, remains to be seen.

There were originally two other species of salmon in the Coquitlam. Pink salmon have been extirpated because of gravel operations. It has been that way, I think, since the late '50s or early '60s. They spawn primarily in the lower reaches of the Coquitlam. Their habitat has basically been eliminated. The other species of salmon that was in the Coquitlam River is the sockeye. They basically became extirpated from the river in about 1914 with the construction of the Coquitlam River dam.

That's why I ask the question. If there are opportunities to reintroduce those species that were once in there, and to revitalize and continue to enhance those that are there, that's what I would like the province to be doing in terms of working with DFO.

Which brings me to the most important part, I think, of the questions that I had this afternoon: the sockeye salmon that were extirpated. It is believed that there are remnant populations behind the dam — which now function, essentially, as kokanee salmon — and that if there was a way for them to get past the dam, you could reintroduce the run, which is still there, to the river as a whole.

B.C. Hydro has done some work in terms of the dam upgrade. One of the terms around the dam upgrade was looking at the possibility of some incorporation of a fish ladder into any future upgrade work of the dam. I would ask: is the Ministry of Environment or the minister aware of this work? If so, have they given any advice to Hydro on the desirability of seeing this ladder put in place?

Hon. B. Penner: I haven't been briefed on the specific proposal that's been talked about by B.C. Hydro regarding a fish ladder, but we do work closely with the ministry. As I mentioned, we've recently entered into some form of an arrangement or agreement to see what can be done to mitigate the impact from gravel operations, which, as the member has advised me, have been ongoing for a considerable period of time.

[1630]

I should mention, as well, that there is the Pacific Salmon Foundation, which we work in partnership with in identifying priorities for projects and for funding. This might be the type of initiative that would draw financial support from a variety of sources, as it would accomplish goals that are relevant to the mandate of not just the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Energy and Mines or B.C. Hydro, but perhaps others, like the Salmon Foundation and the living rivers trust fund. I don't want to speak too soon for those organizations. They'll have to make their decisions about what they want to fund. At first blush, it certainly seems like a worthwhile project.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answers. The reason I raise this with him is that Hydro has done some consultations in the past around the dam upgrade and held a series of open houses. This is an issue that has been raised, and they've said: "Oh well, we're looking at incorporating it." I want to make sure you're aware of that issue, the importance of it to those of us in the Tri-Cities and concerned about the Coquitlam.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I don't want it to be seen from the part of Hydro — and I'll have questions for Hydro on it later — as sort of a window-dressing exercise, as sometimes can happen, that satisfies, you know, "Yes, we're doing something," but at the same time, they're not talking with your ministry, which would clearly have considerable impact on a decision to encourage or discourage a project like that to take place.

It would be a significant project. It would be a very important environmental improvement to the Coquitlam River, which would allow the restoration of a run of salmon for which, in fact, the Coquitlam was named. I would ask the minister to be in contact with Hydro, to ask the status of this particular project with regards to the upgrade that's taking place at the dam. If he could give the information back to me, I would appreciate it.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll be glad to oblige the member, and I'll do that.

M. Farnworth: I have one final question. Local governments are dealing with streamside setbacks, and whether it's SPR or RAR, the decision on what to do is up to them. But, in a number of cases, the adoption of either of these sets of regulations can have a negative impact, particularly on small land holders. I'm wondering: does the minister believe that, in those cases where small land holders are unduly affected, that they should be compensated?

[ Page 3833 ]

[1635]

Hon. B. Penner: I don't believe there's any ultimate difference in terms of the principle at stake between the SPR and the RAR, other than that the RAR is intended to be a bit more site-specific, based on science applied to an individual watercourse or specific proposal or project.

The impetus, I think initially, for the legislation called the Fish Protection Act — which I think was introduced in 1998, give or take the year — came from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal Fisheries Act, requiring that appropriate measures be taken to protect fish habitat and streams and aquatic life, etc. The province moved to show that we're doing what's reasonable and giving municipalities guidance in how to approach the situation so that developments are not approved that run afoul of the federal Fisheries Act.

That's why — with the previous questions here a while ago pertaining to what DFO thinks about this — those questions arise. DFO has, I guess, some constitutional responsibilities, and they have that legislative tool called the federal Fisheries Act, which is a very powerful tool.

The SPR — if I have that right, streamside protection regulation — versus the RAR…. Both are intended to meet the requirements of the federal Fisheries Act, and I think the RAR can do that. In many cases we'll have the result of not taking as much land away from — as he describes — a small land holder as the previous regime, although that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis by qualified environmental professionals making that determination about what the appropriate measurement or distance is from a watercourse.

N. Macdonald: The question, for the minister's information, will be on the conservation officer in Golden. The context for the question is around the commitment made to place a seasonal conservation officer in Golden.

That commitment, as the minister knows, was made in March of 2005. A seasonal conservation officer was not placed in Golden in 2005. A seasonal conservation officer has not been placed again this year in Golden. There was a seasonal conservation officer placed in Invermere to serve Golden, and that is 118 kilometres away.

Golden has had a ranger or a conservation officer since 1905 up until a few years ago. We did have two conservation officers until this government got rid of them. At that time, in the press release that announced it, the community was told that service would be maintained in terms of what the community would see. But I know that the minister has received a tremendous amount of correspondence from the community that would indicate that the community doesn't feel that service has been maintained. He'll be familiar with the rod and gun club, B.C. Wildlife and local environmental groups, as well as individuals, which would be corresponding with him.

I understand that the closing of the office created a need to re-establish a new office and that there would be complications around that, but that shouldn't be a complete barrier to bringing a conservation officer back. I know there's also difficulty around the posting of seasonal staff and that you wouldn't want that person alone. I understand that issue. But there again that issue can be dealt with by a permanent posting — something that the mayor and council and I have indicated would be appropriate.

I draw your attention to a newspaper

article in Invermere. Norm Hendricks, president of the Invermere-based Lake Windermere Rod and Gun Club says:

Seems like they, the government, don't want to do anything right. We have two full-time COs here in Invermere, and we need those people in our area, but it is very difficult and costly for them to travel to Golden and back to patrol that area. Now another part-time conservation officer here; this is not where the COs are needed. Golden is where he or she should be stationed, and they should be full-time with an office and whatever is needed.

[1640]

I know that the staff in my area work very, very hard, and I know that they're very, very competent, but there is the question as to whether there are enough people and where they're placed. I've been very clear with the minister, and I appreciate the time he's taken with this. I've been very clear that there needs to be a person year-round placed in Golden. I would reach that conclusion from the following, and then the question I will have is just on how the minister reaches his conclusions as to what is needed. I would reach the conclusion just from the number of people that bring this to me and then from my own experiences.

In my front yard I've had a bear. Who do you call to deal with it? Well, that's not at all unusual to have a bear, but what we used to have were conservation officers that would come and deal with it. Now it's the RCMP that are dealing with it. I've had, as a principal, a bear and cubs in my playground. At that time I did phone in. I was told when I phoned into Victoria that they've written it down, but it didn't help me, so I didn't phone back again. So who deals with that? There again, it's the RCMP, perhaps, that are called in.

Two weekends ago somebody phoned. A deer had been hit. It was night. The deer was injured. The person wanted to know if they should take care and finish off the deer. You can't do that. It has to be somebody other than…. You know, you can't do that. They're trying to get hold of the RCMP. All of these things the conservation officer used to take care of.

Slash burning. In certain communities the conservation officer used to take care of it. Somebody's not going to come from Invermere to take care of it. Dumping garbage in the bush. Just walking around, you can see people are dumping. Because of tipping fees, gates close. In the past, the conservation officer could be phoned, and they would deal with it.

I realize it's subjective, but if you came to Golden and talked to people, every single one of them, I sus-

[ Page 3834 ]

pect, would say that there is a need for a conservation officer that is there. Then there's also the issue of game and how the fishery is being run.

We've had these conversations before, minister. I know that the minister is well aware of this issue. The question I have for you is this one. How do you judge the need? For me, I see very clearly that there is a need. How do you judge whether the service level that the government is providing to the people of Golden is adequate?

Hon. B. Penner: The answer is: I don't make that assessment. That's actually the job of the conservation officer service to make those operational decisions about deployments in the field. It doesn't mean that I don't ask questions, though, and I certainly have.

In fact, I made a visit to the Invermere conservation office some time just before the Legislature started sitting and asked the full-time conservation officers, the year-round people, where they felt it would be most appropriate to place a seasonal officer, because I wanted to see if the message from them would be the same that I was getting from staff in Victoria, and that message was the same. They felt that the most appropriate location for a seasonal conservation officer would be out of the Invermere office, where the seasonal officer would have the opportunity to have direct supervision.

There was a review done following the first year of having seasonal conservation officers in the field. Following that review, the conservation officer service came to the conclusion that, wherever possible and feasible, it would be best to have direct supervision by a year-round, experienced conservation officer when we're dealing with the seasonal conservation officers. That was the advice of the conservation officer service. That was their opinion, and that's the decision they made.

The member mentions the distance. That's about an hour and 15 minutes' driving time from Invermere to Golden, although he'll certainly know that better than I because he'll have driven that more frequently than I have. I'm told it's not outside the norm of driving distances for conservation officers — that they typically cover a large area, a wide area — and they don't simply service the area in which their office is located. They tend to cover a wider area. Nevertheless, I can understand the reason for the member's questions and appreciate his interest in this matter.

[1645]

N. Macdonald: I thank the minister. In fact, I would commend him for the visit to the Invermere office. I know we've spent a lot of time with this, and I guess we will continue to deal with it. The seasonal aspect of the job — I understand the need for them to be with experienced people. When it was first posted, that was one of the complications around having somebody, last year, placed in Golden.

The answer, to me and to the rod and gun and to other people in communities, is clear. There is a need for a permanent, full-time position. With a placement like that, you would have the vast area of Crown land around Golden properly looked after.

With that — I know there are limitations on time — I thank the minister for the answer, and I look forward to continuing to deal with him on this matter.

S. Simpson: At this point I would let the minister know that in our last hour before we wrap up estimates, I think we're going to deal with questions around the EAO — the environmental assessment office — and issues related to toxins and pollutants. I'm guessing that that will get us pretty close to the end of the road in our next hour. Those will be the two topic areas, for his information.

The first question does relate to the EAO, and I don't know whether he'd like to just take a moment here while his staff person…. And there she is.

The first question is: could the minister explain a little bit about the budget of the EAO? When I look in the service plan, I do see that the budget goes up significantly for the size of money. It goes up from about $4.6 million in '05-06 to $5.75 million in '06-07. Could the minister tell us what that increase covers, since it's almost a million dollars and I see it has three FTEs. What's that money for?

[1650]

Hon. B. Penner: Because the economy is on a roll here in British Columbia, the EAO is much busier. I think — and I stand to be corrected — a few years ago we had, maybe, 15 or so applications within the environmental assessment office for a review. Today we're at about 45, and the expectation is that by the end of the year it could be a higher number than that under active review.

Accordingly, we have increased the amount of resources provided to the environmental assessment office so that they can conduct their reviews. In fiscal '04-05 the budget was $2.897 million, with a total of 29 FTEs to do the work. Last fiscal year, 2005-2006, the number of FTEs was 34, and the budget was $4.6 million. This year we're projecting that we will have 38 FTEs to handle the workload. The budget for this current fiscal year is, as the member can see, $5.5 million.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. Then, could the minister explain why the budget in '07-08 and '08-09 in fact goes down to about $4.5 million — less than was spent in '05-06? The number of FTEs stays the same, but there's a drop-off of in excess of $1 million in the budget. Could he explain what the expectation is? Do we expect things to slow down, or what's going to happen?

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is that the Finance Minister is a cautious person, but the more detailed explanation is this: we have quite a number of projects right now in the environmental assessment office process. Those projects eventually come out of the process. In fact, we've got a 180-day requirement in

[ Page 3835 ]

legislation to make decisions once that clock formally starts to when it ends.

We'll take another look at what the situation is at the end of the year to see if in fact the total number of projects actively under review has gone down. As projects go through the review process, they drop off the chart, as it were, once the EAO office has completed its work. It could be that there will continue to be new projects coming forward at the same rate or maybe even at a higher rate next year. But we'll have to wait to see this fall what our best guess is as to whether or not the workload will remain the same in future years.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how the money gets spent? The fact that, essentially, the money goes back down to somewhat a little bit less than the '05-06 number in '07-08 and in '08-09…. I appreciate that the number could be adjusted in future budgets, but it goes down, and yet there's no expectation of a reduction in FTEs. What's happening with that money, and how's it getting spent if it's not affecting staffing levels?

[1655]

Hon. B. Penner: Some of the work that gets done at the EAO office is done by contractors. In future years if, in fact, we're not as busy and the projects don't require as much involvement, then we can adjust our contracts accordingly so that we don't have as many contracted resources or people working on the projects.

S. Simpson: Then, is it a fair assumption that most of this increased work that the minister is anticipating in this year because of increased applications is largely covered by contract support rather than by direct employees of the ministry? Is it the expectation in the '06-07 year that that roughly $900,000, or close to a million dollars there, of additional money is going to go to contractors, in large part, to pay for services?

Hon. B. Penner: We're increasing spending this year by approximately, I'm guessing, $700,000, in rough numbers, in terms of professional services — that is, hiring people on contract — and increasing spending by approximately $300,000 to hire the extra FTEs that the member sees in the service plan.

S. Simpson: The contractors that are hired to do this work on behalf of the ministry — who are these people who are generally hired? I know that contracts are let and that different people will bid on those. Maybe the minister could tell us: how are those contractors determined, how do they come on board, and who are they?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that the people that are employed in the ministry, whether they're full-time FTEs or are hired on contract, are people that have project management experience. They have a range of academic credentials or academic backgrounds. People become aware of these opportunities, I think, through the B.C. Bid website.

S. Simpson: Does the ministry contract individuals who come with those credentials, or will it contract environmental consulting firms — those kinds of businesses — to come and do that work?

[1700]

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that it tends to be individuals, but individuals may decide to incorporate and create their own business, as it were, and have themselves as the product that is their business. So those are the people that would submit bids or respond to a posting, as it were, through the B.C. Bid website.

S. Simpson: I've had the opportunity over the years to work with a number of environmental consultants who have worked for interests, whether it be things like the Port of Vancouver or major industries and that. I know that part of the challenge many of them have is that there aren't a lot of people who do that, who are really skilled at it. It's a growing sector, but it's not a very large sector in terms of a lot of those companies and businesses.

From speaking to some of them, I know they are very diligent, in large part. Certainly as a rule, they are. I know that a number of the smaller firms, which tend to be a couple of people working together, often get into this challenge where they're trying to keep themselves out of conflicts because they work for a range of interests — whether it be government, the province, local governments, the federal government on contractual agreements Then they work for industry, and then they work for somebody else.

Hon. B. Penner: There is a screening process. I'm told the contract that individuals sign is a standard government contract, and my understanding is that people would have to disclose what other activities they would have or would be undertaking.

S. Simpson: We might touch this again, but I want to move a little bit to another issue related to the environmental assessment office. When I go to page 52 of the service plan and look at the strategies, it lists two strategies there under goal two — the two strategies at the top of the page. It talks about developing proponent guides — I think I'm on the right place — and providing tools to increase public understanding.

But then when it goes down further and talks about the actual performance measures, it has one perform-

[ Page 3836 ]

ance measure, and it says "the proponent's overall level of satisfaction with the assessment process." It says that will be determined in '05-06, and then it will be maintained or exceeded. Has the ministry determined what that should look like — the proponent's overall level of satisfaction with the assessment process?

[1705]

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that the environmental assessment office has hired B.C. Stats to conduct an independent survey of proponents for 2005-2006, and that information should be available soon.

S. Simpson: Then I'll assume that information will form the basis of the client satisfaction survey that is spoken about in the report. I find it interesting that there's a performance measure around the proponent's overall satisfaction. The second strategy at the top of the page says "to provide tools to help increase public understanding of the process and opportunities to participate in the project reviews." Could the minister tell us why there's no performance measure to determine public or stakeholder satisfaction in the EAO process?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that one of the challenges is in identifying who such a survey would be sent to, whether it would be to everybody in the province who would be interested in a project. It's difficult to know exactly who is interested in a project. Typically, the EAO tends to receive letters — the majority of them from the public — opposed to a particular project, so there may be a challenge in differentiating between the public's views on a particular project and the merits of that particular project versus their views on the professionalism of the actual process or the people working in the EAO.

[1710]

S. Simpson: Just to follow up on that a little bit, it seems to me that the ministry has gone to B.C. Stats to get assistance in determining, around proponents, how best to design and measure satisfaction. I think that's a good choice. I think B.C. Stats does good work.

Has the ministry had a discussion with B.C. Stats or with anybody else who's in that business? There are lots of people around who do that kind of consultation assessment. Has the ministry had that discussion around how to determine public or stakeholder satisfaction?

Hon. B. Penner: I'd be happy to explore that opportunity or that potential a bit more. I am told that the EAO has had that discussion with agencies other than B.C. Stats as well — professional private sector firms that get involved, I guess, in the form of polling. One of the concerns identified in that discussion was similar to what I mentioned earlier. Effectively, the pool that you'd be sampling isn't entirely random.

If you're contacting only those people who have written in with their views on a project, the vast majority of those people have been writing in because they're opposed to a project typically. Typically, those in favour of a project don't feel as motivated to comment. Nevertheless, I am interested to see what we could do in this regard, and whether a pilot or some kind of sample effort could be undertaken is something we'll endeavour to do.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I would encourage the minister to pursue that further. I think I understand the comment of the minister that those people who may be opposed to a project that goes through an EAO…. If in fact the environmental assessment deems the project isn't going ahead, they probably will think the process was pretty good. And if the project goes ahead, they might be less enthusiastic.

I would hope — and I think, as the minister says, and I think he's right — there are a number of businesses out there and contractors and experts who are very wise about this stuff. They've been doing it a long time, and they know how these processes work. I would expect that what the minister would want to determine is whether people felt the process was right regardless of what the result was.

Were they satisfied with the process in terms of the assessment, in terms of their ability to participate in it regardless of what the result might be? I suspect there may be some ways to do that with pilots. So I would encourage the minister to pursue that, and I'd be happy to hear more about that if the minister does move ahead with that.

I guess this relates somewhat to the same issue. There are a number of significant projects. I believe that when I read through the service plan, it talks about the major projects that the EAO is dealing with — mines, a number of other areas.

[1715]

I believe that the federal government does provide some intervener support, but I could be corrected on that. Does the provincial environmental assessment office provide any intervener support for those who are deemed to be legitimate interveners?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that when there is a comprehensive Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review, the federal government does provide the opportunity for individuals to apply for intervener funding. The provincial system is somewhat different. We do, through the EAO, at times make funding available for first nations to assist them with capacity or commenting on specific proposals, but that tends to be the extent of the funding for interveners through the EAO process provincially.

S. Simpson: I did notice in the report that there's certainly a consideration for first nations and some opportunities to provide resources so they can ensure that their interests are reflected in the work of the EAO and the work they do.

There are, as the minister will know, of course, numbers of other groups that also have legitimate concerns about how projects may unfold. They may not

[ Page 3837 ]

necessarily be first nations. They may not, quite frankly, have resources or access to resources that allow them to participate or to do the job they have to do and should do. It's a job that, quite honestly, I believe the environmental assessment office would find important — that when it's trying to balance all the interests, it hears from those people who have a thoughtful view that may not be shared by the proponent.

The problem, of course, is that these proponents are often large. They have lots of resources. I believe the minister talked about the Ashlu project and that Ledcor put somewhere around $6 million into the process in order to accomplish its objectives. That's a lot of money in one of these, as the minister noted.

Have the province and the ministry given any consideration to some kind of intervener support — that pool of resources — that interveners could apply to when they have a legitimate concern that should be reflected, and they can't afford to resource it themselves?

Hon. B. Penner: It has not been the policy of the EAO to provide intervener funding except for the circumstances that are already identified, in certain situations pertaining to first nations consultation. I'm told that we don't receive letters, or certainly not very many letters, from members of the public requesting intervener funding. But even if they did, at this point we're not in a position to offer that funding.

[1720]

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the ministry doesn't get letters and things. I know some of the organizations that have spoken to me might seek to avail themselves of that. They're fully aware that there is no program to avail themselves of, so they don't inquire when there's no reason to. I'm sure you would be getting letters if you had a pot of money for them to look at.

I appreciate that the fund doesn't exist there, and I can understand reasons why it may not. But does the minister think there are any circumstances he can see…? When I look at some of these, there are some very significant projects that the office deals with, which have broad-ranging impacts, and there could be many more as we head forward.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Are there circumstances where the minister thinks that some kind of intervener support — other than for first nations, which the minister has already acknowledged there is support for — may be warranted, in his view?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm of the view that there are ample opportunities for the public to comment through the EAO process. It can be as simple as sending an e-mail or letter or attending a public meeting or an open house and does not require an individual to retain counsel or hire experts in order to contact the EA office when a review is underway. It would be difficult to say that one project should receive intervener funding but not others. How would that distinction be made? In any event, the EA office is not in a position to offer that type of funding.

S. Simpson: Knowing we're getting close, I won't pursue that any further. I think we're done with the environmental assessment office.

Now I'd like to move to the question of toxics and pollutants. Could the minister speak a little bit around the issue of pulp mill sludge? Could the minister tell us what the status of the pulp mill sludge issue is in terms of using it as a soil enhancement?

[1725]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is probably aware that the Ministry of Environment put out the proposed soil enhancement code of practice for public comment last fall. Initially, there was a 30-day consultation period where the public had an opportunity to comment. That was extended by 15 days. So in total, there was a 45-day response period that ended on December 15, 2005.

More than 150 submissions were received during that time. Approximately 80 citizens, eight environmental groups, nine farm groups and five first nations submitted their comments for consideration. There were also representations made in the form of 14 submissions from industry and also comments from municipalities and other agencies of government, including provincial ministries.

We're currently reviewing the comments received, and we're expecting to post the written responses, or may post…. The note doesn't make a lot of sense here, in the writing. I think what it says is that we will be posting those responses on the Internet.

That's the status of that matter, and I look forward to the member's next question.

S. Simpson: One of the issues here, as I understand it, is the question of the numbers of toxins — and I can stand corrected here — or the list of materials which, should they be included in a sludge material or a soil enhancement or whatever we're calling it, would not be allowed. Is there a list? Does the ministry have a list saying that if any of these materials are deemed to be in that mix, then this is not allowable?

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that many of the toxins have already been identified through some other processes and other regulations, but we have established an interministry working group with the Ministry of Health as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to further identify additional toxins that would be prescribed and prohibited for use in the regulation.

S. Simpson: I would assume that list will be determined before any final decisions are made on allowing this project to go ahead around soil enhancements. The list will be determined and made clear before this project moves ahead?

[ Page 3838 ]

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is yes. The ministry will consult again with people once this preliminary list is identified and the acceptable levels are set. This consultation will include posting that information on the website so everyone has access to it.

[1730]

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I'm glad to hear that the ministry is going to put that list out there and let people make comment about whether it's complete enough and whether the levels are the appropriate thing before the ministry finalizes that list and allows things to move forward.

The next question I have that relates to pollution matters relates to Sierra Legal and the question about the polluters' list that we've discussed previously in question period. Could the minister tell us whether there's been any further discussion around this question of a list and the provision of that list or costs from back when this was a question period topic?

Hon. B. Penner: The work is progressing in the ministry for the compliance and enforcement

summary. It's my expectation then that that will be a quarterly production. It may be web-based and may also come out in paper format. That decision hasn't been made yet, but certainly, it would be my goal to make sure it is available in electronic format, because that's one of the most cost-effective and timely ways we can make that information available. It's also then broadly available, given how common it is for people now to have Internet access.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to hear that. I think an electronic version makes good sense. It's pretty accessible to anybody who wants it. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what his expectations are — I understand it's not complete — about what kind of information will be made available?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated — but I can elaborate a bit more here — the essence of the enforcement and compliance

summary will be to report to the public on the tickets issued, convictions obtained and compliance orders made by the Ministry of Environment. We want to let people know the outcomes of the investigations and prosecutions that are undertaken on behalf of the ministry and to report to the public on a quarterly basis.

I also envision there might be something akin to an annual report or an annual

summary that will get into some more of the detail or the flavour of what's behind the statistics and the specific sections. That's still a work in progress. I can imagine it would be interesting to delve into a little bit more depth on some of those statistics to find out what the actual complexities are out in the field and what actions the ministry staff had to take.

S. Simpson: So what we can anticipate here is a list that will tell us that these are the interests deemed, for whatever reason, to have not been in compliance, and this is the result of that — whether it's a charge, a ticket, a warning, whatever it is that's appropriate? We'll have a list that says: "Here are the folks in this quarter that were not in compliance, and here's what we did about it." Is that accurate?

Hon. B. Penner: That's pretty close. In addition to what I mentioned, there are things called administrative sanctions now, administrative penalties that we're starting to implement to try and expedite the consequence, rather than waiting for the court process, which can take years and years to wind its way through.

[1735]

Under the Wildlife Act, for example, there are administrative sanctions that we can impose to limit or restrict people's hunting and angling opportunities if they're found to be violating the rules and regulations. Actions taken in terms of administrative sanctions would also be included. There are also provisions under the Environmental Management Act for pollution prevention and abatement orders that we will report on.

S. Simpson: A question in relation to hydrometric water moni