2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 15

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Visit to B.C. by Queen Elizabeth II and Royal Victorian Order Recipients

Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Charitable activities of motorcyclists

B. Lekstrom

Crime prevention awards

D. Hayer

Victoria economy

J. Bray

Oral Questions

Drug costs

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

J. MacPhail

Aboriginal health

B. Belsey

Hon. S. Hawkins

Investment in technology industry

L. Mayencourt

Hon. R. Thorpe

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process, second report

J. Nuraney

Committee of the Whole House

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 60)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Health Authorities Amendment Act,

2002 (Bill 60)

Second Reading of Bills

Drinking Water Protection Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 61)

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

V. Anderson

B. Penner

[ Page 3847 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

VISIT TO B.C. BY

QUEEN ELIZABETH II AND

ROYAL VICTORIAN ORDER RECIPIENTS

Hon. G.

Campbell: Prior to commencing today, I'd just like to take a moment to

comment on this past weekend's event and the visit of Her Majesty and His Royal

Highness.

[1405]

You know,

whenever we do activities like that, it takes an awful lot of work and an awful

lot of time, effort and attention to detail by an awful lot of people,

particularly in protocol and events — public servants who have been serving

the province and the people of British Columbia for some time. Communications

staff — there was a huge number of new people that were here, who had to learn

about British Columbia as well as where we were going and what we were doing.

I just want

to take a moment to thank and congratulate those public servants for the work

they've done. I think sometimes we forget how important those people are, and we

take for granted what they do. Fortunately, this week we had an exceptional

event, an exceptional visit from Her Majesty, and it was the innovation and the

creativity of our staff that helped make it that way. I can tell you that when

they first suggested Her Majesty might want to drop the puck at a hockey game,

that took a little bit of work. That was an idea of our public service, and I

can tell you there were 18,000 British Columbians who loved every single minute

of that event.

Equally

importantly, Her Majesty and His Royal Highness really enjoyed that event. As

nervous as Her Majesty may have been as she walked out on the ice, I can tell

you that for someone who's seen one period of hockey in the last 50 years, she

was pretty much engaged in the game. The critical thing for me is that

yesterday, prior to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness leaving, two of our staff

were inducted into the Royal Victorian Order.

The Royal

Victorian Order was founded in 1896 by Queen Victoria, and it's given by the

Queen to people who have served her or the monarchy in a personal way. I am

pleased to tell the House, and I want to congratulate the recipients. Dagmar

Beimen, a protocol officer, was made a member of the Victorian Order. Marc-André

Ouellette, who is the director of protocol and events for the province of

British Columbia and the British Columbia director of the tour, was made a

lieutenant of the Victorian Order. I hope the House will send their

congratulations to both of those recipients as well as to the literally dozens

of staff who worked so hard to make British Columbia proud.

Introductions by Members

Krueger: In the gallery visiting us today is Mr. Jim Stewart, who is a

regional representative on the B.C. Liberal Party executive for the North Island

— the scourge of all other parties — and his daughter Jennifer, who was

active in my political campaign in 2001 until she gave me up for fish. She's now

a fish monitor on fishing boats off Vancouver Island and spends weeks at a time

out there protecting our environment. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Orr:

Today we've got two very special people in the gallery, two very dedicated young

Liberals who are students at the University of Victoria: Trisha and Dallas.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: In the gallery today is a longtime school friend from Surrey–White

Rock and his cousins from Norway. Would you please welcome Vidar, Sigurd and

Olly Langehaug.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: In the gallery this afternoon are seven representatives of the

Victoria high-tech community. First of all, we have Dale Gann, Sandy Beaman and

Joe VanBelleghem from the Vancouver Island Technology Park. In addition, we have

Brian Nutt from PureEdge Solutions, Peter Baillie from Epic Biosonics, Glenn

Bindley from Redlen Technologies and Troy Griffin from Vigil Health Management.

Brian,

Peter, Glenn and Troy all represent local high-tech companies that were selected

among the top 40 Pacific Northwest technology companies at a recent all-star

summit held in Seattle on September 27. This is great news for the high-tech

community in Victoria and great news for the high-tech industry in British

Columbia, and I would ask everyone in the House to recognize the successes here

in Victoria.

[1410]

Chong: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today are 26 grade 11 students from my

former alma mater, Mount Douglas Senior high school. They are a French immersion

class. They are here with their teacher, Mr. Ponchet, and an adult who is

accompanying them. I wish the House to make them welcome.

Trumper: I see that in the House visiting us today are members of the

Huu-ay-aht band, which is very near Bamfield. Their elected chief, Robert

Dennis, is here with members of his council. They are here today to meet with

the Premier. Their land is at the end of a very rough road, if any of you have

been out to Bamfield. They are a very go-ahead nation and are working hard to

improve their economy and what is taking place out there. I ask the House to

give them a very warm welcome.

[ Page 3848 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 62 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002, amends a number

of statutes. Some of the amendments may accurately be described as housekeeping;

others are more substantial. Among the statutes affected by this bill are the

following: the British Columbia Railway Act, the Employment and Assistance Act,

the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, the Employment

Standards Act, the Escheat Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act, the Highway Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act,

the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways Act, the Motor Vehicle Act, the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, the

Special Appropriations Act and the Vancouver Charter.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill 62

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OF

MOTORCYCLISTS

Lekstrom: I rise today in the House to bring and raise the profile of an

individual who is a legend in the motorcycling industry not just in British

Columbia but in Canada. Mr. Trev Deeley was not only a very successful

businessman but a very community-minded individual as well.

Mr. Deeley

passed away last March at the age of 82. He left a substantial bequest in his

will to the B.C. Cancer Foundation with a specific request that the gift be used

on Vancouver Island to support the B.C. Cancer Agency's Vancouver Island Cancer

Centre. This bequest was in the amount of $5 million. I would like to express my

gratitude to his family and Mr. Deeley for this donation. Cancer is a terrible

disease that I'm sure has touched us all, but through the support of people like

Mr. Deeley we will find a cure and beat this disease.

I raise

this in the Legislature today because this past Sunday I had the honour of

participating in the twenty-fourth annual Vancouver Toy Run. This toy run is

about motorcyclists from all walks of life coming together to help children who

are a little less fortunate than many others. This year over 6,000 bikes with

8,500 participants participated and brought in over 4,000 new toys and $11,500

in cash donations, which are there to help the needy children of our province.

[1415]

In closing,

I would like to thank all of the people who organized and participated in this

year's event. This toy run only helps to promote what motorcycling legend Trev

Deeley believed in: having fun while motorcycling and, at the same time, helping

people in need and making our province a better place. Thank you very much.

CRIME PREVENTION AWARDS

Hayer: I rise today to mark an event held two weeks ago in my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead. That event was the Solicitor General's 2002 community safety

and crime prevention awards, which were part of the twenty-fourth annual

conference of the B.C. Crime Prevention Association. These events honour

outstanding individuals from throughout British Columbia. Those individuals have

contributed to the respective communities in many outstanding ways. Their

efforts have made this province a better and safer place to live.

I would

like to take time now to mention a few of the recipients by name. The Anthony J.

Hulme award of distinction for a lifetime contribution went to Mr. Fred Allcott

of Chilliwack; the community crime prevention and safety award to Martha

McArthur, executive director of the national Block Parent program, and Const.

Jim Poulin and Pamela Profitt for outstanding work with Delta youth.

The

corporate award went to Bonney Rempel for her efforts to combat youth bullying

in the lower mainland. The volunteer awards also included people from all over

the province: Gerda Suess from lower mainland–Fraser Valley, Frank Stoddart

from Vancouver Island and Pat Glazier from Mackenzie in the north.

I am

especially proud of the winners of the youth leadership awards: Erin Beynon of

Surrey, Shannon Lizitza and Andrea Lecomte of Penticton, and Aaron Weisgerber

from Vancouver Island.

I ask the

House to join me in congratulating all these outstanding citizens and those

volunteers and organizers who make this event possible.

VICTORIA ECONOMY

J. Bray:

I am excited to be able to update this House on the current state of the

Victoria economy. We here in the capital region have a lot to be proud of.

Housing starts are way up. Housing sales are way up. The value of those sales is

way up. The number of Americans buying homes in Victoria is up from 2 percent to

7 percent. Retail sales remain healthy.

[ Page 3849 ]

Tourism has

done an amazing job of recovering since September 11, including a 64 percent

increase in the number of cruise ships visiting Victoria. The marine sector is

robust, with a fourfold increase in the number of repair and maintenance works

being done on cruise ships in Victoria's shipyards. We have major developments

starting over in the dock lands, including commercial and residential. We have a

new $90 million Marriott hotel being built right outside the Legislature.

Construction

in marine jobs and trades means high-paying, family-supporting jobs for families

right here in Victoria. Our high-tech sector continues to be strong. This

economic performance has led Victoria to have an unemployment rate of 6.7

percent, which is the lowest in British Columbia, which is 1.1 percent lower

than the national average and is among the lowest in all of Canada — right

here in Victoria.

We have the

urban assets necessary to sustain real economic growth. We have three

world-class post-secondary institutions — UVic, Camosun College and Royal

Roads University — graduating students to meet the challenges of the future.

We have a new harbour authority. We have a chamber of commerce that's focused

and is leading a review of regional, not municipal, economic strategies. With

the potential of projects such as the Belleville Street terminal and the

expanded Victoria Conference Centre, our potential is boundless.

Now, the

reports of doom and gloom that we heard here in Victoria over the last several

months simply have not materialized. Our region is prospering. I believe

strongly that it is now time for this city to step forward to ensure that we

maximize our boundless potential. In essence, Victoria needs to maintain its

sense of community but, quite frankly, develop a Calgary sense of attitude. We

have so much to offer businesses, so much to offer families to raise their

families, to move their businesses here. We need to start promoting our region

to the world.

[1420]

Oral Questions

DRUG COSTS

J. Kwan:

Yesterday we asked the Minister of Health Planning why she's protecting drug

industry profits and gouging seniors through an ill-conceived Pharmacare

income-testing scheme. She didn't have an answer. Today I'd like to explore this

a little bit further with the minister. In B.C. the government pays 33 cents for

naproxen, a common generic anti-inflammatory drug prescribed by the thousands

every week. In Saskatchewan the government pays a little over 9 cents for the

very same pill, a 71 percent saving. Does the minister know why?

Hon. C.

Hansen: In British Columbia we have a system put in place by the previous

government where generic drugs, once they have been approved by Health Canada,

are covered at 70 percent of what the brand-name product would have been,

providing their chemical equivalence is determined by Health Canada. We are

currently reviewing that policy.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

What we're talking about here today is saving money for Pharmacare while

protecting middle-income seniors. Given that the minister is about to gouge

seniors through the income-testing scheme, you'd think the minister would

actually want to expedite the alternative and want to move forward.

I will

remind the minister and the Liberal government that when they were in

opposition, they fought the previous government every step of the way — every

step of the way, whether it be reference drug program savings….

In B.C. the

government pays 87 cents for the histamine cimetidine. In Saskatchewan the

government pays 7 cents a pill, a 92 percent saving. The minister must have been

briefed on what other provinces are doing and how to control costs. Does the

minister know why he is paying so much for the same drug? And why doesn't he

expedite the program which he said that he's looking into, instead of gouging

seniors?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, what I would urge the member to do is turn to her

colleague immediately beside her, who was the Minister of Health in this

province when a policy was in place that said we would pay 70 percent of the

brand-name costs to generic manufacturers. We are reviewing that policy. We're

trying to look for every way possible that we can save money…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …in the Pharmacare budget, because its costs are rising today at

14 percent to 18 percent a year, given the benefit structure they put in place

in the previous government. We are also pushing the federal government to ensure

that generic drug approvals are expedited. We're trying to make sure that we can

find savings everywhere possible so that this $712 million-a-year expenditure in

government is in fact sustainable for seniors next year, the year after and the

next decade.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

I would remind the minister and all the government MLAs that it was them who

supported the pharmaceutical companies in fighting my colleague in bringing

forward the reference-based drug pricing program. It was my colleague who

actually brought forward and fought the pharmaceutical companies in court.

[ Page 3850 ]

You know,

the reason is simple why the government is not acting. Looking at Saskatchewan,

it pioneered a competitive bidding process for generic drug companies wanting to

sell pills to government that drives costs down and protects seniors from being

gouged. The program was initiated a couple of years ago, and it works. Generic

drugs cost a lot less in Saskatchewan than in B.C. Why are seniors in B.C. being

gouged with income-testing instead of being protected with cost-saving

alternatives, like the one in Saskatchewan? Why is this government going after

seniors first, before they implement the alternatives?

[1425]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am astounded to hear two members of the New Democratic Party

criticizing an income-testing system that is going to bring more fairness to the

system and that is going to ensure that prescriptions, which are a valuable part

of a good health care system…. What we as a province — and no province can

afford to pay 100 percent — are saying is that we want to make sure that what

an individual family has to pay is proportional to their income and based on

their ability to pay. That is a principle of fairness that we should all stand

up for.

MacPhail: This minister is proceeding within days to take more money out of

the pockets of seniors through his income-tested model. That's exactly what he's

doing — $400 million. He's saying: "Oh, we need to do that."

Meanwhile, we're looking at other alternatives. Why is he proceeding to gouge

seniors to the tune of $400 million and slow-walking alternatives? Seniors

should not be the first line of defence against the government that will not

control drug costs.

This is a

government that, when in opposition, worked hand in glove with the

pharmaceuticals to challenge a reference drug plan that saves tens of millions

of dollars every year. They took us to court twice, and we won twice. This

government, in opposition, supported the pharmaceuticals all the way. If the

minister would care to check about what's now going on in Saskatchewan, he could

see that he could save the government a minimum of $30 million over two years by

forcing the drug companies to compete on generics. Drug companies may not like

to compete…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: …but seniors do. It keeps their drugs affordable.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Would the member now put her question.

MacPhail: To the minister: why is he subsidizing drug industry profits, when

he should be forcing them to compete for Pharmacare dollars?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, we are looking at the Saskatchewan model,

and it is something we're going to review. But let me just remind the member

that when she was the Minister of Health in this province, she raised the

Pharmacare deductibles from $375 to $800 a year — more than double. She

reduced the co-pay component from 80 percent to 70 percent. You know who that

hit? That hit families in every single corner of this province.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Any attempt for this government to say other than they work hand

in glove with the pharmaceuticals against the best interests of seniors is to

simply mislead. The pharmaceutical companies worked every day with this

government while they were in opposition to do anything to improve the

pharmaceutical industry. They supported the pharmaceuticals to go to court to

challenge any cost savings that would take the profits out of their hands and

give the benefits to the seniors. A pill that's 7 cents in Saskatchewan is 87

cents here. If it walks like a business subsidy, if it talks like a business

subsidy, if it smells like a business subsidy, it is a business subsidy.

The

Premier…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …promised to end business subsidies. Will the minister tell us

why the promise doesn't apply to the drug industry when the health and welfare

of seniors is at stake? What's the difference that makes this subsidy stand?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We are exploring every single opportunity to get drug costs under

control. I've got to throw this back to the member. She was a Minister of

Health. She was a Minister of Finance leading up to the last election. She had

every opportunity to implement the Saskatchewan model. Why didn't she take some

action then, if it was such good idea?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. The member for North Coast has the floor.

[1430]

ABORIGINAL HEALTH

Belsey: My question is not to the Minister of Health Services. We'll give

him a break. My question is to the Minister of Health Planning.

Aboriginal

people throughout B.C. have traditionally faced numerous health challenges.

Health indicators point to serious inequities between the outcomes of aboriginal

peoples compared to other British Co-

[ Page 3851 ]

lumbians. As my riding is home to many aboriginal people, could the Minister

of Health Planning tell my constituents what steps she is taking to close the

gap?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Our government does recognize the gap in health status between the

aboriginal population and the general population, and we've done a number of

things. First of all, we've implemented performance-based contracts with the six

health authorities. I know they're working on health plans with the health

authorities, and they're responsible for demonstrating measurable improvements

of the health of their populations, including the aboriginal population.

In the past

ten years we've seen aboriginal infant mortality anywhere between 15 and four

deaths per 1,000. That's unacceptable. We have specifically included aboriginal

infant mortality as an indicator in our ministry service plans, and we'll be

following that.

Smoking

rates in the aboriginal population are 21 percent higher than in the general

population, and we're working with aboriginal groups on different strategies.

We've got an aboriginal tobacco strategy. One of the programs is a tobacco

reduction health challenge called Honouring Your Health, with 65 communities.

It's tripled in the past year.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Coast has a supplementary question.

Belsey: In order that these programs and services be successful, it is

important that aboriginal people be actively consulted. Can the Minister of

Health Planning tell us what steps her ministry has taken to include aboriginal

groups in the decision-making process?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: We're working very closely with different aboriginal groups. We've

got four policy tables that we work with: the First Nation Chiefs Health

Committee, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Métis Provincial Council of

British Columbia and the United Native Nations. In addition to that, we've had

consultation with numerous service providers, bands and councils across the

province. We're going to continue those consultations.

The

provincial health officer is releasing his annual report later this month, and

he has focused on the health status of aboriginals. Certainly, the Premier has

been very committed to consultations with the aboriginal population, and I look

forward to the insightful dialogue we're going to have at the first citizens

forum on Friday.

INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

Mayencourt: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise, and it has to do with the technology sector, which has in the last

few months grown to over 45,000 employees. The sector has grown by 7.6 percent

in revenues. A recent survey of high-tech firms by BCTIA found that most

high-tech industries find that the inability to raise important investment

capital is a barrier to continued growth in the sector. In light of our

commitment to technology, can the minister tell us what plans he has to address

this issue?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the fine work of the B.C.

Technology Industries Association and George Hunter. The survey they have done

is very, very informative, and they have provided us with information, just as

the member said, that capital — venture capital — is important for growing

those businesses.

We have

already acted. We have introduced competition in the labour-sponsored venture

capital area. We've changed and made amendments to the B.C. Securities

Commission for the capital-raising exemptions, giving companies and individuals

more opportunities to raise capital. We are currently ending a very extensive

review of the small business venture capital fund, and we will be moving forward

with changes to that in the coming months. Our government understands the need

for seed capital and venture capital so that the private sector can grow and

bring our best and brightest back to British Columbia and keep our best and

brightest here in British Columbia so we can create jobs right here in British

Columbia, and that's what we're doing.

[1435]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Burrard has a supplementary question.

Mayencourt: This sector is clearly important to rebuilding our economy,

providing high-paying jobs and helping to support important programs like health

care and education. Firms in my riding like Pivotal Corp., which has just moved

into Vancouver-Burrard, and Crystal Decisions Corp. continue to be worldwide

leaders in their chosen areas of operation. I wonder if the minister could

please tell us how this year's report from BCTIA compares with last year's

report.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Last year, in the survey of the industry, the number one issue

facing the industry was the excessive rate of taxation, both personal and

business, here in British Columbia.

Our

government has introduced 17 measures of tax relief. That issue has now gone off

the radar screen of the industry. In addition, we're cutting red tape and

balancing labour laws, again making British Columbia the most competitive

jurisdiction in North America so that we can grow our high-tech industry here in

British Columbia and create jobs.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Nuraney: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour

to present the second re-

[ Page 3852 ]

port of the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process for the

third session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

Hon.

Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Nuraney: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving

of the motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

Nuraney: I move that the report be adopted.

This report

reflects the committee's consultation with members of the public, police

associations and other interested stakeholders on the procedure for handling

municipal police complaints as set out in

part 9 of the Police Act.

Although

the report concluded that the present system of handling complaints is sound,

the committee identified that more work needs to be done in three key areas:

(1) to improve public confidence in the complaint process; (2) to improve the

informal resolution process so that the use of that process is more frequent;

and (3) to enhance procedures to improve fairness of the complaint process both

for the complainant and for the respondent.

The

committee also recommended that the office of the police complaint commissioner

undertake more community outreach programs.

appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and

I would like to thank all the members of the committee for their input and

dedication throughout the process. I would also like to express my particular

thanks and gratitude to the staff and the Clerks, without whose help we would

not have been able to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 60.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH AUTHORITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 60; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:42 p.m.

Sections 1

to 20 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

60, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I call second reading of Bill 61.

Second Reading of Bills

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that Bill 61 now be read a second time.

Clean

drinking water is a vital health priority, and we must ensure that drinking

water protection is effective and efficient with no uncertainty. This

legislation improves drinking water protection and enhances public health and

safety across the province.

[1445]

We know

that most British Columbians already enjoy safe, clean drinking water. We want

to ensure that accessing that safe drinking water continues to be as easy as

simply turning on the tap. These amendments to the Drinking Water Protection Act

ensure that better planning and greater accountability are in place for

high-quality drinking water throughout the province.

developing this legislation, we have listened to British Columbians and worked

together with our partners and our stakeholders. We established an independent

panel to review the Drinking Water Protection Act. That was in fulfillment of a

new-era commitment we had made. That panel then came forward and made

recommendations on its effectiveness. The panel's final report, which was

released earlier this year, provided recommendations based on written

submissions and surveys by stakeholders across the province. We have considered

and are implementing many of these recommendations as well as key findings from

other studies and consultations such as the auditor general's report from 1999

and the provincial health officer's annual report on drinking water quality that

was published in the year 2000.

Based on

our extensive review, in June of this year we introduced a drinking water action

plan. Both the Drinking Water Protection Act and B.C.'s action plan provide a

framework for protecting public health, and

[ Page 3853 ]

both make a number of improvements with the goal of making a good system even

better.

This action

plan focuses on eight key principles for drinking water systems in British

Columbia. The first is the safety of drinking water as a public health issue.

Second, source protection is a critical part of drinking water protection.

Third, providing safe drinking water requires an integrated approach. Fourth,

all drinking water systems need to be assessed to determine risks. Fifth, proper

treatment and water distribution system integrity are important to protect human

health. Sixth, tap water must meet acceptable safety standards and be monitored.

Seventh, small systems require a flexible system with appropriate safeguards.

Eighth, safe drinking water should be affordable, with users paying appropriate

costs.

This

comprehensive action plan and this legislation improve the protection of

drinking water from source to tap by improving standards for monitoring,

treatment and accountability. This legislation will implement our action plan to

strengthen B.C.'s drinking water protection. First, we are establishing clear

lines of responsibility within government for the protection of drinking water.

Many ministries and government agencies are involved in different aspects of

drinking water protection, but until now there has not been a proper

coordination and integration of these various functions across government. As a

public health issue, the Ministry of Health Services will become the lead agency

responsible for the safety of drinking water in British Columbia. My ministry

will provide the leadership needed to coordinate all activities and will assume

ultimate responsibilities to provide safe drinking water to all British

Columbians.

The

legislation will also strengthen the role of the provincial health officer to

monitor and report annually on public health protection and on drinking water

specifically. The provincial health officer has a mandate to ensure the

accountability of government and those delivering drinking water to British

Columbians. The legislation will also establish new drinking water officers

across the province. These officers will have the authority to investigate

complaints and to require testing and assessment. They will perform inspections

of water systems, issue orders and coordinate water source protection.

Building on

this new legislation, regulations will be put in place that, firstly, will

improve water treatment and distribution standards based on evidence from the

new drinking water advisory committee; secondly, will outline new training and

certification requirements for water system operators; and thirdly, will

establish strong standards and monitoring requirements.

[1450]

Under this

legislation, public health protection becomes the guiding principle for all

planning and decisions made by this government and local governments affecting

B.C.'s drinking water. This legislation will focus on establishing higher

standards of protection for groundwater sources. Clearly, we know that we need

to modernize B.C.'s drinking water system as well as the legislation that guards

it.

In the past

year alone, in addition to the dollars we've committed to the drinking water

action plan, we have also approved 92 water-related improvement projects worth a

total of $239 million through the Canada–British Columbia infrastructure

program. This government is committed to developing and implementing these

improvements in a fair, flexible and equitable way. Bill 61 will ensure safe,

reliable and accessible drinking water for all British Columbians now and in

future generations.

J. Kwan:

This bill, with one major exception, simply tinkers with

an act brought before

this House in April 2001. It was passed with the support of the whole Liberal

caucus. At that time, the then Opposition House Leader stated his and his

party's support for the act. In fact, he proposed passage of all sections of the

act in a single motion. He also noted that such

an act, a major act with respect

to drinking water protection, was needed and that it needed to go out for public

consultation, because he was sure there would be major amendments.

They did,

in theory, do consultation, and the results are supposed to be in this bill. Yet

if you look at this bill and look for the changes being brought forward, you

don't see them. This bill is a mere 12 sections, or five pages, long. Nowhere in

those pages are the major recommendations of the government's consultation

process found. What is found is a consolidation of power in the hands of cabinet

when it comes to protecting the safety of our drinking water.

Here are

some of the recommendations made by the drinking water review panel, the review

panel put together by this government. First, before I go to what they said in

their recommendations, let me just review what the panel said about the current

act, the act that was brought in by the previous government. They said:

"The

Drinking Water Protection Act has a number of strong elements and provides a

useful framework for bringing together a range of legislative measures

related to drinking water. It also gives drinking water the high level of

priority and focus it deserves. Other key strengths of the legislation are

the source and system assessments, new measures for source protection and

planning, water system operator certification, the creation of drinking

water officers, continuation of the vital role played by public health

officials, the ability to create drinking water standards, new measures to

protect groundwater and the requirements for reporting and

notification."

short, it was pretty good, and with the incorporation of the panel's

recommendations, it could be made even better.

What, one

might ask, were the major recommendations made by the panel? I actually went to

review the report itself and look through the recommendations. Let me just go to

a couple of the recommendations, recommendations No. 3 and No. 4, that call on

the government to create a drinking water protection agency with a strong

enforcement mandate. This would be a

[ Page 3854 ]

single lead agency reporting to the Minister of Health Planning to integrate

the skills, resources and authority of all provincial ministries with

responsibility for drinking water. There would be a CEO to lead the agency and a

board of directors with representation from government, first nations, the UBCM,

the public and industry.

Do we see

this in the bill? No, we don't. What we see is this work being passed on to the

provincial health officer. I might ask about the amount of work for which the

provincial health officer is already responsible. Does his office have the

ability, the capacity, to take on this additional work? We see the continuation

of the divisional responsibilities among health, water protection and resource

extraction. The result will be a continuation of ad hoc solutions and conflicts

between those who depend on a secure water source and those who would exploit

natural resources while putting the water supply at risk.

[1455]

Recommendation

No. 5 from the panel calls for the introduction of a purposes

section that would

provide a clear and unequivocal statement that safe drinking water is a priority

over other resources used in high-risk watersheds. As the auditor general noted

in his 1999 report, without source protection we will always be trying to spend

our way out of a crisis instead of avoiding the crisis in the first place.

There is no

purposes

section being added to the bill in this act. The bill does give cabinet

the discretionary power to state that all other resource-planning documents be

consistent with the act. As we see in this bill, cabinet, not the provincial

health officer and certainly not the nonexistent drinking water protection

agency, is to be the one to solve any conflict between source protection and

safe drinking water.

We've seen

just how unsuccessful the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection has been at

protecting the environment and the Ministers of Health have been at protecting

health care. We see it taking place right now in British Columbia. Environmental

standards are being eroded. Parks are being shut down. Educational programs are

being shut down. The Ministry of Health is gouging seniors. MSP premiums are

going up. Hospitals are being shut down. At emergency wards you have to rely on

the phone to phone in and stand outside of the hospital to say: "Hey, can I

get in?" Then you've got to phone 911 if you're having a heart attack.

Then, in addition to that, you have to wait 45 minutes to drive somewhere else

to get access to health care support.

The fact is

that inside the cabinet, the resource ministries have the authority to decide.

The protection ministries don't. They're silent. They're silent at the table and

have no capacity to provide protection. Even something as simple as a definition

of potable water is missing from this bill. The panel recommended that potable

water be defined as water that does not contain micro-organisms or any other

substances at concentrations that present a potential danger to human health.

Instead, standards for public health are left to regulations.

The panel

calls for stronger groundwater protection, including standards that prohibit or

limit activities known to be harmful to service and groundwater. Again, there is

no such statement in this bill. The panel called for the right-to-know provision

so that the public would have easy access to information about the state of

their water quality, but we won't find this in the bill before us. What is more

disturbing about this bill is what is not in it that should be: the cost of the

drinking water action plan.

As the

minister noted earlier this year, the annual cost is estimated to be $16

million, and this cost is to be borne by water users. Nowhere in this bill or in

the drinking water action plan will we see the polluter pay. Why is it that the

municipalities and their taxpayers will be called upon to fund this plan while

the resource industries — those very industries that, by their activity in

watersheds, threaten the safety of our water supply — are not to be told they

have to pay?

Where is

the cost-sharing formula where resources users would pay? The answer is simple,

and we hear it daily from the Ministers of Forests, from the Minister of

Resource Management, from the Minister of Energy and Mines. Industry is left

alone. The rest of the people in British Columbia have to pay.

When the

act was first introduced by the former government, there was an $11 million

commitment to fund the requirements of the act. Those dollars were budgeted for.

They were there to ensure that water protection was afforded in British Columbia

and that there would be no additional costs to taxpayers. Yet now the price tag

that this government says is $16 million….

[1500]

What

happened to the $11 million that was earmarked for water protection? Gone.

Disappeared. It's gone and has been siphoned off to pay for tax cuts for the big

corporations, the tax cuts that were supposed to pay for themselves but haven't.

Now the Minister of Health is finding himself in a place where he has to go and

gouge seniors before he looks at alternatives to reduce costs in the Pharmacare

system.

It is the

small municipalities across the province that will pay. Despite the promise made

by the Liberals in the election and since, downloading of provincial costs and

provincial responsibility is now a reality.

Remember

the Premier, at the 2001 UBCM convention, saying: "I have consistently said

that we are opposed to downloading. We will not download." The government

is downloading. Despite the rhetoric of its members, they're downloading by

abandoning to the municipalities responsibilities for provincial programs and

services. The government likes to call it devolution, but even their friends in

the UBCM know it's downloading when they see it.

In the

March 2002 issue of the UBCM News they note: "Yet there may be a

debate around what constitutes offloading. There is a view that off- or

downloading extends beyond classic downloading — the as-

[ Page 3855 ]

signment of new responsibilities without financial resources or the

withdrawal of financial support — to the increased costs that must be assumed

by local government as a result of the provincial government's decision to

withdraw its services in a specific area."

It is this

type of downloading that we see in the drinking water action plan, just as we

saw in other areas as well — areas such as the closure of courthouses, the

reduction in training for police officers, the increases in MSP premiums, the

rising cost in the Pharmacare deductible for individuals, the soon-to-be

income-tested Pharmacare, the closure of parks, the closure of hospitals. We now

see the municipality of Delta having to go through a referendum process to pay

for costs that this government has downloaded onto the municipalities.

All these

issues impact on communities and on the province as a whole. Now it is the local

taxpayer that is to pay for quality of life previously assumed by the provincial

government.

It is not

just services that are being sacrificed. The people are being taxed to the max.

We're now paying an increased sales tax, an increased gas tax, an increased

property tax, increased parking tax, increased tuition fees, increased fuel,

increased car insurance, increased MSP premiums, increased Pharmacare costs. The

list goes on.

I hesitate.

I'd like, actually, for the Minister of Health to look into this. When he

answered the media in a scrum on the increase in Pharmacare costs…. By the

time you add up all the increased costs, does that tax cut that was supposed to

pay for itself cover off all the increased costs? You know what? The Minister of

Health Services had to say: "I don't know." You know what, Mr.

Speaker?

MacPhail: He did know.

J. Kwan:

I'll bet you that he did know. I'll bet you he knows very well that those

increased costs, those increased taxes imposed by the Liberal government are not

paying for themselves. With those increased taxes, with fewer services to which

British Columbians are getting access, the tax breaks are not paying for

themselves. Now we have another additional tax. It's called the drinking water

protection tax. That's what this government has brought forward.

The small

communities are greatest hit — no doubt about it. The government is now

talking about taking away the small community protection grant. Again, the list

goes on — gouging communities, deserting communities — when this government

said that they would not offload. They were going to outlaw. They were not just

going to not offload; they were going to outlaw that. They were going to outlaw

downloading.

What have

we got? Downloading. Downloading, by every other definition…. You know what?

You can call it whatever you want. You can call it devolution. You can pretend

that it is something else. The reality is that you are offloading the costs to

the municipalities, to the taxpayers. That's what this government's doing.

[1505]

User-pay

has become the new form for this government. That's the answer to everything.

Michael Smyth, in the Province , noted in June: "Isn't it interesting

that one of the Liberal Party's most generous corporate backers is set to make a

killing on this user-pay water scheme? In 1999 B.C. Gas established a water

services division. This is the same natural gas company that gives $40,000 to

the Liberals."

What did

B.C. Gas think of this user-pay plan? According to them: "We certainly hope

that if some of this is developed by the private sector, our company,

pre-eminent in the field, would be part of that." This is an

article in the

Province by Michael Smyth.

The

abandonment of provincial responsibility is simply another way to get taxpayers

to line the pockets of this government's corporate backers. The previous

government brought in a Drinking Water Protection Act that, while not perfect,

was acknowledged by all to be an efficient framework if we're to be confident

that a Walkerton-type tragedy never happens in B.C. The government failed to

implement that act, and here we are 18 months later. There's still no act in

force.

The bill

before us demonstrates by its flimsiness that the government has never been

concerned about ensuring safe drinking water. After this time, many of the

improvements called on by the drinking water panel that this government had put

together have simply been ignored.

There are

up to 300 boil-water advisories in the province at any given time, and they

continue while this government spends its time figuring how to pass the buck and

satisfy its corporate donors. It's a shame. It puts people's health at risk. It

offers no better solution than what existed 18 months ago. There's no

independent agency that needs to be in place, which was recommended by the panel

to be in place, to ensure that there is proper, safe drinking water for all

British Columbians.

Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 61, Drinking Water Protection Amendment

Act, because I think this is an area of concern that is one of the most

fundamental areas that we have to discuss in our legislative session. Drinking

water, like good air, is fundamental to the life and well-being of all of us —

of our animals as well as ourselves. It's an issue that concerns everyone.

Fortunately,

here in British Columbia we have a great deal of drinking water, pure drinking

water, available to us — probably a greater heritage than almost anywhere else

upon the continent. Because we have this abundance, we sometimes have been

careless with it and indifferent about it. I would like to encourage, during

this debate, that all the citizens of all ages of our province take seriously

that this gift we have been given we could easily lose by carelessness.

I encourage

the government and congratulate the minister on moving forward in this step,

that we might plan together plans for protecting our water across the province.

[ Page 3856 ]

But as well

as the government undertaking this particular planning process and putting in

place a priority in it for himself, for the executive council and for the

cabinet so that it takes a very high priority in our legislative process, I

encourage individuals to take their own private responsibility. Particularly, I

would highlight in this discussion those individuals who have their own private

wells, because in the past the private wells have not been regulated in the same

manner that we have in city and town or village systems.

[1510]

It's easy

for us in our busyness to overlook our own security and our own safety. Herein,

I speak out of personal experience in our family. We had the privilege to move

into a facility in another rural community that had been the community hospital.

It had become a residence and a church at the same time. As assumed by ourselves

and by all others, since this had been a community hospital, the supply of

water, of course, was pure and safe for all ages. However, sometimes I'm a

cautious person, and since we had a new baby to bring into the household, I

automatically undertook to have our own private testing done. Arising out of

that testing, we discovered to our amazement that though the water was perfectly

safe for adults, it could be extremely dangerous for our young baby girl. We

counted ourselves very privileged and lucky that we had taken the opportunity to

have that water tested, even when all logic would have said there was no need

whatsoever.

It points

out that even though water is tested on one occasion, it can change over time.

Even as we need to protect our fire extinguishers and check them to see if

they're up and ready for an emergency, it's important that we test our own

private wells across the community. I would like to encourage all of our

citizens to take a new awareness of the importance of clean, safe drinking

water.

I'd like to

thank the government and the cabinet for giving this action a high priority,

building on the work that was done by a previous government in consultation with

the people, putting in place a management system that gives it priority to the

minister, to the executive council and to the cabinet. To me it's important that

it's not been turned off to other people, but it's been kept in the

decision-making process at the very central core for the community's safety and

well-being. I am pleased to support this act and encourage the people to find

the opportunity to have safe drinking water no matter where they may live in our

communities.

Penner: I, too, rise today to indicate my support for Bill 61. I can

remember, a few years ago, debates in this Legislature around the lack of

similar legislation to guarantee safe drinking water for British Columbians. In

fact, I believe it was the former member for Matsqui, now the MLA for

Abbotsford–Mount Lehman and the current Minister of Forests, who brought this

issue to the floor of the Legislature shortly after his election in a

by-election in 1994. For many years he worked as a tireless advocate to bring to

the attention of the previous NDP government the desperate need for some kind of

provincial legislation and standards around the issue of safe drinking water.

In the

Fraser Valley the community of Abbotsford had a number of scares related to the

quality of their drinking water in the mid-1990s, and that certainly was

reflected in their very excellent representation here in the Legislature. At

least a certain amount of credit needs to go to the current Minister of Forests,

MLA for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman, as well as the MLA for Abbotsford-Clayburn,

the current Minister of Agriculture, for persistently bringing that matter of

safe drinking water to this Legislature. The fact that the last government

finally, on its political deathbed only weeks before the last election, saw fit

to bring in some legislation to deal with the issue is a testament to their

effectiveness in driving home the sorry response of the previous government to

this issue.

I would

like to turn my attention to the legislation, which forms the groundwork or the

basis for B.C.'s action plan for safe drinking water. This action plan has been

built in conjunction and consultation with communities across the province, as

the MLA for Vancouver-Langara just indicated. It really is not just a top-down

process. Everybody's been involved in this, and that's what I think will ensure

that it is a success.

[1515]

It's

perhaps trite to say it, but it certainly is true that the provincial government

is committed to ensuring safe, reliable and accessible drinking water for all

British Columbians. To that end, this action plan — of which this legislation

forms an important part — will, I'm sure, ensure quality drinking water

throughout the province.

The

legislation that has been implemented today, which is being amended here at the

Legislature and which has previously been introduced, is very comprehensive, but

it's not the only thing the government is doing. As the Minister of Health

Services indicated in his initial address to the Legislature on this matter, the

provincial government has already approved 92 water-related improvement

projects, worth $239 million, being funded through the Canada–British Columbia

infrastructure program. The government is also increasing funding for water

quality monitoring by $1.5 million per year for the next three years. These are

concrete steps being taken to improve the quality of drinking water around the

province over and above the legislation that's before the House today.

You know,

many of us, myself being included in that comment, take safe drinking water for

granted. Usually, it's as simple as turning on the tap, but as the events in

Walkerton, Ontario, a few years ago indicated, perhaps it isn't something we

should all take for granted. Perhaps it's something we need to think about.

Many health

concerns have arisen related to water quality since that Walkerton issue first

hit the newspapers. Many people have asked: could the same crisis and tragedy

happen here? In August 2001, for example,

[ Page 3857 ]

there were 304 communities in British Columbia which had to issue boil-water

advisories.

Now, a 1996

report on the state of Canada's municipal infrastructure found that British

Columbia's water distribution and supply systems were on average the

second-oldest in the country and had an average age beyond the expected life

span for such systems. Again, this highlighted the need to take direct action.

There are

more than 3,300 water systems in B.C. The 96 systems operating in large

municipalities serve close to 90 percent of the population. The remaining 10

percent of the population is served by a very large number of small systems, and

they're delivered through a variety of public and private means. There are also

drinking water systems that operate on very small scales — for example, in

B.C. parks and campgrounds, something that I'm familiar with; mobile home parks;

restaurants; and service stations. In total there are an estimated 2,100 water

systems that serve that kind of a small, focused clientele. Approximately 2,000

of those systems have fewer than 15 connections to each one of those systems.

Based on

this variety of needs and on inquiries conducted in other provinces, the

government's action plan for safe drinking water sets out specific principles

and actions that the government will undertake to make sure British Columbians

enjoy safe, clean and healthy drinking water as effectively, efficiently and

reliably as possible. This plan is based on the recommendations and recent

reviews and reports including those conducted by B.C.'s auditor general, the

provincial health officer and the drinking water review panel.

September 2001 the new B.C. Liberal government established the independent

drinking water review panel to review the Drinking Water Protection Act, which,

as I indicated, was passed by the previous government on their political

deathbed just prior to the May 2001 election. In keeping with the government's

new-era commitment, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is also

developing comprehensive new groundwater protection legislation. This

legislation will focus on drinking water protection through mechanisms like

higher standards for groundwater sources, such as well construction, and

mandatory reporting of drilling activities.

Building on

the new legislation, new regulations will also be put into place to enhance

groundwater protection; improve water treatment and distribution standards based

on advice from the drinking water advisory committee; outline new training and

certification requirements for water system operators; establish basic

monitoring requirements, which can be supplemented by orders from drinking water

officers; and other steps as well.

Now, it's

obvious that there are many different ministries and many different communities

that have an interest in water protection. The key task for the Minister of

Health Services, in my view, is to work in a coordinating function to bring

together those different groups and interests to make sure water quality is

ultimately protected for the consumer. One of the first objectives of the new

legislation will be to ensure clear lines of responsibility within government

for the various aspects of drinking water protection.

[1520]

In keeping

with the principle that the safety of drinking water is a public health issue,

the Ministry of Health Services will now be the lead ministry responsible for

implementing the action plan. It's my understanding that the NDP's version of

this legislation was a two-headed beast or a two-headed monster. There was no

clear ultimate responsibility, but the responsibility was divided. The Ministry

of Health Services will provide the leadership needed to coordinate their

activities and will assume ultimate responsibility for providing safe drinking

water for British Columbians. Yet the provincial health officer will be given

the mandate to ensure the accountability of government and those delivering

drinking water to British Columbians.

The

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection will be responsible for source water

quality standards, monitoring, compliance and enforcement. Resource ministries

will continue to be responsible for protecting drinking water sources under

their legislated mandates.

The

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management will work with communities to help

make appropriate land use decisions that carefully consider drinking water

protection.

The

Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services will work in partnership

with federal and local governments to help ensure that required infrastructure

is in place.

Under the

leadership of the Ministry of Health Services, an interministry committee will

be established to coordinate these drinking water protection measures, identify

emerging issues and ensure proper integration from source to the tap.

In short,

the new Drinking Water Protection Amendment Act, 2002, will define the authority

of an important new group of drinking water protection officers. The people

working for health authorities in these newly created front-line positions will

provide a unique focus on protecting drinking water in every region of the

province. They will have the authority to investigate complaints, require

testing and assessment, perform inspections, coordinate source protection, issue

orders and take many other steps to ensure water safety.

All

drinking water systems in British Columbia will undergo a source-to-tap

assessment, starting with those that may pose the highest risk to users. Let me

say that again. All drinking water systems in B.C. will undergo a source-to-tap

assessment. We will start at the top of the risk assessment pile. These

assessments will be undertaken by water system providers with assistance from

drinking water officers and any other required government agencies. Local health

authorities and water providers already conduct some system surveys. This new

series of assessments will provide the more comprehensive information needed to

plan sys-

[ Page 3858 ]

tem improvements and identify any source contaminations that need to be

fixed.

Inspection

and laboratory testing will be increased to ensure compliance with provincewide

tap water standards for contaminants that present a health risk. Laboratories

will have to meet specific standards and will be required to report health

threats to a drinking water officer, the water supplier and a medical health

officer. Basic monitoring requirements will be established, which can be

supplemented by orders from drinking water officers. Water suppliers will also

be required to report imminent threats, and where monitoring indicates potential

concerns, future action may be ordered. When other measures fail to resolve a

health concern, the provincial health officer can ask the Minister of Health

Services to recommend cabinet approval to develop a site-specific drinking water

plan giving human health protection top priority.

I want to

talk a little about the new reporting requirements that will, in my view, ensure

accountability. Assessments and monitoring, including increased testing, will be

handled as follows. Water quality information will be regularly reported to the

public. The provincial health officer will have a statutory obligation to advise

government if additional source protection is necessary to protect public

health. Water suppliers will be held accountable for meeting the terms and

conditions of their operating permits. They will also be required to report

imminent threats, such as treatment equipment failure, to drinking water

officers and must ensure immediate public notification. Testing laboratories

will be required to report health threats when identified, and anyone operating,

maintaining or repairing a water system will be required to undergo training,

meet qualifications set out in new regulations or be supervised by someone who

does.

All this,

of course, will be taking place in cooperation and coordination with local

communities, first nations and the federal government to enhance the

effectiveness of the system at all levels. Locally developed solutions will be

encouraged, particularly where infrastructure improvements are needed in order

to meet provincial health standards, while also considering the economic impact

on the affected communities.

In short,

I've already mentioned, as did the Minister of Health Services, that a major

investment is alreadyunderway in British Columbia: more than $200 million in 92

water-related infrastructure improvement projects that will help ensure the

quality of the water at the source. This new regulatory regime will help

communities address the concerns quickly and effectively and, hopefully, prevent

any Walkerton-type situation from ever occurring here in British Columbia.

With that,

I again reaffirm my intention to vote in favour of Bill 61 on second reading.

[1525]

Mr.

Speaker: Debate continues on second reading of Bill 61. The Minister of

Health Services closes debate.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'd like to thank the various members for their comments during

second reading. I think this is a very significant initiative, because it allows

us to get on with certainty around the issue of accountability. I think the

member from Chilliwack summed it up when he talked about the system that was in

place previously, which really did not clearly put accountability in one place.

I think that was a lesson we learned from Walkerton — that there has to be

clear accountability and clear lines of responsibility. I believe the amendments

we are bringing forward here achieve that, and British Columbians are going to

be able to be certain that government is doing everything possible to ensure

that they have the safest drinking water possible tomorrow and well into the

future.

With that,

I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

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

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 61,

Drinking Water Protection Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. C.

Hansen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion

approved.

The House

adjourned at 3:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175