2007 Legislative Session: Third 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Recognition of foreign

professional credentials

H. Bains

Orbitones reunion concert

R. Hawes

Rights of indigenous people

Fraser

San Patrignano addiction

treatment model

Mayencourt

World Press Freedom Day

Trevena

Carbon dioxide emission reduction

in B.C.

Bennett

Oral Questions

Funding for Fraser Health

Authority

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Health care services in Langley

and Surrey

Ralston

Hon. G.

Abbott

Surgery wait-lists in Fraser

region

Puchmayr

Hon. G.

Abbott

Ambulance service for rural

British Columbia

Macdonald

Hon. G.

Abbott

Simpson

Call for moratorium on raw log

exports

Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

Business community report on

government's relationship with first nations

Fraser

Hon. M.

de Jong

Petitions

C. Evans

S. Fraser

Tabling Documents

WorkSafe B.C., annual report,

WorkSafe B.C., service plan,

2007-2009

Hon. O.

Ilich

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

D. Routley

D. Thorne

M. Sather

G. Robertson

J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Sather

Puchmayr

Gentner

Simons

J. Brar

Ralston

Trevena

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

[ Page 7431 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2007

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: The member for Nanaimo-Parksville and I are going to do a bit of tag-team work here today. I am happy to introduce to the House Jim Turley of Turley's Florist of Nanaimo, one of our more active citizens.

I might say that surprisingly for many members in this House, he and his lovely spouse paid a great deal of money to have lunch with the member for Nanaimo-Parksville and me today in the interests of supporting the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

R. Cantelon: There are different types of people in this world: people who watch it happen, people who wonder what happened and people who make it happen.

I'm proud to introduce the Turleys — the other half, Marianne Turley, along with Jim. They're the type of people who make it happen in Nanaimo, whether directing the Nanaimo symphony or paying off graciously to have Leonard and me feed them lunch. So please make the movers and shakers of our community very, very welcome.

B. Simpson: I'd like to introduce a number of steelworkers in the gallery today: Donny Iwaskow, Rita LaJeunesse, Dale Johnson, Jeff Bromley, Doug Morgan and Kim Pollock. The steelworkers have joined us again in the precinct, working with government MLAs on their position that we need an immediate restriction on log exports and an emergency summit on the state of forests in B.C. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the precinct.

R. Sultan: In the House today we have two senior officers from Western Keltic Mines: John McConnell, the president and CEO, and Robin Johnstone, the VP for the environment.

John has extensive experience in the mining industry, most recently with De Beers Canada developing the Snap Lake diamond mine. Robin is very experienced in environmental affairs, with a background at De Beers and with Golder Associates in Yellowknife. They are working on the Kutcho Creek mine, which we hope will soon be in production as part of the fabulous route 37 golden triangle mining resource. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Brar: Today in the public gallery we have eight students from Kwantlen University College. They are accompanied by their teacher, who is called only Nick. They are here to visit this very beautiful historic building. Also, they're here to watch us doing this beautiful debate — as to how beautiful, nice and gentle the debate will be. I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

M. Polak: I'd like the House to welcome two of my constituents. Michele Davis and Mark Davis are visiting with us in the gallery today.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the precincts today we are joined by 38 grade 10 students from Mark R. Isfeld Secondary School in the beautiful Comox Valley. I'd ask you to join me in making them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS

H. Bains: Thousands of internationally trained professionals, immigrants as well as Canadians, are unable to utilize their education, skills and qualifications to the fullest potential because we as a province and as a country have failed to establish a satisfactory credential recognition process.

Especially during a time of crisis-level skills shortages, it makes no sense. Consider the high-profile case of Mr. Gian Singh Sangha, who holds a PhD in environmental sciences and has years of suitable experience and was declined a job because he was deemed overqualified by the employer.

A recent study shows that 37 percent of immigrants to B.C. have had difficulty finding the right jobs. There are also well-documented problems facing foreign-trained professionals, such as doctors, veterinarians and engineers facing tough challenges getting their credentials recognized.

[1340]

In my consultation with organizations such as MOSAIC and B.C. Internationally Trained Professionals Network, it has become clear that there is a need to improve access to the existing training opportunities.

Ontario has attempted to deal with this issue through Bill 124. We must come up with our own process for speedy recognition of foreign credentials. To help trigger this debate more seriously in this House, I have given notice of a motion calling on this House to find a solution to this problem in consultation with various stakeholders, including foreign-trained professionals themselves.

I call on both sides of this House to support my motion when it comes for debate. Let us work together to ensure a better future for immigrants to B.C. and a better future for our province.

ORBITONES REUNION CONCERT

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, the parking lot was filled with pickup trucks, and you could see the lights glinting off the slicked-back ducktails as the hall filled up. The smell of Brylcreem was in the air. That was 1957, and the Orbitones were set to rock out on another Saturday night at DeRoche Hall.

[ Page 7432 ]

Flash ahead. The parking lot is filled with pickup trucks, and you can see the lights glinting off the bare scalps as the hall fills up. The smell of A535 arthritis rub is in the air. That was last Saturday, and the Orbitones were set to rock out on their 50th anniversary reunion at DeRoche Hall.

From 1957 to 1979 the Orbitones filled community halls throughout the Fraser Valley with their versions of Buddy Holly, Fats Domino and Ritchie Valens. Saturday night, four of the Dumerest brothers were on stage with the original drummer Bill Young, bassists Izzie Oystrick and Ron Shoerfet both taking turns on the bass. It didn't matter to the crowd that a few notes might have been missed. The dance floor was filled right from the first dance.

As I watched the magic of old school chums getting reacquainted after 30 or 40 years, and as I gazed at a 50-year-old photo of the Orbitones, I couldn't help but wonder if anyone so young in '57 ever thought about how they would look this many years later.

I also had to wonder if our kids, years from now, would shuffle into a hall somewhere and dance to the music — or the metal — of Metallica or Black Sabbath or maybe the rap of Snoop Dogg. Somehow I doubt it.

Rock on, Orbitones.

RIGHTS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

S. Fraser: That's a hard one to beat.

As this spring session comes to a conclusion quite rapidly, it is important that we reflect on and address some unfinished business. Last fall we raised in this House the importance of adding our province to the list of signatories supporting the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. British Columbia's aboriginal leaders have spoken strongly in favour of this resolution and await our non-partisan and bipartisan support on behalf of all the people of British Columbia.

Indigenous people and UN member states have been working on this important initiative for 20 years, and it is long overdue. The B.C. Legislature's recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples would advance the human rights council's work to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, including the world's indigenous peoples.

It is important that B.C. assists in this declaration's adoption before the end of the 61st session in September of this year, as recommended by the UN Human Rights Council. So let us unite as a legislature on this important issue and ensure that we can celebrate collectively our role in advancing and promoting human rights and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples in British Columbia, in Canada and all over the world.

SAN PATRIGNANO ADDICTION

TREATMENT MODEL

L. Mayencourt: I'm talking today about a village in central Italy called San Patrignano, but before I do, I want to say a little bit about British Columbia. In British Columbia we have about 1,000 beds for people that are going through addictions treatment, scattered throughout the province.

It's a great effort, and there are some wonderful people working on it. But the sad truth of the matter is that 85 percent of the people that go through our treatment program will fail within three months and be back using alcohol or drugs or some other substance.

One of the reasons they do that is because they are sent back to the community, often the same terrible community in which they gained their drug addictions. They've also got a lifetime in which they've separated from family and friends and their jobs and everything.

[1345]

San Patrignano is a model that I'd like to bring to British Columbia because it allows for a longer-term recovery program for individuals living with an addiction. It teaches them not only the ins and outs of surviving their addiction, but it also teaches them vocational skills, how to reconnect with community, how to reunite with family.

I hope that this September, I will be able to open the first model of this project called New Hope. It will be located just southwest of Prince George. Our first facility will accommodate 100 individuals that have gone through treatment programs, and they will come to live at New Hope for a longer period of time.

I'm very excited about the possibility of this particular model being used not just in the Northern Health Authority but in each of the health authorities across British Columbia.

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

C. Trevena: Tomorrow marks World Press Freedom Day. This House may have a love-hate relationship with members of the gallery and others in the media. I would hope, however, that we all recognize that an independent free media is central to our democratic system.

The media are the eyes and the ears of the public. They're the fourth estate. They're the watchdog and the guardians of the public interest. We're very lucky in Canada and in much of the West, where the media can work freely to report on what's happening without fear of censorship, intimidation or, in the worst case, death.

We hear of high-profile cases where journalists have been killed for uncovering the truth, for telling the stories that the authorities don't want to hear — most recently, Anna Politkovskaya in Russia. We also hear of those terrifying cases where journalists are kidnapped and killed, such as the Washington Post 's Daniel Pearl.

This year the International Federation of Journalists is calling for World Press Freedom Day to be marked by the release of journalists in jail or kept hostage. For many, Alan Johnston has become the symbol of those taken hostage. Alan is a BBC World Service correspondent, the only western reporter to be based full-time in Gaza. Just a couple of weeks before he was due to leave, he was kidnapped.

Alan is a good reporter and greatly respected for working and living in Gaza. The calls for his release have been echoing around the world for the last 51 days. There have been protests by journalists within Gaza and in Britain.

[ Page 7433 ]

Alan is not alone. There are journalists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, China, Eritrea, Ethiopia and around the world who have been kidnapped. It's becoming frighteningly routine, and it's a terrifying way to censor the media and censor people's access to information.

As we approach World Press Freedom Day, I would hope this House will agree to continue to respect journalists and their work and to join the calls for the release of those kidnapped who are doing their job, trying to shed light on what's happening in the world.

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION

REDUCTION IN B.C.

B. Bennett: Climate change is the hot topic of the day. We all know that the world's climate is warming. We all know there are serious implications from that warming. We know that a great many reputable scientists around the world believe that human-caused carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming.

We also know there are reputable scientists who offer evidence that CO 2 is not the culprit. All I know as a legislator is that there seem to be more scientists on the CO 2 side than on the other side, and I say that knowing that science is not about consensus.

We also know that Canada contributes a tiny percentage of that human-caused CO 2 , and that could lead rational minds to conclude that whatever we do in Canada will not make a meaningful difference. Should B.C. just forget about climate change and CO 2 ? Our answer is clearly no. B.C. is a progressive and prosperous jurisdiction. We have an obligation to reduce our CO 2 emissions in this province, and B.C. is taking a leadership role.

We're reducing our emissions by 33 percent by 2020, we're implementing our green cities agenda, we're expanding transit service in the communities across this province, and we're also making sure that all electricity production in the province will have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

Recently, we joined the western regional climate action initiative, a coalition of five western U.S. states and now one Canadian province united in the common goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

B.C. is leading in Canada and in many respects leading in North America. We will do the right thing without undermining our economy and without putting the complete burden of this on any one sector — government, business and individuals.

[1350]

Let's be proud that we in British Columbia accept our responsibility, and let's make sure that our economy is here to support our efforts to be good citizens of this warming world.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

A. Dix: The crisis in the Fraser Health Authority, the result of this government's neglect, is growing. A copy of an April 19 letter from Fraser Health CEO Keith Anderson obtained by the opposition states that the authority is having to make $65 million in cuts this year as a direct result of this government's budget. Mr. Anderson goes on to say: "We recognize that this means many of the good ideas and opportunities we would like to seize on, on behalf of patients, will have to be set aside."

My question to the Minister of Health is simple. What services will be cut, and how many beds will be closed to make up for the deficit this government created?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's great to see the opposition Health critic returning from his self-imposed exile which began on March 1, the last time he asked a question. So I'm really honoured to get one today. [Applause.] Yeah, give him a hand — great.

He has obviously been doing his homework during this period of exile. I was astonished that he was able to come up with this leaked memo. It was only distributed last week to 22,000 employees at the Fraser Health Authority. Of course, the Finance Minister didn't do me many favours by including it on page 39 of the budget documents that were presented to 4.2 million British Columbians on February 19.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: But I'm glad to advise the member that the chair, the board and the senior administration at Fraser Health Authority are doing a wonderful job. They are very shortly going to present us with a balanced budget plan which will not in any way compromise patient care.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: In January both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Purchase, the former chair of the board who resigned in protest because of this minister and this government's incompetence, outlined that bed closures and service cuts would result from the government's failure to provide adequate funding. The funding shortfall meant bed closures in January, and it means bed closures now. Patient care is at risk.

Hon. Speaker, I'll meet the minister halfway. I'll meet him halfway. He may be right; I may be right. Why doesn't he table that letter today from Mr. Anderson so residents of the Fraser Valley, residents of the Fraser Health Authority, can find out the truth about this government's plans for their health care system?

Hon. G. Abbott: When we took office in the province of British Columbia, the health care operations budget for the entire province was $8.3 billion. Today….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if you're going to make comments, make them from your own seat, please.

Continue, Minister.

[ Page 7434 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: When we took office, the Health budget was $8.3 billion. Today it is $13.1 billion for health care in British Columbia. Year over year Fraser Health Authority has enjoyed a 7.3-percent budget increase. As well, they are able to access their share of the $100 million health innovation fund. Health has never been funded better in the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, you know, hon. Speaker, it's true in March, it's true in April, and it's true in May….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1355]

A. Dix: It's true in March, April or May that the minister still doesn't answer any question that we put to him. It's simple. No one believes the minister — not Keith Purchase, who the Premier appointed as head of that board; not Keith Anderson; not Trevor Johnstone; not doctors, nurses or patients in the Fraser Health Authority, who have to deal with these issues every single day.

This will be of interest to government members from Langley. Doctors at Langley Memorial Hospital today expressed their non-confidence in the minister, their non-confidence in what's going on in the Fraser Health Authority and their crisis in providing care for patients.

I would ask the minister: will he come clean? Will he tell the truth in this House, come clean and table the letter that Keith Anderson sent him so that people in the region — doctors, patients and everyone in the region — can find out the truth about his plans?

Hon. G. Abbott: Here's the truth about health care in British Columbia and in the Fraser Health Authority. Never, ever have we had better health care. That's been confirmed by the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board of Canada says we're number one and by a large margin — number one in Canada in health care delivery.

The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada — B.C. is number one in Canada. Now the Wait Time Alliance of Canada says B.C. is number one — best in cancer, best in cardiac, best in cataracts. We're number one.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN

LANGLEY AND SURREY

B. Ralston: My question is to the Minister of Health. Keith Purchase, the former chair of the board, stated in his letter of resignation: "This year's budget process has been totally unacceptable." The doctors at Langley Memorial stated earlier today: "The medical staff at Langley Memorial cannot support continuing to do more with less. The impact of doing so will jeopardize our ability to deliver quality care to our patients and meet the needs of our growing population."

How does the Minister of Health expect the doctors of Langley Memorial to support their patients when the health budget is in such a mess?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: What we attempted to do in our discussions with health authorities, in preparation for the budget that was presented on February 17 in this House, was to discuss — at an earlier date than had ever been the case before — the figures that they would be probably working with in the year ahead. The earliness with which that discussion occurred did present some issues, but I have resolved and have committed with the chairs of the health authorities that we will improve that process in the coming year. I have no doubt about that.

I will put up that record any day against an NDP government that chronically in the 1990s was advising health authorities, months after the fiscal year commenced, what budget they were going to be working with that year.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Sure, the Minister of Health had negotiations with the chair of Fraser Health. When he didn't like the answers, he fired him. When he didn't like the answers he got from the chair of the Vancouver Coastal, he fired him as well. Some negotiation.

This year's provincial budget was prefaced by an exceptional series of notes attempting to explain why the budget didn't meet B.C.'s budget laws. The government's budget documents didn't get sign-off from the chairs of Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health.

Doesn't the minister agree that the public in Surrey and Langley have the right to know how his budget mess will affect health care in their region?

[1400]

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, apparently the member must be leaning on the opposition Health critic for his homework. The Fraser Health Authority chair was not fired. He resigned.

The issue with respect to budgets. Again, what we have done in moving budgets in this province from $8.3 billion that we had on coming into office to $13.1 billion today is provide both transparency and sustainability to health authorities across the province.

We have not seen, and we will not see, a record like this: in 1996, $81 million over budget in health; in 1997, $100 million over budget in health; in 1999, $170 million over budget in health; February 2000, $217 million over budget in health; November 2000, another $290 million over budget in health. We have….

[ Page 7435 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have better budget management than ever before in the history of British Columbia. We have stronger and more capable health authorities than ever before in British Columbia. We have the best health system ever in the province.

SURGERY WAIT-LISTS IN

FRASER REGION

C. Puchmayr: As a consequence of the mess created by this government, people in British Columbia continue to suffer while waiting for surgery.

One of my constituents, a mother of four children, is waiting for serious back surgery. She was bumped on March 8. She was again bumped on April 6 and again bumped on April 26. She has now been tentatively rescheduled for May 10.

It was this government that reduced the surgical capacity in the Fraser Health Authority. When will the minister deal with the crises that he has created in the Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, the member is flat-out wrong. There has never been more surgery performed in the Fraser Health Authority than there is in the current fiscal year — never.

Last year we performed a record number of surgeries in this province — over half a million, over 500,000 surgeries performed in this province. The member, I'm sure, can pick out one case or two where, because of special circumstances in an emergency room or elsewhere, a surgery was delayed. We always regret those, but there are 500,000 surgeries undertaken in this province, including a record number — over 10,000 hip and knee surgeries for the first time in the history of the province of British Columbia.

C. Puchmayr: This patient is also a registered nurse — a registered nurse that is waiting for surgery. She is a health care practitioner that cannot function in the health care system while she is waiting for surgery.

This is not isolated. One of the doctors had alluded to having all of his surgeries cancelled in February — every single surgery cancelled in February. This isn't just a one-off; this is happening every day in the Fraser Health Authority.

What will the minister do to bring some confidence back into the health authority and provide health care as the Premier had said — when you need it and where you need it?

[1405]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the member is wrong. We actually followed up on the case that the member laid out there. I'm glad to get the member the information. But what we know is that during the month in question, the surgeries that were cancelled were elective surgeries and that there were more than a usual number of essential surgeries being done during that time.

The member is wrong. I'm sorry that I have to advise the House of that, but as is consistent with that side of the House, his homework is flawed. In fact, we are doing more surgeries than ever before in the Fraser Health Authority and than at any time in the history of British Columbia.

AMBULANCE SERVICE FOR

RURAL BRITISH COLUMBIA

N. Macdonald: Normal protocol for 911 fire calls in many areas of the province is to dispatch an ambulance to the scene to monitor the health and safety of firefighters. Last Friday there was a house fire in 108 Mile House, and no ambulance arrived.

To the Minister of Health: was this part of the ongoing dispatch problem in Kamloops or the ongoing shortage of ambulances in the region?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. We have been following this issue with much interest. It's very important to have the details here.

First of all, the fire department was dispatched to the fire at 108 Mile House because of a fire. There was no indication at the time….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: No, the members may want to get this right. There was no indication at the time of the fire dispatch that there was a medical issue. The medical issue was discovered when the fire department got to the fire. When they got to the fire, they found a gentleman who was in cardiac distress. Fortunately, one of the volunteer firemen who attended the fire was an off-duty paramedic. There was also an emergency registered nurse at the scene, fortuitously. They both began CPR on the victim at that time. There was not an opportunity to call an ambulance in a timely way. They made a decision that they would take….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: The members may find this funny. I think it is a tragic situation, and I would think that they would want to take the time to get the facts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: The patient got to the hospital as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker. Regrettably, he passed away. But all of the people who attended that scene did their very best in an extraordinarily difficult situation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 7436 ]

B. Simpson: I agree with the minister that all of the people at the scene did their very best. We are not talking about what those individuals did or the tragedy that occurred. We're talking about the failure to follow normal protocol. Those firefighters expected, when they showed up at that house fire, to have an ambulance there — first and foremost, for them. That's the normal protocol for that region — to monitor their health as they wear their Scott packs and as they deal with the structural fire.

When they arrived, they then called 911 three times. Three times they pleaded for an ambulance to be sent to that scene. To the Minister of Health: why was no ambulance dispatched?

Hon. G. Abbott: I explained the circumstances of this, up to the time that the fire crew arrived and discovered a man who was in cardiac distress. At that point there was a call placed for an ambulance. Both ambulances from 100 Mile House were involved in patient responses at that time. They were both tied up.

At that point the members who were attending from the fire department, and I have noted them — the off-duty paramedic and the emergency nurse, who was also fortuitously on scene — made a decision. I am sure it was a difficult decision, Mr. Speaker. But they made a decision — and it was a correct decision — that the most important thing they could do would be to get the cardiac victim to hospital as quickly as possible.

[1410]

They did that in a fire vehicle. They were able to undertake CPR on the victim through that turn, and they were able to get the victim to the hospital in 21 minutes — far faster than would have been the case had an ambulance even been readily available at 100 Mile House.

Again, I hope the members are not playing politics with an issue where health care professionals and fire professionals did their very best to help a victim in a tragic situation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The only one playing politics with this situation is the minister. When he has the audacity….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

B. Simpson: When the minister has the audacity to speak about that situation and give us the time and everything else…. If an ambulance had been dispatched as per protocol, it would have been on site, it would have been with the firefighters, and he would have been transported in ambulatory care directly to the hospital.

This individual was a spouse of one of their own. These firefighters were put in an untenable situation, and they've subsequently had to have support, through WorkSafe support mechanisms, for that critical incident.

The day before this incident happened, this minister stated in this House: "Exceptional ambulance services are being provided every day of the year by the B.C. Ambulance Service." Why was the exceptional ambulance service…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

B. Simpson: That's playing politics with this issue. I'm sure the family of this person does not appreciate having this kind of applause when that person lost their life because an ambulance was not there, as per protocol.

My question to the minister is very simple. When will the minister admit that the restructuring of the B.C. Ambulance Service did not work and is not working, and when will he do something about it so that we don't have more incidents like this in rural British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: Ambulance service has never been better in the province. I am entirely supportive of the leadership at the B.C. Ambulance Service. I am entirely supportive of the paramedics who work tirelessly every day to provide exceptional service to British Columbians. Response times have never been better in the interior and the north of British Columbia.

Again, let me say this, because this is very important. It was at 1319 that a code 3 call went to B.C. Ambulance Service. That's 1:19 in the afternoon that the call, code 3, went out. The fire department believed that they were responding to a fire at a residence. They had no idea there was an issue with respect to the need for an ambulance.

The call for an ambulance came at 1319. Appropriately, the discussion occurred between dispatch and the crew in the field that both ambulances in 100 Mile House were engaged in patient calls. At that point the health professionals and the people at the scene made the appropriate decision, which I believe was entirely supportable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

CALL FOR MORATORIUM ON

RAW LOG EXPORTS

D. Routley: Raw logs are being exported directly from more and more of our coastal communities. Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Cowichan Bay have all had ships loaded with raw logs for export directly from their harbours. This is happening right in front of our closed and curtailed mills. We're used to seeing hun-

[ Page 7437 ]

dreds of truckloads per day. Now we see freighter after freighter of raw logs leaving our communities, and our jobs along with them.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: when will he stop talking about doing something and act to stop the flow of raw logs from our communities?

[1415]

Hon. R. Coleman: We've canvassed this in the House a number of times. The member knows there's a coast recovery plan coming forward very shortly. Along with it will be a policy on raw log exports.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: More words, more promises, more "we're gonnas" and more reports.

Revitalization 1 failed, the industry is in chaos, our mills are closed, we've lost our jobs, and lives have been lost. At the recent Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities meeting, the local governments voted overwhelmingly to support a resolution calling on the government to impose an immediate moratorium on log exports.

Now we see the same closed-loop approach of revitalization 1 being applied to this revitalization effort — communities being left out. Will the minister respect the wishes of coastal communities and act to impose an immediate moratorium on raw log exports?

Hon. R. Coleman: A couple of days ago I met with people who are actually operating in the bush in British Columbia. I know that the members over there don't want to admit this, but there are 28,000 people affected by the fact that we cut logs in British Columbia. There are people in this province who would be out of work if you banned all raw log exports. In actual fact, by cutting some profile, you actually get another profile to keep a mill open somewhere else in the province, and you protect the jobs.

There's an additional….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: About 10,000 more people actually fix, maintain, operate and sell the equipment that goes into logging in British Columbia. I mean, the member is talking about a ban on raw log exports. But on Voice of B.C. on March 30 the Leader of the Opposition said this: "I don't think that it's possible to look at a complete ban, but we do need a reduction. We do need a reduction."

Hon. Member, log exports are down by 700,000 cubic metres in the first quarter of 2007.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Alberni-Qualicum has the floor.

BUSINESS COMMUNITY REPORT ON

GOVERNMENT'S RELATIONSHIP

WITH FIRST NATIONS

S. Fraser: I know that the Kwakiutl First Nation has some issues with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Regarding the new relationship, to the minister: what feedback has he had from the business community regarding this government's handling of the new relationship?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Truly, thank you to the member for the question. All British Columbians, including people in the business community, appreciate the fact that this government under this Premier has taken unprecedented steps to create a new relationship with British Columbia's aboriginal….

They understand that the time has come for us to stand together and bridge the socioeconomic gap that for too long has separated B.C.'s aboriginal people from the mainstream. British Columbians, right from the north to the south and the east to the west, have committed to working with us and to working with our partners in the aboriginal communities and the first nations communities to ensure that we continue to lead Canada in effecting true reconciliation with B.C.'s first nations.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Well, I appreciate the minister's oratory skills, but he's been very selective and very evasive. Those are problems that certainly have already been alluded to by the Auditor General in this government's handling of the treaty process. Certainly, the Sliammon First Nation and the Kwakiutl First Nation seem to agree with the business community on this government's lack of vision and direction.

This is to the question that I put, which was not answered. According to the New Relationship Business Group, in their recent perspective paper…. This is the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, B.C. Business Council, B.C. Mining, and the list is long. I don't have time. They cite this government's lack of policy, direction and shared vision that is frustrating ministry officials, first nations and industry.

The minister must have a copy of the report. It was released in January. How has the minister responded to these grave concerns, and will he release that response?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am more thrilled than I can tell you about the opportunity to have this kind of ex-

[ Page 7438 ]

change with the member, because it actually represents an opportunity for us to begin to get a sense of the differences in opinion that exist on this matter.

Over on this side of the House we not only supported, initiated…. We voted for a $100 million new relationship trust, and they voted against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Over on this side of the House we embraced the strategy built around the transformative change document that is represented in a number of protocols in health care and education. Over on this side of the House we voted for it.

What did they do? They voted against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, on this side of the House we applaud, we embrace and we support the work that has been undertaken at treaty tables, which has led to final agreements. We support that. We still don't know what the position of the opposition is on that fundamentally important question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

M. Karagianis: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: In the gallery today we have two guests: Jim Bennett, who is the government relations coordinator for the Victoria Real Estate Board and the British Columbia Real Estate Association, and his guest Mr. Steve Francks, who is the chief executive officer of the Washington State association of realtors. Could we please make a good welcome to them.

C. Evans: I ask leave make an introduction and then to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Leave granted. Proceed.

C. Evans: On behalf of the member for Skeena, I'd like to welcome Chief Councillor Gary Williams, social development worker Clifford Sampere, and economic and development officer Alice Morgan, who are visiting today from Gitwangak. By the way, it's Cliff Sampere's birthday today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Petitions

C. Evans: We all table petitions all the time. It's rare to get to table a petition in which the community isn't asking for something, but volunteering.

I have a petition from the residents of the Slocan Valley volunteering to all participate in the creation of a plan to manage the foreshore and to keep their lake from being developed, and asking municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments to work with them to protect their lake. I submit the petition on their behalf.

[1425]

S. Fraser: I have petitions containing hundreds of signatures from coastal communities, forest communities, protesting the devastating practices on private managed forest lands and the damage to the communities.

Tabling Documents

Hon. O. Ilich: I table the 2006 annual report for WorkSafe B.C. and also the 2007-2009 service plan for WorkSafe B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply in both chambers. For the information of members, in this chamber we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and in Committee A, in the little House, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

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. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $186,557,000 (continued).

S. Simpson: It is good to be back, and hopefully over the next short while we'll finish up our work on these estimates. I've got a handful of questions here that relate to emissions projections related to the proposed Gateway project. I may have referenced this with the minister previously.

I had the opportunity to have a bit of a discussion around issues related to emissions and more broad transportation questions with the Minister of Transportation in his estimates. At that time, he made the point that most of the issues relating to levels of emissions and all that would be matters to be addressed by the

[ Page 7439 ]

Ministry of Environment. Then the Ministry of Transportation would do whatever it was required to do in order to meet the objectives set by the Ministry of Environment. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the expectations are around emissions related to the Gateway project.

Hon. B. Penner: It's my expectation that there'll be an analysis performed and submitted as part of the environmental assessment office review of that project. I'm just checking, but it's my further understanding that that project remains in the preapplication phase of the environmental assessment process.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. We may be leading to questions related to environmental assessment more quickly than I thought.

In order to be able to do that assessment of either the modelling or what might be expected around increases or changes in emission levels, presumably there has to be some baseline to start with. I wonder if the minister could tell us if there is a baseline there in terms of what the projections are for levels of emissions crossing the current bridge and entering the routes that are currently in use.

Presumably, there's some projection of what the growth would be under the status quo before we get to projections on what might happen with the application of the Gateway project. Do we have those baseline figures?

[1435]

Hon. B. Penner: We're still checking for that. We don't have that with us here in the House. As I did say last week, though, we rely on Statistics Canada at this point to do an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions for the province, and they do that for every province across the country. The most recent statistics that are publicly available are for 2004. My recollection is that those numbers allocate about 39 percent of B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions as coming from the transportation sector.

Personal automobiles are a subset of the transportation sector. My understanding is that the transportation sector takes into account things like trains, heavy trucks and other kinds of vehicles. Just what percentage would be allocated to passenger vehicles and what percentage would be coming specifically from the lower mainland as opposed to the rest of the province is a level of detail that we don't have here.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister doesn't have that information readily available. Here's the question.

The Minister of Transportation has previously said, when questioned, that there was not an expectation that there would be any increase in emissions over and above what would happen if the status quo continued. That's not to say there is not an increase, because when we talked about this in his estimates it became clear that what we were talking about is that under the status quo there is going to be an increase in emissions simply because of increased volume of vehicles in general terms.

His comment — and maybe I'm paraphrasing; I certainly wouldn't want to put words in his mouth — was that he believed, and it was the assertion of his ministry, that emissions would not increase over and above what would normally occur. This was all prior to putting the California tailpipe program in place.

The question that I have for the minister is: how do we come to that conclusion? How could that minister — or the Minister of Environment or anyone else — come to that conclusion if we don't have more specific baseline information to start with in terms of what kind of emissions we're getting out of those particular corridors?

[1440]

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, thank you for permitting me to get up and address the question.

I do have some more specific information as it relates to the lower Fraser Valley. Work has been done.

Whereas I said for the province as a whole about 39 percent of GHG emissions are attributable to the transportation sector — which includes not just personal automobiles but other forms of transportation as well — in the lower Fraser Valley, it's estimated that about 34 percent of regional greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to mobile sources, defined as vehicles, planes, trains, marine transportation, etc. Within the lower Fraser Valley a slightly smaller percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector, as compared to the rest of the province as a whole.

Detailed information is available relating to the Gateway project, I'm advised, by going to the environmental assessment office website. Click on the project entitled "South Fraser Perimeter Road Project," then click on "Technical Volume 16" of the environmental assessment application, which has been filed. All that is publicly available. There will be information there that relates not just to the south perimeter road project and application, but it also addresses the Gateway project generally and projections on greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move a little bit now to talk about environmental assessment specifically. I'm pleased that the minister has the appropriate staff here for that. I think as the government moves down the path on its plans related to climate change, as a number of large projects come into play around the province, as we look at a whole range of things, we're going to see an increasing amount of attention to the process of environmental assessment.

We may very well see the need to have some revisiting of the parameters of our environmental assessment process to make sure that it's applicable to what might be happening now. I've got some broad questions related to environmental assessment so as to better understand what the thinking of the government is around that process.

The minister will know that the previous Environmental Assessment Act, which is the Environmental Assessment Act of 1995, I believe, had a whole set of purposes attached to it. Just to touch on them, they

[ Page 7440 ]

[1445]

There were some very specific purposes laid out in the '95 act. When the government replaced that act with the 2002 legislation, the Environmental Assessment Act of 2002, there weren't the same kinds of stated purposes, I would suggest, put in the act. The deletion of such objectives means that there's some question about the guidance that's provided around the activities that go on under the act, etc.

The question I have is: how does the minister assure the environmental sustainability conditions are met through the application of the act if there isn't some formal guidance in the act to achieve that in terms of some stated purposes? How does the minister assure, in fact, that we're meeting objectives when those clear objectives aren't laid out in the act itself?

[1450]

Hon. B. Penner: The Environmental Assessment Act is pretty clear about things that need to be considered and must be considered by law as the environmental assessment office considers specific projects. In particular, I refer to the act, where it states that the executive director needs to consider the following, whether a project has "a significant adverse environmental, economic, social, heritage or health effect, taking into account practical means of preventing or reducing to an acceptable level any potential adverse effect of the project."

The Environmental Assessment Act, as implemented, provides for an integrated, neutrally administered and balanced process to assess a broad range of effects for proposed projects. Considerations include, as I've mentioned, environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects. Reviews are directed by the environmental assessment office, which is a neutral agency established by the legislation I just referred to. That agency designs and leads rigorous environmental reviews and, at the end of the process, brings a recommendation to the ministerial level for a decision.

It's worth noting as well that early notification to the public, together with provisions for public, government and first nation consultation, help elicit additional views. Experts may bring in additional information to the process, and that is beneficial when the environmental assessment office performs its review.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. The fact is, though, that there was a clear set of purposes in the 1995 act and the decision was made by government to remove those purposes as sort of a test.

We'll know that, in fact, probably if you look at the Supreme Court decision around the Tulsequah Chief project, where the court ordered a new environmental assessment, part of that decision and that judgment was because they deemed that the test that the purposes set out was in fact not met. So I do believe that having those purposes is an important factor, and those purposes aren't there.

The minister made a comment which leads me to the next question I have. Again, I mentioned that the 1995 act, in its purposes, did say to provide an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for the assessment. In fact, the notion of neutrally administered was incorporated into the act itself. Now, I may have missed this, but it's my belief that the current act does not incorporate neutrally administered. Rather, it explicitly provides for ministerial input, which is quite different from neutrally administered.

The question I have around that, because I know the minister referenced this notion of neutrally administered, is: how does the minister assure the public that the act in fact is neutrally administered during environmental assessments when that is not a specific requirement of the legislation? It's on the website, but it's not in the legislation, I don't believe.

By doing that, how does it ensure that the environmental assessment is objective and not just clear of potential political interference but clear of any perception of that because of the requirements of any legislation?

[1455]

Hon. B. Penner: I think the short answer to the member's question is the fact that there is a stand-alone piece of legislation that gives the executive director and the environmental assessment office their authority. I can't overstep that authority. No minister can override legislation as passed by the House. That has supremacy.

The number of authorities are listed specifically. If you work your way through the act, you'll see it giving the executive director authority.

I don't involve myself as minister in the specific reviews — that's obviously done by some of the 50 or so staff that work with the environmental assessment office — nor do I write the reports. All that work takes place by the professional staff under the direction of the executive director of the environmental assessment office, who gets her authority from the legislation that was passed here by the Legislature.

At the end of that review process, after there's been public input and information is gathered, the staff that work for the environmental assessment office prepare a report with recommendations, and they forward that on to the ministerial level for a decision.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I certainly don't believe for a minute that the minister involves himself in trying to manage environmental assessments. I'm sure that he doesn't do that.

[ Page 7441 ]

Coming back to the question about this issue of neutrally administered, there was a reason why it was put in the 1995 act. It was felt that it was important that that neutrality and independence be identified in the legislation. Clearly, this government felt it important to reference that and reference it on the website of the ministry, referencing it as being neutrally administered. Clearly, this government recognized the importance of that in the environmental assessment process as a standard, yet the decision was made not to include that requirement in the legislation itself.

Could the minister tell us: why has the government chosen not to put the requirement of neutral administration in the legislation, when it clearly feels it important enough to have put on the website and when there was certainly some precedent in the 1995 act to not only have that independence but to clearly demonstrate it within the legislation itself?

[1500]

Hon. B. Penner: What makes the environmental assessment office operate as a neutral agency is not a word in the legislation that says the office is neutral. Rather, it is the culmination of the various provisions in the act that, when taken together, work legally to make sure that the office is neutral. That is the net result of the legislation and the various provisions and powers that are given specifically to the executive director of the environmental assessment office. That's what makes the agency neutral — the legislation itself.

S. Simpson: We'll move to the next question because I didn't get an answer on why that was removed and why the act is not explicit around this question of "neutrally administered." We'll move to the next question.

One of the things about environmental assessments — and the minister will know this — is that there always is the issue with these projects of quality objectives — the question around quality objectives and having those objectives that ensure the quality.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We know that much of this particular Environmental Assessment Act is very process-focused — not exclusively, but it's very process-focused. Process is an important thing, and it lays out very clearly how processes will work. But to the best of my knowledge, the tracking process for project directors when projects are in assessment is pretty much having a list of things and then going through — for example, checking off that some mitigation has been proposed and having a clear list of those things that you track from reviewers, which reviewers or the public are raising. You are checking them off as you see some work being done on them.

What I'm not sure that I see in here — and I'd be interested to know whether I've missed this — is a formal framework. Not something informal, but a formal framework that ensures that a substantive amount of reliable technical information has been gathered and reviewed and assessed on those particular aspects of an environmental assessment that may be looked at — mitigation, any of the aspects of that — and that there is a process to review the technical work that has been done for the completion of those aspects to ensure the standard and the quality objectives at the end of this.

Because I don't see them in the legislation, necessarily, or in the act, I'm wondering how the minister ensures that the outcome of environmental assessments is scientifically defensible. What is the review process to ensure that these environmental assessments are scientifically defensible and that the measures proposed for mitigation…?

As we know, the environmental assessment process doesn't turn projects down. It proposes a mitigation to adjust and amend and make projects better, presumably. So how does it measure that the proposals for mitigation are in fact viable and are the right ones, and that the science around that is defensible and has been reviewed properly? What is the process?

[1505]

Hon. B. Penner: At the outset of the process, the environmental assessment office works to establish terms of reference for a review before it's formally undertaken. In setting those terms of reference, various scientific agencies — to use the member's terminology — are contacted.

For example, this can include the Canadian Wildlife Service; Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Health Canada; Ministry of Environment provincially; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Ministry of Forests; Transport Canada; our own provincial Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

All of those are examples of agencies that have within them expertise germane to a particular topic area. So those agencies are consulted to help make suggestions about the terms of reference.

Once the terms of reference are set and the formal review gets underway and information is brought forward to address the various issues that are identified as needing to be addressed in the terms of reference, then those same technical agencies get a chance to take a look at that information and provide comment back through to the environmental assessment office about whether or not those various issues were adequately addressed.

S. Simpson: So what quality objectives there are or how they're proposed…. Those, essentially, are available through the environmental assessment office canvassing the advice of external organizations that may have an interest in any given project. Those external organizations include other ministries or government bodies from other levels of government.

Is their advice or their commentary the extent of the technical review or the extent of any of the science that the environmental assessment office has available to it?

[1510]

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is no. The longer answer is that other experts are free to comment and

[ Page 7442 ]

can raise issues that then would be looked at by either the referral agencies or the expert agencies, to use the member's terminology, and/or the officers with the environmental assessment office conducting a review.

S. Simpson: If the answer is no, that it's not exclusively there and that a significant portion of that goes on within the environmental assessment office itself, with its own resources, then what are the resources that are available in the environmental assessment office for that kind of more specific technical or scientific review? How does the office access that for itself, to satisfy itself, if it requires that information in the case of an environmental assessment? How does it access that information directly when it's not getting it from some other third agency or third party?

Hon. B. Penner: Sorry, hon. Chair, I think the member misunderstood my answer.

The environmental assessment office gets a lot of information from these scientific agencies that the member refers to. His question, which I thought I heard previously, was: is that the extent of the information that the environmental assessment office gets or relies on? The answer is no. Because of the public consultation component of the process, individual experts who may or may not work for government — who may be unaligned — are entitled to bring forward information and raise issues that then need to be addressed.

In addressing those issues that are raised by third parties, if you will, the environmental assessment office may look at it themselves and may, and I know they often do, refer specific scientific information to the various scientific agencies that I've already enumerated — such as the Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, Ministry of Environment, etc. — to get detailed information back.

An example might be around proposed wind power projects, where obviously people sometimes raise concerns about the potential impacts on bird species. Clearly, in those situations the terms of reference would include studies to examine the potential impact on avian species. That would be something that the Ministry of Environment would have experts commenting on, including the Canadian Wildlife Service.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, my question had been — and my apologies to the minister if I wasn't clear — about when we were talking about information with regard to third parties. I was very specifically talking about scientific or very specific technical information, not the broader consultation process that I know the ministry drives.

I know the environmental assessment office accepts representation from those that come forward and want to provide advice to the office on projects. I'm sure that's given fair consideration when that advice is given, whether it be from organizations or individuals who are specifically interested in any given project.

I was talking more about the task at hand for the environmental assessment office to do its own work over and above what it may get through a more public solicitation.

Just to change gears a little bit here. The minister referenced the terms of reference that are done for projects. The minister will know that under the 1995 legislation for environmental assessments, the terms of reference were formulated and written in fact by the office directly. It required members of the project committee actually to formulate terms of reference. We'll talk a little bit about project committees in a minute.

They required the members of the project committee to formulate the terms of reference for the assessment. Those were issued to the proponent, and then the proponent had to meet those terms of reference in doing their work.

[1515]

The current legislation approaches this in a slightly different manner, as I see it. It in fact encourages the proponent to prepare the terms of reference for the environmental assessment, which are then reviewed and approved by the EAO. The environmental assessment office then reviews and approves those terms of reference that have been prepared by the proponent.

I wonder if the minister could tell us: why was the decision made to have the terms of reference prepared by the proponent of the project, rather than by the office itself, and then given to the proponent for them to address?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect some of this may have been discussed when the legislation was debated here on the floor of the Legislature about five years ago. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the intention is to put the onus as much as possible on the proponent to spend the money and find the resources to do that work related to their proposal.

The draft terms of reference then would be sent back to the environmental assessment office.

The environmental assessment office would then send it out to the various scientific agencies or what I would call the referral agencies — the other things like the Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy and Mines, Ministry of Forests, Transport Canada or the provincial Ministry of Transportation, including the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — in order to determine whether or not those draft terms of reference are sufficiently comprehensive or shaped in a way that will address the concerns that the various referral agencies and scientists think should be addressed.

S. Simpson: The problem I have around this, just to make a note for the record, is that this puts the environmental assessment office in a bit of a reactive mode where it kind of…. The documents, the preparation, the work is done by the proponent, and then the environmental assessment office kind of looks at it and says: "Okay, all of the categories that we would reasonably expect to be there — are they there? Yes, they are."

[ Page 7443 ]

It sends out for its review with third parties or external agencies to determine whether they are satisfied that all of the things are on the list. What it doesn't do, though…. I think this is part of the process that the project committee model which was used previously was pretty successful at, and we'll talk about that a little bit in a minute.

But it really doesn't, I think, provide for a group of people within the environmental assessment office sitting down and right at the outset getting their head around a given project in some kind of robust and comprehensive discussion about "What are we really looking at? How is this project likely to unfold? What do we need to be considering?" and kind of getting that grounding that comes when you set the rules for the project. The terms of reference sort of set the rules for how we're going to look at any given project.

[1520]

What I don't see here is…. Instead we see a review where it comes in, and there's an assurance that all of the proper categories are on the list for the terms of reference. But I'm not sure I see that engagement that needs to happen at that point. I'm sure I'd be pleased to hear the minister comment on that.

What I do want to do is talk a little bit about where that exercise would come from. When the terms of reference were being developed by the office itself, that was a model that often was done using project committees. What the minister may know was that back in those days, the exercise of the Environmental Assessment Act then established project committees. The project committee was the main review mechanism for project environmental assessments.

The committees set their own process, but they were required by the act to do a couple of things: to provide the executive director of the environmental assessment office and the government advice, analysis and recommendations about whether the project should go ahead; and to assess the project and advise the executive director of the environmental assessment office on the potential effects of the project and prevention or mitigation of those effects.

This committee that was put in place would meet to deal with the issues that arose out of the environmental assessment and to develop its recommendations, and then those went forward somewhat independent of the office itself. We know that doesn't occur now, because what we have now is the project director responsible for formulating all of those recommendations. It's now fallen into the hands of fewer people.

My question to the minister is: without that committee and that sort of collective responsibility to give the minister the best advice possible, how in this case does the minister assure himself and the public about the process — and the objectivity and neutrality of the process — and that it's not weakened by just placing so much of this in the hands of a single person rather than in this committee, which brought a range of skill and expertise to the discussion? I'd be interested to know what the thinking was as to why that committee process got set aside to put all of this in the hands of single directors.

Hon. B. Penner: A couple of things. First of all, just to go back to what the member was talking about earlier. The executive director informs me that she does not in any way feel that the environmental assessment office is in a reactive mode, as the member would characterize it, as a result of the way the terms of reference are put together.

In fact, the EAO does put together a working group that includes the various scientific or referral agencies — and that includes the Canadian Wildlife Service, DFO, etc. — at the outset when they bring in the proponent. They have a discussion about what the draft terms of reference should probably consider and how it should look.

Then the proponent goes back and does their homework and spends their money, rather than taxpayers' money, fleshing out those terms of reference in a draft way. Then that draft is sent back to the environmental assessment office and is sent to the referral agencies to see if it does an adequate job.

I think that is a responsible way to handle taxpayers' money — to put as much of the onus as possible on the proponent, rather than having taxpayers carry the freight all the way for the proponents. It still gets subjected, as I've said, to scrutiny by the various scientific referral agencies not just at the tail end but also at the outset. There's a discussion about how it should be shaped and what kinds of things they would probably want to include.

[1525]

I should also note that if the member is interested in this topic — and it appears that he is — he can simply go to the environmental assessment office website and find a terms-of-reference guide on the website that he can download. Proponents are certainly told to do this, because it tells you in advance some of the things your terms of reference should consider.

That's in addition to the specific advice that's given on individual project proposals by the various scientific referral agencies at the outset. Then, of course, those draft terms of reference are scrutinized again by the various referral agencies to see if various concerns are adequately noted in the terms of reference.

In terms of the second question around legislative requirements for working groups, working groups continue, but I'm advised by the executive director that it works better now that there's greater flexibility to have multiple committees or subcommittees assigned to various projects. The way it works now is there is one particular person that holds the pen rather than a whole group, which leads to greater accountability.

S. Simpson: It would seem to me that by having the office actually prepare the terms of reference…. There's no reason why that has to be at the public expense. There are more than enough tools available to ensure that the real costs of that are covered by the proponents — in terms of the costs of putting their project together — by paying fees related to environmental assessments so that they essentially would end up paying the fee, regardless of the cost of putting that together.

[ Page 7444 ]

Going back to the question of the project committees, I'm sure that people get together in the environmental assessment office and work together to sort through the projects that the office is working on, and doing that. This process, this decision, was to remove what was a pretty formal process and make it somewhat more informal. As the minister says, to essentially put all of the power in the hands of the project director, who now has pretty much complete discretion around these things…. Again, because we've removed the purposes from the act, I'm not sure I see where the guidelines and the criteria around how this review will be done play out here.

That does raise a concern for me in that I don't necessarily see this as being the same thing. These project committees were a much more formal process to bring more independence, I believe, which comes with a committee that does that work, but the minister has chosen to go in a different direction.

I have one more question specifically related to this process, and then I'll be sitting down and allowing some of my colleagues, who I know have specific questions. This question relates to the first nations. As I referenced in the original purposes of the 1995 act, the purposes were explicit in the need to consult with a whole range of interests, including very specifically the first nations. That specific requirement has been removed from this process.

Can the minister tell us: what are the formal processes now to ensure that first nations always are consulted in a substantive and meaningful way, and accommodated? We know that accommodation is very important. That may include the need for funding, of course, to allow those first nations to be able to engage properly. How do we assure the sustainability of first nations lands and land use practices — that they are engaged to the degree that they expect to be under accommodation?

[1530]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by the executive director of the environmental assessment office that the office is guided by the B.C. consultation policy when it comes to dealing with first nations and the principles of the new relationship as well as common law — that is, decisions that get made by our courts from time to time.

Specifically, I could refer the member to

section 11(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, which requires that the executive director, during the course of the assessment by a government agency, etc., take into account policy of the government from time to time. As the government embarks on new policies such as the new relationship and the principles thereunder, the executive director of the environmental assessment office is required to take that into account and to act accordingly.

C. Trevena: I have a few questions for the minister — a couple relating to parks; then some to potential contamination of the Quinsam River and the Quinsam coal issue, which I think the minister is well aware of; and also environmental assessments when it comes to coalbed methane and quarrying for gravel.

I'd like to start on the parks issue. When we were at estimates last year, I canvassed a few issues relating to the potential extension of parks on Quadra Island. I know there's been ongoing discussion about this, and I wanted to ask the minister for updates.

One of them is the Small Inlet and Octopus Islands parks. There have been negotiations with Merrill and Ring on this for about seven or eight years, and Merrill and Ring is committed to trade its lands adjacent to the Small Inlet and Octopus Islands parks, but there hasn't been any land available for trade.

Apparently, everyone is willing to go ahead with this. We just need the commitment from the ministry to make this happen. So I was wondering if the minister could give me the assurance that the commitment will be there and that everybody's goodwill will make things happen.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll have to get back to the member with some details on that particular proposal.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that, because as I say, it's been going on for nine years, and everybody is willing to make it happen. I think it just needs that bit of a push from….

Hon. B. Penner: Is that Quadra Island?

C. Trevena: Yeah, Quadra Island. It's the north end. I can also give the minister's staff…. It's lots 25, 22 and 27 up there.

[1535]

Interjection.

C. Trevena: It's exchange land. It's Merrill and Ring, and they're willing to exchange the land.

There are a couple of others. There is one private acquisition that I have raised with the minister before, and the minister has in the past said that he would be looking at this. I wondered if the minister can possibly, through his staff, give me an update on how closely this is looked at. These are two lots of land between Main and Clear lakes — lots 983 and 990. That's also on Quadra Island.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I'm sorry. I don't have the details on that particular issue, but we are working feverishly here to get some extra information on that.

I can tell the member…. This question has not been asked yet in this estimates debate, but I think it's information that is worthwhile putting out to members of the Legislature. Every year the Ministry of Environment has, as part of its capital budget, money allocated for acquisition of privately held lands to be added to the B.C. parks system. This year's budget is about $3.09 million for that purpose.

The ministry staff, particularly on the parks side of things, basically do an inventory around the province. They prioritize what their top picks are for that particular year, then compare that list against the

[ Page 7445 ]

available funding and make some decisions about land acquisition.

I don't know, standing here at this moment, exactly where those properties would fall in terms of the priority list that the ministry staff are developing for this year. But we will be acquiring additional lands this year — that would be my expectation — for inclusion in B.C. parks. We'll have more to say about that, I guess, once that ranking process is completed.

C. Trevena: I'd like to thank the minister, and I will pass on any details about these lots that can assist in getting them higher up the ranking, because they will complete a number of parks in the area.

I'll move on to a couple of issues around Quinsam Coal. I know that the minister's staff have been well informed and talking a lot with the Campbell River Environmental Council about the discharge of effluent into the Quinsam River. The latest exchange, I understand, has shown that there have been about 131 exceedances of the average flow for discharge, although only six have been well above the level.

I wondered if the minister could explain what his staff and his ministry are doing to minimize this and to make sure the discharge into the river has the least impact possible.

[1540]

Hon. B. Penner: As I suspect the member knows, an environmental technical review committee was formed following the 1983 public inquiry into the mine development. This committee includes the Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the city of Campbell River, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and Quinsam Coal Corp.

The member is correct that there are exceedances that have been recorded. I think the offending substance is sulphate, if I'm not mistaken. A review of recent monitoring data shows a downward trend in sulphate levels in Long Lake and Middle Quinsam Lake. I'm advised that there have been no exceedances of the 100-milligrams-per-litre guideline for sulphate recorded in Middle Quinsam Lake since about 1999.

The 100-milligram-per-litre guideline was greatly exceeded previously. In fact, it reached levels of about 200 milligrams per litre in the late 1990s, but they have been showing that the trend has been going downward. It's positive, but there's apparently more work that needs to be done to get the levels to where we're more comfortable.

C. Trevena: I would like to ask the minister: is the ministry working with Quinsam Coal to assist them in bringing down levels? I know that Quinsam is trying very hard to bring down the levels of sulphates. I know that the Campbell River Environmental Council is very concerned about the continuing discharge and would contest the argument that the levels have gone down. I think they see that the permit levels have gone up.

I wondered if the ministry and their staff are working with both parties to try and find a satisfactory solution?

Hon. B. Penner: I can provide the member with a bit more detail in terms of the actual readings. I'm told that in 1996 levels in the Middle Quinsam Lake were recorded at between 15 and 75 milligrams per litre, depending on the depth of measurement. Sulphate levels in the Middle Quinsam Lake have not exceeded the provincial guideline, with the exception of five samples taken from the bottom of the lake between 1997 and 1999, which ranged between approximately 115 and 135 milligrams per litre.

Then in Long Lake — I think I mentioned this earlier — they hit a high of about 200 milligrams per litre in the late 1990s but have subsequently shown a downward trend in the last three years. I'm advised that there's follow-up monitoring and assessment to determine the source, trends and potential significance and impact of the sulphate substances.

The mine itself, Quinsam Coal, is apparently reviewing a mine treatment system or looking at a potentially different design to ensure that higher discharge quantities will continue to be adequately treated.

[1545]

Environment Canada itself — that's the federal agency — has been doing sampling near the mouth of the Quinsam River. They have identified stress on what's known as the benthic community. Evaluation of data collected indicates that this stress is most likely related to elevated levels of nutrients in the lower Quinsam River as opposed to sulphates. Ongoing monitoring and work is being done to confirm that, and I'm told that Environment Canada will be releasing a follow-up report on this monitoring.

C. Trevena: I think we're reading from different papers. I have a monitoring report which indicates that the sulphate levels in Middle Quinsam Lake and Long Lake are actually increasing.

I wonder if the minister could explain the discrepancy. Obviously, he's trying to come up to speed very quickly on this. As I say, I have a Quinsam Coal Corp. monitoring report of 2003-2004 which says that the levels of the sulphates are increasing. I wondered whether the permit levels have changed so that while the levels are increasing, the accepted level has also gone higher, so it appears the level is less.

To the minister again. As I say, the report I have shows that sulphate levels are going up at Middle Quinsam and Long lakes. What I want to know from the minister is whether, corresponding with those levels going up, the permitted levels are also going up so that it appears the acceptable levels are actually decreasing?

Hon. B. Penner: I may have to get back to the member on that question. I'm not aware of any change in any permits related to Quinsam Coal. I can advise the member that we have had four staff involved with the issues associated with Quinsam Coal, so it is an issue that certainly is a priority for the ministry.

We've gone to the extra length of hiring a professor from the University of Victoria to review and ensure that conclusions of work done by Ministry of Environ-

[ Page 7446 ]

ment staff and others are sound and supportable. I'm also advised that monitoring data is available for public review at the Campbell River public library.

There was an

article that appeared in one of British Columbia's daily newspapers a couple of months ago that seemed to suggest that this information was not being made public. In fact, I'm advised that it does get posted at the Campbell River public library for public review.

C. Trevena: Just one last question on Quinsam. As I say, I know that Quinsam Coal themselves are also trying to make sure that there is minimal impact, and they do have the watchdog of the Campbell River Environmental Council there, so it's ongoing.

[1550]

The Quinsam mine is looking at expanding. I wondered if the minister could tell me if there's an expansion of this existing mine, whether there has to be an environmental assessment for that, or whether the mine can just expand because it already has the licence for mineral extraction.

Hon. B. Penner: If there is in fact a proposal to expand the size of the mine, there is a regulation in place that determines whether or not a proposed expansion of an existing mine triggers an environmental assessment office review. That is spelled out in, I think it's called, the Environmental Assessment Act "Reviewable projects regulation", which I can get a copy of to the member, if she'd like. But it should also be available on the Internet.

Just to touch on an issue that the member asked earlier about Octopus Islands, I believe. I've been provided with some details. I understand that there are about 384 hectares at issue. I'm told that it's a complicated potential transaction and that it would require a need to find exchange land, as I think the member indicated. It will take some time and potentially a significant amount of money to facilitate this transaction.

I'm told that there could be a potential value at stake here in the order of $9 million. I don't know if that's the amount of money the government of B.C. would have to come up with, but certainly that indicates that the value of the land here is somewhat significant, and as I've been advised, it's a complicated transaction.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for getting the response so quickly on that. As I say, I know that the pieces are almost in place. Obviously, there are finance and also staff allocations that are needed. So I would hope that the minister does look positively on that when ranking the list of new parks.

I know that other colleagues have questions, so I would like to ask one last one and shift again on the environmental assessment and the possibility of coalbed methane. It looks like Quinsam Coal may be exploring into coalbed methane around its mine, and I wanted to know what level of environmental assessment would have to be done before any permitting could go ahead.

[1555]

Hon. B. Penner: Again, similar to my previous answer, it would depend on the size of the proposal whether or not a full environmental assessment review would be triggered under the applicable legislation and the regulations pursuant to that act. But regardless of whether or not a specific proposal for coalbed methane exploration or development was subjected to an environmental assessment office review, any new proposal would have to comply with the requirements as set out in our new energy plan, which was released in the month of March 2007.

For the record here I could just indicate a few of the requirements. Proponents wanting to develop coalbed gas must adopt the following best practices:

(1) Fully engage local communities and first nations in all stages of development.

(2) Use the most advanced technology and practices that are commercially viable to minimize land and aesthetic disturbances.

(3) Companies will not be allowed to surface-discharge produced water. Any reinjected produced water must be injected well below any domestic water aquifer.

(4) Meet any other conditions that the Oil and Gas Commission may apply.

(5) Demonstrate the company's previous experience with coalbed gas development. Information must be made publicly available as to how the company plans to meet and be accountable for the best practices.

Coalbed methane gas does hold some potential that we should be interested in, as it is one of the cleanest-burning of all fossil fuels. I understand what the concern is around the exploration and development. That's why we have adopted leading practices, which I think are second to none in North America.

We want to see if we can develop that potentially cleaner fuel source while still looking after the concerns that people have identified. It's worth noting that I think an extensive number of coalbed methane wells were actually drilled during the 1990s without the benefit of these kinds of policies.

If my memory serves correctly, something in the order of 182 wells were drilled for coalbed methane back in the 1980s. We have seen fit to tighten up the requirements that apply to that particular activity.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister and his staff. I'm going to cover a few different areas if I can, and so I hope you can indulge me on that little trip.

I'm going to start with the Beaufort Range in the Alberni Valley and the logging practices that are happening, which are, by anyone's estimation, of a scale and a level of devastation that we haven't seen before on the land base. Certainly, I've never seen it, and I've talked to a lot of loggers in the area that have never seen this kind of logging activity.

It is private managed forest land, and the Beaufort Range…. Specifically, I'm going to talk about the TimberWest operation in the Beauforts. The adjacent property owner, named Wayne Crowley, has witnessed some pretty damaging events along his property.

Every time a letter goes to a ministry — and it's gone either to the Ministry of Environment, to Lands or to the Premier's office — it tends to get shifted off

[ Page 7447 ]

to the Private Managed Forest Land Council, which I know that this ministry has a role in. I think they appoint one of the members for that council. Is that correct?

A Voice: Which council?

S. Fraser: The Private Managed Forest Land Council.

Hon. B. Penner: The answer is yes. The Ministry of Environment does appoint an individual to that board, and the current appointee on behalf of the Ministry of Environment is a gentleman by the name of Rod Davis.

S. Fraser: Thank you for the answer. The series of correspondence that I referred to…. The last one I'm aware of — and I was at the regional district meeting, the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district — was from vice-chair Glenn Wong. Previous correspondence from the chair Hira Chopra has gone back and forth.

[1600]

In this one they refer to the damage of the recent landslides in the Beaufort Range that were highlighted at this meeting. Mr. Wong states: "I am enclosing copies of photographs of blocks T141 and 144, which an adjacent property owner gave to the regional district board of directors." That is Wayne Crowley. "If these photos represent acceptable logging standards for private land, standards fall short of protecting our environment and our communities."

It goes on by saying: "The board is extremely frustrated by the failure of the province to protect our watersheds and, ultimately, our communities."

Has the minister or his staff been privy to those photographs?

Hon. B. Penner: We're checking right now to see if ministry staff are familiar with those photographs. I may or may not have seen them. I'm not entirely sure. I seem to think I might have seen them, but it may have been through the media. I don't know if they appeared in the newspaper or not. I feel like I've got some familiarity with them, but I can't say with any certainty. Anyway, we're checking to see if ministry staff are familiar with it.

This board that we're talking about is separate from government. We have one appointee. I don't know how many others there are on that board. Maybe the member has that detail. I'm advised that the Ministry of Environment only appoints one person to that board.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I have taken the liberty to make 20 copies of these photos. They were sent to the Minister of Lands and cc'd to the Premier also. I do not know if the Minister of Environment has received these. I can make those available right now, along with the letter from the regional district, because it's part of an ongoing problem.

The issue, I guess, around this is certainly…. Mr. Wong, the vice-chair, has laid it out quite succinctly in the letter that I provided there. He said that the environmental damage is clear to anyone living in the region, and certainly the property owners like Mr. Crowley have witnessed it firsthand.

There doesn't seem to be anything happening. The oversight from the council is saying that basically the level of activity is all right, and that is unacceptable. We're trying it find a fallback position, where hopefully the Ministry of Environment will have some oversight role here when obvious practices that are damaging the landscape and the watersheds are occurring, and they're being allowed to occur under the existing regime.

I won't go directly faulting the council here. The council has a mandate that maybe is far too limited to be able to actually provide the level of protection that is needed.

Can the minister give me and the people of the Alberni Valley some assurances that there will be some oversight provided from the ministry to help protect the watersheds and the environment of the Alberni Valley?

[1605]

Hon. B. Penner: I can have my staff look into this issue. I want to thank the member for providing me with these photographs. I just wonder if the member can indicate when these were taken. That might be helpful for the staff as they look into this.

S. Fraser: The letter that came with the photographs came from the regional district. It was dated April 16, and they were taken that week, so they're very recent photographs. They're the current logging practices that are occurring in the Alberni Valley and surrounding it.

With the release of 70,000 hectares from TFL 44 in 2004, it meant the entire region of the central coast has ringed the community with private managed forest lands. So this activity is happening all around the community.

For the minister's edification, that level of cut…. The timber that's coming off of there is all leaving the valley. Almost all of it is going as export wood. Even with that kind of timber coming off the Beaufort, there were still job losses. It's a double whammy for the community. If the minister can look into that, it would be greatly appreciated — in the sense that it is an environmental problem.

Some of the flooding that has happened in recent years and as recently as November in Port Alberni…. I know the minister is aware that the level of cut…. The Forest Practices Board has already acknowledged in other areas the devastation that happens when this kind of cut happens — these 20-year storm events. I think they said that it's actually down to every three years, potentially, with this level of activity. So it's a very serious situation.

I'm going to just move on to that, because time is limited. I'll look forward to hearing from the minister later on this.

As the minister may be aware, there was a recent announcement that TimberWest has hired a new vice-president of real estate, John Hendry. He's been tasked with potentially removing some of this forest land — large amounts of the forest land. These private managed forest land companies — TimberWest, Island Timberlands — own a large, large portion of coastal

[ Page 7448 ]

forest land. This inextricably makes up a lot of our environmental watershed issues. They are associated with those lands. We cannot separate those.

With the knowledge that they are preparing to not just, as the ministry would see, strip-mine these forest areas in a way we've never seen before but, potentially, not return them to that forest base….

[1610]

Is the minister aware of this situation and the potential damage and impacts that can have on coastal communities, on watersheds, and even on planning for future development, should these lands be converted to, say, residential properties?

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: Joining us in more abundant numbers than we're used to during estimates are the 79 students and teachers from Highroad Academy in Chilliwack. Can the House help make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: The member will be familiar, I'm sure, with the Private Managed Forest Land Act. If the private land is no longer used for forestry purposes, then it's no longer covered by that act.

If it's going to be utilized in some other way for the development that the member describes, there are other provisions that may apply — things such as the riparian areas regulation — and that describe certain measures which must be taken in order to protect fisheries, attributes of various watercourses and that type of thing, and any other legislation that is germane to development in our natural environment in British Columbia.

I just also want to take the opportunity to welcome the students and teachers and chaperones from the great school in Chilliwack. It's good to see you here.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer. If the minister looks at the pictures — and I know he will — he will see that a lot of watercourses, drainages and fish hatcheries are already potentially impacted by the practices that are being allowed under the stewardship of the Private Managed Forest Land Council.

I understand that if that land is taken out and used and paved, or used for subdivisions, there is another set of rules that comes in there. It's taken out of the purview of that council. But in the bigger picture of environmental stewardship, we have to look at this from all sides.

I don't have time to pursue this further because I have some other issues, but I ask the minister…. I know he was looking at the pictures. He must have seen the impact, and no one can agree that that is a sustainable level of cut that can continue without damaging the environment, our watersheds and fish hatcheries — and everything that has happened already. Boil advisories for drinking water — all those issues.

On the topic of water protection, we've seen that the Island Corridor Foundation, the new owners of the E&N line, will be proceeding this spring with a Roundup-type material. Glyphosate is the term, and the trade name can be under a number of things — Roundup There are a few other companies that make very similar products.

[1615]

As the minister knows, I've been fighting the use of deleterious substances to control weeds for a year now. I thought we'd been able to hold that off and look for more inventive means to deal with that. I understand that's in the works and that there's a steam machine potentially being looked at — very costly at this point — and the government has put in some money.

I'll get right down to the issue. We have the potential spraying this summer, this spring, of glyphosate on watersheds. I'm not aware of any Garlon 4, and the proponent has already removed voluntarily the use of 2,4-D, which has been banned outright in many jurisdictions because of its links to cancer, and I applaud those jurisdictions for taking that leadership.

Glyphosate. I have studies that show that this is potentially a health risk. The University of Caen in France, 2005 — the studies there have direct links to placental disorders, potential reproductive disorders in humans. It is not the benign product, according to these studies, that it is being touted as.

Also, moving on a little bit further to environmental issues, it is lethal to things like salamanders, amphibians, non-target organisms that should not be impacted in an attempt to control weeds — not to be introduced as a means to control weeds when it can have this effect.

I'd like to know what level of scrutiny the ministry will be putting on these spray programs. How will they be informing the public of the risks associated — the health risks that came out of the Caen University and the Philadelphia University, which links it to other non-target organisms? And how will that be mitigated? Also, what watershed studies have been done to show where and when to spray, and where the blue- and red-listed species are that will be directly impacted or destroyed along the spray pattern line?

Hon. B. Penner: The member will know the Vancouver Island Corridor Foundation. I believe it consists of a number of different groups, including first nations and local governments, if I'm not mistaken. I'm attempting to get that information. They are now the operator, I believe, of what is known as the E&N Railway.

I have recently heard that they have additional safety concerns, and that's one of the reasons, I think, that the train has been halted or at least operations potentially curtailed. It's due to the spread of weeds and the impact they are having on the integrity of the railbed itself. So out of an interest for public safety, the operation of that railroad has had to be curtailed. That's obviously of concern to anybody who is hoping to see that railway be a success.

[ Page 7449 ]

Any substance or herbicide proposed to be used would have to be something that's approved by Health Canada. B.C.'s own Integrated Pest Management Act, in regulations, established additional standards for human protection and the environment. I think the member is aware of this. We canvassed this a year ago at some length.

If the member is in possession of some additional information that he says highlights concerns that may not have been identified by Health Canada during the work they did in approving various pesticides or herbicides for application, then I trust that he has brought that information to the attention of Health Canada. Regardless, the railway operator, the Island Corridor Foundation, will have to establish required no-treatment zones around water bodies, wells and intakes and maintain detailed maps of the no-treatment zones along the railbed.

[1620]

I say that, also keeping in mind that many people have worked very hard to try and make sure that that railway has some kind of a future on Vancouver Island. Obviously, we want to make sure that if it is maintained, it operates in a safe manner both in terms of keeping the trains on the tracks so that they don't jump off the tracks as the railbed deteriorates due to undergrowth, but also that any substance that's applied to help control the growth of weeds and other plant species is done in a safe way.

S. Fraser: If the minister's staff want to refer to the differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase…. This is out of the University of Caen. It's 2005, and you can just google it. It's very quick to find. It's very technical. There are C ole's Notes versions of it, which I had to refer to.

Then there is a further work done at the University of Pittsburgh regarding the effects on amphibians, specifically studying Roundup and its impacts on non-target organisms.

If the minister's staff can check those out and make sure those risks are known and can be made known to the public that are potentially affected by this…. I understand there are safety issues. The Ministry of Environment's role, I believe here, is to make sure that the safety issue is not the environmental factor — the poisons, the deleterious substances on watersheds and in watersheds or to non-targeted organisms. I know the minister knows that.

The Minister of Transportation, I'm sure, can handle the other side of that as far as the train safety goes. I would say that from the minister's purview he should be…. I don't mean to be preaching here.

There certainly is a role to inform the public, who have spoken as one through the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities. They have a resolution saying that they do not approve of the spraying of either the Roundup, Garlon 4 or 2,4D, and they roundly — Roundup-ly — refuse to endorse the use of those deleterious substances as a means for controlling weeds.

I ask all of those things to be taken into consideration.

Hon. B. Penner: Of course, we do take this issue seriously, and that's why we have the regulations in place that we do. We will be following up on the information that the member provided about the study he found on the Internet regarding…. I think it's Garlon 4 that's the substance.

I can provide some additional information about the makeup of the Island Corridor Foundation. It's a 12-member board consisting of five representatives, I believe, from five different first nations bands. As well, there are five representatives from various regional district governments. So local governments are involved in the operation of this railway, and I understand again from media accounts that they're interested in making sure that the railway can continue to operate. I think that's the goal that most people on Vancouver Island have had over the years.

As I followed the somewhat tortured history of the E&N Railway, there has always been some question mark about whether there was a viable future for that railway and the rail service that it provides. It's our hope that there is. Certainly, from the Ministry of Environment's perspective, we want to make sure that the railway operates safely, not just from an environmental health perspective but also from a human health perspective in terms of keeping the trains on the tracks.

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that. I am aware of the makeup of the Island Corridor Foundation. I'm a supporter of the acquisition by that foundation of the railway, and we have great hopes for that.

They've been left in a very difficult situation. The ministries involved have not enforced maintenance on that line with the previous owners. Maybe it's 20-20 hindsight, but the fact is that they've taken it over and then are being cornered into saying they had to use this because it is the cheapest means — which in the short term, I believe, is true. In the long term it can affect all of us. I think we have to look at the bigger picture on that when we use this.

[1625]

The Island Corridor Foundation may well be made up of elected officials, but the resolution holds, which came out of the elected bodies — the municipalities, the municipal governments, the regional districts, the cities along that line. They can't override that. That represents the communities. School boards also, along that line, have said the same concerns, as the minister knows.

I will move on to cave and karst protection. It's not a totally unrelated topic, but I will keep jumping to here, and I don't do this on purpose. Karst land is a limestone region that has potential caves and cave systems in it. I have correspondence to the minister on this. We've gone back and forth a few times, and I have spoken on the issue in the House in private member's statements and two-minute statements.

As we speak, I believe that some of the issues we're seeing that have come to light on caves that have been damaged, in some cases on private land, are giving B.C. a black eye internationally. Other jurisdictions in the world have a much greater concern for protecting

[ Page 7450 ]

these systems and are appalled at our weak to no regulations or enforcement of protection of caves — limestone, karst and non-karst caves.

The EGU conference in Vienna sat through the actual spate cave presentation on April 16. My understanding is they were not pleased with the way we are protecting our cave systems — or I should say not protecting our cave systems — here on Vancouver Island and in B.C. through legislation.

The Minister of Environment has identified caves as environmentally valuable resources that must be protected and managed during land development activities in the province. I'll cite the development and care environmental guidelines for urban and rural development, land development in British Columbia. That's the Ministry of Environment, March 2006.

The IUCN guidelines for cave and karst protection note that cave and karst ecosystems are among the most vulnerable on earth. I am a caver, and I can attest to that. Human activity, especially changes to the land base around the caves or the sinkholes, can have a devastating effect and completely alter and destroy the subterranean systems that we really do not understand.

We're still finding new critters in there. I had the privilege of being in a cave above Sproat Lake a couple of years ago that they had found a new bug in. Unlike many parts of the world, B.C. lacks specific cave protection legislation for caves on private and public lands. It's a common misconception that the B.C. Heritage Act provides this. It does not. In fact, in practice the Heritage Conservation Act only provides effective protection for archaeological materials within caves. We're not seeing that reflected in the actual protection of caves.

There is a gap here, and I have pointed that out to the minister already. Can the minister comment on or acknowledge this gap and please explain how he might be looking at trying to correct that?

[1630]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: I've just been able to retrieve a letter to the member that I had recalled signing recently. I presume he hasn't yet received it, so at the risk of ruining his anticipation and the surprise that will inevitably result from opening an envelope with my return address on it, let me just read it into the record here, because it does address the issue.

"There are many caves and karst features in our provincial parks. They are managed for the protection of their environmental values and are available, where appropriate, for recreational use. The Ministry of Environment is prepared to consider further proposals from the caving community for the designation of individual cave or karst features as provincial protected areas where identified values are high and conflicts with other land uses are manageable.

"On Crown lands outside of the protected areas system, mechanisms exist under the Forest and Range Practices Act to protect karst features, including caves where they are identified. Under the government actions regulation, the Minister of Forests and Range may make an order identifying a surface or subsurface element of a karst system as a 'resource feature. '

"Resource features are managed under the forest planning and practices regulation, which specifies that resource features must not be damaged or rendered ineffective by primary forest activities. In addition, the Ministry of Forests and Range has published the

Karst Management Handbook for British Columbia , best management practices, 2003, to guide forest licensees in their management of karst resources.

"On private lands, in addition to the following, and following the guidelines for urban and rural land development" — which were referred to in the member's letter to me — "landowners have the option of donating land in question to the protected areas system or selling the area to the ministry for park purposes."

We discussed earlier the budget that the Ministry of Environment has every year for private land acquisitions.

"The ministry will consider such requests and evaluate whether the cave feature warrants inclusion in the protected areas system."

I can also get back to the member on a question he raised earlier around the Beaufort Range. I have since been advised that ministry staff are aware of the issue he raised and are investigating it now.

[1635]

S. Fraser: Thank you to the minister for that reassurance of the Beaufort Range and that the issue is being looked at by the minister. I'm glad that is happening. I'll look forward to hearing where we go next with that, and I know many others will. I know there are other people who are not actively underground right now that are watching this issue around karst and speleological protection. I thank the minister for referring to his letter, and I'll study that further.

The issues of the karst orders regarding forest land. I understand that for forestry purposes it's under the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'm aware of those. But there is specific overarching cave protection legislation — ecosystem-based and separate and distinct from, I think, the karst orders dealing with forestry practices or with the Heritage Conservation Act — that is required to ensure that B.C. caves and all values associated with caves and karst land are protected, whether on private or public land.

Again, I'm heartened to hear that the minister is open to hearing suggestions from the caving community and those involved with environmental issues around that, because these are all water issues too. They all come back to water, which is near and dear to all of us.

Moving along quickly, I just wanted to touch on, while I have the minister here…. I know his staff is working on this already. We've had discussions on the private member's bill dealing with antifreeze; the safe antifreeze act it's known as. I have, as the minister is aware, been submitting thousands and thousands of names on petitions to the minister from all over the province, and they continue to roll in. I've had further contact with some of the larger associations — Sierra Club, Western Canada Wilderness Committee and oth-

[ Page 7451 ]

ers — who are anxious because we are now in May, and the end of the session is nearly upon us.

I have also spoken with industry reps since I spoke with the minister last. I'm curious. Are we going to be able to see this issue brought forward in a way that might avert it falling off the order paper?

Hon. B. Penner: I can inform the member that we are continuing to work on this issue. I do appreciate the member bringing it to our attention last fall, when he was first talking about it. The ministry has looked at a number of different options and is continuing to do that, about how we could accomplish the objective of reducing the impact on animals and other species that may be affected by this particular substance. To my knowledge, no other jurisdiction in North America has imposed a ban as a remedy. Maybe the member could correct me if I'm wrong. I know it's been talked about in other jurisdictions, but to this date I'm not aware of any others.

[1640]

That doesn't mean we can't work with our neighbouring jurisdictions — including the federal government, which does have the ability already under existing legislation to regulate this substance. It is something that I remain actively involved in, and ministry staff are still pursuing this issue.

The Chair: If I could remind members that the supply estimates debate is about the estimates and shouldn't really be towards legislation or proposed legislation.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: Yeah, thank you for that, hon. Chair, and thanks to the minister for his answer.

Now for something different: park permit issues. Small operators that do tour operations in parks in my jurisdiction are having some significant problems, and I'm sure it's happening elsewhere. I think it's $265 a year for renewal of a park permit to do tours for a specific park.

We have small operators. These are operators that are stewards of the environment. They actually educate the public. They are with the public at the time they enter the park, so it's a small impact — actually, a positive impact. They usually end up picking up any garbage they find there. It's very, very well done.

There are 106 provincial parks within two hours, say, of Parksville, and we would like to have the freedom to visit them through these operators. At $265 per park per year, that would be a permit fee of about $28,000-plus, by my calculation, and that may include parks that are only visited once a year. This is very onerous on the smaller operators.

What's more, there's the issue of larger operators or full busloads of people. I'll use Cathedral Grove as an example, as the minister knows it. They stop there all the time. They don't do any guided tours, so the public are allowed to tromp throughout there — no disrespect to the public that are tromping throughout there — potentially causing damage.

There's no level of scrutiny or stewardship shown by an operator, and they're doing that for free. Operators from out of province are coming in and doing it for free. We're seeing it in kayak operations. Those that are forced to pay, if they do it properly, can be put out of business because of the costs. They are forced to watch other operators that decide not to pay, and there seems to be no scrutiny of those. It's a double standard; it's not fair.

I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the issue. I've got correspondence going back for several years now to the ministry and ministry staff, and we're not getting anywhere on this issue. Can the minister please help?

Hon. B. Penner: I am aware of the issue. I've also heard from a number of people, as has the member. In fact, the adventure tourism industry and a number of environmental groups are presently meeting in an effort to develop collaborative recommendations respecting park use permit policy, and they have told me that they expect to get some kind of advice or recommendations to me by the middle of May. That's in about two weeks' time. So they are looking at that particular issue.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm crossing my fingers, because we have had these deadlines over and over and over again, and we haven't been…. We're coming into another season, so these permits have to be purchased. The tourists are arriving, and it's a major hardship for these operators. I'm really hoping that this will be coming to fruition this month, as the minister indicated.

[1645]

Lastly, because I have run out of time…. I dealt with this issue in the mining estimates. It's dealing with — it's the last time I take you and your staff on this circuitous route; I very much appreciate this — Kemess Mines. There's a mine north of Prince George, Kemess South. The expansion proposal includes an environmental assessment on a lake known as Duncan Lake. It's also known as Amazay, which I have to correct for Hansard . I said it meant mother caribou; it means a caribou calving area.

It's the traditional territory of three, maybe four different nations, and they are all opposing the use of that lake as a tailing pond for 350 million tonnes of acid tailings from the proposed mine, essentially destroying the life in the lake.

The minister responsible referred me to these estimates, so I am following his direction. Just last week the minister claimed that there was involvement of the first nations who are opposing this. I have been informed that is not correct. For the record, the first nations involved have only recently received the B.C. EAO funding.

This is more than 14 months since a separate first nations process was promised and has not been delivered. This is almost 12 months since the funding was promised. The federal funding has still not been received due to laborious reporting requirements that expect the first nations to have to spend the money before they can be reimbursed.

[ Page 7452 ]

The fact that the B.C. funding has been delivered less than four weeks before the final hearings means that the TseK'hene are unable to do meaningful research and hire experts in the field to analyze the company's EIA. However, they will be attending in Smithers — still under protest, the minister should know — and they'll be making final submissions.

The issue is about killing a lake. I'm not criticizing mining…. I visited the mine; it's very impressive. But how can this Ministry of Environment and this Minister of Environment even acknowledge an environmental assessment process that is contemplating killing a lake? This is a magnificent lake. I have visited the lake; it's like Lake Louise. It's a beautiful, beautiful lake. There are animals there. It is a caribou calving ground, as I mentioned. There are fish in the lake. How does that fit with the fourth great goal?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is making certain assertions which will be examined by the environmental assessment process, which is underway. It would not be appropriate for me, as a statutory decision-maker, to pass comment on the merits of a specific proposal while it's under an active review. In this case, it's a joint panel that's been established between the Canadian environmental assessment office and the B.C. environmental assessment office. It will be subject to the appropriate scrutiny.

S. Fraser: In closing, I will make comment on this. The process, as I've just pointed out, has been flawed. The meaningful consultation with first nations has not occurred. Some 350 million tonnes of acid tailings into this lake will kill it. That doesn't jive with any environmental assessment or any fourth great goal that I'm aware of.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the minister and his staff.

D. Routley: I would like to talk about creeks and streams and logging practices and the effects of those on those streams and surrounding areas on Vancouver Island. The previous member spoke about the fact that communities are horrified by what we see occurring on the land base.

[1650]

I've had a history in logging in my early days in the em