Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 7, Number 6

Part 1

[ Page 6193 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers

G. Plant: I am delighted to welcome to Victoria and to the gallery friends from Park City, Utah: Robin Paxton-McGuire and her three kids, Cooper, Flynn and Kelly. I hope the House will please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I have two sets of introductions that I'm pleased to make today. First of all, it's my very great pleasure to introduce to the House Gargee Ghosh, who's in the gallery today and is the winner of the 1997 Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship. This scholarship is our government's highest scholastic award. It was established in 1971 to commemorate the Queen's visit during our centennial celebrations, and it supports British Columbia university graduates who undertake further studies in the Commonwealth.

Gargee is a truly exceptional honours economics graduate from the University of Victoria. She'll pursue her economics studies at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. I can only assume she didn't make it into Cambridge, hon. Speaker -- it's a parochial comment. The two very worthy winners of minor Queen Elizabeth scholarships this year are Jeevan Deol, from Vancouver, and Jacqueline Chew, from Merritt. I would ask the House to join me in congratulating and welcoming Gargee Ghosh, who is accompanied today in the gallery by her mother and father, Lily and Ray.

Also, I'm pleased to introduce three guests who are visiting with us from Paris, France, today. Brigitte Delattre is head of communications for the National Trust for Historic Monuments and Sites for the government of France. Antoine Debré is the vice-president of the French Academy of Architecture, and Adrien Debré is Antoine's grandson. I know the House will want to make them all very welcome.

P. Reitsma: In the gallery today are four guests, who used to live on the mainland and have been in Parksville for a while. In fact, they're off next week to Australia for a year-long exchange program. Would the House please make welcome and give a nice send-off to Chuck and Theresa McNicholl and their two sons, Darcy and Duncan.

J. Sawicki: I would like to welcome two special guests to the gallery: Richard Hunt and his daughter Emily. I'm actually making this introduction on behalf of one of those wonderful people who keep us fed in the dining room, Betty Turko, because these guests are her son-in-law and her granddaughter. Richard Hunt, as we all know, is a world-renowned Kwakiutl artist, but I also understand that just recently he sponsored a golf tournament that raised $10,000 for Big Sisters and Big Brothers. Emily is seven years old, and I think she's well known to all of us because her Gran talks about her all the time. Please welcome them to the Legislature.

C. Hansen: I'd like to welcome a friend of many years, Odel Ramcharan, who's here from Calgary with his new bride, Sandra. They wisely chose Victoria for their honeymoon, and I hope the House will bid them congratulations and welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome four guests to the House today. With us are Don and Kay Midwinter, from Sidney, B.C. Visiting them are their friends from Winnipeg, Archie and Helen Orlikow. Archie's brother, David Orlikow, is a former NDP Member of Parliament. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased today to have in the gallery a friend of our family, Grace Palomar. Grace could be best described as a resident of the Kootenays, having in the last three years lived in Nelson, Cranbrook and Golden. I'd ask the House to make them welcome. I must say that over coffee this morning, Grace was passing on to me how proud she is of our Premier and the stand he's taken on behalf of all British Columbians.

Hon. L. Boone: Today is a very important day in this Legislature. I think everybody, including all members on the opposite side of the House, would join me in wishing two very important people in this Legislature a happy birthday: the Minister of Education, my colleague, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Would the House please join me in wishing them a happy birthday.

Oral Questions

PREVENTIVE SECURITY AT

FRASER REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with Ron Leskun. Ron is a shift supervisor at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre. He was the institutional preventive security officer. When he was appointed IPSO several years ago, he was told to stop the flow of drugs into that institution, and that's what he and his team did. Drug use and inmate overdoses declined; assaults and violence between inmates and staff decreased. The district director himself wrote, in February, that the he was "amazed with the results that have been achieved." In the face of the success that Mr.

Leskun enjoyed in the fight against drugs, can the Attorney General explain why the decision was made by his ministry to end the IPSO program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, these issues were first brought to the attention of police officers back in the fall of 1995. They investigated these issues thoroughly then. There was insufficient evidence to proceed on many of these allegations. Subsequently, information has gone to police on many occasions. They have done more investigations, and no charges have resulted.

With respect to IPSO, yes, I have read the memo that the hon. member is talking about. Yes, it indicates that this program was successful to a certain extent. Yes, there is a drug problem. But at the end of the day, it is important that we remember that to investigate criminal activity is the function of the police in this province, not of the guards of a correctional facility. As a result, there were problems, and as a result of those problems, this program was terminated.

There has been a full-time liaison police officer with the correctional facility that the hon. member is talking about. The correctional facility is attempting to retool the program with the assistance of the police, so that the police have the lead role in dealing with these issues with the assistance of the staff.

M. de Jong: Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General's explanation is entirely inconsistent with the documentation that we have received from his ministry. Let me quote from one of those documents. The director:

"I have concluded that I can no longer allow a continuation of the abuse that has been directed toward the primary IPSO

[ Page 6194 ]

officers. Their families, their health and their well-being are far more important than continuing with a program that is ultimately going to result in someone being hurt. It is for this reason that we have decided to end the program."

That has very little to do with anything the Attorney General just mentioned today.

It was great as long as it was visitors, as long as it was inmates, but when it involved employees of the Attorney General, the Attorney General ministry took a rather different view.

In light of what Mr. Leskun has done, in light of what he and his family have lived through -- hell these last two years -- will the Attorney General stand in this House today and assure Mr. Leskun and his colleagues that there will be no reprisals against this man, who did nothing but his job?

[2:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are several matters that relate to personnel. I do not, as a rule, comment on personnel matters. As a result of those personnel matters, proceedings may take place.

However, from the same memo, if I could read: "The police continue to investigate some of these incidents of harassment, damage and threats. I am still hopeful that the responsible party(ies) can be identified." It's important for us to remember that to investigate crimes is the responsibility of the police.

There is a full-time police liaison officer with the corrections facility. Allan Anderson, of the investigation, inspections and standards office -- independent of Corrections -- has been investigating this matter for some time, subsequent to the receipt by me of some letters from the spouses of some of the guards who were concerned that they were being harassed. That investigation continues, and Mr. Anderson will expand the scope of that investigation to report to me fully. That report will be made public.

M. de Jong: Mr. Leskun was scrupulous in following procedure. He wrote to the regional people alerting them of his concerns and his findings. He wrote to the Attorney General's deputy, alerting her of his findings and the evidence that he had. He wrote to the Attorney General, alerting him of the findings and the evidence of criminality that he had. Ultimately, when none of those people responded, he wrote to the Premier. When none of those people took any action, he had no choice but to make public these very disturbing findings of evidence of criminality within that corrections facility.

I don't think the Attorney General heard the question. Will he stand in this House today, look Mr. Leskun and his colleagues in the eye and say: "I will not take any reprisals against you for doing your job in protecting inmates and civilians and guards within that facility"?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is a learned member of the profession of law. He knows that there is the rule of law in this province. The Attorney General is not above the law. There are rules respecting employment; there are rules respecting investigations. There is law respecting investigations by police. All of those matters will be dealt with. If there is any criminal activity that's going on, it's the obligation of the police to investigate.

When I received this correspondence from the individual that the hon. member is naming, I passed it on to the deputy minister so that it could passed on to Corrections and to Mr. Anderson. It is important for everyone to recognize that if this individual has that information, he should pass it on to the police. It is the obligation of the police to investigate those matters, and I have passed that information on through my deputy minister to the appropriate sources.

G. Plant: In July 1995 this IPSO program determined that there were at least two corrections officials involved in drug trafficking at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre. Now, instead of launching an immediate inquiry, the NDP in fact chose to allow these officers to resign and in one case, apparently, to receive a $20,000 severance payment. This is completely unacceptable.

Can the Attorney General tell us now: why did no one in his government launch an immediate inquiry into these events in 1995 as soon as it became apparent that guards were trafficking in drugs in his prison?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am amazed that a member as learned in law as the hon. member that just spoke is would say that the RCMP and the police should not be allowed to do their job, that we should have public inquiries at the slightest mention of drugs. It's important that police be allowed to do their job. I said very clearly that in 1995 the RCMP conducted a very thorough and lengthy investigation. They have continued those investigations from time to time. They found insufficient evidence to proceed to any charges. They are free to deal with those issues . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, when your questions were being posed, I believe you were given the courtesy of silence. I would ask that the same be extended to the minister.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The police are always free to deal with the issues as they see fit. I am certain that all of this information is in the hands of police, and I'm sure they will do their job.

G. Plant: This is about how this government chooses to manage what goes on inside its prisons. Nothing that the Attorney General has said so far today gives me any confidence that he understands the magnitude of this problem.

In fact, in the media reports this morning, the Attorney General was saying that he was unaware of the concerns regarding drug trafficking and harassment of IPSO officers at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre. That is completely impossible because, as the Attorney General knows, on April 30 Mr. Leskun wrote to him telling him all about that problem. To date, Mr. Leskun has not even had the courtesy of a response from the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General tell this House why he has ignored the repeated warnings by Mr. Leskun, the chief investigator, as said to him in this letter almost three months ago?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Perhaps the hon. member didn't hear what I said. Allan Anderson, the independent officer of the investigation, inspections and standards branch, is investigating this matter -- sometime since February, after I received letters from the spouses of the guards who were harassed. As a result of that investigation, the scope of the investigation would be expanded, obviously, to take into account any allegations that had been made consequently. It's important that we recognize the independence of Mr. Anderson. We wait for that investigation, and we'll deal with the issue.

[ Page 6195 ]

On the other hand, at the same time the RCMP and the other police forces are free to deal with these issues as they see fit, as the evidence comes forward for them to deal with.

G. Plant: Well, the public record is pretty clear. There's been attempt after attempt made by these honourable guards to bring this serious problem to the attention of the government not just in respect of whether there needs to be police investigations but whether this government needs to revise its approach to the management of its prison system.

I do not say this lightly when I say today that it is up to the Attorney General to do the right thing, to do it now and to in fact immediately call a full and open public inquiry, where all people may testify without reprisal into the events at the correctional centre. I ask the Attorney General if he will do that now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have full confidence in our police forces in British Columbia to deal with any criminal activity in any nook and cranny of British Columbia, including the corrections facilities. If any members of the opposition have any evidence, they can present it to the police. If they find that difficult to do, they can present it to me, and I'll forward that on to the police.

G. Campbell: The concern I have is that the Attorney General does not seem to understand the human impacts of the lack of response from this government. Is it too much to ask the Attorney General to write a letter to someone who has been threatened, whose family has been threatened and whose career has been threatened, and say: "Yes, I have received your complaint, and I'm dealing with it"?

On June 12, because there had been no response from this Attorney General -- there had been no commitment from this government to protect the families, people and employees concerned -- Mr. Leskun wrote to the Premier. I want to point out that in writing to the Premier, that is the last step he could possibly take according to the "Standards of Conduct for Public Service Employees." He'd written to the regional personnel officer, the Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General, and now he was writing to the Premier. On June 12 he wrote to the Premier.

Can the Attorney General tell me this: what action did the Premier take to be sure that these families were told that they were going to be safe and secure, and to be sure that the activities that were taking place, which were clearly alleged to be illegal, were going to be stopped in the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm amazed. Even after the information that the hon. members have been given, they persist in asking the same question.

Let me repeat again. I wrote to two of the spouses of the guards who wrote to me; I wrote to them. There is a letter dated June 26 that indicates that Don Demers, the assistant deputy minister responsible for corrections, may have met with them. It also indicates that Allan Anderson is looking into the matter. I have said that Allan Anderson, the investigation, inspections and standards director, is looking into this matter. I have complete confidence in him to investigate this matter and report back to me. As I have done with the previous reports from him, that report would be made public.

If there's any further action that the hon. members can persuade me to take, I will do so. It's important for us to let Mr. Anderson do the work.

It's also important to once again express confidence in our police forces. There is a full-time police liaison officer who works with this corrections facility, who I have full faith in. I'm sure that if he has any difficulties, he'd be dealing with his chiefs. I'll be hearing from them if they need any resources to deal with this issue.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The red light went on while the minister was answering, members. I would suggest that you don't complain about time, if indeed it expires in the process of question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and the Ministry for Children and Families. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 21.

The Speaker: I understand, before calling the minister, that I have a statement coming from two members. Okanagan-Vernon, would you wish to begin? I think it more appropriate that the member read the statement than that I do.

A. Sanders: Thank you for undertaking to read my statement for me. That would have been very nice.

I rise, pursuant to

section 10(1) of the Members Conflict of Interest Act, to withdraw from debating Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, on the basis that I may be in a real or perceived conflict of interest. The possible conflict of interest arises from the fact that I'm a licensed medical practitioner in B.C. Parts of this bill deal with the medical profession.

In the circumstances, the prudent course is to withdraw from second reading debate of this bill. I expect to participate in committee debate on the provisions of the bill which would not directly regulate the medical profession.

S. Hawkins: I too rise, pursuant to

section 10(1) of the Members Conflict of Interest Act, to withdraw from debate on Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, on the basis that I may be in a real or perceived conflict of interest. That possible conflict of interest arises from the fact that my husband is a licensed medical practitioner in B.C., and parts of this bill deal with the medical profession.

I understand there are legal proceedings underway with respect to whether there is a lawfully appointed conflict-of-interest commissioner, and in the circumstances, hon. Speaker, the prudent course is to withdraw from second reading debate on this bill. I expect to participate in committee debate on the provisions of the bill which do not directly relate to the medical profession.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I now recognize the Minister of Health, on second reading.

[ Page 6196 ]

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about a number of important changes that are being made to the legislation which governs the delivery of medical and health care services in British Columbia.

[2:30]

I must say, hon. Speaker, once again, as I said yesterday, that there is a legally appointed conflict-of-interest commissioner, and the practice is to abide by that law and go to the conflict-of-interest-commissioner and get an opinion from him. Once again, I am extremely disappointed that the Liberal opposition continues to flout the law in that area.

These changes deal with different aspects of protecting medicare and build on the steps this government took with Bill 54 in 1995. That legislation, the Medicare Protection Act, protects patients from paying extra charges for medicare services in our province, by banning extra billing for medical services. It says clearly that every British Columbian should have equal access to medicare services, regardless of income.

Our amendments to the Medicare Protection Act will ensure that all residents of the province are enrolled in the Medical Services Plan for the purposes of receiving medicare benefits. This will ensure that medicare coverage in British Columbia is truly universal and that no individual is denied the opportunity to participate.

This bill includes two vital amendments in relation to extra billing. Bill 54, the Medicare Protection Act, bans extra billing for medicare services. With this legislation, we are closing a couple of potential loopholes. The first change is a clarification that an extra-billing charge imposed by any person on behalf of the medicare practitioner constitutes a charge by the medical practitioner who has provided the service.

The second change clarifies that no additional fees can be imposed on a spouse, parent or other person acting on behalf of a beneficiary receiving a service, which might be done in an effort to avoid allegations that the charge was imposed on the beneficiary personally. While these loopholes may offer only a remote opportunity for abuse, it is imperative that any possible means to extra-bill will be eliminated.

In cases where a practitioner has broken the law through such acts as extra-billing, the only two penalties available to the commission were either (1) to cancel the enrolment of the practitioner or (2) to force the practitioner to seek payment directly from patients, who would in turn be reimbursed by the Medical Services Plan. While the commission, fortunately, is not faced with this situation frequently, experience has shown that neither of these penalties is particularly effective or appropriate in many cases.

As the result of the amendments in this bill, such practitioners may now be placed on reduced payment schedules for a period of time. This will offer the commission much more flexibility to determine a penalty appropriate to the circumstances. More importantly, in those cases where there would otherwise be a need to cancel the enrolment of the practitioner, allowing the individual to continue to practise, albeit at a reduced payment schedule, this will ensure that access to services is not impeded and make it clear that there will be real penalties for doctors who break the law.

Turning to the vital issue of physician supply, this bill contains some key measures. They have been developed with the active participation and support of the British Columbia Medical Association and adopted by the Medical Services Commission. One part of physician supply concerns the authority to develop different billing arrangements for medical practitioners during the early years of their practice. This policy is about encouraging doctors to practise in those areas of the province that can most benefit from their expertise, and ensuring better management of the health care budget.

The commission presently has in place a form of grid that, when applied to existing payment schedules, means an individual who has practised for less than five years may be paid at less than 100 percent of the payment schedules if the types of services provided by the practitioner are already widely available in his or her community.

For example, new doctors who work in areas where there is a shortage of physicians will be paid 100 percent of the fee-for-service payment schedule, and new physicians who practise in areas that are oversupplied with doctors will receive 50 percent of the fee-for-service payments. We are paying more to have doctors where British Columbians need them, and less where we don't.

These physician supply measures developed by the British Columbia Medical Association have been in place for some time. With these legislative amendments, there is no question over the authority of the commission to apply these differentiated payment schedules.

With the introduction of this legislation, after the age of 75 years medical practitioners may not provide physician services through the Medical Services Plan. This measure will increase the opportunities for younger physicians. To protect medicare services throughout B.C., we are providing the possibility of an exemption to this measure in the areas of the province where retirement of a physician at the age of 75 might reasonably be expected to have an adverse impact on access by residents to necessary services. The time in practice for that physician may be extended by the Medical Services Commission.

From a more technical perspective, there are other amendments that I will only comment on briefly. In the matter of appeals by practitioners from orders made by the Medical Services Commission, amendments made by this bill will require that the appeals proceed directly to the British Columbia Supreme Court. At present appeals are taken to the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board. Extensive experience has shown that this is neither cost-efficient nor cost-effective, because virtually every procedural step of the appeal board is taken to the Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

As a result of this change, matters will be concluded much more quickly and at much less cost to practitioners, the commission and taxpayers.

In connection with audit activities by the Medical Services Plan, there will now be authority for an audit of claims for payment by practitioners where the payment has been made by MSP on behalf of an agency such as the Insurance Corporation of B.C. or the Workers Compensation Board. Negotiated arrangements currently exist with these two agencies for the processing of claims, resulting in considerable efficiency and cost savings. The extension of audit powers to these claims will correspondingly increase those efficiencies and savings, because ICBC and WCB could only carry out such audit activities at considerable expense.

In relation to premium payment, there has been some streamlining of the collection process with these amendments. When premium payments are in arrears, the Medical Services

[ Page 6197 ]

Commission is authorized to certify the amount of the arrears and serve that certificate on the person in default. If the person named in the certificate does not pay the arrears and does not dispute the amount once 30 days have elapsed, the commission is authorized to file the certificate in any court registry in British Columbia. Once filed in this manner, the certificate has the status of a court judgment, and proceedings may be commenced to recover the amount that is owing. If the individual objects at a later date, there is a provision for an appeal to the court to be filed within 45 days.

These amendments are very important to the delivery of medical and health care services in the province. British Columbians have the best medicare legislation in Canada. Through these amendments, we're ensuring that the key principles of medicare are upheld. We are eliminating unnecessary duplication and streamlining many of our processes, which will result in a more cost-efficient and cost-effective system. I'm pleased to be able to present these amendments to the House today.

This bill -- if the issues are not clarified around the time limit for enrolment and de-enrolment -- will impact negatively on British Columbians who travel outside this province. They will not be given reciprocity when it comes to health care, because this government will have limited and restricted the portability aspects of the Canada Health Act. That's an issue, and that is an issue that we will debate today, in principle, in second reading debate on this bill. That's the principle which permeates this legislation and is questioned by this legislation.

I'm not comfortable with the question. This is the most important program that government can offer, no question about that. This minister goes a little bit beyond striking efficiencies; she raises the question about the future of the program in the minds of many. That certainly was a discussion shared by members on this side of the House. We have some concerns about this government's willingness to step outside of the federal legislation. They've shown that in the past with their social services legislation. They are again prepared to do it on this legislation.

Again, I come back to the question of the time limit around enrolling and de-enrolling in the health plan. What is standard in Canada today is three months. I will need to hear from this minister, in her closing remarks, that three months will be in place in British Columbia. For her to stand beyond that is, again, pitting this province against the other provinces in this country and ensuring that individuals, when they travel, will have difficulty accessing health care in terms of portability. That's a concern that I, on behalf of the official opposition, am putting on the table this afternoon.

The minister makes much mention that the individual's right to access health care should not be based on their ability to pay. This amendment act is only about the ability to pay, in terms of those particular sections. If people are comfortable with that notion, now is the time to stand up and be counted on that. The official opposition is not comfortable with that aspect of this bill. We would never wish to see anyone in this country turned away from any medical facility, based on the inability to pay.

What this minister just said in her remarks is that they will be found to be in arrears, and those dollars will be collected from them. What she didn't say was whether or not they would be turned away. If that is her intention, that will not receive the support of the official opposition. We are, today, standing in support of the Canada Health Act -- of the position around delivering affordable, accessible, universal health care.

That has always been our position in the official opposition, and I speak from experience, having served this party, this caucus, as Health critic for close to five years. There is sufficient evidence on the record that we will stand for people who need to access the health care system. We will not deny them access, as the minister suggested, based on their ability to pay. That is not a position of this Liberal opposition.

Our concern, to distil it down, is that this bill allows people to be left out of the Canada Health Act, out of the Medical Services Commission, out of the Medical Services Plan here in British Columbia. That's a significant issue. If we believe it's universal, we can't be hypocritical and suggest that people can be left out, as this minister has done.

I too am impressed with striking efficiencies around how this plan is implemented and how it's managed, but not to the extent that we would compromise the principles on which this plan was founded. Those are the principles that the Liberal opposition stands behind.

Again, I come back to the question of waiting periods. Should the minister, in her closing remarks, tell us that the waiting period is standard across the country -- that it will be three months around enrolment or de-enrolment -- that will have the support of this opposition. If the decision is taken to separate this province from the other nine provinces and three territories in this land and have British Columbians treated differently than other Canadians, that is an issue that I would wish this minister to address. I look forward to her closing remarks, hon. Speaker, because I do believe there are some issues around that.

Certainly the minister touched on the issues around physician supply, very difficult issues. There is a concern that the opinions of interns and student physicians -- medical students -- in this province have not been incorporated into the position of the B.C. Medical Association. That is an issue they will need to deal with very effectively and, hopefully, very soon. We, as the consumers of the health care system, very much desire that the best minds, the finest minds, the most current research, the latest technology are brought into play, if it is our illness or the illness of a member of our family -- or frankly, the illness of a member of our constituency. We want

[ Page 6198 ]

those people to have access to the best possible care. To disenfranchise the newest medical students in the system is a concern.

[2:45]

I look forward to the minister's comments in terms of how that will be addressed. I'm not in favour of ensuring that every new graduate for the next five years leaves this province. I think there is a significant investment, from an educational perspective, that this province will have made in their education -- and not just their K-to-12 education but their ten, 12 or 15 years of advanced schooling around medical school, an internship, a residency, specialty training. We want those people to stay and practise their craft in British Columbia.

I can tell you that during my tours of this province as Health critic, there were significant issues around a lack of obstetrical care, a lack of psychiatric care, a lack of general surgeon care in this province. This doesn't address those specialty questions. This is a gross measure that will slow down physician supply, but it won't specify physician supply. The formula that the B.C. Medical Association arrives at, in concert with this government, must be incredibly sophisticated to answer the questions of people who live in the north.

There is more than one tier of health care in this province today. We have all accepted that reality. The care that we receive at St. Paul's Hospital in the lower mainland or Vancouver Hospital is dramatically different than the care that we receive in Burns Lake and Fort St. John. That's the reality. So unless we're prepared to ensure that we look at refining this very gross measure in terms of physician supply, we will have done nothing to improve that situation for individuals who live outside the lower mainland. I'm very firm on that point. It's a significant issue for the majority of the outlying areas of this province.

This bill recognizes that it's a problem, but it doesn't solve the problem. What it says is that there will be formula arrived at. The success of that formula will be determined by the sensitivity of the individuals at the table. I would hope that this minister will ensure that interns and medical students are part of that discussion, because the quality of health care we receive and put in place for the next generation is entirely dependent on the quality and calibre of graduates we have today.

For me, it's an economic question. I don't wish to have that very superb expertise leave this province. I want people who have the latest in training and technology and who are the most current in areas of research to be welcomed to practise in this province. I think it's a very fine balance. I think it's a very delicate balancing act that the minister will have to engage in with the British Columbia Medical Association. I wish her well, because I think it's important that this province respect new graduates in the areas of medicine that I mentioned: obstetrics, general surgery and psychiatry.

Those are very difficult subspecialties in terms of providing that service in other parts of the province. Again, this bill doesn't address the refinement that will be required to succeed in that area.

I trust that the formula that is put in place recognizes the very grave concerns that members on this side of the House have regarding the health care available to people who live outside the lower mainland or live outside southern Vancouver Island, because implementation is always the key. The general principle of this bill is supported by members of the official opposition. We absolutely support the intention of this bill. Where we have difficulties will be around the implementation, because it's always something that's gone off the rails when it comes to this government around health care.

It's a concern to me, and I know that the concern is shared by other members on this side of the House.

Today people tend to look at issues around chiropractic and around physiotherapy as being health care. I know the members opposite agree. So when this minister stands up and says, "Not a cent shall change hands" we know that's not true. People today pay $10 a visit to receive physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment in this province, so people are participating in that. If we want to redefine what is covered by the Medical Services Plan or what is partially covered, let's have that discussion. We know today that those services are partially covered by the Medical Services Plan. So we have some hypocrisy in the comments made opposite, and we need to have some clarification around that.

I made mention earlier of the minister's comment about equal access to health care, regardless of income. That is the point I'm making around chiropractic and physiotherapy. We expect those people to pay, regardless of income, and we need to be clear about how we define health care for the average British Columbian. They have lots of difficulty with what they see to be the selectivity -- the fact that this minister appears to be arbitrary on some of those questions; that they would not make any changes to health care. Well, yes, they did around physiotherapy and chiropractic.

They increased the user fee from $7.50 to $10 -- an increase of $2.50 a visit. Is that significant for many British Columbians? No question.

I referenced earlier that we do have the reality today that more than single-tier health care exists in British Columbia. Nowhere is that clearer than in the workers compensation system. I have raised this issue with the Minister of Health, and she referenced the WCB in her remarks. She knows full well that the situation of the Workers Compensation Board is around having a non-medical person adjudicate someone's access to health care, which is absolutely contrary to the Canada Health Act. I trust that this minister will remedy that situation, because it needs attention.

What it says is that if you or I are injured, we would see a medical practitioner. We would seek out that service. If we happen to be employees in this province who are managed by the workers compensation system, someone else would decide if we had access to that health care, and that person's background would not be medical. I have serious concerns about that. I have made my concerns known to the minister, and I trust that she will respond to that, too, in her closing remarks.

There are some issues I could leave with this minister that I would ask her to respond to in her closing comments, and failing that, she will know that these comments will come again during the committee stage of the bill: some commitment around the formula that will be in place around physician supply and some commitment that it will be a fairly sophisticated formula that recognizes the needs of subspecialties and patients who require that service around this province. Let me be really clear on that. The people who require subspecialty care outside the lower mainland need to know that that care will be there.

Regulating the number of general practitioners in this province is one aspect of a comprehensive physician supply plan. I don't believe that the British Columbia Medical Association, in concert with this government, has arrived at the ultimate plan. I trust that where we are today is an evolutionary plan and that we will indeed arrive at something that we are prepared to revisit at least every year or every second year, because the needs of this province change that quickly.

Put-

[ Page 6199 ]

ting a plan in place that's there for the next ten years would no more recognize the inequities today than it would in any other decade. There has to be some consistency, there has to be some timeliness, and there has to be some commitment -- and, I trust, some political will -- demonstrated by this minister when it comes to ensuring that those kinds of decisions are taken.

I have some concerns around the waiting period, and I trust the minister will respond to that. Will the waiting period in British Columbia around enrolling and de-enrolling from the Medical Services Plan continue to be three months? Is there any truth to the speculation that that number will now become six months? Members on this side of the House need the answer to that question.

As to the reference the minister made earlier about people electing not to participate, I need the answer to the question: will those individuals be turned away from any medical facility in this province? Is this minister prepared to compromise on universality? That question needs to be answered for us this afternoon.

I am and, as I said, the official opposition is prepared to support this bill in principle. But we need to be absolutely clear, and this minister needs to share her thoughts with us this afternoon around the basic tenets of the Canada Health Act. Will this continue to be publicly administered? Will this plan continue to be accessible to every single British Columbian, regardless of ability to pay? Will we stand today united around the concept of universality? Will we ensure that British Columbians can travel this province and receive health care when they travel outside of this province? Is there portability?

Is there reciprocity on behalf of the other provinces and territories in this country under the Canada Health Act? And is the system going to continue to be affordable?

Those are issues that the minister has put on the table by bringing forward Bill 21, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997, and we trust that this minister will respond to our concerns in committee stage. We are supporting the bill, and we ask for the minister's comments.

V. Anderson: I stand up to make some comments regarding the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997. I can't remember exactly how many medicare protection acts we've had in the last few years. As I listened to the minister make her comments today, the words that ran through my mind, which I heard from the community that I have been visiting, were: "Change, change, change. When will we ever have some stability?"

I came from Saskatchewan and had the opportunity go through the strike when the beginning of this kind of comprehensive legislation became part of our society. I saw the difficulty that people had in working through uncontrolled, independent, ad hoc medical systems to one where we collectively as a community came together. The clients, the physicians, the workers in the hospitals and in the communities worked together to develop a comprehensive social system in medicine whereby we could care for each other in a way that we could be proud of and rely upon. That built up over the years until, like many other places in Canada, we in B.C. had a system of which we could be proud.

It's interesting that the Seaton commission of a number of years ago, which was set up to review our system and to ask how it could be changed and improved, came out with the general conclusion that we had one of the best systems in the world. There were suggestions of how it could be modified and improved so that it could change with changing times. It was one of the comments of the Seaton report that it wasn't necessarily more money that we needed.

Rather, it was a consistent planning process whereby the change that took place in our society, the growth in our community, the difference in aging of our population, the awareness of new mechanisms of science and technology -- all of these could become a part of our ongoing system.

[3:00]

Unfortunately, since that report came into being, we've had one unfortunate experiment after another. In those experiments, the people in health care in British Columbia have continued to suffer until this present moment. I think it's very safe to say, from the people I talk to, that hardly ever do they go to a hospital or to a medical service that they don't say that in the collective system it is not what it used to be. They are frightened by the changes that have taken place and by the uncertainty that the system presents to them.

I talk with those who have been working in the remodelled and remodelled-again health systems in the province, whether it's a community service system, the regional service system or whatever. What I discover from them is that just as they begin to feel they've adapted to a change and maybe have got the kinks out of it and are ready to make it work, then another change comes down upon them. That's a major concern, because that's the context in which we look at this particular bill. It's the context in which we hear that there is change again. There is uncertainty again about what is coming down upon us.

Most of the people in our community already thought that the medicare system was for everybody in the province, but now we have a bill brought before us saying: "No, that isn't the case." Now we want to change it so that it will be case.

But what we found with this bill, as we find with so many of the bills that have been coming to the Legislature in this particular session -- and I might say unlike any other session that we've had in this Legislature since I've been here, since '91 -- every one of these bills is brought forth on the pretence of: how much money can the government make and get from the people to balance their budget?

Every one of these bills costs the average citizen in B.C. more and more and more. For the average citizen in B.C., more than 50 percent of their income goes to government. This has to stop somewhere down the line; it has to be reversed. This bill, which is pretending to improve our medical care system, is really primarily about collecting more money.

It used to be the tenet of the CCF and the early years of the NDP that services were to be provided to the people according to their ability to pay. That has taken on a different meaning in these times. It used to be that if you didn't have the money, through no fault of your own, you wouldn't be deprived of the services necessary for your lifestyle. It's becoming more and more that if you don't have the money, you will be deprived of those services. We find that what services are available to you depends on where you live in the province. The services that used to be available in almost every community are no longer available.

[ Page 6200 ]

I grew up in and served in small communities in the Prairies. There we initially had Red Cross hospitals, and then we had small community hospitals. They dealt not only with the care of the individual who had need of medical care, but they dealt with the care of the health of the total community. Those health care professionals and workers not only worked within the health care facility, but they were a part of community planning; they were a part of community activities. They worked with the children, the young people in the community; they worked with the senior citizens in the community.

They helped to develop facilities that were available to each and every one, and gave us not only healthy persons but healthy communities, which are fundamental to healthy persons.

One of the outcomes of that kind of process, no doubt, was a process called Healthy Communities, which for a time this government sponsored and supported, but which they have ceased to support in the manner and fashion in which they once did. What they have done is say in their regionalization and in their community council development: "This belongs to the local community. We no longer as a provincial government have an overall concern or responsibility." It's this that concerns our people.

When we take this Medicare Protection Amendment Act . . . . They talk about suggesting that there are some people who will not be able to enrol in the medical care system. When they talk about some people who will themselves de-enrol from the medical care system, then we begin to wonder what is being said.

It's like so many of the other acts. Often I've turned to the final chapters of a book, to understand what the book might be about. If it looked interesting in the final chapters, I'd go back and try to look at the detail within it.

So when we go back again to the last

section of this bill,

section 14,

section 51(2), we find that it's amended by the following paragraphs: " . . . (c.1) prescribing the period for the purposes of

section 7.1; (c.2) establishing the manner and time for the making of payments of premiums; (c.3) prescribing the rate for the purposes of

section 8.1; (c.4) prescribing the form of certificate . . . ; (h.1) prescribing bodies for purposes of definition . . . . " Hon. Speaker, the guts of the act aren't here. They're going to be prescribed after we have put out the headings.

We find again and again that this is what is happening with this government. Regulations that used to be stipulated in

an act so that you understood what they were -- not in total detail, but at least in essence and in principle -- were there for you to examine and comment upon. Now the aim of this government is to say, again and again: "This will be prescribed by the minister, by order-in-council, by whoever." It's impossible to tell the real intent or purpose or outcome of the act, because all of that is left to a person's imagination. Unfortunately, when our imagination plays with the kinds of regulations and bureaucracy that have developed over these last six years, then we are rightfully concerned.

I was interested in a comment the minister made a few moments ago as she introduced the act, when she commented about a person who would be able to appeal: a practitioner and owner of a diagnostic facility or a representative of a professional corporation on whom the order was made. I heard her say -- and I'm sure I heard her say properly -- that they must appeal the order to the Supreme Court. But the bill itself says that they may appeal the order to the Supreme Court. So I'm left with the question: do we deal with what the bill is saying, or do we deal with what the minister said when she introduced the bill?

That's a question we'll have to ask her in committee stage: which of those wordings does she really mean to have in place?

We have some of the best hospitals in the province, because citizens of the community have come together to build those hospitals, to manage those hospitals and to provide very accessible programs. As we worked into one of the recent system changes, those hospital boards were done away with. In fact, they were done away with by edicts of the minister on many occasions, where she simply said: "I'll put in an administrator, because I don't like the way you're doing it." Not only has she done it in one case, she has done it in countless cases, and the bills that we have before us give her even more authority to undertake that kind of process.

In the earlier stage there was a promise by a previous minister that there would be elected regional and local boards -- community councils -- and that these were appointed only in the first round so that they could get organized. Then every three years there would be elections, and the community could choose the people to administer their local community activities. But in recent times the change has come. The minister has taken away the opportunity for local boards to be elected; the minister has taken away the opportunity for local people to be involved.

There are people involved, but they're the ones selected, nominated and controlled by the minister. In the acts that have come before us during this session, there's built in, time and time again, for each and every ministry . . . . Not only is it the Health ministry, it's also in Attorney General ministry legislation that even things like the Legal Services Society board can be done away with and an administrator put in at the whim of the Attorney General.

Like so many of these acts that come before us, there are some good principles within in it, but the principles are jeopardized by the regulations which come after the acts have been completed and have gone into the back room.

We see here some things that are worthy of discussion. We see that there is a concern under this act that some British Columbians, either by design or by default, will end up without medical coverage. They will end up without medical coverage in British Columbia or if they travel across Canada or around the world, and that is a fundamental error in what is being presented to us at this point.

It is important for us to review very carefully what is put before us. There is a concern in our free society that men and women who train themselves for a job or a profession should have the freedom to go and work where they like, and they should be able to take their skills and share them with people in other communities. There are many who are concerned that in some areas of our community we are developing a

philoso-

[ Page 6201 ]

phy that that freedom of movement is not possible, because in a medicare system you cannot provide services without being part of the system; and if you're part of the system, then you don't necessarily have freedom to live, practise or work where you would like to be. These are principles that have to be examined very carefully. The rationale for these changes have to be re-examined, because they have implications. For this particular group of people, we might say that's fine, but as you extend it to others, it has a danger.

So there are some concerns about a set of changes, which is another set of ongoing changes that will be changed again next spring when we come back here -- if this government is still around at that time. They are concerned that everyone in the province should have the same opportunities in health care as everyone else. There are some concerns that we will discuss in committee stage, because it's simply not fair for us to have this uncertainty on behalf of our people.

[3:15]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join this Bill 21 discussion. I'm going to keep my comments very brief. I believe that the previous speakers on this side of the House have explained in an admirable way some of the concerns we have with Bill 21. As they have noted, while we are generally in support of the provisions of Bill 21, we do have some concerns. I want to confine my remarks today to just one aspect of the bill that I have a particular concern with, and that concern revolves around the withdrawal or termination of a beneficiary from the plan. The nub of that concern is that it is contrary to the principle of universality.

As others have noted, B.C. Liberals are absolutely committed to a one-tier medical system that is affordable, accessible, universal and portable. In our estimation, those are the four pillars that sustain the medical system that we have in British Columbia. If people withdraw from the program or have their enrolment cancelled, is the program still universal? That is the nub of our concern. If an individual, whether foolishly or otherwise, withdraws or has enrolment cancelled, is there an alternative system for that individual or individuals to access? No, there isn't.

There isn't, because we have concluded as a society that we will have a universal medical care system and that that universal medical care system will serve all of our citizens. We are concerned that with this bill we will be creating a class of citizens or a group of individuals who will not have ready access to health care in British Columbia -- nor, as others have noted, will these individuals have access to medical care when travelling in other provinces in Canada.

I think it should be briefly noted, as well, that we are a compassionate, humane society. If people are suffering in this society, the society itself and indeed its physicians will undoubtedly want to alleviate that suffering. For this reason, we're very concerned with the principle and precedent of some citizens losing -- for whatever reason -- their right to the protection of a universal medical care system.

As you know, the job of government is to find an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities in a society. It is also the job of government to find an appropriate balance between principle and practicality. I'm concerned, and I know from the comments of others on this side of the House that we are concerned that the vital principle of universality for our medical care system may be compromised in the pursuit of efficiencies.

So that very briefly outlines the concern that I have with respect to Bill 21. Again, while we will be supporting Bill 21 at second reading, I hope that my concerns and the concerns of my colleagues have been heard by the minister and that an appropriate response can be found.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the questions raised by the opposition during second reading comments. I would just say this: many of the concerns raised can be addressed in committee stage. There are reasoned explanations, and I think the concerns will disappear as the bill is explained. This bill is complex in some ways because the amendments amend the original Medicare Protection Act, but I consider it my obligation at committee stage to explain how the two meld and how the concerns of the opposition can be addressed.

There are some very important aspects of this bill, and I do appreciate the opposition's commitment to support this bill. There are very serious concerns around making sure that communities, particularly in rural and remote areas, do have, as best as possible, a good physician supply. It's a very difficult issue to manage under any circumstances. Our work with the B.C. Medical Association has addressed many of those very thorny issues -- which are not partisan issues, by any means. They're issues of ensuring that one can get medicare services regardless of where one lives.

The concern around the universality . . . . This bill actually does protect universality, and in fact -- this is in no way a criticism; the whole bill has to be read with the current act -- guarantees universality for everyone regardless of whether they have paid their premiums or not. In fact, that is meeting the test of the Canada Health Act. What the bill does allow us to do is collect premiums from those who are in arrears. That ability was never there before.

So in some ways it's very technical -- not complex, but technical. I look forward to actually addressing these concerns at committee stage. On that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 48.

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

CORPORATIONS ACT

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

The Emergency Communications Corporations Act is part of this government's commitment to work in partnership with local governments and emergency agencies to improve public safety in all regions of British Columbia. The act enables the creation of special purpose corporations to provide integrated emergency communications services in British Columbia. The creation of these corporations will improve police, fire and ambulance service response and will provide greater public safety at an affordable cost.

The emergency communications users -- such as municipalities, regional districts and provincial and federal agencies -- will be able to join together in a non-profit, private corporation specifically designed to meet local needs. The boards of these corporations will be appointed by the agencies that use

[ Page 6202 ]

the system and pay the bills. This will ensure that the services are economical and effective and that they reflect the needs of the participating agencies. The province will be a direct partner in these corporations. We will pay our share, provide support and participate whenever our colleagues in local government and the federal government wish to work together to enhance emergency communications.

We believe that these corporations should be subject to the normal requirements for governments to be open and accountable. The legislation includes financial reporting and freedom-of-information provisions that come up to the normal government standard. Where a consolidation of dispatch and other services occurs, employees are naturally concerned about their jobs and futures. Therefore we have included provisions to protect pensions and to equip the Labour Relations Board to expedite decisions about union representation and agreements.

This legislation is very timely because it will provide the vehicle for implementing a new emergency communications system and dispatch facility in southwestern British Columbia. About a year ago I announced my support for an ambitious project to establish a single emergency communications system for emergency services in the region bounded by Boston Bar, Pemberton, Sechelt and the U.S. border -- a huge area with more than half the population of the province. The system will be capable of serving 6,000 emergency response personnel working in this area, and includes a consolidated dispatch operation.

Geologists have been telling us that the lower mainland could be hit by a major earthquake at any time. Having an emergency facility that can remain operational during a major disaster will mean the saving of countless lives.

The partners in this project have worked hard to make it a viable proposal. The legislation will help ensure that those efforts will result in a new emergency operations centre. I, along with my colleague the Minister of Health, the mayor of Vancouver and the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, made a major announcement last Monday about this exciting project. It is an example of what we can do in partnerships made possible by this legislation.

I'm pleased to speak to this bill. It will enable the development of integrated communications systems and dispatch centres whenever our partners see fit, allowing police, fire and ambulance services to respond quickly not only in day-to-day situations but also when major emergencies or disasters happen. I look forward to its speedy passage. That concludes my remarks, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I believe that you moved second reading in the beginning, so we're in order.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak on Bill 48, a bill that the opposition will be supporting.

I guess I should say that this is a tremendously ambitious project and one that will also be a tremendous success if it realizes the better part of its ambitions. I look forward to hearing from the government and holding the government to account, I suppose, for its progress on the continued development of this idea -- an idea which, I might say, is an idea the Leader of the Opposition had back in the early days when he was mayor. What we are seeing here now is something that I think can be fairly described as the end of the beginning of a project and now a part of a very significant step forward.

I want to say that while this is a project with tremendous potential, there are a number of challenges and potential pitfalls. I want to identify them, as much as anything, by way of giving the Attorney General a sense of issues that I think he probably knows are out there, but to communicate to him, I suppose, the fact that I know they're out there. And there are things that he and all of the participants in this project are going to have to keep in mind.

The first is that in creating a project like this, which will serve an area as large as the area contemplated -- as the Attorney General says, virtually the whole of the mainland of southwestern British Columbia -- it is going to be important for all the players and participants in this project to ensure that they recognize and accommodate and give legitimate voice to the concerns of all of the communities within southwestern British Columbia -- because there are, in the area that is contemplated for this project, some small towns and villages as well as the major cities of Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond and others.

It's going to be important that the people who are the project principals do what they can as the project is developed to ensure that all of the people and the service providers in the smaller communities within this larger area have their views heard, accommodated and recognized, so that the service, when it is finally up and running, is responsive to the needs of not only the people in the larger metropolitan centres but also the people within the larger area who happen to live in smaller communities.

There's always a risk in projects like this that the big guys will take over and that it will tend to be a project that develops only in their image, and I sincerely hope that that's not the case here. I urge the Attorney General to bear that consideration in mind as he moves forward. I think that in fact it's the case now that Surrey, one of the larger communities -- if not almost the largest now -- is not yet on board with this project. So there is clearly work to be done here.

The second concern that's been brought to my attention is a concern that arises every time you talk about integrating a number of different services into one service delivery system.

That is to ensure that the people who deliver that system, that service, are people who have the requisite training to respond to all of the types of situations that can arise, so that you have people who are going to be on the receiving end of the emergency telephone communications able to, in an intelligent, informed and experienced way, respond to issues that arise, not simply with respect to policing but also with respect to fire, paramedic services -- a whole range of different kinds of services.

I think it's going to be important to ensure that the people who are the front-line service delivery people in this thing, when it finally gets up and running, have all of the necessary training. It may in fact be necessary that some of them have medical background to be sure that they can respond to those kinds of issues as well as the other issues that will be brought to their attention.

[3:30]

The third point I want to make is, I suppose, a small note of caution. I think we're far too far down the path here to reinvent this particular wheel, but I did not want the moment to pass without expressing at least a question about why it is that the centre, which is now under construction, is being constructed right in the heart of urban Vancouver -- a place which, I suspect, if there ever were an emergency of the kind that we're talking about, would be a fairly, if not very, difficult place to get into and out of. But I think that we're past that hurdle. I hope that there was in fact consideration given

[ Page 6203 ]

to locating the emergency operations and communications centre in places other than Vancouver. I hope that Vancouver, over time, turns out to have been exactly the right choice -- and we'll see if that's so.

There are probably other issues and other challenges that need to be overcome, but what we're doing here is creating an enabling tool, a vehicle through which this worthwhile project can be developed. I think that for many people, the fact that we are now at this stage, this important stage where we can create this corporate vehicle . . . . It's a very good day. It's a good day that we are now here taking this next significant step down the road towards constructing a truly integrated, truly effective, efficient and responsive emergency communications service across the whole of southwestern British Columbia. For those reasons, I will be pleased to support this bill. Those are my comments.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That concludes second reading debate. I move that Bill 48 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Emergency Communications Corporations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 25.

FISH PROTECTION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 25; J. Doyle in the chair.

section 5 (continued).

C. Clark: I'm pleased to start this debate again today. Where we left off yesterday, as I'm sure the Chair will recall, I offered an amendment providing the government the opportunity not just to look at future water licences but to provide for a review of existing water licences, and particularly focusing on the largest water licences that are held in British Columbia. If accepted, I think that that would have certainly contributed to the public confidence that this government is indeed sincere about protecting fish.

Before it was ruled out of order, the minister rejected my amendment. I suppose the way to start the debate today would really be to express my regret that the government has refused to even consider the amendment. It would have certainly meant something. It would have been a meaningful change to the legislation, and it would have been a big change in the way we manage our fisheries and fish habitat in British Columbia.

I'll start today, I guess, exactly where we left off, which is to express my regret that the minister has rejected the amendment, because I think that, of anything . . . . Certainly on the opposition side we did consider offering a whole range of amendments to this legislation. In the end, we settled on offering just this one amendment, which would require a review of past water licences and a multi-stakeholder process to do that, a fixed time line to do that and that water use plans be the outcome of that process. We settled on offering that amendment because we believed that that was by far the most important omission in this legislation.

It would be very difficult to convince anyone that the government is serious about protecting fish and fish habitat if it is unwilling to provide a clear legislative framework to look at major water licences that have been issued in the past. We know that there is a systemic problem in the water branch of the ministry, where they have consistently -- well, maybe not consistently -- failed in the past to live up to their duty to ensure that water licensees are living up to the conditions of their licences and, worse than that, where they have failed to even attach conditions to many of those licences in the past.

That's a situation that needs urgently to be remedied. The remedy for that should be provided for in legislation so that we can ensure that what the government says is going to happen really does happen.

I really do want to express my regret that the government has refused to consider these amendments. I think they'd be important. I think that they would go a long way to convincing a lot of people that the government is telling the truth about what it intends to do here. Without the amendments being accepted, I suspect that there will indeed be a lot of suspicion that the government isn't nearly as serious as it claims to be about protecting fish in British Columbia.

The Chair: Hon. member, if the Chair could have your attention . . . . Would the hon. member take her seat, please. The Chair would like to bring to your attention that the amendment as proposed was ruled out of order the last time we discussed this bill.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was aware of that.

Section 5 says that the "regional water manager may (

a) consider impact on fish and fish habitat, and (

b) include conditions respecting fish and fish habitat in the licence, approval or amendment." I'm interested in the fact, given our discussion last night, that this is permissive language. I know that the amendment was ruled out of order, but even when it comes to future water licences -- not past water licences, future water licences -- the language remains permissive, rather than saying that the water manager must consider fish impacts or that the water manager must include conditions respecting fish. I would expect that it could be a fairly broad and still very flexible tool for the water manager -- just to say that there must be conditions respecting fish.

According to Greg McDade's report, which was commissioned by the government on the accidental draining of a whole lake up near Squamish, we know that only 14 percent of the water licences that were issued in British Columbia contained a condition to respect the environment. I would argue that that's not nearly enough. I remain concerned that this legislation won't address even the future conditions for fish in the water licensing procedure, given that the language remains permissive. Perhaps I'll sit down and ask the minister if she can comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: The permissive nature of the language is designed so that the water manager has discretion on the issues of general streams. So we're talking generally about streams around the province as opposed to those that might receive a designation as sensitive. In the case of the sensitive stream, the "may" will be a "must." In the case of general streams, it is discretionary so that we don't have a situation arising where there are new conditions put in place on every single stream in the province for anyone who might apply for a water licence.

That, as the member might know, given the number of applications that come in on an annual basis to our water branch, would create a significant backlog of applications and require more onerous regulation on every applicant regardless of whether or not there was a need for that level of scrutiny to apply on that stream.

[ Page 6204 ]

So the "may" is discretionary to allow the water manager to use his or her discretion in terms of examining carefully the issues for that particular stream. Certainly I have confidence that water managers will be able to use that tool adequately to address issues on any stream where a water licence will be granted.

C. Clark: I do recognize that the 15 waterways that are listed would automatically require that the water manager consider fish impacts. But, of course, that's only 15 waterways out of I don't know how many in British Columbia -- probably thousands.

My question really is that with the permissive language, where it says that the water manager may consider fish impacts, it is my understanding that that's currently also the process -- that a water manager may consider fish impacts. A water manager may, or the water comptroller may, attach environmental conditions respecting fish just as they did in the 1950s on the Cheakamus. Now, of course, we know that the water manager didn't actually live up to his responsibilities to meet that order and to put that order in place at all. Nonetheless, that power has always existed.

I wonder if the minister could tell us just how this legislation will change the framework in which the water manager works.

[3:45]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin, if I could, by correcting the member's previous statement about which streams could be designated as having a mandatory review of their water licences, of issues related to fish and water. The sensitive-stream designation will give the water manager a power to do a mandatory look at water flows within that stream. It's not simply a matter of those that are already listed in the legislation but others that are yet to be named in terms of sensitive-stream designations. So it has broader applications than the member originally implied in her statement. I think she understands that now.

The key difference in terms of how this will work differently than it has in the past is that the discretion that the member makes reference to was discretion granted as a part of our policy as a government. We now have a legislative authority via this act to suggest that a water manager has the discretion and that discretion flows both ways: may and must. That gives the water manager, then, the legislative authority to act.

C. Clark: I'll just ask the minister to clarify, because I didn't fully understand her answer, although I know she was trying to put it in such a way that I would understand. The water-licensing manager currently has the power to include fish values in his or her considerations when issuing a water licence. I believe that's correct, and I'll ask the minister to correct me if I'm wrong. Under the new framework that power will continue to exist, but the only difference will be that it's contained in legislation as opposed to being contained in a policy. Maybe the minister could tell me if that's the only difference and if that's what she was trying to convey to me a minute ago.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is not a power that water managers had under the Water Act in the past. This legislation will give them the legislative authority to act on a policy that's been in place. So that policy has always . . . . We -- users -- have had an ability to be able to question the authority of a water manager in making any designation on behalf of fish. Clearly, with a legislative mandate, the water manager now has the legal authority to do so.

C. Clark: I would like to leave this topic, but I would like to be clear on this issue before we do. The water comptroller has attached conditions to water licences in the past that were intended to protect fish. So I can only assume that he had the power to do that in the past and that in our current legislative framework he continues to have that power. It might not be contained in legislation, but it's certainly something that he or she is allowed to do.

That's the source of my confusion here. I think I hear the minister saying that the water comptroller did not have that power in the past. If that's the case, perhaps the way to resolve my confusion is if she could tell me how it was that the water comptroller in the past has been able to attach conditions respecting water flows -- to ensure that fish values are protected -- on water licences that have been issued as far back as the fifties.

Hon. C. McGregor: The water comptroller has always had the ability to attach conditions. What this legislation makes clear is that those conditions can now be specifically related to fish. Before, there was no legislative authority under the Water Act to consider fish.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

C. Clark: I have a number of questions with respect to

section 6. My first one is around the issue of criteria that might be used to determine whether a stream is sensitive. The criteria are not contained in the legislation at all, and it would seem to me that there should be a level of proof established in the legislation to give it some strength, and that failure to do that really weakens the effect of the legislation and its ability to protect fish and fish habitat.

I would suggest that in the legislation, there should be a level of proof established so that everyone knows what the standard will be for designation as a sensitive stream -- so that groups who are interested in ensuring that a stream is designated sensitive can meet that level, or so that people who might be undertaking development or some other activity that could potentially affect a stream would be aware of the standard there, as well. It would seem to me that that would be a real way to strengthen the legislation; the legislation really suffers from a lack of a level of proof being included in it. So I ask the minister for her comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor:

Section 6(2) indicates that the regulation will designate a sensitive stream when its "sustainability is at risk because of inadequate flow of water within the stream or degradation of fish habitat." That clearly lays out the criteria through which a stream becomes designated as sensitive.

C. Clark: I would suggest that the legislation would be stronger if there were standards included. What I'm suggesting is that the wording of the legislation is very broad and a little too vague and could certainly be strengthened by clearer wording. In addition, in

section 6(2) it says that only the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- cabinet -- can make these designations as sensitive streams. That is a fairly high level of decision-making there. A discussion would have to go on for a long time, I would suspect, and would have to reach a fairly high level before it would ever get to cabinet and then be approved by cabinet. What I'm pointing out to the minister here is that by making it the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

[ Page 6205 ]

that has to decide and make the determination of what will be a sensitive stream, she has set a very, very high standard and, I would suspect, a very difficult standard to meet in order to get a sensitive stream designation put in place. I ask for her comments about that as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The issue of which stream should be designated sensitive is one that we must take very seriously, because it does put a higher level of demands on users of that water resource in terms of water licensing and measures that might need to be taken related to protecting the fish stocks and the habitat in that particular river. We must be very careful in how we make decisions. To give cabinet the authority to determine what those sensitive streams should be gives credibility to the seriousness that we place on our responsibilities around such designations.

Also, the issues related to mitigation and compensation are very important to multiple users of water resources. In particular, the agricultural community expressed some concern that they need to understand clearly what procedures will be put in place around designation.

So we're trying to proceed very carefully here. There are a number of stakeholder groups that don't question our goal of protecting fish and fish habitat but that want us to be as sensitive as possible to the multiple users of the resource.

C. Clark: I recognize that there is a high standard of proof, and I recognize the reasons for the minister deciding to put in place a very high standard for the designation of sensitive streams. I simply want to point out at this stage that because of the level at which the decision is required to be made, it will be very difficult for streams to be designated as sensitive. Again, if the point of the legislation is to make it tough for sensitive streams to be designated and streams to be protected, that's one issue.

But if the point of the legislation is, as the minister says, to make it much easier to protect fish, I wouldn't suggest that this is going to go a long way toward doing that. I think it would be overstating the case enormously to suggest that this is going to be a really big step forward, because the level at which that decision is made will be difficult for anyone to reach.

I notice, too, that there doesn't appear to be any avenue for public input as these decisions are made. The reason I'm concerned about that is because when decisions are made behind closed doors, as they almost always are, unless there is an established method of consultation included in the legislation, any decision is vulnerable to a successful lobby from whatever side may happen to have the ear of a particular minister or cabinet.

I would suggest that it would strengthen the legislation a great deal to make it more transparent -- to give the public access to that decision-making process so that everyone has an idea of who's where on the issue and who's got whose ear. I think public policy always benefits from more transparency and more consultation. I would draw the minister's attention to that and to this

section of the legislation, because I don't think either of those things are particularly well provided for in the legislation. The minister may have some specific reason for having excluded that avenue for public input, so I'll ask her if she could perhaps comment.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to start by saying that it's important that we act responsibly in how we regulate this issue, because many British Columbians have a concern with overregulation. I'm sure the member has heard those comments herself in talking to constituent groups around the province. So whenever we're developing new legislation, we need to carefully consider and achieve the right balance between protection . . . . In this case, that's obviously a key goal; our purpose is to protect fish and fish habitat.

But we also need to do that in a way that's responsive, as I suggested earlier, to a variety of stakeholder interests in the water resource of British Columbia. So we're trying to do the responsible thing in terms of how we manage sensitive streams.

Once a designation has been made, significant resources will be applied to those streams, and that puts an obligation on the Crown to deliver on mechanisms that will enhance and improve not only habitat but stocks. So obviously we have to manage that carefully, as well.

[4:00]

We can't go around and designate every stream in the province, for instance, as a sensitive stream, because for one thing, there's not a need to do that. We do know that there are some streams that require protection and that require mitigation strategies applied sooner. But there are others that simply don't require it, at least at this time, and because of our continuing work on effectively managing fish, they likely won't be in need of such a designation. This designation is clearly designed to go first to the most at-risk habitats in rivers and streams across the province.

The member says -- and I agree with her -- that it's always a good idea to involve the public in naming those particular streams or rivers. I would certainly agree that that's an important thing to include, and I want to assure the member that we have every intention to do so. We are developing a process currently through which the public will be able to nominate rivers and streams that they believe should be in receipt of a special designation.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's comments. I'm not simply interested in the issue of how protected rivers are named; I'm thinking about the sensitive-stream designation and the cabinet process through which that decision might be made.

It appears in the legislation that when cabinet is considering giving a sensitive-stream designation, there isn't any process to make that decision transparent to the public. I'm not thinking about just nominating people who might want to nominate a stream; I'm also thinking about the other interest groups that perhaps might have some other interest that might be affected by the nomination of a stream.

What I'm getting at here is trying to ensure that all the interest groups will be heard in this process and that each of them will know what the other is saying. All too frequently governments . . . . And it's not just this government; this is a problem endemic to almost any government. If there isn't an open and transparent process, sometimes some voices are heard more loudly than others.

I would suggest that in this

section of the legislation, where it deals with the cabinet's ability to make a decision and apply a sensitive-stream designation, there very clearly needs to be some avenue, some process by which the public can ensure that their voice is heard and that their views are considered in the process, not just in the designation of the streams, but also if their interests might be affected by the designation.

So I'll ask the minister if she could comment more specifically on that aspect of the legislation.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

[ Page 6206 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: As a member of this cabinet, I can assure the member that we always listen carefully to and consider the opinions that are given and the information that is given to us by a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including those who are not necessarily actively involved in the fishery. Before cabinet makes any decisions, they carefully weigh all of the information they are given from all sources of the public.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister has a process of consultation that she follows in cabinet, I wonder if it's the Municipal Affairs style of consultation or if it's the Minister of Labour style of consultation.

I would make the suggestion, which I hope the minister will consider constructive, that if it is not in the legislation, the regulations should certainly include an outline, a framework, for some kind of a process to ensure that this sensitive-stream designation -- and we discussed earlier, as well, the protected river designation -- has a firm framework by which the public can make its voice heard and so that we can ensure that there is input from the public. Right now how consultation may or may not occur, especially when there's no legislative requirement for it to happen, is certainly open to question.

So I make that suggestion to the minister and hope she will consider that it's constructive.

I notice, too, that in

section 6(3)(

c) it says that the removal of the designation can be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council if it is deemed to be in the public interest. I wonder if the minister could tell us how the legislation will define the public interest.

The Chair: Shall

section 6 pass?

C. Clark: Perhaps the minister didn't hear my question; I know there was a lot of discussion going on in the chamber.

Section 6(3)(

c) notes that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may repeal a regulation if it considers that the removal is in the public interest. I'm interested to know if the minister intends to define the public interest and define those terms in the regulations when they're drawn up.

Hon. C. McGregor: No, we will not be defining the public interest. It is the job of government to determine the public interest in the context of a decision that needs to be made.

C. Clark: I suspect the minister believes that her interests might best be served by keeping this legislation as vague as possible, allowing the government as much flexibility as possible and ensuring that the legislation is as weak as possible. That may serve her interests better than strengthening it in some way. So I'll leave that with the minister, as well. I certainly think that the legislation would benefit from defining the public interest in this case, and she may want to consider that when she draws up the regulations.

We also have in this

section some suggestion, I think, that there will be some overlap with DFO in getting the authorization for a water licence, given that fish is currently a federal responsibility -- although I know that they're a shared responsibility with the province. Maybe the minister could tell us if her ministry has an opinion about whether this legislation might require an applicant to get a second licence, which I suspect isn't something that would be intended by the legislation but might be a consequence nonetheless. So I will ask the minister to comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have had a legal opinion that our act actually complements the legislation that DFO operates under; it's not in conflict. Our clause is meant to be preventive in nature,

whereas DFO's regulation more or less reacts to a situation once it has happened.

Again, I will remind the member of the conversation we had yesterday in regards to our ongoing work with the federal government and trying to ensure that we mesh together the level of service and regulation that we're doing with our government and the federal government so that we can make sure that there is as little overlap and duplication as possible.

C. Clark: So is the minister convinced, then, or does she have an opinion from DFO, that they will not require a second water licence from that level of government once -- or if -- this legislation is passed?

Hon. C. McGregor: Only the province has the ability to issue water licences. It's not a matter over which DFO has authority.

D. Symons: Just a question, if I can refer back to

section 6(3), that was asked a moment ago, because I had some problems with it also. I guess I wasn't reassured by the minister's answer.

If we look at

section 6(2), it says:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, designate a stream as a sensitive stream under this

section if the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers that the designation will contribute to the protection of a population of fish whose sustainability is at risk because of inadequate flow of water within the stream or degradation of fish habitat."

Then we go on to subsection (3), which says:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may repeal a regulation under subsection (2)" -- which I just read -- "if the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers that (

a) the sustainability of the protected fish population is no longer at risk."

I would agree 100 percent with that; when the risk has been removed, fine. Then we go on to (

b) and (c). It doesn't say "and" in here, so I assume that this is "or" -- a separate item. They can consider that "the implementation of a recovery plan under

section 7 will reduce that risk such that the designation of a stream is no longer required."

Now this seems, in a sense, to be ahead of the fact. You've got a plan in place, but you don't know whether it's going to work yet. You hope it will. So it seems that you're jumping the gun a little bit by allowing that in there. Until the (

a) part . . . . I think when you've got (

a) in place -- "the sustainability of the protected fish population is no longer at risk" -- then you can go ahead and say: "Let's remove it." But in (

b) you're indicating that we can do that ahead of time. Then we come to something even worse in part (c): " . . . removal of the designation is in the public interest." Nowhere in there does it say that there will be any mitigation for that risk that we have to the fish population. It seems to be a total abrogation of what the whole of

section 2 was setting up -- that if there's a risk, we want to protect the stream against that risk. Here in the (

c) part you're saying: "Well, there may be some other considerations where we really don't care about the fish."

[ Page 6207 ]

I wonder if the minister might explain what I feel is a bit of a contradiction in putting (

c) in there. It seems to be an escape hatch to get away from dealing with the issue of the fish being at risk.

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin with, I think it's important to note that the reason that is there is to provide a mechanism through which streams can be removed from the list. In the case of public interest . . . . I might advise the member that it's probably a fairly rare situation that might occur. But clearly, we have to provide the opportunity for government to consider issues that are clearly in the public interest. We don't at this time know what those might be, but those will arise from time to time, and we need the ability as a government to be responsive to the public interest. I'm sure that the member opposite would agree that that's an important thing for government to do.

In terms of subsection (b), the recovery plan, obviously it would require a great deal of evaluation and assessment. It's not something that just immediately . . . . It's not something that one automatically removes it from designation as soon as the recovery plan is in place. I would agree with the member that until such time as there is clearly some evidence that the recovery plan is well under way, that fish stocks are well-protected again and habitat is restored, that mechanism would not be used.

J. Dalton: My colleague down the way, who's also on his feet -- and I believe my friend behind me will be on his feet . . . . I know, sometimes we need eyes in the backs of our heads.

The minister has two responsibilities, among others, or two main ones: one is parks and the other is environment. I think it would be fair to say that this is more of an environment bill than it is a parks bill. The first question I'd like to ask the minister dealing with

section 6, and probably

section 7 as well, but let's put them together . . . . She made an announcement recently in my riding -- in fact it was at Brothers Creek -- that she considered that Brothers Creek may in fact become a sensitive stream within the context of

section 6. Was that the purpose of her photo op that day? I believe the Premier was there, as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member makes reference to an announcement we made around the urban salmon habitat program. We had announced some restoration funds that were going into a community group that has done some very significant work around Brothers Creek. I would certainly suggest to the member that that group may well wish to nominate Brothers Creek to be considered for a sensitive stream designation. Again, it would need to meet the criteria outlined in

section 6(2).

J. Dalton: Let's stay on the North Shore for a moment because the minister's other principal role is parks. As she well knows, Cypress Park is still an ongoing issue on the North Shore, and many of the streams that West Vancouver enjoys have their headwaters in Cypress Park. Does the minister see any potential conflict in her two capacities -- one of parks . . . ? She and her officials have to make some rulings on Cypress very soon. Does she see any potential conflict between that role and this Fish Protection Act, which in fact has . . . .

As I say, many of the streams such as Cypress Creek itself, Nelson Creek, Montizambart Creek, Lawson Creek, Brothers Creek, McDonald Creek . . . . I could go on and on. Most of these creeks are in fact sourced in Cypress or very close to it. Does the minister see any difficulty or conflict between what's going on up at the top of Hollyburn Ridge and what may be taking place in the mouths of many of these creeks in West Vancouver?

[4:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: Often water licensing is not much of an issue within parks because we don't have the same demand for users. Obviously the same conditions apply to those that apply within a park setting as in any other stream in the province. No, I don't see any conflict between managing water licences and also managing parks.

J. Dalton: Just a few moments ago, in response to the critic's question about another aspect of

section 6, the minister responded that there are issues of protection of fish -- which is true in this bill -- and also the interests of other stakeholders. It might very well be argued that one of the potential stakeholders -- and this fits within my question about Cypress -- is the operator of Cypress Bowl Recreations, given that one of the outstanding issues which still has to be resolved dealing with Cypress Bowl is the question of sewer and water hookup with the West Vancouver municipality.

Would there not potentially be an impact on sensitive streams, such as Brothers Creek -- if in fact that is so designated -- or Cypress Creek or others? Would there not be a potential difficulty if West Vancouver in fact refuses the sewer and water hookup? We know from public meetings and discussion with the ministry's officials that they have in mind alternative sources. One of them is to truck the sewage off the mountain and the other is they believe they have groundwater in other sources at the top of Cypress for snow-making and other water uses.

Would it not be true that some of the creeks that are sourced in Cypress -- if in fact the alternative water source has to be implemented -- could in fact be impacted by the activities in Cypress, which I think run contrary to at least the spirit, if not the actual stated intention, of sections 6 and 7 of this bill?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member certainly points out the many complexities of managing multiple users and multiple regulatory frameworks. In fact, the member asks questions about the hypothetical nature of Cypress Creek being designated as a sensitive stream. That matter would have to be settled first, and then the hypothetical situation of how a licensee would apply for a water licence. That is covered under the Water Act. I would certainly be happy to provide an opportunity to discuss with the member outside of this bill how that process works -- but just generally to know that upstream and downstream impacts are considered as a result of the water-licensing process.

J. Wilson: Could the minister explain to me how you arrive at the designation of a sensitive stream? Is it the width of the stream, or is it the fact that there may be some fish within that stream?

The Chair: Member, I would ask you to keep your questions relevant to the section.

Hon. C. McGregor: I answered that question earlier. It's covered under the

definitions section.

J. Wilson: I don't see anything in here under

definitions that defined any particular fish. This includes all fish, I would assume. This bill has really got a lot of flaws in it. If we accept

[ Page 6208 ]

the fact that if a stream has fish in it that may have absolutely no value to anything except perhaps some aspects of wildlife, are we going to protect a whole water system because it's full of suckers or squawfish? Are we going to worry about the water flow in there? I don't think the minister has considered the main killers of fish in the interior of this province. The fact is that millions of fish die each year because of winter kill.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Does the minister of Employment and Investment have a problem here, or is he interested in this?

Interjection.

J. Wilson: I am not talking about major rivers; I am referring to sensitive streams.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

J. Wilson: Sensitive streams usually have collecting bodies on them, which are known as lakes or ponds. The largest percentage of fish collect in these areas, and each winter many of those fish will die because they run out of oxygen. The other thing that is a major killer of fish on these sensitive streams is drought. It has nothing to do with logging extraction or any industry; it is to do with lack of rainfall. They dry up and the fish disappear, but they come back. They've been doing it for a million years.

I don't see anything in here that defines what fish we're protecting and whether we're going to shut down an entire valley because it has a few squawfish or suckers or shiners in the system. Trout would be different; they have a commercial value. People can go out; we can sell a few fishing licences. But if you've got a lot of garbage fish out there, they are not part of anything that anyone would desire, other than perhaps the odd mink would stop for a meal, but they don't even eat those if they can find something better. So it looks to me like it's a way of creating more bureaucracy, more government jobs, etc.

The major rivers are a completely different story. I thought I would bring this to the minister's attention. It was very poorly thought out before it was put together.

J. van Dongen: I have two questions for the minister on

section 6(8) with respect to the term "compensation measures," which can be applied in addition to mitigated measures where there is a proposal which would have an adverse impact. From reading the section, I would assume that compensation measures could be either in cash or in kind -- in kind meaning that someone could do some rehabilitative work somewhere else on another site. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, in terms of compensation measures, this

section means in kind. It does not make reference to cash.

J. van Dongen: Would those conditions be written up as a condition of the licence that would be issued to implement the proposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

C. Clark: I have just a few more questions with respect to

section 6. It is my understanding -- and I'll ask the minister to correct me if I'm wrong -- that we are the only jurisdiction that grants water licences in perpetuity. I'm not aware of any other jurisdiction, at least in North America, that does that. I wonder if the minister gave any consideration in the preparation of this bill to requiring -- at least as part of future licences -- that they be reviewed on a regular basis or automatically withdrawn.

I also note that in a recent survey of water licences on the Fraser, I believe the ministry was unable to locate about 30 percent of the owners of those licences. There are 41,000 or 42,000 licences held in the province, and the ministry may or may not be able to locate where the licences are. But in many cases, it appears that it isn't able to locate the owners of those licences. I wonder if the ministry could tell us if they did give any consideration to changing the perpetual nature of water licences. And if not, why not?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm told by staff that there are many jurisdictions that offer water licences in the same way that we do. We believe that Alberta, in fact, is an example of another jurisdiction that engages in the issuing of water licences in the same manner that we do. I point out to the member that one of the chief reasons for not wanting to go to an automatic -- must be renewed or reviewed every five years or ten years or whatever -- is security of tenure. It's very important for water users to have a long-term security for tenure.

C. Clark: I understand that. I think, though, that in Alberta they do have a review process, so that while the water licence might . . . .

The Chair: Member, your discussion is totally irrelevant to the section, and I would like you to explain why you feel that it is relevant to the "sensitive stream" section.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm interested in finding out if the sensitive-stream designation, which is issued as part of a water licence . . . . When we talk about water licences, this would be the natural place for a use-it-or-lose-it policy, which would be a major change in the government's water licensing to be included in the legislation, so I'm interested in finding out from the minister why it wasn't included in this section.

The second half of my question relates to

section 6(10). First, I'd like to correct the minister's comments. The use-it-or-lose-it policy isn't something that they do in Alberta, but when they do issue them in perpetuity they have an automatic process for review, I believe, which isn't something that's included in this legislation.

The Chair: Hon. member, I will remind you that this does have nothing to do with the sensitive stream designation that is presently under discussion, so I would ask that you keep your debate relevant to the section.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'd be happy to do that.

Section 6(10) says that the designation doesn't apply "to applications that have been made but not decided before the time of the applicable designation under subsection (2)." I wonder if the minister could tell us how many applications are currently in the queue, and whether any of those applications are for the purpose of producing power.

Hon. C. McGregor: The reason that the provision exists is so that we don't change the rules midway for people who currently have an application in place. We think there are about 4,000 applications currently in hand.

[ Page 6209 ]

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, 4,000 is a very significant number. I wasn't aware that there were nearly so many in the queue. Just for my reference, how long have many of those been in the queue, or does that represent one year's worth of applications that come into the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: We get about 2,000 applications a year.

C. Clark: Could the minister tell us if she's aware whether any of the applications or what percentage of the applications are for power production? She may be able to give me only a ballpark on this.

Hon. C. McGregor: About 1 percent overall are for power. By far, the largest group is individuals for domestic purposes, at 52 percent.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

C. Clark: In

section 7(4) it says that the recovery plan may include "measures to be undertaken by the government . . . for providing a sufficient flow of water in the stream or for restoring fish habitat." I note that the legislation, again, doesn't include any criteria or any standards that need to be met that might define what a sufficient flow of water in the stream is. I know that the definition for the amount of water that's needed for fish and the cycle that that water needs to be flowing at has changed over the years.

That's why I'd suggest that it might be a good idea, in the legislation, to include some kind of definition or at least some kind of criteria that we could look to, to ensure we know what a sufficient flow of water would be to ensure fish habitat.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that and maybe tell us if that's something that she's planning to include in the regulations when they're produced.

[4:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Under sections 5 and 6, regulation will be developed, and it would include the methodology for determining sufficient flows. In terms of the work we've done around sufficient flows, we've been working with DFO for about six years now on a way of determining that. It is an evolving science, and as our knowledge grows, our understanding of sufficiency changes.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

C. Clark:

Section 8(1)(

b) recognizes that community-based interests can be issued a licence for streamflow protection purposes. This is different from every other licence that may be issued by the ministry, in that just about every other licence can be issued by the water comptroller. This one, though, requires that cabinet issue it. I wonder if the minister could tell us why this particular licence has a different process for approval than just about every other licence that the ministry issues for water protection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Currently under the Water Act a community group would have no standing to be granted a water licence, so we had to set in place a process through which that could happen. We believe that it's important that cabinet have the opportunity to review those applications. Criteria we'll be using, of course, are that they have a presence in the community and that they have a demonstrated commitment to that community and an interest in developing that resource.

C. Clark: I recognize that a community-based interest wouldn't currently have standing in the granting of water licences, but I'm interested in finding out why a different process has been put in place for the issuance of these licences as opposed to every other licence that the water comptroller has the power to issue. This is clearly a much higher standard than the other licences that could be issued to non-community-based groups. I'd specifically like to ask the minister why that different standard was put in place and get a sense of what kinds of considerations went into that decision.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's important to note that it's a different standard; it's not a higher standard. It's a different standard because the applicants don't have standing under the Water Act as it is currently involved. We really wanted to be very careful and cautious in how these licences were granted. There was a concern expressed by some stakeholders that a group could come in and make multiple applications in large scale across the province and not necessarily have an investment in that community and that particular resource. We were trying to ensure that we were focusing on a community stewardship model, and we want to have the opportunity to review those applications in that context.

C. Clark: It's my understanding, as well, that the community-based interests the ministry might envision would apply for a water licence would include groups like Ducks Unlimited, groups that had a local connection. I note that in the legislation, in 8(1)(f), it says that "it must include a condition that the licensee organization undertake works . . . .

" I know that some community-based groups, like Ducks Unlimited, might undertake works in some circumstances, but in many circumstances the activities that they take on to protect fish don't include any works in them or what might specifically be defined in the Water Act as works. I wonder if the minister could just tell me, first, what kinds of works might be included for an environmental group or a community group involved in fish protection, and second, whether she is considering expanding the definition of works, at least, so that there's maybe a broader opportunity for groups to get these licences.

Hon. C. McGregor: The definition is indeed very broad and would encompass a large number of possible activities. It would not, in fact, necessarily have to engage in active restoration work on the stream but could be educational in focus. For instance, Ducks Unlimited expanded a marshland and wetlands area in our community. They did put some works into it originally, but their function is now educational in purpose -- raising the profile of the purpose of wetlands. It could involve tours or just ongoing maintenance and regular review of the particular area under question and so on.

So I think it is broadly framed, and it's meant to be broadly framed to reflect a wide variety of possible works.

C. Clark: So I take it, then, that works will include things like an educational program that a group might start to protect fish on a particular river and that it isn't necessarily confined to basically putting a structure in place on the waterway at all. It can really just be a classroom experience or

[ Page 6210 ]

something of that nature. The reason I'm confused about this is because I thought that the definition of works in the Water Act was much stricter than that. So I'll just ask the minister to give me a quick comment on that before we move on.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'll just elaborate a little on what I pointed out earlier. Obviously it includes ongoing maintenance, so that's a description of works as well. Even doing something like garbage cleanup of the area or adding gravel are both considered to be works.

C. Clark: Does the ministry have any outstanding applications on the books for water licences from community-based groups?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, we wouldn't have any, because at this time they're not eligible to apply for a water licence.

C. Clark:

Section 8(4) outlines the process through which a group might apply for a water licence. It seems to me to be a three-tiered process. First, the cabinet would make a decision and then the decision would be bounced back to the water comptroller or down a level to the officials and then bounced back. That might be a very time-consuming process. I wonder if the minister could comment on the reasons for putting in a three-stage process when a one- or even two-stage process might be quicker and a little more efficient.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to note that the intention of this

section is to provide an opportunity to notify other water users, and that's the way it's normally handled under the Water Act. So once an application comes in, we notify other licence holders. It also gives us an opportunity to screen out any frivolous applications that might come forward.

C. Clark: The minister did point out that the process is a one-stage process under the Water Act. Again, this is a very different process and a much more time-consuming and probably less efficient process to use to make these decisions. I wonder why the process wouldn't be more like this: the cabinet or the minister would make a decision and then direct the water comptroller or the regional water manager to implement that decision and give the water manager some latitude and some flexibility as to how he or she might do that and, of course, obviously provide for notice to be given to other water users that might be affected.

Hon. C. McGregor: By using this process, we enable the other licensees to have the opportunity to object to that application, so that would then be considered by cabinet before making any decisions about what licences might be granted. This is a new provision, and I think it's quite innovative in fact. It gives an opportunity for community groups to engage in very active work around fish habitat enhancement works. But obviously we want to be sensitive to some of the concerns that were raised by other stakeholders in terms of the impacts that such applications might have, so this provides a mechanism for other stakeholders and other water licence holders to be able to review the request.

C. Clark: That process isn't explicitly provided for in the act, so I will just ask a couple more questions about it. Does the minister envision, then, a formal appeal process with strict time lines and strict criteria on the part of potentially affected users which cabinet or the minister could consider before an application is granted?

Hon. C. McGregor: Under the model that's being proposed here, once a cabinet decision has been made, that's the final decision and it is not appealable.

C. Clark: In this three-step process that's outlined in

section 8(4), the minister did refer, though, to the possibility for appeal by other users that might potentially be affected. I just wonder if she could outline for us what that appeal process would be and whether it's going to be formal and whether the guidelines for it will be clearly laid out in the regulations.

Hon. C. McGregor: I should have used the word "objection" rather than "appeal," because I've obviously confused the member. The other existing water licensees can issue an objection to the water licence, and that is considered under the current formal process we have under the Water Act.

C. Clark: So will the regulations include a requirement that people who might potentially be affected would, obviously, be given notice that they might be affected and informed of their right to lodge an objection?

Hon. C. McGregor: Under the Water Act, they would have those rights, yes.

C. Clark: Before we leave this section, I want to note again that

section 8(11) includes a reference to the public interest which isn't defined. I want to again take the opportunity to urge the minister to define those words in the regulations when she has the opportunity to draw those up. I think that's going to be an important way to strengthen the legislation and give it a little more meaning for the people that might be affected by it. I want to take the opportunity to make that point, and the minister doesn't need to comment on it again.

[4:45]

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

C. Clark:

Section 9 deals with the right of the minister to order a temporary reduction in the flows in streams. It seems to me that should a temporary reduction order be required, it would probably be a fairly urgent issue that would need to be acted on fairly quickly. I think the way to make sure that something is acted on quickly is to put it in the hands of the front-line staff who would be dealing with the issue in the first place, not in the hands of the minister in Victoria who would probably be the last person in any case to find out about an issue in the field, especially since some of these issues are far afield. If there's an unusual