2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Alternative route to Pemberton area

B. Penner

Fred Randall House

J. MacPhail

Economic development in Burnaby

J. Nuraney

Oral Questions

Management of Coquihalla Highway and

cost of proposal

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

Health care service levels

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Hansen

Emergency surgical services in Kootenay area

Suffredine

Hon. C.

Hansen

Recruitment of nurses

G. Trumper

Hon. S.

Hawkins

Petitions

G. Trumper

Tabling Documents

Industry Training and Apprenticeship

Commission, financial statements, year ended March 31, 2003

Auditor General of British Columbia,

audit report on Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission

Second Reading of Bills

Sustainable Resource Management

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. S.

Hagen

Committee of the Whole House

Environmental Management Act (Bill

57)

J. MacPhail

Hon. J.

Murray

D. MacKay

Reporting of Bills

Environmental Management Act (Bill

57)

Third Reading of Bills

Environmental Management Act (Bill

57)

[ Page 7409 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's my pleasure and privilege to introduce to the House today Eugene

Hodgson, Tony Duggleby and Paul Manson of Sea Breeze Power Corp., who are

meeting with various government agencies today with regard to the investigation

of a wind power plant on Vancouver Island and also wind data on Crown land on

Vancouver Island. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer:

On behalf of the Surrey caucus, I'm pleased to introduce to this House

Surrey's finest hard-working firefighters. Joining us today are Tim Baillie,

vice-president of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association; Lorne West,

president of the Surrey Firefighters Association; Larry Thomas, treasurer; Mike

Starchuk, secretary; Capt. Jon Caviglia, vice-president; and Joanna Fletcher,

executive assistant to the fire chief. Will the House please join me in

welcoming these hard-working firefighters to this House.

[1405]

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Today it gives me great pleasure, particularly as a former

firefighter myself, that I can introduce Mike Richards and Wayne McKenzie, who

are firefighters from the Penticton Local 1399. These people are the ones who

are going into burning buildings when we're trying to get out. If the House

could give the ones that my colleague introduced and these two gentlemen a very

fine round of applause.

B. Kerr:

I stand with a relieved smile on my face today because my son lives in

Pemberton, but that's not the story. Friday was the due date for his wife for

their second child, and there was great concern on my part about what would

happen when this child decided to arrive into the world. My daughter-in-law

didn't seem to be too concerned, but on Sunday, when the water was actually

rising up over their driveway, she decided it was time to helicopter out.

Shakespeare said — how does it go? — all things are well that end well. I

want the House to welcome the newest Liberal supporter, Jordan Kerr.

R. Lee:

We have four Burnaby firefighters in the House today. They are in Victoria to

attend the British Columbia Professional Firefighters Association meetings. In

the gallery we have Joe Robertson and his wife, Sherry. Joining them later will

be Michael Hurley, John McQuade and Jim Peever. Would the House please make them

very welcome.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It's with pleasure that I get to introduce two gentlemen from

northern British Columbia. You will know that I don't get up there very often. I

don't have that opportunity, so I'm really proud today to introduce two

professional firefighters from Fort St. John, whom I visited with earlier: Tom

Worton and Curtis Redpath. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: I'm pleased to welcome to the chamber today Mr. Michael McCoy. Michael

is the executive director of Touchstone Family Services in Richmond and has been

in this sector for more than 30 years — outstanding expertise that he shares

with each and every soul in British Columbia. I'm grateful that he's come.

Please make him welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure, as well, to introduce two professional

firefighters from my community. Ray Skucas and Randy Hamel have come over to the

House today to speak with various members. I've had a chance to chat with them

over lunch. Would the House please make the two of them welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House the president and CEO of

the Anemia Institute, Durhane Wong-Rieger, and the western program coordinator

of the Anemia Institute, Lynn Roodbol. Would the House please make them welcome.

Visser: Today we've heard a lot of words to describe firefighters —

"brave" and "the finest" and "professional."

Actually, mine is "pesky." They're friends of mine from Campbell

River: Reid Wharton, Scott Kratzman and Ken Dawson. I've known some of them all

my life, and they’ve spent many hours convincing me of their superior ways

over the last day or so. I'd like to make them welcome.

Also, we

have Al and Marilyn Grant here today from Campbell River and their son and

grandson, Bob, from Australia. They're visiting. So would the House please make

all of those people welcome.

Hon. G.

Bruce: During this past summer I worked very, very hard to try and find some

more friends. I have four candidates that I would like to bring to your

attention here, who have joined me this afternoon. Jim Anderson and Diana

Chadwick, and Kirk and Ann Mitchelmore are here, and hopefully they'll consider

me to be their friend. If you could help me along, I would appreciate it if you

could give them a very warm welcome to the precinct.

[1410]

Mayencourt: On behalf of my colleagues from the Vancouver area, I'd like to

welcome our firefighters, who were also a little pesky over the past year but

very persistent and very dedicated gentlemen, who have joined us today.

Unfortunately, I don't know all of their last names, so I'm just going to use

their first names: Rod, Mike, Dave, Gord and Jeff. Please join me in welcoming

them to the Legislature.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE TO

PEMBERTON AREA

Penner: Over the past few days many of us have been saddened by the tragic

loss of lives and property

[ Page 7410 ]

destruction caused by flooding along the Sea to Sky corridor. The sense of

isolation caused by the interruption of road access has only made matters worse,

so I've been pleased by the quick response to this crisis from the Ministry of

Transportation and the Solicitor General.

In January

of this year I joined my colleague the member for Chilliwack-Sumas on a

four-wheel drive adventure. We explored an alternate route connecting the lower

mainland and Fraser Valley to Pemberton, Whistler and the southern interior via

Lillooet. The existing Forest Service road runs along the west side of Harrison

Lake from Highway 7 at Harrison Mills, north to Highway 99, just east of Mount

Currie and Pemberton. The total distance of what we like to call the Sasquatch

Highway is about 175 kilometres. Along the way, the scenery is beautiful, yet

the actual topography along the road right-of-way is fairly benign.

Following

discussions involving my colleague from Chilliwack-Sumas, the Transportation

minister and her senior officials, I sponsored a preliminary meeting with

stakeholders this summer, on August 15, in Harrison Hot Springs to discuss the

possibility of establishing a hard-surface secondary highway along this

low-elevation corridor. First nations representatives from the north end of

Harrison Lake told me they are eager to improve the lives of their people, who

now live in isolated conditions few of us can even imagine — no telephone

service, no B.C. Hydro electrical supply, an ambulance service that is hours

away and only sporadic sightings of police officers. These are facts of life for

people living north of Harrison Lake.

Private

sector groups attending the meeting were also interested, including the Hemlock

Valley ski area, the Abbotsford Airport Authority and small hydroelectric power

developers. Clearly, the possibility exists for a public-private partnership

that would allow British Columbians a chance to see and enjoy a great part of

their province.

September mayors, councillors, Fraser Valley MP Chuck Strahl and our Minister of

State for Community Charter joined me on a caravan tour of the route. Once in

Pemberton, we met with chamber of commerce officials, some first nations

members, as well as consultants hired by the province to identify economic

opportunities and costs associated with improved road access. The study should

be complete in a few weeks, and perhaps some day you will be able to see for

yourself what a real sasquatch looks like.

FRED RANDALL HOUSE

MacPhail: I want to speak today about an event I attended late last month in

Burnaby, an event that marked the opening of a new facility as well as

celebrating in many respects the life of a truly dedicated public servant with

whom I, and many of us as well, had the privilege of serving in this House for

ten years. I'm speaking of the opening and dedication of the Fred Randall House

in Burnaby, named after former Burnaby-Edmonds MLA Fred Randall.

Many in

this House also sat with Fred on both sides. Those who did will know of his

dedication to many causes and, in particular, to helping the most vulnerable in

our society. After retiring as MLA prior to the 2001 provincial election,

despite knowing that he was dying, Fred devoted an amazing amount of energy

toward raising money and awareness for the mainstream association for proactive

community living. Fred particularly wanted a facility in Burnaby that was

dedicated to youth with developmental, physical or psychiatric challenges. Fred

wanted those youth to have a home that they could call their own in their own

community, and now, thanks to the legacy he left behind, they do.

I'm sure

other members of the House will recall that when Fred wanted something for his

community, he became an unstoppable force. Not only was Fred an incredibly

effective advocate for his community and his causes, but he was extremely modest

about his own involvement. While I know he would be incredibly proud to know

that the association named the facility after him, I also know that he would

have wanted the focus to be on the others who worked with him to make this

facility a reality — people like Dr. Donald Rix; the firefighters of Burnaby,

which makes it very appropriate today; and the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades. I

know he would be thrilled to see that his wife Aileen and his kids, Brad and

Barb, picked up where Fred left off when he passed away in July 2002, and that

they are now making this happen.

To all of

the Randalls: well done. Fred was the embodiment of the spirit of public

service, and now he lives on through this wonderful new facility.

[1415]

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN BURNABY

Nuraney: Some more good news about Burnaby. A few weeks ago I had the

opportunity to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony at Metropolis at

Metrotown, a regional shopping centre in Burnaby. This development will cost $80

million, and it will become the second-largest shopping mall in Canada. This

development is another proof of the return of confidence in our province. The

president of the Urban Development Institute recently said that we are

experiencing an exciting era in British Columbia with the rebirth of economic

activity.

Don

Mattrick, the president and founder of Electronic Arts, at a luncheon held in

the Burnaby Board of Trade recently, announced an expansion of his company,

adding another 2,300 jobs in the next two years and bringing the total workforce

to 3,300 people. These people will all have computer skills. BCIT, on the other

hand, is stepping up to the challenge to train the resources needed, by adding

more seats to their computer science program.

I also had

the opportunity this morning to participate in the joint announcement between

BCIT and Metrotown, launching a program to train marketing and retail

management. This program will offer formal

[ Page 7411 ]

training for marketing and management in the retail sector, a first in our

province. We are now seeing more of these partnerships between the private

sector and public institutions. SFU also has embarked on a very exciting

university project — a residential development around the campus.

Burnaby is

buzzing with renewed excitement and development. Our province is poised for

economic growth in the areas of construction, mining, oil and gas exploration,

high-tech industries and others. This is the direct result of the initiatives

this government has taken in the past two years, and I feel very confident that

British Columbians will experience renewed faith in the future of our province.

Our fair city of Vancouver was voted as one of the best cities in the world to

live in, and we are well positioned to move forward to make our province the

best in Canada.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

AND COST OF PROPOSAL

MacPhail: The Minister of Provincial Revenue is responsible for the

waste-buster site, a site that has been created to get rid of waste where

there's no value for money. Today we learned that the B.C. Liberals wasted $6.5

million of taxpayers' money on consultants to help them privatize the Coquihalla

Highway.

To the

Minister of Provincial Revenue, Mr. Waste-buster, I ask this question: could he

stand up and explain to British Columbians how blowing millions of dollars on

the failed Coquihalla privatization scheme is good value for money, and was it

ever submitted to the waste-buster site?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm glad to answer the question on behalf of the Minister of

Transportation. In fact, government spent approximately $6.5 million in the

preparation and evaluation of the potential Coquihalla partnership. A big part

of that, probably up to half of it, will continue to be used by the Ministry of

Transportation for a number of issues.

Certainly,

the traffic surveys and the asset condition surveys that were done on the

Coquihalla will continue to be used for future maintenance and rehabilitation of

the Coquihalla Highway in the years to come. Tourism planning in the region —

the traffic study, where people come from and where they go to on the highway

— is also of value.

Quality

assurance standards were developed for the Coquihalla project which will be

applied to future operations, maintenance and rehabilitation contracts

throughout British Columbia, not just with the Coquihalla. As well, the generic

concession agreement is something that we expect to be able to use or possibly

use with the GVTA or other bodies as they look to expand upon future

partnerships in the transportation sector. There are other projects and other

uses, as well, for the information that was done.

Mr.

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

[1420]

MacPhail: Boy, the Minister of Finance must be constrained for the first

time. He's forced into a message box. No wonder this government is in such

trouble in its message boxes. What he forgot to mention, though, was that

according to media reports, $1.2 million of this $6.5 million of wasted money

was handed to KPMG, who — we all know — are big donors to the B.C. Liberals.

Now, that $1.2 million was paid to KPMG for so-called business advice and

direction. Can the minister…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Let us hear the

question.

MacPhail: I betcha it won't be the waste-buster's man who stands up and asks

this question, but can the minister responsible for the waste-buster site tell

us what business advice taxpayers got for that $1.2 million? We paid for it. Did

anyone actually, after the collapse of the failed Coquihalla privatization, send

it to his waste-buster site to say that it was wrong?

Hon. G.

Collins: In fact, the work that KPMG did on this project will be used with

other concessions, as I said earlier. A great deal of advice, legal work,

accounting work and business work needs to be done as you go forward with

partnerships for concessions for all sorts of transportation projects, so I

expect most, if not all, of that information will be usable.

But I

remember another $1 million bill that the province of British Columbia got from

KPMG, which was actually the $1 million….

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I'm loud, but I'm not that loud.

It was a $1

million contract that Glen Clark and the NDP government, of which she was a

part, commissioned in their very first days in office to tell them how to get

their costs under control. Had they followed that advice, I doubt they would

have racked up the $17 billion in debt that they did in their ten years.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: I do remember our government paying for good economic advice that

said tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Perhaps they should have dusted off that

and listened to that exactly.

[ Page 7412 ]

Well, the

Minister of Finance is really skating, and he's skating on thin ice.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Please proceed.

MacPhail: He's mixing up all of the money that's been wasted. He's stirring

it up, and he thinks that maybe the mud will make it look like they didn't do

anything wrong. Well, the government knew that the Coquihalla privatization

scheme was a non-starter from the beginning, but they were so desperate for cash

to pay for their high-income and corporate tax cuts — failed, I might add —

that they pressed ahead, flushing away millions of dollars, increasingly scarce

tax dollars, down the drain: $730,000 blown on legal advice, $225,000 on

marketing direction, $854,000 to study the highway.

But the

government won't say how much was spent on advertising this botched boondoggle.

That's right. This government refuses to tell taxpayers….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, please put your question now.

MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Because this government refused so

far to tell how much of their money is spent, telling the government….

Mr.

Speaker: That's now.

Interjections.

MacPhail: Was the government right and the community wrong? Can the

minister…? Can any one of you who's left behind stand up and say: why won't

the Liberal government come clean? Tell British Columbians how much more of

their money they blew on advertising the failed Coquihalla privatization scheme.

Hon. G.

Collins: In fact, all of the government's advertising costs are disclosed in

the public accounts, as they've always been, and they will be.

But I must

say I am intrigued, and I'm glad she pointed me to my message box, because I

almost missed it. Perhaps I will have to file a complaint with the waste-buster

website. Perhaps they can tell me how it is that the NDP spent $747,000 on a

Coquihalla Highway project when that minister was in power, and perhaps she can

explain what we got for that money.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, whose time is being

eroded by her seatmate. [Laughter.]

[1425]

HEALTH CARE SERVICE LEVELS

J. Kwan:

The government MLAs might think it's funny wasting money, scarce tax dollars…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…that are needed in the health care and education systems. People in Kamloops

are outraged by this waste, especially when they see health care and education

services being cut, and so are the residents of Nelson, who have seen their

hospital services cut to the bone.

Two weeks

ago the member for Nelson-Creston stood up and told this House that health care

in Nelson was in great shape. He says: "Don't worry. Be happy." He

claimed that emergency room care had improved. Wrong. He claimed that fewer

patients are now transferred outside of the Kootenays. Wrong again. The

president of the Kootenay Lake Hospital medical staff, Dr. Andrew Murray, heard

the member in this House and has demanded that the member correct his

statements.

To the

Minister of Health Services: who is right — the member for Nelson-Creston or

the president of the medical staff at the Kootenay Lake Hospital?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I welcome the opportunity to clear up a few things about how the

health care system is working in the Kootenay-Boundary region of the province.

The emergency department in Nelson has not been reduced and, in fact, has seen

several improvements, including additional monitored beds and several thousand

dollars' worth of physical upgrades to the facility.

The only

services that have actually been moved out of Nelson as a result of redesign are

the areas of general surgery and ICU, which have been moved to Trail so that we

can consolidate those services to get better care in the region. As a direct

result of this redesign, we now have more effective care for all patients and

all residents who live in the Kootenay-Boundary area. We have been able to

attract an additional five specialists into the region, and that is resulting in

better care and in less burnout for physicians.

Do you know

what, member? It's actually providing more care for residents of the Kootenay-Boundary

region right in that area, so that they do not have to travel as often to other

parts of the province to get the care that would have had to take place under

the arrangement set up by the previous government. So, yes, we are going through

some changes…

Interjections.

[ Page 7413 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …in the health care delivery system throughout the province. As a

direct result of that…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …there are more patients getting the care they need, when they

need it and where they live.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

So the people who provide the medical services in the area and the people who

live and need the services in the community are wrong, according to this

minister. Well, today in the Alberni Valley residents are driving over the

Alberni highway to Nanaimo to protest the government's shutting down of beds and

services at West Coast General Hospital. The cost of those cuts is $400,000 —

a fraction of what this government blew on the failed Coquihalla privatization

scheme. As a result, residents of Alberni are losing vital health services.

To the

Health minister again: what's a better use of taxpayers' dollars — providing

health care services in the Alberni Valley area or paying off big Liberal

contributors for failed privatization schemes?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I know the member's colleague sitting beside her served as a

Minister of Health in this province, and I can tell you there is never enough

money in a Health budget, as I'm sure she could attest to. I cannot tell that

member how much I would love to have in the Health budget of B.C. today the $454

million that that government wasted on fast ferries in this province.

Two weeks

ago the member asked me if I would meet with a delegation from Port Alberni and

give them the assurance that their hospital would not close. I stood on my feet

and said yes, that first of all I would give them the assurance that their

hospital would not close and, secondly, that I'd meet with them.

[1430]

When I did

meet with them, they presented me and the member for Alberni-Qualicum with a

petition of 9,000 names that asked that I as the minister would assure them that

their hospital would continue to provide service in the Alberni Valley and that

it would continue to have surgical capacity. I said to them that I could give

them a 100 percent unqualified yes to both of those demands in the petition.

EMERGENCY SURGICAL SERVICES

IN KOOTENAY AREA

Suffredine: My question, coincidentally, is also to the Minister of Health

Services. A recent case at Kootenay Lake Hospital in Nelson highlighted the

importance of emergency surgical services there. It has been suggested that

without the intervention of local surgeons, the outcome might not have been as

positive. Some of my constituents believe they may not have access to emergency

surgical services when they need them.

Can the

minister tell this House what is being done to ensure that West Kootenay

residents have timely access to emergency surgical services?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am familiar with the particular case the member refers to. There

was a medical review done by physicians and other medical professionals to

review the decisions that were made in that case. I can reassure the member and

his constituents that the Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital, located in Trail,

was ready to receive that patient — they were on standby — and that it would

have been totally appropriate and medically safe to transfer that patient to

Trail, who would have got the care she needed in a timely fashion. A decision

was made to provide care to that patient in Nelson by a surgeon who happened to

be there, and again, the medical review shows that that was also an appropriate

medical condition.

I think the

bottom line is that the patient had a successful outcome and would have had a

successful outcome regardless of whether the surgery had been provided in Trail

or in Nelson.

RECRUITMENT OF NURSES

Trumper: My question is, again, to the Minister of Health Planning. The

Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report that said nurses are

working full-time in Canada and that more nurses are staying and working in

British Columbia. This is good news for patients in British Columbia. However,

our nursing workforce is aging and will be retiring in larger numbers than in

other provinces over the coming years.

Can the

Minister of Health Planning tell us what her ministry is doing to ensure that

there are enough nurses to care for patients in British Columbia?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Unlike the NDP, which did nothing to address the nursing shortage,

this government actually thought it was a priority, and we invested $21 million

in August 2001 to retain, recruit and educate nurses. We invested in continuing

and specialty education. The Minister of Advanced Education has added more than

1,800 seats. The NDP cut seats in the decade that they were in power.

initiated a loan forgiveness program and invested in mentorship programs and in

aboriginal nursing strategies. In fact, we've invested $59 million since August

2001 to make sure nurses stay in this province to make sure patients are looked

after. We also gave nurses a 23½ percent increase in wages and benefits.

The good

news is that the Canadian Institute for Health Information has supported what we

are doing

[ Page 7414 ]

here today. B.C. ranks first when it comes to recruiting nurses to B.C., 91.4

percent of nursing graduates are staying in this province, and B.C. saw a net

increase of 538 more nurses in 2002 than the previous year — all good news for

patients in B.C.

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Alberni-Qualicum has the floor.

Trumper: I would like to present a petition from the Alberni Valley

regarding the proposed cuts to services at West Coast General Hospital.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm presenting today, on behalf of the Minister of Advanced

Education…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the member who has the floor.

Hon. C.

Clark: …a report of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission

entitled Financial Statements of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship

Commission for the year ended March 31, 2003 , as required by

section 9 of

the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act. Along with this statement is an

audit report of the auditor general of British Columbia.

[1435]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 73.

Second Reading of Bills

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

MacPhail: I'm rising to not discuss Bill 73, Sustainable Resource Management

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, because once again we see these Liberals showing

absolute disdain for parliament — absolute disdain. They don't show up to

answer questions, they table legislation one day, and less than 24 hours later

they ask to have it debated. That's exactly what's happened with this

legislation, Bill 73, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act,

Last night

there was a very ugly exchange between the Government House Leader, the Minister

of Finance, and me about House business. He claimed that this government was

better than any previous government about the respect they showed for parliament

and this chamber. What a mockery his words make of the reality in this

Legislature.

Bill 73 is

16 pages long. I will read into the record what changes this government is

making and to what legislation. The public and the opposition have had less than

22 hours to even read the legislation, let alone figure out what it means. The

nerve of the Government House Leader to somehow suggest that they treat this

House with respect,

whereas the previous administrations didn't, is just

simply…. It's hard for me to…. Well, I can't stomach it, Mr. Speaker.

Today is a

perfect example of why it is hard to stomach how much the Government House

Leader and this government disrespect parliament here in British Columbia —

let alone question period, where question period makes a mockery of holding a

government to account. Now we're in second reading debate of a piece of

legislation that nobody has had a chance to figure out. And the minister stands

up…. I bet you that the minister doesn't even know what's in the bill, because

his comments at second reading were ridiculous — absolutely ridiculous — on

how he skated over some issues.

Here's the

legislation being amended by this government, and they've given less than 22

hours' notice. The only thing worse that could happen is if they introduced this

legislation tomorrow for committee stage and rammed it through. That would be

such an abuse of parliament I don't think even this government would risk doing,

because the world is watching. The world is finally watching with interest the

disdain this government is showing for parliament.

Here's the

legislation that's being amended: the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the

Assessment Act…. There are major changes to the Assessment Act. The Assessment

Authority Act. There are major changes there as well, many of which affect every

single homeowner's and landowner's ability to exist in this province.

[1440]

They're

amending the Community Charter. That's very interesting. I wonder whether that's

the original Community Charter legislation. Is it the Community Charter redux

edition, or is it the Community Charter lite version they're amending? Before we

adjourned the House for last week, they introduced a brand-new Community Charter

after the previous one had been on the books four months. What Community Charter

version are we dealing with that they're now amending again?

The Land

Act, the Land Title Act. Well, we know what disdain this government has for land

titles offices. We know how ineffective the lower Vancouver Island MLAs are in

delivering services to their community through the land titles office, so they

probably want to have a look at how the Land Title Act is being amended and what

it means for their community. Is it a further erosion? Is it a further erosion

of the access to public services for lower Vancouver Island residents?

[ Page 7415 ]

Will the members from lower Vancouver Island be standing up and questioning

the minister closely on this about what it means for their community, or will

they sit silent and fail their community once again?

Those

amendments go on and on and on, page after page. Oh, here are more amendments,

to the Local Government Act. Gee, I was just up before lunch dealing with

amendments to the Local Government Act brought in by the Minister of

Agriculture. Can they not get their act together, this government? Are they in

such a state of chaos and confusion and disarray that they've got to keep

trying, day after day, to get it right and hope nobody will notice the draconian

changes they're trying to make?

Oh, here's

a good one: the Oil and Gas Commission Act, and the Sustainable Resource

Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Why should we be concerned about

changes to these pieces of legislation? We've got a situation where this

government has basically said: "We're going to put all of our environmental

regulations and our land use decision-making into the hands of the Minister of

Sustainable Resource Management." The Minister of Forests is not going to

have responsibility for these, and believe you me, the Minister of Water, Land

and Air Protection is being shoved aside in any land use or environmental

questions.

What does

it mean for the Oil and Gas Commission Act — these amendments that were given

superpowers for environment regulations by the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management? Well, we don't have time to examine it. We don't have time. The

Taxation Act, affecting rural areas; the University Endowment Land Act…. Gee.

Oh, here's

a good one: the Water Act. Boy, I've got a lot of questions from Bill 57 on

water, and here we have amendments to the Water Act that directly affect Bill

57, the Contaminated Sites Act. Yes, the Contaminated Sites Act has been on the

books for several months, and we'll be debating it this afternoon, but I suspect

this legislation the government's ramming through will affect the contaminated

sites legislation. Certainly, I know the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management doesn't know that. I can pretty much guarantee he doesn't know that,

and I can pretty much guarantee that the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection, when I ask her questions about that, won't know it either.

That's

pretty significant. Those amendments go on and on and on, page after page —

amendments to the Water Act. Why would this province care about the Water Act?

Why would they care? They're planning on privatizing certain aspects of water

control, water administration and water quality in this province. Who knows?

Maybe that's what this legislation does, but who would have a chance to even

look at that? Then we have the whole amendment to this act that amends

everything at the very end. That goes on and on and on.

[1445]

Well, it is

shameful, disdainful and embarrassing — the continuing and ever-escalating

abuse this government shows of this Legislature. Bill 73 epitomizes that abuse

and disdain, but it does not stand as the only example at all.

I can

hardly wait to see when the government's going to bring this bill to committee

stage. If they do it tomorrow, it will be the ultimate insult to parliament. But

they're quite comfortable in insulting and ridiculing anyone who dares to stand

up and ask a truly legitimate question in here. It will be an absolute insult to

the people of British Columbia.

You know,

the backbenchers, the government caucus members in this chamber, stand up and

ask stooge questions. The minister offers pat answers. Then they can't even hold

it together themselves. They're forced to table the points of view from the

outside world, the citizens of British Columbia, in the form of petitions.

We just saw

a perfect example of that, where the opposition asked the Minister of Health a

question about Port Alberni health care. He stood up and said: "Oh,

everything's fine." The member from Port Alberni asks a stooge question,

and he says: "Everything's fine." Then she's forced to table a

petition — a new petition — where the citizens are saying: "Hey, wait a

minute. Everything's not fine." The minute this government is forced to

hear voices from outside this chamber — the chamber of silent government

caucus members who do none of the work in their own constituencies — when

there's a voice of reality from British Columbians, it just shows how

wrongheaded and failing the government's agenda is.

I know that

this government cares not a whit about the opposition being given time to talk

to people, to do the research, to have a thoughtful discussion in holding the

government to account. We are forced to do this at the committee stage. There

will be detailed questioning at the committee stage.

I just say

to this government…. I'd actually say it to the Premier, but the Premier, of

course, won't show up anywhere. The Premier will go to such extremes around the

world to avoid coming here. I would say to the Premier that it is absolutely

essential that the Premier finally live up to his commitment to openness and

accountability, and allow this parliamentary system — this B.C. legislative

chamber — to do its job properly on behalf of the citizens of British

Columbia, and stop ramming legislation through.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair has allowed more than considerable latitude

to the member regarding this debate. Second reading is to discuss the bill in

principle, but the Chair also takes umbrage at the remarks regarding question

period and "making a mockery of holding government to account." I just

want the member to know that.

The

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management closes debate.

Hon. S.

Hagen: As they say, silence is bliss.

I will

enjoy looking forward to the spirited debate that we'll have as the bill goes

into committee, but it gives me great pleasure at this time to move second

reading.

[ Page 7416 ]

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

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

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

Bill 73,

Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 57.

Committee of the Whole House

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 57; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:50 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: Could the minister please introduce her staff?

Hon. J.

Murray: With me I have Erik Partridge, Sohee Ahn and Terry Roberts.

MacPhail: Okay. I was interested in knowing what they do in terms of…. Is

it possible for me to know who the advisers are and what they're advising on?

Hon. J.

Murray: Erik Partridge is director of environmental management. Terry

Roberts is the manager of the development of the act. Sohee Ahn is legislative

officer/drafter.

MacPhail: Thank you for that.

I've

reread the comments of the minister at second reading about why they're doing

what they're doing in combining two pieces of legislation. Just to reiterate,

the Environmental Management Act is a combination of the Waste Management Act

and the Environment Management Act. Really, 90 percent of this legislation is a

complete and verbatim reiteration of those two pieces of legislation — so fair

enough.

That's why

the debate will focus around certain clauses. Even though the piece of

legislation is huge, it is really just a combination of those two previous

pieces of legislation with some changes that the minister touted at second

reading.

One of the

changes she touted at second reading, which I'm going to explore a bit right now

under

section 1, is that she said they're moving to a model of risk management.

I remember other members of the government caucus also standing up and saying

that this is wonderful that the government is moving to a system of risk

management as a new approach. They were taking great pride in this being a new

approach to environmental protection.

I was a bit

taken aback by this debate, because I didn't see any definition of risk

management in

section 1. I also know there's lots of literature that I've found

in my research on risk management. It's a model that exists in the previous two

pieces of legislation and around the world. So I want to explore that bit about

risk management and risk assessment with the minister. How does the minister

define "risk"? — because it's not contained in the bill.

[1455]

Hon. J.

Murray: In this legislation "risk management" is a model, and it's

not a defined term.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your indulgence. Through to

the minister: I just didn't hear the last part of the answer.

Hon. J.

Murray: My answer was that risk management is a model and not a defined term

under this act. By "a model," what that means is that we're using a

classification scheme that has been developed by ministry staff, using certain

risk factors to determine whether to permit a facility or activity or to have it

operate under a code of practice or under the general prohibition against

pollution.

The

classification scheme includes risk factors such as significant potential for

harm to human health or the environment, the environmental impact assessment

rating factor used in the permit-processing procedure currently, degree of

public concern about this kind of facility or activity, consistency of permits

in the industry or activity, value of a site-specific review and the number of

operations in the industry or activity.

MacPhail: From the frameworks of risk management that exist throughout the

world now, upon which has the ministry relied?

Hon. J.

Murray: The ministry staff reviewed legislation from a number of

jurisdictions. My request was to look at the jurisdictions that are considered

exemplary and advanced in terms of their regulatory practices. Different parts

were drawn from different jurisdictions in what my ministry considered to be the

best practices from various areas.

MacPhail: Could the minister name some of those, please?

Hon. J.

Murray: California, Oregon and Massachusetts are some of the ones that were

reviewed.

MacPhail: Were any Canadian jurisdictions reviewed? There's quite a

substantial body of frameworks in Canada.

Hon. J.

Murray: Canadian jurisdictions are Alberta and Ontario. As the member

probably is aware, there

[ Page 7417 ]

has been a significant amount of work done to review environmental

regulations and practices in Ontario over the last three years.

MacPhail: Well, thank you. The minister is aware of the report, so I feel

comfortable asking her questions about it. Also, I am pleased. It may be

implicit acknowledgment that while the government caucus members may think this

is breakthrough and new, it really isn't at all. Risk management has existed in

parts of British Columbia, with some substantial differences, since the 1970s

and exists substantively throughout Canada as well. It will be a comparison

between what exists elsewhere in Canada and what the government is changing here

that I'll be exploring.

There are

other jurisdictions that actually do define risk management in legislation, but

this government chose not to. Let me ask the minister, then…. She used

examples in her second reading of high, medium and low risk. How will she define

what industries fall into what category when, indeed, the regulatory powers of

this bill are left up to the minister?

[1500]

Hon. J.

Murray: The definition of which industries or activities will fall into

which category of risk will be determined through a regulation, and as with the

act itself, the ministry will be consulting with both industry and environmental

groups as well as municipal government in developing that regulation.

MacPhail: Well, okay. So once again we have a government where we're

debating legislation, and the substance of what the government is touting as

change hasn't yet been determined or will be done in regulation. That's

interesting.

When is

this bill going to actually be put into effect, and what are the public

consultations that are occurring around

definitions of high, medium and low

risk? Specifically, when are the meetings occurring, who is the minister talking

to, and when will the results be tabled publicly?

Hon. J.

Murray: We'll be beginning the public consultations next week — Tuesday,

Wednesday and Thursday. We'll be meeting with dozens of groups, including

municipalities, business groups and environmental groups.

MacPhail: Let me quote from the basic framework for risk management that

came out of Ontario. The minister referred to it, so I'm pleased she has read

this. This is called Basic Frameworks for Risk Management: Final Report,

March 28, 2003 , and it was prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Environment,

to which the minister just referred. Let me just start with what they say in the

executive

summary around basic frameworks for risk management. The reason I'm

quoting this is because it relates to what the minister just said about what

work still needs to be done on this legislation and when.

Page 1 of

the executive

summary: "A good risk management framework should enhance and

improve risk management by (1) making it more transparent and understandable to

stakeholders, (2) making its processes more efficient and (3) allowing for

sharing of best practice in the implementation of risk identification, risk

assessment and risk treatment."

Does the

minister agree with that analysis? And how will that be achieved, given that

none of the terms of risk are defined in this legislation?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, I do agree with those principles that the member has just

noted. We will be developing our categories of risk management, and the

transparency will include…. The results of our public consultations will be

posted on our website.

MacPhail: This report was done for the Ontario government by the Network for

Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. I went to the website to see if

the government of British Columbia is a member. Let me identify for you who are

members of this: the Alberta government, the Ontario government, Health Canada,

Hydro One out of Ontario, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, Imperial

Oil, Inco, the Ministry of Environment from Ontario. Those are some of them. I

noted that given the fact the government is proudly saying it's moving to a

framework for risk management, they're not members. I did take this off the

website a couple of days ago, so….

What

partnerships does this government have with people who already have a risk

assessment framework in effect?

[1505]

Hon. J.

Murray: We've been drawing from information and advice from jurisdictions

including those that I've mentioned in Canada — including Australia, in fact.

I would, I guess, like to make the somewhat obvious statement that this ministry

can learn from many organizations without actually needing to be a members of

those organizations.

MacPhail: Oh yes, I'm sure they can, and that's why I'm trying to find out

who the ministry is working with and what work is actually being done with whom

to fill in the blanks left by this legislation. Once again we see that so much

of the main work to institute principles of risk management will be left to the

cabinet to be done through regulation.

One of the

reasons why I was asking about what the

definitions are for high, medium and low

risk is from reading this report. Again, it's in the introduction of the report

from the Network for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management: "Risk

management is unique in that it focuses on uncertainties that an organization

faces: uncertainties in the probability of occurrence of events, uncertainties

in the value to the organization of consequences of events and other

uncertainties that fall outside the normally expected range of variation.

Generally, risks are low-probability but

[ Page 7418 ]

high-consequence events that can cause major disruption to the

organization."

So they're

actually defining levels of risk there. The minister has said — even though

she talked at length about low, medium and high risks in her second reading

remarks to this legislation — that will be left up to her to set by

regulation.

I ask the

minister this: when dealing with human and environmental health, why did the

government choose to not better define these levels of risk?

Hon. J.

Murray: There are compounds. There are standards in various jurisdictions as

to what levels of those compounds constitute what magnitude of risk that changes

from sector to sector. We will be working with our business, environmental and

municipal stakeholders to identify, based on a framework, a model here in terms

of what the risk factors are, but we will be looking at it from sector to

sector, and we're comfortable that this is the correct approach.

MacPhail: I also have heard this minister say over and over again, both

inside this House and outside, that all of her decisions are science-based. Will

these determinations be science-based?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, we'll be working with a science advisory board as well as

scientists from Environment Canada and from other post-secondary institutions as

we move forward and develop this regulation.

MacPhail: How does that fit in with the consultations the minister is about

to hold?

[1510]

Hon. J.

Murray: Scientists give us information about their research — the numbers

in terms of parts per million or billion of certain compounds and the impacts of

those compounds given the receiving environment, whether it's water, land or

air. The consultation takes that scientific data and discusses the data,

compares it with the risk factors and makes some recommendations.

MacPhail: Sorry. Who makes the recommendations?

Hon. J.

Murray: Through the course of the consultations, we will be getting feedback

from the various stakeholders that we'll be consulting with, and I will be

making decisions with my ministry as to what the regulation will finally say.

MacPhail: Because the minister named not one scientist in who she was going

to consult with when I asked how she would consult on the regulations…. I'm

not sure municipalities have the expertise to offer scientific advice. So I must

say, Mr. Chair, it's quite a murky little process that the minister is going to

go through in my…. Well, I would prefer that it would not be murky, but it

sounds like a pretty murky process of who exactly she's going to consult and

what advice she will actually receive.

I have

another document here. It's from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The

minister listed three, I think, jurisdictions in the United States upon which

she is moving forward to base her risk management model. I wasn't actually going

to use it until she said that those were the jurisdictions she was looking at.

Here's what

it says — the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that has guided the state

risk management process. It says: "Risk assessments don't give accurate

estimates of risk. They do, however, give upper limits on risk. Just because a

risk can't be measured with existing scientific methods doesn't mean that it's

unimportant from a public health standpoint." So it was on that basis that

I asked what basis science would play, because the minister says over and over

again — always — that her decisions will be science-based.

Well, let

me ask this. Given the fact that there is some evidence that science can't

determine risk, who will have the final say in determining what level of risk

applies to what industry? Is it the minister?

Hon. J.

Murray: We'll be working with the Ministry of Health, which does the work of

identifying substances and their statistical impact on human health, and we'll

be working with the ministry of the environment federally and comparing the

feedback from those organizations and using that as part of our decision-making.

MacPhail: Okay, now we have the Ministry of Health at the table. Who else is

at the table? Perhaps the minister could just tell me the whole list of people

who will be at the table, because there are two groups that have just been added

that weren't added as part of her first group. Tell me everybody. Rather, don't

make me ask; don't make me beg. Tell me everybody.

Hon. J.

Murray: I would be happy to compile a list of all the organizations and

individuals and scientists that will be part of our consultation process and our

science advice as we move forward and make that available to the member.

MacPhail: Well, I don't know what I can do. I'm not quite sure why. I just

heard the minister say this process is starting in a couple of weeks. I would

have assumed that list would have been readily available. Will the Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management be there?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's not part of the plan at this point. This is developing

science-based standards. The ministry does have PhDs in science within the

ministry and will be working with some of the organizations that I've already

mentioned.

MacPhail: In the United States model, the goal of risk management, the U.S.

Environmental Protection

[ Page 7419 ]

Agency clearly states: "Good risk management emphasizes public health

protection as a primary goal. Statutes and regulations seek to ensure that

standards are established at levels associated with risks that are considered

sufficiently low to protect public health."

[1515]

Is that a

goal that the minister will be sharing in establishment…? We know it's not in

statute. She has already said she's not going to put it in statute. Is that a

goal she will emphasize as a primary goal in establishing of regulations?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, it is.

MacPhail: That's good, because then it goes on to say here in that same goal

of risk management: "Non-scientific factors enter into the regulatory

process, including technical feasibility and economic, social, political and

legal factors. The risk characterization and these factors are used in the

analysis of whether or not to regulate, and if so, to what extent." Does

the minister agree with that?

Hon. J.

Murray: All of those factors the member opposite listed are factors that are

taken into account with government decisions, yet standards are based on the

scientific and the health risk and environmental risk science, as I mentioned

before.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I forgot to take the minister up to accept the

minister's offer of the list of people — the full list. I'd appreciate that as

soon as possible, certainly before the consultations begin. I would appreciate

that.

The other

jurisdiction I looked at besides Canada and the United States about risk

management, risk assessment and management in the environment was the United

Kingdom, which has had a system of environmental risk assessment and management

in place for some time. I have the actual regulations that apply in terms of

determining risk management from the United Kingdom, and they're about 60 pages

long. Because the minister has said this is going to be results-based risk

management, what areas of regulation does she contemplate covering in

determining risk assessment and the factors of risk?

Hon. J.

Murray: The risk factors we're basing this work on are the ones I previously

noted — significant potential harm to human health or the environment and so

on, the environmental impact assessment rating factor used in the

permit-processing procedure. I have already provided that set to the member.

MacPhail: I didn't hear terms like risk financing, risk communication or

risk assessment. These are terms I found throughout other models of

environmental risk assessment and management as well. "Source

identification" — I didn't hear that, or "risk control." I'm

just looking at the ones that were absent. Where did the minister get the set of

factors that will be risk assessment? Is this a made-in-B.C. set?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, it is. This is the result of a substantial consultation that

the ministry has conducted over the course of a year on this issue. A number of

the items that the member was noting were missing are actually part of the first

point I described, the risk factor that is the significant potential for harm to

human health or the environment.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, I very much will be watching that process with a great

deal of interest. I'm not quite sure how I'll monitor it, because I don't know

exactly what's going on, but I'll await the minister's compilation of the list

of people who are involved, and maybe I'll talk directly to them.

[1520]

There's a

definition in this definition section,

section 1. It's the definition of

hazardous waste or…. No. Actually, it's not. "Hazardous waste"

replaces the term "special waste," but it's not defined in the

legislation. Why not?

Hon. J.

Murray: The definition of hazardous waste is found in the regulation that

governs the regulating of hazardous waste. The change in title is to make

British Columbia consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada which do call

this hazardous waste and not special waste.

MacPhail: Well, I'm encouraged by that answer. So will the special waste

regulation be just now renamed the hazardous waste regulation?

Hon. J.

Murray: There's a substantial degree of consultation going on between now

and the coming spring on our special waste regulation. We'll be making

amendments to it, and yes, one of those amendments will be to change the name to

hazardous waste.

MacPhail: Well, what will the minister be consulting on — the special

waste regulation? Is that what it will be?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, that's correct.

MacPhail: Well, the special waste regulations index is four pages long. Has

the minister had a chance to…? Will she be consulting on every single aspect

of the special waste regulation that is now in existence, or will she be putting

forward a regulation that is more or less than this?

Hon. J.

Murray: We'll be consulting on the entire regulation. We'll be hearing from

the range of stakeholders, again, from environmental groups to industry,

municipalities and post-secondary institutions. The idea is to get feedback on

what needs to be updated in the special waste regulation.

MacPhail: Ninety percent of this bill has been in existence for decades. The

minister just said that the

[ Page 7420 ]

reason why the name "special waste" has been changed to

"hazardous waste…." Why is there change around the regulation that's

attached to that?

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Chair, I didn't understand the question. Could the member repeat

it, please?

MacPhail: Well, I was trying to determine whether the change in definition

from special waste, which has been in existence for decades, to hazardous waste

was part of some other package of change. The vast, vast majority of this

legislation is just a rewrite — and I make no criticism of that; that's fine

— or amalgamation of two previous bills. When I asked the minister whether she

would just rename the special waste regulation as the hazardous waste, it was to

determine whether the new hazardous waste regulation will just become the same

as what existed before, and she didn't give me comfort in that area. I'm asking:

if it's just a renaming to match us up with other jurisdictions, why is she

choosing this regulation to go out and consult on?

Hon. J.

Murray: Because there are improvements that need to be made in that

regulation in order to do an effective job of regulating hazardous wastes in

British Columbia.

MacPhail: And what are those improvements?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's what we intend to conclude out of the consultation we're

contemplating in the future.

MacPhail: Well, the minister didn't pose it as a question to see whether

there are changes that need to be made. The minister said there are improvements

that need to be made. It's not a judgment call. It was an assertion the minister

made.

What are

the improvements? The minister clearly has some ideas around that.

[1525]

Hon. J.

Murray: The environmental groups and industry alike have given me feedback

and feedback to my staff that this is a regulation in need of being updated and

improved. That's why we are undertaking a consultation that gets the details of

that input, and that's why I assert it does need improvement.

MacPhail: Yes, and I'm asking for the specifics. What did the environmental

groups say? What did industry say?

Hon. J.

Murray: For the member's information, we do have on our website a discussion

paper on the special waste regulation that outlines the framework for the

consultation we're embarking on. That will provide a set of issues that we're

getting feedback on and that were based on what I've heard in terms of potential

improvements and potential changes.

MacPhail: Yes, I've actually been to the website, and I have seen that.

There's much more to discuss here, so I guess I won't belabour this point. But

I'm trying to find out from the minister why she chose this particular

regulation to change, when 90 percent of the bill and regulations have not been

changed. What led her to believe that there were improvements?

The

discussion document on the website is as a result of her concluding that change

is necessary. The discussion document does not in any way list the feedback or

the request for change. That's why I'm trying to figure out why this particular

regulation is getting special treatment, because that's what we're debating here

— changes to the previous legislation.

Hon. J.

Murray: We're reviewing and developing 13 regulations and codes this year,

and we will be reviewing our whole set of regulations over time. That's part of

what I committed to do coming into this job two and a half years ago: to review

legislation and regulation and make sure that it's up to date, that it

incorporates best practices, that it enables this government to do an effective

job of protecting the environment and, at the same time, that it supports the

other goals that we have as a government.

MacPhail: Were the 13 regulations and code pursuant to this piece of

legislation that we're debating?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, they are.

MacPhail: I was unclear what the minister meant by a code, so….

Hon. J.

Murray: The codes will be the regulatory regime for the medium-risk

facilities and activities. Those codes will need to be created, also, as part of

the consultation.

MacPhail: Okay, so codes are new. Could the minister please describe…?

There are codes dealing with medium risk? Could the minister explain how that

will work?

Hon. J.

Murray: Activities and sectors that are deemed to be medium-risk, out of the

consultation that we described earlier in this debate, will be regulated by

codes. Those will be enforceable codes that we will be developing over the

coming time period. As a code is developed and finalized, then that sector and

that set of activities will no longer be required to have facility-by-facility

permits, but they will be operating under a clear code of practice.

[1530]

MacPhail: So is this a code for the forest industry or a code for a cleaning

facility?

Hon. J.

Murray: Sector-specific codes of practice will be applied to businesses such

as the fish products processing industry, the plastics products industry and

[ Page 7421 ]

the structural concrete industry — to give some examples.

MacPhail: Yes, and I see that code of practice is listed anyway and defined

as what the minister means as a code of practice. I guess we'll explore that

more under

section 22 of the new legislation, at which time I will be asking her

for the full list of codes that are to be developed.

Sections

1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MacPhail: Is

section 3 new? It's unclear to me whether this is a new power.

I'll read it into the record.

Section 3 is "Director includes

delegate," and it's the clause that allows delegation of power by the

director.

Hon. J.

Murray: This

section needed to be added because decision-making power had

been transferred from the regional managers to the director. Therefore, it was

necessary to empower the director to delegate his or her authority, and that

could be to a manager.

MacPhail: So is the answer, then, that yes, it is new? And if so, why?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, it is new, and I gave the reason why. The member was distracted

for a moment there and may not have heard. The reason this is added is that

formerly the regional managers were the statutory decision-makers under this

act. That has been transferred to the director, and this

section enables the

director, then, to delegate those powers.

MacPhail: Yes, I appreciate the minister repeating it. She's right. I was

distracted. Okay, there's been a name change, and much of the legislation is

about that name change — changing "regional manager" to the term

"director." But what made the minister now give powers of delegation

to what was formerly the manager, now the director?

Hon. J.

Murray: What this act does is centralize the statutory authority in one

person's hands, and that's the director. That person won't be making all the

decisions, however. That decision-making will be delegated to the managers in

the regions. Having the statutory power in the director's hands, though, enables

the director to ensure that the decisions being made in the various regions are

consistent and are within the direction and framework as set by the province.

MacPhail: Okay. I'm confused about how delegation of power from the director

to others provides consistency. How does that work?

Hon. J.

Murray: The director maintains the statutory decision-making power. The

delegation enables the managers to make decisions that they are delegated to

make within the policy and direction that's been set.

MacPhail: Okay. How did it work before, then? Much of this legislation is

about name change only.

[1535]

Hon. J.

Murray: Before, the regional manager in each region had the final statutory

decision-making power. The repercussion of that is that there could be a

different

interpretation and a different decision made, given the same factors,

from region to region. There was an absence of consistency. This is a way to

make sure we have consistent decisions at that statutory decision-making level,

while the delegation to the regions means there won't be just one person that is

entertaining the decision-making, because that's not practical.

Sections

3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 6 is the first

article in

part 2, "Prohibitions and

Authorizations."

Section 6 is entitled "Waste disposal." The

opposition has had quite a bit of feedback — unsolicited, I might add — on

this particular article, clause, section. I'll read the first

part into it:

"6

(1) For the purposes of this section, 'the conduct of a prescribed

industry, trade or business' includes the operation by any person of facilities

or vehicles for the collection, storage, treatment, handling, transportation,

discharge, destruction or other disposal of waste in relation to the prescribed

industry, trade or business."

It's new, and as I understand it, it's up to the minister to determine by

regulation what a prescribed industry is.

That's why

I was asking earlier about how the minister is going to determine levels of risk

and what industries fall within what level of risk. So much is being left in the

hands of the cabinet and this particular minister as opposed to clearly stating

it by statute. Given that this bill gives the minister alone — not the

L-G-in-C, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but the minister alone — the

regulatory authority to determine what is a prescribed industry, what assurances

can the minister provide that the application of risk in the determination of a

prescribed industry will be a transparent process?

Hon. J.

Murray: The regulation that describes which facilities and sectors are

considered high risk, which are medium and which are low will be passed by

cabinet. That is not at the minister's discretion.

MacPhail: Later on I will be getting into some interest around…. This bill

is unusual, in that there are regulations created by the L-G-in-C,

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and then there's another set of regulations made

by the minister. This is one that's being made by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If that's so, could the minister follow me

through on that?

[ Page 7422 ]

Hon. J.

Murray: It's

section 21(1)(h).

MacPhail: I do appreciate the quick reference, but prescribing for the

purposes of

section 6(2), industry, trades, and businesses…. Oh, I see. That

is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. All right. Well, fair enough. Then it's

going to be cabinet making them. What process is cabinet going to go through?

Hon. J.

Murray: Cabinet will go through the usual process in approving a regulation.

[1540]

MacPhail: It's not me asking this question. I just told the minister that

we've got a lot of feedback from this, particularly from environmental,

non-governmental organizations who have deep concerns about this. The minister

is aware of that.

I said:

"What will be a transparent process?" The minister has said that she's

got a consultation process on setting up the regulations, etc. But what will be

the transparent process in this one particularly? This is the nub of the issue

about prescribed industries, trades or businesses. Everything in this

legislation flows from this definition.

Hon. J.

Murray: I accept the comment that this is a very important part of the new

legislation. I agree that it is. That's why we had the discussion under

section

1 of the consultation — the bringing in of scientists from the ministry of

environment; the advice on human health risk from the Ministry of Health; the

discussions with environmental groups, municipalities and industry; and the

posting of those discussions on our website in a transparent way — which will

contribute to developing this regulation once it gets to cabinet. Cabinet

debates the regulation, as it does others, and makes a decision.

MacPhail: What role will the industry, trade and businesses that are

affected by this regulation play? Do they have an appeal process?

Hon. J.

Murray: No, they don't.

MacPhail: Okay. That's the answer to my second question.

My first

question: what role do they play? Do they sit as an equal with others at the

consultation table?

Hon. J.

Murray: Everyone's equal in the consultation. We'll be talking to

stakeholders that are interested in this regulation, and we'll be looking

forward to what they have to say.

MacPhail: What ranking of priority does the establishment of regulations

have? Where will this definition, "establishment through regulation,"

rank in terms of priority of consultation?

Hon. J.

Murray: This is our highest-priority regulation, so it'll be taking place

first.

MacPhail: Will this definition of the conduct of a prescribed industry,

trade or business be established before moving on to any other regulation? If

so, what's the time line for establishing this?

Hon. J.

Murray: We will be working on a number of the regulations in parallel, but

this is the priority regulation. It will need to be completed before the act is

brought into force. We're aiming for completion in January or February of this

coming year.

MacPhail:

Section 6(4) of the waste disposal

section that we're debating now

reads: "Subject to subsection (5), a person must not introduce waste into

the environment in such a manner or quantity as to cause pollution." When I

read this, I searched to see whether this was a repetition of anything in

previous legislation, and it isn't. The reason why it struck my interest was

that this

section jumped out at me as one that seems to place the onus on the

cause of pollution rather than on the existence of pollution.

[1545]

This

definition of waste leads one to believe that all waste is pollution. I would

expect that there would be many who would disagree with that. Why was the

concept of causation introduced into this clause, rather than by linking waste

to pollution, because all waste isn't pollution?

Hon. J.

Murray: This comes directly out of the Waste Management Act. It's

section

3(4).

MacPhail: Okay, I don't have the act in front of me. Could the minister

please read it out, then?

Hon. J.

Murray: In the Waste Management Act,

section 3(4) reads: "Subject to

subsection (5), a person must not introduce waste into the environment in such a

manner or quantity as to cause pollution." As the member has mentioned, 90

percent of the new act is the same features that are in the Waste Management and

Environment Management acts.

Section

6 approved.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 7, carrying on in

Part 2, "Prohibitions and

authorizations," is entitled "Hazardous waste — confinement."

Now, this

section is the same

section as

section 4 of the current Waste

Management Act, with the exception that the current

section 4(3) of the Waste

Management Act is omitted. I'll just read that into the record. I did write that

one down. The current

section 4(3) of the Waste Management Act states: "If

a special waste is released from or escapes from the confinement required by

subsection (1), it is, for the purposes of this act, deemed to have been

introduced into the environment." Where is this covered elsewhere in the

legislation?

Hon. J.

Murray: I am advised that this was consolidated into the introduction

section, and "introduce into the environment" is defined in the

definitions.

[ Page 7423 ]

J. MacPhail:

Okay. Yes, "introduce into the environment" means…. This is in the

new act. It says, "in relation to waste, includes discharge, emit, dump,

abandon, spill, release and allow to escape into the environment." I thank

the minister for that answer. Perhaps, then, my question should be: where else

is this? Why was it consolidated? Is there an effect elsewhere in the

legislation?

Hon. J.

Murray: Better drafting to have

definitions all consolidated into one place.

What was 4(3) is essentially defining "introduce into the environment"

of a special waste.

[1550]

MacPhail: Yes, I accept that. Just to go back, because transparency is very

important in this area. Under the old act, special waste was defined, and in the

old act,

section 4 talked about what happens with special waste. That's where

the concept of "deemed to have been introduced into the

environment…." In this particular case hazardous waste, which replaces

special waste definition, isn't defined, and therefore there's nowhere in the

new legislation, as I see it…. Or maybe the minister can point to where in the

legislation it talks about hazardous waste, which hasn't been defined, and what

it means in terms of part of the definition being deemed to have been introduced

in the environment.

For clarity

it's important. If part of the definition of hazardous waste is to include

"introduce into the environment…." There is no linking in the

definitions, and there was in the old act between "special waste" and

"introduce into the environment."

Hon. J.

Murray: The definition of hazardous waste is in the regulation, and I'm not

really clear what the substantive issue is here. In the previous Waste

Management Act,

section 4(3) talks about "if special waste is released from

or escapes from confinement" — and so on — "it is…deemed to have

been introduced into the environment."

Special

waste is a category of waste that's defined in the regulation. In the new act it

talks about waste and that "introducing into the environment" includes

discharge, emit, dump, abandon, spill, release or allow to escape into the

environment in relation to waste.

I think the

member's concerns are addressed in that releasing waste into the environment is

defined in

section 1, and hazardous waste is a subsection of waste that is

defined in the special waste regulation.

MacPhail: Then the minister is a better person than me. But we'll just have

to wait and see how this unfolds. I've spent quite a bit of time dealing with

legislation, and this leapt out at me as being less clear. If the minister feels

like it's clearer, then we'll just have to see how it unfolds.

Section

7 approved.

On

section

The

Chair: The minister has an amendment on

section 8. We'll deal with that

first.

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 8 standing in my name on

the orders of the day.

[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed

section 8 and substituting the

following:

Hazardous waste management facility

8 A person must not construct, establish, alter, enlarge, extend, use or

operate a facility for the treatment, recycling, storage, disposal or

destruction of a hazardous waste except in accordance with the regulations.]

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: As I understand it, this government amendment will actually mean

the wording in the bill will now be the same, back to what it was in the current

act. Is that right?

Hon. J.

Murray: This amendment to

section 8 corrects a drafting error in the first

reading bill by replacing the language in the bill with the correct language

from the existing Waste Management Act. The language in

section 8 excluded from

the regulation certain activities such as treatment, recycling, storage,

disposal and destruction, which are in the existing act. These activities are

necessary for a comprehensive scheme for hazardous waste management facilities.

This House amendment corrects this error.

MacPhail: Thank you for confirming that it does return it to what the

current act is.

So was it

simply a drafting error, or was it pointed out in your consultation that things

were missing?

Hon. J.

Murray: It was a drafting error.

Amendment

approved.

Section 8

as amended approved.

Sections

9 to 13 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: We are still under

part 2, "Prohibitions and

authorizations."

Section 14 talks about permits. As I read it, sections

14(3) and 14(4) are new, and

section 14(3) introduces the procedure for codes of

practice to eliminate a permit. This is what we were talking about earlier on in

our discussions about codes of practice.

[1555]

Mr. Chair,

for people who are interested,

section 22 talks about the minister making

regulations "establishing codes of practice for industries, trades,

businesses, activities or operations." But

section 14(3) actually

establishes the code of practice, where it talks about a code of practice that

is established in regulations in

[ Page 7424 ]

relation to the industry, trade or business that applies for the permit or

amendment.

I'm going

to ask my questions about codes of practice under here. Can the minister tell me

whether there are examples elsewhere where there's a ministry code of practice

used instead of a permit system?

Hon. J.

Murray: In Alberta.

MacPhail: How does that work, then? Is the minister going to follow that

model in Alberta? As I understand it, this code of practice eliminates the need

for a permit.

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct. When there's a code of practice, the requirement to

issue a permit is eliminated, so it is an alternative to that.

[K. Stewart

in the chair.]

MacPhail: Yeah. I mean, we are kind of trying to do something for the public

here, so I was just wondering whether the minister could explain the difference.

What used to take place under having to go for a permit that is now being

eliminated, and how will the code of practice work?

Hon. J.

Murray: Under the previous regime, every facility needed to negotiate a

permit with the ministry, whether that facility or that activity had negligible

or no risk of damaging human health or the environment. That tied up ministry

staff time, and people in those organizations were tied up with the process of

negotiating a permit on a facility-by-facility basis. The code of practice will

be drafted to apply across a sector, and all of the members of that sector will

adhere to that code of practice, which will be an enforceable set of

expectations for protection of the environment by that sector.

MacPhail: So in order of importance, I guess we could say that the

definition of the industries, trades and businesses in terms of categories of

risk is first in importance, and then these codes of practice would be the

second level of importance, because that code of practice will determine how one

lives up to the risk category in a legal way. Will any industry bodies,

businesses or trades be subject to the need for individual permits now, or is it

all sector-based?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, there will be some sectors where individual facilities will

still be required to get a permit. Those are industries like smelting, like pulp

production. Sort of major industrial facilities will still require a permit.

MacPhail: How does the ministry organize itself? Are there two different

groups of staff, one that monitors compliance with a code of practice and

another that issues permits? How will this work?

Hon. J.

Murray: The compliance function is carried out by different staff than the

permitting function, and the compliance staff will be monitoring the adherence

to the rules — whether it is the permits rules or the code of practice. It

will be different staff that issue permits than those that do the compliance

function in the ministry.

[1600]

MacPhail: What role will first nations play in establishing these codes of

practice?

Hon. J.

Murray: We haven't begun our consultations on codes of practice at this

point. As we get to the stage of doing that, we'll be developing the list of

appropriate stakeholders to consult.

MacPhail: We have had feedback from first nations around their hope and

belief that they should be involved as a stakeholder in establishing both codes

of practice and those…. I assume — maybe I'm wrong on this — that part of

the consultation will determine who gets subject to permitting and who gets to

work under a code of practice. Is that correct?

Hon. J.

Murray: The initial consultation will be identifying which of the sectors

will be governed by permit and which by codes of practice. The consultation in

the development of a code of practice will be a separate process.

MacPhail: Yes. Thank you.

Will the

consultation on development of codes of practice include any input from the

general public?

Hon. J.

Murray: Yes, it will.

Section 14

approved.

The

Chair: At this time, with agreement, we'll have a five-minute recess.

The

committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Sections 15

to 20 inclusive approved.

[1610]

section

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank you for your accommodation. I appreciate it —

and to the minister.

Section 21

begins the

section on regulations for the purposes of this part that we're

discussing, which again is "Prohibitions and Authorizations," so this

is the first of several sections in the bill that provide the regulatory powers

for various parts and divisions of the bill. It provides the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the power to make regulations, but

section

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

[ Page 7425 ]

ing codes of practice. What model are these — the two avenues of

regulation-making — based upon?

Hon. J.

Murray: Various jurisdictions, including Alberta, have divided

regulation-making powers into different levels to reflect where flexibility is

needed in terms of updating and making changes.

MacPhail: Where does this exist elsewhere — the dual stream of

regulation-making?

Hon. J.

Murray: Well, I did mention Alberta, but other jurisdictions as well.

MacPhail: No, I meant here in British Columbia.

Hon. J.

Murray: We're not aware of other legislation that has the two streams. The

contaminated sites regulation did have two streams that were the director's

ability to make certain decisions on and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

make another set of regulations.

MacPhail: Well, the reason why I'm exploring this is, one, because of its

unique nature and, two, because so much of this legislation will be done through

regulation and there's no ability to discuss it in this chamber. Therefore, the

public is not only required to rely on the goodwill of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — i.e., the cabinet — but now must also, I

gather, rely on the goodwill of openness and transparency from the minister of

the day in this portfolio.

[1615]

My third

point on this — those are the first two — is that at the end of each of the

regulation-making description sections, there's a repetition that says that

section 139 — "Regulations, general rules" — applies for the

purpose of making regulations under this section. So we have regulations done by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and there are about 22 categories that allow

for the cabinet to make regulations. They're also given the ability to have the

general rule-making apply for that, and then the minister has about 24

subsections where she can make regulations. Then she also gets access to

section

139, the general rules for applying for the purpose of making regulations under

this section.

It does

seem to be the delegation of a lot of power outside of the context of statute,

and that's why I was looking for a model other than Alberta, in any other form

of legislation, where this exists. It's unusual, and the minister's explanation,

other than it exists in Alberta, just doesn't…. It's not calming my concerns.

Perhaps the minister can explain what 21(2) and 22(2) are there for.

Hon. J.

Murray: These are standard clauses that are in most legislation, which

govern regulation-making powers.

MacPhail: Well, again, I've been away from legislation-making for quite a

while, but the difference between this government and previous governments is

that clauses 21 and 22 in legislation would often negate the need for

article

139. You either have regulation-making — the general rules — or else you

have the specific rules as are listed here under 21 and 22.

In this

particular case, this government has not only now had two streams of

regulation-making, which is unusual, but then we have the general

regulation-making as well. Did anyone comment on a government putting so much

into regulation-making, as opposed to legislation, in your consultation?

Hon. J.

Murray: In the consultation there were a number of comments, both pro and

con, from environmental groups and comments, both pro and con, from industry and

business. By far, the majority were favourable to this concept, as it introduces

responsiveness and flexibility into the regime.

MacPhail: So the vast majority were in favour of two streams of regulation.

Hmm, that's interesting. I have no way of challenging that statement, but I see

the people on the other side say it's absolutely true.

I'm a bit

taken aback by the people who deal with…. I can understand the industry

wanting two streams, but I would be surprised if municipalities, ENGOs or first

nations believe that two streams of regulations are their preference. What

happens when there's a conflict between regulations in

section 21 with

regulations in

section 22?

[1620]

Hon. J.

Murray: I don't see that there would be conflict.

Section 22 is the

minister's authority to establish codes of practice. Those would be governing

different sectors than the regulations would be governing, so I don't see that

there would be conflict.

Just a note

in terms of the rationale. The highest-risk activities and cross-government

issues are incorporated in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulation-making

powers.

Section 22, the minister's regulations, which are the codes of practice,

are related more to ministry-level issues, and they are policy-level issues.

MacPhail: Let me just say something that jumped out at me where there could

be a conflict. In

section 21, there are quite specific regulations made around

packaging and disposal of that packaging. In

section 22, there will be

regulations around audits of that packaging and disposal of packaging. The

minister doesn't see that there could be conflict between those two — about

when to audit, if to audit, how to audit, what to audit?

Hon. J.

Murray: The one is how you handle the packaging, and the other is how you

check the handling of the packaging.

MacPhail: Let me read into the record, then,

section 21(1)(s), regulations

made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council: "…requiring prescribed indus-

[ Page 7426 ]

trial, commercial and institutional operations or classes of operations to

conduct periodic packaging or other waste audits, and prescribing the terms and

conditions of the audits, including to whom reports should be made and other

reporting requirements."

Then if you

look at minister's regulations with codes of practice, it says…. I'm sorry;

let me make sure I've got that. The other one was

section 21(1). This is

section

22(2)(u): "…requiring prescribed industrial, commercial or institutional

operations or classes of operations to conduct periodic packaging or other waste

prescribing to whom reports should be made and other reporting

requirements." No potential overlap there?

Hon. J.

Murray:

Section 21(1)(

s) is dealing with operations that are not covered by

a code of practice,

whereas

section 22(2)(

u) is dealing with operations that are

subject to a code of practice. It needs to be dealt with differently, because we

are considering the two different streams that we were discussing before.

[1625]

MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware that one applies to organizations or trades

that need a permit and another that will be subject to codes of practice. But

what happens if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has more rigorous tests for

those subject to permit than for those established by codes of practice? What

happens when there's a difference and there's a conflict?

Hon. J.

Murray: There may well be more rigour in the audits of the higher-risk

operations and sites, and that's appropriate. So there may well be less rigour

in the ones that are listed here for the purpose of

section 138(2)(s), because

those are deemed to be a lower risk of problem.

MacPhail: I guess what I'm asking is: are there challenges that can be made

in terms of application of regulation between the two streams? I can't find out

from the minister who is going to be in either stream, so this is a hypothetical

debate — believe you me, not by choice. I'd love to know who the higher-risk

organizations, trades and businesses are going to be, requiring permitting,

versus those who will be subject to codes of practice, but I can't. That

information is not forthcoming today.

Let me ask

this: has the minister received any legal advice on potential challenges to the

two different streams and the two different applications?

Hon. J.

Murray: The Attorney General's department says this scheme works.

Sections

21 to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

MacPhail: This begins a new

part 4 in the legislation called

"Contaminated Site Remediation," division 1,

"Interpretation." We therefore have a new set of

definitions and

interpretation for this part.

Now, the

minister had an advisory committee on contaminated sites. I actually have that

report here, but I know the minister's very familiar with it. It was published

in 2003. The chair was Margaret Eriksson. I'm wondering whether the minister can

tell me the cost of the minister's advisory panel on the contaminated sites

final report.

Hon. J.

Murray: The cost of the panel process was approximately $500,000.

MacPhail: How much was Ms. Eriksson paid?

Hon. J.

Murray: I don't have the exact figure for the chair, but we can certainly

get that for the member, if you'd like.

MacPhail: Well, yes. I'd like it now, if I may. Otherwise, I'm going to

report a figure that is rumoured. And $500,000 for a report is an interesting

amount. I'd like to know what portion of that $500,000 went to Ms. Eriksson.

Does the staff not have that available?

Hon. J.

Murray: No, the staff doesn't have that figure here, and yes, we can get it.

MacPhail: Good. I hope we get it during this debate, please. It does seem to

be unusual that the minister wouldn't have that available.

Now, the

minister hinted in her second reading speech that contaminated sites will be

dealt with more fully in the spring session. What did she mean by that?

[1630]

Hon. J.

Murray: The panel's recommendations were quite comprehensive. We're staging

in changes to the contaminated site remediation process. The first set of

changes are in this legislation that we're debating now, and we're contemplating

putting forward another set of changes which I hope to table in the House in the

spring. That will be a second phase.

MacPhail: What's the thinking behind a two-stage process? The auditor

general's report has been available for — what? — almost a year now. So why

two stages?

Hon. J.

Murray: The complexity of this regulation is the primary reason. We want to

talk with people from all viewpoints on this issue. Also, there's a considerable

number of organizations that are involved in court actions around contaminated

sites. We have to be very careful that we don't have any unintended consequences

of changes we may make, so we're proceeding on a careful basis.

MacPhail: Referring to the minister's advisory panel on contaminated sites

final report of January 2003, I refer to the executive

summary. On page 2 of

[ Page 7427 ]

that executive

summary, under the heading "What Stakeholders Told the

Panel," there's this: "According to stakeholders, there are four main

problems with the current system of regulating contaminated sites." The

second point is: "The ministry charged with this program is understaffed to

deal with its legislated tasks in a timely fashion and, because authority is

delegated to regional managers, lacks consistency."

What has

the minister done? I asked the minister earlier whether there had been any

delegated authority to regional managers, and she said no, that this delegation

to directors was the first time this has occurred. I was taken aback by that.

What has the minister done in terms of this legislation to deal with the issue

of adequate staffing? On contaminated sites first, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: In terms of the comment about lacking consistency, that comment

reflects part of the rationale for the change that the member and I were

debating earlier around having a single statutory decision-maker — i.e., the

director — as opposed to having separate statutory decision-makers in each

region. That actually ties into the rationale for the change we made. I may not

have explained that clearly enough.

In terms of

not having adequate staff — the comment that was made to the panel — I would

say there's an infinite demand for government staff to be available to do things

in the public interest, and there's limited staff available in virtually every

ministry at any time in any decade. The job of government, the job of a

minister, is to make the best use of the staff available, and that is part of

the rationale for the changes we're making here. We need to have people focused,

again, on the sites that present actual risk to health and the environment.

Previously, there were sites with no identified risk that were tying up people's

time.

MacPhail: Yeah, I've heard that several times. Could the minister give an

example of that — no identified risk tying up staff time? Just a couple of

examples would be enough.

[1635]

Hon. J.

Murray: An example, in answer to the member's question, is that under the

previous regime, if you had a site where one compound was above a prescribed

level in the soil, but that contaminant was completely contained and had no

pathway to reach water, fish, people or the air or create any risk to the

ecosystem or human health, that would still be considered a contaminated site

and would need to follow all of the steps in the regime that might be

appropriate for a site where the compounds actually did present a risk to human

health or the environment.

MacPhail: I was actually asking for specifics, like specific examples,

because we did discuss this issue at the Public Accounts Committee according to

the auditor general's report, where there were government caucus members who

raised exactly the same questions. They'd heard the same rumours. It was the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission who raised this. The auditor general staff came

back and said no — it's in Hansard , so feel free to do it — that the

application of contaminated sites level of scrutiny is virtually the same as in

other jurisdictions in Canada, and, indeed, it's the use of the land that

determines the attention that it gets. That was the auditor general's staff who

investigated that.

When I

heard the minister say this again, I wondered. I want specifics. It's one of

these things where this government just sort of presents things in a broad brush

— the past was awful, and that's why we need change — and they never give

specifics. I would refer the minister to the auditor general's staff comments

around that very specific issue where there's complete disagreement with what

she just said.

We're

talking here right now about availability of staff. There's a recommendation out

of her minister's own advisory committee saying that stakeholders say there's

inadequate staff. The minister says the way they've dealt with that is to say

staff were doing inappropriate activities in the past. I want names, I want

examples, and I want cases, because that doesn't cut it — what the minister

just said.

Hon. J.

Murray: Just a clarification. The auditor general's staff were auditing

Crown land remediation, not all sites in British Columbia. They were focused on

the remediation of Crown land. I do agree that the assignment of numerical

levels of different compounds is something that is done in all jurisdictions.

British Columbia was somewhat unique in that the operational approach under the

contaminated site regulation was that a risk-based assessment and a risk-based

option were very rarely selected, and the regime was highly dependent on those

numerical standards.

I'm not

actually clear what the member is saying about the inconsistency between the

auditor general's report and what we're attempting to do in this legislation and

what I've been saying this evening. If the member could clarify the question.

MacPhail: I would be happy to do that. This

section is about contaminated

site remediation. The minister's advisory committee on contaminated sites deals

mainly about remediation or the consequences of contaminated sites and

remediation. Part one of the recommendations that I've asked the minister about

is inadequate staff to deal with legislated tasks in a timely fashion.

The

minister responds by saying that in the past under the old regime, staff were

doing inappropriate, unnecessary tasks around contaminated sites remediation.

I'm saying that's wrong. That was addressed by the auditor general both in the

report and subsequently in a Public Accounts meeting, where the sort of

broad-brush statement that inappropriate tasks were carried out doesn't hold up

to the test. That's why I was asking the minister about it.

My question

is about what tasks specifically they were doing in the past that were

unnecessary and inef-

[ Page 7428 ]

ficient, case by case. The minister didn't answer. That's the connection to

all of this.

[1640]

Hon. J.

Murray: Any implication that I was criticizing the staff for doing

inappropriate tasks was certainly not my intention. What I was saying was that

all sites were being treated as though they had the same level of risk, because

that's the regime under the contaminated site regulation that the staff have

been applying, and the staff have been carrying out their tasks according to the

regulation.

With the

new regime, staff will not be devoting time and effort and scrutiny to the

low-risk sites. They will be focused on those that actually present a risk to

human health and the environment. That is our response to the question: do we

have adequate staff? Well, yes, if we have those staff focused where they are

needed as opposed to being busy applying a complex regime right across the

board, dealing with a few molecules of compound over a standard and no pathway

to humans or the ecosystem in the same way as a site of major concern with major

risks to people and the environment.

MacPhail: Yes, and I was not accusing the minister at all of undermining the

staff. I was definitely not doing that. What I was saying, though, is that this

government does broad-brush stuff, saying the previous laws said all sites got

treated the same, and therefore, regardless of risk, staff were doing exactly

the same work.

That

question was put to the auditor general's staff, and they said: "No, that's

not the case." The amount of investigation and application of staff time

was directly related to the risk by use of that site. If it was high risk

because of what the site was going to be utilized for, then more rigour was

applied, but if the site was not going to be used for high risk, then the rigour

was not applied. Staff were not doing their jobs in a way that wasted their

time, or whatever. That's what the auditor general's staff said as recently as

last week.

Now we have

a situation where the government has made massive cuts to the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection, and somehow things are going to be better in terms of

contaminated site remediation because of this legislation. Well, let me ask

this. In estimates, I think it was, the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management, who was heading up the cabinet committee on contaminated site

remediation, informed me that in the '02-03 budget and '03-04 budget a total of

$400,000 is budgeted for contaminated site remediation. What portion of that

$400,000 is out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection budget?

Hon. J.

Murray: None of that budget is out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection.

Just to go

back to the previous debate, I do want to clarify that the auditor general staff

were auditing the remediation of Crown land only. That's a small subset of the

total issue of contaminated sites. How the private sector is engaged in the

remediation of contaminated sites is not always the same as the public sector. I

think it's not accurate to extrapolate from the auditor general's comments about

Crown land remediation where staff may have been more inclined to take a

risk-based approach than the contaminated sites outside of Crown land, where the

regulation did result in the scenario I've described where staff were engaged in

the very low-risk sites as well.

[1645]

MacPhail: Well, then perhaps the minister could give me details from the

private sector, where she says there was inappropriate or unnecessary

application of regulation. That's all I'm asking for, and I have yet to have an

example.

Hon. J.

Murray: Just for the member's information, we'd be happy to pull some of

those files. We have dozens and dozens of files of sites that couldn't be

classified as high-risk sites and yet were being regulated according to the

numerical standards approach. We'd be happy to provide the member with that

information, if she requests that.

MacPhail: How's the minister coming along on the money paid to Margaret

Eriksson?

Hon. J.

Murray: We believe that it'll be along shortly.

MacPhail: The definition under this

section now talks about contaminated

sites. It has a definition of contaminated sites, defined as those areas that

are polluted by hazardous wastes or other substances but only in excess of

risk-based criteria. As the minister has just demonstrated, the previous

criteria included a risk factor. In fact, the control of pollution has always

been risk-based in this province in the private sector and on public lands. Now

the risk-based concept is being introduced into law but with no definition.

I also

note, in

section 63(1)(

n) of this legislation, that it's the minister who gets

to decide on the risk-based criteria. Given that we don't have a definition of

"risk" in the act or its regulations, and since it's now the minister

and not cabinet who gets to decide how the risk is to be measured, how will the

minister demonstrate confidence that British Columbians can embrace risk-based

factors? Also, how will the minister be able to demonstrate confidence that

there will be no pressure to approve a risk-based standard in order to, for

instance, speed up the sale of land?

Hon. J.

Murray: The levels of risk to health, in terms of a percentage of a thousand

people that might contract cancer from a compound — those kinds of levels of

risk — are already identified in the contaminated site regulation. In the old

regulation there were barriers to using the risk-based approach, which is why

most of the site owners chose not to go that route.

MacPhail: Okay. For those of us who don't work for the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection,

[ Page 7429 ]

could the minister explain that a little more — that there are regulations?

Is she going to continue on with those regulations? Has she removed the barriers

to using the risk-based approach? Perhaps she could fill in the gaps there.

[1650]

Hon. J.

Murray: Two of the barriers to using the risk-based approach in the past

have been…. One has been in and around the conditional certificate of

compliance. We are addressing that in this rewrite.

Another

barrier had to do with the fact that a site would be considered contaminated

whether or not there was really a risk or a low risk. It was determined as a

contaminated site as soon as the compound levels were over an identified

standard. That's being changed, and a site will not be considered contaminated

unless the compounds exceed the standard levels and there is a pathway to human

health and the environment that constitutes a risk.

Part of the

rewrite of the regulation that we'll be doing concurrently as we move forward

will be to bring the standards for the compound levels in line with other parts

of the country and in line with the research of the human health risk of those

compounds.

MacPhail: I gather the minister means by saying that we've dealt with the

barrier of the certificate of compliance by moving to a code of practice

model…. How has the minister dealt with that barrier?

Hon. J.

Murray: In the previous regime there was a conditional certificate of

compliance and a certificate of compliance. The certificate of compliance was

issued when the site owner chose the standards-based remediation approach. The

conditional certificate of compliance was issued when the owner chose a

risk-based approach. The market established a different value for those two

certificates, and the conditional certificate of compliance became a barrier to

choosing a risk-based approach. I hope that answers the member's question.

MacPhail: Yes, thank you. It does. But what did the market do with those,

that the minister is now suggesting the market should prevail and eliminate the

conditional certificate? What happened there? It doesn't sound like it was

legislation. It sounds like the market did something.

Hon. J.

Murray: There was a perception of a difference in the validity of choosing a

risk-based approach or choosing a standards-based approach.

MacPhail: Okay. Which did the market place a greater value on? In whose

interest was the market value increased or decreased?

Hon. J.

Murray: Whether a certificate is a conditional certificate of compliance or

a certificate, it's equivalent from the ministry's perspective. It's a

certificate that the conditions are in place to ensure that the site is safe.

This was not an

interpretation that was always placed on it by the lenders.

There was a

prejudice against the conditional certificate of compliance that then skewed the

application of this regulation and these regimes towards the standards-based

approach, which led to the overly complex, expensive and prescriptive manner of

dealing with sites that did not necessarily have any risk to human health and

the environment.

MacPhail: This is a government that believes strongly in the market. Here we

have two systems, one a standards-based approach and the other a risk-based

approach, both of them available under the previous regime. The market

determines that there is less value attached to the certainty of a risk-based

approach.

[1655]

Sorry. The

staff is saying that's not true. I thought the conditional certificate of

compliance was through the risk-based approach, and the minister said there was

less value placed on that through the lenders, through the market. That's what

I'm saying.

The lender,

the market, the financiers say there's more value attached to a standards-based

approach, and yet that's the one the government is eliminating. They're going to

a risk-based model almost entirely. The minister is somehow suggesting that the

perception created about a standards-based approach versus a risk-based approach

is having them now move toward the lower standard, according to the market.

Hon. J.

Murray: I think we're dealing with a perception issue, and we're also

dealing with a reality issue. So in answer to the member's question, both the

risk-based and the standards-based approaches will be available to be chosen

under the regime that we're proposing, as it was before.

There was a

perception that the standards-based approach was better, and in fact, in many

cases it was a worse approach. So a lender could not necessarily know the

details behind this relatively complex regime in which every situation has

unique features. The fact that the standards-based approach was perceived by

some lenders to be more valid was actually inaccurate in some cases, because the

standards-based approach led to what was called a dig-and-dump remediation

solution in which the soil was dug up, transported to another site and unloaded

at that site.

That

actually in some cases occasioned a release of organic chemicals and volatile

materials into the atmosphere and into the surrounding environments. So the

perception issue is being addressed here by having one form of certificate of

compliance, which actually is consistent with the fact that — whether the

remediation is under the standards-based approach or the risk-based approach —

before a certificate is issued, there are conditions that will assure the public

of the safety of that site.

MacPhail: Well, it's interesting. This free enterprise government is saying

that the market got it wrong, and government knows best. Now we have

[ Page 7430 ]

legislation here that says: "Gee, market. Gee, financiers. You got it

wrong, and we're going to show you got it wrong by changing legislation."

Maybe there

was actually something to the fact that the market placed greater value on a

standards-based approach. Dig-and-dump sounds a little like Ralph Klein's

"shoot, shovel and shut up" comment that got him in so much trouble.

Anyway, in deference to my colleagues, I think that I'll move on, because others

have questions as well.

I have one

other question on this

section on

definitions. In the current act an orphan is

defined as "(

a) a contaminated site for which a responsible person cannot

be found or is not willing or financially able to carry out remediation in a

time frame specified by a manager, or (

b) a contaminated site of which a

government body has become the owner subsequent to the failure of the former

owner to comply with a requirement to carry out remediation at the site."

[1700]

I remember

lots of discussion around orphaned sites and what happened to them, but I see

this definition has been moved to regulation. Why is that?

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. J.

Murray: I'm advised that the leg. counsel advised this as a drafting

convention, that the determination of an orphan site would be in accordance with

regulations as opposed to defined in the act.

MacPhail: A drafting convention — hmm. I'm not quite sure what drafting

convention that could possibly be, because there are other

definitions in that

very same section. This is a

section of

definitions, and the previous

section

had a definition of an orphan site, and this one doesn't. For instance, it has a

section called contaminated sites, etc. Anyway, whatever.

What

drafting convention…? It's just not acceptable. I mean, I'm not in any way

suggesting that that isn't the reason why it was done, but it does seem to be a

little bit curious that the definition of an orphan site…. Orphan sites often

create a great deal of controversy and expense for government in terms of

remediation, so it does seem to be a bit unusual that all of a sudden those

sites are now no longer defined and perhaps will be defined according to what

the government wishes to have as the description of an orphan site in order to

lessen costs on their own purse.

Mr. Chair,

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague in the Legislature, but I do await the

answer on the money paid to Margaret Eriksson for the final report of the

minister's advisory panel on contaminated sites.

[1705]

The

Chair: Member, do you have no more questions up to

section 44? Okay.

Sections 39

to 44 inclusive approved.

section

MacKay: I'm a bit confused. These questions I'm going to ask might better be

asked under

part 5 dealing with the mining

section of Bill 57, but I think I did

hear the minister state that the regulations would define what a hazardous waste

was — the regulations that will flow from this act once it's proclaimed. Is

that right?

Hon. J.

Murray: There is currently a special waste regulation that covers the

management and regimes around hazardous wastes, so that exists. What I was

saying earlier was that we are about to engage in a consultation with the range

of stakeholders as to how that regulation could be changed and improved and

updated.

MacKay: The reason I ask is because I'm going to ask specifically about

sulphuric acid. It is naturally occurring in rock, where sulphuric acid reacts

with the sulfides in the rocks. The catalyst to get it leaching, of course, is

exposure to water and air. How do we determine at what point sulphuric acid

becomes a hazardous material if, in fact, it's occurring naturally?

Hon. J.

Murray: Currently, any level of sulphuric acid is defined as hazardous

waste. That's under review, and we'll be working with the science advisory panel

and with health experts as to what level actually does constitute a health risk.

We're engaged in that consultation now.

MacKay: So what we have in place today could change with this rewrite. Is

that what you're saying?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's correct. That could change with the amendments to the

regulation.

MacKay: Now, looking at

section 45, where it deals with the following

persons who are responsible for remediation of a contaminated site, it talks

about the current owner or operator of the site, and sub (

b) talks about a

previous owner or operator of the site. Should it be a small mining operation

and if the owner or operator dies, does the liability issue die with him if

there's a contaminated site generated from his activities?

Hon. J.

Murray: That liability would follow the deceased's estate, and there would

still be an obligation to clean up the site.

MacKay: I also have questions on

section 46, if I can proceed.

[1710]

Section 45

approved.

section

MacKay:

Section 46 is a

section in Bill 57 that deals with the people who

are not responsible for remediation, and sub-sub (

d) is somewhat…. I think I

[ Page 7431 ]

understand what you're doing there. It says that an owner or operator who

establishes that at the time the person became an owner or operator of the site,

if he knew that the site was a contaminated site or he's taken all steps to try

to establish whether or not it was a contaminated site, he is now exempt from

any liability on remediation. Is that what I'm reading there?

Hon. J.

Murray: That's what that

section says. I just would like to point out that

at this stage there's no change from the Waste Management Act. This

section is

the same as the Waste Management Act,

section 26.6. There are, of course, the

liability issues around contaminated sites that were discussed by the panel, and

there were recommendations made. We're consulting on the liability regime over

this coming year. It's not part of this first set of changes, though.

Sections

46 to 52 inclusive approved.

section 53.

MacPhail:

Section 53 is about the approvals in principle and certificates of

compliance. We've had a little bit of discussion about certificates of

compliance. In this particular section, in reference to compliance with the

remediation order, the current act states in

section 27.6(3)(a)(

i) that the

remediation has been in accordance with (i) "prescribed risk-based

standards and prescribed environmental impact standard."

This bill

states, in accordance with (i), "the numerical or risk based standards

prescribed for the purposes of the definition of 'contaminated site.'" So

the new act, as I understand it, has removed any reference to compliance with

the remediation order, any reference to prescribed environmental impact

requirements. I thought I heard the minister say that risk-based standards and

risk-based assessments and standards-based compliance would still be available

under the new act. Where is the

section elsewhere in the legislation that adds

prescribed environmental impact requirements, which are the standards-based

applications?

Hon. J.

Murray: In

section 53(3)(a)(i), what it says there is "the numerical or

the risk based standards." So the numerical is the standard just based on

the numbers. The risk-based is based on the potential impact on the environment.

So that covers both.

MacPhail: So "prescribed environmental impact requirements" of the

previous act has been replaced with the word "numerical"?

Hon. J.

Murray: The term that the member is asking about is included in the

risk-based standards description, which covers risk to environment or risk to

human health.

[1715]

MacPhail: Okay. But what I understood is that under the previous