1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 23
[ Page 8263 ]
The House met at 2:02 p.m.
N. Lortie: I'm pleased to have two guests in the gallery today. My first guest is a young man, Graham Johnson. Graham is almost 11 years old and already a political junkie. He's interested in everything to do with politics, and that's why he's here today. My second guest, who is Graham's mother and probably the reason for his interest in politics, is Her Worship Mayor Beth Johnson of the municipality of Delta. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Reid: I have three guests in the gallery today. They are colleagues and dear friends from the Richmond School District. I ask the House to please make welcome Maureen McDermid, Toni Morrison and Charan Gill.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce to the House a former councillor of the city of Vancouver, a former teacher of mine -- but don't hold that against him -- a professor at the UBC school of planning, an international consultant and a member of the board of directors of B.C. Transit, Dr. Setty Pendakur. I ask all members to make him welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: In the members' gallery today is Her Excellency Judith Trotter, the High Commissioner for New Zealand to Canada, accompanied by the New Zealand consul general, Mr. Irvine Paulin, who is based in Vancouver, and Mrs. Judith Paulin. I would ask the House to make these blokes welcome.
J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to welcome a very special group of visitors. The city of Duncan has a sister town in Africa -- Meru, Kenya to be specific. With us today we have Mr. Andrew Gituma, mayor of that town; Mr. Mwai Githegi, the town clerk; and Mr. Peter Kabutu, the building inspector and works officer. With them in the gallery is Mr. Mike Coleman, mayor of Duncan, and Mr. Paul Douville, the city administrator. Would the House please help me make these very special people welcome.
D. Symons: I don't know if they are in the gallery behind me, but they are due in the precincts shortly. Mr. Robert Moore-Stewart is the lawyer for the Vancouver Island Peace Society in their legal challenge to the federal government on the environmental review of nuclear ships in harbours. Dr. Fred Knelman, whom I've known for a good number of years, is very involved with peace and environmental issues in British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.
H. Giesbrecht: It's one of those rare occasions when somebody from my constituency makes it down here. I am pleased to introduce Miss Debbie Smoley from Terrace. Would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like to introduce to the House Mary Elizabeth Bayer and Lee Boyko of the Heritage Advisory Council, who are here today to witness first reading of the heritage bill.
D. Mitchell: It's not every day that a member of this assembly achieves a milestone like the one achieved by the member for Matsqui, who turned 70 years old yesterday. I wonder if, belatedly, the members would wish him a happy birthday.
HEALTH PROFESSIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. E. Cull: This is an omnibus bill that makes a number of identical or nearly identical amendments to the individual statutes which regulate health professions in British Columbia. The regulatory bodies for 19 health professions will be affected by the amendments. Among these are the College of Dental Surgeons, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Registered Nurses' Association, the College of Chiropractors and the College of Psychologists.
The bill adds five standard provisions to improve the accountability of the regulatory bodies and to improve their ability to deal with complaints regarding incompetent, impaired or unethical practitioners. These five provisions will clarify the duty of a professional college to act in the public interest at all times, including: a requirement to establish a patient relations program to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature; a requirement for a minimum of one-third public representation on the board of each regulatory body; the requirement of an annual report to government from each body; the granting of new powers to assist boards to act on complaints from the public about the practice of health professionals; and giving the board the ability to suspend, prior to a hearing, a practitioner who may pose an immediate threat to patients.
The 15 statutes affected by this bill will be the subject of a more comprehensive review by the Health Professions Council starting in the fall of this year. However, the government considers these particular amendments so significant and essential that we have chosen to make them now. The amendments will enhance the ability of a professional college to regulate its members more effectively and to more clearly protect the public interest.
Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 8264 ]
HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. D. Marzari: I am pleased to introduce the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, for first reading. The purpose of this bill is to provide a comprehensive set of legislative guidelines for the protection, conservation and stewardship of the province's heritage resources. This bill provides amendments to the existing Heritage Conservation Act, the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter and the Islands Trust Act.
These changes will bring heritage into the legislative mainstream of this province by integrating heritage conservation with local governments' general powers and authorities. The legislation gives local governments substantive regulatory tools to improve community heritage conservation. It gives owners and developers the opportunity to make investments based on informed choices, and it provides property owners with a fair and substantive process when their properties are affected by heritage designation. The bill puts new and tougher provisions into place to deter and punish wilful offences against B.C.'s heritage resources.
The legislation is the product of extensive consultation. Since 1987, when former MLA Kim Campbell launched the Project Pride Task Force, thousands of British Columbians have participated in developing this bill. To honour a throne speech commitment made by this government, we have initiated a precedent-setting level of consultation with B.C.'s first nations people. At an aboriginal heritage symposium at Cape Mudge and at other gatherings, we have heard first nations express great concern regarding stewardship of their heritage. This legislation will initiate a formal, cooperative working relationship between government and first nations on aboriginal heritage resources. It will help B.C. communities by offering provisions to establish heritage registries and heritage conservation areas. These discretionary powers can be adopted by local governments as heritage is integrated into community planning.
In summary....
The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.
Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DEBT
J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Once again British Columbia was embarrassed by our Premier when he failed to understand the table talk at a federal-provincial meeting the other day. The Prime Minister, the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Premier of New Brunswick, among others, understood the nature of the conversation. Even Bob Rae, who chose not to attend the dinner, understood the nature of the conversation. My question to the Minister of Finance is: why didn't the minister encourage or advise the Premier to not get into complex discussions over an issue such as the deficit, which he clearly didn't understand, which led to British Columbia once again being a national joke?
Hon. G. Clark: British Columbia has been systematically discriminated against by the federal government for some time, particularly when it comes to the off-loading of federal deficit responsibilities onto the provinces. The cap on the Canada Assistance Plan alone is costing B.C. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more than it costs seven other provinces in Canada. The Premier put forcefully to her the kind of fair treatment and representation that we expect from a Prime Minister from B.C., and no more off-loading of federal responsibilities onto the backs of British Columbia taxpayers will be tolerated.
[2:15]
J. Dalton: The Minister of Finance can spare us the lectures on off-loading and the deficit. We understand those issues. Before the next federal-provincial meeting, will the minister advise the Premier that there's a difference between passing the salt and passing the buck?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to say that the Premier of British Columbia put squarely to the Prime Minister from British Columbia that we expect the federal government -- and her in particular -- to uphold its duty to make sure that B.C. is well represented for a change and that further off-loading will not be tolerated. We expect our fair share from this country, which historically we have not received, whether it's procurement policies or the off-loading of federal responsibilities. The Premier of British Columbia put that forward very aggressively and straightforwardly to the Prime Minister, and we expect her to live up to the commitment she has made to British Columbians as the first B.C. Prime Minister in Canada.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Dalton: I'll let the Minister of Finance off the hook; my final is to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour once again be acting as the official or otherwise interpreter for the Premier at the next conference?
Hon. M. Sihota: It seems to me that all British Columbians expect the Premier of the province to stand up and make demands with regard to B.C.'s problems to protect our fiscal integrity. I'm pleased to report that the Premier did so vigorously, and all British Columbians would expect the Prime Minister, who
[ Page 8265 ]
comes from British Columbia, to do the same on their behalf.
CLAYOQUOT SOUND
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. It involves Burnaby-Kingsway MP Svend Robinson, who has been dubbed the White Swan by the Haida nation. The White Swan has flown the coop this morning in the Clayoquot Sound. I wonder if the Deputy Premier can assure us that if he reappears on a picket line, the White Swan will face the full weight of the law, and that no favouritism will be shown.
Hon. A. Hagen: The courts are responsible in this province for administering the law of the land. I am sure that they will do so without fear or favour.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can address my supplemental to the Minister of Environment, who brought forth legislation in this House that calls for a $20,000 fine for people who trespass on Crown land. Can the minister assure the House that even though Mr. Robinson is an NDP MP, he will be eligible for the same $20,000 fine, should he reappear on the picket line in Clayoquot Sound?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is referring to a bill that was passed in this House, dealing with illegal trespass, often by corporations. In the interests of protecting the environment, it behooves government to have appropriate maximum fines. It is mischievous on the part of the opposition to suggest that that is intended for some other purpose. I can assure the hon. member that there is absolutely no intent to use that section of that act to deal with Clayoquot in any way whatsoever.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: The opposition also notes that Mr. Sid Parker, the MP for Kootenay East, has been on the grounds with a picket sign about the drawdown on Lake Koocanusa. Can the minister tell us whether he would be eligible for a $20,000 fine for demonstrating on the lawn of the Legislature?
Hon. J. Cashore: You would think that the hon. member, in hearing a reasonable and responsible answer and a commitment from the minister, would do the right thing and not perpetuate the myth that he has sought to perpetuate in a most inappropriate way.
TATSHENSHINI DECISION
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister advise the House if she is responsible for the provincewide ad campaign on the Tatshenshini decision? Was it her decision to blow $200,000 on this propaganda campaign boasting about the demise of mining in British Columbia under the NDP?
Hon. A. Edwards: The government was indeed responsible for the ads. The ads make very clear to the people of British Columbia that we have made a decision to preserve a precious, important, ecologically rare area that we feel should be preserved. We make no apology for that whatsoever; we believe it's an important area to be preserved. It was a preservation decision that we made, and yes, it was a government decision.
R. Neufeld: The ad proclaims: "...the government of British Columbia, representing all the people of our great province, presents the nation and the world with this gift -- Tatshenshini." [Applause.] You can clap after the next part. Does the Minister of Mines actually believe that her gift of billions of dollars of lost revenue truly represents people in the mining industry? Does she honestly believe that she has represented the 2,000-plus families whose potential jobs in the Tat were wiped out by her generosity?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are a number of things that we like to say following this decision, which shows leadership in the world. It shows leadership in looking to the areas that deserve to be preserved as a precious resource. I might say that the government's 800 number, between 7 a.m. on June 30 and 9:30 a.m. today, July 6, has received 5,007 telephone calls from people requesting the information package on the Tatshenshini area. It is an issue that has considerable support from the people of British Columbia.
I might also say that the mining industry of British Columbia continues to operate here, as we continue to support them to do. Gibraltar Mines has just announced a $500,000 feasibility study for an expansion at Gibraltar. We are very proud of that. We support the mining industry, and we expect it to continue to work in British Columbia.
R. Neufeld: I doubt that the 5,000 calls were all positive.
Isn't that minister the least bit bashful about touting the so-called Canada Day gift, when the only thing she's given B.C. miners is a kick in the teeth? Does she think that a special, limited-edition Tatshenshini commemorative poster is fair trade-off for unemployed miners who have been badly betrayed by this NDP government?
Hon. A. Edwards: We have worked with the mining industry, and continue to work with the mining industry, to ensure that they operate in British Columbia. They know that we are going to protect 12 percent of the area of British Columbia and that the areas that are going to be preserved have great value. The Tatshenshini is such an area, and we have preserved it. The mining industry is an important industry; we continue to work with it and do everything we can to have them make the kind of announcement that Gibraltar Mines has just made -- a $500,000 feasibility study for an expansion.
[ Page 8266 ]
D. Jarvis: A follow-up to the Minister of Mines. The mining industry is, in actual fact, packing their bags and leaving British Columbia because of this bad decision. I just briefly want to ask the minister: is she comfortable with the fact that she has become the Chilean mining industry's latest poster girl?
B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The labour dispute at B.C. Rail is costing the railway millions of dollars -- approximately a quarter of a million dollars a day -- as well as causing harm to various shippers dependent upon rail transport. Can the minister guarantee that customers' products and passengers will get to their destinations?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In any open system that allows collective bargaining, from time to time disputes will occur. If you prefer to live in a society where collective bargaining is not permitted, I would suggest that you look at a few parts of the world...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: ...where it isn't and see how well they do.
D. Symons: My supplemental is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Trade and Business.
An Hon. Member: Small trade -- there you go.
D. Symons: Small Business.
An Hon. Member: You got it right!
D. Symons: I got it right by accident, but nevertheless....
This protracted dispute is posing a serious threat to the economy of the province, particularly in the interior. What steps is this ministry taking to protect threatened businesses and jobs from the economic hardships brought about by this government's inability to achieve labour peace within this province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member knows, it's a matter that the Labour minister will deal with. It becomes a dispute resolution....
Just to remind you, trade is up for B.C., bankruptcies are down, business start-ups have increased, retail sales are up dramatically, housing starts are up, and the B.C. economy will survive this....
The Speaker: Order, please.
NEW CHAIR OF ICBC
L. Hanson: I listened with interest to the answer of the Minister of Highways on the negotiating process. Maybe if they don't like what happens, they could legislate some changes to it.
But seriously, another question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On June 30 Miriam Olney was quietly appointed chair of ICBC. Can the minister advise the House what specific qualifications or NDP credentials Ms. Olney has for the job? Did her former position as director of pensions and benefits for the United Food and Commercial Workers make her especially qualified for this position? As the OIC didn't contain it, could he also inform the House what her salary might be?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The new chair of ICBC will be serving as a part-time chair. Her qualifications are good. She has been responsible for the management of a large pension fund, where she has acquitted herself well. I fully expect that she will acquit herself very well as a chair of ICBC.
Hon. L. Boone tabled the 1992-93 annual report of B.C. Systems Corporation.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 63.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 63; E. Barnes in the chair.
[2:30]
On section 1.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we could get an explanation from the minister for the changes in section 1. These are: adding the definition of the president, as appointed under section 84; some changes in the definition of the worker; and particularly the inclusion of the Municipal Act and other provisions -- the city of Vancouver, among others. I guess the final part, (c), is just a resulting amendment due to the changes in the act.
Hon. M. Sihota: I am waiting for staff to arrive. Let me point out that these are consequential amendments that are required as a result of the changes that are being made in other sections of the bill. The changes with respect to section 2(1)(f) will bring those areas that the hon. member just outlined within the parameters of the legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: That is fine. If the minister doesn't have anything further to add to that, I guess we will come to the substantive portions of those amendments later -- the changes to municipalities, urban areas, improvement districts, etc.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
[ Page 8267 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 2 is one of the more profound sections. I have to admit that I have some fairly substantive concerns relating to this section. Again, it's not that it's not a laudable intent for governments to try and do these types of things. It's nice to give everybody the warm, fuzzy feeling that they are protected, and in many cases it is justified. However, I am not convinced that the government has done the number-crunching here, the financial impact assessment, that would indicate what the impact of these changes is going to be on businesses and corporations.
The Workers' Compensation Board has a deficit of about $100 million, and it's anticipated to go up to $280 million by the end of the year. That is no small sum; in fact, it's quite substantial. Given that the government is broadening the base of people who will be covered, to include virtually every employee and employer in the province, I would have thought they would have done a financial impact assessment on what those costs are going to be to the businesses that will be affected and how that is all going to relate. Perhaps the minister can give us a bit of an explanation for the rationale.
Hon. M. Sihota: I will make a number of points. First of all, with regard to the comments the hon. member made about the unfunded liability, it is very true that there is an unfunded liability at the Workers' Compensation Board. I am as concerned about that as the hon. member and the critic for the Social Credit Party. I don't recall this issue being canvassed during estimates -- in terms of the unfunded liability; I'm not talking about WCB coverage. I just want to reiterate points that I would have made then. The unfunded liability problem is of significant concern to me. I took the liberty of meeting with the board in April to explain the government's concern with regard to the unfunded liability. I have no difficulty in sharing some of my thoughts in that regard. Other jurisdictions have had significant problems with regard to unfunded liability. I believe one of the reasons that other jurisdictions have had those kinds of problems is because they have not nipped them in the bud. In other words, when it has first started, they haven't dealt with it in a expeditious way. At its April meeting, I asked the board to develop a strategy to deal with the unfunded liability. I know that request was well received, in particular from the employer community. I expect that at its next board meeting, which I believe is on July 17 or 19, I will have a strategy to deal with the unfunded liability. I want to assure the hon. member that the issue of the unfunded liability is as important as the issue of expansion of coverage, as we have provided for in this legislation. It's a very high priority in terms of us wanting to get on with dealing with some of the problems of the WCB. We've done a lot, as the hon. member knows, both in terms of this legislation and in the initiatives brought forward in terms of workers' advisers and expansion of regulations to farmworkers and occupational violence. They were given a period of three or four months to come up with a strategy. They have been working on it, and I expect that strategy to be made available to me at that time.
Returning to some of the fiscal problems or the cost issues that the hon. member outlined, there is optional coverage. Over time, we have been in a position to develop optional coverage for some of the areas not covered under the current legislation but which would be contemplated to be covered in their entirety by this legislation. I would be happy to share that information with the hon. member regarding the cost of that optional coverage -- for example, the assessment rates in the medical area.
As indicated during second reading debate, those people who work in medical, legal and dental offices are not covered by WCB. We are endeavouring to get them covered through this change, which I think is welcomed by those people who work in the field. For doctors' offices, for example, we would anticipate assessment rates of about $1.09 for every $100 worth of assessed payroll; in an architect's office we would anticipate something in the neighbourhood of about 18 cents for $100 worth of assessed payroll; and -- I'm trying to look at something that's on the other end of the spectrum -- guide service tours, hunting and fishing, would be looking at coverage in the neighbourhood of about $4.03 per $100 worth of assessed payroll. Those are the rough ranges that one would be looking at in what is contemplated by this legislation and what we would anticipate costs to be.
Under the provisions of the workplace health and safety act, we already engage in regulation of premises not currently covered under WCB. That will be covered once this legislation passes, should it meet with the approval of this House. You have to realize that we are already incurring some costs through this system to regulate those worksites. It's not as if we would be looking at significant additional costs if we were to engage in examination of those sites.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to get into it, but as the minister brought it up, I would encourage him to review the questions that were asked of him during the estimates on workers' compensation. I'm sure he'll realize that in many cases -- in fact, in almost every single case -- he refused to answer questions as they related to the Workers' Compensation Board. So it wasn't due to the opposition not asking the questions; it was the fact that we hit a brick wall. I believe the media commented at the time that the minister was less than forthcoming in that area. I'm sure the member from Vernon will agree.
The minister gave an example of a couple of places that these calculations have already been done, particularly with dentist, doctor and architectural offices, and with hunters and guides. There are a wide range of others, and I intend to go through them in some detail, although not by list or by rote, to try to find some examples there and to find out what preparations have been made. Perhaps the minister can advise us as to what calculations have been done relating to domestic workers in the province, and what site inspection is going to take place to evaluate those work locations and to set an appropriate rate.
[ Page 8268 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Just a couple of points. First of all, the rates that I just quoted, and the rates which I will be quoting as we go through this exercise, ought to be considered in this light: they are a reflection of what we currently would, and do, provide coverage for. What will often happen is that on a voluntary basis, a doctor's office -- using that same example -- will make an inquiry and will indeed be covered, but it is optional coverage; it is not mandatory. This legislation will change it to make it mandatory. I quoted the figure of $1.09; remember that as we move to a mandatory scheme, the pool will expand, and in theory the rates should drop. I guess the same caveat will apply for all other areas that are referred to.
With domestic services, our current experience -- and this is what the rates have been predicated on -- indicates an assessment of about $3 per $100 of assessed payroll. But as I said earlier on, that's based on current experience with the small pool of coverage that we have at this point -- a pool that will expand.
Inspections will occur on a complaint basis.
G. Farrell-Collins: How does the minister anticipate that this complaint process will work, as it relates to domestics? Would the domestic go to the director of workers' compensation, an inspector or some person within the body, and lodge the complaint themselves? Is that the direction that the minister is planning to take?
Hon. M. Sihota: Complaints are directed to the occupational health and safety division within the Workers' Compensation Board. A complaint can come in directly from an individual, through an advocacy group or, quite frankly, on an anonymous basis. The determination is then made as to whether we should investigate.
[2:45]
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll come back to the complaint process in a bit, because I do want to spend some time on that.
The minister stated that these investigations or inspections will be done on a complaint-driven basis, and that a $3-per-$100 figure is currently in operation. Are there a large number of domestics covered by workers' compensation? Is it ten, 500 or 10,000? I don't know what the number is. If so, how valid is that information going to be in setting those rates? What are we likely to see? If it is a small number, I would anticipate that those employers would be more concerned with it as an issue and would probably take the necessary precautions. My concern is that if you broaden it to include all domestics, you may find that you will be covering workplace environments that are not as safe as those of good employers who have taken the precautions. In this case, are we perhaps going to see an increase in the cost per $100, as opposed to a decrease?
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a couple of points. We'll use the example of domestics that you referred to. Currently someone will shop around for insurance coverage, and they will contact both the private sector and the Workers' Compensation Board. The rates are generally a bit lower in the private sector. People will not go to the Workers' Compensation Board unless the private sector won't pick them up -- and that's usually because they have a poor record. They will end up with the WCB, and our rates are a little higher as a consequence.
With regard to homemakers, let me tell you what the experience has been in jurisdictions elsewhere in the country. I guess that's some evidence to rely on in terms of what might have happened in British Columbia. Like I say, we have a rate of about $3, based on the small pool we have right now. In Manitoba the rate is $1.73 to $2.10; in Ontario it's $1.81; in Quebec it's $4.20 -- so it's a little bit higher there; in New Brunswick it's $1.65; and in P.E.I. it's 96 cents. You have to understand that you could be comparing apples and oranges here in terms of the nature of the service. In terms of a trend, I guess that speaks for itself. It's generally lower than $3, with one exception. But again, with a broader pool of mandatory coverage, you can bring those rates down.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think the minister is correct in saying that it is difficult, because you are comparing apples and oranges. He knows, as indeed most employers do, that the coverage that exists from province to province varies widely, and the types of benefits that accrue to an injured worker vary widely. As a result, of course, the costs also vary widely.
I guess my concern is that we're looking at such a range. We're looking at $4 in Quebec and at 96 cents in Prince Edward Island. That's a fairly substantial differences. One amount is 300 or 400 percent higher than the other one. I'm wondering how much of a base we already have to work with in this province to give us the $3 amount. Is it a substantial base, a small base or a moderate base, or is it virtually non-existent? It's important to have an idea of what that number is so that we know how valid the sample size is.
Hon. M. Sihota: The sample base in British Columbia would be small, and the numbers in the other provinces.... You can always fuel whatever argument you want on whatever numbers are given to you. I gave them all to you. I said right at the beginning that there are differences in coverage. Obviously there are going to be differences in the experience they have in those jurisdictions versus the kind of experience we may have here in British Columbia. Just quickly looking at them, the amounts seem to average out at around $2, and we're at $3. Two dollars is probably a bit on the higher end of the estimate.
Obviously, as time goes on, we'll develop a better base to work from. As I say, we have a small base here in British Columbia. We know that about 4,000 domestics in the province would be covered. If you want a benchmark figure based on our experience of the small sample we have in B.C., it's about $3. If you want benchmarks elsewhere, you can see what the range is. I suspect that we'd come somewhere within that range. It will depend on the experience that we have in B.C.
[ Page 8269 ]
But I would caution the hon. member. I understand that you want to seize on the highest number in debate. Somehow that helps people make their point, but you have to understand that we have the lowest assessments in the country. Quebec has, if not the highest, the second- or third-highest. I think that's reflected here on the domestic side as well. If you look at the system that we offer and assessment rates that we provide to industry in British Columbia, we're actually on the low end in terms of assessment rates and on the high end in terms of the coverage that we provide. So we also have to put that into the mix when we consider these numbers.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've been using this instance of domestics as an example and as a means to focus the discussion. I'm not trying to seize on the highest or the lowest numbers; I'm just trying to get an idea what the numbers are. It's becoming obvious that the minister doesn't know exactly what these numbers are going to be. He has a ballpark range. Again, the coverage and services applied in this province are substantially different. It makes me a little nervous when I see this type of legislation and I don't have any hard numbers with it. I don't have the minister saying: "We're expecting it to be in the $1.80 to $2 range."
I would assume that the minister had done those actuarials before we got to this stage. How much of this work has already been done by the minister? How much of this has been anticipated by the minister? How many of these numbers -- not just for domestics but for the other range of people who are going to be covered -- have been calculated in advance, so that we know what the impact is going to be for employees who are going to be covered and what the rates are going to be for people who are going to be paying them? Has any work been done to find out what those firm figures are, or is this going to take place over the next little while?
Hon. M. Sihota: If you want me to say it's going to cost $1.83 for domestics on $100 worth of assessment, I can't. Obviously, when we prepare for this type of program, we do some background work in order to read what we think the range will be. I can tell you that the range, based on experience elsewhere in the country, varies from about $1 to $4 -- 96 cents to $4.23. I can tell you that the experience we've had in British Columbia resulted in an assessed level of $3 at this point. I can tell you that because that sample base is small and will expand, we will likely see the numbers drop. But I can't give you any harder information than that. I would argue that the information I've given you is not particularly soft. I think it gives a good indication of where we will settle.
I can't predict what will happen in a particular industry five or seven years from now. You can ask me about forestry, which is covered, but I can't crystal-ball that now. I can give you some guesstimates, based on our actuarial experience, of what I think it might be -- just as much as I can in this case. That's what I am doing.
G. Farrell-Collins: That answers my question to a certain extent. Those numbers aren't done. The minister is going to do it over some period of time. I note that this bill comes into force by regulation, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Could the minister give us some indication of what the transition period is going to be to allow those types of assessments to be done so that we can come up with a firm figure that these employers can then be charged and which they can in turn pay?
Hon. M. Sihota: We don't underestimate the magnitude of the chore here. After all, 15 percent of B.C. workers currently don't have coverage. Therefore it will take some time to do the necessary calculations, do the necessary education and gather the necessary information. Some of that is done; some of it remains to be done. It could be as long as six months before every worker in the province is covered, but we need the legislative mandate to start the work. We'll breathe life into the legislation when we've completed that work. The board will be establishing a subcommittee to begin some of this work once the legislation is passed, and then we'll establish the rates. We have no mandate to go out and do the required actuarial work on site or with the employers until we've got the legislative mandate. Once we have the mandate, we'll get on with the job.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says six months. I guess we'll see what happens.
The minister says that he doesn't underestimate the magnitude of the job they're taking on. What allocations of staffing and costs have been or will be put into play to deal with the implementation of this program over the next six or eight months? It will probably be a full year before the whole thing is up and operating properly.
Hon. M. Sihota: First, as I said earlier, we do have regulatory responsibilities for some areas already, under the provisions of the workplace health and safety legislation in this province. This will end up dovetailing those responsibilities into the workers' compensation system. Second, we already have people who do this work. Obviously we will utilize that base to do some of the work in addition to their current duties. Third, as I think I mentioned during second reading debate, the board has passed a motion requesting the government to move in this direction and introduce the legislation. I wish to point out to the hon. member that this board was established by the previous administration. There hasn't been any change since we've come to office except, I think, two members, and that was because people resigned. The board, through the CEO at WCB, will have to add resources. Some will be permanent, some will be temporary. Obviously you want to use the full measure of resources that you have now, and you want to be prudent in doing additional hiring. That's the approach that I'm sure the board of governors will take when they make those management decisions.
[3:00]
[ Page 8270 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I am not convinced and I am not comforted by that answer. I guess the past history is the reason. We are dealing with a board that has a $100 million deficit, shooting for $280 million, and the minister is now telling us -- despite his earlier comments that they didn't nip this in the bud or didn't get on top of it earlier -- that somehow he is willing to bring in this legislation. He is comfortable and confident that that group of administrators is somehow going to deal with this in a fiscally responsible way. On the one hand, I suppose the minister is chiding the board somewhat for the unfunded liability. On the other hand, he is giving the board his unmitigated confidence that they will be able to take care of it in the proper manner. I am not sure that the employers of the province are as convinced that this will be handled in a cost-effective way.
I wonder if the employees who are there already have the time to take on a job of this magnitude, as the minister stated. What are they doing now with their spare time? How much spare time do these people have? It seems to me that it is a big task; the minister admitted or offered that it is a huge task. How are these people going to take on this job? If they do, how many people are we looking at bringing on board? Do we have any firm figure on the number of FTEs that will have to be brought on board to implement this policy decision?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, in terms of the hon. member's opening comments with regard to the unfunded liability, there was a surplus in Workers' Compensation, I guess about two years ago. The unfunded liability last year was $97 million. Although it is expected to go up this year -- and I will grant him that -- I am not too sure if his $280 million number is right. I would venture to say that it is probably off the mark. We have a plan that I asked for to deal with the problem once it became evident. It will be dealt with, and we will nip this thing in the bud. I am determined to make sure that that occurs.
The administration will decide on how it will allocate resources to do this; they will make the determinations with regard to FTEs. They haven't done that yet. The board, under the statute, has a responsibility -- and I will quote the section -- to "develop policies to ensure adequate funding of the accident fund." I am sure that they will do that. So when the senior administration of the board makes those determinations, they will report to the board, and the board will make the determination.
I have never been an advocate of having to get out and say: "I want X number of FTEs hired at this point to look after this problem." I think you are better off to try to marshal the resources you have and to make sure that you have the maximum benefit of that, before you go out and start hiring FTEs.
I have no difficulty advising the hon. member as to the final costs of administering the implementation of these changes, but anything now would be just a guesstimate.
G. Farrell-Collins: I am sure that those numbers will be available, no matter how difficult they are to find. If the minister gives them to us, that will be nicer. Often we don't receive those numbers. The minister says that it is a guess; that somehow -- within its mandate, of course -- the board has to deal with these issues. Nobody is arguing that point. When the minister asks for a policy decision to be implemented, I would assume that he would also request some sort of an estimate of what the costs and the impact will be, before making that decision. I would think that in weighing the options in one's mind of going ahead, not going ahead or somewhere in between, some dollar figures would come into play, there would be some accounting process, and the minister would request some indication of what those implications are. I accept the minister's explanation that this hasn't been done in this case. I don't agree with it; those numbers should be done before the decision is made. In this case the minister has made the decision to spend the money before he knows how much money is going to be spent. He has made the decision to hire people before he knows approximately how many people are going to be hired. That's the way he operates. It's not the way I would operate, but we disagree on those two things, and I suppose that's what makes us different politically.
I want to follow up on the minister's comment that he addressed the issue of the unfunded liability when it became apparent. My understanding from his earlier comments was that this unfunded liability has been around for over 18 months or so. Last year it was $97 million. In fact, I am using the corporation's own estimates to cite the $280 million; those aren't numbers I thought up. If the minister just asked for an unfunded liability reduction plan in April and he's going to get it in July, I would say that he didn't act -- nor did the board -- right from the start, but is acting, as he stated earlier, after the fact and has caught this late in the game. I'm glad to see that there is some plan and that there was some direction given by the minister, no matter how belated, to address that unfunded liability problem. I hope it is addressed, not just on the backs of those paying the fees for workers' compensation but also in some part, or in great part, by looking at the administrative costs of Workers' Compensation to make the corporation more efficient and leaner so that it offers a better product and better service at less cost. Those are the things all organizations are having to do these days in difficult times. I would hope that it is going to continue.
I guess what we've discovered so far in this section -- and I know the member for Okanagan-Vernon wishes to get involved, so I'll yield to him -- is that we have set a policy direction and we are heading off on it without the groundwork and without the fiscal and staffing calculations being done, as approximate as they might be. We have embarked in a political and philosophical direction without doing the groundwork ahead of time to find out what those costs are. That is an important distinction. It is important that it be on the record also, given the record of one of the last policy decisions brought forward by the minister, the matter of the fair wage policy, which, despite opposition
[ Page 8271 ]
comments and opposition from the general public, proved to be, in the minister's own terms, a disaster. I will yield to the member for Okanagan-Vernon.
L. Hanson: I haven't been here that long -- not as many years as the Chairman, obviously -- but for a number of years I have had a number of requests from various people concerning WCB decisions. Most of the requests were from people who were covered by the WCB; in fact, they had been denied coverage, or whatever. As I recollect, I did have a request from ski agencies for coverage for their patrol people during the ski season. I never actually had a direct contact from a part of industry or business where coverage was not available to them. Maybe the minister can give us some idea of where the initiative for this broad expansion of the coverage has come from. Was it from a particular sector of business? Maybe he can give us some idea of where the energy came from to bring this in, because during the years that I have been here I have never really had a concentrated lobby from a particular sector of industry or business that felt that coverage should be applied to them and wasn't.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to deal with the comments from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. The budget for the workers' compensation system deals with about $4.5 billion a year, so the shortfall of $97 million last year in relation to that large budget has to be looked at in that context. In that case you would expect, when you are dealing with a budget of that size, that there will be years when you run surpluses and years when you generate losses. The swings are 1 or 2 percent, and we have obviously hit a swing which has resulted in a loss. We expect to remedy that quickly.
There are a number of reasons for that, one of them being the fact that the rates were depressed by the previous administration. I am not going to get into a long diatribe on that point, but I think it's fairly well known that the previous administration made a conscious decision to bring down the surplus. A lot of decisions were the subject of debate in this House, with regard to those calls on the surplus. Be that as it may, we have to deal with the consequences of those earlier decisions in arriving at the situation in which we find ourselves. That's water under the bridge. We have to correct it, and we will.
I don't want him to think that no work has been done, as indicated by the tenor of his comments with regard to the administration of this policy. I want him to understand that this is a request of the board. The board was duly diligent before it made its request to government. That gets me to the point the member for Okanagan-Vernon made.
First of all, the request did come from the board of governors, which unanimously requested that the coverage be extended. As part of their ongoing work, they felt it was an appropriate time for them to cover this gap in coverage.
Secondly, there were lobbies from different elements in society. I know that performers were active in their lobbying of the Minister of Tourism. Domestics certainly have been very vigorous in their lobbying. And I think the hon. member appreciates that domestics have been very active in their lobbying in a number of areas, including areas that deal with the minimum wage and employment standards. We have obviously got another review there, so that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. We received lobbying from the medical side, and to a lesser degree from the legal side -- both from unorganized and organized workers.
Quite frankly, when I took a look at the issue, I had to ask whether one should simply extend coverage, let's say, to a subset of those that weren't covered, or whether one should just move full measure with the policy. Obviously, with the motion from the board and the philosophical question of whether there is a reason for people not to be covered, the board felt it was a right move for the public interest to proceed with the full extent of coverage.
Yes, there was some lobbying. Yes, there were some decisions at the administrative end -- certainly at the board level. And yes, to some extent it was a decision on policy made by government. So it was a combination of variables that arrived at the formation of this amendment.
L. Hanson: I do acknowledge that during my short experience I had some lobbying from domestics as to working conditions and pay and employment standards issues. I have to honestly say that I never had one domestic lobbying situation for workers' compensation coverage, so the minister's experience has been quite different from mine. But I can also understand why the WCB might be interested in the initiative. I'm not sure that business as such could say that they would be interested in that coverage and that it wasn't available to them. But we have a difference of opinion there. I'm a believer that there should be an initiative on the part of someone before you make a social change such as this. The philosophies of this government and of our party are diametrically opposed, but that's all right.
I just wanted to point out to the minister -- and I'm sure he's aware of it.... He suggested that there was a distribution of surplus. As I understand how the WCB process works -- and maybe it has changed -- it's in a pooled type of application: if certain industries have exceptionally good performance, they are rewarded by a reduction in the rate applied to the payroll; if they have a particularly bad record, then the rate goes higher. Each of those funds is calculated separately -- not necessarily kept separately -- so that there can be an annual calculation of the performance of a particular pool. If the performance is good, there's a surplus; if the performance is bad, there's an increase in rates, and more funds need to be put into it.
[3:15]
In that context, I think the minister would agree that any distribution of surplus would not have a direct effect on that some $100-odd million deficit that they're planning, or at least experiencing, this year. I don't think there's doubt in anyone's mind that out of the some $4-odd billion WCB budget, a $100 million or $150 million deficit is cause to look very seriously at the operation. But it's a signal that there has to be some scrutiny of the operational process to ensure that those
[ Page 8272 ]
sorts of things don't happen again. Given the $150 million deficit that they're talking about, can the minister report on what the various pools are doing? I'm sure some of the pools have quite a surplus and some quite a deficit. So I think that the minister's suggestion that the past government caused this situation by distribution of surplus requires some very close scrutiny and that it will not bear up under that examination.
I assume the minister is suggesting that these new WCB clients, the 15 percent of the workplace that's not covered now, will fit, generally speaking, into the same pool or category. Each of the categories is assessed a part of the costs of administration of the workers' compensation program on the basis of some formula. The claims are automatically paid out of the pool, but there has to be an assessment to each of the pools for the administrative part of it. I suppose that if this 15 percent coverage that is not there now is put in place -- as it will be because of the government's majority -- it could be that a pool has no claims to cover, but there is an administrative claim against that pool. Is that not correct, Mr. Minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that's possible.
L. Hanson: I guess having established that.... This section of the act brings in very broad coverage for everyone, although it does give the board the opportunity, by regulation, to exempt certain categories. Does the minister anticipate that those categories would be exempted on application by the type of business that coverage wasn't needed for because there had never been a workplace difficulty, or would it be done strictly at the discretion of the board without outside lobbying? Which way would that regulation be driven?
Hon. M. Sihota: The work to implement these matters and the criteria for exempting will be established by the board of governors. It will be possible for employer groups to make application for exemption if that's the case. There will be hearings to determine whether or not an exemption should apply. That's how I anticipate it will work. I would expect the board to develop criteria. Once this legislation passes -- which I'm sure it will, as you say -- they will get on with that job.
L. Hanson: There's a list of 50 or 60 different kinds of businesses that are not covered now but that this act will automatically cover, other than those that might be exempted by regulation of the WCB. They would be obligated to provide the coverage; it's not voluntary. Such diverse things as bed-and-breakfast operations, legal services, mailbox rentals, preschools, play schools and physiotherapy offices will all be covered unless the board gives a specific exemption. This list of business operations and employees is quite broad; as the minister says, about 15 percent of the workforce is encompassed by this.
It seems to me that one of the difficulties with workers' compensation is the delay in the decision-making process. We did canvass this just slightly during the estimates. As an example, some of the workers' advisers who counsel people about working their way through the system have caseloads in the area of 100. The rehab consultants who provide advice to injured workers have caseloads in the 90 to 100 range. There is good evidence that before a workers' adviser can deal with a new file there is a delay of 60 to 90 days before they can even respond to a request for assistance. There is pretty good evidence to say that two to four months is not an unusual length of time to wait for a response from a rehab consultant adviser.
Can the minister assure the Legislature that the WCB can take on the workload that we are talking about here, in a reasonably competent manner? The system seems to be having great difficulty in functioning efficiently at the moment -- or at least what we would accept as efficiently. If I have heard of any difficulty with workers' compensation coverage, it's the fact that it takes so long to work your way through the maze to get a decision and, if you don't like that decision, to appeal it and get a look at the case file and so on. I hope the minister can give us some assurance that this broad undertaking is not going to create more difficulties than many of the workers are already experiencing.
Hon. M. Sihota: We have about 200,000 cases a year in workers' compensation, and 97 percent of the cases that come before the workers' compensation system are handled to the satisfaction of the worker, in the sense that the claims are accepted and processed. About 6,000 cases a year fall between the cracks, and we deal with those 6,000. First of all, many of us in our constituency work as MLAs.... And as the hon. member knows, it's still those 6,000 who really are the ones that end up coming through the doors of our constituency offices. You get the feeling that they all come through your office, believe you me. We have to make sure that the rejected claims are dealt with in a smooth way. I've been very candid in terms of my frustration with how they have been dealt with in the past. And I have shared with members of this House steps we are quite proud of that we are taking to change the review system to make sure these cases are dealt with in a far more expeditious way.
I'm not going to repeat all the good stuff that we're doing, although I'm tempted from time to time to do that -- the two-form process we have established; the hearings which we can now have within 30 days and decisions within 90 at the review board; the backlog that has been cleared up at the appeal level; and the work that we have been doing, still are doing and certainly enjoy doing with the medical review panels. I think we are making remarkable progress in the area of establishing additional workers' advisers in different regions of the province, and so on. All those good things will help deal with those 6,000 cases in a far more expeditious way. I don't deny that there are some costs associated with doing that. But as I said earlier, justice delayed is justice denied with regard to those cases.
With regard to the quantum of work that would arise under these provisions, you have to remember that a lot of these cases are low-risk occupations.
[ Page 8273 ]
Therefore there are cases that will simply fall in the category of medical aid. We're not looking at significant wage loss; we're looking at primarily processing costs related to physicians, and maybe a day or two off here and there. Some will obviously be bigger than those which we will have to deal with, and with some there will be more cost to the board. Because of the nature of the work we are capturing by this legislation and the associated risks of that work, we are not anticipating the volume levels to be anywhere near as great as to place an onerous demand on the system.
L. Hanson: The minister has just detailed the differences in our philosophies. There probably isn't a burning desire or need in the workplace for this expanded coverage, because the minister anticipates that there are going to be very few applications for claims. But be that as it may, I have to acknowledge that the minister is correct in saying there are 200,000 cases a year and that we don't hear of the majority of them. I suppose that due to the very nature of our responsibilities as MLAs, we get cases before us that are a problem, as opposed to hearing about those who are happy with the service. I can accept that.
I guess the only point I am trying to make to the minister is that there are some inefficiencies in the WCB that need to be brought forward with great haste and cured. If there is any difficulty in our society today.... Some of these workers' compensation cases have fallen between the cracks, and they are really the ones that very badly need attention. My only point to the minister is that maybe we should be cleaning that up before we take on a bunch of new responsibilities that may make the problem more difficult than it is now.
Hon. M. Sihota: I agree with a lot of what the hon. member has had to say. It is true that there are philosophical differences between the party he represents and the party I represent, which in part explains these decisions and why this legislation is before the House. I make no apologies for holding the view that all workers in British Columbia ought to be covered by workers' compensation, regardless of whether they are a low risk or high risk. We on this side of the House take some pride in introducing legislation that expands the scope of coverage to every worker in British Columbia. In any event, as you said: "Be that as it may...."
[3:30]
You are also right in that there are inefficiencies in the system. I've said that in the estimates, and I have no hesitation in saying it here again today. I'm not totally satisfied with the inefficiencies in the system, and I expect the place to run in a far more efficient way. Believe you me, I've made that abundantly clear to those who are entrusted with the administration of the system, because I share those concerns. As the hon. member knows, one of the benefits of the experience he has had, and that I am having, is that you get to see how various bureaucracies work. It doesn't take very long to be able to pick out areas where you know that things work very well and areas where you know they don't.
As a consequence, we have established a set of priorities for the Workers' Compensation Board. I've shared those priorities, and I'll share them again. Yes, we expect administrative efficiencies. Yes, we expect a better system to deal with the 6,000 cases that are rejected, and that's why we made a series of announcements in that regard. Yes, we expect that the unfunded liability will be dealt with, and we made that abundantly clear to the board. That's why I expect a report on my desk by July 19 laying out the plan. If it's not satisfactory, they won't have much time to improve on it. Yes, we believe it's important that the scope of coverage be extended, and we've done that in this legislation. And yes, we believe that workers' advisers' offices should be available to people in Prince George, Kamloops, Victoria and Nanaimo just as they are in Vancouver. These are changes that we are introducing.
I don't believe that I should just bring in one change and leave it at that, and then move to the next one when that is fully done. We've laid out some objectives that we want them to work on over a time frame, and they've been told to work on those. I guess that's the beauty of the privilege we have in doing the job we do, and it's what gives us satisfaction in the work we do.
The priorities have been defined to the board. They've been asked to meet those objectives, and I'm sure that they will.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to move down just a bit, if we can, to section 2(2)(a) and (b). Could the minister be a little more specific and give us a wee bit of an explanation as to what that means? I think I've grasped it now, but the wording is relatively complex. My understanding of it is that the board may allow an independent contractor or employer to apply for workers' compensation coverage for themselves and cover themselves as the employer; however, they're not required to do so. That optional inclusion exists until such time as they hire an employee, at which time they must provide the coverage for that employee. Does that optional coverage for themselves continue even if they have employees, or does hiring another employee change their status?
Hon. M. Sihota: I was going to say yes, I follow every aspect of what you have to say, and yes, you are totally right. But I didn't anticipate that question at the end of the day. I've just asked staff to phone and get an answer to that question.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess that's really the only implication. Until I have an answer, it's difficult to have follow-up questions to it.
Hon. M. Sihota: We'll come back to it.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, we can stand that down, I suppose. I think the member for Vancouver-Langara has a question or two.
V. Anderson: On the exemptions by order of the board, have you given the board some criteria or guidelines to indicate the kind of groups that would
[ Page 8274 ]
have exemptions? I hear you have said to the board that there are certain things you want done in a number of areas by July 19. Have you given some criteria -- or conversely, has the board, in putting this forward to you, given some criteria that the community might know about -- that would be a guide to who would have an exemption or not?
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said earlier on -- and I appreciate that you may not have been here; I wasn't looking to see if you were or weren't -- there will be a delay from the time this legislation is passed till it's actually implemented. The board has indicated that they will develop the criteria once the legislation is passed. That's what the board's job is, so they will do that. Then they will decide which areas will be exempted, and they may have to have hearings to do that. With some jurisdictions -- for example, professional athletics is the classic one that comes up -- the board has provided a blanket exemption. So it does have the prerogative to do that in that kind of situation.
V. Anderson: I have been here, I think, throughout all of this discussion. I just sit here quietly behind the scenes.
But I assume that one has done some research and planning for this in putting it forward. From the other boards that you examined across the country, is there some example besides the one you mentioned of the kind of areas that might have exemptions or might consider themselves as having exemptions?
Hon. M. Sihota: It varies from province to province -- for example, professional athletes. I just used that example because I knew the Chair would be interested in knowing whether they were or they weren't. Certainly in his day they weren't.
Domestics, for example, aren't covered in some jurisdictions. That again is a policy decision that governments often make. The system that we have here in British Columbia is a little different from other jurisdictions, because the board is directly appointed by government, and quite often the decisions fall more in the category of political decisions. The previous administration, through legislation, set up the board in a particular way, and the board is far more independent here in British Columbia than these kinds of boards are in other jurisdictions. Performers are another example of a category of people who would not be covered in other jurisdictions. Interestingly enough, in British Columbia performers have requested this coverage.
V. Anderson: Is one of the criteria for exemption based, on the one hand, on political decisions and, on the other hand, on a requirement by the board to balance their income and outgo?
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't see how that would be. I can't really explain all the decisions that other jurisdictions make, and I'm sure the hon. member doesn't really expect me to do that. But it is an experience....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Finish your hand signals. It's like the coach at third base telling you whether you should steal one here or not.
An Hon. Member: He sees an opening.
Hon. M. Sihota: Just make sure there are no curve balls.
Because it's an experience-rated system where you actually pay for the experience that you have in a particular sector, I don't think it would generally hold that decisions would be made on those fiscal considerations.
L. Hanson: I just noticed in the minister's reply that there might have been an implication that coverage was not available. Coverage has been available to everyone under workers' compensation. We're not talking about a lack of availability of coverage; we're talking about mandatory coverage. There's quite a difference. I just wanted to make that point.
Hon. M. Sihota: Employers -- if this is your point, and I think I made this point earlier -- could opt in, but employees couldn't.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the employer had to agree to the opting-in.
V. Anderson: I'm wondering about how two areas will fit into this. I'm wondering about persons under 19 -- students working at A&Ws and these kinds of places. Are they covered now, and will they be required to be covered -- those employees under adult age? The other ones I'm wondering about are volunteers who are working in non-profit and charitable organizations. Are they required, or do they have the option, to be covered under this as well?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll just deal with your questions in the order they came up. First of all, a 17-year-old student working at A&W would be covered right now. There is no exemption on that basis unless you are under 19 years of age and a member of the employer's family. That is just a quirk in the legislation, but basically if you're working at A&W and you're 17, you're covered in the legislation.
I believe your second question related to voluntary organizations and whether they would or wouldn't be covered. They are not captured by the definition of worker. We just went through a situation in Houston, British Columbia, which I know the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine actually wrote to me about. They would not be covered. There are actually exemptions in the legislation that deal with that kind of situation.
If I may, I have an answer to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. He inquired about whether or not an independent operator who could opt in would lose that coverage if they hired one employee. The answer is
[ Page 8275 ]
no. If they opted in as an employer, they would still be entitled to the coverage.
V. Anderson: A number of church and other groups that I am aware of have covered their employees through insurance coverage rather than through workers' compensation. Is that option still available to groups, or are they now forced to give up their insurance and go under workers' compensation instead?
Hon. M. Sihota: If they are a worker under the act, then they will now be covered by workers' compensation. If they are a volunteer, then the status quo would remain, and they would have to go outside of workers' compensation to get the coverage.
V. Anderson: That helps, because these are workers who have been covered under insurance instead of under workers' compensation. They could have been covered under workers' compensation, but it was voluntary.
[3:45]
One of the difficulties when people try to get advocacy groups is finding non-governmental advocacy groups they can have some rapport and trust with that could operate on their behalf. It seems to me that it could be a very important aid to both the government as well as to the people who are trying to do this. In attempting to broaden this scope, will you give some support to advocacy groups so that they might be able to do this in a more effective way -- at least their administration funds, because most of them are volunteers, to enable them to do advocacy work which would be beneficial to the clients as well as to the government?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I really understand the question. I'm not sure what you mean here by advocacy groups. Do you mean groups that would advocate on behalf of employees to get coverage, and would we provide them with assistance to make sure that they get that coverage? Is that what the hon. member is asking?
V. Anderson: No. There are persons who are probably under coverage now, and you are extending their number. They are finding that their employer, their union and the government people they're going to are not able to meet their needs, to advocate on their behalf and go with them to the WCB to help them understand the consultation. We have found in many areas that having a volunteer with training and experience who has a similar kind of feeling for the person and who the person trusts, can be a tremendous help to everybody. It's an advantage to the worker, the client and the total system, and if we're extending this to the broader area.... One example would be nannies who have an association and an understanding of each other. If there was a support group of that nature to help them out with language and with translation and understanding, that could be very important to those advocacy groups.
Hon. M. Sihota: I am not sure if the hon. member is aware that this is well outside the scope of this legislation. We are getting into stuff that is best left for estimates.
We have established workers' advisers. We are starting to move them around by setting up offices around the province. We opened one in Prince George in December, we have just opened one here in Victoria, and we have committed to opening an office in Nanaimo later this year. We have also made commitments elsewhere in the province.
The experience in Prince George has been that once we establish the workers' advisers, the advocacy groups go by the way, because they had always advocated the need to have government assistance for those workers. That has been our experience in those situations.
We have hired people who are proficient in more than one language, and we are continuing to do that. We have made information available in more than one language to deal with some of the difficulties people have in accessing the system.
I should caution that we are well beyond the scope of this legislation, and I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in this.
G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the answer to my earlier question, the minister stated that hiring an employee would not preclude that employer or independent contractor from opting in for coverage for themselves. Is there any size limit to that? Is it ten or 100 employees? Or can any business person, as an employer, opt for coverage for themselves under workers' compensation?
Hon. M. Sihota: If the employer wants to opt in, regardless of size, they can receive the coverage.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess there is a bit of a question there, because when I look at the job an employer is doing, it is often a little nebulous and usually quite different from what the employee is doing. It's not always -- many times the employer is actually right there in the thick of everything, but sometimes it tends to be more administrative. Sometimes they may be out running the forklift, then for the next three weeks they are in the office all the time with the phone in their ear. How would that type of assessment be done? Would that have to be done on an individual basis when that person chose to opt in, or would they be compensated at their employees' rate after the injury occurred? How would that work?
Hon. M. Sihota: Within their industry they are put into an occupational coverage that they are aware of and that best fits their situation. That is basically how it works.
G. Farrell-Collins: I imagine that could be pretty tricky, trying to.... I guess that is just the way it is.
The wording of this section is complex. It says in section 2(1): "This Part applies to all employers, as
[ Page 8276 ]
employers, and all workers in British Columbia except employers or workers exempted by order of the board."
It goes on in subsection (2): "The board may direct that this Part applies on the terms specified in the board's direction (a) to an independent operator who is neither an employer nor a worker as though the independent operator was a worker, or (b) to an employer as though the employer was a worker." That is not easy to follow, but I hope the minister is coming along with me on this one, because I do have a question here and I'm trying to sort this out in my mind. Is this stating that employers can only cover themselves if it's directed by the board, or is it saying that employers are automatically covered unless the board directs otherwise? Or is it doing neither of those?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think it's fairly straightforward: 2(1) applies to all workers in British Columbia, and 2(2) applies to those people that are independent operators, and it allows them to opt into the system. With regard to the terms specified in the board's direction, they may wish to opt in only for a specific time period, for example. That explains the utilization of that language.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just trying to come to grips with the beginning of section 2(2). That first sentence says: "The board may direct that this Part applies on the terms specified in the board's direction." Perhaps the minister can walk me through it. Maybe I'm just having difficulty with it, but that line is causing me some confusion. I'm wondering if he can give us a scenario, or if his staff can give us some sort of a scenario where this applies, to make it a little easier to understand.
Hon. M. Sihota: A self-employed person will make an application to the board to be covered. The board will provide that coverage on the terms specified in the board's direction. In other words, the self-employed worker or employer may wish to be covered for a period of six months, and the board will then direct that the individual be covered for six months. It simply means that the person can apply to opt in; once they have applied and have been accepted, then it's on the terms outlined in the direction established by the board.
G. Farrell-Collins: A final point of clarification: is time frame the only direction we're looking at here, or are there other possibilities that would be included in those directions? What sort of a spectrum of options are we looking at that the board has in its direction?
Hon. M. Sihota: Usually it's duration, the amount that they have to pay, and there are directions in there that require them to comply with the health and safety regulations which may occupy that field.
L. Hanson: Is it correct, Mr. Minister, to suggest that an operator who is an independent operator and has no employees has coverage on a voluntary basis, not on a mandatory basis, and that an employer, even though he has employees, has not mandatory coverage but only discretionary or voluntary coverage if it is requested?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that's right.
V. Anderson: I have two questions following from the answers. A few minutes ago the minister mentioned family members. If a person hires a spouse or son or daughter, are they automatically covered as part of the family? You said something that led me to believe that family members were perhaps excluded from the automatic coverage and pay.
Hon. M. Sihota: The board can look at that whole issue, which it may well do, but they were previously exempted. The idea is that they're arm's-length employees. Should this legislation pass, clearly the board will have the ability to look at that issue.
V. Anderson: What I'm trying to get at is the assumption that unless they get an exemption they will automatically expect to be covered. While I'm asking that question, at what point do part-time employees come in? The first one is the family connection and whether a person is automatically covered and expected to come in and therefore would need an exemption and have to ask it family by family. Deal with that one first, and then I'll ask the second one about part-time.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make it clear that family members are now excluded, but should this legislation pass, they won't be excluded. Part-time workers will be covered when this legislation passes, and they'll be covered on a pro rata basis.
V. Anderson: At what point do part-time workers come into this? Does it include a babysitter who comes once a week for two or three hours, or is it six hours or 12 hours?
[4:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: It doesn't matter whether they're full-time or part-time. Their claim will be predicated on the number of hours they work. They may work only 12 hours a week or they may work 40 hours a week, but whatever it is, that's what their claim will be predicated on.
V. Anderson: That clarifies one part of it. The other part is that since it's compulsory for all employers to take out coverage for their employees, are you required to have workers' compensation coverage for a babysitter who comes one night a week 52 weeks a year, or is there a certain number of hours per week that an employee must work in order to be automatically covered? The babysitter could be a 16-year-old or a woman who's a senior, but no matter who they are or how long they work, are they now expected to apply for workers' compensation?
Hon. M. Sihota: If they are a worker under the legislation they are expected to be covered. A worker is
[ Page 8277 ]
defined in the legislation, and if they fit that, then they're covered for the time period that they are working.
G. Farrell-Collins: I've just been going through the act and looking at the definition of "worker." I am having a hard time trying to understand if someone like a babysitter is going to fall within it or not. Perhaps the minister can give us some guidance. Would they be considered an independent contractor? If so, they would be employing themselves and contracting out their services, and they could choose whether or not to cover themselves -- but the onus would be on the babysitter. Whereas if they are included in the definition of worker, then the onus falls on the person hiring that babysitter to provide coverage on an hourly pro rata basis.
Hon. M. Sihota: The board will determine which people fall within the ambit of the wording as it relates to worker. It is possible that someone providing day care services to a family could be covered; it's also possible that they won't. It depends on a number of variables as they relate to the relationship.
G. Farrell-Collins: I can understand that. During the transition period, what are these people to do? Are they going to have to apply as individuals if they want an exemption for their babysitter, or is the babysitter going to have to apply either for an exemption or for optional coverage? Is this going to be a piecemeal decision on a case-by-case basis -- complaint-driven as the minister stated -- or by request? Or is it going to be a blanket decision that will apply to all these cases under some guidelines?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think it would be prudent for the board to make a determination on a broad basis and advise the public of its determination, with regard to professional athletes or babysitting services, for example.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that's probably the best guidance we're going to get from the minister in terms of direction to the board. The member for Vancouver-Langara, by getting into this, raised a very good question. It could be a huge can of worms if it were opened. For a very small benefit and small amount of money, the administrative costs could be quite substantial. I hope some broad interpretation will be given to that clause, and I hope that it will be optional coverage that the babysitter can choose. I am sure the board will come up with that decision on its own. If we sit here long enough, we could probably find a half dozen or dozen other instances where we have these independent people.
I am just looking through the act and the definition of "worker" under (c) in section 1. A line has been pulled out of the current definition of "worker," and it is amended. I suppose we can do that when we get to section 2(1)(f) of the act. Anyway, I'll ask the question. If it's out of order, we can deal with it at that time. Perhaps I could just ask the question quickly, because I am sure he's had representations also. It talks about members of a fire brigade or ambulance drivers, and it says that they are considered as a worker whether or not they are being paid. I have had certain representations from people who have been unemployed at the time they were injured. They were employed, but they were on a temporary unemployment when they continued their duties as a volunteer firefighter and got injured, and all of a sudden they're in trouble because they don't have any salaries to base it on. Is there a system coming into place under the universal coverage that will deal with the rated scale for those people so that they get coverage that is realistic to potential lost earnings, or are we just going to deal with that temporary time frame in which they are unemployed?
Hon. M. Sihota: The wording here doesn't change the system.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's unfortunate, I suppose. I am sure the minister and the staff were aware of this issue. I know I have addressed correspondence to the minister on behalf of the firefighters with regard to this. I'm wondering if an amendment needs to be put into this bill, or if it can be done somewhere down the line or by regulation.
Hon. M. Sihota: All of us have volunteer firefighters in our constituencies. In many ways they are the backbone of the constituency. In fact, I have spent very many enjoyable Tuesday and Thursday nights, after practice, with the volunteer firefighters in my riding. This doesn't change the situation, but it's a good point. All I will say at this point is that I will agree to make further inquiries with regard to the volunteer firefighting situation. Legitimately, these people perform quite a service to the community, and you do worry about the impact on their lifestyle. There is obviously a scheme in place that protects them. I just can't remember off the top of my head to what extent and the way in which they're covered. Perhaps the previous minister would remember. But it is a valid point, and it doesn't change the status quo here in this legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, but it's an issue that was brought up to me over a year ago. It's something that I have been keeping in the back of my mind -- indeed, at the forefront at times -- and I have forwarded correspondence to the minister and written to the minister a number of times about it. I would feel somewhat remiss if I didn't put in the request, now that we're dealing with this legislation, to try to address it before we pass the legislation. I know we have a certain amount of time to go through this and deal with the changes to the Workers Compensation Act today, but I would be disappointed if we had to wait another full year until the next session, if that's when it's going to be, to deal with a small change. I would be willing to deal with the debate as it stands on this. Perhaps the minister may want to bring in an amendment to deal with it, and we could put it through. I don't know if he's interested in doing that,
[ Page 8278 ]
but we would be remiss if we weren't trying to at least take advantage of the fact that we have this before the House. I would be prepared, and I'm sure my caucus would be prepared, to deal with the whole bill in its entirety, but not put it out of committee stage until we can bring in that amendment, pass it quickly and deal with it through third reading posthaste.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm not going to agree to that. I'm not trying to be belligerent or anything; it's just that there are significant public policy decisions that are associated with covering volunteers. I'm not going to get across in negotiating the matter, but I can see another way it could be dealt with without this legislation. I'll be happy to talk to the hon. member about how that can be accommodated, perhaps once we are finished with this debate.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will be glad to engage in that debate and look at the issue. My understanding is that the coverage is substantially better in the majority of provinces. I think B.C. is the only one that has this loophole there that puts these people in limbo. If the minister or his staff can come up with any way to rectify that, I'd be glad to deal with it as quickly as possible. If it's in the legislation and it's necessary, that's fine; we can certainly expedite that. If it's required by regulation, then of course that's something the minister can do.
I think that wraps up my direct questions relating to that section. Unless someone else has questions, I'm fine with that -- unless the minister has any closing comments.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is, I suppose, the second half of the bill. There are really only two mini-debates on this piece of legislation. As I said in second reading, it's a decision the government has made under some perceived threat of a court challenge to the current process. The minister stated in second reading that the reason for removing this provision of the act was to deal with the application of the Charter of Rights to provincial government legislation, retroactive to April 17, 1985.
As I said at that time, while it's laudable to have all these goals, and it's nice for the government to be able to do all sorts of wonderful things that we all feel are justified, we always have to look at the cost implications. That's why I was asking so many questions on the last section -- to deal with what the cost impact and implications were going to be.
My question relating to section 5 deals primarily with the cost factor. Perhaps the minister can walk us through what the costs are going to be both for rectifying this situation and for the exposure that will exist in the future.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think these were put on the record, in any event. I know that the hon. member was briefed on this issue. It would cost $60 million to continue the 1985-90 pensions prospectively; $11 million retroactively, plus the interest of another $6 million; and $10 million per year for new claims.
G. Farrell-Collins: When workers' compensation was brought in, was it intended to be compensation for lost income or for damage, suffering and those types of things? What was the intent of the act? The question is important, because it relates to the intent of this section.
Hon. M. Sihota: It does not compensate for pain and suffering; it compensates for loss of income.
[4:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to be a bit philosophical here for a second and detach ourselves from the costs and just look at the rationale behind this decision. In second reading the minister commented that removing compensation from a surviving spouse of a worker killed on a worksite, if that spouse were to remarry, would run the risk of being seen by the courts as discriminatory. In fact, legislation has been changed in other jurisdictions to remove that.
I know this is philosophical, but I think it's important to understand the rationale. If the decision was to provide a surviving spouse with an income stream as compensation and that income stream is then replicated by another spouse, why is there a need to have two income streams: one by the new spouse and one by the deceased spouse?
Hon. M. Sihota: You are correct in saying this is the second half of the debate, and maybe it's best, as you say, to spend a few minutes being philosophical about this issue. I'm going to come at it from two points. I'm going to take a few minutes to deal with the issues. Let me start on one, then I'll go to the other.
People would make decisions not to remarry, because it would mean that the benefits under the legislation would not accrue to them. I will consciously use the word "benefit" to put it into the context the previous member was referring to. You have to ask yourself whether or not a statutory scheme in terms of the provision of benefits or a pension ought to prevent people from getting married. People know that if they remarry they would lose this benefit, so people would engage in a common-law relationship in order to preserve the benefit, as well as having the additional benefit that comes from two people living together. You have to ask yourself whether it's right that a quality-of-life choice should be impacted upon and be determined by the existence of this legislation. You have to ask yourself whether it's fair that some people would make a conscious decision to remain in a common-law relationship and maintain the benefit, while others would get married and lose the benefit. In tangible terms, there is no difference.
The second point I would make -- and let me just use myself as an example; perhaps it's easier to make that philosophical point.... Let's say that tomorrow I am involved in a motor vehicle accident -- probably the
[ Page 8279 ]
best example I can think of -- and I die. My wife -- I hope she's not watching; she's working, so I guess I can use this example -- would be entitled under a statutory program, assuming the fault was attributed to another party. So we're dealing with one statutory program against another: ICBC and WCB. She will be entitled to damages predicated on my wage loss -- the interruption to the stream of income that would occur. That would be predicated on what people assume to be my earning pattern between now and age 65. There would be an award through the courts -- or by agreement with ICBC -- and she would receive those benefits. She would receive a lump sum payment or periodic payments, depending on how it was structured -- because you could have a structured settlement -- notwithstanding the fact that she might remarry, to go to the member's point.
As a society we have made a decision, in the context of insurance law, that we don't get into questions of probabilities of remarriage in assessing loss of income. There was a time in this country -- as it related to insurance litigation -- where we did that. As attitudes shifted in relation to dependency arguments and the nature of relationships, those issues are no longer -- and have not been for the longest time -- a matter of discourse in determining loss of income for insurance. I just used the example of automobile insurance, because we are talking about a statutory scheme in that case as well.
Should it be any different if I were to die as a result of an injury sustained at work? I think that's the nub of the philosophical question. Under one statutory system of insurance -- ICBC -- someone is entitled to that income regardless of remarriage, while under another as it currently exists you lose it upon remarriage. Both are statutory schemes made here in B.C., and both deal with the same kind of contingency -- i.e., someone loses their life and there is an interruption in earnings through no fault of their own. In the context of insurance coverage -- I can think of other insurance examples; I just use ICBC because it's one we're all familiar with -- does it make sense to deny that coverage in one scheme and not in another, and is it not discriminatory to have that kind of restriction in one versus the other? I think that defines the philosophical differences in real terms.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, because we did go through it to some extent in second reading, although not in a back-and-forth manner. We can go into it, but I guess the question is whether we're dealing with an insurance program or with workers' compensation. Is workers' compensation theoretically an insurance program? I guess it would get a little too esoteric to start delving into those areas at this stage of the debate.
I want to focus a little on the costs and where the money is going to come from to pay this one out. Essentially, this act brings in a $10 million retroactive liability for workers' compensation. In addition, I think we're looking at $7 million in interest over the past eight years. How is that money going to be raised? Is it going to be raised proportionally through the classifications of workers who are injured? I notice that we're only dealing with 155 people, but is it going to have any substantial impact on...? It's certainly going to have an impact on the unfunded liability. What time frame is it going to be amortized over to make this up, or is it going to be a one-shot deal? How is it that we're looking to deal with gathering the money to pay for this?
Hon. M. Sihota: It may have a big effect on assessment rates, and it may not have any effect. It just depends on where those cases fall. If it's a category like forestry it really won't have a big effect, but if it falls into a small pool, potentially it could have an effect on assessment rates.
G. Farrell-Collins: Have those numbers been done? Have we looked at where those 155 people fall? Are we affecting any small pools, or are we primarily dealing with the large ones? I don't imagine that too many office workers have been killed at work. I suppose the small pools and the lower rates would have the potential for the greatest impact. Is there some indication of where that impact is going to be? I would imagine that deaths generally take place in the resource sectors where there's heavy machinery and the risk is much higher, and I would assume that the rates are therefore substantially higher. Indeed, given this province's economy, there's probably a broader base of people to draw from. I'm just trying to determine what they are and whether those numbers have been done.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, we don't actually have specific numbers. We took a look at numbers in the public sector to see the impact there, but not broadly in the private sector. Generally speaking, in B.C. I think we all realize that forestry, construction and mining, which are major employers, have the largest preponderance of exposure, and that is where one would expect most of these cases to fall.
G. Farrell-Collins: The second half of my earlier question was: over what time frame are these going to be amortized? Is this going to be a one-shot deal where assessments for the next fiscal year are going to absorb this $17 million retroactively, as well as whatever portion of the future $60 million would pertain to that time period? Or are we amortizing it over three or four years? Or is this going to be absorbed in the context of looking at the whole $280 million unfunded liability?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think I am answering your question; if not, I don't underestimate your ability to ask me again. The assessments can be increased each year, and some of these costs will be picked up each year. They won't be picked up in one year unless they have a nominal effect, because the board policy is that you can't have rate shock of any more than 20 percent in a particular category. So you could spread it out, for example, over a five-year period to handle that in a small pool. In a larger pool I guess you could pick it up without any effect. In a small pool the maximum rate shock that you are going to see would be 20 percent,
[ Page 8280 ]
spread out over about a five-year period to pick up that kind of a cost.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think it would have helped us in the debate if we had had those numbers; it is important to know whether a 20 percent increase was likely in one area.
While I know that 20 percent is the maximum in the policy of the board, we are addressing another even larger problem within Workers' Compensation: the $280 million unfunded liability. You tack onto it a $17 million retroactive liability, and then each year you have to absorb your proportion of the future $60 million liability. I am concerned. While this is in proportion to the $280 million unfunded liability, it isn't as large. I wonder what sort of time frame is involved. Is the minister willing to let this go to the 20 percent maximum, or are we looking at amortizing it over a longer period of time? I think it is worth getting the indications now of what that direction is.
For employers the biggest problem with this section is how it will be paid for. What time frame are we going to provide with the assessments to cover these costs, so they will know if they are going to get a 20 percent or a 10 percent increase? When we look at this, combined with the $280 million unfunded liability, it does have an effect. I know that those employers are interested in knowing what the possible ramification of that is. Is this all going to be folded into the unfunded liability, which can then become part of the strategy we are going to get on July 19, or is it something that we are going to try and deal with immediately?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hope you weren't talking about me. If there is someone here who needs to be taken downstairs, I would be happy to volunteer to take him down.
[4:30]
As for the matter of the unfunded liability and whether or not I can direct the board -- this is the way I sense the question -- not to have a 20 percent shock in a particular area, I don't have the statutory power to do that. The statutory provisions are very clear. Only the board of governors has that authority. There are times when I'd love to be able to make amendments to a number of sections that deal with this legislation.
So they have to make those determinations, and they have to have a plan with regard to dealing with the overall unfunded liability. They requested that these changes be made. They are being made now, and if the Legislature approves them, they will be law. They have to develop -- and I can ask for it -- a strategy for dealing with the unfunded liability, and I have. But they will make those determinations. I am statutorily prevented from interfering in that process.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know the minister doesn't have the statutory ability to do it, but.... It's always difficult to engage in debate when the person you're debating with isn't there.
I don't underestimate the minister's ability to exert moral suasion on the board. I know he's done it on a number of issues and on a number of occasions. While I know that there's no statutory ability for him to do that, I do know that he as minister has a good deal of influence on the board of a Crown, and that he certainly could give his assurance that he's not looking for that type of shock, as he's given some other direction here already today in a casual way. It would provide some reassurance for those employers out there to know that they had at least one person advocating against the 20 percent rate shock and whatever possibilities there are.
Hon. M. Sihota: I do make it a habit -- and it's an enjoyable one -- of attending board meetings, and I'll continue that practice.
G. Farrell-Collins: I suppose that's about as good as it's going to get.
I have just one final question that comes back to the philosophy of it, I guess. I know the minister chose April 17, 1985, because of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and its application to provincial legislation. Is the rationale for this decision a legal one? Is it because of the exposure and the risk that existed there -- or that we thought existed -- as it related to the Charter, or is it a philosophical decision? Which is it?
Hon. M. Sihota: All legal decisions are philosophical. I can tell you that, as a student of law. Some will even tell you that a lot of legal decisions are political. So this is legal, political and philosophical.
I think there's a philosophy that underlies the Charter, and all governments were obliged upon introduction of the Charter to comply with it. And we are doing it for all of the philosophical reasons that underlie those provisions in the Charter. I don't think a government should be purposely allowing provisions to remain that are or could be contrary to the Charter. I guess the honest answer to that question is that it's both, because I'm not too sure if you can draw a line between what's legal and what's philosophical.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has drawn a line, and that line was drawn on April 17, 1985. He has drawn a line between the philosophical and the legal. If it was strictly a philosophical decision, the exposure beyond that I assume would have been taken into consideration here. I'm just curious to find out from the minister when he takes credit for this decision or responsibility for it -- whoever it is he's talking to -- whether he's doing it for a philosophical reason and he's going to stand up and take it as a wonderful thing that they've done, or if he's going to stand up and say: "Look, the law was coming after us anyway, and we had to do it. It's a legal decision, and I have drawn that line between legal and philosophical by statute on April 17, 1985." When the public hears about these things, it's always nice to know exactly what the rationale is for them. I guess that's the question.
I have one final question in that regard. Can the minister tell the House what sort of liability exposure
[ Page 8281 ]
would have existed had this dealt with all surviving spouses at present?
Hon. M. Sihota: We don't have that number, in answer to that question.
Going back to the first point, I note that the hon. member's party will be supporting this. When they tell people that they supported section 5, I don't know whether they will be saying this on legal grounds, philosophical grounds or on what grounds. I think the example that I'll use is the same example that I used in the House to explain it, and that is really the ICBC-WCB situation, because I think that covers it reasonably well. There is a date that we applied because of the Charter legal considerations to April 15. It is true that one could go all the way back, but as I said, we don't have a number on that, and I can't speak to the exposure.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
On section 7.
L. Hanson: Just a quick question to the minister. When was the last claim against the silicosis fund, and is there any residual balance in it?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry to see the heavyweight back in the House.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, I've got to watch my language around here too. It's politically incorrect language to describe the hon. member as being a heavyweight. I'll resist all other comments, but a number of potential ones crossed my mind as I spoke.
There were nine claims in 1992, and there is no surplus. The funds have been paid back on a pro rata basis.
L. Hanson: I don't want to belabour the point, but I think there is a surplus, and none has been paid back. I accept that. Maybe the question should be....
Interjection.
L. Hanson: It has been totally paid back? -- to the various pools that created it, I suppose.
Sections 7 to 14 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 63, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading on Bill 52, Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act.
[4:45]
BEAVER LODGE TRUST LANDS RENEWAL ACT
Hon. J. Cashore: I move that Bill 52 now be read a second time. The bill ratifies and confirms previous dispositions and alienations by the Crown of certain lands in Campbell River known as the Beaver Lodge lands. These lands were conveyed to the Crown by the Elk River Timber Company in 1931 for experimental work in reforestation and forest management purposes. The Beaver Lodge lands have been largely used for experimental forest purposes since that time, and healthy stands of second-growth fir, along with deciduous species, exist on the site. The bill confirms that the core lands will be held in trust along with additional lands that will be acquired by July 1, 1994, to increase the trust to 502 hectares from its original size of 413 hectares.
The bill permits the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to dispose of portions of the Beaver Lodge lands required for a joint high school and college campus, residential purposes and the completion of Campbell River's road network. The road network, in particular, is important to facilitate an additional route to the Island Highway and alternative access to the airport.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
The bill permits the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to acquire additional lands in proximity to the core lands and to designate these as trust lands. The minister is required to enlarge the trust by July 1, 1994. The cost to acquire the lands shall be borne by the Crown lands special account. No legal action can be brought against the Crown, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, ministers of the Crown or public officers, and no compensation is payable to any person resulting from any past or future dispositions of, or dealings with, the Beaver Lodge lands or developed lands.
This bill requires the Minister of Forests to establish a resource use plan for the trust lands by July 1, 1994, and in the establishment of such a plan, to consult with the public. Local bodies will be encouraged to support the Ministry of Forests in the creation of a resource use plan, to participate in providing expertise to the use of the lands for forestry education and other purposes and to construct and maintain walking trails, etc. Money required for the ongoing management of the Beaver Lodge forest lands will be paid out of an appropriation of the Ministry of Forests.
This bill requires the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate as trust lands the core lands as well as the lands that are acquired under this bill, and that all of these lands are to be used solely for
[ Page 8282 ]
experimental work in reforestation and forest management, to be known as the Beaver Lodge forest lands. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is authorized to purchase, acquire or transfer Crown land in exchange for land which must be added to the trust lands and designated as such. Further, the minister has the authority to expropriate land or property to which, if expropriated, the Expropriation Act applies. The two primary private interests in adjacent land are held by Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. and Campbell River Land Corp.
This bill requires the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to file with the registrar under the Land Title Act a description of the trust lands and the purpose for which they are being used -- for experimental work in reforestation and forest management.
This bill reflects the government's commitment to restore and protect a vital and important trust area, and to ensure that the needs of the Campbell River community are supported. If enacted, this bill will be the first of its kind to legislate the creation of an experimental forest in British Columbia.
J. Tyabji: I want to preface my remarks on the bill by saying that there is always a temptation in opposition to focus on the negative, and I would like to use this bill as an example of where we can have some constructive criticism and input. Given the circumstances surrounding the Beaver Lodge lands, I think this was the best compromise that could be brought forward. The minister is aware, because of the discussions we had in the estimates of Environment, that the opposition had some serious concerns with problems of the Beaver Lodge lands. The questions that surround this are: when is a trust a trust, and at what point can the government arbitrarily designate lands for development in the absence of any knowledge of what the lands were meant to be?
I understand that this government inherited a problem that had been there for some years, and I understand that sometimes clerical errors occur, as with the letter that deeded the lands to the Crown for an experimental forest. It is unfortunate that that happened. I think there should have been more effort on the part of the government, particularly the offices of the Ministry of Forests, to find the letter and to at least establish what that land had originally been given to the government for. If there was any negligence, it was that the research that brought us to this bill was done by the Friends of the Beaver Lodge Lands Society, and not the government; that it actually became incumbent on the citizens who live there to do the background research and to find the letter that set aside these lands as an experimental forest. That's the only negative that I would say. I know that this minister can't necessarily be held accountable, but with regard to negligence, it's unfortunate that it had to come up through the citizens.
Having said that, I recognize that this is landmark legislation in terms of an experimental forest being designated by law. I think that's a major positive. The fact that Crown land will be expropriated for the purpose of replacement of the land that was taken out for development is excellent. I am happy to see that there will not be a net loss to the trust that was set aside by the letter of 1931. In fact, if I can give credit where it's due, the fact that there will be some additional effort to expropriate Crown land to make up for development lands beyond what was required by this decision that came out is a good move by the minister.
The opposition also had some difficulty with regard to the potential perceived conflict of the MLA for the area, who is the Attorney General, in terms of the Attorney General's office providing legal advice to the Ministry of Environment on what should be done with regard to the trust lands that were taken out for development. Those concerns were discussed during the estimates debate. I think that most people will agree that the decision made, not just by this legislation but also by the local government, was the best compromise that could be reached, and that if things could be done differently, there would have been a stronger effort made originally to establish what those lands were. If that effort had been made, perhaps a decision would not have been made for development in absence of that, and we wouldn't need this legislation now.
I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. Given what the minister was left with, this is a good compromise. It will be interesting to see how the people of Campbell River respond to the new lands that will be put into the CORE lands from the expropriated lands. I am also very curious to see what the community will do regarding participation in the experimental forest. I look forward to going over some of the details of this in the committee stage.
I received a letter from the minister and the definition of "experimental forest" and the publication that came out of that. I hope we will use this as a learning experience. Maybe, as the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Minister of Forests are updating their land registries and titles and computer system, that will pre-empt this from happening in the future.
There is really not much that can be said about this except that it's unfortunate that it happened. This is the best solution that could be given, and I look forward to committee stage.
W. Hurd: I think it important to read into the record as well the role played by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands in bringing this issue forward. I would like to recognize their considerable work in identifying that this particular section of Crown land was subject to a trust arrangement with the government, and that through no fault of anyone, I suppose, the area designated for the trust in 1931 had been compromised by development -- in particular, a request for the runway to be extended at the Campbell River airport, as well as a request by the college to include a portion of the lands for expansion of the campus facilities.
It's important also to note that the opposition has done some research that indicates that in the 1930s, when this land was originally logged and designated as a trust, the Crown actually did plant some types of trees on the site, including some exotic species which would be called "exotic species." So there was a recognition in the 1930s that this was indeed a trust land area.
[ Page 8283 ]
Somehow between that date and today it was compromised.
The opposition understands that this is a solution for adding to the land base to restore it to its original trust. However, the minister will be aware that some groups, in particular the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands, have approached both the opposition and the government to express their concern about some of the land use decisions that might take place in the areas being added to the trust -- in particular, the issue of where access roads might go and whether they will compromise the intention of the original trust. We'll welcome the opportunity to canvass those issues with the minister in committee stage, when we go through the various clauses of the bill.
Generally speaking, the bill is an essential element to restoring a trust. As the opposition Forests critic, I certainly welcome the addition of another experimental forest in the province, which I think has tremendous educational opportunities for the public and for schoolchildren in a region of our province -- namely, Campbell River -- which is becoming more populous by the year. With those few remarks, I welcome the opportunity to deal in committee with this bill on the Beaver Lodge lands.
L. Fox: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill. A rather unfortunate set of circumstances has led us to this point. I think, as others have said, that one really can't blame any particular individual or level of government....
Interjections.
L. Fox: If the member would like to stand up and speak, he should take his place.
It draws some concerns to mind. When government accepted a trust some 60 years ago based on the principles and values of that particular day, should we as a government be making a promise or commitment to reflect the values of 1931 in 1993? Should that commitment really be made? Or should we, in accepting a trust such as this, have a process of evaluating whether or not the principles and thoughts of 1931 should be in place in perpetuity, and whether or not we should be re-evaluating them on an ongoing basis? Often we accept these things with the best of intentions -- not so much land, but other things such as vehicles for the archives, or whatever -- and find later on that they become a stone around the neck of the province, rather than the value that was originally intended.
[5:00]
This particular land, however, was set aside for experimental work in reforestation and forest management, and, as I understand, was used for that purpose over some time. As I said earlier, it is unfortunate that somewhere along the road the process wasn't maintained and the property wasn't properly identified. The concerns of the Friends of Beaver Lodge should be front and centre when we think about this particular bill, because a commitment was made in 1931 that obviously wasn't maintained up until 1993.
I see that we have no choice but to support this particular bill. I may have some difficulties with our critic on that, but I see a situation here which really is unfortunate. This bill will put that land back into the state that was intended in 1931, and I think that is in the best interests of all concerned.
C. Serwa: I am going to speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 52. There are a number of aspects to this bill, but in total I can't support it, for a variety of reasons. As indicated in one of the newspaper columns, it is called the "Beaver Lodge Foul-up Bill." It developed out of a situation that perhaps in hindsight appears to be no one's fault. Perhaps when the original deed was registered, there was no restrictive covenant readily identifying in a title search that the land was in fact trust land, and I appreciate that.
But there is a much bigger issue at jeopardy in this particular bill. The minister and the government are quite aware at the present time that these were and are trust lands; they were donated to the Crown. Some of the land has been subdivided for development, and apparently there is a school on the property. I don't know the extent of infrastructure-building on roads; whether it has advanced from the planning stages; whether the highway right-of-way has advanced to the point where it is absolutely necessary; whether the proposed school and North Island College expansion have been compromised in any way, shape or form; or whether new residential areas have encroached and compromised where infrastructure has gone to a certain point.
But I am very concerned. In close proximity to an urban centre, I see erosion of an ecosystem that is apparently underrepresented in the Vancouver Island region. It is the lowland Nanaimo ecosystem, and apparently the underrepresentation at the present time is some 28,000 acres. I have heard the government and the Minister of Environment wax eloquent on the objective of 12 percent of British Columbia land for parks; that is certainly not going to be in the remote highlands or in the wilderness where people can't access it. Here we have a remaining parcel of land that the government is well aware was donated in trust to the Crown, and the current government is willing to compromise that land. It is a fairly substantial second-growth forest that is utilized by local residents for recreation. It is a wildlife habitat for black bears, mule deer, coastal deer, I presume, and other wildlife. Apparently it is also the source of a tributary of a river that coho spawn in.
The government, through this piece of legislation, is trying to whitewash and clean up a number of wrongs. Clearly a number of faults and steps have been made over the intervening years since 1931 that should not have transpired. But they did transpire, and I hope that the government and the bureaucracy have learned some lessons, because the other side of this issue is much larger than simply the Beaver Lodge lands. There is a great deal of land that was donated to the provincial government to be held in trust as wildlife habitat, for example. It may be land in estuaries, where a very small percentage of our land actually exists, and we have an
[ Page 8284 ]
international obligation to maintain the integrity of those estuaries.
I'm really concerned. If we take this step through legislation to compromise lands that are given in trust, can the next step be that far away? It's not difficult to justify these incremental steps, but I firmly believe that if this government had an avowed commitment and wasn't so ready and willing to compromise its principles, it would stand fast on the remainder of the undeveloped Beaver Lodge trust lands. It would maintain the integrity of that ecostructure and clearly indicate that development could take place, for example, on the other lowland areas that they indicate they are going to acquire, which have recently been logged and replanted, to the best of my information. So we're gaining a couple of hundred acres, but we're compromising the nature of the environment.
I wonder if the people who are protesting, or who have protested, the Clayoquot decision are interested in what is happening in the Beaver Lodge lands, because it's the tip of an iceberg which is going to take away the confidence of people in the government's ability to stand up to their commitment and promise to look after lands in perpetuity for the benefit of the citizens of British Columbia. Clearly this government is ready, willing and able to compromise its commitment to what they have indicated since the election, which is availing the people of British Columbia of access to a larger and larger percentage of the ecosystem, whether in remote areas, as I've said, or in urban areas. This is a very special piece of land, and the government of the day is ready and willing to compromise that parcel of ground.
I have witnessed a number of things. Just this spring, the government compromised a donation of a number of vintage automobiles by getting rid of them at public auction. Some went to British Columbia residents; a lot of them went across the border into the United States. That is really wrong. When the government accepts donations of land, they have to be responsible for maintaining, not compromising, the integrity of it. In the case of the Beaver Lodge lands, the government is very wrong and remiss in failing to accept its responsibility. In the long term, it will do a great deal of damage; it will really question the merits of turning over land. It may be a quarter-section, a section or larger blocks. In a way, it starts to affect and compromise lands that Nature Trust may have acquired over the long haul. If government is so ready and willing to compromise its integrity in the holding of trust lands, what is an obligation and a responsibility? We're talking dollars and cents, but what they're taking away is not replaceable. The newly planted, logged-over lands are not a fair return or replacement for the forest that exists on the present Beaver Lodge lands.
I am confident that the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands Society has petitioned the minister, and I am certain that they have petitioned the hon. Attorney General, who is concerned in some aspects. I know the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands are concerned about the implications of the conflict of interest whereby the Attorney General is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the trust, and yet, as MLA for North Island, is obviously very interested in the acquisition of the site for the expansion of North Island College and for residential development and other purposes. There is a fairly significant question of apparent conflict of interest between the responsible role of an MLA and that of the hon. Attorney General, who is responsible for maintaining the trust.
There is no question that in 1931 the deputy minister undertook the obligation to maintain that land in perpetuity as an experimental tract for reforestation. Once again, we see the government taking actions through this piece of legislation that I'm confident are well intentioned but that in reality cover a number of bases that shouldn't be covered in legislation. I think the bureaucracy has to accept its day-to-day responsibility. There has been a failure in the system somewhere, since the group discovered on its own that the integrity of the trust had been compromised. I don't think we can tolerate this type of intervention and compromise.
The acquiring of additional lands with the expropriation technique is of some concern to me. Perhaps it's in a velvet glove; nevertheless, government's heavy hand is clearly evident, in that they are going to get their pound of flesh. Whoever has ownership -- Fletcher Challenge or the Campbell River Land Corp. -- has to be cognizant of the heavy hand of government obtaining its intentions.
The other aspect that concerns me is the elimination through legislation of what should rightfully be a liability on the part of government. There are precedents -- for example, in Ontario -- where a trust was compromised, and the land was returned to the heirs of those who initially gave the trust, because the government did not live up to its obligation. So I have a great deal of concern not only for the immediate impact of the breaking of the trust on the Beaver Lodge lands. I have an even greater concern for those who would donate lands to the provincial government as natural history parks or elements of ecosystems, especially in close proximity to urban population centres. I certainly will vote in opposition to Bill 52.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.
Hon. J. Cashore: In moving second reading, I want to say that I appreciate the comments of the various members of the opposition. I know this is an issue that is difficult for all of us. It's a timely reminder of the importance of the work that we do as legislators and of the role of assuring appropriate administration. The question is understandably asked: can we trust a trust? That issue is before us, and I don't think it's before us on a partisan basis. It's before us as persons who find ourselves with this responsibility at this point in time and who realize that an error has been made.
I think it's in that spirit that the comments I just listened to have been made. I appreciate the suggestion made by the member for Surrey-White Rock that we recognize the role of the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands. That's a very appropriate point, and we should also recognize many other environmentalists in Campbell River who have addressed this issue -- as well as the
[ Page 8285 ]
Campbell River council and those who have been working on school and college issues in that area. Those are also very important issues.
[5:15]
With regard to the point made by the member for Prince George-Omineca that the values of 1931 and 1993 require comparison, in view of the fact that there could be quite a change in values in that period, I think that is true. When we find ourselves in the position of receiving a gift, sometimes conditions are attached to it which result in responsibility being borne by those who received the gift on behalf of the people. We always need to be cognizant of that.
Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved on division.
Hon. J. Cashore: I move that by leave the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration now.
Leave not granted.
Hon. J. Cashore: 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.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. Cashore: I move that the House stand recessed for one-half hour and sit later tonight.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:17 p.m.
The House resumed at 5:57 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 32.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 32; M. Lord in the chair.
On section 1 as amended (continued).
W. Hurd: As we continue to struggle with the definitions section of this bill, I have a question about a specific project in connection with section 1(d)(ii). I want to ask the minister if the Kemano completion project would also be exempted under section 1(c), which indicates that a project which is already basically approved under the existing or previous assessment process and which was in the course of construction.... Would this bill provide any opportunity for the ministry to review any aspect of that project? Or is it exempted in totality by a definition under section 1(d)?
Hon. J. Cashore: Bill 32 would not apply to the Kemano completion project.
[6:00]
W. Hurd: I appreciate that clarification.
I know that this issue has been canvassed during debate this afternoon, but I want to ask specifically about the expanded definition of project. That applies to any physical work, I'm assuming, and allows for significant expansion. If you look at the nature of the briefing summary previously given by the minister, it notes that tourism and recreation projects, transportation projects and agricultural projects now fall under the expanded definition of the term "project." While I understand that this issue will be canvassed later, I wonder if we are dealing with, under the definitions section, an opportunity for the executive director to expand that definition as he moves along. Physical work seems to be a fairly generic term that could apply to just about any project imaginable. Since we are dealing with a bill which when it becomes law will enable interest groups to come forward and request a full environmental assessment, I wonder whether the minister is comfortable that the term "physical work" is so broad that it may induce a flood of such requests for environmental assessments to be done.
Hon. J. Cashore: The term "project" in these definitions is defined as the cradle-to-grave aspect, meaning the life cycle of the project. As you get into the act and the regulations, it moves toward more definition with regard to the specific projects that would be included. This definition serves to describe the concept of the entire project from cradle to grave, and it ensures that not only will the construction and operation of the project meet provincial objectives but that the dismantling and abandonment of a project will also be responsibly conducted.
W. Hurd: I have one other brief question under the term "project." Is the minister saying that the definition of project, as it pertains to any relation to physical work, enables the number of agriculture, tourism and recreation projects -- which were previously subject to a totally different assessment process -- to be expanded? I am thinking of anything, ranging from golf courses, which were dealt with by the agricultural land reserve.... Is the definition of project here meant to expand the role or the mandate of the assessment process, or is it merely a change in terminology from previous statutes or statutes for other ministries?
Hon. J. Cashore: Through the development of regulations, section 3 enables the definition to take place that would deal with the specificity around projects.
G. Wilson: Before we adjourned this discussion earlier in the day, we were canvassing matters with respect to the definition of reviewable project. We talked a bit about the definition of reviewable project described under sections 3 and 4. I wonder if the minister might comment briefly on how, given that
[ Page 8286 ]
there is no clear definition.... In other words, you are saying that under section 3 the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a reviewable project. Under section 4, you are saying that the minister may designate something a reviewable project, whether the regulations provide for it or not. In this definition, what precludes the minister from taking on those projects which are specifically identified in subsections (c) and (d)? It seems contradictory. On the one hand, you are saying that the minister has the ability to define a reviewable project, and on the other hand, there's an exclusion clause that, it seems to me, could be overridden through section 4.
Hon. J. Cashore: The exclusion would prevail in that instance.
G. Wilson: Okay. I notice, with respect to the amendment tabled today, subsection (c) introduces the term "operation." I gather that's the only amendment to (c), and that is to keep it consistent with the earlier definition.
What's the significance under (d) of changing "at" to "on"? Or is there any? Is it just a question of grammar? Under (d), "abandonment that, at the coming into force" has now been amended to read "on the coming...."
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a change made by legislative counsel, who occupy a wonderful world where -- I assume -- they follow certain rules of grammar. I see that as falling under that ubiquitous term "housecleaning" or "housekeeping."
An Hon. Member: We're being cleaned, all right. Who's got the vacuum? Is the minister in a vacuum?
G. Wilson: We won't get into a definition of who's being cleaned by this bill.
I don't want to belabour the point on section (d)(i) and (ii), under "reviewable project." But I have had an opportunity to review that. In light of the commentary made by the minister earlier that this is the most business-friendly legislation in the country, I've had an opportunity to pull out and read the environmental protection legislation from every other province. It will make for an interesting discussion a little later in this debate.
One thing is clear: it would seem that in virtually every jurisdiction across the country there are three types of projects, and it seems consistent. First is that which is under regulation by either a Crown forest or an act that relates to the extraction of raw material -- a mineral act, or some kind of.... In this case we're dealing with the Utilities Commission Act and the Mine Development Assessment Act, and therefore regulations are in place through those provisions. Second are those subject to environmental review through federal agencies, and there are some in which they're spelled out. Third are those that would require development permits through a permit process with a land registry, land administration or land act.
I know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources tried to explain this before lunch. But going back through it again, I still have some difficulty understanding it. You suggest that this provision does not include any construction, modification, dismantling or abandonment that, at the coming into force of this section, has been started. But then it says: "...is neither a regulated project under the Utilities Commission Act, a reviewable mine development under the Mine Development Assessment Act nor" -- and it's the "nor" that I'm having difficulty with now -- "a project reviewable under procedures generally known as the major project review process." Could the minister tell us specifically what projects are likely to be exempted, given that you have neither those under two principal authorities nor those under the major project review process? What other projects are there that could be exempted?
Hon. J. Cashore: One example would be a small marina that is not captured by the major project review process.
G. Wilson: A small marina, which presumably has to undergo a permitting process subject to normal land use policy. I would assume that this marina would occur either in a regional district or within a municipal jurisdiction, both of which would have land use regulations, many of which may now have foreshore regulation under their planning statutes and therefore would have the right and the authority to regulate under those local bylaws. In the event that the local bylaws do provide for that kind of activity to take place, to what extent will local bylaws or local land use override this definition with respect to the exemption?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's our understanding that because a project has started, it has met all the tests of a development permit. So there is no lack of clarity there.
G. Wilson: Okay. Thank you. That relates back to the discussion that we had earlier on the definition of what constitutes a started project, which assumes that permits have been issued. If I could use an example in my own riding, because it's one I'm most familiar with, we have a situation where a development permit has been applied for. It required land use rezoning. The rezoning underwent public hearing, which is the normal process. The public hearing was favourable, the application was made to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and Municipal Affairs granted the land use designation change. As far as the local government is concerned, this project is now prepared to proceed; however, it is unable to proceed because the Ministry of Highways will not provide the necessary permit for access. Every regulation has been fulfilled and complied with except the highway access permit, which has to be appealed and reviewed.
There are those who would argue that an environmental assessment ought to be done on this particular project, because it is in an area that is around a rather fragile lake environment. Would the withholding of one permit by one ministry of government constitute the
[ Page 8287 ]
prevention of the project, even though the project is now underway? The land has actually been broken, there is construction, there are roads on site and there has been tree removal. All of that has taken place, notwithstanding the fact that they still don't have an access permit from the Ministry of Highways. Would the minister deem that this project has in fact started?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, that project would proceed.
G. Wilson: Let me be very direct in my final comment with respect to other projects. Regarding the concerns that have been expressed because of the magnitude of the proposed Bamberton development, would the minister believe or undertake to suggest that given that it is only in the public hearing stage, it would be deemed to have been started?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no in that case, because there have been no permits. The permitting part has not been completed.
I might take this opportunity to say that I have stated publicly that this bill will not come into effect for almost a year because of the consultation process that is going to be developed, again in consultation with the various stakeholders. The purpose of that process will be to develop the regulations. So to ensure that we have the fullest and broadest possible consultation in the development of the regulations, this bill will not be in effect, nor indeed will it be proclaimed, until that phase has been completed in approximately one year. At that time some of these examples may be in a different state than at the time of this asking. If, in one of these examples, all of the permits were in place prior to the legislation being proclaimed, that project would be deemed to have already passed the requirements for proceeding.
G. Wilson: That introduces another aspect. Under the definition it says: "...at the coming into force of this section...." Now I'm hearing the minister say that this is not going to come into "effect" -- I think that was his word -- for one year, pending regulation. But this bill is likely to be proclaimed an act at some point in the next month or so, one can assume -- or maybe a little longer than that. So what is it? Once this is proclaimed an act, surely that's it. This section will be in force in that it is an act; the regulation will only be the trigger to actually effect it.
[6:15]
If that isn't the case, what's to prevent somebody who has a project that should be, and properly would be, subject to environmental review, but who wants to get it in without that review, from commencing it quickly with a hurried-up start date in order to get in under the regulations?
Hon. J. Cashore: Section 108 of the act states that the act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I have stated that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will not be asked to bring this into force by regulation until after we have completed the consultation process leading to the drafting of the regulations. Therefore no section of this act will be in effect until such time as it has been brought into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
G. Wilson: That begs two questions. One, why are we sitting here tonight pushing this bill through if it isn't going to come into effect for a year? What is the urgency of getting this done? That's question number one. Question number two: will the regulations be tabled before this House at a time when we can review and have some input into debate on them, or are those regulations going to come in by OIC?
Hon. J. Cashore: Starting with question number two, the regulations will not be tabled in the House. That is not the process with regulations. They will result from an extensive consultation process, a process that I don't think has been equalled -- except perhaps in the research the hon. member has done -- in the development of any other provincial environmental assessment act in Canada. If I can be corrected on that, it would be wonderful to know that there is that kind of consultation taking place elsewhere.
With regard to the question on why we are seeking to pass this act at this time, there is a very clear and appropriate answer. Were we not to pass this act for a year, it would probably mean that all the consultation focus would be on the act itself. We need to pass the act, which sets the focus of the direction we are leading to, so that the passing of the act will inform the task with regard to the development of the regulations. That is a very standard process leading from the development of legislation into regulations, but in this case we are doing that in a manner in which we are explaining ahead of time how that is being addressed. We are doing that in a very open way, and that is appropriate. I think that deals with some of the issues the opposition has expressed concern about. That is the reason. It is very important that we state the direction we are going in the legislation so that it will inform the process and the task that is involved in the consultation leading to the development of the regulations.
J. Tyabji: Following up on the discussion that we had this morning on the definitions section, there were a couple of comments that the minister made that I think we have to revisit. Most particularly, we spent some time on the definition of effects, and the minister gave some specific examples of social, cultural and heritage effects. We know that other legislation will also determine these. When we look at this bill we know that the reason why we need the definition of effects is to prevent or mitigate a potential major project that would be coming forward. To what extent is this definition and the minister's discretion going to come into play in, for example, mitigating a project? Can the minister give me a specific example of mitigation that he or the executive director would undertake?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is spelled out in subsequent sections of the act, either in that manner or
[ Page 8288 ]
in a section that enables the development of regulations that deal with the question of mitigation. Let's make it very clear that we have definitions here that are going to enable the application of these procedures to the projects we are dealing with. Basically, as you will see, within the act there are really three loops in a sense, and we fully expect that about 80 to 85 percent of the projects that come into the first loop will go out during that first loop, and not have to go through the subsequent and more extensive review aspects of the second and third loops.
Realizing that the hon. member has reviewed the act, the question of mitigation is dealt with in specific sections. I think it would be good to get into some of the specifics when we get into those sections.
J. Tyabji: Actually, I wasn't talking about the legislative specifics, but about some other examples we've mentioned: Davis Bay, the Kemano diversion and some of the projects. I'm trying to find out what the purpose of this definition would be. I missed the first five minutes of this debate, but I'm not sure that we tied that definition down in terms of the "reviewable project" definition to the point where we really know why there's the word "neither" in section 1(d)(ii). Earlier today, when the minister was talking about reviewable projects.... We know that the reference in that definition to section 3 refers to regulations that we don't have before us, so we don't know what that's going to be, and we know that the reference to section 4 deals with full ministerial discretion in terms of deciding what a reviewable project is. Since the definition of effects is there in order for the minister to be able to prevent or mitigate a major project, I'm wondering to what extent the discretion or the regulation is going to come into play in terms of the minister mitigating a project. What kind of mitigation would that be? I'm not talking about legislative specifics; I'm talking about an example of what mitigation the minister would follow through on, based on the definition of a reviewable project.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I wonder if I can take my turn at giving a whirl at this. This is the interpretation section of the act. It tries to give some description of what effects will be considered. I don't think there's any real disagreement here about what effects will be considered. They are named; they are described. What you want to get to is the point of how and to what extent those effects will be considered, who will do the considering and what kind of mitigation might come for negative effects -- I don't believe there will be mitigation for positive effects. But all of those things are considered in other sections of the act. This is the interpretation section, which describes what effects mean in the act where we talk about the extent of consideration, impacts and things like that.
J. Tyabji: I'm fully aware that we're in the interpretation section. I'm trying to get a better definition than what we've had so far. Maybe I could be more specific. Although the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is saying that here we have interpretations, what we have under effects are basically the means by which the minister decides whether he's going to prevent or mitigate a major project. We're talking about a project that's being brought forward on the basis of potential economic benefits to the public, one would assume, and what will determine what the minister does with it is based on the definition of effects. That's why we're spending so much time on it. Here we have environmental effects. Yes, of course we want to have environmental effects considered, and we have a general idea about how we determine environmental effects, because we can talk about water quality, air quality, air quantity, riparian zones and ecosystem impact. That's a very easy, tangible definition. We talk about economic effects. That's an even more tangible thing, because we can get statistics and look at economic impacts, business plans and an economic impact study in terms of jobs created. That's an easy one. Then we get into social effects. If an effect means a social effect, what is a social effect? Who determines it, and what kind of study is going to be used for that? Then we have cultural and heritage effects. We have been trying to get more of a definition, the reason being -- and the reason I have been referring to the impact it has in the rest of the bill -- that when we get to the rest of the bill and ask about prevention and mitigation, the minister is going to say we covered that....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I can wait until the....
The Chair: Could we have some order in the committee, please.
J. Tyabji: The last point I was trying to make is that we have to determine this now, or else, when we get to the other sections, the minister is going to say that that was the interpretation section, and we should have dealt with it then. That is why we are being so dogmatic.
Hon. J. Cashore: That will not happen. I will not say that. If these terms come up during subsequent sections, it would be fair to ask questions about them. But let's be very clear. The hon. member did ask a specific question: she wants the definition.... We all have access to the dictionary -- that's where you get definitions of these terms. This is interpretation, as the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources said. This is interpretation for the purposes of the act. I do not hear, in what this hon. member is saying, that this is a contentious interpretation. But she is asking us to enter into a debate in broad terms about this particular topic, so she picks "effects" or various other terms. We have canvassed these more than adequately. There will be opportunity to revisit various terms where they show up later on in the bill. I really do not hear anything new in this line of comment.
G. Wilson: Maybe I can introduce something a bit new into this. This minister says that this is more progressive than anything.... It often sounds like the
[ Page 8289 ]
opposition is being a bit picky about dealing with words and definitions. It is interesting, in terms of environmental regulation -- and after all, this is by title the Environmental Assessment Act -- that the word "effect" is given a lengthy definition but the term "environment" is not.
Look at Newfoundland, for example. Their Environmental Assessment Act has a very specific and detailed definition of the word "environment" in which, under the definition of environment, they include air, land and water, animal and plant life. They do indeed spell out exactly what is meant by cultural and aesthetic conditions and factors influencing life, and there is a fairly detailed explanation of that. Similarly, if you look at Quebec, they have done precisely the same thing in their act. Ontario has adopted a definition under "environment" that is virtually identical to that of Newfoundland, and it spells out quite clearly what is meant by social, economic and cultural conditions influencing the life of man and/or community. Granted that it is not gender-neutral, it is in fact very clear as to what is meant there, because they are dealing with the physical environment in terms of the assessment, and nothing otherwise. If we look at the statutes in Nova Scotia, we will see that it is exactly the same. The statutes in New Brunswick are the same.
[6:30]
If we look at Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, which is perhaps the most stringent and most detailed of any of the acts, being extremely long and very complex -- and which we can go through -- we will see that in Alberta they have gone even further. They suggest that there are lengthy processes of appeal over what can be defined as an environmental impact. The coordinating council that looks at this is made up of deputy ministers from agriculture, economic development, energy, environment, the federal and intergovernmental agencies, forests, lands, wildlife, health, municipal affairs and so on.
So the environmental assessment legislation we are dealing with has a definition that includes considerable ministerial discretion, which we'll get to in a later section. It allows the minister to determine the concept of effect under environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects. As we're debating this interpretation and the powers that this provides the minister, I find interesting indeed the legislation that was tabled today with respect to definitions of heritage and what that impacts. If those definitions are to be dovetailed into this bill, the kinds of impact studies that may well fall under the reviewable projects as defined in this act are going to be far-reaching and wide-ranging.
So to satisfy myself and other members on the opposition benches, might the minister tell us what specifically is the definition of an environmental effect if indeed it is something other than a physical effect on the physical environment? If that is so, what exactly are those effects?
Hon. J. Cashore: These are not definitions in the strict sense of the word; these are interpretations. I've said many times that the definition would go by the dictionary definition. These are interpretations pursuant to the use of these terms within the act, and that is standard boilerplate procedure with regard to development of this type of legislation.
When the hon. member refers to a comment I made this morning about comparing it with other acts, I'm very pleased to see that the hon. member has copies of the other legislation. I did not say that this act is the most convoluted or complex of all the acts in Canada; I said it is the most business-friendly. I think the hon. member has made the case, in pointing out the rather complex language in some of these other acts, that the simplicity of the language here means that a very good job of legislative drafting has been done. That is exactly one of the business-friendly aspects of it. So if he's wishing to compare the complexity and amount of wording that goes into some of these interpretation sections, well, that certainly isn't, of itself, a virtue.
C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, the act says: "...'effects' means environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects." Further down there is this definition: "...'first nation' means an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal peoples within their traditional territory in British Columbia." The definition of aboriginal peoples in the heritage legislation tabled this morning is totally different. It's a totally different definition for exactly the same people, and it's talking about the same subject. If the minister would like to pay attention, and not be....
Hon. J. Cashore: This is the third member that has made the same error in referring to this section as a definitions section. This is an interpretation section. Therefore to claim that the interpretation for the purposes of this act should be identical to the interpretation for the purposes of a different act -- which really should not be under debate here at this present time; it's clearly out of order -- is ludicrous. The hon. member cannot seem to grasp the fact that this is an interpretation pursuant to the usage in this act; it is not an interpretation pursuant to the usage in some other act. It would be quite appropriate for the hon. member in that instance to refer to a dictionary. But this is not a definitions section, in that sense. It's interpretation for the purposes of this act. To seek to make your point by comparing apples and oranges is to betray the fact that you really don't understand how this boilerplate section of a piece of legislation operates. This section is very standard, simplified, clear, plain language. It doesn't go into all these complexities. It doesn't need to, because we get into that in the sections of the act.
C. Tanner: Would the minister like to pay attention to this apple, while I read the definition? The apple he's referring to is: "...'first nation' means an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people within their traditional territory in British Columbia." The orange the minister is talking about is: "...'first nation'" -- same fruit, for my money -- "means, as the context requires, an
[ Page 8290 ]
aboriginal people sharing a common territory nad having a common language, culture and laws at the time when the Crown asserted sovereignty in British Columbia in 1846, or their duly mandated governing body." How are those two things apples and oranges?
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. The minister rises on a point of order.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair. I'd like to clarify if the hon. member is reading from an act other than the act presently before this House.
The Chair: I would like to remind the member that we are on section 1, as amended. Reference to other legislation is inappropriate in this committee. Would the member keep that in mind in phrasing his next question?
C. Tanner: Madam Chair, I appreciate the decision you've made. But the fact of the matter is that in both pieces of legislation I'm talking about the same thing. The minister keeps talking about apples and oranges. I'm talking about first nations. First nations in this act is different than first nations in that act. The minister hasn't given any reasonable explanation as to why they're different.
The Chair: I think the minister has clearly explained the purpose of an interpretation section. I find this line of questioning becoming tedious and repetitious. Would the committee please come to order.
J. Tyabji: I have a short question for the minister. I note that the West Coast Environmental Law Association made a recommendation to the minister that section 1 be amended so that the definition of applicant included a reference to the first nations. Was this request considered? If it was considered, why was it not acted on?
Hon. J. Cashore: A number of requests were considered. Some of those have shown up in the form of amendments in my name on the order paper. A number were considered but not accepted. The discussion at committee stage is to deal with the wording of what you find before you. So this is the subject of our discussion. I do not propose to begin debating a number of suggestions that don't show up in the act, because that could go on forever.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps I can rephrase it so it's not necessarily a suggestion from the West Coast Environmental Law Association. Under the definition of applicant, why would there not be a reference to first nations, when we have first nation defined just below that?
Hon. J. Cashore: The term "jurisdiction" is there, and that covers it.
J. Tyabji: That leads me to the next question. When we're talking about the definition of first nation and about jurisdiction, the minister earlier today said: "Traditional territory is defined by this minister as land which is under claim." We know that covers every square inch of the province, basically. But we've got "aboriginal governing body." Could the minister please share with the House his definition of a governing body in terms of jurisdiction?
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be the aboriginal first nation entity that had been contacted to provide them with information or that sought to provide us with a nomination for the project review committee.
J. Tyabji: Under the definition of a first nation, it says: "...an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people...." It doesn't make any reference to the Treaty Commission Act or even the memorandum of understanding that the government currently has with the first nations. I'm just wondering if there's going to be any kind of regulatory limitation on the term "however organized and established." As it reads right now, a loose group of urban natives, for example, could call themselves an organization, and considering that this minister has defined traditional territory as everything that's under claim, they could come forward and say: "We recognize ourselves as an aboriginal governing body even though we're from different bands, and therefore we would like to be recognized as a first nation." What would preclude an arbitrary definition under this section, which really would not be in the best interests of the intent of the section?
Hon. J. Cashore: Common sense.
An Hon. Member: That's a flippant answer, isn't it?
J. Tyabji: If we want to get through section 1 quickly, I think we could have some constructive debate. If we relied on common sense, why even have this bill? As the minister said earlier, life goes on. Maybe we should just pass everything over to some kind of commonsense approach, and the NDP could dictate in an ad hoc way what's acceptable and what's not.
The point is, first nation means "an aboriginal governing body," which the minister has left loosely defined as "however organized and established by aboriginal people." And it's without limitation. It's without limitation in the recognition of an aboriginal band or first nation as a collective, or people of the same nation. That's not even specified. The minister has said that "within their traditional territory" means basically every square inch of the province that's under claim. This is an absolutely open-ended definition. The question is: will there be any regulation to put some kind of parameters on the definition of aboriginal people for the purpose of this act?
Hon. J. Cashore: There are no regulations pursuant to the interpretations in this section.
G. Wilson: I thought I had canvassed section 1 until the minister gave an answer that was prompted by the member for Nanaimo when the question was put to
[ Page 8291 ]
him by the member for Okanagan East as to why "first nation" would not be included under the term "applicant" as interpreted in this section of the act. The minister said that it's covered because it says: "...a regional district, another province or another jurisdiction." If I could refer to Hansard from this morning, when I said that "it would appear that a matter of jurisdiction is being discussed here," the minister's answer was: "While I realize the intent was jurisdictional in the previous act that the hon. member is referring to, there is no question here that it is jurisdictional, and it's a definition which enables the participation of first nations in this process." This morning you said that it wasn't jurisdictional, and now you're saying that we don't need to include the definition of applicant because it's under another jurisdiction. What is it? You can't have it both ways.
Hon. J. Cashore: The term "another jurisdiction" refers mostly to adjacent jurisdictions like Alberta or the Yukon, or something like that. This interpretation of applicant casts a broad net that is all-inclusive, and then it lists some jurisdictional entities to make it very clear that they are included. So this is not an exclusive interpretation, but it goes into some detail to identify a number of entities that are also included within that definition. So there's nothing in this that precludes any individual, organization or group.
[6:45]
G. Wilson: May I then offer to the minister an interpretation that might satisfy this side of the House? If applicant includes the government of Canada, that covers all those people whom the government of Canada has fiduciary rights and responsibilities for, including first nations people on reserve lands. Does the minister accept that this is part of the definition, because then the aboriginal people would be included?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is certainly a possibility, but I also think an aboriginal group could identify an individual to file the project application on their behalf. So there are different ways within this section that this interpretation could accommodate that.
L. Fox: We're moving ahead so quickly that I certainly don't want to stop the process, but I just want to clarify one point that the minister made in response to a question by the leader of the Liberal Party. He talked about the fact that this act wouldn't be proclaimed until the regulations were completed a year from now; and he suggested that the Bamberton project may be in a more advanced stage then. What process will be in place between now and the proclamation in order to look after the impacts of that project?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's a very good question. The processes that will be in place are: the major project review process, the mine development review process, the energy project review process, plus other regulatory processes that relate to highway development projects and to other examples. So there are different types of processes now underway. This act seeks to bring most of those processes under one umbrella.
V. Anderson: I want to follow up on the comment that the minister made that it would be a year before this goes in and before regulations are in place. I presume that over that year, as the regulations are developed, there may well be more amendments that would be prepared and put in place before the act's actually proclaimed?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's an excellent question. One cannot say for sure that that will happen. But while the consultative process during the coming year will be focused on the development of regulations, it could well raise some questions about the core legislation, which would have to be reviewed, because we want this to be good legislation. We believe what we have here is good, but if it can be made better, then the reasonable approach would be to listen to that.
V. Anderson: Just to clarify so we know the processes ahead of us, are you planning to take it through to third reading and then just not do proclamation? Or are you planning to stop it somewhere in the process before it gets that far?
Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that when we complete the committee stage, the bill passes third reading and then is declared an act; but it does not come into force until the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by order-in-council, brings it into force. It would not come into force until we have completed the consultation process pursuant to the regulations, which would take approximately a year.
Section 1 as amended approved on division.
On section 2.
Hon. J. Cashore: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 2 and substituting the following:
Purpose
2. The purposes of this Act are
(a) to protect the environment and foster a sound economy,
(b) to provide for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects of reviewable projects,
(c) to prevent or mitigate adverse effects of reviewable projects,
(d) to provide an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for the assessment
(i) of reviewable projects, and
(ii) of activities that pertain to the environment or to land use and that are referred to the board in accordance with the terms of reference mentioned in section 51 (c), and
(e) in an assessment under this Act, to provide for participation by the public, project proponents, first nations, municipalities and regional districts, the government and its agencies, the government of Canada and its agencies and British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions.]
[ Page 8292 ]
This amendment is a result of consultations with a number of interested parties, including various business and environmental organizations we have met with during the past two weeks. We believe that this amendment is well considered. I would also say that this is reflective of some of the suggestions made by members of the opposition during second reading.
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: It's nice to know that what we say in second reading has some effect, on occasion. I'm delighted to hear it.
D. Lovick: Not often.
G. Wilson: To the member for Nanaimo saying, "Not often," my retort would be that if it was a little more often, maybe we would be doing something else tonight than what we are doing.
However, notwithstanding that, the question I have with respect to the section amended.... In terms of the purposes of this act, it would seem that the introduction of the first paragraph, "to protect the environment and foster a sound economy," is clearly consistent with the interpretation of the act as provided. On the question of a sound economy, as we are looking at it, in light of section (b) -- which was formerly section (a) -- "to provide for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects of reviewable projects," how does a sound economy link to the question of social, cultural and heritage effects? What this presumably means is that under the purposes of this act, all of those conditions are to be looked at, weighed, protected and advanced in some manner. But nothing here tells us how those are going to be weighted in any integrated manner -- i.e., how does one weigh social effects versus adverse economic effects versus cultural and heritage effects, and so on?
The reason this becomes even more complex is made more relevant as we look at part 2 and get into reviewable projects and the minister's power to designate. I wonder if the minister can tell us what he means when he talks about the integration of these particular sections under this so-called sound economy.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I believe that a sound economy is a holistic economy, which is inclusive of the principles of sustainability. I think that sustainability would encompass all these different aspects that the hon. member has referred to: economic, social, cultural and heritage. All of those not only relate to quality of life and traditions, but also to the economy. If we take the economy in a holistic sense, it is inclusive and encompassing of all of those things that make up our quality of life. The narrow definition of economy has to do with commerce, but in a broader sense economy has to do with virtually all these aspects.
With regard to the comment about how these things are weighted, it would be an error to go into great detail in this act, albeit in later sections, and give a weighting equation. These things are subject to consideration of a unique set of circumstances that involve the community, the project and the terrain. Therefore those aspects must be addressed through the processes outlined here.
C. Serwa: I have a couple of questions with respect to social, cultural and heritage effects. To what degree will the assessment have to be made, and will that be done by regulation? Who pays for the cost of these particular studies?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is based on the particular proposal and all aspects of that proposal. It's outlined in section 8, so I would assume we would canvass that in more detail during that section. But generally speaking, the proponent pays.
G. Wilson: Generally, I think that we can support the introduction: "...to protect the environment and foster a sound economy." I'm delighted that the minister twigged me to do some analysis of the various environmental protection and enhancement programs in other provincial jurisdictions. One thing that is notably different in this bill from virtually every other jurisdiction is the emphasis not only on environmental protection, in terms of assessing the impact on the physical environment -- i.e., water, air and land -- but also on concern with respect to social, cultural, heritage and economic matters.
I realize we can't go too far into this, but in relation to concern for a sound economy within the Alberta legislation, it's interesting to note that they have established ways of measuring the economic- and financial-market-based approach to this kind of decision. Nothing in this bill defines that in such a way. In Alberta they've really been very specific about what they would look at to measure the so-called sound economy and protection of the environment. Those may be mutually exclusive, as we have witnessed in the decision taken on Clayoquot, for example. Some would argue that you have not looked after the full ecosystem in that area, but have made trade-offs in the interests of protecting jobs.
Again, it comes back to the purpose of this act. Is it the defined purpose of this act to have a strong stick with which to essentially look after matters of environmental protection? Or is it one that simply says we're going to look after economic development, under the distinctions provided here, in order to prioritize developments that the minister or the minister's designates decide are viable in the interests of British Columbia? Therefore this would essentially be a tool with which to tailor economic development that's likely to take place in the province. In other words. we're going to shift away from being a primary extractor of resources, mineral extraction in particular, and move toward softer economic such as "tourism" -- i.e., the Tatshenshini decision, whereby we are no longer going to mine it; we are now going to somehow create a world-class park and deal with it in a touristy kind of way.
[7:00]
[ Page 8293 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to make a couple of comments, and then defer to my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
If I understood what the hon. member was saying, I think he was on track. In addressing the comments that the hon. member was making, the terms that come to my mind are "balance" and "to enable." I don't think that this act can be an act that sets the direction in which our economy will go. For instance, I don't think that this act of itself can make a decision to move toward value-added. But functioning in a healthy way, this act will enable that kind of policy direction to happen in a more effective and faster way. We will be getting into certain things later in the act that deal with setting clear time lines, with a single-window approach, and with equivalency with the federal government.
The purpose is to listen sensitively to the concern expressed by the business community that they are tired of the goalposts being changed; yhey are tired of the political decisions that relate to projects. As much value as the major project review process had, it was not a legislated process, therefore it couldn't really protect the rights of those who were developing projects. They had no reference in law to say: "All right, minister, you have defined a time line here, and you haven't followed it because of a political decision." When this is entrenched in law, it makes that into a much more stable requirement that should facilitate the timely making of decisions.
Having the three loops, if you will, in the act would result in virtually 80 to 85 percent of projects being in and out of the first loop without going through extensive processes. That would be business-friendly. They would be able to say: "We now have the stamp of government that says we have addressed these issues, and we are now able to get on with our job." That is the way the act should function. In those instances where there is a potential impact on these various aspects -- on the environment, on culture, on heritage -- the second and third loops of the process protect the interests and seek to mitigate.... It's to put timely boundaries in place so that you can't say: "This is going to go on forever, so we can delay making a tough decision." The purpose of this act should be so business will know that at a certain point in time, they will be able to proceed to the next stage. Environmentalists should know that they have their opportunity to make the points that need to be made to protect the future sustainability of this part of the planet. That should be there, too.
If I understood what the member said, balance and enabling would be two of the functions of this act. I would like my colleague to have an opportunity to respond to some of the points that were made.
Hon. A. Edwards: I want to address a few of the concerns about how much weight it seems we are being asked to give to the environment, how much to the economy, how much to social issues, and how much to heritage or cultural issues. I don't think anyone here would want to say: "Okay, environment is really important in this act, so five parts environment; economy is equal, so five parts economy; but only three parts social; two parts heritage; and obviously, with heritage taken care of, one part cultural." This is not a recipe for cake. It is more like how you do a stew, if you like -- maybe an unfortunate.... You address the project, and because of this regulation, you are able to deal with issues that currently, under some circumstances, could not be considered. You may recognize a situation where perhaps a cemetery might have been very important to a group of people, but under the review procedure that was in place, that could not be considered. That is a cultural issue or, if you like, a heritage issue. In this legislation, these issues can be considered. I believe that is what we want to be able to do. We don't want to have to say that this is simply considering the natural ecosystem, of whether or not the flora and fauna are in balance, and that kind of thing. We are going to consider cultural and heritage issues as well. We are going to consider the economy, in the sense of the social issues that come with an economic effect, be it positive or negative. It is very important to consider this as the mix of things that can be included, and which can then be considered under the circumstances of a particular project.
J. Tyabji: I want to speak to the amendment we have here on the purposes of this act. Under (a), it says: "...to protect the environment and foster a sound economy." Although I agree with the intent of the amendment -- there isn't anybody who would disagree with the idea of protecting the environment and fostering a strong economy -- my feeling is, considering that this is the Environmental Assessment Act, that the definition is so wide-ranging and says so much that, in effect, it does very little to advance the purposes section of the bill. The reason I'm saying that is that it is not the purpose of this bill to foster a strong economy, but to facilitate the review process to allow the economy to function unfettered. It is a dangerous change of perspective when the Environmental Assessment Act is being written up as if the purpose of the act is to foster the economy. It is not. The Environmental Assessment Act is there to safeguard the environmental interests of the public while the economy is being pursued. That is what all of us recognize: in the pursuit of economic prosperity, we don't want to run roughshod over the environment.
I want to read into the record some of the things that have been proposed for the purposes section by other groups, and then ask the minister, first, if there was any consideration of a definition of environment? I know we have gone through the interpretation section, but here again, right away, we have a reference to environment in the purposes section, without a definition or interpretation. Second, has there been any consideration of a broader definition of the purpose, limited to environmental safeguarding, rather than the implication that this bill is in some way going to be stimulating the economy? Not only will it not do that, but that is not the purpose of the bill.
Some interesting amendments were suggested for the purposes section by the West Coast Environmental Law Association. Although a number of them were mentioned, the ones that are useful speak to the intent
[ Page 8294 ]
of what the minister is trying to do, and the minister may be aware of these. They have, for example, section 2(1)(b): "...to provide sustainability of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations, as provided for in this act." That gives a different focus as to the purpose of the bill than the way it is here, which just basically says: "...to protect the environment and foster a sound economy." We haven't defined the word "environment," so that has very little weight. Then it goes on to say: "...to protect the right of present and future generations to a healthful environment, as provided for in this act." That is a more expansive definition than what we have here.
Then it talks about some things that are very useful for furthering the debate, because I believe the minister intended to make reference to these things in talking about protecting the environment, although it doesn't make reference to it. He talks about prevention, reduction and elimination of the use, generation or release of pollutants that are an unreasonable threat to the integrity of the environment; the protection and conservation of biological, ecological and genetic diversity; the protection and conservation of natural resources, including plant life, animal life and ecological systems; the encouragement of the wise management of our natural resources, including plant life, animal life and ecological systems; and the identification, protection and conservation of ecologically sensitive areas or processes. Of course, this would be within the context of the land use strategy that's being developed by the CORE process, because that's part of CORE's mandate.
I don't think the one line, "to protect the environment and foster a sound economy," speaks to the intent of the amendment. It would be more useful to amend this section to be more comprehensive in terms of the values we wish to preserve in the environment, with less reference to the stimulation or fostering of the economy, which clearly is beyond the scope of the bill. Although I think the bill would like to facilitate economic development projects, this does neither.
Hon. J. Cashore: Over a period of more than the past two weeks there have been several meetings involving staff of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, staff of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and stakeholder groups. Some of those meetings were followed up with second meetings at which I was present. I met with, I believe, seven of those groups. Members of our staff met with a great many more during that period of time. Of course, that's without reference to the meetings that took place during the process which the member for Nanaimo conducted over a year ago. With this most recent set of meetings, it was my opinion that there was consensus on this section by both the environmental representatives and the business representatives.
The hon. member is correct when she points out that suggestions coming in from various groups do not show up as amendments. There was never any indication that we would simply accept holus-bolus every suggested amendment that came in, and we haven't. I think, though, if we reflect back on second reading debate we will recall that reference was made to a need for simplicity of language, and we've opted for that. We've opted for simplicity of language. Rather than going into our own definition of environment, we rely on the body politic to be part of that definition, but always with reference to the dictionary definitions. We think it serves the purpose of this bill to avoid the complexity of getting into convoluted verbiage, weighting and additional definitions. I think we need to recognize that the people who will be administering the bill and the public that will have an opportunity to participate in the process appropriately will have the intelligence, the ability and the desire to take the clarity of the language here and apply it appropriately.
J. Tyabji: Surely the minister didn't misunderstand me. I was not suggesting that amendments should automatically be accepted when they are presented. I understand simplicity of language, but through simplicity I don't think the minister wants to imply inanity, which I think is what we've got here. "To protect the environment" is not adequately defined; there's no definition of environment in the interpretation section; and "foster a sound economy" is clearly beyond the scope of the bill. So it's almost inane. It's almost a useless amendment.
We know there are regulations to accompany the bill. If we aren't going to have it in the definitions section, then at least during debate could we get some clarification from the minister what "to protect the environment" means? That's the first thing. The Minister of Forests is laughing. He should laugh, based on some of the decisions coming out of his ministry. What I'm asking for is some clarification as to the scope represented by that amendment.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Clearly this is well over the government's head.
Interjections.
The Chair: Could the committee come to order, please. Hon. member, would you continue.
J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. I hope that the committee, even if the members aren't going to participate in the debate, would understand that it is necessary to clarify the scope of this amendment, the reason being.... The member for Nanaimo is laughing. I think that's unfortunate.
The first point is: what is the scope of "protect the environment"? Are we talking about ecosystem preservation? Are we talking about the mandate of CORE? What are we talking about when we say "protect the environment"? What are the parameters of that? It's an easy question. It might be over the head of the member for Nanaimo, but I'm sure the Minister of Environment can deal with it.
The second point is: did the Minister of Environment give any thought to -- or will the regulations deal with -- an environmental bill of rights, which we've talked
[ Page 8295 ]
about in this Legislature for over a year and would have come under this section of the bill?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'd like to make a comment about how this act works. This is a process act. It allows a quick process that will ensure that a proponent's project will meet other requirements specific to such things as environmental protection, mines, utilities or whatever. This review process will ensure that a project will have all the acceptance and approvals from other acts that should be in place and will meet with the climate of recognition within the province at the time. So if you're talking about CORE, yes, of course, it would meet the land use requirements there. If you are asking in what detail do we mean environment, we mean that it will generally meet the requirements of the environmental climate that is recommended and the laws that are in place.
[7:15]
J. Tyabji: The last point that I'd like to make on this amendment, because it doesn't seem to be getting through, is that we don't have a definition of environment in this bill. All we have is a reference throughout the bill. Seeing as we haven't limited the interpretation of environment, we could have an acoustic environment, a marine environment, a visual environment. Any kind of environment you can envision could be defined under this, in which case we're protecting them all -- which is very nice, warm and fuzzy, but I don't think it's the intent of the amendment to the purposes section.
It is extremely frustrating when the minister will not clarify the scope of the amendment. It's unfortunate, because I think the intent of the amendment is good, but the wording is very poor. I guess the Minister of Environment doesn't want to speak to it, but it is unfortunate because there are a lot more points. He could have at least clarified in the debate the scope of the definition.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member has referred to the communication from the West Coast Environmental Law Association, and that's an interesting reference. Again, if we review the debate during second reading, we were being accused of having a piece of legislation here that was not fair to business. I think we've made the point that we have covered off a number of issues in this bill. It recognizes the importance of business to being able to have a sound economy, and in such a way as to enable the emerging green ethic within business. But in reference to the letter and recommendations from the West Coast Environmental Law Association, we now are hearing more of the considerations on the environmental side.
An Hon. Member: So we should.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is correct.
I would say that the bill is balanced, and I am glad to hear this kind of balance emerging within this discussion. But I would point out that the recommendation of West Coast Environmental Law Association, according to the document that we have received from them, is very similar to the wording that we have in the bill. Their recommended wording was: "...to promote sustainability by protecting the environment and fostering a sound economy and social well-being." Ours is more simple than that. It's a shorter statement, which I think is a good idea: "...to protect the environment and foster a sound economy." Clearly West Coast Environmental Law is making the point that you need the balance between the environment and the economy; clearly the bill makes that point; clearly that's the point that should be made in the simplest of terms.
Legislation can only go so far in providing the kinds of decisions that are going to serve the future. A lot of that is going to depend on the quality of the people who are entrusted with using that legislation. That involves elected people, officials and, most importantly, the various stakeholders in the public. We're all in this together. What we have here is easily understandable wording which the public will be able to relate to so we can get on with the task, which is the object here: to have a strong and healthy environment which enables a strong and healthy economy.
J. Tyabji: The minister is reading from the July 5 document of West Coast Environmental Law. I'm referring to a 26-page document that was given to the minister on June 22. My point is that the reference made to these is an arbitrary one. The only reason that I have used this as an example is the need to broaden the definition of environment as it appears in the bill. Yes, I recognize that they did then compromise in the July 5 submission for the purpose of debate. It doesn't matter. The point isn't what West Coast Environmental Law says or doesn't say; it's just one good example of how the scope of the definition of environment could have been clarified so that we know what we're dealing with. Because we don't have a definition in the interpretation section for environment, it is pretty important to have some limitations in the purposes section.
Just to give an example, we have in the same submission a reference to the Yukon Environment Act, where environment means: "Air, land, and water; all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, including biodiveristy within and among species; the ecosystem and the ecological relationships; buildings, structures, roads, facilities, works, artifacts; all social and economic conditions affecting community life; and interrelationships between these."
That's a definition that would be useful here. Then we know the parameters of the debate. We don't have that definition.
We have an amendment saying that the purpose of the act is hanging on just a few words. A few words are not enough for us to know how the minister is going to be limiting his definition. Unfortunately, this bill, in the attempt to be simplistic, has gone too far, from my perspective. We would like to see a reference to biological diversity and ecosystem preservation within a land use strategy as developed by other ministries or through the CORE process. That's what we'd like to see in here. Saying "foster a sound economy" is a bit dangerous. We want to say "facilitate economic
[ Page 8296 ]
activity." That's probably what the intent of the amendment is. Fostering a sound economy is well beyond the scope of the bill.
That's the point that I've been trying to make. The reference to West Coast Environmental Law is an arbitrary one. The definition needs to be clarified. This is an opportunity to do it, even if the minister is not willing to amend it. I'd love to hear some further clarification on the definition of environment.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to try and get some sense about the amended section 2(b), if I could. It says that the purposes of the act are "to provide for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects of reviewable projects." It seems to me, in examining this section, that particularly the words "social, cultural, and heritage effects" were probably motivated, at least in part, by some of the recent aboriginal decisions. Delgam Uukw, Sparrow and others use, if not those exact words, very similar words in their descriptions. From that, it would seem fair to assume that at least part of what is trying to be captured in this section is the response to aboriginal concerns about a particular project. While the words would not limit the application to aboriginal applications, they certainly would seem to apply to concerns that might be raised by aboriginal people or groups of aboriginal people. Would the minister confirm that perhaps, for starters?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think it's an excellent question. While the hon. member was speaking I had a chat with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and she referred to a burial site -- which is not an aboriginal burial site -- in the Slocan, where there has been an issue. Logistics would say that it's far more likely to be an issue if it were non-aboriginal. The reason is that there are so many more non-aboriginal people in the province. Granted, the aboriginal history goes back for thousands of years, so there are going to be some very sensitive and critical sites that need to be considered with regard to potential impacts. Having said that, there are also graveyards throughout the province where ancestors of Europeans and people who came out from China to work on the railroad were buried. Those sites also have important cultural and heritage aspects. So I'm not sure that I would agree -- if this is the point the hon. member was making -- that this is primarily dealing with the aboriginal aspects. But I would certainly agree that that is a very significant part of the considerations that should be applied in this bill.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure that it serves much purpose for us to debate whether or not the majority of issues that arise under those words will be aboriginal or non-aboriginal. I certainly accept that there would be applications to various groups in society, but I also suspect that these particular words were developed more in response to some of the recent legal decisions than for any other reason that I am aware of.
Let's concentrate for a little while on aboriginal concerns about the social, cultural or heritage effects of a particular reviewable project, and try and follow through the process. A proposal comes forward. Is the next move for some affected group -- aboriginal or otherwise -- to suggest that there may be an impact on those particular social, cultural or heritage issues? Or is the proponent obliged to prove that there couldn't be any social, cultural or heritage impacts? Does the process rely on some affected group alleging that there may be an effect?
Hon. J. Cashore: We get that under division 2 of the bill. Section 8 deals with such issues as the content of an application. When we get to that section, we'll get into a more complete discussion about how that is applied. But briefly, when a project is on the registry, information with regard to that project is made available to those who have an interest. That would have a role, I guess, in those individuals deciding whether or not they want to have input into this process. But as I said before, the vast majority of the projects will be in and out at the earliest phase. I hope when we get to section 8 that we might get into that in more detail.
The Chair: The Chair would just like to clarify for the committee that -- because of the nature of this amendment, which really replaces the entire section 2 -- we are debating the entire amendment and not just subsection (a), which is the add-on. So we will debate the entire amendment, pass the amendment and then pass the section.
Hon. A. Edwards: I want to bring up another example to help clarify this, I hope. It is a mine development process that was done at the Greenhills mine. As the minister knows, the Greenhills range is near the community of Elkford. The concern in that whole process was the view from the village of Elkford. In essence, that was not in the legislation to be considered. But it had to be considered; it was a social concern and absolutely required. It was almost a heritage issue, except Elkford wasn't quite that old. But they considered it their heritage to have a good view of a mountain range.
These things are considered in processes. Now it's written into the legislation that they will be part of what's considered.
J. Weisgerber: With all respect, I don't believe my concerns are particularly addressed in section 8. It seems to me that there's a question. Section 8 deals with the application, and suggests that the proponent should indeed identify the characteristics that are there. My concern is that I believe many of the social, cultural and heritage effects that may be raised -- particularly by aboriginal people -- may not be visible. There may be no physical way that a proponent, looking at the land and the area affected, would have any reason to expect, suppose or even suspect that there may be that kind of effect.
Do the applicant's or proponent's obligations go beyond an examination for physical evidence? If not, assuming there is no physical evidence, is the onus on
[ Page 8297 ]
the groups or individuals that claim to be affected to come forward as part of a review process? At what point does someone claim to be affected, when there is no visible evidence to that effect?
[7:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: I think subsection 8(h) refers to this. Really, sections 8 to 13 deal with many aspects of the discussion that the hon. member is engaging in. I also point out that one of the roles of the project committee, once the information is on the registry, is to review that and seek to identify some of those issues to ensure that they are dealt with.
J. Weisgerber: I suppose different sections of the act may or may not touch on this issue. Subsection 8(2)(h) suggests that there should be some public hearing, at which time people who have a concern would have an opportunity to come forward.
My concerns are prompted by experiences with a couple of issues. One which the Minister of Energy would certainly be familiar with is the Beattie Peaks drilling proposal. For a number of years there has been a proposal by one of the oil exploration companies to drill at Beattie Peaks. There has been a claim by the local aboriginal people that this is a spiritual area and should not be disturbed by drilling. The proponents, it appears, are left to prove that this is not the case.
I wonder if the minister or ministers have thought about or included, or are willing to consider including somewhere in the act, a provision that would put the onus on those claiming to be affected to come forward with evidence in a thorough and timely manner -- as the proponent is required to do -- to confirm their social, cultural or heritage interest in the land that might be affected by development.
Hon. A. Edwards: Basically, any proponent brings forward an application. As was pointed out earlier, a number of people would be on the review committee, which would have to balance the requirements. I don't think this act would lay an onus one way or another. I don't think that is the function of the act. I don't see anyone shaking their head wildly. That seems to be a fair way to put it. What would happen would have to be as balanced as possible, and it would probably not be appropriate to suggest that there would be an onus one way or the other.
J. Weisgerber: That is an interesting dimension. Do I understand from the minister, then, that there would be a board and that those people with competing interests would come forward and make arguments in front of the board to try to persuade the board that their arguments are correct? If that is the case would the proponent, along with particularly the aboriginal claimants, be required to come forward and present their arguments or their evidence in front of the board? Is that the way the system works?
Hon. A. Edwards: A proponent doesn't necessarily go to a board. It goes to a project committee. That project committee will deal with it first of all and look at the issues that are involved.
J. Weisgerber: Will the project committee be in the position to weigh the arguments by both sides? Will there be an obligation on both sides to bring their information before the project committee?
The point I am trying to make is that it appears, with Beady Peaks, that the standoff has been simply that the local aboriginal people claim the area has a special spiritual value to them. That there is no physical evidence is not to suggest there is no existence. But if the act is being brought forward as a solution to some of the environmental approval processes and problems that now exist, I am looking for a way that this process would deal with those kinds of concerns, because these are new words. This is a new dimension that is being brought forward under this legislation, and I'm wondering how the act proposes to deal with those kinds of issues.
Hon. J. Cashore: The details of those questions are dealt with in section 8, in section 14, which outlines the makeup of the project committee, and in section 17, which outlines the role of the project committee. As we sequentially get through these different sections, the bill deals with this. In dealing with basically the purpose section, I find myself referring to future sections of the bill in order to try to respond to some of the issues. I think it's reasonable, having had an appropriate discussion on this section, to deal now with the specificity of these good questions right in those sections. That would make a great deal of sense, and I don't think that would preclude the opportunity to deal with the issue that the hon. member is seeking to deal with.
The Chair: The inclusion of a purposes section in a bill does tend to spawn this kind of second reading debate. So if we could get on to the sections of the bill, I think we could deal with some of these more specific questions.
J. Weisgerber: The reality is that these sections deal with bits and pieces, and certainly the minister can argue that sections 8, 14 and 17 deal with them. I'm not here particularly to try to prolong the debate on this legislation. But it seems to be a new section identified in the purposes section. If we were to get an understanding of how the process works, I would be quite happy then to move on and not try to ferret out the information in three different sections of the act. The minister is quarterbacking the debate, and we can go on either plan. I would like, though, to think that not only the minister and I and the other members of the Legislature would be able to understand the debate, but also that those people reading Hansard and watching the debate would have an opportunity to follow this particular issue, if they have an interest in it, and to hear a conclusion. So far the minister seems reluctant to tell the Legislature how this process would evolve. What I'm trying to get at particularly is: how do you go about identifying social, cultural and heritage values if there
[ Page 8298 ]
is no physical evidence of those values that exists currently? On whom does the onus rest to provide the evidence or the proof of their existence?
Hon. J. Cashore: A proponent files an application. The information in the application is placed on the registry. The registry is reviewed by officials. The process is then undertaken to set up the project review committee. That committee consists of four orders of government, including first nations. The committee then reviews the issue but does not -- if I understand the question -- go into public hearings at that phase. This is the first phase of the process, and there are two more extensive phases yet to come. After the project committee has conducted its review, which is not a public review, it then makes recommendations to the two ministers: the minister and the minister responsible. As I understand it -- and we'll get into more detail on this later -- the different possibilities would be to proceed with the project, to reject the project or to make some changes to the project in order to deal with issues that have been raised at that stage. At that point it would be referred to those ministers, who would then have the responsibility to decide where to route that process next. That's it in a nutshell.
I've tried in good faith to respond to the hon. member's question. But I really think it would be good if we could get into it in more detail, which would be facilitated by the wording in some of these subsequent sections.
J. Weisgerber: Let me try one more time. Both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are familiar with the situation at Beattie Peaks. Indeed, the Ministry of Environment has brought in a consultant to examine the issue. The issue has been gridlocked for four or five years, both during the period that I was Minister of Petroleum Resources and during the term of the current administration. I'm wondering if, in this fairly substantial piece of legislation, the government has found a process to deal with the issue.
What appears to be the situation is that the aboriginal people make a claim that this is a spiritual place, a holy place that has special meaning to them, and then it is left to the applicant to try to disprove that. I'm wondering if that's going to continue, because I believe this is going to become a larger and larger issue.
We've got middens where there's physical proof. But we ran into the same issue with Pacific Spirit Park. When it was proposed to change the endowment lands and create a park there, the Musqueam people said: "We have holy, spiritual places within the area. Therefore it shouldn't be turned into a park." The reluctance was to identify the specifics, though it was said that generally they existed and had been there from time immemorial.
Is there anything in this act that provides a balance? Is there anything in this act that says yes, the proponent has an obligation to identify, to mitigate, to do those kinds of things? Let's forget whether I'm an aboriginal or non-aboriginal. If I as an individual claim that my cultural heritage is going to be affected by that project, is there an obligation on me to explain in detail the specifics of how the project will affect my social or cultural heritage or activities? Is there that kind of balance within the legislation? That's the question.
[7:45]
Hon. A. Edwards: If you're asking if something in this act is going to make government work absolutely efficiently all the time, you know the answer to that. But if the question is: "Will this work better?" -- yes, we do believe it will work better.
To deal with a specific example -- which I'm reluctant to do in this discussion, but you brought up the issue of Beattie Peaks -- as you well know, one of the concerns with that issue is that the aboriginal people feel they were not brought in early enough. They also feel that they are not dealing with the federal government as well as the provincial government.
As you can see by what's in here, all of those issues are addressed. First of all, the aboriginal people would be brought in very early in the process. By my experience, one of the major concerns the aboriginal peoples have is that they are not brought in early and are not able to be there as the process goes along. They will be included in the process and will know how the process is going along. They will know what the technical advice that's coming is, what the proposals are, what the proponent and everyone are doing. In that sense, we believe that this will work considerably better than the way we have been dealing with things. Certainly we expect this process will bring us a structure that will address the concerns we hear not only from aboriginal people but from others.
J. Weisgerber: Just one last question. First of all, I don't expect government to work perfectly. I do expect government to identify problems and work toward solutions. I expect government, as it brings in legislation, to at least acknowledge the issue and through the process try to provide some resolution. I've taken the advice of the ministers and reviewed again sections 8, 14 and 17; however, as concerned as I am about this issue, I do not feel any more comfortable that the issue is being addressed. I could, I suppose, make the argument that there would be a way to move those questions into those sections. But I don't see any reference to this issue except in the purposes section of the act.
I'm not trying to be stubborn about working through it here, but it seems to me that this is where the act contemplates this kind of issue. So I'm looking for some improved process. Although I must admit that I am a skeptic, I want to believe that this legislation will allow projects to move forward more quickly rather than slow them down. I've given the ministers an example that they're both familiar with, where the status quo is not working very well. But I don't hear anything other than to suggest that aboriginal people might be brought in earlier. That would suggest to me that every project would have to be either subject to the limitations of the act or considered reviewable. Otherwise, how would they be brought in earlier?
[ Page 8299 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: When the hon. member refers to "this issue," if he's referring, for instance, to an aboriginal consideration resulting in a project getting sidetracked and delayed, clearly the act does deal with that. It deals with time frames. Where time frames are not specified within the act, they're specified in certain phases through regulation. But the purpose of the act is to avoid that kind of sidetracking -- if that's one of the points the hon. member is making when he refers to "the issue."
Again, I'd refer him to section 18, which outlines the purpose of the project committee; I think it gets into some of the mitigation aspects. I'd also refer him to section 19, the referral to ministers for an early decision, which would try to make sure that it moves forward on a timely basis. Clearly the time frames in this act seek to ensure that it does not get bogged down in an endless process.
C. Serwa: Just to expand on what my colleague was saying, it seems that this particular act places all of the responsibility on the proponent. Simply stated, my colleague's concerns are that there should be an onus or burden of proof on the claimant to substantiate a particular claim, be it a cultural or spiritual site. It's a concern that seems worthy of consideration, certainly in the regulations if not in the legislation, because if we perceive that the potential exists, it is obvious that in all probability it will exist. I think it's worth anticipating it to prevent a greater problem.
My question is with respect to the timely nature as stated in section 2(a). I am not clear on the sequence, but a number of consultants would obviously have to be hired to make the various environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage assessments. There is a substantial amount of work there. The way it looks here, after that substantial, expansive, involved process is accomplished, is that that is part and parcel of the information available for the public hearing process. It seems to me that the public hearing process should be fairly early on in this situation so that the proponent and the committee understand and are aware of some of the concerns of the public. Those concerns then have to be addressed by the various studies, otherwise the studies may be for nought. They may contribute more to the concern and uncertainty and the lack of timeliness than they are supposed to encourage.
Hon. J. Cashore: To some extent, this issue of consultation with the public is dealt with under the amended section 16. In the first phase the project committee may consult with the public and deal with some of those public considerations at that time, although there is provision in later stages for a public review.
C. Tanner: I have problems with the whole of section 2 in that we have a new design in legislation that I haven't seen until this year. What used to be a definition clause is now an interpretation clause. What used to be a description outside of the legislation -- describing the legislation itself but not part of the legislation -- has now come into legislation as a purpose clause.
I think the minister is suffering from the problem that he is trying to be everything to everybody within the body of the legislation. I don't think you need section 2 at all. If he took section 2 out altogether, he might make life a lot easier for himself, and a lot easier for the lawyers who are going to interpret the act and use that as an explanation for what the legislation is about. By putting it in the legislation as it is now, it becomes part of the interpretation and sometimes might inadvertently be in contradiction to the act itself when you get into the body of the act. I wonder if the minister would react to that suggestion.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the comments of the hon. member support the point that I was making about balance and simplicity of language. It might be an idea for the member for Saanich North to have a chat with the member for Okanagan East, because the member for Okanagan East was calling for more fulsome descriptions within this section. She was calling for further description, for instance, regarding the concept of environment and economy. This hon. member is saying that we shouldn't have this section at all.
I think we have balance. We have come forward with a purpose section which uses uncomplicated language. It doesn't go on for too long; it's a clear statement. I understand that that's a matter for debate. It's a debate that can go back and forth between government and opposition, or it's a debate that can take place within government or within opposition. It's a matter of getting to the point where you say that this section is descriptive enough for this purpose statement, and then you get on with the substance of the act.
C. Tanner: I don't disagree with anything the minister said, but I do think that by taking this action, which the government has done on several bills of late, they're bringing problems unto themselves in that they are giving a common language description of the legislation that follows. As a consequence of putting it in the body of the act it's open to interpretation in the courts, and the courts could find themselves being contradicted in the description of the general purpose here, which gives them trouble further on in the actual legislation that we're trying to pass. I'm merely suggesting that in the future.... It's this act too, frankly, because we've been on this section for two hours now, and it illustrates my point that we're all interpreting this as part of the act, whereas what we're talking about is a description of the legislation. It should be on the front cover but not part of the act.
G. Wilson: I want to come back to a comment that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources made with respect to the recipe concept. I forget whether she used a pinch of this and a pinch of that, or a tablespoon of this and a tablespoon of that, or whatever it is that she used -- five of this and five of that. With respect to subsection (a), which is the protection of the environment and the fostering of a
[ Page 8300 ]
sound economy, she said that given that this is the purpose of the act....
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Frankly, I don't disagree in principle with what the member for Saanich North and the Islands was saying: that the more language of a general nature you put in here, the deeper a hole you're going to dig yourself into. I happen to concur with the member for Okanagan East. You either specify it in a very detailed and descriptive act such as you have in Alberta, or you put together a very simple and very general statute as in New Brunswick, where it's six pages long, but I don't think you do what we've done. The minister said that there isn't a recipe and you don't take a little of this and a little of that. It isn't a question of choosing. But that's actually not quite correct, because under section 3, which we'll probably be getting to within the next couple of minutes -- or hours, or weeks, or months; I'm not certain what the time frame would be -- we are in fact categorizing projects.
Because we've introduced it through this amendment, clearly the purpose of the act now is to have -- and I take the minister's comment -- two balanced options. But on the question of categorization under section 3, I would refer back to the comments made by the Leader of the Third Party -- very legitimate questions, and questions that I know are spelled out in some detail in other sections. The fact is, this act is going to put in the hands of a minister and/or their designate and/or their committee -- or their committees of committees -- decisions that will weigh the economic impact of a particular type of development against matters that are social, cultural and based on heritage, and that have an environmental impact. Sooner or later someone will have to prioritize where that decision is going to be made. There is a process of categorization in the next section, so we do effectively take some decisions on these questions.
[8:00]
Given that the stated purpose of this act is to both protect the environment and foster a sound economy, I think British Columbians rightfully want to know how those two can be brought together. Today, most people, even the provincial Round Table, reject the sustainable development concept, recognizing that it's an oxymoron, and they now talk about sustainability. So we do have a difficulty here when you've got those two questions set out as the purpose of the act when everything else under section 2 is a question of prevention or of mitigating against damage or environmental decay. Perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources can explain what she meant with her baking-a-cake analogy when effectively confronted with the categorization of projects, which is clearly stipulated in the next section.
Hon. A. Edwards: I was using a household metaphor. Sometimes they're not understood as well as war or sports metaphors, but the household metaphor was very clear and I think appropriate. What I said was: you do not want a cake recipe. You don't want five parts this, five parts that, three parts that, two parts that, etc. What you want is something like: use what you have to make a stew by doing this. So my comment was very clear that you cannot categorize how the effects are going to be considered. In reference to what the Leader of the Opposition said about section 3, which we will talk about later, what we are doing is categorizing projects. I am saying that you can't categorize how much you weigh effects.
G. Wilson: Just to set the record straight, I'd like the minister to know that I'm a very fine cook, I'm not much of an athlete, and I've never been to war. So I understand the household analogies only too well. I thought for a moment that there might have been something gender-specific in the comments made. But I'm sure that this minister, being a modern-minded minister, would never have thought that because I am a male I would have somehow related more to war and sports analogies than to matters of the kitchen.
Having said that, let me come back and ask the last two questions that I have. I'll put them together for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or any other member who might like to take a shot at this. In the amended subsection (d), you talk about "an open, accountable and neutrally administered process." What is meant by "neutrally administered"? It isn't clear by the balance of the legislation that there's going to be anything neutral about it at all.
My second question is: under what is now revised subsection (e), formerly subsection (d), why is "first nations" included in this stipulation? We've just had a lengthy discussion as to why it couldn't have been included under the definition of "applicant" in section 1.
Hon. J. Cashore: The second question is in reference to first nations participation on the project committee, which includes four orders of government. I'm not sure that I heard the question correctly, but I know the member will rise again if that is not the case.
With regard to how we ensure the neutrality of the process, the environmental assessment review agency is a neutral agency. It's at arm's length from government and is set up to function on the basis of neutrality.
G. Wilson: Perhaps I could restate my last question. We'll deal with the neutrality of the revised section 2(e) under the section that's appropriate. If I could get the minister to clarify.... Under subsection (d), it says that the purposes of this act are "to provide an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for the assessment..." of (i) and (ii). If you plug former subsection (d), now subsection (e), at the bottom of this, the purpose of the act is "...to provide for participation by the public, project proponents, first nations, municipalities..." etc.
My question is: if we're not going to include first nations with respect to the governing body -- and we went through this is in the definition -- i.e., if we're not going to make first nations subject to this act or include them within the applicant definition as a principal applicant of the act, why do we stipulate out the first
[ Page 8301 ]
nations and include them only in the reference to the committee? Why do they only fulfil a role with respect to reviewal as opposed to the obligations of the statute itself?
Hon. J. Cashore: As we have discussed before, the inclusion is in the generic aspect of the various sections of the act that we've looked at to date and other sections. It's inclusive in that sense; it's not exclusive of first nations. The specificity around the definition of first nations makes it very clear that first nations are invited to participate in the project review committee. That's why there is that reference in this instance.
G. Wilson: I don't think I have made myself very clear, so let me try again. In this act those who are subject to the regulations that were put out here and therefore must, because they are subject to the regulations, be an applicant to have approval, are the government of Canada, the province of British Columbia, a municipality, a regional district, another province or another jurisdiction. The minister has told us that the other jurisdiction is neighbouring political jurisdictions.
If you look at who is able to make comment, and presumably delay and prevent development, you will see that included are municipalities, regional districts, the government and its agencies, the government of Canada and its agencies and British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions. Included in that are first nations. Why is it that first nations are not included in the obligation under this act, in terms of the applicant being subjected to this act, and are only included in the regulatory authority that provides them an opportunity to make comment on the matter of prevention of development? That's my question.
Hon. J. Cashore: That goes back to section 1, and aboriginal persons are included either as individuals in that part of the definition or insofar as the Indian Act comes under the aegis of the federal government. So it is included in that way.
C. Serwa: It was my understanding from the questions on definitions this morning that the area of concern was fundamentally provincial influence on band land, for example, which is a federal influence. The province has very little influence. That was my understanding this morning. Is that so? I thought that was the reason why they weren't included in the requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act. The provincial influence on band land is very restricted. So it was my understanding from this morning's discussion that this particular act could not be applied on band land, because band land was directly under federal jurisdiction and control.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is correct in his understanding. But if a project was being proposed on Crown land that was not their land, they would then be required to be an applicant in that instance.
Amendment approved.
Section 2 as amended approved.
On section 3.
G. Wilson: With respect to section 3 and the environmental assessment process, this is an area where I have a tremendous amount of difficulty. Section 3(1) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a reviewable project for the purposes of this Act." We've heard the minister say tonight that this is going to sit on the books for a year, it isn't going to go anywhere, which really begs the question: why are we sitting here at 8:15 p.m. debating it when it seems there's no urgency for it to come through? The section says that the reviewable project is going to be set out by regulation, and the minister has acknowledged this tonight. We're not going to see it in this House and we will not have the benefit of debating it, yet that's the critical part -- in fact, it's the heart and soul of what this thing is all about.
Then section 3(2) says: "For the purpose of a regulation under subsection (1) the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation...." Again, it is not going to come before this House. There will be no debate, no discussion and no acknowledgment of what concerns we may have. It says they may "categorize projects according to size...." But it doesn't say anything about what size, whether or not there's going to be a minimum or a maximum, or why size is even a criterion. It talks about production capacity, presumably meaning something with respect to economies of scale. Again, it doesn't tell us whether there's a preference for small-scale or large-scale production, and whether or not there's going to be some distinction made. It also mentions location, but it doesn't say whether the regulation makes provision for favoured locations versus non-favoured locations -- i.e., those areas that are out of sight, out of mind, and in small communities that may not be subject to these acts, which would be the case in the larger municipal areas. I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources talking about the fact that whether somebody's view is affected by some project can be considered a component of this.
Then it talks about the potential for adverse effects. It doesn't talk about the potential for adverse effects with respect to any of the other provisions. It could be something very ambiguous like adverse effects on culture. Yet it's not subject to any definition, distinction or classification in this act; it's all by regulation.
It also says: "...type of industry to which the projects are related or on any other basis that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate...." Well, that's about the most wide-ranging, most open kind of description of anything that may want to be thrown into this. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources went back to her kitchen analogies -- which I quite frankly relate to -- and called it a stew. It very much is a stew. Virtually anything that was in minds of those that scripted this went into the pot.
[ Page 8302 ]
It says here under 3(2)(B): "...provide differently for the different categories of projects." What categories of projects? How are they defined? How are they spelled out? What kind of distinctions do we have? This is the most incredible piece of legislation that I've ever seen in the two years that I've been sitting in this House, and in the many more years that I've been observing politics in British Columbia. This provides absolute carte blanche to the government to do whatever they want to do, without any kind of regulation that has to come before this House, and be open for scrutiny by the people of British Columbia.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: As my colleague from Vernon suggests, if anything is missed in section 3, don't worry, we've got the catch-all under section 4, because section 4 can just simply scoop it all up.
[8:15]
I'd like the minister to defend section 3, because quite frankly I don't think this is acceptable in any legislation coming before the people, to have such an open, carte blanche blank cheque that says: "Trust us. We will do what is best. But because we don't wish to stipulate it, we are not going to do so until regulations are pronounced."
Hon. J. Cashore: On just about every bill that I have sat in this House and heard this hon. member debate, at some point he has made reference to some section being the worst section of legislation he has ever seen. I don't know how many times he is going to say that on this bill. He will probably say several more sections are the most whatever.
However, I have referred to this section in the discussions on the first two sections, to indicate that there will be a process of regulations to do just exactly what this section says: "...categorize projects according to size, production capacity, location, potential for adverse effects, type of industry to which the projects are related..." -- and so forth. This is very standard enabling legislation in the acts of the other provinces and, indeed, in Canada's act.
I would point out to the hon. member that we sent out a backgrounder with the package of material, for consultation. It goes into a lot of details about proposed reviewable projects. In other words, it is a backgrounder that would go into the process that we would build on in developing those regulations.
The hon. member said that we are dealing with this legislation without having the regulations before us. That is to state the obvious. That is to state the process by which legislation is developed: first there is legislation and then there are regulations. For the hon. member to stand and state the obvious, as though the obvious is unusual, is to beg the question. It is not unusual; that is the standard practice. I have made it very clear that the regulations will be informed by the direction of the legislation. That is an appropriate process.
I said this morning that when the member for Okanagan West was Minister of Environment a lot of work was done in the development of the major project review process. That experience has led toward the development of this legislation. This legislation will lead toward the development of the regulations. There is nothing sinister in that. I doubt that this would ever happen, but if this hon. member was ever in a position to be developing legislation, I have no doubt that he would also follow that time-honoured process, which would be developing legislation that would lead toward regulations. The regulations would then deal with the question of definition, but it would be done, as I have said, in an open, consultative process. There is nothing unusual about that; nothing inappropriate; nothing that isn't similar to how it happens in other jurisdictions. So the hon. member is making a passionate case about something that is very standard, very reasonable and very understandable.
L. Hanson: I found the minister's explanation very interesting. I think that as a modern-day society we accept the fact that there is a need to assess effects of projects on the environmental and other aspects. I think that is understandable. It was recognized in the past.
I certainly would dispute the minister's statement that this is fair and reasonable, because if I read sections 3 and 4 correctly, I think the minister could designate everything as reviewable under this process, from building an old-style outhouse to a project that might be of a scope that we have never seen before in British Columbia. Our concern -- and I'd like to ask the minister if he would acknowledge that it's a concern -- is that we are putting such a broad power to designate absolutely everything that happens in British Columbia in the hands of cabinet. The purpose of legislation is to debate what you intend to do. With this empowering part of the legislation, as a minister and the executive council, you are in fact giving yourselves the authority to make every project in British Columbia reviewable. There's absolutely no suggestion of what your direction or your intention is, and I think it's fair and legitimate that the members of this Legislature should ask that question. What do you intend to do with this? It is all-encompassing. I have never seen -- and I've been around a little while -- legislation as all-encompassing as this, and we don't know what the intention is.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's very clear. The intention is stated in the purpose of the bill. We've dealt with that. We have made it very clear what the process is for developing regulations. We have made it very clear that consultation will go on for a year. I don't think that's paralleled in any other jurisdiction, given that there has been consultation of more than a year leading up to this stage. There will now be a further year of consultation. The hon. member asks what the checks and balances are that will ensure that this is not done in a frivolous way. There are a number of checks and balances. If decisions were to be made by the government that were as the hon. member describes, that would become very readily apparent in our political process, and there would be an impact through the electoral process as a result of that.
[ Page 8303 ]
If the Minister of Environment -- and I realize the hon. member is referring to section 4.... He has brought section 4 into this part of the debate, so I assume we may pass sections 3 and 4 together. If the Minister of Environment were to bring in a project and it didn't make sense, one of the checks and balances would be colleagues in the government looking at that. It's the same type of balance found in other parts of the bill where the concurrence of the minister responsible is required. In this case, the Minister of Environment can bring in a project that hasn't been defined in regulation. There are some projects that presumably will come along that have never been defined before, so that makes sense.
L. Hanson: I think the minister has actually recognized some of the concern, because that's exactly what we're talking about. The purpose of the Legislature and of this debate that we're going through now is to give some scrutiny of the government's intentions. This bill doesn't tell us what the government's intentions are. It tells us what the government will do if it decides that a particular project is reviewable, but it doesn't tell us what those projects might be. It doesn't give us any indication of the scope of those projects. In sections 3 and 4 it simply says: "Trust us, we might decide anything is reviewable, and we'll let you know later what it is." I think the purpose of debate that we go through here is to scrutinize that intention of government. But how can you do it when you don't know what it is?
V. Anderson: I must acknowledge that when I first read sections 3 and 4 I had to put down "Wow!" beside it, because in one section it is a totally open-ended presentation of what are renewable projects, and in the other, how you designate them. When we were looking at section 1 and what a renewable project is and trying to get a definition of it in section 1, we were told there.... It says that it's prescribed under section 3 and then under section 4. We were advised that we would get a definition, but this is a circular definition. "Reviewable project" is discussed in 3 and 4, but 3 and 4 don't define what a reviewable project is. They simply say that a renewable project is whatever the minister or the council decide to do with the reviewable project.
The other sad thing that we are discovering with this and the constitution bill, and with others that are coming, is that "minister" refers to anybody that happens to be in the cabinet. It doesn't have any particular designation under what is happening in the overall jurisdiction. If you put the bills together, "minister" now refers not to the Minister of Environment and not to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, but simply to a minister, whoever that minister may happen to be. The minister under 3 and the minister under 4 are not necessarily the same minister anymore. That can be changed overnight by the council, if the rest of the legislation goes through.
We do need some kind of clause in here, at the very least, to say that somehow the decisions that are made in 3 -- and the same would be true in 4 -- are subject to the purposes which are defined in the act under 2. According to this, they are not subject to anything but the minister. If they were to say that they are subject to the purposes of section 2 and the definitions of section 1, then we would have at least some security. As it stands now, section 3 is not subject to anything.
Hon. J. Cashore: With all due respect, if this is a serious recommendation, then one really has to ask about the kind of thought that is going into this. The suggestion that "subject to" be written into sections 3 and 4 -- say, "subject to sections 1 and 2" -- is totally redundant. The way that the act is laid out is to start off with the interpretations and the purpose statement. It is automatic that it is "subject to." Anybody who has any knowledge of legislation will explain to you that it is automatic that it is "subject to." You don't have to put that kind of redundancy of language into this or any other bill.
With regard to the member for Okanagan-Vernon standing up and making his comments about regulations, is he saying that during the time he was a member of the executive council he didn't participate in the development of legislation that then led to the development of regulations? Of course he did. He has been a part of that time-honoured process. That is one of the ways in which government functions. There is nothing sinister in this section 3 on reviewable projects. This is a standard type of section in environmental legislation. Interestingly enough, the language is not extensive. It is relatively simple and straightforward -- not simplistic but relatively simple -- and it is the kind of language that is readily understood. And so it should be.
G. Wilson: I would be curious to know what jurisdiction the minister refers to when he says that this is standard across the country. I have every statute here, and New Brunswick is the most permissive of all of them. Even in the province of New Brunswick, which has a seven-page document, the environmental assessment policy is spelled out. It spells out precisely and specifically what it is that is going to be reviewed. It doesn't provide this kind of nonsense that we've got under section 3(1) that says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a reviewable project for the purposes of this Act." That's the very heart of this bill. You're saying: "We're going to develop this, and we're going to tell you later what it involves.
[8:30]
In light of the section here and what the minister has just said, Newfoundland has an assessment committee that sets out absolutely specific requirements of the minister, the chairperson and the members, and it tells you what they all are and what they have to do within the province. Quebec sets out the powers for such purposes: "The minister may...." It's set right out, (a) through to (j), and it defines it specifically. It doesn't say that it will come down later and we'll deal with that in regulations somehow. Nova Scotia says what the contents and terms of reference will include and what they are. They don't bring it down later. Ontario
[ Page 8304 ]
develops a preparation and review process. Notice that Ontario says right there essentially what the minister's regulations and requirements are.
The most comprehensive legislation in the country is in Alberta. Alberta has a very weighty and detailed bill that makes this bill, quite frankly, look like it's just drafted on second thought. Alberta's bill spells out in most finite detail what the government is obligated to do, what it is responsible for and what it is empowered to do. I don't know what jurisdiction the minister refers to. It certainly isn't any of the statutes on the books of the other provinces, because I have taken the trouble to look them up.
Coming back to what the minister said to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, I find it just a bit testy, if I can use that word, to suggest that when we're familiar with legislation we'll understand the process. To suggest that this is a time-honoured tradition in government is a lot of nonsense. What this section specifically says is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will make regulations. The minister has told us that we will not see what they are. These are regulations that are going to affect the investment of every single investor in the province, if this government deems it so. It says that for the purposes of a regulation under section 3.... I would deal with section 4, hon. Chair, if we were there, but we'll get to it. Section 3(2) says: "For the purpose of a regulation under subsection (1) the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation may (a) categorize projects according to size, production capacity, location, potential for adverse effects, type of industry to which the projects are related or on any other basis that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate...." This is not standard legislative fare. For the minister to try and pass this off as just a sort of boilerplate that's included in legislation.... The only place that this is standard fare is in the legislation we get time after time from this government, but certainly not from any other jurisdiction in the country.
Hon. J. Cashore: This is standard. The only thing is that it's better, because it doesn't go into a great deal of convoluted language. It's very straightforward; it's very clear. For the hon. member to suggest that other jurisdictions do not have regulations defining projects is simply incorrect; they do have regulations defining projects.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: He says that he's not saying that. I'm glad to hear him say for the record that he's not saying that. He acknowledges that other jurisdictions have regulations defining projects. That clearly supports the point that I've been making all along. But I understand that my colleague would like to comment on this.
Hon. A. Edwards: It might be enlightening for the members to contemplate the category of mine that is currently reviewed: a mine that produces 10,000 tonnes per year. That's basically a metal mine. Under current technology, that is not an adequate number; it is not big enough. In fact, such mines are not really very significant. Because of the plants they have, we believe it appropriate to change that to metal mines that produce 25,000 tonnes per year. That's the kind of project that would be reviewable. That kind of thing can be done when it's in regulations, as any legislator knows. It can be changed without changing the legislation. When we're dealing with such a broad scope of projects, those kinds of things can be considered. There was some discussion about how we could categorize and whether it should be only in one way or only in another way. Referring to mines, I would like to say again that for metal mines it's 25,000 tonnes per year. But other kinds of mines -- such as coalmines, sand and gravel mines, placer mines and stone quarries -- will probably be reviewable at the level of 100,000 tonnes per year. Besides that, you may categorize them as to whether they are new mines or expansion mines. So there are three basic criteria on which you may categorize the reviewability of a project that's a mine, and it's according to the type of industry. In practical terms, this responds to the way of the world when you're dealing with a broad scope of projects.
L. Hanson: That's all very nice, minister, and I understand exactly what you're saying. But when we read what we're talking about here tonight, I'm not sure how you would ever get any idea that this might be the scope of the project. It says here quite simply that a reviewable project.... We don't know what it is, but sections 3 and 4 will tell us. Sections 3 and 4 say that the cabinet is going to let us know later, and if the cabinet misses, the minister is going to let us know what the project might be. There's no idea of scope or anything else. It's just: "Trust us. We'll let you know later."
Hon. A. Edwards: Perhaps the member missed the backgrounder that the B.C. Environment ministry put out to go with this legislation, which describes all about mine projects. It's all there. How do you know? Read what's put out with it.
This government is an open government, and we have committed to consultation on the regulations. We will have consultation on the regulations. You are right when you say that industry in this province stands to be impacted by what happens in the regulations. We know that. We have committed to consultation, and we will have consultation. But that's in the regulations, the parts that are connected to the act underneath the legislation. That's where you put the regulation part, the very specific parts.
L. Hanson: I don't think I or the other members in opposition here are disputing the fact that there is a need for regulations. Regulations are a fairly common part of most legislation. The Minister of Environment noted that at one time I was a member of the executive council, and he suggested that this was a standard way of drafting a bill. Mr. Minister, I would not take part in drafting a bill that is so broad. Sitting on this side, you wouldn't have allowed that to happen. You would not
[ Page 8305 ]
even have considered it. We would have had a riot in this House if that had happened.
Hon. Minister of Energy and Mines, I don't have any difficulty with your publication, but if it's going to be part of this, then make it part of it. Don't give us another piece of paper and say: "This is what we intend to do, and this is what's going to let us do it." That piece of paper can be changed tomorrow -- print another one next week.
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is, there's a real advantage to defining these projects in regulation, because from time to time this needs to be amended, and it can be facilitated much more readily. Also, the points that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was referring to are really procedures. To find the equivalent procedures you would have to look in sections 8 and 26 of this bill and make the appropriate comparison. The comparison he was making when he referred to section 3 was not an appropriate comparison.
Be that as it may, section 3 is a standard process for the identification of reviewable projects. It will be subject to a process of consultation in which members, including the member for Okanagan-Vernon, will be invited to participate. It will be done in a very open way. The member for Okanagan-Vernon has acknowledged in this House that he participated in the development of regulations when he was a member of the executive council. He also said that he would not participate in the drafting of such an act, and I recall very clearly that he did not participate in the drafting of Bill 19, which he stood here in the Legislature and defended for several weeks, that bill having been drafted behind closed doors in a law office in downtown Vancouver.
L. Hanson: If we're going to debate Bill 19, I suppose we should bring it out and debate it. The minister is suggesting that legislation was put in this House that did not tell the opposition what the intention of the legislation was. That is just not true, Mr. Minister, and you know it's not true. If you had simply put the scope of your intent into this legislation, to make a project reviewable, I don't think we would argue with you. I don't like some of the reviews that you have, but at least tell us what you are going to review. You don't tell us anything about what you're going to review, and the purpose of this Legislature is to debate the intentions of government. Who knows what the intention of government is?
You tell us you are a consultative government. You tell us that we can take part in that consultative process. All right, Mr. Minister, I refer you to the Minister of Labour and the employment standards. How consultative is that process? It was introduced on Friday, read a second time on Monday, and then we are after it again on Thursday to finish it off. Tell me about that consultation, Mr. Minister.
The Chair: Before recognizing the next speaker, the Chair would caution all members to address their remarks through the Chair, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: I just want to mention that one of the processes this legislation is designed to replace is one whereby, under the previous government, in the major project review process, policy could be changed at the whim of government. That is now being replaced with legislation where we are going to lay out this legislation as we go through it. It will be passed as legislation, with regulations that will come later. That will not be as easily changed at the whim of government.
G. Wilson: Often in these debates you have to try and keep the remarks honest, and keep the statements correct as to what has been said. I have never said that regulations aren't part of an act. I fully recognize that regulations are part of an act. I have said that most acts that are carefully and properly drafted don't leave the person reading the act totally in the dark as to what the actual intent and scope of the act is going to be, and don't rely entirely upon a set of regulations.
In the Alberta act there are 14 pages of specific definitions, defining exactly what the act is doing in Alberta; not interpretations which we get here, which provide circular argument around what a renewable project is. This whole thing is about putting reviewable projects in place, yet that isn't defined anywhere in this act. This act is 45 pages long, 108 sections in detail, and in the whole act there isn't one single definition of what a reviewable project is.
Furthermore, section 3 says that there are going to be different rules and regulations for different projects determined by the categorization which is put in place by order-in-council. So there isn't even going to be consistency and fairness of application of rules given to everybody who applies under this act. There is nothing whatsoever in this act that binds government to any kind of fair process. There is nothing in this act that says there has to be an equal set of rules and regulations applied to equal applicants in the project. Section 3(2)(b) says: "For the purpose of a regulation under subsection (1) the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation may (a) categorize projects..." and then, under (b), may "provide differently for the different categories of projects." You don't even spell out how you are going to categorize them, and yet you tell us that there are going to be different sets of rules.
I was after this minister on the question of aquaculture development in the province of British Columbia, and not only was there a problem with the fact that the act was lacking.... Even when the legislation was brought in governing it, it was all covered by regulation, and the regulations changed -- consistent with government policy -- without any reference at all to the Legislaturer or to elected officials. So we have some serious concerns here, because as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has correctly said, this is going to have a serious economic impact on every investor in this province. Yet this minister is saying: "Trust us. Give us a blank cheque. We aren't going to tell you what it is all about; we are simply going to develop that at a later stage. Yes, we are going to consult, but there is no guarantee that we will be any more successful in getting regulations that reflect the
[ Page 8306 ]
average will and desire of the people than with any other piece of legislation that this government has pretended to consult on and has brought to this Legislature in an unfinished and poor manner."
[8:45]
I can tell you that the Liberal opposition cannot support 3. We will not support 3. As far as we are concerned, there isn't even anything that could be amended in here that would provide us some satisfaction. We need to see the intent of this bill changed to spell out clearly and simply for the people of British Columbia what this government intends by the term "reviewable project."
Hon. J. Cashore: To get ahead into some of the sections that parallel sections that the hon. member referred to before is to get ahead of ourselves. But in order to deal with the issue that he and the member for Okanagan-Vernon are referring to, I feel we have to do that.
It talks about the content of the application. The proponent of a project applies for a project approval certificate. An application for a project approval certificate must state the name, address and title of the proponent, and all aspects of that....
Interjections.
Hon. J. Cashore: Then it goes into....
C. Tanner: On a point of order, I don't object to the minister going ahead in the act from where we are now, but it is generally accepted practice that if you are not going to play by the rules, you at least ask leave of the House to do so. I think the minister should pay that courtesy to the House. If he is going to jump backward and forward, he should tell us what he is going to do, refer to the section that he is going to do it in, and ask leave before he does it.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to that point of order, I will not go through sections 8 and 26 now. Suffice it to say that those sections deal very effectively with the kinds of points that the opposition has been raising in criticizing section 3. I will leave it at that.
V. Anderson: I refer to the backgrounder that the Minister of Mines referred to a few moments ago, in which I believe they talk about projects proposed for assessment. Under that, they define what projects are subject to assessment process, and they define renewable projects, proposed renewable projects, industrial projects, chemical and chemical products industries, primary metal industries and non-metallic mineral products. Under each of these there is a whole list of projects: mine projects, energy projects, water containment or diversion projects, agricultural projects, transportation projects, tourism and recreation projects. Perhaps the minister would like to have this backgrounder read into Hansard. If these are the projects that this bill is to cover, perhaps he'd like to indicate for Hansard that this is the intent of the bill and what it intends to assess. I grant that there may be a few people in the province who received the backgrounder, but I assure the minister that the people who will read Hansard 20 years from now, a year from now, a week from now or a day from now will not have this backgrounder in their hands to understand what he's talking about this evening. So we need to recommend to the Hansard people that this be put into Hansard, so that the minister gives a little more definition to what he's about.
L. Fox: I realize that the minister is getting a little testy, and I'll try to stay specifically within part 2, section 3, subsection (2)(a): "...categorize projects according to size...." I'm wondering if the minister can indicate to me, for the many municipalities out there, what he would envision as the category and classification that, for instance, the opening of a new gravel pit would fall under. Given that he has been part of drafting this legislation, what kind of process would the minister envision a gravel pit having to go through?
Hon. J. Cashore: This document, which has been referred to as the backgrounder, would be the basis for the proposals subject to the review process in developing the regulations. So with that proviso with regard to "new sand or gravel operations located outside municipalities and for which the proponent has applied to produce 100,000 or more tonnes per year of sand, gravel or both," that would be put forward as a background discussion-starter for that consultation process. The final regulation would be subject to the discussion that took place in that consultation process.
L. Fox: For clarification, the quote that the minister read said "outside municipalities." What about inside a municipality?
Hon. A. Edwards: The point is that the municipality itself will have some control over what happens within it. Therefore there will probably be some recognition that the municipal government would want to talk with the Municipal Affairs minister and work on that as a group. It is a different issue inside municipalities, as anyone knows who has worked with gravel pits and the circumstances that surround them. So within a municipality we would expect there would be some consensus among the municipality, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment.
L. Fox: I understand that the municipality can zone an area appropriate for extraction, but I don't believe they have the authority to permit the extraction. The extraction of that gravel in fact comes under provincial jurisdiction, not municipal jurisdictions.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's much more difficult to deal with volumes inside a municipality in these areas. The concerns of the municipalities are somewhat different than size and include more things.
L. Fox: I'm getting nowhere. I'm still not being told whether or not the extraction of material would have to
[ Page 8307 ]
go through this process, and what category that would be. I'm waiting for that answer.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's very possible that the impact of a small gravel pit would be greater within than outside a municipality. That's one possibility. As I say, when you scope what would be happening there, you might want different criteria than simply size -- when you're dealing inside a municipality.
Hon. L. Boone: I have a question for the minister. An area of great concern to us and the member for Prince George-Omineca is the Kemano completion project. I was wondering if the minister could tell us if, under this section of the act, the Kemano completion project would have been covered? Had this act been in place, would we in fact have a full environmental assessment of the KCP that is so required right now?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to both the first and second question is yes. In other words, if this assessment act had been in place at the time of both Kemano 1 and Kemano 2, they would have been included in the process and would have gone through phases 1, 2 and 3 -- the entire process. The situation we're dealing with at present would have been avoided.
L. Fox: Given that the Minister of Government Services asked a hypothetical question, I would like to ask one as well. Given the decision that was made on Tatshenshini, would the Tatshenshini have had to go through this process? Earlier we were discussing the value of the economy and of balancing that value with the environment. Would that decision have had to flow through this review process first?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Tatshenshini decision was a land use decision, not a project certificate decision.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: If they could only get a few more people on the other side, they could have their own softball league over there.
These questions are hypothetical and interesting, coming down to gravel. Let's talk about gravel for a moment. It's absolutely amazing that this land use decision impacts one of the richest mineral deposits in the province but has nothing to do with environmental assessment, given that it couldn't proceed because of leachate that we were told was going to go into the Tatshenshini River. However, that has nothing to do with environmental assessment; it only has to do with land use -- which is the most crazy and convoluted reason I've heard yet.
Having said that, let me deal with a less hypothetical and more direct question. It has to do with the gravel operation currently in the community of Sechelt. That gravel operation, which I think the minister may be well aware of, is currently under and lies within the jurisdiction of the Sechelt Indian government district, and a portion of it sits on Crown land. There is an agreement with the construction aggregates group extracting that gravel to pull gravel off the Crown land and make it operational. Would such an operation now be subject to this kind of review? How would that review be administered? And what input would both the Indian government district community and the municipal government have -- given the fact that according to the size, production capacity and location, this particular piece of legislation might be brought in to either say yes or no to it.
Hon. J. Cashore: How this would be administered is covered in other sections of the act. I would refer to sections 8 and 26, and other sections. So a number of the questions the hon. member is raising are subject to further sections of the bill.
I would say, however, with regard to the example the hon. member has cited, that one of the values of the consultation process that will be entered into -- involving all of the stakeholders and the various groups out there that have an interest in this -- is that there will be a lot of discussion on the fine-tuning, defining what kinds of projects would and would not be reviewed. We have to recognize that there has to be some kind of consideration that in some instances it is not necessary, and in other instances it is. So that is going to be subject to the kind of discussion and consultation that will involve municipalities, various stakeholder groups and the mining industry. There will be input into the kind of definition that will provide the answer to that kind of question. To say now that we can provide that kind of definition is to get ahead of the process.
G. Wilson: With all due respect to the minister, sections 8 and 26 of this bill do not answer my question at all. My question was whether or not there would be a requirement for an assessment at all -- whether something would be a reviewable project. Of the two sections referred to, section 8 deals primarily with the content of an application, not with whether or not it is defined, and section 26, respecting matters to be included in a project report, doesn't answer the question either. So that simply isn't the case.
[9:00]
The problem with this section is that it does not provide any detailed description of what it is this government is attempting to do. Quite frankly, this kind of latitude in a bill is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it might provide for this particular government the opportunity to determine, on whatever set of regulations they bring down, what they are going to effectively require in this province. Given that it is on the books and in the statutes, should there be a change of government to one less environmentally aware and conscious, or perhaps with a different agenda, it could also provide for that government an opportunity simply to open the floodgate and do nothing about environmental assessment or protection. So this is a two-edged sword. That is why it is important that this bill not proceed with this section 3 being written as it is, and why this section of Bill 32 needs to be hoisted out and rewritten. That is the reason the bill should not proceed.
[ Page 8308 ]
V. Anderson: I will ask the minister about the backgrounder information that came out. They sent out information trying to clarify the distinction between the kinds of projects which would be dealt with in the environmental assessment legislation and the projects that would be dealt with under the forest practices code. Would the minister explain for us what projects come under the environmental legislation as against what is planned to come under the forest practices code? What are the distinctions between these projects?
Hon. J. Cashore: The code will deal with forest land activities. This act deals with that aspect of forestry activities that involves pulp mills and sawmills -- that sort of thing. Where it's forest land activities and the working forest, it will come under the forest practices code.
J. Tyabji: We have so many papers in front of us with regard to this section, but it seems to me that we're not getting any closer to narrowing the definition of a reviewable project. The backgrounder that we all received, which the minister has talked about a little bit, tells us some of the things that might be included, but it doesn't tell us anything about what might be excluded. The headings are: industrial projects; chemical and chemical products industries; primary metals industries; non-metallic mineral products industries; paper and allied products industries; pesticide manufacturing plants; explosives manufacturing plants; hazardous waste or special waste management facilities; incineration facilities; tire and tube industry; leather tanneries; mine projects; energy projects; water containment or diversion projects; municipal or regional projects; agricultural projects; transportation projects; and tourism and recreation projects. Under the tourism and recreation projects heading, for example, we could have major resort complexes, major ski hill development and expansion, large marinas and major golf course development. Could we also have some of the projects that are in the north with regard to guide-outfitting operations and some of the ways in which they establish themselves? Is that something that would be reviewable?
Hon. J. Cashore: Those would be defined as activities, and they are not included in the act.
J. Tyabji: I note that some of the eligible activities under agricultural projects are dairy operations with milking herd exceeding 700 cows, poultry operations -- basically factory farming -- and fish farm operations that produce more than 1,500 tonnes per annum. Let's say that a fish farm proposal went through this process and failed, and it had basically the same criteria as existing fish farms. What would be the repercussions under this act for existing fish farms with exactly the same criteria as the one that had failed?
Hon. J. Cashore: They are defined as outside the act under section 1, which is the section dealing with reviewable projects, so they would not be included.
J. Tyabji: I understand that the minister is trying to say that these would not be eligible as reviewable projects because they're already in existence. Let's say that a person who is advocating a fish farm with identical criteria to existing fish farms goes through the environmental assessment process and fails because it is found to be severely degrading to the environment or doesn't meet the standards of environmental, social, cultural or heritage -- all those effects that were defined. It doesn't meet the environmental standards of the bill.
Hon. J. Cashore: They are all project-specific. You won't have an identical project. It simply won't happen. Again, this has to be done within reason, and it has to be done in consideration of what exists in other parts of the industry at that time. The awareness needs to be there to take an intelligent approach in dealing with these assessment issues. In terms of saying that a fish farm project is exactly like one that's already in place, there's no such thing as one that's exactly the same. If the point is about a very similar situation, I think we have to be aware of that, but it would not be the defining aspect of the project or the considerations.
J. Tyabji: The minister asked what the point of the question is. Basically, as we raised in the Environment estimates and as we've raised at every opportunity for debate, the point is that there is a vacuum of biological evidence to show that the existing fish farm situation is environmentally sustainable. There's a good chance that it is continuing to degrade the environment to such an extent that the existing fish farms would never have passed this process. What I'm trying to get at is: if this process shows that, given similar criteria, that these things were dangerous to the environment, would a precedent be set that could be applied to existing fish farms?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Minister of Government Services is asking if we want to shut it down. The point is that if we have something in existence which is proven to be a significant environmental degradation, whether it exists or it is a proposal that fails this process, this government would not be against it. During the Environment estimates we canvassed this extensively in terms of the impact that something like a fish farm has on the coasts of Ireland and Norway, and how it has wiped out all the wild stock. That's the point. If it went through this process and failed, would it not follow that the reasons for it failing this process would also apply to whether, as one example, fish farms that happen to be in existence would also fail the process? How does this act deal with that?
Hon. J. Cashore: Existing fish farms are under a regulatory process that's underway. With regard to a new project, it would have to be done in consideration of our responsibility to protect the environment and foster a sound economy. It would have to be done within that context.
[ Page 8309 ]
J. Tyabji: Then the last question is: if the minister is saying that these two processes are separate, would he not see that there would be significant grounds for an appeal for a proposal that had the same criteria as existing fish farms and went through this process and failed it because it was deemed, through this process, to be environmentally unacceptable, but had exactly the same criteria as an existing one? Can the minister see that someone who is proposing that would say: "Well, this project should not even be reviewable, or if it is reviewable, it should be given carte blanche, because here are ten other examples of farms with the same criteria"?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have already said that there's no such thing as exactly the same process. If the hon. member is referring to similar criteria, of course that would have to be taken into consideration in the consultation process leading up to the development of the regulations.
V. Anderson: If I understand what I have been hearing, once this is passed, before every new industrial or commercial business development of any consequence at all -- either rural or urban -- can begin to open any business other than a very small commercial business under a local licence, it will have to apply for a project review and get project approval. Taking our own riding where any new commercial development has even a hint of affecting the community's air, water or environment, before undertaking almost any industrial, commercial, agricultural or tourism area activity -- any project at all -- will need project approval before it can go ahead. That's a one- or two-year process for any business coming into the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: We're not looking at commercial developments as such; not a commercial development coming into the hon. member's riding. If somebody wants to attend the consultation dealing with the regulations and suggest that we do that, obviously common sense would mean that we wouldn't move in that direction.
D. Mitchell: Just so that I understand what the minister is saying on this, it would appear that there are going to be two categories of operations, projects and economic development activities in the province: pre-Bill 32 and post-Bill 32. Those that are currently in operation, subject to the interpretation of section 1 of this bill, will be pre-Bill 32. But everything else in the province that can be defined under section 3 -- and conceivably that could be just about any project in the province -- is going to be post-Bill 32. All those projects of an existing business or operation or a new business or operation, which come under this review process, are going to be in a different category. We're going to have two simultaneous classifications of operations or businesses in the province. Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. A. Edwards: Is the member saying that we should never go forward? Certainly projects get approved under process, and time marches on. New projects come in, and perhaps the criteria are different. Other projects may come to an expansion, at which time they have to be reviewed again because they want to do something different and they apply again. The standards are increased or are under a regulatory regime that requires that they operate differently, or whatever. As we go, there's no question that there are different requirements for projects of a different age. We try to be as uniform and equitable as possible, but there's no question that a project that is done has been given its go-ahead under certain requirements. We hope every project that comes in later does so under better criteria. We don't want to put them out of the place, but we also want to recognize what is most acceptable and most possible.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Minister of Energy for that answer. I think she confirms that there will be a new regime with the passage of this bill, which will entail this new process. The real question that has been asked about this section by other members of the committee is: which projects are going to be reviewable projects not only under this section but under the previous section? Wouldn't it expedite matters in the committee this evening to simply clarify that? My understanding is that, subject to the conditions laid out in section 1, conceivably any economic development project or any operation of an existing physical plant or facility in British Columbia could, under section 3, come under the designation of cabinet and the regulations pursuant to this act. Is that not the case?
[9:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: Subject to the interpretations, the purpose and the definitions, yes, the decisions will come out of the consultation process leading up to the development of regulations.
V. Anderson: I'd just like to clarify that. The edge of the Fraser River is in my riding. From what I hear, if someone wants to develop a new marina project on the Fraser River, it would have to come through a project review. If one of the existing mills along the Fraser River plans a major extension, it would have to be reviewed. If commercial fishers along the Fraser River want to do anything extensive, they also would have to have a review. Groups planning recycling projects, which can cause concerns about the environment, would also have to have a review. So in order to know whether projects are major or minor, all of the projects in the industrial area bordering the Fraser River would have to come forward for review.
Hon. J. Cashore: Potentially a number of those projects that the hon. member referred to would, subject to the consultation process in the development of the regulations. But in order to give an historical sense of what might be involved, I point out again that this bill is an umbrella that brings in the current processes of the mine development review project, the
[ Page 8310 ]
energy development review project and the major project review. At the present time those kinds of projects would be subject to review, and I would think that after we go through this consultation process there won't be a major shift in what would be drawn in. But it would be subject to the very clear process that is spelled out for dealing with review -- again dealing with most projects that would be in and out during the first phase -- and then going on to deal with the projects that have greater impact.
The hon. member raised the question of an expansion. Again, that would be subject to discussions leading to the development of the regulations. We would want to make sure that it was well thought out, so that it wasn't saying that every time there was an expansion of a sawmill, it would automatically come in, but certain categories of expansion passing a certain critical mass would. Potentially, most of those projects the hon. member referred to could come under review.
V. Anderson: I'll stop here because the illustration is enough. Once the AirCare station in our area begins to operate as a government project with the lineup of cars, the exhaust and the extension of that into our community, I understand that that would be under review. Am I right in that?
Hon. J. Cashore: Subject to consultation leading to the regulations, but I would think it unlikely.
R. Neufeld: I have a couple of questions about natural gas and exploration of the same. It's interesting that we are going to the backgrounder document to find out what this act is going to cover. It's quite interesting, because this can change, obviously, at any time that the cabinet wishes. It's really not a bill that's worth discussing at this time of night, to tell the truth. It should have in it what it really covers and what's it for. But I would like either one of the ministers to explain: "...but does not include: (1) a compressor, separator or dehydrator used as part of a production of natural gas, oil, or both, from a well, or (2) underground storage facilities used in conjunction with the production of natural gas, oil, or both, from a well and located wellhead." Could one of the ministers please explain that to me?
Hon. A. Edwards: The member reads from the backgrounder, and those are proposals from which we will begin consultations to have input as to what the public believes, what the industry believes and what we believe should be a reviewable project or not.
R. Neufeld: That's very interesting. Not very long ago that same minister chastised one of the members on this side of the House for not reading the backgrounder, because had he read the backgrounder he would have known what the bill was going to cover. Now when I ask her specifically about something in the backgrounder, the minister says: "Well, that could change; the backgrounder means nothing." So what is going on here? What's the sense of the backgrounder? There is no sense to it, because I can see where the natural gas industry -- which is bringing in a few dollars for the province today, and I'm sure you'd like to keep the money tree going -- could be a little bit nervous about something such as this because of exploration and what could happen in a field. How big a project is this going to cover -- in millions of dollars or millions of cubic feet of gas produced? Companies that drill for these wells don't know how much the well is going to produce. They have a pretty good idea, but in some cases it could be tremendous and in others really small.
There could be a project on which a company decided, maybe three years previously, to spend $10 million on drilling out a field; and it takes in some seismic. Is that going to be covered? Or are they going to have to go through all this review process? Is the backgrounder going to apply, or some discussions? Or does somebody in cabinet make the decision on what they're going to do? If they get halfway through the project and it's bigger than the cabinet thinks it should be, do they then have to go through a process? Why don't you lay it out in the bill?
I don't have a lot of trouble with underground storage, but would underground storage be specifically in the Fraser Valley? Is that what we're talking about: underground storage in the Fraser Valley?
Hon. A. Edwards: The number of implications in the member's comments is amazing. However, first I would like to inform the member that this was taken out of the B.C. Utilities Commission Act, so basically that's what I believe is currently in regulation. So it's taken out of what exists now. It is the basis for consultation. If you are going to consult, it seems best to us not to lay out what's going to be there. But it is not very useful to simply go out with no basis for discussion. This is the basis for discussion. It comes from what is currently in practice. It's what is there and what the basis is. It's what we would use for the consultation that we expect to conduct over the next year before we bring out regulations.
G. Wilson: I just have one last question on section 3, and then maybe we can prevail on the opposite side to recognize the folly of their ways and defeat this section.
I notice that in the background paper they talk about water containment and diversion projects. I notice that we have "potential for adverse effects," "location" and "type of industry" as categories under section 3(2). Given that the Thompson diversion project has received endorsement from the Minister of Transportation and Highways in the province, and given the scope, size and scale of this project which the Minister of Transportation and Highways is so keen on, would that be considered under this particular act as a renewable project?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I'm sure this would include such a project.
L. Fox: I just want to follow up a little on the concerns that the member for Peace River North
[ Page 8311 ]
outlined with respect to the gas industry. An underground storage facility used in conjunction with the production of natural gas, oil or both from a well located at the wellhead seems to be an exempted process from this legislation, according to the statement on this backgrounder.
It would seem to indicate that if drilling in the Fraser Valley located gas, and they wished to utilize the underground storage structure -- which has been very controversial over the last three to four years -- that would not have to go through this project review process, because it would be storage in conjunction with the actual well. I would like some clarification on that from the minister.
Hon. A. Edwards: There are a number of things that will be discussed during the consultation, and this kind of thing is one of them. First of all, to make assumptions would be foolish, but I do want to answer your legitimate concerns. Your legitimate concern is whether there are things currently under the act -- not under this section; it will come later -- that could be referred at the discretion of the minister responsible. Again, points are going to come up as we continue to discuss the act that will tend to clarify further what the direction will be. Certainly these kinds of things, which do happen in some parts of the province and have been very severely opposed in other parts of the province, would be part of the discussion.
L. Fox: I find the minister's statements absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous, to say the least. The minister suggested that everybody look at this background document. It was the guide that was going to structure the regulations. If we want to know what clause (3) means, we should look to the backgrounder, because that's going to give us that indication. Here, specifically, this backgrounder excludes underground storage; as long as it's at the wellhead, this excludes underground storage of gas, oil or both from having to go through this process. Given that it's so controversial and so much of a concern to many residents of the Fraser Valley, this is an indicator to me and, I'm sure, to them that that particular initiative will not have to go through an environmental review process.
The minister is suggesting in her statements that that's going to be subject to a ministerial decision somewhere down the road. It doesn't have to be reflected in legislation; we can trust the minister to respect the people of the Fraser Valley. I find that absolutely ludicrous. I go back to the statement of the member for Okanagan-Vernon, when he suggested that the government should be embarrassed to bring this kind of legislation forward, which is so open-ended and says absolutely nothing. In fact, it's beyond apprehension...
An Hon. Member: Hope.
L. Fox: ...and almost beyond hope, without question.
[9:30]
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly section 4 is one that would be included when we're talking about this. Again, I want the member to remember that this is the basis for consultation. We believe that we will have considerable input on that consultation.
D. Mitchell: Just before we move on -- if in fact we're going to move on -- the projects that are defined as reviewable projects under section 3, I believe, could include projects in the public as well as the private sector. When these reviewable projects are undertaken by the provincial government itself -- whether they be in the form of a hydro operating dam by one of the Crown corporations or a project by the Minister of Transportation and Highways that requires an environmental assessment and which the minister believes should be a reviewable project -- would the government not be in a conflict position? Would there not be a conflict of interest where the minister who is going to designate the project as reviewable might be the minister who is responsible for the project? Is there not an inherent conflict there?
Hon. J. Cashore: The potential for conflict is mitigated by the fact that there is a neutral agency that functions at arm's length. This is one of the places where the federal act falls down, because it does not have such a neutral agency. The concern that is being expressed is a legitimate concern, and I think we have to be diligent about it and not denigrate it in any way. But in all the legislation across Canada there is that point at which governments have to make decisions. That aspect is mitigated as much as possible in B.C. by having a neutral agency, whereas some provinces and the federal government don't have that. So we have a process that builds in at least a higher degree of neutrality. But it is true in the final analysis that cabinet is making decisions, and we have to say it up front. If that amounts to a conflict, I don't think the hon. member has a way of getting around that, unless we take the decision-making away from government altogether -- and I don't think he's advocating that. However, one of the checks and balances is the fact that in our political process the public has an opportunity every four or five years to decide on how well the government administers legislation.
R. Neufeld: Just another quick question on the backgrounder put out by the Ministry of Environment. In the agriculture section it says, "dairy operations where the milking herd exceeds 700 cows," and then it goes on to say, "beef feedlots involving more than 5,000 cattle." Can the minister tell me why there is a difference between 5,000 and 700 when we're talking about animals?
Hon. J. Cashore: These are put forward after consultation with the various departments within government. They are put there to start the discussion that will ensue for the following year as we move toward developing the consultations. So if the hon. member feels that those amounts are inappropriate or if
[ Page 8312 ]
he has suggestions about that, I would invite him to participate in that process.
R. Neufeld: Because it was generated in the Ministry of Environment, I just thought that the minister may have some idea of the difference between 700 cows and 5,000 cattle in a beef feedlot. Actually, when you read the top of it, it's projects proposed for assessment, so obviously the minister feels that this is what's going to happen regardless. Maybe he could try to explain that for me again, please.
Section 3 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 29 | ||
|
Perry |
Marzari |
Boone |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Charbonneau |
Jackson |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Lali |
|
Miller |
Harcourt |
Clark |
|
Cull |
MacPhail |
Ramsey |
|
Evans |
O'Neill |
Doyle |
|
Hartley |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Simpson |
Janssen | |
| NAYS -- 14 | ||
|
Reid |
Dalton |
Wilson |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Mitchell |
|
Tyabji |
K. Jones |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
Tanner |
Symons |
|
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
On section 4.
G. Wilson: With respect to section 4, we just heard from the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that it's okay. We should trust this government, because they will allow us an opportunity to consult with them in the implementation of the regulations, and when the regulations come down, it will be because of widespread consultation. They said that widespread consultation on the matter of regulation would be safeguard enough, and that anybody in this side of the House who wanted to involve themselves in the provision of those regulations could do so.
Section 4 says: "The minister by order may designate a project as a reviewable project, even though it does not constitute a reviewable project under the regulations if the minister is satisfied that the project has or may have a significant adverse affect and that the designation is in the public interest." If that is not the caveat upon caveats that gives this government absolute and exclusive power, I think that clearly has to be seen to be it. The minister is saying that he's going to consult over regulations. And in consulting on the regulations, in the very next section of the bill he introduces his power and right to override the regulation, simply because the minister deems it's in the public interest. I don't know how this minister could in good conscience put this forward in a bill and not recognize that the people of British Columbia will find it totally unacceptable that the minister has that kind of discretionary power in such an important bill.
[9:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, this section makes it very clear that it's necessary to be able to bring in new projects that have not been subject to definition. If the hon. member doesn't care about the potential impacts on the environment, that's his problem. The purpose of the bill is to have an appropriate balance between environment and economy, and therefore we have to be able to deal with projects that aren't subject to the definitions that are extant at a given time.
With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Streifel in the chair.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
The House adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]