1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 21, Number 14
[ Page 16163 ]
The House resumed at 6:49 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In the House, I call committee stage of Bill 48.
ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES ACT
The House in committee on Bill 48; D. Schreck in the chair.
On section 1.
L. Reid: Section 1, under the term "beset," says: "... (a) to continuously or repeatedly observe a service provider, doctor who provides abortion services or patient or a building in which any of them resides or in which abortion services are provided, or...." I am asking the minister to kindly comment on the term "observe," because from our rendering, that appears to be incredibly open-ended. It seems to be an activity that could vary tremendously from individual to individual. Indeed, if the intent of this legislation is to tighten up the level of activity -- and that certainly seems to be the minister's goal in terms of protecting unimpeded access to this service -- then we need to have an incredibly concise understanding of that particular term.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In opening committee stage on this act, I want to start by introducing to the House staff who are with me. On my far right is Phyllis Chuly, who is the director of the women's health bureau in the Ministry of Health. On my immediate right is Erin Shaw, a policy analyst with the Ministry of Attorney General; on my left is Brian Etheridge, legal counsel for the Ministry of Attorney General.
The member asks about the definition of "beset" in section 1. I'll make a couple of comments. First, this definition is for action that is also prohibited in the injunction that's in place around the provision of abortion services and clinics in Ontario. It's also a definition that was taken here in British Columbia from a Supreme Court case involving interpretation of the watching-and-besetting provisions in the injunction currently in place around Everywoman's Health Centre.
This definition is one that has been part of injunctions that have been upheld in courts both in this province and in Ontario. I agree that it does cast an appropriate range. I would make two comments on how it's limited. First, it is not observing that is prohibited; "continuously or repeatedly" constitutes the offence here. There are some modifiers. The other important modifier is at the end of the definition. It specifies it for a particular purpose. So it's caught by both the continuous nature of the activity and by purpose.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for the clarification. To move to the next line, "(b) to place oneself close to..." we have the same concerns around "close to," in that it is incredibly vague. I would ask the minister to provide some examples -- the clarification or precedent he used to arrive at the term "close to." Could the minister kindly comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: In the case in the Supreme Court which led to the upholding of the watching-and-besetting provisions of the injunction, evidence introduced revealed, among other things, that anti-abortion protesters met couples going toward the clinic, pressed against them and tried to hand them pamphlets. The protesters said, "Don't kill your baby; we can help you," then descended into shouts of "baby killer," "murderer" and the like. The judge found that the patients were crowded and pressured by the protesters, their conduct had an obvious emotional effect on the patients, and therefore the injunction against this sort of behaviour should be upheld. We believe the same.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's discussion about the level of activity, but my question was particularly around the term "close to." What I gathered from the minister's comments was that determination was reached if the client felt pressured. Can the minister extend that at all? What type of physical proximity must be in place for this clause to stand?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think we can specify numbers of inches or feet or metres here. We can clearly say that when the importuning occurs -- which is also part of that definition -- and when the purpose is to dissuade the service provider from providing services or the patient from using services, then we have an activity that is a breach of this law. It is an activity that clearly distresses women who are seeking to access this legal health service, and we think that there is no reason for doing such at this point.
L. Reid: A "facility" means "a hospital, clinic or doctor's office in which abortion services are provided." My question revolves around the inclusion of hospitals. I'm not aware that there are currently problems at hospitals in the province. The discussion that this minister and I had during second reading focused on physicians' homes and offices and on clinics; we did not engage ourselves in a discussion around hospitals. Why are they included in this section?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The inclusion of hospitals is not because there are protests around hospitals currently, and a zone is not contemplated being established at this time. However, I think we have to anticipate that there may be such protests around other facilities where abortion services are provided, and hospitals are one set of such facilities. Therefore this allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate an access zone around a hospital should it become the subject of the activities that we have seen around clinics.
L. Reid: To move down the page of definitions, a " 'protest' includes any act of disapproval or attempted act of disapproval...." A number of questions have been raised in terms of how one might define an attempted act of disapproval. I would ask the minister to convey what that might look like. The vagueness in that section is only problematic.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to again reinforce the fact that we have based this legislation very carefully on other work that has been done. I think this definition captures activities similar to the Ontario injunction which prohibits protest activity, including picketing, handbilling, leafleting, patrolling, and engaging in oral protest or education, or anticipation of those. I think the word we are sending to those who feel strongly about abortion is that they have every right to do
[ Page 16164 ]
that and protest it if they wish, but these clinics, homes and offices are not the place to do it. Therefore it is deliberately drawn broadly to say that acts of protest -- and ultimately the court would decide whether an activity was an act of protest -- should not occur there. Those engaged in such activities would do well to read this definition very broadly.
L. Reid: Again I would ask the minister, and let me phrase it this way: in this minister's view, what is the difference between an act of disapproval or an attempted act of disapproval? The folks who have asked me want to know if they look different. I'm not hearing clarification from this minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me give you a couple of examples. A person is leafleting and handing out leaflets. Whether or not the patient or service provider receives the leaflet is not the issue. It's the fact of leafleting that would be caught by the definition of protest. Similarly, whether the care provider hears the shouts of "murderer" or "baby killer," or whether they are only heard by the officer who is enforcing the law, there is clearly an attempt to disapprove, with respect to issues related to abortion.
[7:00]
L. Reid: I am attempting to seek some clarification here. What I am hearing the minister say is that if the level of protest is heard by the client, it somehow would be an act of disapproval, and if it is not heard, it's an attempted act of disapproval.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That is what I said, yes.
L. Reid: My thanks to the minister for that clarification. I want to tie this section under "protest" to "sidewalk interference." It seems that "sidewalk interference" is an extension of the original definition around "protest." The individuals who have come to me have said: "How do they differ? Will I be required to do something different to fall into one of these different categories?" I will leave the minister with that question: does the definition around "protest"...? Will the level of activity somehow contrast with "sidewalk interference"?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the differences is that "sidewalk interference" captures any attempt to advise or persuade around the use of abortion services one way or the other. It is meant to say very clearly that these are issues of importance and they should be discussed, but not in this zone. The "protest" definition focuses exclusively on disapproval of the provision of these services. The "sidewalk interference" definition captures other sorts of activities that might not be caught by the definition of "protest."
L. Fox: I'd like to go back to the definition of "beset," in an attempt to understand what the intent of this legislation is and whether or not there is balance. First of all, when this particular definition is considered with other parts of the legislation, it appears to me that if a doctor or a provider is anywhere in British Columbia and somebody is observing them repeatedly or taking pictures of them, that is considered, under this legislation, by the terminology "beset," to be something which is not condoned; in other words, it goes against this legislation. Would the minister confirm that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to separate two issues. The issue around graphic recording is something we will deal with later; it is the subject of a separate section of the act. I'd like to distinguish it from the watching and besetting.
Besetting -- first, it would have to be continuously or repeatedly. It is true that that could happen anywhere in the province. No, excuse me -- the besetting is within the access zones, but an access zone could be anywhere in the province. I'm sorry; the staff has just corrected me. The member is right. It's anywhere in the province, but it is continuously or repeatedly. The other qualification here is, again, at the end of that definition: "...for the purpose of dissuading the service provider or doctor from providing, or the patient from using, abortion services." So the purpose is clearly an important part of this definition.
L. Fox: To carry that forward, if a doctor who provides this service chooses to attend a pro-choice rally as a guest speaker, and individuals from a pro-life organization are preparing to videotape and are using signage and so on around that rally, which could be graphic.... As the minister is well aware, emotions sometimes flow high over this issue. This particular word "beset" could encompass anybody who might be observing the extent of that rally on a continuous basis. This has the possibility of coming down against anybody who's protesting the intent of that rally. Is that not correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The court would have to determine that it was not just one picture at one time but was continuously or repeatedly observing. Second, the court would have to determine that this was for the purpose of dissuading the service provider, not simply to record an event. The court clearly has that view of it. That's one of the ways in which we have narrowed the scope of this definition and of the application of this law.
L. Fox: If I envision this correctly, then, if indeed there were signs that highlighted the doctor's name and said "abortion kills" -- those kinds of graphic statements -- the court would, according to the minister's terminology, suggest that that was done in a way to attempt to dissuade that doctor from performing that service. So let me ask the minister, on the converse side -- because I'm trying to understand whether we have one law for all British Columbia: if you have a pro-life rally, and you have pro- choice individuals attending that rally doing exactly the opposite of what we see pro-life.... They are not covered by the "beset" definition under this act. Is that not correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The act covers physicians who are engaged in providing this legal health service. It does not address demonstrators or protesters on either side of this issue, except within these access zones or around a specific set of activities outside them.
L. Fox: I guess that's a way of admitting that this legislation targets one sector of British Columbians -- that is, those who wish to protest pro-choice. So we have that clear.
Number two, the issue that I want to deal with is around "protest," where it suggests that this will include "any act of disapproval." It seems to me that that's rather a broad description, and it's open to all kinds of interpretation by the courts.
[ Page 16165 ]
Notwithstanding what the minister said earlier, I'm very concerned that all individuals affected by this will interpret this a whole lot differently. An act of disapproval to you is probably a lot different than an act of disapproval to me -- or it may, in fact, be different. We may envision or view it from a different perspective because of our philosophical beliefs, if nothing else. Perhaps the minister might want to suggest how....
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'd like to respond to the member's earlier comment that this legislation targets one sector. On the contrary, I'd say it protects two segments of our population, and those are women seeking access to a legal health service and care providers engaged in providing for them. Those are the targets -- they are the targets now -- of protest, interference, intimidation, harassment and abuse. Those are the targets we are attempting to get out of the bull's-eye, to put some distance between them and those who have concerns about whether abortion should be allowed under the laws of this country. That is a different issue.
As for an act of disapproval, let me restate that indeed this definition of "protest" has been drawn broadly. It does say: "...without limitation, graphic, verbal or written means." It does that for a reason: to avoid exactly the sort of situation this member wishes to engage in -- that is, hairsplitting over which activity, whether it's verbal, graphic or written, is captured or not captured. The test is clear. It's disapproval or attempted disapproval; it's on an issue related to abortion services.
The other main limitation that we believe will keep this act and ensure that it survives court challenges -- you've heard from some people in the last week that they intend to challenge it in court -- is that it is a prohibition within those narrowly defined access zones. It is indeed a limitation on expression. We've said that in second reading; I'll say it again here. It's a limitation within these access zones. It's what the legal experts call a narrow restriction on time or place, and we believe that these restrictions and the limitation on expression are justifiable.
L. Fox: Let me first respond to the minister's first response to my earlier question. I could agree with the minister if the besetting -- and I'm not sure whether that's correct or not -- did not apply geographically throughout the whole province. Then I could accept what the minister is saying. But when it applies throughout the whole of British Columbia, then I take some issue with the minister's rationale.
On the other issue, let me just repeat what I said in the second reading stage. I don't condone harassment nor do any individuals I know. I think that is something which is beneath those who have a firm belief in their cause -- whatever it is -- and which, in fact, destroys any change in the public's attitude when they see those kinds of acts taking place. So I don't condone it and I'm concerned about it. But I'm also concerned that this is far-reaching legislation. The terminology of "beset" is a great concern to me. Because of that, in section 4 I will move an amendment so that it does become the way the minister suggested earlier -- that it only is within the zone and not outside the zone, as he thought when he answered my question earlier. Perhaps my amendment would be very supportable by the minister, because it is indeed what his thought was with respect to the word.
Unfortunately, because of this it's an act against one segment of the public to protect one segment of the public. It's not a general act, and it's not something that deals with all British Columbians equally. That's unfortunate. Because of that situation, I'm really having difficulty supporting it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: On the issue of "protest," we're really back on principle rather than the definition in the section here. I'll say it one more time. I do believe that this limited application of restrictions on expression is demonstrably justified. The member is quite right: this does not apply to other health services. They have not been the subject of this sort of demonstration and interference for a decade or more. It does indeed say that there's a certain group of British Columbians who deserve further protection than they're getting by existing laws. Those British Columbians are service providers and patients using abortion services. I look forward to the debate and proposed amendment on section 4.
[7:15]
J. Dalton: When I came in, my colleague was asking about the terminology in "beset." Firstly, I make this point to the minister. The phrase "close to," I suggest, is very uncertain in law. You're going to have a great deal of difficulty in a court of law -- which, you must keep in mind, is where these things are going to end up in dealing with that.
I heard the minister say, in answer to a question from my colleague from Richmond East, that this item in "beset" -- "...close to, and to importune...." I point out to the minister that both are required by the way the phrase is worded. That, I'm suggesting, is going to further compound the difficulties. I'm just very concerned that the best of intentions -- and we all know this -- are reflected in this act, and I predict that those intentions are going to be somewhat disappointed by the way this act is put together. So I'm drawing that to the attention of the minister. If he cares to remark on that, he of course can do so.
I want to go on as well to the wording of the interpretation of "protest," which has also been discussed. An "attempted act of disapproval" has been pointed out. The minister suggested, to take an example -- and hopefully it's easier for us to try to put this in concrete terms -- that shouting, of course, is an act. The minister was trying to tell us that if somebody was shouting and the recipient didn't hear it, but perhaps a police officer heard it, that might constitute an attempted act of shouting. Quite frankly, that won't wash. I cannot see, in all honesty, what an "attempted act of disapproval" is.
Let me draw the minister's attention to something in section 2 that may help him to see where I'm coming from. In sub- subsection 2(1)(d), we deal with physically interfering with or attempting to interfere. I suggest that might stand a court challenge. Why? Because "physically interfere" is an act, and you can attempt to do an act. I'm thinking of the many references in the Criminal Code to attempts. Even though this is not a criminal statute, it is a quasi-criminal statute.
Again, I'm drawing to the attention of this minister that this terminology is not going to make it in a court of law. The very thing that he's attempting to accomplish with this act, he will not accomplish.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, on the definition of "beset," I think we've canvassed this fairly thoroughly. The member is right, the common-law definition of "beset" may be seen as vague;
[ Page 16166 ]
that's why we've defined it. We've defined it, as the member himself points out, with a fair number of limitations on that activity. It says, "...to continuously or repeatedly observe..." and not only placing oneself close to but placing oneself close to and importuning. We have deliberately done that, so that it will withstand a court challenge on the issue. Not only do those two limitations apply, but besetting has to be for the purpose of dissuading the service provider. I would submit that it is that precision that will ensure that this law withstands the court challenge that, I think, is inevitable.
As far as protest is concerned, let me again say that there can be attempted acts of disapproval. If I've attempted to shove a pamphlet into your hand, I've attempted a protest; I've not perhaps succeeded. If I attempt to show you a picture, I may have attempted; I may not have succeeded. But those acts, I believe, are examples of attempts to disapprove with respect to issues related to abortion.
Finally, the member referred to section 2(1)(d). I'm sure we'll have a good debate when we get there.
G. Wilson: Under this section, I don't know how detailed we should try to be in terms of a comparison between the Ontario case and what's being attempted here, although I see that the government, in drafting this legislation, has obviously looked fairly carefully at the case Ontario v. Dieleman -- at least, the issues are very specific to it.
With respect to these definitions, I wonder if the minister might tell us, then: will this bill make illegal the establishment of a labour picket outside the hospital in which abortions are provided? Because that will essentially be a continuous or repeated intervention against a building in which abortion services are provided, and the purposes of dissuading....
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Now, I hear everybody yelling: "Section 16." If you look at the definitions and then section 16, it simply says: "This act is subject to the Labour Relations Code." The specifics of the Labour Relations Code do not speak to this question. In fact, the Ontario case makes quite clear that in that case, the government essentially was stepping over the Labour Relations Board to the extent it was saying it was prepared to take that step to prohibit that kind of expression.
I raised the matter of section 16 in second reading debate and have since gone through and done some work on the Labour Relations Code on that section. What I really need to know is whether or not that definition would prohibit a labour picket outside of a hospital in which an abortion is provided.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My first comment is that I think we can thoroughly canvass the connection between the provisions of this statute and the Labour Code when we reach section 16. I think that is the appropriate place to do it. I would also remind the member of the debate we had around facilities and my explanation to the Liberal critic of why hospitals were included in facilities at all: that was in anticipation of the potential for future disruptive activity around those facilities, not because of any current need to proclaim an access zone around any hospital in the province.
G. Wilson: Obviously I didn't get an answer, and I don't mind waiting until we get to section 16, whenever that may be, provided that my doing so is not going to preclude me an opportunity to recanvass this definition at that time. I wouldn't want it to be said: "Well, you should have raised that during the debate on definitions." It seems to me that this definition is inclusive -- and the jurisprudence on it would say that that's true -- in which case I think that we might.... The minister is frowning, and I look forward to his explanation for why it isn't. Clearly, that's what you would be intending through a legally constituted labour picket. However, if you think it's better under section 16, I'll do so then, but I would reserve my right to come back to this definition at that time.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister if he could tell us.... The definition of "picketing" or "picket" is:
"...attending at or near a person's place of business, operations or employment for the purpose of persuading or attempting to persuade anyone not to
"(a) enter that place of business, operations or employment,
"(b) deal in or handle that person's products, or
"(c) do business with that person
"and a similar act at such a place that has an equivalent purpose."
That is a description of the definition in the Labour Relations Code. Could the minister compare that with the definition of "protest" in Bill 48, which says: "...includes any act of disapproval or attempted act of disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, verbal or written means"? Could the minister tell us: if the definition of "picketing" were placed in the same category as protest, would that be an acceptable form in this bill?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as the definition in the Labour Code, is concerned, I'd be quite willing to discuss that when we get to section 16. We can canvass those issues at that time, as I said to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
The member asked, I believe, whether picketing is captured by the definition of "protest." Picketing would be a verbal, graphic or written means of demonstrating disapproval of issues related to abortion services, and such disapproval would be captured by the definition here.
K. Jones: I'd like to get further clarification from the minister with regard to whether he feels that the definition that is acceptable for picketing, which closely parallels the definition for protest in this bill, would be acceptable as a substitute if it were referring to abortion services. It's an acceptable item to do with regard to the labour dispute.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, picketing is a much narrower set of activities than protesting. It would not be an acceptable substitute.
K. Jones: I wasn't asking whether it was narrower; I was asking whether those items that are described as acceptable within the definition of "picketing" would be acceptable within the bubble zone, as indicated here. Could a person carry on the types of actions that are described under the Labour Code for picketing, such as "attending at or near a person's place of business, operations or employment for the purpose of persuading or attempting to persuade anyone not
[ Page 16167 ]
to...enter that place of business...deal in or handle that person's products..." or attempting to persuade anyone not to do business with that person? That is acceptable practice under the Labour Code in any part of this province. Would that be acceptable within these bubble zones if it were relating to the abortion issue?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If the picketing is related to disapproval of the provision of abortion services and, as the definition says, "disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services," that would be captured by the definition of "protest" and would not be permitted. As far as the intersection of activity under the Labour Code with activity which is the subject of these definitions under this act, I would again say that that is an issue that both you and the member for Powell River- Sunshine Coast have evidenced interest in. We will be canvassing it in section 16.
[7:30]
K. Jones: I am not trying to relate to the role that the Labour Code plays with reference to section 15. I am trying to get you to tell us if the definition used within the Labour Code for attending at or near a person's place of business, operations or employment for the purpose of persuading or attempting to persuade anyone not to enter that place of business or not to deal in or handle that person's products or not to do business with that person is acceptable if those actions -- which are being described here as being acceptable for a person in a labour protest -- are relating to abortion. If it is perfectly acceptable and right for a person to carry on those activities in regard to a labour situation, why is it not acceptable for those same actions to be carried on with regard to abortion issues?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We've now canvassed this several times. Let me try one more time, hon. member. I'm not attempting to evade the question. I am saying that.... The essence of your question is: how are some activities which are permitted under the Labour Code dealt with under this legislation? I say again that we will canvass those issue when we reach section 16. Here we have a definition of "protest" for the purpose of establishing access zones, prohibiting certain activities within them and placing some limitations on activity in these very narrow and small parts of the province. That, I submit, is the issue. The definition of "protest," again, would capture picketing, attempting to dissuade as an act of disapproval or attempted act of disapproval on an issue related to abortion, if that were the purpose of the picket. But the definition of "protest" is far broader than simply picketing.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
L. Fox: Just one very brief response to the minister's words. I think if anybody were watching they would think that this was only going to be carried on within the bubble zones. But because of the "beset" provision, this can be carried on anywhere in British Columbia, and the determination made under the clause about "protest" could, indeed, be in any location in the province.
W. Hurd: I just had one brief question with respect to the definition of "protest." Since we are dealing with what amounts to a zone of restriction with respect to these protests, it's unlike the Clayoquot situation where the individuals were arrested based on the violation of a court order and, as the minister will recall, tried en masse based on the wilful violation of the court order. One would assume that since we are defining "protest," and it can take many and varied forms.... Can the minister tell us, from the benefit of his legal opinions that undoubtedly he has commissioned with this act, whether that will now require individuals who are engaged in protests covered by the act to be arrested and tried as individuals, as opposed to the Clayoquot case where the courts were able to deal with the cases en masse?
If the answer to that question is yes, they have to be arrested and tried as individuals based on the type of protest that they were engaged in, then I would suggest to the minister that he is looking at a clogged court agenda. Clearly, had we been forced in the Clayoquot trials to deal with individual cases one after another, it would have been almost impossible to get through the docket to deal with the cases. I wonder if the minister can advise us whether this definition of "protest" will now require that individuals will have to be tried individually, based on the type of protest that they are engaged in, or whether there is a possibility that these trials could be handled in the form of one trial as we witnessed in the Clayoquot case.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Those protesters arrested for violation of the injunction around Clayoquot were tried and sentenced as individuals. In some cases their sentences differed substantially from one to the other, depending on what their actions had been, although their pleadings were heard in a setting where more than one person was in the courtroom at a time. It would similarly be up to the courts to decide whether they wished to have the pleadings of more than one individual who was arrested under this act heard at one time. But that is a matter for the courts to decide and not for this chamber.
W. Hurd: With the wording of this act, with all due respect, you are not giving the courts that opportunity. You are defining a protest as including "any act of disapproval or attempted act of disapproval." I mean, that could be anything. It's not like people gathering on the Kennedy Lake bridge to blockade it and prevent access, in which case they were all arrested for violating a single court order. Although the minister is correct in pointing out that the sentences differed, the fact of the matter is that there was one charge and one charge only: that of wilfully disobeying a court order.
In this case, clearly the individuals would have a right to be tried as individuals, because the courts would have to determine exactly what type of protest they were engaged in and how it was in violation of the act. What we are dealing with here under the definition of protest.... It is almost a necessity that the courts deal with each person arrested in this access zone as an individual, with an individual case and an individual course of action.
I just point out to the minister that that almost assumes, if there is a large-scale protest when this act is eventually passed and if we are dealing with individuals being charged and having an individual right to a trial.... I am just seeking assurance from the minister that that won't happen. If it does -- and it would seem under this definition of "protest" that it will -- each individual will have the right to have the courts determine what type of protest they were involved in and what they have done individually to violate this act. They will have to be tried as individuals, and I would suggest to the
[ Page 16168 ]
minister that we are looking at a potentially clogged court agenda. I don't see how they could deal with the cases individually.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me again say that those who were arrested at the Clayoquot protest for violating an injunction were tried and sentenced as individuals, not as part of a mass. The court determined the format for hearing their cases, and as the member knows, the decision was to hear more than one case at a time. That was how the court chose to dispense with those cases.
Similarly, under this act a person has a right to an individual trial and an individual hearing. The court could decide to have more than one case. Particularly for a protest that involved a large group of people engaging in the same action or attempted action, it could decide to hear those cases with more than one person's case being heard at one time, not unlike Clayoquot. But to say that because the court is hearing them in that format, an individual is not having the specifics of his or her activity heard, or sentences tailored to his or her individual activity, is false to the principles under which courts operate, and it's false to what happened with the Clayoquot demonstrators.
W. Hurd: Clearly, under the definition of "protest" in the definitions section, if a person is carrying a placard or issuing a recording, these are different types of protests, all of which are acknowledged under the act. It's not like the Clayoquot situation, where the people who were on the Kennedy Lake bridge wilfully disobeyed a court order that they not block access.
We're introducing into this process a multiplicity of offences, a multiplicity of types of protest, which the courts would have to deal with individually. If there are three people violating the access zone, and one is carrying a picket sign, one is carrying a Bible and the other is carrying a recording, there's no chance that a court of law could deal with those cases collectively -- not a chance in the world. There would be a violation of the rights of the individual to have their cases heard for the type of protest they were engaged in that's covered under the act.
I would suggest to the minister that if he's under the illusion that we could have ten cases in a demonstration around an abortion clinic dealt with en masse like Clayoquot, then his legal advice is sadly mistaken. I don't believe there's any way in the world those cases would not be dealt with individually, just by the very nature of the definition of "protest" which we're dealing with under section 1. I know that he'll disagree with me; he already has, and I urge him to check with his legal advisers on this point, lest we end up with a court system that is clogged by people who will be utterly convinced that they are engaged in an exercise to protect civil liberties, as opposed to protesting against either choice or pro-life.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure that we got much further along in the discussion of this issue. Let me say again that the disposition of how cases are heard is the court's. They can perhaps have more than one case heard at a time. I can conceive of situations where that might be the decision of the court, but this definition and the act that we're dealing with here do not speak to that determination. That is the determination of the courts.
The Chair: May I just point out before I recognize the member that the meaning of that definition takes form in section 2, rather than in section 1 of the act, and that the definitions are simply the framework. I don't know whether we need to debate the definitions, as opposed to section 2, where we see what the definitions actually do. Having said that, I recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale on section 1.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if a person walking through this bubble zone reading out loud from the Koran or from the Bible would be violating this bubble? Would that be an act of protest?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Before I respond, I would ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery this evening is Ms. Renee Saklikar, a ministerial assistant in my office who has been involved in discussions around this legislation for some time. I'd like the House to make her welcome.
Now, in response to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, it depends on what's being read.
K. Jones: Does the minister mean that certain passages of the Bible or the Koran or some other holy book would be acceptable and that certain passages would not be acceptable within the bubble zone?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The point is whether this activity is designed as an act of disapproval or attempted disapproval with respect to issues related to abortion.
K. Jones: Going further, then, if there were ten people doing the same thing -- say reading a passage from the Bible or from any other holy book or from any book that may be interpreted as representing something to do with abortion -- is that a violation of the bubble zone?
[7:45]
The Chair: Again, before recognizing the minister I want to caution the committee that it's hard to have this debate about a definition, because we are talking about something other than the definition that really belongs more properly to section 2. However, given that we've had the discussion thus far, please proceed, hon. minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have indeed had the discussion thus far. Let me pose the question again: is the activity here an act of disapproval with respect to issues related to abortion? That is the test for violation of the act under this definition in an access zone under section 2, as the Chair notes.
K. Jones: Could the minister then define what an act of disapproval is?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we're down to the level of a dictionary definition. I would urge the member to consult one.
K. Jones: Hon. minister, I think this is very, very important, and I think it's important that you define what people
[ Page 16169 ]
can be charged with under this. It is important for the people around our province to know what a legal protest is, what is legal in relation to this. Obviously, what I hear from you is that no protest is legal at all within these zones if they have anything that could be interpreted as being related to abortion. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I do believe we've got it. A protest means an act of disapproval or attempted disapproval in an access zone with respect to issues related to abortion. It is indeed drawn broadly, and it is intended to be drawn broadly.
J. Tyabji: I have a question on a slightly different angle with respect to the definition of "residence." Would the minister clarify if the intent of the definition is also to take in a place where a doctor may reside from time to time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, it means the usual residence where a person makes his home. That's what the definition says, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: So in the instance where a doctor may have a secondary home -- let's say a place in Whistler or somewhere like that -- would the doctor then have to acquire an injunction in order to have an access zone around his or her secondary residence?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I suspect that the physician would have to rely on harassment provisions or an injunction. The definition and its intersection with the act speak to the usual place in which a person makes their home. That is where demonstrations, protests and interference have usually occurred.
J. Tyabji: Will there be any regulations accompanying any of the definitions in this act -- anything, for example, that may expand on the definitions section?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is no.
J. Tyabji: The last question under this section is: is it the minister's expectation that there may also be injunctions required to have similar protection provided in locations which are not captured by the act?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Not at this point. We believe that this act has captured the points at which active interference with those seeking abortions and those providing them has taken place. We have defined those activities and locations narrowly, and we believe this is the essence of an act which can meet the test of placing reasonable limitations on expression within narrow zones at specific places.
J. Tyabji: I hadn't meant to ask another question, but I guess it's a point of clarification. If it turned out that the definitions section were not adequate to meet the intentions of the minister, would he be bringing in amendments to expand the definitions?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have set out the purposes of this act in the preamble. If those purposes are found to not be met by existing definitions and provisions, I would surely consider bringing in amendments. I think the purposes are clear and important to women and their service providers in this province.
L. Fox: I thought I had a pretty good understanding of what the definition of "beset" was, but when the minister responded to the member for Okanagan East and suggested that the summer home or the recreational home would not be covered.... Maybe I've misinterpreted the intent of "beset." It reads very clearly:
"(a) to continuously or repeatedly observe a service provider, doctor who provides abortion services or patient or a building in which any of them resides or in which abortion services are provided, or
"(b) to place oneself close to, and to importune, a service provider, doctor who provides abortion services or patient...."
This, to me, means that this provision could apply anywhere, whether it's the corner grocery store where the doctor routinely goes, or whether he or she goes and picks up their mail, and that's known, and he or she is continually harassed doing that. They do not need to be within the bubble zone to come under this legislation; in fact, it can be anywhere they are, in any location in the province. If I've got that wrong, he answered the member for Okanagan East incorrectly.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member for Okanagan East asked, I believe -- and Hansard will clarify this -- whether an access zone applied to a secondary residence of a physician, and the answer is no. That does not mean, as the member for Prince George- Omineca quite rightly points out, that some provisions of section 4 -- which we will get to in due course -- apply both within and without access zones.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister clarify something that the member for Prince George-Omineca has raised? It would appear almost as if the definition of "beset" may have the effect of providing, if you will, an almost individual bubble zone around the doctor. If that's the case, I think that's what the member for Prince George-Omineca was alluding to. In that case, the bubble zone moves with that individual. However, the residence is not covered as an access zone if it's not the primary residence. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are indeed engaging in debate on section 4 as we look at definitions in section 1. The provisions of section 4 apply to certain behaviours wherever they occur in the province, and we can deal with those when we get there. I'm not sure the debate on definitions affects that discussion much one way or another.
Section 1 approved on division.
On section 2.
J. Tyabji: Does the minister have any legal opinion about whether the specific provisions of section 2, by implication, mean that the activities listed can occur without the potential for a charge or without them being an offence under this act, provided they occur outside the access zone? It starts off by saying: "While in an access zone, a person must not do...the following: (a) engage in sidewalk interference; (b) protest; (c) beset; (d) physically interfere with (e) intimidate or attempt to intimidate...."
The first thing I think of when I read this is that I can't do that in an access zone. Did the minister canvass a legal opinion to find out if this would be a defence for someone who did this activity outside the access zone?
[ Page 16170 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Activities could be captured by another statute, whether they take place within an access zone or outside one. In section 2 we are concerned with activity that takes place within an access zone and have drawn up those activities which are prohibited within these narrow zones around offices, homes and facilities.
J. Tyabji: More specifically, was there any legal opinion about whether this would indicate a possible defence for people who are outside the access zone with these activities? Alternatively, could the minister point to some statutes where these activities are specifically listed? I don't know about any, especially the physical interference with a service provider, a doctor who provides abortion services or a patient. That's where I have a concern. It is more of a drafting concern -- something that could end up doing the opposite outside the access zones to what the minister is intending with the section.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's no defence of an activity carried on outside an access zone that would be prohibited if carried on within and now you're not inside the access zone. That is not a defence. For instance, there are activities that could be captured by subsection 2(1)(e), "intimidate or attempt to intimidate..." or subsection (d), "physically interfere with or attempt to interfere with..." that might be considered assault, either within or without an access zone.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Or not -- exactly. But within a zone, this sort of interference is clearly captured by this act and is an offence under this act.
J. Tyabji: Are we to read into this section that if these activities occur outside this zone they are not captured? Let me give the minister an example. Let's use the example of a family where the parents will say: "Whatever you do, don't do this within this area." The first response is that they will immediately go and do that thing outside that area. I'm trying to use a light example, but when I read this, the first thing that occurs to me is that these activities being limited within this are not captured by other statutes unless an assault or harassment takes place. But those are separate charges. Although those fall under the statutes, what I read here is that while not in an access zone a person may do the following, providing they don't break another statute. That's what I'm reading into this.
I want to know if, in the drafting of this, there was a legal opinion that said that those activities, if they occur outside that access zone, would fall under another statute, because I don't know where they would. I'm not saying that's even a position I would support; I'm just trying to find out why that language was chosen when drafting this bill, and whether or not there was any thought about whether that language would be exclusive and therefore limiting.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try one more time. The provisions of section 2 pertain to activities within a zone. That's what they're concerned about. I'm not quite sure what the member's argument is -- where anything that's captured here, if done outside there is no longer an offence. There may well be other statutes where a specific act would capture such an activity. I gave the example of assault, or interference that verges on assault, which might be captured by this section, but if done outside a zone might also well be captured by common assault provisions of the Criminal Code.
We are concerned in this act with what happens within those zones, and to say that because it's prohibited within the zones, therefore it's okay outside the zones, strikes me as a strange reading of it. The law is drafted to capture this; it is not permissive of such activities in other circumstances. Those activities in other circumstances are subject to other laws of this country, and they may or may not be contrary to those statutes.
J. Tyabji: I'll try this section one more time. Let's say I was a defence lawyer for someone who had been charged under this act, and they had been doing an activity which may be construed as besetting -- except that it didn't specifically refer to someone who was a service provider, doctor or someone who is captured under the definitions section. If this person was doing something that is not assault or harassment, which may be an activity that you're not allowed to do in an access zone, but they weren't in the access zone, then I would say that this act was actually written to capture all the instances under the purposes section -- because it's very specific under the purposes section -- and that because it's written this way, my client could not possibly be somebody who has interfered with this person, because the act doesn't capture my client. That's what I would argue. That's why I'm just wondering if there was -- and it doesn't sound like there was -- a legal opinion provided on that. I just thought it was kind of strange language, because it does provide that avenue of defence.
[8:00]
Under subsection (3), though -- and we don't have to argue that all night -- where it says "...it is an offence if the defendant establishes that they were acting as (a) a service provider, (b) a doctor who provides abortion services, or (c) a patient," what is accomplished by putting that in there, other than saying that if these three classes of people beset, protest, interfere or attempt to interfere with a service provider or a doctor, or intimidate or attempt to intimidate, they are not subject to prosecution?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's go back to the general debate, and let's state very clearly that we have said in second reading discussion of this bill, and again here at committee stage, that there are some acts that are indeed quite legal in other areas of the province, which we are making an offence in these narrow access zones under section 2. That's the whole point of it. I have said clearly to those who feel strongly about the issue of abortion, and who feel strongly that this is wrong and needs to be protested against, that they have every right to make those protests heard by leaflet, graphic display or whatever means they wish. But they shouldn't do it within the zone. This is the "step back and give some people some space" provision of the act. What I hear the member saying is that somehow we shouldn't distinguish between action within the zone and action without, and I say: " Hey! Yes, we should." That's exactly the purpose of this.
There are indeed activities that could be captured under one of these provisions, in subsections (1)(a) through (1)(e) of section 2, that would be an offence under this act but could also be an offence under some other statute if conducted outside the zone. I hope that clears that up.
[ Page 16171 ]
As for subsection (3), the only defence here relates to activity under subsection (1)(a), which is sidewalk interference. Sidewalk interference captures in its definition "(a) advising or persuading, or attempting to advise or persuade...to refrain from making use of abortion services, or (b) informing or attempting to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services...." Clearly, a physician engaged in provision of a service would be informing the patient about issues related to abortion services and would be doing so within a zone. Therefore that is a defence against a charge under subsection 2(1)(a) of the act.
J. Tyabji: That explains subsection (3). I just want to put on the record that my earlier questions.... As the minister knows, I'm not in favour of this bill. Regardless, on a philosophical basis, what I found a little strange is that the minister is saying that these activities, if they occur outside of the zone and are not in violation of another statute, are therefore allowable. That I find an interesting contradiction, but we don't have to debate that for now.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is asking why. I just find that if you're going to prohibit an action, it's for a good reason. That's where the minister and I obviously disagree on this bill, regardless. So we don't have to get into a long debate about that.
But I want to make sure that people didn't misunderstand where my questioning was coming from. I wasn't advocating a provincewide bubble zone.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
L. Reid: Section 3 is "No graphic recording in an access zone." The minister and I have had this conversation in the past, in terms of whether a car licence plate can be considered as part of this section. The minister will also know that I have tremendous disregard for the activities of the police officer in Delta who did secure that information in the proximity of these clinics and did use a police computer to verify the ownership of those vehicles. The minister also knows that I have, again, tremendous disregard for the degree of censure that his unit, if you will, placed upon him, which was almost nil. I have tremendous concern regarding the latitude some people will continue to take with the fact that licence plates -- i.e., cars dropping off and picking up clients in front of these clinics -- are still fair game. I don't accept that notion in any way, shape or form.
I was trusting that this legislation would disallow that level of activity. It's seems to me that it does not. It seems to me that where this police officer was able to access that information, there are indeed no restrictions in section 3 under graphic recording that would pertain to that particular activity. If the minister would comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me say I share the member opposite's concern about the incident that occurred with inappropriate use of a database by a constable in Delta. It is not possible, though, to legislate for every contingency. The bill attempts to strike that balance, as I've said before, between competing rights. The law does not specifically prohibit the recording of licence plate numbers, because the recording isn't the guts of the issue. The issue is abuse of privilege in access to a database. That is an issue that we have not dealt with in this legislation. That may be a far broader issue with freedom of information and the protection of privacy.
I concede that while we don't prohibit them expressly, it may be that in some circumstances such activity would be caught by this legislation. Section 2(1)(e), which we just passed, says that to "intimidate or attempt to intimidate a service provider, a doctor who provides abortion services or a patient" is an offence. I submit that in some cases it may be that the act of writing down a licence plate is intimidating a doctor, a service provider or a patient, and therefore might be covered by those provisions. But the member is right; there's not an express prohibition of the recording of licence plates.
J. Tyabji: I'm just wondering if this section could be interpreted as not being allowed to record protesters as well. If so, in what way? The reason I'm asking that is that I would assume, in order to assist in the charging of people who might be violating the provisions of this act.... This is so prohibitive about photography that it may also disallow, for example, surveillance cameras. Is that what this section does?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, this section does not do that. Again, let me call the member's attention to the concluding part of this section. It clearly states that the prohibition on graphic recording is when it's done, "for the purpose of dissuading that person from providing, facilitating the provision of, or using abortion services." It's graphic recording for those purposes that is an offence under the act, not for surveillance or by the action of the media.
J. Tyabji: Will the interpretation of the reasons for the photography be left to the courts after someone has been charged?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes; that is what courts do.
J. Tyabji: Is this not going to prohibit the filming of protesters? Would there be any exclusion, for example, of any of this videotape, or could this be interpreted to say that any graphic recordings may be inadmissible as evidence or as something that could be used against...? If someone was trying to keep a record of protesters, for example, a surveillance camera.... Or let's say there were two competing groups, which is more likely, where you have a protesting group in favour of the access zones and a protesting group opposed to abortion, and both sides are competing and filming each other. Is the minister saying that one would be allowed to have graphic evidence because they might be filming the protesters, and the other group, who might be the protesters protesting abortion, would not be allowed to film those who were advocating the access zones? Is that what we have in this section?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we ought to return to the purposes of the act. The purposes are to enable women to access abortions and for their service providers to provide them with respect and dignity and privacy. It is the violation of those privacy and dignity provisions that this section captures.
[ Page 16172 ]
Quite frankly, I think it is well known that those engaged in protests against the provision of abortion services have photographed, filmed, videotaped and sketched doctors and their patients, and have used those in an attempt to dissuade people from accessing those services. There's nothing in this that says that surveillance photographs are prohibited; they are not, and they surely could be adduced in evidence. Pro-choice protesters can be photographed if there's a protest going on, but not doctors, patients and care providers.
L. Fox: One point of clarification about the minister's last statement. I didn't intend to ask a question. If a doctor were in that protest, though, and somebody videotaped it, then they would become chargeable under this act. If the minister is suggesting that you can videotape a pro-choice convention or assembly.... Well, I'm not active in either of those causes, but if the minister is suggesting that they could be videotaped, I think the one exclusion from that would be if there were some doctors there. Let's say, Dr. Morgentaler, for instance, because I don't know of anybody else who performs this exercise. If he were in British Columbia speaking at a rally and that was being videotaped, would that not, then, make them responsible under this act?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We're really stretching it here. First, it is unlikely that you'd have pro-choice demonstrations in one of these access zones. If you did, you clearly could film it. But to say such a filming would be for the purpose of dissuading the person from providing abortion services is a stretch. We have here, clearly, women and their care providers seeking to access this service and to provide it in privacy. It is that purpose that this section is designed to focus on.
L. Fox: I understand that the highlight here is "No graphic recording in an access zone." I understand that. But given the later.... I guess section 4 states the "No harassment" in more general terms. The description of section 3 will obviously end up applying outside the access zones because of the "beset" conditions contained in section 4. So I don't know. If the minister can tell me that section 3 is specific only to the bubble zones or access zones and that those same activities are not the description they were going to follow under other clauses, then I guess I have no argument.
But it seems to me that while we say "A person must not photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record a doctor...." I mean, not too long ago the minister admitted to the Okanagan East representative that this act will follow the individual. We've also, under the "beset" provisions, heard that the doctor could be followed around throughout the geographical area of the province. I guess that was my concern with respect to this.
[8:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The prohibitions against graphic recording contained in section 3 apply to graphic recording within an access zone for a particular purpose: "...for the purpose of dissuading that person from providing, facilitating the provision of, or using abortion services." It specifies a purpose and a location. It does not extend to the "beset" definition, which the member is interested in, related to section 4.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
The Chair: I believe we have an amendment to section 4. I'll take that first.
L. Fox: The amendment, in the hands of the Clerk under my name, falls under section 4(1)(b). The effect of this is to place in front of the word "beset" the words "in an access zone," so it's clear that the actions anticipated are within the access zone.
In fact, the minister very early on in the discussions took issue when I suggested that they were outside the access zones and that this "beset" provision allowed for this legislation to be geographically spread right across the whole province. He took issue with me and said: "No, only within the access zone." Well, this amendment allows it to be definitive in terms of keeping the activities within the access zones. Even though I won't support the legislation, it would make it a whole lot easier if this particular amendment were considered.
On the amendment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member opposite for his amendment. The amendment actually would.... Well, the effect is.... I suppose an equivalent amendment would be simply to strike paragraph (b) under 4(1), because besetting is already prohibited in an access zone under section 2. So however we read this, that's the intent: to say that besetting should be allowed outside access zones. I'm simply saying that we wish to prohibit some activities that have the effect of dissuading people from providing or facilitating the provision of abortion services. We have specified what they are, and we have said that these apply anywhere in the province.
One of the issues that we have in the provision of abortion services is the importuning, the besetting, the threats that have gone on and go on against those who provide abortion services. It doesn't take place just in their offices or in their homes. We have children of service providers who are harassed on their playgrounds. We have activities that take place -- I think, inappropriate activities -- that importune service providers when they are simply going about their daily business. I believe that this is not something that should be permitted. We would not permit it for other health services.
I would invite the hon. member to imagine what we would feel if all of a sudden cardiac surgeons became the subject of people continually, repeatedly observing them, placing themselves close to them, importuning them, threatening them, repeatedly approaching, accompanying or following them and telling them they ought to give up doing cardiac surgery. I suggest that had that gone on, as this activity has gone on against abortion providers for a decade, this act would have become law a long time ago.
With respect, I do not think that the amendment is well taken. These are activities that we should say should not occur: attempts to dissuade a person from providing or facilitating the provision of abortion services, no matter where that person is located in the province.
L. Fox: I didn't expect the minister to speak in favour of the amendment, but let me just point out that there are provisions under the Criminal Code and under other laws to look
[ Page 16173 ]
after those situations. We see the type of harassment that the minister is talking about as something that is not desirable in any segment of our society. That is primarily why the laws were created: to provide individual British Columbians with an opportunity to protect themselves against that kind of harassment.
If we are going to accept that this is something that is desirable in this particular case, then I would suggest to this minister and this government that there are many other areas in the province where we see the same type of harassment equally and perhaps even more pronounced than in this particular case. If there are labour strikes in place, we see a number of phone calls being made. In the situation not too long ago in Port Alberni, we saw incidents where there was extreme harassment of individuals. This legislation will not capture that. It is specific to only one element of British Columbia life, and that's what I object to. Everybody else has to live within the Criminal Code. Here we have a piece of legislation that is designed to protect only one element of society, and perhaps that is the reason I am so incensed by it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize the member opposite's conviction on this point. He and I will disagree at the end of the day on this. I would only say this: we recognize that provisions we have introduced in this legislation do indeed go a step beyond what is prohibited under criminal law in the country. Obviously, everybody is subject to criminal law regardless of who they are or where they are. We have said: for these service providers, we believe we need to go a step beyond what is barred by criminal law and provide some other provisions against harassment of these individuals.
I say that with respect for the member's point. I would ask him to recognize that the provision of abortion services in this province is fragile. It is dependent upon the will of individual service providers to continue to provide that service. Many of them have come to me and to people in this ministry over the years and said: "This is getting intolerable. Why should my family and I be subject to importuning and besetting of the sort that has occurred? Why do you want me to continue doing this?" At times they are making a choice not to continue to provide services.
As the Minister of Health it is my responsibility to make sure that health services are accessible to women in the province, and part of that, I submit, is helping wherever I can to ease the harassment that has gone on against service providers. That is what these provisions do. The prohibition against besetting is part of easing that harassment.
L. Fox: I have just one final observation. Because this legislation only speaks to one segment of the people, I'm very much afraid that it's going to fuel and energize the program of the radical element of the pro-life movement. I say that because I don't believe that most pro-life believers are radical or involve themselves in any kind of harassment or anything else. Most of them are true to their convictions. I'm concerned that this type of action.... I guess that's one of the reasons that I proposed this amendment. I would hope to try to -- how shall I put it? -- take some of the fuel out of the fire, so to speak.
Amendment negatived.
L. Reid: Speaking to section 4, I just have two clarifications that I'm requesting under "repeatedly approach" and "repeatedly communicate." A number of individuals have corresponded with me about the definition of "repeatedly." Are we talking in excess of 15 times or 20 times, or is it five times? I mean, they have asked me to provide some guidance on this question, and I would ask the minister to do the same.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have had service providers tell me that they have been communicated with by telephone as much as 100 times in a day. That's clearly repeatedly; two times a day is not. Where the line is drawn between them is, I suspect, a matter that ultimately jurisprudence and the courts will determine. There is no quantification of this concept in other laws that use the same terminology of a repeated action, and we don't have one here. It will be established by case law through the jurisprudence.
J. Tyabji: I might note, on a point of order, that there's only one member of the government in the House, and we don't have a quorum.
The Chair: Is the member calling for a quorum?
J. Tyabji: I think, given the importance of the debate to the government....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm being dissuaded by the other opposition members. I'll let the official opposition critic call it.
With respect to section 4(2), in order for the communication to occur, does a service provider have to receive it? The reason I'm asking is that, as the minister is aware, there are many electronic means of communication today. Someone could be, for example, repeatedly E-mailing through the Internet. I'm not sure; there may be technologies I'm not even aware of. Does someone actually have to be in receipt of something before it's deemed to be a communication for the purposes of this section?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, there has to be receipt. That's clearly true for a facsimile or electronic means. I mean, you do get an E-mail when you get an E-mail. As for telephone, hangups would count as communication received if the words on the other end of the line are only the click as the phone hangs up; the communication is clear.
J. Tyabji: What triggers this section, then? Does someone have to launch a complaint? If so, to whom? Or is it something where there could be a charge brought over by a police officer? Who is going to ensure that this section of the bill is taken into account?
Hon. P. Ramsey: A service provider or doctor who provides abortion services would have to contact the police and say that he or she is subject to harassment under these provisions, and an investigation would commence.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure about the legal status of this, then. Would this be for the purposes of pressing criminal charges against someone, or is this a civil problem?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is an offence under provincial statute; it is not under the Criminal Code of Canada.
[ Page 16174 ]
[8:30]
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister expand on subsection (1), which talks about cabinet establishing by regulation an access zone for a specific facility? Is that something where we're just talking about a geographic location, or could that be somewhat portable? Could cabinet decide that there is some portability to the access zone?
Hon. P. Ramsey: You need to refer back to the definition of a facility in the definitions section, which refers to a clinic, a hospital or an office of a physician providing abortion services at that site. These would be access zones established for a specific location, not for all locations. That is the area in which the provisions of section 5 differ from the provisions of section 6 or section 7, which automatically provide for access zones.
J. Tyabji: In the injunction that was sought by the Ontario government, which they received, the amount of space -- the buffer zone or the size of the access zone -- is considerably smaller. Why did the government choose to expand the access zone as much as it did?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, I am informed that the ministry in Ontario will probably be seeking an expansion of the access zone under that injunction when it goes to trial, and that they are finding the current zones in the injunction rather too small.
What we have set in this section of the legislation is a provision for a maximum of 50 metres. We believe that we need to expand what the maximum might be, in order to ensure that a woman or service provider could get off a bus or park a car, and walk to the clinic without the sort of interference or abuse that has too often taken place, and get to that clinic in dignity and with respect. The 50 metres is a maximum here; there will, in all probability, be access zones of a considerably smaller size established around facilities. Each of those access zones will be tailored to the individual facility.
Finally, I would just say that there's at least one clinic in Ontario that has a 500-foot access zone established by a separate injunction.
K. Jones: With regard to section 5(3), could the minister tell us if the area includes the common area within the strata plan?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, it does.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether that also includes a parking area that may be in an underground area that may be shared with a residence?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand from the staff that parking facilities in a strata are considered a common area in most cases.
K. Jones: I'm thinking of a strata lot that will be a combined commercial and residential facility. The common area of that residential area would be the parking area, as well as the hallways of the residential facility. Would that be included as part of the bubble area?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that the language of this section is somewhat complex. The touchstone here is the last part of section 5(3)(b): "...that a person other than the operator of the facility has an exclusive right to use or occupy...." If that's the case, then it's excluded. If not, it is considered part of the common area and included in the access zone.
K. Jones: I just want to get a clarification, because I believe the common area is not included in the residence area in section 6. Basically, you've got them separated as commercial and residential in the two sections. But quite often there is a situation where there is a commercial ground floor, or the first two floors are commercial, and then there's a residential facility, which uses a common parking area and common areas going up. Have you considered this situation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't detect the contradiction that the member opposite seems to find. These sections were drafted on a parallel principle -- namely, that private property is excluded from access zones except for common areas. I believe the language in sections 5, 6 and 7 reflects that common principle. Right now we're debating section 5. I'd be interested in hearing from the hon. member when we reach section 6 where he feels that language violates that principle.
J. Dalton: Can the minister advise us why there's no reference in sections 5, 6 and 7 to section 13 of the act?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what the member opposite is getting at. There's no requirement for specifying a plan as we delineate what an access zone is. The plan is a means of presenting evidence on what an access zone is at court.
J. Dalton: I think perhaps the minister has inadvertently hit on the very point I'm going to make. If you're going to break the law, hon. minister, you have to know the law. My point is that section 13 deals with the identification of access zones through a plan, but there's no reference in any of the three sections we are dealing with now to the access zones in section 13. It would seem to me that the act would be helped by making a cross-reference to section 13.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are various ways of describing an access zone, and a plan is one such vehicle. I think perhaps the member might be served by engaging in a debate around section 8, which concerns notice for contravention of the act.
K. Jones: I'm interested in the statement the minister just made that there are many different types or means of establishing an access zone. Could you elaborate what all those different types are?
Hon. P. Ramsey: An access zone could be described by a legal description in a regulation, by a picture and by words. It can also be described by a plan introduced as evidence in court.
K. Jones: I'm just going back to section 1, where it says that " 'access zone' means an access zone established under
[ Page 16175 ]
section 5, 6 or 7." It doesn't provide any other definition of it except references to section 5, 6 or 7. That doesn't refer to anything to do with a plan. So how do you define an access zone without a plan, then?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Under section 5, by the regulation established and passed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
J. Dalton: I can appreciate the point the minister just made about regulation, although I'm a bit unhappy about that. That's not going to help in either section 6 or 7, because there's no reference to regulations in either section 6 or 7. You don't need to answer. You have no answer.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how he feels that this access zone is in relation to the strata title situation of common property? I believe it says here.... The access zone under subsection (4) states that it does not include, "(a) if the residence is on a parcel of land shown on a strata plan, a strata lot other than the one on which the residence is located."
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize again that we're talking about parcels, lots and plans, and it can get complex. I call the member's attention to the last part, section 6(4)(c), which refers to "private property outside the parcel on which the residence is located." Again, the test here is that anything that is not reserved to the "exclusive right to use or occupy" by others is captured.
K. Jones: I'm afraid the minister is going to have to explain that more clearly, because I don't see his point in section 6(4)(c).
Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay, let's try it again. Sub-subsection 6(4)(a): if the residence is in a strata plan building or complex, only the strata lot "on which the residence is located" is included in the zone. All other strata lots not covered by the zone are not covered by this zone, although common property of the strata plan is.
Sub-subsection 6(4)(b): "...if the residence is...not...on a strata plan...." Okay? Parts of the building in which the doctor lives to which other people have a right of exclusive use or possession are not included in the zone. So if a doctor rents a suite in an apartment building, the other suites in the building are not included. The commonly used areas of the building, such as hallways, are.
J. Dalton: Even though the minister doesn't think we're trying to be helpful, I can assure him that we are. I'll just try to make this point once more. The minister has drawn our attention to the word "parcel" in section 6(4)(c). Parcel is identified in part by the definition in the interpretation section. It refers to plan. My point is that you're going to have to go to section 13 to find out what a plan is; there's no cross- reference. I'll tell you, we're wandering through a swamp here, and the courts don't deal with those uncertainties.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The definition of parcel refers to a strata plan. That is not the same reference as plan under section 13 of the act. It is a commonly used term in describing real estate.
J. Dalton: I would draw the minister's attention to subsection (b) and the definition of "parcel," which refers to a plan.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This refers to plan as used under land title provisions; it does not refer to the definition or concept of plan as an instrument for determining the bounds of an access zone under section 13.
K. Jones: Going back to section 6(4)(c), we're talking about the area.... This says: "An access zone established under subsection (1) or (2) does not include...(c) private property outside the parcel on which the residence is located, other than private property that the service provider or doctor who provides abortion services has an exclusive right or use or occupy." He does not have an exclusive right to use or occupy the common area; therefore it's not included.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try again. I think the member's concern is with strata plans. The clause we should be looking at is (a). This is the one that captures the issue that the member is concerned about. Let's read it: "An access zone established under subsection (1) or (2) does not include...a strata lot other than the one on which the residence is located...." That means that for a strata plan and all the lots and common areas that are specified on it, excluded from the access zone are all other lots that are reserved for the exclusive use of other individuals. The common areas are captured by the zone.
[8:45]
K. Jones: If that's the case, then a person who lives in this strata title building and who wishes to object to the presence of this doctor or whoever can establish, in the hallway of their property -- because their property goes through to the hallway -- whatever they wish to establish in the form of a protest: a sign or whatever. That is their own exclusive property.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The holder of a separate lot that is within a strata title can put whatever he or she wants on that wall as long as it is on the inside of the lot, not on the outside in the hall. I would ask the hon. member to consider that this is exactly what we're talking about. Where you have two strata lots within a residential complex, we're saying that service providers who live in such a complex should not be subject to the sort of harassment or protest that the member is talking about as he or she goes to and from his or her place of residence.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
J. Tyabji: I just want some clarification on this. It says: "A person may not be convicted of contravening section 2(1) or 3 in an access zone established in section 6 or 7 unless the person knew, or at any time before the contravention was given notice of, the location of the access zone." I'm assuming, then, there will be no physical evidence when someone walks toward an access zone that they are entering an access zone, like big flashing lights or being cordoned off or anything like that.
That's the first part. How will this section of the...?
[ Page 16176 ]
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: It's getting late. The minister deserves a well- earned laugh, especially after question period.
How will this be done? Won't this be a huge loophole for people to get through?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think it's a huge loophole; indeed, I think it's sort of common practice. As other members here have said, you've got to be notified if you're contravening an act. I think what would commonly happen -- for example, in a zone around a doctor's home -- is that the physician or a member of the family might well call law enforcement. Law enforcement would come, ascertain whether the protest or other activity is taking place within the 160 metres, and tell the people engaged in the activity that they are contravening the act. Obviously, if they continue to contravene, then they are subject to arrest under the act, but not until they've been given due notice that they are engaging in a prohibited activity within an access zone.
J. Tyabji: Well, perhaps the minister could explain the language here, because it says that a person may not be convicted of contravening these sections unless "the person knew" -- I'm assuming before the action took place -- "or at any time before the contravention was given notice of, the location...." What does this mean? If someone is actually committing an activity that is not allowed within an access zone under this act.... It's not before the contravention has taken place; they're in the process of contravening the act. They're not aware they're in an access zone. They are served.... I'm assuming that it doesn't have to be a police officer; it could be anyone giving them notice that they're now in an access zone. But they're in the process of doing the contravention. Could it then be argued that they didn't know before, because it says "or at any time before" they had to know, "or at any time before" they had to be given notice of.... Well, they're in the process of doing it, so they're not given notice before they're doing it. Why was it written this way?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member asked how this provision would apply in practice, and that's what I was attempting to describe. There may be people who have repeatedly violated an access zone and are well aware of it, and are known to law enforcement officials who are well aware of it, for which no further notice need be given. They're clearly in contravention of a zone; they know that they're in contravention of the zone. There may be others who are not aware that the activity they're engaging in contravenes it. Notice is an essential part of this act. That's one of the provisions in here that we think does make the restriction necessary. It will be a defensible act, and notice must be given before a person can be convicted of contravening one of these provisions. The example I gave is, I think, one that could well happen, where you have a doctor who has been targeted by a protest. The protesters show up. Either by a peace officer or somebody else, they're informed that they are within an access zone. They have an option: they can cease the activity and move away, or they can stay. If they stay, they've been given notice. They're clearly contravening the act and are subject to arrest.
J. Tyabji: To get this clear, when it says in the section "...unless the person knew, or at any time before the contravention was given notice of..." then at the time the person is served, they are not in contravention, and then once they are served they become in contravention because they are aware that they are in an access zone. So, if they refuse to leave.... I guess what I'm asking is: is it possible that someone is actually contravening the act, but they don't know about it; then when they are served with notice and if they continue to do those activities, they become in contravention of the act? Is that how this is to be interpreted?
The reason I'm asking is that I would have assumed it would have been written: "...while in the process of committing these activities, if the person is not aware they are in contravention, then they are not." Alternatively, the minister could be saying that the first time somebody does these activities in an access zone, they cannot contravene the act if they are not aware of what they are doing. If that is the case, then how do you get people out of an access zone if they are doing these activities but didn't know it was an access zone when they started?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The tests are clear. You can't be convicted of contravening section 2(1) or section 3 in access zones established in section 6 or section 7, unless you knew that you were in an access zone, or unless at the time before the contravention you had been given notice that you were in an access zone. Without that notice or that knowledge, you are not in contravention. Therefore, if you, hon. member, chose to picket outside a service provider's home, until you are given notice that you are in an access zone, if you don't have that knowledge then indeed you are not in contravention of the act.
J. Tyabji: I want to come back to some of the implications of this section in section 11, which is titled "Arrest." I just want to flag that for the minister. I can't continue to ask these questions under this section, but in section 11 there will be a question that will come back to this.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us, with regard to notice, if the police officer is going to have to take his tape measure and measure out the distance and then mark on the ground the location where the boundary is? How else is this going to be defined? Is there going to be a sign put up?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are devices other than a tape measure to measure distance; you can do it even by laser these days, if you wish. Clearly, the law enforcement official would be looking.... I mean, 500 feet is a big zone around a service provider's home. It's deliberately so, because we think that is where privacy really does need to be respected -- and also the right of somebody to just live their life without this sort of protest or besetting that can go on. Clearly, 500 feet is a large area, and somebody would well know if they are standing outside somebody's home on the sidewalk that they are within that zone.
K. Jones: As my colleague from Prince George-Omineca said, it could be 490 feet and the person could think they are outside the zone. What measure would there be? They can't be warned unless it can be proven that they are inside the zone. The question is: is this zone taken from every perimeter of the parcel of land that is identified -- an office location or a home, say? I think it's more likely that it's going to be an office rather than a home, because I don't think there is likely to be a
[ Page 16177 ]
desire to be out there identifying the homes of workers. Therefore the more likely is the visible location of either the clinic, the freestanding abortion centre or the doctor's practising office. In that case, how are these measured? Are we going to take a radius from a corner of the building? That would be the actual distance as indicated by the legislation. It wouldn't be a square extension from the outside perimeters of the property, but each corner or each irregularity in the property would have to have a radius representing that distance. I'm sure that police officers are going to spend a lot of their time out there measuring those radiuses to make sure that they can enforce this law. I don't think they can.
The fallacy is that police officers aren't going to bother with anything that's at all marginal, because there is no way of defining it. Do you have to call out a surveyor to actually lay it out? I understand that there is provision here, and that a plan requires a surveyor. Does that mean that there are going to be survey stakes all laid out along the perimeter of the property, so those locations can be identified? How else are the police officers or the enforcement people going to be able to enforce something that doesn't have a defined line to it?
Hon. P. Ramsey: With apologies to my colleagues, violations of a zone around a physician's home are going to be.... In most cases, when people wish to do that sort of protest, violations will be relatively blatant. It will be quite clear whether it's within 500 feet -- or 160 metres, as we ought to be saying, because that is the figure in this legislation. A distance of 160 metres is a substantial area, and people who wish to protest are going to be seen to be well within it or well without it.
I would submit that there may be the occasional instance of repeated and ongoing activities that will require the more formal establishment of where those lines precisely are. For the provisions of this section, I don't think law enforcement officers are going to have difficulty with it. They'll be making judgment calls on this, and in most cases the judgment will be relatively easy to arrive at.
[9:00]
K. Jones: The minister likes to use 500 feet as a means of making it sound like it's a long distance, but there are two figures that he doesn't want to make reference to, and they are ten metres and 50 metres. These are the ones that are more likely to be more difficult to define, particularly the 50-metre one. That does not seem to be well addressed. The minister doesn't seem to be showing how this is going to be handled by police or any enforcement persons in order to effectively identify a person who may be in the vicinity of that boundary. If they're within 50 metres of that boundary, is that going to be a non-enforceable area? Are you going to say that it's exactly on that line, and somebody's going to come out with a tape measure and measure it out, so they can stay within that line? Are they going to mark a line on the ground so that people could...this is the protest zone, and that is not the protest zone?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Facilities require that an access zone be established by regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It involves the very formal outlining of the description of what that access zone would be. All enforcement officers will have that description in a form that they can use to make sure that activities that contravene the provisions of this act do not occur within that zone. Those are going to be quite formal.
The 50 metres is a maximum. The specifics of the access zone will be drawn up individually, as I said earlier, for each facility. Those may well be posted, or they may be provided to those who wish to engage in some of the activities that this act speaks to. For the 50 metres, it's going to be a map showing the features in the area; it's essentially a map. For the provisions around physicians' offices, let's be clear what we're talking about here. Most offices are in a multi-use building in some sort of complex of physicians' offices, or they stand alone. Hallways are clearly common property; protests don't occur there. The distance outside those facilities is ten metres. I don't think it's very hard to judge what ten metres is.
J. Dalton: Sorry to extend things. Well, maybe I'm not sorry, because, after all, we are here to get clarification.
First, I was going to help out earlier when the member for Okanagan East was asking about notice and knowledge of same, which, of course, is integral to getting the conviction. I would presume that somebody who was inadvertently within the zone would be committing a continuing or ongoing offence. Therefore, once they are notified, at that point the offence is still continuing, unless they remove themselves. So that would clarify that point.
Would I be correct in presuming that section 5 is not referenced in section 8 because it is established by regulation? Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, because the equivalent of a map will be drawn up and may well be posted for those zones.
J. Dalton: Just one other point to continue with what my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale was raising. I think that there is going to be a lot of difficulty -- with or without the regulation provision -- about section 8. Whether we are talking about 160 metres or 50 or whatever, somebody still has to know that he or she is contravening the law. I'm submitting that there is going to be a great deal of difficulty with people being properly notified. Once they are notified, they can make the choice to either leave the zone or stay within it and continue to break the law. But if they don't know they are within the zone.... The point the member made about a police officer perhaps having to take out a tape measure may seem a bit facetious, but I think not, actually.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
The police are not going to run around doing the job of this ministry. I think it's the obligation of this Legislature and the minister who is presenting this bill to tidy up these uncertainties. Otherwise -- as I said, I believe, about another bill that we debated last week -- we may with the best of intentions be setting a monster loose, but that monster may be gobbling up the entire process, including court time. That's not going to accomplish the objectives of this act.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
J. Tyabji: With respect to this "Damages," why was this section put in, and what does the minister envision this pertaining to?
[ Page 16178 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: A person who has suffered loss as a result of acts in contravention of this legislation will have the right to bring an action against the person who has contravened it. It could well be that because of a certain activity, a physician has had to cease activity in his or her office for awhile and has suffered financial loss. He or she would be entitled, if they chose, to seek to recover damages from a person who has engaged in action that has resulted in that loss -- that financial loss -- to the physician.
J. Tyabji: Would that action take place exclusively under this act? Would this act come into play in terms of determining the extent of the loss and the award of damages?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The section just creates a right to bring a lawsuit for violation of the act. The damages that a court could award would be subject to the ordinary law of tort.
J. Tyabji: I guess a curious aspect of this would be.... What would happen if a patient had lost the opportunity to have the abortion and ended up having to have the baby? Would she then have the opportunity to use this section to sue for some sort of ongoing provision for the child?
Hon. P. Ramsey: That person could surely bring that action. The court could decide whether there is indeed a loss.
Sections 9 and 10 approved.
On section 11.
J. Tyabji: I advised the minister that I had some questions on section 11 to follow up on section 8. This goes, again, to the giving of notice and whether someone knew or didn't know that they were in contravention of the act. Let's say that someone is in the middle of an activity which is deemed under this act to be not acceptable in the access zone -- they are advised that they are in an access zone and that those activities are not allowed, and they do not do anything. Could they then be arrested? If so, would they be able to argue, under section 8, that prior to beginning that contravention they weren't aware that they were in an access zone and were therefore continuing their activity?
Hon. P. Ramsey: At the time of their arrest they (1) would have been given notice and (2) would have continued an activity that is in contravention, and therefore would be subject to arrest.
J. Tyabji: Wouldn't they have the escape clause under section 8 to not be arrested because they hadn't been given notice at any time before the contravention? That's why I asked those questions in section 8; the words in section 8 are pretty specific that they have to receive notice prior to the contravention.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try again. Contravention is a technical term, and it means when you are in violation of the act. You can be engaged in sitting outside a clinic, say, clearly within an access zone, with your protest sign, and the peace officer or clinic operator comes up and says: "You're within an access zone." You don't change your position, you don't put down your sign, you don't do anything, but you are now in contravention of the act and can be subject to arrest.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
L. Reid: Just as a matter of clarification -- and certainly it relates to section 11 in terms of why this is different from the Offence Act.... My understanding is that after arrest, the actions must be laid out. Indeed, if a person is brought before a justice after being arrested with or without a warrant for an offence under this act.... That, to me, is the one defining point between this and the Offence Act. Is that the minister's understanding?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Under the Offence Act, you can only be arrested with a warrant. Therefore we had to specify in this section what happens if you're arrested without a warrant.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might just want to explain what's intended here. Because clearly.... I'm certain that the minister is not saying -- at least I hope he's not saying -- that what we're going to set down here is.... We'll now start to map out access zones, and we're going to start to put in, in rigid terms, exactly what these are going to be, and we're going to have British Columbia land surveyors do it for us. Are we that precise about what we're attempting in our plan here?
Hon. P. Ramsey: In order to produce evidence for the court that an access zone has been violated, clearly some sort of official description of that zone must be provided to the court, and a plan is a way of doing that.
G. Wilson: It would seem to me that, clearly, if you set a radius.... A radius is a radius. Obviously, I realize there are provisions within this act which say that you can amend the radius so you can actually take site-specific kinds of considerations into account. But generally speaking, my understanding of this bill is that we are dealing with a broadly based radius, and that surely the radius doesn't require a detailed survey to be done. If it does, the next question that's likely to arise in court is: what physical presence is there on the landscape to allow people to determine when they are entering these zones? Are you going to signpost them?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as when you enter is concerned, I would invite the member to review Hansard. We canvassed this at great length earlier this evening. As far as the plan is concerned, what we're talking about here is what can be produced in court as evidence that a violation of a zone has occurred. It requires a certain level of specificity and legality; a survey is a way of doing that. Clearly we're not going to survey every site in the province. For one thing, I hope it's not going to be necessary for many doctors' offices and homes. It will be required for clinics that have a facility access zone established by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They will be prepared in advance.
For the others, they would be prepared subsequent to offences and produced in court. Otherwise, how is the court to determine when an activity, said to have occurred at a point,
[ Page 16179 ]
and testified to by competent witnesses...? The court needs to determine whether the site on which that activity took place is or is not within an access zone. Plans are a way of formally and legally doing that.
G. Wilson: My apologies to the committee if I go back over material that has already been canvassed. One of the difficulties with having two Houses running concurrently is that....
Interjections.
G. Wilson: We hear that it's against the rules. Such from this dictatorial-state-like government that.... We're setting up new rules now, right?
I think one of the issues around this plan that's important.... First of all, it's costly to have land surveyors out there doing this kind of thing. It's costly to have land surveyors dragged into court, which this provides for. It certainly does provide for court; in fact, the defendant may indeed produce the land surveyor to prove that the land survey work was done. We also find that what's going to be most important is the fact that it respects "a boundary, survey marker, building, doorway, hallway, stairway, elevator, sidewalk, road, fence, utility pole, tree or any other human made or natural feature related to (i) the access zone...." If you mark that in terms of the literal interpretation of what's involved here, this is going to be fairly specific.
[9:15]
Clearly I don't know what the minister's response was with respect to demarcation of these zones, but if you're going to establish these access zones and they're going to be a legally surveyed entity, they effectively become a property restriction. Within British Columbia, if a property restriction would be assigned on that, presumably it would be assigned on title to whoever owns the clinic -- the government or whoever else. Therefore the next question is: what does that do to all other buildings and facilities that are encompassed within that zone in terms of the right of access, the right of free assembly and an individual's right to protest within these planned zones? For example, if there's a shop right next door that happens to become a secondary picket site, people have their legal right to assemble there. If they're within this zone, you're going to run into some difficulties here.
Has the minister thought this through clearly? Are all the landowners inside that zone going to be given a map saying: "Hereby you're now inside that zone; the following restrictions on free assembly will apply to people"? Is that going to be done to every landlord, tenant or resident who lives within the zone?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have indeed ranged far backward from the section which is now before us, section 13. Let me just say that, clearly, the options of producing evidence that activity in contravention of the act is taking place within an access zone can be shown with a plan. The option is to call a land surveyor in every case. That is something the court may accede to under section 13, but it is not required to accede to. It does not mean every bit of evidence that the person is talking about needs to be included in all plans, either. It does not compel it; it permits it. Finally, the issue of private property within access zones has been thoroughly canvassed in the debates of this committee.
G. Wilson: I look forward to reading the Hansard of that thorough debate. I will do that. I will commit to that, and I will try not to waste this committee's time asking questions that may be redundant.
Once these surveys are done, I assume they are going to be registered somewhere with land titles or some other formal means of registry. How is this going to be registered? How does the surveyor register this survey work? What does the surveyor do with it when it is finished?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Surveys in the case of access zones around facilities will be part of the regulations, and the code will be available. Other surveys are not registered. I mean, these are evidence in court. The access zone is established by the act and is there automatically.
G. Wilson: I didn't understand what the minister said. Some are going to be registered and some aren't, but they all will be available to the public, and some may be done prior to charges being laid and some may be done after charges are laid. I don't quite understand that. It seems to me that you have a plan.
Maybe we should just look at this section. It says: "A plan prepared by a British Columbia land surveyor showing the location of an access zone is, without proof of the signature or official character of the surveyor, evidence of the information set out in the plan, including, without limitation, information (a) required by the regulations" -- which we can't debate in this House because, unfortunately, these regulations will be subsequent to what we decide to approve here -- "...(b) referred to in the surveyor's certification under subsection (3)" -- which is what I assume the minister refers to when he suggests that this has been thoroughly canvassed, and I'll certainly take the opportunity to go back and read Hansard on that -- "(c) respecting a measurement, or (d) respecting a boundary, survey marker, building, doorway, hallway, stairway, elevator, sidewalk, road, fence, utility pole, tree or any other human made or natural feature related to (i) the access zone...."
Given the parameters around which this survey is going to be done, this is going to clearly and absolutely have an effect on properties within that zone. If the minister doubts that, he just needs to look at what happens when a transition house goes into a community. Imagine what will happen now if you have an established clinic with a surveyed access zone around it which includes a whole bunch of other residential properties in fee- simple-owned property in that zone.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Well, the minister says it doesn't. I'm suggesting that people who live within that zone are going to find that that will have an effect, because anyone who is purchasing property will have a right to be advised of the fact that there is now a legal demarcation around the property restricting the right of free assembly. It's a right of any property owner to know that. If I'm buying property in that zone, people have to be able to tell me that within my property, on my boundary, I can't have a protest against an event that may be interpreted as being against an individual having an abortion. That, in my sense, is a violation of a private property law. If I own the property fee simple, I can't assemble on it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try one more time on what plans are. A plan that is prepared by a surveyor may be introduced
[ Page 16180 ]
to show the location of an access zone, and it can be used to demonstrate any of the items under 13(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d). The alternative is to have a surveyor present in court to testify to those things.
We believe that this is a way of expediting it. The court may choose.... If you go down to subsection (4), hon. member, it provides: "With leave of a court, a defendant against whom a plan is produced may require, for the purposes of cross examination, the attendance of the land surveyor who prepared the plan." But I think the member's questions really revolve around sections 5, 6 and 7 -- not around section 13, which has to do with how evidence of a zone is produced and upheld in court for the purpose of determining contravention of the act.
Let me go back to the principles on which sections 5, 6 and 7 rest as far as private property is concerned. In all cases, private property -- fee simple property -- within an access zone is excluded from that zone. That is true for clinics; it is true for homes; it is true for offices. In an office building, if you have exclusive right to an office within it, you can do what you wish within it, but you can't do it in the common property and you can't do it within ten metres of the boundaries of the building. Is this an infringement on private property? We have deliberately excluded private property from it. At times, I submit, this may create some difficulties, but I believe that as an attempt to avoid exactly what the member is suggesting, we have excluded private property from access zones.
G. Wilson: Let me just ask one more question. I will happily go back and read Hansard on sections 5, 6 and 7, but it seems to me that this is the definitive legal document that describes those zones; it has to be. This is what's going to be produced in court: a surveyor's legal description of the access zone. That is what this is all about, and that's essentially what's defined in sections 5, 6 and 7. This is the legal description of what's provided in court. My question is: where is this survey going to be registered, if anywhere?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It will not be. These plans will be produced in court to demonstrate contravention of an access zone. Zones around facilities, around clinics, will be established by regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They have to be established when there's clear evidence of their need, and indeed, the regulation will, in essence, contain a legal description of what the boundaries are of that access zone. For other access zones around doctor's homes and offices, plans will be prepared for evidence in court and to demonstrate that a person arrested for contravening the act has indeed contravened the act. The evidence presented in the plan is subject to examination by the court, and, with leave of the court, the surveyor who drew it up may be produced and subjected to cross- examination.
G. Wilson: I really want to get to the bottom of this. I'm obviously not making my question clear enough for the minister. Let me use restricted air space as an example. There's a zone that may be defined around a particular facility: a parachute drop zone, a military facility, whatever. That's a restricted air space, and there are limits to what you can do in it. Your right as a pilot to fly through it is limited unless you either have permission to access or you follow a certain set of rules. It's quite different. That is openly demonstrated on a chart so that anybody who enters it knows what's going on, and there is a jurisdiction over that air space that is registered. If you set a similar zone.... I'm assuming that that zone doesn't just apply to the surface of the ground: it must also apply to the air above it, which would be a legal description; it must, by law, be a three-dimensional zone. Therefore the question is: who has jurisdiction over that zone, and where is that registered? It has to be registered somewhere. It can't be something you just create after somebody is caught demonstrating mischief. You have to have it registered.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's try one more time, and then I really will ask the member to refer to the debate on inclusion or exclusion of private property in sections 5, 6 and 7, which we have debated rather thoroughly. Private property is not included in access zones. If you have a residence next to a residence of a physician, there is automatically an access zone established for 160 metres around the parcel on which the physician lives, but your private property is not included within the access zone. That is what this law says.
As for the call for some sort of registration of every access zone, nothing would more clearly do what we want to avoid doing, and that is to give notification that "Here lives a physician," or "There's a physician's office." One of the advantages of going the route of legislation rather than injunction is that we do need.... The only way you can get an injunction around a home is if you say where the hell your home is. If there is a protest around a physician's home that has an access zone around it by this law, those engaging in that activity will be informed if they are within that zone.
You know, we've canvassed thoroughly the fact that the great majority of those are going to be visible in front of or adjacent to the property. It's going to be very clear to anybody whether there's 160 metres.... There may be some question whether there are 158 or 160 metres at the edges, and if repeated protests go on, then there may be a need for a more formal delineation of it.
But the goal here is to make sure that there is some privacy. I do not want to be targeting service providers, physicians, their homes or their offices by registering these access zones. Plans are a means of identifying whether a contravention has taken place in court. There is no legal requirement that the zones be registered. For example, in Ontario the zones are established by the injunction in bare terms -- 500 feet from boundaries. These zones are established by the courts and are not registered or mapped in any way.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's right, and we're not going to say it here.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the minister's last comment. That is clearly what it says in Ontario, which is the reason I raised the question here: to find out why it wouldn't be said here. I understand from the minister now what his response is, which effectively is the reason we said you shouldn't bring in this legislation in the first place. However, we won't go back through that philosophical debate.
Let me ask this question: when those surveys are finished and complete, when there is a documented survey, who keeps the survey? Where are they physically kept? Who has access to them? How can they be used by either a defendant or somebody who is prosecuting in a court of law?
[ Page 16181 ]
An Hon. Member: You record it on old ministry letterhead.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm glad that the mood in this chamber is getting some levity at this hour of the evening. I thank my colleagues from the northern half of the province.
If there is an access zone established by regulation, and those are the ones around clinics, the description of that -- the "plan," if you will -- will form part of the regulation. As you know, regulations are published. In addition, I suspect that, for those zones, maps are going to be produced and may be posted at a clinic so that all can see. Clearly, the police will have those plans -- those descriptions of those access zones by regulation.
In the case of contravention of a zone established around the office or home of a physician, those plans are court documents filed after contravention of the act. They're also served on the person who's contravened it, so that he or she can produce evidence that they did or did not engage in activity within the zone. But they are not registered. They are held by the court and by those who have contravened the act, have been arrested and are facing a court appearance.
G. Wilson: So the last question, then, is: I recognize the former case, but in the latter case, are those plans prepared prior to or after charges that will be laid with respect to contravention?
[9:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: They're prepared and filed after charges have been laid.
Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.
On section 16.
G. Wilson: I will just come back to a question I asked very early in this debate with respect to labour pickets. I was told at that time that this is the appropriate time to raise that, so being dutiful to my instruction from the minister, I am now raising it. Could the minister now answer the question I asked? It seems to me that the definition of "beset" is exactly what a legal union picket is: they are trying to prohibit people from going in to take advantage of that service. The Labour Code won't protect the minister on that one.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Activity under the Labour Code is not subject to the provisions of this act. I know that is something that's difficult for the member. He might wish that it were, but it is not. There are, obviously, essential service provisions for access to health services under the Labour Code that are put in place when there is a labour disruption. But the activities that may occur under a labour dispute will occur and be adjudicated under the provisions of the Labour Code, not under the provisions of this legislation.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
G. Wilson: Do I understand, then, that in the event...? Let's just deal with clinics for now -- or hospitals. Hospitals are probably the better example, because I can't imagine where a legally constructed picket outside of a hospital -- and I understand essential service legislation; I understand all of those sorts of things.... In the event that a person is prevented by a legally registered union picket from entering a hospital for the purposes of getting an abortion -- where they're leafleted with information that may not be specific to the case but may prevent anybody accessing -- would that person be able to prosecute with the fines that are laid out in this legislation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If access is disrupted by a labour dispute, the Labour Relations Board and the courts have the necessary authority to resolve and manage the conflict. If access to a health service is actually impeded or denied by a picket, I suspect that the ruling of the Labour Relations Board would be clear, and that impediment would be removed.
G. Wilson: I really don't know that there is much more to be said on this point, except that it points so clearly to the double standard that is implied here. The government is not neutral on this question, and I guess that is why there is such an incredible double standard established here with respect to what is a permissible picket and what is not. It has to do strictly with matters of job-related actions, which can be equally as intimidating and in which it can be equally as difficult for people to run the gauntlet, especially if the people who are availing themselves of the services are union members who won't cross the picket line.
The member says that I wish the Labour Relations Code didn't apply. I have no problem with it. In fact, this House will know that I've stood against legislating people back to work; I think I was the only one, in fact, who did that. But I can tell you that quite clearly there is a real double standard here. I think the minister needs to explain that the government is not neutral on this question, because the government is in an advocacy position. That's the reason that double standard can apply and the only reason it can apply. I guess it's a question of whether you can live with that contradiction or not.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't wish to prolong the debate on this one. Let me say that facilities providing abortion services are being treated no differently than any other facility under the provisions of the Labour Code; the Labour Code applies equally to all of them. Impediments to access are removed by provisions of the Labour Relations Board and, if necessary, the courts.
I recognize that the member feels that the enhanced protection in this act for care providers and patients from protest, from intimidation and from interference is a step beyond and has, perhaps, different purposes. It is indeed, and I believe that it is justified. As we said earlier, the state we have of a rising tide of protest in this province against the provision of abortion services and the chilling effect that that has had on those services means that we need to take this sort of action. The purposes of the legislation as set out in the preamble justify what we're doing here. It is my responsibility as Minister of Health to ensure access to these services, and I believe that these measures will help us do so.
Sections 16 and 17 approved.
On the preamble.
G. Wilson: I'm certainly not going to spend any time on this, except to say that for all of the reasons that we pointed
[ Page 16182 ]
out in second reading, I believe that this is a very slippery slope indeed. The preamble provides a good reason for us to pause and reflect on the extent to which government should take action, albeit with the very best of intentions. I don't try to diminish that. It seems to me, in reading this preamble, that we see quite clearly how extremely careful we have to be when the government exercises its right to remove the right of free assembly and the rights of individuals, albeit in the protection of others.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would only say in response that I believe that the preamble does exactly the contrary. By narrowly defining the reasons for this legislation, by saying that this is an issue of access to health care and doesn't have applications to broader issues of dissent in our society and by setting up the principle of providing such health care services with courtesy and respect and dignity and privacy, I believe that the preamble does precisely the reverse of that. Far from placing us on a slippery slope, it narrowly delineates why we have seen fit in this Legislature to provide women and their care providers with the protection that this act enables us to provide.
Preamble approved.
[9:45]
Title approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 38 | ||
|
Dosanjh |
Marzari |
Pement |
|
Cashore |
Charbonneau |
Garden |
|
Perry |
Hagen |
Kasper |
|
B. Jones |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Cull |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Farnworth |
Doyle |
|
Janssen |
Simpson |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Stephens |
Gingell |
|
Hurd |
Farrell-Collins |
Reid |
|
Warnke |
Anderson |
Symons |
|
Boone |
Lali |
Schreck |
|
Brewin |
Krog | |
|
NAYS -- 8 | ||
|
Fox |
Neufeld |
Chisholm |
|
Weisgerber |
Hanson |
Wilson |
|
Tyabji |
K. Jones | |
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report Bill 48 complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 48, Access to Abortion Services Act, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee stage on Bill 32.
HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 32; D. Lovick in the chair.
V. Anderson: I'm not sure if the minister wanted to make some introductions. Let's give him an opportunity to do so, please.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have on my right David Ranson, senior policy adviser, legislation; and to my left, Mariann Burka, director, B.C. Council of Human Rights.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Wilson: I just have a couple of questions with respect to the addition of the definitions. I noticed that there are two things, really, that need to be looked at. One talks about the commission being the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, established under section 10; that's understood. Then it talks about the commissioner of investigation and mediation. That, presumably, is the commissioner that's appointed under section 10. Does that relate specifically to the commission itself, or is that part of the tribunal process?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, that's part of the commission.
G. Wilson: As I understand it, the way this works is that the commissioner of investigation and mediation is different from the chief commissioner, as defined under section 10, but is the commissioner who will be appointed by the chief commissioner prior to the tribunal process. Is that right?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner of investigation and mediation is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There are three commissioners: chief commissioner, deputy chief commissioner and commissioner of investigation and mediation. All three are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
V. Anderson: Could you explain a little bit about the definition of "party" -- a little more explanation of what that is? I read it there, but I'm not quite sure what it's saying.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The definition of "party" includes, obviously, a complainant and the respondent -- the party against whom the complaint is made. It also includes the deputy chief commissioner if the deputy chief commissioner is a party to the complaint or is made a party to the complaint.
V. Anderson: I know it's under section 18, but is the human rights officer a person who has any special qualifications or training? I notice that later on it says the human rights officer can be almost anybody. Are there special qualifications, training or experience? An officer sounds like it's fairly important. What is the nature of the human rights officer?
[ Page 16183 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The human rights officers would be required to have some training and experience in investigations such as human rights investigations, but that training is not legislatively mandated.
V. Anderson: Are there presently persons who have that kind of training? Is it a group of people who have yet to be chosen and trained? Is there a place from which these people come? Are they trained at the Justice Institute of B.C.? What is the nature of these officers?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Presently, employment standards branch employees who are industrial relations officers conduct these investigations, so they are in essence the human rights officers in the current scheme of things.
V. Anderson: I was aware that they were human rights officers in the current scheme of things, but as I understand it, this is a new scheme that is coming into place. It's my understanding, as I read the act, that the kind of qualifications, training and experience required by this new legislation is quite different than those of these other officers we have had in the past, and that it's partly because we need to move away from their labour orientation to a human rights orientation that this change has come about. What I'm asking is: what's the nature of the change for these new persons?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, the functions will change as they are under the proposed legislation, and there might be some more training required; however, there is some flexibility in the legislation, as we will discover further on. There is some flexibility for individuals in other branches of government to be appointed human rights officers without having to go through a legislative change all the time.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if you want to just deal with these as a group, or if you want to deal with them individually. My concerns are with subsections (d), (f) and (g), and perhaps I can deal with them in that order for my own purposes. It seems to me that it's those three sections where the purposes are fundamentally different in this act, or that this amendment fundamentally changes those three areas and represents some of the greatest concerns I have with the changes under this legislation. It seems to me that if the purposes are "to identify and eliminate..." as spelled out in subsection (d), and "to monitor progress..." as in subsection (f), and "to create mechanisms..." as in subsection (g), then that is quite an aggressive stance on behalf of the commission. It represents an advocacy role which I don't think we have seen previously in human rights legislation. I wonder if the minister could describe for me -- and we can go through it section by section or, if he would care to, we can deal with all three of those sections -- what kinds of specific activities he foresees the commission using to fulfil their obligations under these purposes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the member is asking about subsections (d), (f) and (g). Firstly, let me say that these are the purposes of the code, not necessarily the obligations imposed upon any particular body in the code. What these purposes indicate is the thrust of this Code that we are now bringing in.
Secondly, to take subsection (d) first, obviously the hon. member is aware that in our society there have been patterns of inequality that have existed for a long, long time in certain areas. Rather than identifying any particular group, I think it is important to remember that we need, as the thrust of the code and as the obligation of the commission, to identify any patterns of inequality that exist and then make our best efforts to eliminate those inequalities.
Subsection (f) says: "...to monitor progress in achieving equality in British Columbia...." That's a laudable objective. I think a commission would have to monitor and oversee the functions of the entire body that is being created under this legislation, and to ensure that we make progress in achieving equality in British Columbia -- another laudable process.
Subsection (g) says: "...to create mechanisms for providing the information, education and advice necessary to achieve the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (f)." That's subsection (g) -- another laudable objective. Mechanisms? Maybe education programs to educate the people of British Columbia what human rights are all about, what our obligations are and what our rights are vis-a-vis each other in British Columbia.
[10:00]
J. Weisgerber: Let me say, with respect to the need to identify, that my concern here is that I believe the thrust of this amendment is to move the commission beyond simply being there as an entity that can receive complaints and can identify in that manner. What we're doing is moving into far more of an advocacy role for the commission and the other agencies under the code. I'm not sure whether the minister wants to acknowledge that, but it is that proactivity that I believe moves us into a different function under the human rights legislation. In creating mechanisms to identify and eliminate, particularly to eliminate, we have programs such as employment equity, employment targets and quotas. Are those the kinds of mechanisms that the minister envisions under the purposes of this act, in the sections we're in debate on now?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me turn this into a question, and perhaps the member can take this question into account. I would be at a loss to understand what persistent patterns of inequality you would not want British Columbia to eliminate in the province. If you put your mind to that question, then I think the answer becomes clear.
We are creating a commission that is different from the Human Rights Tribunal envisaged under the legislation. The Human Rights Tribunal is going to be the adjudicative board, independent of the commission. The commission is going to be a body that will be proactive on the issue of education and awareness of human rights among British Columbians. It will also be attempting to determine if there are persistent patterns of inequality, and whether those could be eradicated by way of education, and if not by education.... If some complaints come through to the Human Rights Tribunal, the tribunal in its quasi- judicial function determines that equity might perhaps be one of the remedies, but the commission itself will not be able to mandate equity. This is not employment equity legislation.
J. Weisgerber: Let me say that I don't think many British Columbians -- certainly not I, the Reform caucus or the
[ Page 16184 ]
Reform Party -- would like to see persistent patterns of inequality or, in fact, any inequality that we would condone. However, let me tell you up front that if the minister believes we would support and condone employment equity, employment quotas or affirmative action in order to eradicate some inequities or perceived inequities, then the minister is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Indeed, I believe affirmative action is wrong. I believe hiring quotas are wrong, particularly for the people they purport to serve. So to suggest that because one is opposed to employment equity or affirmative action, one is somehow condoning inequality -- that doesn't wash. I don't buy it.
Again, let me go back to the question: are the kinds of mechanisms anticipated by the minister...? Employment equity, employment quotas or targets, or what is commonly referred to as affirmative action: which, if any, of those mechanisms -- or all of them -- does the minister consider to be appropriate under this legislation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no provision for affirmative action, quotas or targets under this legislation.
J. Weisgerber: Just for the purposes of clarity, then, the minister is saying that of those I listed, he would include only employment equity in the mechanisms that might be used under this section of the act.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is a mechanism that would be decided upon by the quasi-judicial body called the Human Rights Tribunal. It would not be an administrative function on the part of the commission. That would belong in the range of options that this quasi-judicial body would have.
J. Weisgerber: I expect that this issue will come up from time to time through the bill. I'm just curious to know whether the minister, then.... As the minister presenting legislation, whose name is on the bill and whose department has brought this legislation forward, does he support employment equity as one of the mechanisms under this section of the act?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I support this legislation.
J. Weisgerber: I guess the question is: how long does the minister want to dance around the head of a pin? I asked him the question, and I got a cutesy answer. The question was quite straightforward. We can keep asking the question -- we can come at it from different directions -- or the minister can tell us simply whether or not he endorses employment equity as one of the mechanisms referred to under section 3, section 1.1(g). It's quite simple, quite straightforward.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no doubt in my mind nor in anybody else's mind in British Columbia that I support the thrust of this legislation and the inclusion of employment equity, which has existed since 1992. We are not amending that section of the legislation. So I support the thrust of the 1992 amendment, and I fully support its inclusion in the legislation before the House as one remedy available for a quasi-judicial body called the Human Rights Tribunal to choose from in a range of options as a way of dealing with discrimination in this province.
G. Wilson: With respect to section 3, section 1.1(c), which says: "...to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code," it's a very important purpose and one that I fully support and endorse. What does the code say? It says that there shouldn't be discrimination in a whole host of things. It says there shouldn't be discrimination in publication, in public facilities, in purchase of property, in tenancy premises, in employment advertisements, in wages, in employment, and in unions and associations. Those are the broad, general categories.
Given that that's what the code says you can't discriminate on, maybe we could talk about discrimination in purchase of property. It suggests that no person shall deny to a person or class of persons the opportunity to purchase a commercial unit or dwelling unit that is in any way represented as being available for sale, or deny to a person or class of persons the opportunity to acquire land or an interest in land. Of course, the minister knows what I am driving at here, I am sure.
Subsection 4(c) of the code says: "...discriminate against a person or class of persons with respect to a term or condition of the purchase or other acquisition of a commercial unit, dwelling unit, land or interest in land, because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin...." Now, can the minister tell me -- given that that's what the code says and that's what this legislation is bringing in now -- how it is possible to have a discriminatory regulation with respect to aboriginal people, the acquisition or purchase of land, the jurisdiction that may ride with that land and the opportunity for non-aboriginal people to purchase and buy once those lands are determined?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, I appreciate the question. I think we are dealing with two different jurisdictions. The issue that the member raises falls squarely within the jurisdiction of federal legislation, which creates areas where people cannot buy land unless they belong to a particular group. Obviously, that's an issue that is before the people of British Columbia with the Treaty Commission process, and that's an issue that will be dealt with.
I don't think that one should confuse what goes on there with what we are trying to do here. We want to make sure that in British Columbia, within the jurisdiction of the province -- the provincial Crown -- there is no discrimination based on race to the extent that that's possible, given the realities that we live under and given the realities that we've lived under since 1492 and the arrival of Columbus.
G. Wilson: Actually, Columbus arrived quite a bit south of here; maybe Cartier or one of those might be more appropriate for Canada. I'd hate to think that we are going to sink into American history that quickly.
I appreciate what the minister is saying with respect to the jurisdictional questions. Nevertheless, clearly the intention of the process -- and I can feel the Chair ready to pounce on me, so I am going to be very careful about how I keep this to the purposes of this act.... But I know that the Sechelt Indian government act, for example, which is an act that is statutorily driven by both federal and provincial legislation, has created eight years of very successful self-government. I don't take that away from them for one moment. And I don't for a second suggest that it hasn't worked to the advantage of the Sechelt aboriginal people and the non-aboriginal people who work and interface with them. They're an outstanding, very progressive band, and they've done an excellent job.
But where I disagree.... It's a point of principle. Because this is a human rights code and it talks about not discriminat-
[ Page 16185 ]
ing, I seriously disagree with the purposes section of this code, in terms of its reality in terms of application, where there is clear discrimination with respect to leaseholders, their rights, the right to be able to lease, and what your property acquisition rights, tenancy rights and rates are. That is covered by the code. That's clearly said in this section under (c): "...to prevent discrimination prohibited by this Code."
Secondly, with respect to legislation that's even being introduced by this government, I draw the members' attention to the Adoption Act. That sets out two very clearly separate distinctions. It's this jurisdiction that's doing it, not the federal government. So if we're going to be equal and treat everybody equally and have no discrimination -- if those are the purposes of this code -- then how does the minister justify that glaring departure from what would otherwise be an outstanding effort with respect to human rights and equality?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are obviously several concepts of equality, and I'd rather not get into that debate. All I want to say is that I understand what the member is driving at. Unless legislation is clearly exempted from the application of this code, this code would apply to all provincial legislation and would prevail over -- supersede -- the general legislation. That's the intent of this legislation.
V. Anderson: Just to follow up on that interesting discussion, I have to disagree with my colleague from Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and it's important. I don't think that's a racial question he's talking about. It's a question of the right of historical occupancy that he's talking about. To say it's a racial question is to misconstrue it. It's important. We're talking about the right of historical occupancy, and that's irrelevant. It could be any race, any ethnic or cultural group that's involved there.
But, coming back to this present discussion, I am concerned about the tone of the sections that we have been discussing in (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). They do bring a whole new tone. For example, subsection (d) says: "...to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality...." It's pretty high-minded, I think, to seek to overcome.... There are a variety of words that you might use, but to eliminate.... Equality and inequality are often in the minds of the beholder, as we know too well. There's no definition of inequality in subsection (d) or equality in subsection (f). In what areas are we talking about inequality and equality? Are we talking about inequality in the opportunity for education? Are we talking about inequality in the opportunity for health care? Are we talking about inequality for physical education, recreational resources or music?
To talk about equality and inequality in the overall sense is just to go after the moon. You're going to eliminate all differences of opinion. Equality and inequality, in many areas, is a difference of opinion and not of actual facts. To monitor progress in achieving equality, what is the base point from which one starts? What are the factors that one is using as the base factors to monitor that equality? How is one going to achieve this?
What kind of mechanisms, what kind of programs, what kind of structures...? It's so all-inclusive that it just.... I know that in purpose you want to give a vision, but in a sense it broadens the vision for equality and inequality so far that it can be anything, about anything, to deal with whatever a person happens to have in mind when they get there.
[10:15]
I'm curious to know what is meant by equality. What areas of equality or inequality are we talking about? What are the base points from which we are starting? The other hon. member ruled out some of the mechanisms that traditionally might have been thought of there. What other mechanisms are being considered here?
It's a blank cheque, and that's a concern. A blank cheque is being written here, and that's a real concern, particularly when I'm not sure who's filling it in, for what purpose and to be spent by whom. Perhaps when we're talking about a blank cheque, you might indicate the budget that is being allowed to fulfil these purposes. Is it $1 million, $5 million or $10 million? What is the budget for the commission, the tribunal and the council? What are we working with here?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the question of inequality, if you look at section 3, section 1.1(d), it indicates that this is to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this code. So we're not talking about inequality that generally exists out there; we're talking about the coverage and protections that are provided under the legislation, and the prohibitions that are embedded in the legislation with respect to employment, publication, tenancy and those kinds of issues that are covered where discrimination is prohibited. If there are persistent patterns of inequality with respect to any of those headings which are covered in the legislation, then it is the obligation of the commission to look at that and try to eradicate that through education and otherwise.
With respect to the money, this matter is obviously being looked at, but I can give the hon. member a general idea that the net increase in terms of the new structures would perhaps mean somewhere in the range of $1 million to $1.5 million per year. But let me say, as I tell you that, that we currently spend less than two-thirds of the national average in total on human rights issues in British Columbia per capita, and that we spend less than half the national average per complaint in British Columbia.
V. Anderson: If the Chair might just give me a little.... I wasn't quite awake when we went by the previous area. Section 2(f)(2) says: "Discrimination in contravention of this code does not require an intention to contravene this Code." Could the minister explain this? I presume he's saying that ignorance is no excuse. I'm not sure if that's what it means, but if you do.... If I understand rightly, it's saying that if you contravene the code unintentionally, you're still guilty.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is simply a rewrite of the old legislation, and I'll read section 13(2) of the old legislation for you. It says: "The council shall not decline to proceed with an investigation by reason only that there was no intent by the person against whom the complaint was made to contravene this Act." This has been rewritten to clarify it. Let me also say that this helps to emphasize the important principle of human rights law as it has been adjudicated upon by the courts in recent history.
G. Wilson: I have a quick question. It actually spins off something that was raised by the Leader of the Third Party with respect to 1.1(d) and then 1.1(g). I refer to one of the discriminatory prohibitions that are outlined in the code,
[ Page 16186 ]
which is the discrimination in wages. This 1.1(g) is "to create mechanisms for providing the information, education and advice...." That says one thing, and that obviously speaks to the need for equal pay for work of equal value and no gender bias, and therefore it's spelled out in the code. I don't need to tell the minister what's in there; he knows what's in there. But then under (d), it says: "...to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited...."
In the past, what has happened is that there have been programs established to try to diminish or in some way reduce this notion of gender inequality with respect to wages. I wonder if the minister now actually envisages that with respect to.... I don't think there's anything in our society that is probably more systemic than that, in terms of just flat discrimination in the workplace. If there's an intention with respect to elimination of persistent patterns, I wonder about some provision of a fair-wage concept. I wonder if the government has thought of it, discussed it, talked of it or in some way would seek to use that as a means for elimination.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The current legislation, which remains in place on this issue under the general heading of discrimination, talks only about equal pay, not equal pay for work of equal value. Any programs that you deal with would therefore be under constraint with respect to that matter by the existing legislation, which we are leaving in place.
Section 3, section 1.1 approved.
On section 3, section 1.2.
V. Anderson: I wanted to clarify.... I presume that section 1.2 means, with any other enactment within British Columbia, that this code would not override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for instance. This would only be codes within British Columbia.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is so.
Section 3, section 1.2 approved.
On section 3, section 1.3.
V. Anderson: The chief commissioner.... Is the program of public education and information his sole function? The chief commissioner is responsible for developing education. Is that his sole function, or are his functions also listed as other....? When you first read it here, it looks like it's his sole function, but I have the impression that his sole function goes beyond what is written here. I want to confirm whether that is true or not.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The chief commissioner is the chief executive officer of the commission, and this would be just one of the functions.
V. Anderson: I'm curious to know, then, why this function is listed separately and is not part of other functions. Why has this one been highlighted particularly here? Is it more important? Is it more significant? Is it the major function of what he or she is doing? What is the reason for it being set out by itself?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We brought it forward to the face of the legislation, because this is a very important function. As I've said all along, one of the main thrusts of this legislation is to have higher awareness of and more education on human rights issues in British Columbia, so there are less complaints and less programs in place to deal with the after-effects. We will do prevention by education.
Section 3, section 1.3 approved.
On section 3, section 1.4.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious if the minister could give me some sense of the parameters that may be in place -- if there are any -- around the issue of encouraging research. It's an interesting choice of words, and I'm curious to know what is envisioned: "...encourage research into matters relevant to this Code." It seems to me that my interpretation would be that there would be nothing to stop the chief commissioner or the deputy from hiring consultants to go out and look at any matter, even any area where they may, for any reason, suspect that there may be discrimination present. Is that the case? Under this section, could the minister -- or the deputy commissioner, as the section says -- engage in research? What would be necessary to move the commissioner to engage in research?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do not believe that this section relates to research with respect to any investigative functions that deal with the issues here. This complements the education function. This, in fact, was one of Professor Black's recommendations. He indicated that the commission be empowered to actively promote and study human rights and the human rights complaint process in British Columbia -- that kind of a general, research-oriented approach, so that we continuously improve the system that we have in British Columbia.
J. Weisgerber: Just for clarification, then: the minister is saying this doesn't empower the chief commissioner to enter into or encourage research into areas of specific discrimination that he may for some reason want or believe there's a need to, but rather that.... It's important to be clear. The minister is bringing the legislation forward, so we know he has a very precise understanding of the intent. What we're talking about here is academic research, not investigative research.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are, by and large, speaking about academic research. However, if it comes to the attention of the commission that persistent patterns of systemic inequality exist with respect to the six or seven heads where discrimination is prohibited, the commissioner could do research in that area before deciding whether to deal with the issue through investigation.
G. Wilson: I don't doubt for a second that the commissioner or deputy chief commissioner may engage in a lot of research. There's an awful lot of work going.... One only has to surf the Internet to see the incredible amount of legislation that's coming out of virtually every jurisdiction worldwide with respect to matters of human rights. It's going to become ever- increasingly important, I would guess, as populations emigrate. I believe that we're on the next major wave of global migration, and that's going to again require this kind of thing to take place.
[ Page 16187 ]
[10:30]
My concern is that all through this bill -- and this is one section that talks to it -- there is discussion, for example, that the Human Rights Advisory Council has a role to educate and to promote those kinds of things to make sure that people understand what's available to them and those kinds of considerations. There's a proposition also with respect to the empowerment given to the commission when it's up and running. Also, throughout the whole legislation there are cost implications in terms of staffing and supported bureaucracy.
My concern is.... And don't get me wrong; I'm not saying to the minister that this isn't necessary. I would argue that it probably is going to become essential that we have as much information as possible with respect to the intricacies of human rights if we're to maintain equality in what will become an increasingly pluralistic society, so I'm not trying to diminish its importance -- not for a minute. My concern is that you're creating a bureaucracy, and I wonder if this question of research and public consultation isn't the thin edge of what is going to become a very large iceberg here in terms of cost demand on the tax base. This is an area that's just enormous; it's huge in terms of its implication and its role. I wonder if the minister has thought about that and if he could comment in light of this section.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that as we proceed to other sections.... Section 4, section 15, deals with the Human Rights Advisory Council. Their function is to inform the public about the work of the commission and to ensure that the concerns of the public are brought to the attention of the commission. They can then advise the commission and the minister on matters that are relevant to the administration of this code. Obviously, what's envisaged is that these bodies will at least coordinate some of these research and education functions among themselves, rather than going off on tangents. Obviously, if that doesn't happen, the minister -- and the Legislature, in the end -- has the hammer with respect to budget constraints, and that teaches anybody a lesson as to how to function.
I see that there is the potential for a problem, but there is a mechanism to deal with that. The main thrust of this legislation is that we want to encourage education, research and more awareness in British Columbia so that eventually the cost of the processing of hundreds of complaints every year comes down -- maybe not in the short run, but definitely in the long run.
V. Anderson: I have two questions about section 3, section 1.4(2), that are not particularly related to research but to consultation. Is there some kind of vision here of networking with groups or forming groups throughout the province that would be interested in the human rights legislation? What is the networking or the vision that's here in the consultations -- e.g., with whom? Is a particular area of concern the anti-racism groups, a number of which are around the province? What is the relationship of human rights to the number of anti-racist groups that have organized throughout the province?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's anticipated that the commission and, of course, the council will be in touch with all of the bodies that Prof. Bill Black consulted with during his review or as bodies may come up from time to time. I think it's important to keep in touch with those bodies rather than duplicating and triplicating the work that's already been done. My view would be that those are the resources that the commission and the advisory council would be tapping into.
V. Anderson: I'm wondering if you're seeing the role of the commission and the council -- perhaps both -- as not only networking but coordinating. What is the role of the Human Rights Commission and the council in relation to these groups throughout the province? Will it be a service function to them, a coordinating function or a communication function? Do you see these as part of the role here?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would simply be the function of information as well as communication with those groups, so that we know what the state of human rights is in British Columbia and everybody in that business is kept apprised of the developments in different areas of the province. Other than that, I don't think the commission or the Human Rights Advisory Council would be playing a coordinating role or a role of that nature at all; I don't think that's their business.
G. Wilson: Just leading out of that.... Presumably what will be their business is an ongoing legal review of the process, particularly in light of this proposition with respect to how complaints come forward and how they are dealt with or disposed of. I would argue that there may potentially be a lot of litigation around this initially -- in terms of employers' rights, for one thing, if there are discrimination questions raised on matters of employment. So I would think that one of the things that section 1.4(2) is going to have to require is consultation, certainly with labour unions and with employer groups, to see if other legislation that impacts on the implementation of the recommendations of the code can't be adhered to. That's a fairly large process, and I would argue that that is going to have some cost implications. It would be envisaged that that would be an ongoing review process in-house. Would that not be so?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that would have many cost implications. If there are labour and employer groups that are aware of difficulties, they would advise the council or the commission, and perhaps even the minister. It doesn't take too much or too long, or too much expense, to deal with those kinds of issues for amendments -- if amendments are required at some point. I don't envisage a whole industry being built up around possible amendments that may happen over the next two or three years. But I do realize that once this legislation is in place, there may be some litigation activity directed at it, so we know what the parameters of this legislation are as we move forward.
Section 3, section 1.4 approved.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
The Chair: Section 4 is a large section. We'll deal with it subsection by subsection. Therefore the question is section 4, section 10.
On section 4, section 10.
[ Page 16188 ]
G. Wilson: Given that this is going to be a long section to get through, I think that section 10 is really the meat of this issue. I seek some guidance from the Chair as to whether this is a good place to adjourn and pick it up later. If it would expedite discussion, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:39 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; A. Hagen in the chair.
The committee met at 6:55 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).
M. de Jong: When we left off, we were discussing the recycled waste paint program. One of the areas that I indicated to the minister I was seeking information on related to enforcement. I understand that she had some comments she was prepared to make with respect to some other areas that she identified -- and she spoke about one of them -- where she was not yet satisfied with where the program was and where she anticipated some improvements were being made.
Hon. E. Cull: I think I did conclude my remarks before we broke for supper. Primarily, the concerns have been with respect to the progress the industry is making to meet time lines regarding the setting up of paint recycling programs in a sufficient number of regional districts in the province.
M. de Jong: Perhaps I can be more specific. What resources within the ministry and the department of environmental protection...? What personnel are dedicated to the task of enforcing the program?
Hon. E. Cull: As I indicated earlier, the number of ministry FTEs devoted to this program is quite small because it is an industry-run program, but obviously enforcement is entirely the responsibility of the ministry. There is an enforcement action under investigation right now. It will be initiated by the conservation officer service, but I don't think it would involve even one FTE over the year. The people who will be involved will not be spending 12 months of their time doing so, so it will be less than one FTE.
M. de Jong: Could the minister explain what, if any, relationship the waste reduction commissioner has with the implementation and enforcement of the program?
Hon. E. Cull: In terms of enforcement, the commissioner's office does not have responsibility in this area. However, she did a considerable amount of work raising the profile of the issues and discussing the solutions to various household hazardous wastes, including paint.
M. de Jong: I wonder if we could turn to the question of solid waste management, insofar as its application at the civic or municipal level is concerned. When I arrived here last year, I heard the minister take some time during estimates debate to talk about the initiative that was underway to compile and accumulate waste management plans from every district. I believe there was an upcoming deadline in December 1995. I don't know if that's correct, but could the minister provide some manner of update as to where that stands at this point?
[7:00]
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct. There is a requirement under the Waste Management Act that all regional districts complete their solid waste management plans by December 31, 1995. Those plans are underway. Some have already been approved, although it's a small number out of the total of 29 regional districts. We expect all of them to be complete by the end of the year.
M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate how many of those plans have been received thus far?
Hon. E. Cull: A small number; probably six or seven. I'm guessing at the number, but it's not the majority -- probably not even a third of the 29 regional districts yet.
M. de Jong: I was going to ask if any had been rejected or returned for further amendment or development, but that's probably not the best question at this point. Is the ministry receiving the kinds of plans that were anticipated? Are they meeting the objectives set out in the legislation and in some of the regulation and policy documentation provided to the districts? In short, is the ministry receiving what it hoped to receive with respect to these six or seven plans that have been received?
Hon. E. Cull: As I indicated, a number of the plans have already been approved, and they would not have been approved if they had not met our requirements. Of those still in progress, there are a number of steps to the process that involve discussions with staff so that by the time they arrive at approval, they are meeting all the requirements of the legislation.
M. de Jong: From the budgetary point of view, what are we looking at in terms of FTEs dedicated to the administration of this initiative?
[ Page 16189 ]
Hon. E. Cull: As I indicated to the member earlier, when it comes to FTE breakdowns for anything less than the major branches of departments, I don't have all of those at my fingertips. While not being able to give you the exact numbers, it's somewhere in the order of five or six FTEs.
M. de Jong: When this initiative was launched, it was not without some criticism and concern articulated by some of the regional districts and local government representatives. At this point, can the minister indicate to the committee whether...?
Maybe we can begin with this. The objectives of the program as they were set out at the time were to decrease the amount of material going into landfill sites. There was talk about encouraging a user-pay approach to waste management and recycling. Can the minister offer some evidence or some indication to the committee as to where the indicators stand, and whether or not there have been some successes? What measurements have been employed? I'm advised that there has been an analysis done thus far, albeit an incomplete one, but there is some data available -- I must confess I don't have it -- that indicates just what's going on in the field.
Hon. E. Cull: As I indicated, the plans aren't required to be completed until the end of this year. So we wouldn't be able to evaluate the effect of the plans because they haven't been completed, submitted and approved. But since 1990, if you don't get into the specifics of which areas have achieved this, there has been about a 20-25 percent reduction provincewide in solid waste going to landfill.
M. de Jong: What data, if any, does the minister have to offer with respect to the...? If there has been a requisite increase in the use of blue boxes and some of the alternative forms of waste reduction, are there indicators in that area that she can offer to the committee?
Hon. E. Cull: There is a tracking system that has recently been implemented with all of the regional districts to indicate what's going to the landfill and what's being diverted to other sources. Unfortunately, the system hasn't been running long enough for me to be able to give the member the precise data he is seeking. But as I said earlier, about a 20-25 percent reduction has occurred in solid waste going to the landfill. Roughly half of that is probably paper that has been diverted into the blue box for recycling; the other half has been going to regional district composting projects. We provide funding to assist regional districts in setting up composting, particularly for yard waste.
M. de Jong: The minister anticipated my next question very well. My understanding is that the tracking system represented a fairly major initiative in terms of the development and application of existing technology. Can the minister confirm that the tracking system is complete and offer some information about the extent of the resources that were devoted to its development? I understand that it's something that took in excess of a year to develop properly.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct that it took some time to develop. I can't give an answer with respect to the resources, because the resources would have been provided primarily by local government. We wouldn't have that information with respect to their contribution to the provision of the tracking system.
M. de Jong: How does the tracking system work?
Hon. E. Cull: Two systems are in place right now. The first is based on weight: material going into the landfill is weighed, and tipping fees are paid on a weight basis. In those regional districts where that system has not yet been set up, there is an estimate system -- an equivalent that tries to estimate what's in the load of any particular vehicle. A record is made based on an estimate of the weight.
M. de Jong: Does the tracking system collect data on content?
Hon. E. Cull: Only in the larger, more sophisticated municipalities do. The smaller ones don't have a system for tracking materials.
M. de Jong: As I understand this system, the private carriers -- Laidlaw and others -- have trucks that are equipped with weighing devices, and that's where the data comes from. Is that correct? Or do the municipalities have separate data- collecting facilities?
Hon. E. Cull: The first assumption is correct.
M. de Jong: Can I ask the minister to what extent, if any, the municipal solid waste financial assistance program was involved in developing this system or making funds available to municipalities for the completion of their plans?
Hon. E. Cull: If the member was asking to what extent solid waste management grants went toward the tracking system, again, it was a small amount. It's difficult to ascertain the cost, because municipalities have been responsible for setting that information system up themselves.
M. de Jong: Maybe we can just deal with the municipal solid waste fund, which I confess I'm not terribly familiar with. Can the minister indicate how much it is, what the purpose for the fund was when it was created and how those moneys have been expended during the past year?
Hon. E. Cull: The municipal solid waste program is relatively small. It does come under the sustainable environment fund, and over the last five years about $15 million has gone into this particular area. The priority is for local governments to complete their solid waste management plans and support us at 100 percent of eligible work.
M. de Jong: What were the criteria for dispensing the grant money? Presumably different areas or regions of the province made application. Were the moneys allocated purely on an equitable basis or were there other considerations? Could the minister enlighten us as to what they were?
Hon. E. Cull: It was done on the basis of application to complete a solid waste management plan. If the regional district didn't have one, that made them eligible. As long as they had a legitimate program to complete the plan, they would receive the grant.
[ Page 16190 ]
M. de Jong: Are additional funds being budgeted for that program for the coming year?
[7:15]
Hon. E. Cull: As I said, most of them are going to be completed by the end of this calendar year. There has been a reduction in funding, because they are either underway, have been funded or will soon be completed.
M. de Jong: That's the nub of the question -- if the plans have to be completed by December 1995, presumably all the moneys have been allocated. Therefore the question is: does this program come to an end at the of December 1995?
Hon. E. Cull: That's a question we'll have to consider as we prepare the 1996-97 budget. It will depend on what work has to be done and what the priorities are in the ministry at the time. At this point, I couldn't say what we're going to do.
M. de Jong: Without looking ahead to future policy, are there now other factors or criteria attached to the fund that would give us pause to think that it would continue beyond the December 1995 deadline? Beyond the waste management plans, are there other factors that figured into the decision to create this fund and to award those moneys?
Hon. E. Cull: There are a number of things one can speculate about, but I think at this point the best answer is to repeat what I've just said. As we prepare the 1996-97 budget, we will be reviewing all of the priorities of the Ministry of Environment, we will be looking at the overall government budget objectives and we'll be trying to fund the high-priority issues first. One can speculate about what might be funded next in the area of solid waste, but that would simply be speculation at this point until we can get into the budget process.
M. de Jong: Is it fair for me to submit to the minister that based on present criteria the raison d'etre for this fund disappears when the last of the waste management plans has been filed?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think it's fair to conclude that. It may turn out that there are other very high priorities that are related to this area, which might justify the continuation of the fund. At this point, I don't have the information to be able to do anything more than say we have to review it, as we have to review all funding each year when we prepare a new budget.
M. de Jong: I'm dwelling on the point, not because I think there is a huge amount of money involved in this one area of the budget, but because it can be indicative of what I think happens when a fund or a program is created for a specific purpose, which apparently this one was -- a specific purpose for facilitating the completion of these solid waste management plans.
That purpose has been accomplished, and yes, I guess we can think of going somewhere else. I don't know how many people are involved in this area of ministry activities. Presumably they don't want to find themselves without anything to do; that's how these sorts of programs tend to continue in perpetuity as we lose sight of the original objective.
My question was worded in a particular way. I asked the minister what the criteria was when the program was set up, and the response was that the objective was to facilitate the completion of these waste management plans. Presumably, once that has been completed, that is the end of the reason for the fund, unless a new purpose is found. The minister is correct; it's speculation on our part to consider whether or not a new purpose would be found. But without a new purpose or a new objective, is it fair to say that the program will have met its objective and therefore would be discontinued?
Hon. E. Cull: I think that's a fair comment on almost all of the ministry's funding. If we have funding for a particular project, and the project is completed, then there is no need to continue funding in that area. However, every year the ministry looks at all of its programs and determines whether or not they need to continue to be funded. Not only have they ended if they had a particular shelf life or had a period of time to seek an objective, but sometimes programs get ended simply because they are low priority relative to others.
What I'm saying is that when the ministry prepares its 1996-97 budget, it will have to look at everything it does and prioritize it, and some things may not continue to be done or be renewed, and new purposes may not be taken on, even though they may be very valuable, given the budget constraints the ministry will face at the time. I think that probably goes for all areas of government.
M. de Jong: Can the minister tell me whether she anticipates any funds being expended out of this fund after December 1995, in this coming fiscal year?
Hon. E. Cull: Payment is always paid on completion of work, so if work is completed at the end of December, it's quite possible we might receive requests for payment for work completed prior to December 31, which we would be paying anywhere up to the end of the fiscal year.
M. de Jong: Therefore I can take it from the minister's response that she doesn't anticipate expending any moneys out of this fund in this fiscal year for anything other than the completion of solid waste management plans.
Hon. E. Cull: I indicated that the priority is to complete the solid waste management plans. There are some other grants provided under this fund, particularly for infrastructure for solid waste management, on a one-third cost-sharing basis with regional districts. Those, of course, would be provided as approved.
M. de Jong: May I know from the minister what manner of infrastructure programs she contemplates within this program?
Hon. E. Cull: An example would be a major composting facility or a recycling depot.
M. de Jong: What percentage of the...? I'll withdraw that for the moment, hon. Chair.
The minister gave us a figure of what was available in this fund over the past five years. What will be available for the fiscal year we're dealing with?
Hon. E. Cull: It is $1.5 million.
Hon. E. Cull: Roughly what percentage of that would be applied toward a solid waste management plan activity and the other realm that the minister identified?
[ Page 16191 ]
Hon. E. Cull: Less than half.
M. de Jong: While we're dealing with this aspect of ministry activities, can the minister indicate whether any portion of the moneys included within that fund has been applied toward the development of plans for work with the Ministry of Health on biomedical waste reduction?
Hon. E. Cull: There is very little from the Ministry of Environment. It's primarily staff time contributions. The Ministry of Health will be paying the cost through its grants to hospitals.
M. de Jong: I'll let the minister escape from the confines of the financial assistance program we have been talking about. Can the minister tell me what initiatives, if any, the ministry has launched and intends to launch within this fiscal year relating to biomedical waste?
Hon. E. Cull: Most of the work on biomedical waste was done last fiscal year. We have a policy to phase out the incinerators and to do on-site autoclaving. The costs of that are all borne in the hospital budgets and do not pertain to our budget.
R. Neufeld: I'm sorry I'm a bit late. It's been a rather busy day today trying to keep up to everything. I think the Liberal critic has a few things to attend to for a few minutes, so I'll start with a couple of my questions.
On the first one, I just sent a newspaper clipping to the minister. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I'm using that in reference to what happens in the oil and gas industry in the north. We are all aware, and we appreciate and understand, that we are handling our environment in a different way. I'm not trying to dispute that fact, just so I get that on the record.
But we have some areas in the north, those being stream crossings for small pipelines, that are being punitively attacked. The general rule of thumb now is that you must drill them all underneath the streambed. Most of this work takes place in the wintertime, and it is very difficult and expensive to do this kind of work. I want to emphasize again that I appreciate there are spawning streams and such. I don't think the major oil companies oppose that; I think they are really as concerned about the environment as anyone else.
It seems to come down to where we're doing it a bit more with smaller streams that may not be spawning streams or even streams that are what we classically call muskeg water in the north. It's really not fresh water, although it is fresh water. If you've ever seen muskeg and the type of water that comes out of it, you'll appreciate what I'm talking about; it's absolutely black. It's not because it's contaminated. I think it's the soils and all the rotting vegetation.
We also have difficulty in the winter with oil and seismic companies opening up new cutlines for seismic companies or with oil companies building a winter road to access a lease. Winter roads built in the muskeg area and even on high ground in the north to access a lease may only be used for that one purpose. If the well is dry, you never go in again. If it's in muskeg, lots of times there will be miles of muskeg serviced by helicopter -- actually, almost year-round, other than for a short period of time in the winter.
We seem to apply the same rules all the time. By that I mean creek fills, where they want more bridges to cross even smaller beaver runs, as we call them, that are inactive. Maybe at one time they were active, but no longer -- streambeds that totally dry up in the fall. There's actually no water there. The only time there's water is in spring runoff.
I appreciate that it's difficult for people in the field to be able to work with all these issues and deal with them in a fair manner. I think that probably most of the people who work in the field, on the ground, try to work with the issues in a fair manner, but sometimes rules and regulations get in the way when they're followed to the letter of the law.
[7:30]
This particular picture -- and I'm giving this to the minister -- was given to me by someone who works in the oil patch in Fort St. John or Fort Nelson. They had to do what they classed as some pretty ridiculous remediation work in some areas that were really not fish-bearing streams. We see a ship that's working on the Fraser, gathering gravel from the harbour floor and flushing silt out the sides. The gravel is bound for an underground berm in Port Moody. To me, that's more pollution -- I agree with the person who gave me the picture -- than he's ever seen in rivers in the north, even when they used to dig them open to put pipelines in. At one time they used to be able to dig across the river, lay the pipelines with weights in the water and then fill them back up again.
I guess in comparison, this person just can't quite understand how this operation can take place -- especially now, since we find the Fraser is in the shape that it is -- and yet in the north, in small areas in the muskeg, they're faced with some really expensive, probably time-consuming -- in some cases ridiculous and in some cases called for -- issues that they have to deal with.
I wonder if the minister could maybe elaborate a little on how we can deal with some of the issues in the north. Maybe we can relax some of the rules and regulations to accommodate more, keeping in mind that most of those companies only had three months to do their work. They don't work year-round. In most of those areas in the muskeg, about three months is all they've got and they're done. They're finished for one whole year, unless they want to do it by helicopter. It's tremendously expensive. They find that once they have all their permits in place and ready to go, they get their equipment on the ground and bang -- somebody stops them. As I say, it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen. This person sent me this picture and said: "We never do that in the north, yet we're penalized."
Hon. E. Cull: It is an interesting picture. Unfortunately, the responsible jurisdiction for permitting or not permitting this kind of activity is the federal government, so I can't comment with respect to the difference in requirements. I would like to think that as far as provincial regulations go, you would not find that glaring discrepancy. We have been more consistent.
However, while there is a merit to being consistent across the province, there are also compelling arguments for flexibility along the lines of what the member is talking about. I'm quite familiar with the circumstances that he's talking about with the very short construction season and the difficulties of dealing with such a short season over such challenging terrain.
[ Page 16192 ]
All I can say, without having to deal with a specific case, is that we do work very closely with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to strike the appropriate balance between environmental protection and the needs and concerns of the industry. I think we've had a very cooperative relationship with the ministry and with the industry in this regard. We don't have one set of standards that applies everywhere from Vancouver Island to the North Peace. That would not be reasonable or practical. We try to accommodate the different circumstances in each region.
There may be cases that have been brought to your attention where the streams do seem rather small and insignificant, and one wonders why they've been asked to provide some particular construction to maintain the integrity of that stream. But as we know only too well from too many examples all around the province, small streams flow into large streams, and a lot of the problems that are created in the large streams take place in the tributaries that feed into them.
Without dealing with a specific case to be able to tell you why the ministry would insist on this or that type of construction with respect to permitting, all I can say is that in general we do try to recognize the concerns of industry and the different geography of the north. If there are any particular cases that the member would like me to look into, we'd be happy to sit down and discuss them with you.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister brought forward, but I can tell you that when my people have to abide by the rules that are applied in the north.... Really, try standing there at 30-below and telling them: "Well, that's the federal government's responsibility, and really, it's not mine."
That doesn't work; it just doesn't work, because it's the same old story that what applies in one area of the province doesn't apply in another. I find that reprehensible, and I don't appreciate it. Maybe it would even qualify under the environmental rules for the province of British Columbia. I'm not sure, to be perfectly frank. I would be surprised if it would.
I want to put on the record -- and I appreciate what the minister was referring to about streambeds and those kinds of things -- that we're not talking about mountainous territory in most of the area where I live. When I'm talking about muskeg, I'm talking about the flat, open country. We're not talking about some of the pictures that we have witnessed in the paper in recent months of washouts and everything on the sides of mountains getting into streambeds. In most cases I'm talking about streams -- and I thought I had laid out clearly what I meant -- that are fish-bearing. If they are important to the environment, the fish and everything, yes, I think everybody is concerned about that.
To be frank, I know that in the oil companies you may get a little bit of a hassle from some consultants, but from the many discussions I've had with the oil companies I know that they want to abide by the rules; they don't have any problem abiding by the rules. When the rules get pushed a little bit too far, you start getting into where you can't push snow into a beaver run or into a runoff area where snow melts in springtime. Water runs, and the rest of the year there's nothing -- it's bone-dry. Those are some of the areas where people have trouble understanding why they're forced to do what they're forced to do. That's mostly just to put on the record what I'm trying to get across to the minister. I'll turn it back over to her.
Hon. E. Cull: I'll just make one final comment on that. I understand the member's frustration that at 30-below you don't care about whose jurisdiction it is. I suggest that those people take the issue up with their federal MP in Peace River, because that's where the responsibility lies, and as much as I might like to do something about it, I don't have the jurisdiction.
The examples the member has given are interesting, but if there is a specific case that he would like to review with my staff, I'd be happy to make people available so that we could sit down and go over the concerns that have been raised and the reasons that certain works are being required. If the member then is still not satisfied, perhaps he and I should talk about it again.
M. de Jong: I'll just deal briefly with one issue that frankly I don't want to spend a great deal of my time or the minister's time on -- the issue of dedicated weeks. We've had Wilderness Week and Environment Week. We saw the material, and the Minister of Forests, I think, made a bold attempt to bring Environment Week to the forefront by challenging members to ride their bikes to work at the Legislature. But in days of scarce resources, is the minister satisfied that we're accomplishing anything?
I raise this because in the case of Environment Week there were a number of stories in the electronic and print media. People were asking me: "How much money are we spending on promoting these very noble concepts, and what are we accomplishing? There are just as many people in their cars." No one knows. What's the objective, and are we getting there? Does the minister have information on what we spend in promoting something like Environment Week? Does she believe it's money well spent, and if she does, can she point to some indicators that would sustain that argument?
Hon. E. Cull: I know of at least two MLAs who didn't use their cars during Environment Week. I took the bus to work, and Andrew Petter rode his bike, so obviously it accomplished something.
But in all seriousness, I think that with respect to issues like using transit or alternative forms to the automobile, whether it's car-pooling, biking, walking, busing or whatever else, or some of the issues.... If you were out on the grounds of the Legislature on Clean Air Day, there was information, say, on protecting yourself from ultraviolet radiation. There were a number of different organizations which had been promoting environmental issues throughout the year. This is not a question of adding something to it; it's a question of focusing the money that would normally be spent to raise some of these environmental issues. The challenge to ministries to have people ride their bikes gave a very sharp focus to these issues, particularly the issue of transit in the capital region. The Minister of Forests rode his bike as part of a governmentwide challenge. I don't know where the initiative started, but all government employees were challenged to ride their bikes in order to see which ministry would have the greatest ridership, and he contributed to the Ministry of Forests' ridership in his way.
The other interesting thing that took place that week was a demonstration that showed that one could actually bike to work from Colwood quicker than one could drive through the Colwood crawl. Those who insist on taking their cars because they think it's faster than alternative forms might, as a result of the publicity around that, have cause to rethink their choice. Anything we can do to raise the profile of issues, illustrate to
[ Page 16193 ]
the public that they do have choices and encourage them to try those choices is worthwhile. But let me assure the member that the budgets that are expended are simply part of what would normally be spent to raise the profile of transit, of the importance of protecting yourself from ultraviolet rays or other environmental issues that are related to Clean Air Day.
M. de Jong: Am I correct in assuming that any moneys expended as part of that campaign were included in the global communications figure that the minister provided earlier? For the record, the minister is indicating that they were. My contribution to that program, by the way, took place in my own riding, and I can only say that I had some difficulty taking my seat in the Legislature on the day following my bike ride.
I wonder if I can take the minister to an issue.... She will respond, if I can anticipate, by asking: "Isn't this a classic case of an opposition member wanting to have it both ways?" I must confess that in this case I think she's going to be correct. I'd like to ask the minister to comment on the decision to abandon the prosecution of the GVRD with respect to the dumping of waste material into Burrard Inlet. I think the contradiction in my position can be summarized as follows.
On the face of it, I don't think government should be suing government. In those sorts of situations, an argument can be made that it is the lawyers who make lots of money at the expense of the taxpayers. Having said that, I think a point in argument can be made that the decision not to proceed with some manner of sanction against the GVRD may have been sending a lamentable signal to individuals living in the lower mainland.
The information that I read from the special prosecutor, Mr. Leask, was that he was satisfied beyond any doubt that the pollution that was allegedly being dumped into the water was certainly being dumped. As I recall, the straw that broke the camel's back in this case was an agreement that he identified as existing between the ministry and the GVRD -- I think he used the words, a handshake agreement -- that the GVRD wouldn't be precluded from dumping this material into the harbour under certain circumstances. That certainly is cause for some concern. I'll let the minister offer her read on the situation, and then maybe I can question her further.
Hon. E. Cull: I think this member knows the decision to proceed or not to proceed with charges is entirely up to the special prosecutor, and it would have had nothing to do with whether the special prosecutor thought that it was appropriate or not appropriate for one level of government to bring charges or fines against another. In fact, this particular case wasn't started by the government; it was started by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund.
[7:45]
In any event, as is the practice in this province, when there are private criminal charges brought, the Attorney General ministry takes it over, and in this case a special prosecutor was appointed. The special prosecutor reviews the evidence and advice the RCMP provide with respect to charges and then makes the decision as to whether to proceed. In this case, he recommended against proceeding, based primarily on lack of evidence and the concerns about the lack of specificity around the agreement between the Ministry of Environment and the GVRD.
As a result of those concerns, we have now tightened up that agreement and closed any loopholes or misunderstandings that might have been there about exactly what was intended. The ministry's position was that the agreement should not have been interpreted in that way. Unfortunately, what we think from an environmental point of view is sufficient evidence to take a case forward and what the legal minds determine may not be the same thing.
M. de Jong: As I understand it, the special prosecutor was persuaded to take the decision he did on the basis that he believed there was an informal agreement whereby the GVRD believed it had approval from the ministry to dump raw sewage into the water on certain days when its pipes or facilities were over capacity. The minister has indicated that the ministry had a different interpretation of what the agreement was. Maybe she can offer to the committee what the ministry's position was and how it has changed. At the moment, what terms of the agreement with the GVRD would preclude something like this from happening again?
Hon. E. Cull: The permit that was in place did not contain sufficient information to restrict what could be discharged. It was not specific enough with respect to how much, what and when, and that's where the vagueness came into the case. We have now amended the permits so that that is no longer the case.
M. de Jong: And is it the minister's information that discharges of the sorts that gave rise to what was first a privately laid prosecution can no longer occur under any circumstance?
Hon. E. Cull: No, discharges may still occur, but they will occur now under a much tighter permit that will stipulate what can be discharged, when, how much and under what circumstances.
M. de Jong: If I can return to the original point without referencing this case specifically, the enforcement provisions of various statutes and the ministry's mandate to enforce environmental regulation often does bring the ministry into conflict with other levels of government. I've already signalled to the minister that I philosophically have some difficulty with government lining up against government in a courtroom, simply on the basis that it strikes me as being counterproductive. There must surely be a better way to proceed.
There are other circumstances where the ministry has found itself challenging other levels of government. What work does the minister contemplate being undertaken by her ministry, or what alternatives exist to combat what I see as a counterproductive means of seeking to enforce regulations against other levels of government?
Hon. E. Cull: I think the member is right. When we're dealing with many of these circumstances, the situation is usually one of trying to find sufficient resources to undertake whatever action is needed to upgrade the system so that discharge into the environment doesn't take place. The case in point is a perfect example.
If the secondary sewage treatment was in place in the GVRD, we wouldn't be having to deal with these discharges for extenuating circumstances, because the treatment centre would be able to handle it. Obviously, if I was given a choice between spending money on paying fines to another level of
[ Page 16194 ]
government and spending money on upgrading my sewage system so that we would no longer be in violation of environmental permits, there's no choice. We certainly want to spend the money on doing the upgrading, not on the fines.
Generally, our approach has been to work with local government to provide them with whatever support and assistance we can to ensure that they comply with environmental regulations. Fines are a last resort. Fines, I think, should only be considered where it is clear that the local jurisdiction is wilfully trying to avoid doing the upgrading. I think I have to agree with the member here. I don't see a lot of point in paying money to any level of government for fines when the majority of the problem seems to be a lack of resources just to build the needed infrastructure in the first place.
That's why we have been working with the GVRD and the federal government to try to comply with the concerns that have been raised by the federal Minister of Fisheries. He has threatened fines of $1 million a day. Unfortunately, his government has offered virtually nothing with respect to any cost- sharing to try to get the Annacis Island and Lulu Island plants fully up to secondary sewage treatment status. It seems to me it would be a lot more worthwhile for them to put their money in that, rather than going through a court case and prosecuting and trying to get fines, which only compounds the problem from the GVRD's point of view, because they then have less money to spend on upgrading.
An Hon. Member: Is that a Liberal government?
Hon. E. Cull: I think it is. Would you like me to clarify that for the record?
M. de Jong: Fear not, the minister will have an opportunity to clarify yet again who is in power in Ottawa. I will say this: I think she raises a good point. I'm glad she raised the issue of the federal government. Unfortunately, my observation is that the federal Fisheries minister and I do not share the same views when it comes to the wisdom of pursuing through the courts other levels of government.
I know that at the behest of some of the local governments, the ministry has been involved in an intergovernmental function to attempt to bring that message to the federal officials. Could the minister indicate whether there is ongoing work at the intergovernmental level? Where within her ministry and in this particular area is that work being undertaken? I'm also wondering what in the way of resources is being devoted to taking what I think is an important message on the part of local government to Ottawa in a meaningful and effective way, to say: "Look, it is only one taxpayer. It may make for good headlines and good publicity for a federal minister, but the bottom line is that it doesn't make good sense from the taxpayer's point of view. There are other ways for us to achieve what are admittedly laudable goals."
Hon. E. Cull: For the record, since the member for Peace River North was asking us to confirm that it is a Liberal government in Ottawa that is undertaking the approach of fines as opposed to support, it is encouraging to hear the member, who is of the same party, say he disagrees in this case with his party in Ottawa.
The issue is the responsibility of a number of ministries. Not only Environment, Lands and Parks, but obviously the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has a role to play here. Not surprisingly, the Ministry of Finance also has a role in this issue. The government is on record as supporting one-third cost-sharing, and we have challenged the federal government to provide their one- third. We would like to see the B.C.-Canada infrastructure program extended for another two years, and we are ready to put our money on the table. We're hoping that the federal government will change its mind, see the light and decide that they, too, should put their money on the table.
Right now Mr. Tobin seems to be more fixated on threats and fines than he is on actually trying to resolve the issue, and I think that's unfortunate. It's very shortsighted, and it doesn't actually get a solution underway. All it does is simply waste a lot of people's time as they try to deal with the political threats as opposed to the reality of getting on with secondary treatment.
However, we have offered our one-third of the cost-sharing for the completion of the Annacis Island plant, and we have been in discussion with respect to Lulu Island around some other ideas. We accompanied politicians from the GVRD to a meeting in Ottawa with Mr. Tobin and represented very forcefully the province's and the local governments' point of view. We will continue to work with the GVRD over the next number of weeks and months.
As I understand it, the GVRD is going to be completing a business plan for the treatment plants by the end of this month, and I expect that sometime this week we'll see something coming from the GVRD that we can all respond to.
M. de Jong: With respect to the original matter I raised on the GVRD situation, the information I have is that this matter is still before the courts on appeal. Can the minister confirm that?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't see how it can be, because the prosecution is taken over by the Attorney General when a criminal charge is laid. Since the Attorney General ministry's special prosecutor has decided not to pursue the charges, I can't see how there can be an appeal taking place. I do recall, though, that another set of charges has been laid by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, and perhaps that's what the member is referring to.
M. de Jong: That's one aspect of it. My understanding was that the group also appealed the special prosecutor's decision not to proceed. If the minister has no information in that regard, that's fine, but that was the information I had.
Hon. E. Cull: I don't know how you would do that, and I certainly don't have any information in that regard.
R. Neufeld: I want to go on to just a few other areas in my constituency. One is the environmental review process and procedures. I am still awaiting a letter of response, not from this minister but from the previous minister, regarding an issue that took place early this past winter in Fort Nelson. Not only does the oil and gas industry in Fort Nelson have just the winter to do 90 percent of its work, all the logging in Fort Nelson for the whole year takes place in the winter. There may be a little bit from some private wood through the summer, but it's pretty marginal. Most of it takes place in three months, in the wintertime. During that three months, some of
[ Page 16195 ]
this timber is hauled out from 150 miles or more away from Fort Nelson. In herbiciding processes, the companies have already put all their plans to government. Everything is fine, and they intend to haul out all the helicopter fuel and everything they need through the winter to be cached so that in the summer they can do their herbiciding program on lands that have already been replanted. In the north, probably one of the biggest obstacles the forest companies have is with the heavy undergrowth that kills off the trees.
What happened this past year was -- I don't know whether you'd call it a complaint -- that Treaty 8 lodged a complaint, for lack of a better word, and wanted to review the process of using herbicides. Whether we agree with herbicides or not, it certainly wasn't a new process; it's something that has been going on for years. Whether it's right or wrong, I'm not here to dispute that. But they have set in place a year ahead of time a program to do this work, and I appreciate that Treaty 8 should be able to ask questions about it. What happens is that it's difficult to get the board to hear it, because a number of people have to hear that process, and they are not full-time people with the ministry. It was decided, between Treaty 8 and the forest company, that a legal person would be best suited, because there were some legal ramifications, and I'm not sure exactly what they were about. But that person couldn't coordinate her time with someone else's time in the courts on other issues, so they couldn't meet to hear the complaint until sometime in mid-March.
[8:00]
By mid-March the water is running, and it's springtime. It's too late to do these kinds of things. Not only that, if they hear the process in mid-March, it must take some time for them to make a decision. I'm sure they don't just make a decision overnight on something this serious.
So I'm wondering if there's something that can be done so that when processes are in place in instances such as this, companies can carry on with their program of herbiciding. Maybe that has to be set off for the next year. That gives everyone time to meet and make a proper decision without the pressures of losing a whole year and not being able to do their work of herbiciding.
It would be easy enough for government to say -- and it has been said -- to the company: "You can just fly all that stuff out there during the summertime by helicopter." Well, there's a little more to it than just flying everything out into these areas in the summertime. It's tremendously expensive and counterproductive to do it that way. I wonder if there's some process that could be initiated -- I recall that when we were discussing the type of legislation that I'm talking about, we had some concerns about this -- so that it could be addressed.
Hon. E. Cull: I am somewhat aware of this issue. As the member has indicated, there was an appeal by the band to the Environmental Appeal Board, and for various reasons, it wasn't heard in a timely manner, at least with respect to the time frame that was up there. Given the inability to deal with it in time, we have attempted to mediate a solution between the band and the Ministry of Forests so that there will be a decision made in advance of the next opportunity to take this action and we won't run into the situation again, where an appeal is launched at a point in time when we can't actually respond quickly enough. We have tried to take action after the fact so that in the future we may be able to avoid the kind of problem that came up in this case.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the action that was taken. I guess what I'm asking is: next time this happens, are we going to have a process? Tackama lost the ability to gear up for all those activities this summer, due to what happened last winter. I'm not faulting the people who have to do the process, because it was absolutely impossible for everyone to get together. Are you working on something now with the Ministry of Forests so that next November or December, if someone steps in and says to Tackama, "I want to launch an environmental appeal process," you can say: "Look, if we can't hear it right away and make a decision right away that allows them this three-month time frame to do their work, this is going to take till next year," and allow the company to carry on with its operations?
That's basically what I'm asking, to make sure that the next time it happens, this company can carry on, but still be aware that they have to hear the process. The company is not asking me to say that they don't want to deal with these things. They do want to deal with them, and they want to deal with them in an upfront manner and through the ministry in the way they're supposed to, but be given some leeway so that next time it doesn't happen again.
Hon. E. Cull: That's exactly what the mediation process is intended to resolve: to sort out the issues so that an appeal does not come forward and there is already an answer with respect to this particular matter before the issue comes up again.
R. Neufeld: I have just recently written a letter to the minister; I don't know if she's received it yet. If she hasn't, I'll put it on the record here. It is in regard to the LRMP in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson and the minutes of the mid-May meeting that I received, where Lands has said -- last week, in fact -- that for budgetary reasons it is removing itself from the LRMP -- the process for land use. It seems to me to be rather ridiculous to have a process going on with all the other ministries in Fort Nelson and Fort St. John, with Lands and Parks just stepping aside, saying that because of budgetary problems, it can not participate anymore. I would think that Lands should be participating for sure, since it's a very important part of the process.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is actually partly correct on this. Lands people are not engaged on an ongoing basis in the process at the committee level, but there are Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks people there. It was a question of how many people you are going to have there. Are you going to have someone from fish and wildlife, from Parks and Lands, and so on and so forth? We decided, for the efficient use of resources, to not have somebody from every branch of the ministry there at the table, and we'll have to deal with that internally.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate what you're saying about Lands and Parks, and if it's possible that you don't need people from both those agencies there, I appreciate and understand that. But I can tell you that I just spoke last Thursday to a gentleman in Prince George who is with Lands. He said: "Yes, we have withdrawn, and we're not going to take part in the process anymore -- carte blanche. We're done until budgetary constraints are met, and we can do it."
I've been told by one person who has been involved with the process from day one that they are withdrawing. Parks has gone, and Lands has also gone.
[ Page 16196 ]
Hon. E. Cull: There is an interagency planning team, and Lands is represented on that. For the member's information, I remember many successful planning processes conducted under the old resource management committees and technical planning committees. In those days, only one representative per ministry attended. It was up to that individual to coordinate whatever resources were required within his or her ministry to make sure that there was representation at the table.
With all due respect, it's impossible to be told on the one hand that we should be having fewer public employees to deliver services, but then be expected to have three or four show up at every planning meeting. I think we have to do some internal work to make sure that full representation of the ministry is there, but not expect everyone to be able to go to every meeting. We simply couldn't do that within the budgets that are available.
R. Neufeld: With all due respect to the minister, I don't think that Lands was at every meeting, and I'm not saying it should be at every meeting for no reason. It should be participating in the process. That's what I'm saying, and that's not happening anymore.
Last Thursday a person in Prince George told me that Lands was not participating any longer. That's what I'm trying to get across: it should be participating. If not one person from Lands and one from Parks, at least one person should be attending those meetings. It's about land and resources management planning, and it's talking about the use of land most of the time. If there's nothing on the agenda for that particular ministry, I can see them not attending. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that Lands has definitely told me that it is not participating anymore, carte blanche -- not at all.
Hon. E. Cull: They are participating through the interagency planning group.
R. Neufeld: I can see we're not going to get anywhere with that one. I guess Lands is just going to remove itself from the process, and then when we get to the end, when decisions are made, they're going to go back into it and open up all kinds of issues. I hope not, but obviously that's the process.
I think the message it sends to the rest of the people there, including -- you talk about budgets and people -- people from all other walks of life who participate in that process.... They don't get paid anything to go to those meetings; they do it carte blanche, on their own. Maybe CAPP pays a staff person of some kind to be there, but I know lots of people who attend and are part of the process, and they do it for absolutely nothing. Those people are there participating, and Lands isn't.
The minister can be upset or not; it doesn't matter. All I'm asking is: why not? She's told me that they're just not going to. Through the interagency they're going to, but not through the LRMP.
To go on to another thing, maybe the minister could tell me what's taking place with Muskwa Kechika. It's been almost a year. What is the update on Muskwa Kechika? Where are we at, and is our targeted two-year time frame going to be met?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: Again, let me state that the Ministry of Lands is involved in the process that we've just been talking about, and I cannot foresee us coming to the end of the process without having dealt with Lands issues. There are other Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks people at the table, but also through their role in the interagency planning committee, they are able to address their issues. I would expect all employees to make sure that Ministry of Lands concerns are met.
I would suggest that the priority of the lands branch in this case is processing applications and that it's probably appropriate that if we have a scarcity of resources, we have other individuals at the table on a regular basis. It's not a question of asking them to go unpaid; it's a question of having those people at that time devoted to other higher-priority issues. So it's simply a matter of having only so many people, having more work to do than those people can easily accomplish and having to set priorities and make decisions.
With respect to the second issue the member just asked about, we have just completed a planning concept paper, which has been submitted to the LRMP. It deals with the protected areas as being part of the protected-areas strategy and that there would be integrated resource management use as part of the process. At this point it is the paper that we have put into the LRMP for their consideration. I understand from staff that it has been well received, and it is a starting point for discussions on where the process goes next. The short answer is that it's with the LRMP, and we have provided some input to it from our ministry's perspective on both protected areas and integrated resource management.
R. Neufeld: The Muskwa Kechika area is certainly something of concern to many residents in the north. I know that it has been almost a year that the process has been ongoing, and I think there was a two-year time line put into place when the minister first decided that it would be a special study area.
If that time frame cannot be met, I would like to ask the minister that we don't rush the process. We're talking about an area the size of Nova Scotia. It's huge, and it has a tremendous amount of wildlife in it and lots of watersheds. The minister is well aware that it is called the Serengeti of the North. It also has tremendous forest resources and oil and gas in it. From my perspective as MLA for that constituency, instead of pushing the envelope to make a decision that we may regret at some point, I would rather that we allow ourselves the time necessary to take into consideration all the aspects of the Muskwa Kechika before we make the final say on what we are going to do with it.
[8:15]
I have one other question while I'm dealing with those two issues. Would the minister tell me whether the Chetwynd Environmental Society is funded by the Ministry of Environment or any ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry. None of the staff I have here with me is aware of whether we fund that particular group.
R. Neufeld: I don't need the information now, but I would ask for it, and if you would get back to me about this, I would certainly appreciate it.
Another issue that's prevalent in my constituency is the back-country access proposals. Could the minister bring me up to date on where we're at with back-country recreation?
[ Page 16197 ]
Hon. E. Cull: The member is probably aware that a new policy for back-country access that was announced about one year ago came into effect about three months ago. We are now in the process of taking applications and conducting a review of the policy. In terms of the applications, the first priority is to deal with existing uses that would be illegal uses -- under legal non-conforming, if you like, but pre-existing uses that don't meet the policy. The second priority is to deal with new uses.
R. Neufeld: We have a number of lakes that have been used for fishing, and there are guides who take fishermen out, usually out-of-country fishermen. There are lots of resident fishermen, but not too many of them can afford an airplane to fly out into the mountains to fish. There are a lot of non-residents who come in, and I know of one particular gentleman who has been trying for probably five years to get some leases on a number of lakes west of.... The name of the lake has escaped my mind, but it's at about Mile 400 on the Alaska Highway. He has been told that he'll have to wait for a number of years yet while the ministry assesses the value of those lakes, so they can put them up to proposal in newspapers and everyone can bid on them.
The gentleman has waited for years for the proposal to be in place. It's in place, but now he is told that it could be up to another three years before a decision is made. Is that the normal process? I understood the minister to say that things that took place before are now looked at first, before we go on to any new ones and allow people a licence so they can take fishermen into the lakes.
Hon. E. Cull: It's certainly not our policy to take that long to resolve this issue. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get the details of this particular situation and then look into it specifically to see if something has been misunderstood or if there were extenuating circumstances that made it a more lengthy process. I'm surprised that it would take so long. It would not be our intent that that would be the normal case.
R. Neufeld: I'll get that information to the minister in letter form so that we can deal with it.
Are there any changes contemplated to the operation of the parks in the constituency of Peace River North in the coming season? Last year there were some changes where we shortened the length of time that some parks were operated. Are we going to work through 1995-96 with what was in place last year?
Hon. E. Cull: My understanding is that there are no changes contemplated for this year. If I am proven wrong by my staff, who may review this tomorrow, I'll let you know if there are any changes, but we're not aware of any.
R. Neufeld: I want to talk a bit more about parks and the need for firewood in parks. Having camped a lot and travelled through quite a few campgrounds in my life, I know there is a need to put in big green firewood so that it doesn't get burnt so quickly. I've had a complaint laid with my office that one small campground -- I won't name it -- actually cuts down 350 good, live spruce trees yearly for firewood. I've talked to the Minister of Forests a number of times about the dead-and-down timber or salvage. Timber that's not used for anything else would be good firewood in campgrounds. I would think that's what we would try to do, but apparently that isn't the case.
If this is true, 350 good, live spruce trees being burned in the campgrounds seems to be a little much. I understand that they want a certain amount of green wood in the system so that it doesn't burn so fast. I'm not too sure that there isn't some way we could utilize more salvage timber rather than standing, merchantable trees.
Hon. E. Cull: Being an avid user of the provincial park system, I'm glad to have the member explain to me why there's never anything you can burn in the firewood bins in most provincial parks; the wood is so green. I don't know whether the facts that the member have given me are true with respect to this practice of cutting down 350 trees annually to provide for the needs of this park. I will look into it, because I agree with the member that there are better ways to provide firewood to parks, and that does not seem to be, on the face of it, a logical way to go about doing it.
R. Neufeld: I guess I should put on the record that I'm not talking about ancient rainforest trees; I'm talking about trees that are specific.... They are old growth, but they're a little smaller than what you see on Vancouver Island.
I've talked to the minister briefly, I believe -- I had written a letter to her -- about the Windy Craggy project. An airstrip in Windy Craggy for the purposes of mining is being decommissioned. Having lived in the north all my life and worked for a good part of it in the oil and gas industry, I have flown much of the area in small airplanes. I have landed on a few of those vacated airstrips at different times. I know they have saved my life at different times because of weather or mechanical problems.
There are many airstrips in the north that are simply left. When oil and gas companies or forest companies have finished their work in that area, usually the airstrip is left intact for further use. Someone may be flying to Alaska and all of a sudden have to do an emergency landing. In fact, we have quite a number of strips along the Alaska Highway that were left when the highway was constructed during World War II -- emergency airstrips left intact simply for emergency purposes or access.
The letter that the minister wrote back to me said that it belonged to the company and the company was decommissioning it. I don't know if it's already taken place. It was early June when we received the response from the minister -- June 2, I guess. Actually, I received it through the mayor of Fort St. John. Is there some way that we could look seriously at keeping the airstrip? I know it's part of the Windy Craggy mine, but I'm asking for access for emergency purposes.
People who fly small airplanes certainly look for this kind of airstrip lots of times -- even commercial airliners. Fort Nelson has an alternate, which is the Sierra airstrip. That's a gravel strip about 50 miles due east of Fort Nelson, owned by an oil company. It has a beacon on it which is lit and could be used for emergency purposes. The small strip -- it's probably a fairly big strip -- at Windy Craggy could be used for emergency purposes quite well and could maybe save a life.
Hon. E. Cull: If the member is suggesting that the strip be left until, by the natural course of events, it becomes unfit
[ Page 16198 ]
for use, that's possible. If he's suggesting that the province somehow maintain it as an emergency strip, then.... I see him shaking his head; he's not suggesting that. He's just suggesting that it not be actually ripped up or decommissioned, as he said.
As I indicated in my letter, it's a private matter in that respect. I'd be willing to take another look at it, but the suggestion would have to be made to the people who developed the strip. At this point, it's not really a decision that the province has made to commission or decommission it -- certainly not to maintain it.
R. Neufeld: Let me put on the record that I'm not asking the province to maintain the airstrip.
As you say, there are many airstrips in the province of B.C. that are left for natural regeneration, and time will take care of them. Even some people who use the areas will keep the odd small tree chopped down so that they can continue to use it. It's amazing how long some of those airstrips will last. In fact, where Windy Craggy is located, it's pretty rocky material. I think it would last for a long time. That's what I'm asking -- just that you talk with Geddes, which is decommissioning the site, and see if they'll just leave the airstrip for emergency purposes.
Hon. E. Cull: I'll rise again on this issue, because it may be a matter of liability. I just thought about that as I was listening to the member. It may be a liability issue that the province is concerned about. As I said, I'll take another look at it and see if there's anything there that warrants further action. I do understand that in travelling around the north, emergency strips are used and are greatly appreciated. When some money has been invested in creating a strip, unless there's a valid reason to remove it, it might as well continue its natural life. Let me have a look at the issue.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate what you're talking about; some liability may be there. I know of hundreds of airstrips in the north -- small ones and large ones -- that were left by oil companies, forest companies and governments. Smith River airport has a government airstrip. The ones along the highway were built by the army at one time. Unless there is some strange circumstance, I appreciate the minister saying that she is willing to take it up. I think some pilot, at the point in time when he or she hears the engine cough, may be pretty happy to see that strip through the corner of the window. That can happen; I've been through that.
I want to go on to the Turnagain River area. I asked the minister a question in the House quite a while ago about that area. What's going to happen there? Where is the process at right now?
Hon. E. Cull: I seem to recall it; that may have been the first or second day of my responsibilities for the Ministry of Environment. It has taken me a minute to recall that particular issue. I have asked staff to review the matter and our options and to provide me with some further advice as to the approach to be taken. The normal approach would be public auction. I have asked to have that reviewed to make sure it is appropriate. I have not yet received the staff report. I expect to receive it soon, and when I do I'll be making a decision as to which procedure to follow with respect to renewing that licence.
R. Neufeld: Part of the Turnagain hunting area, of course, is in the Muskwa Kechika area. One of the guide-outfitters from the north brought it my attention that it was going to go on the auction block. The Vancouver Sun also mentioned that it was going to go on the auction block. I want to bring this to the minister's attention through the estimates so that we have it on record that part of it is in the Kechika River area. Before we sell something like that for $1 million or whatever is contemplated.... I have no idea; I'm only going by what's in the paper. I don't believe everything that's in the paper, by the way, but the paper says $1.2 million. I would hope that we would not rush into that kind of decision.
[8:30]
Another area of concern in my constituency involves permits and fees in regard to telecommunication sites on Crown land. We have quite a number of them in the north....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I see that the member for Nelson-Creston totally agrees with me on this issue. We've seen fees increase tenfold and more to some companies that lease a piece of land that could be 20 feet by 20 feet. There's a new process; I guess it's not a tax, but a fee. What you do is put a fee on every user of that telecommunications site even though there is no change in the configuration of the site. The company that owns the site re- leases it to companies that use the tower for broadcasting. Each one of them has to pay a fee that's substantially larger than it was before. I know of a number of areas in my constituency where that has increased dramatically for almost everyone who uses telecommunication sites. There are literally hundreds of them in my constituency.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm laughing because this question was actually asked when the estimates started in early May under the former minister, and I've just read his response. I'm not sure that I can get any more than the member got from the response at the time. All I can do is commit to looking into it. I don't know the answer to this particular question. I haven't had a chance to delve into telecommunications fees and the structure of the leases. I can see that the former minister committed to getting the information for you, and I'll continue to work with the staff to do that.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. That was the response I received before. In fact, maybe I should send the minister a package of things that I have on it, and she can respond to that.
I have a couple of other items. Can the minister tell me approximately how many more new employees will be required within the Ministry of Environment to implement the Forest Practices Code?
Hon. E. Cull: Approximately 55 FTEs, but we have found all of those individuals through reallocation in the ministry.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate shifting them around. Obviously I wonder what they were doing before, but regardless, there are 55 more people to implement the Forest Practices Code. That is the total across the province? There will be no more than 55 people? I find that quite surprising, because the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources employs 14
[ Page 16199 ]
extra staff to implement the Forest Practices Code and do all the things that are required. That's not nearly as land-encompassing as the Ministry of Environment, when you think about it. Maybe the minister can enlighten me.
Hon. E. Cull: With respect to the side comment the member made about wondering what the people were doing before, the member wasn't part of the debate when we talked generally about budget restrictions on the ministry. While he's here, I'll just point out for the record that the 1995-96 budget has virtually no increase -- no change from last year's budget. That has proved to be a challenge within the ministry.
That doesn't mean that there were 55 people sitting around a year ago doing nothing who suddenly found work this year; it means that we had to go back through the ministry and evaluate all of the activities that we were doing and move resources from the lowest-priority to higher-priority issues. I think it is essential that we do that across government. If we're going to live with the tough budgets that have been created for a number of ministries, the only way to do so is to reprioritize your activities, and we have done so.
The 55 individuals may sound like a small number. It builds upon some new FTEs that were created last year, so it's not the total number of ministry employees. This year's budget is 55; there were some allocated in last year's budget. I might also point out that some of the activities of staff in the ministry would already be in the area of supporting the types of things that the Forest Practices Code requires them to do. It's not as if we weren't doing anything with respect to environmental issues in forestry and then suddenly the Forest Practices Code required us to do things. There have been additional resources required, but things weren't starting from the ground up. We already had some staff in that area.
R. Neufeld: Just a few more questions. I guarantee the minister that I'm not familiar with one of them and that's hunting with black-powder rifles -- rifles that were designed and built in the 1700s. I know some people in my constituency are avid black-powder rifle enthusiasts or gun enthusiasts. They previously had a special hunting area where they could hunt moose. This is not a rifle that you shoot a long way; in fact, they tell me that you have to get within 50 yards of the animal if you're intending to kill it. That's not very likely, although these people -- men and women -- enjoy doing it.
The minister previous to you, I might add, arbitrarily closed MU 7-32. That was apparently the only area, according to the information I have from this group, where they've been able to hunt with black-powder rifles. The response of the minister of the day was that the new black-powder rifles are as accurate as normal rifles. This person takes a bit of an exception to that. Compound bows are used in archery for hunting, which are much more accurate than a rifle that was built in 1770. That's the kind of rifle these people hunt with.
I don't expect that the minister can give me an answer right now, but I wonder if she would actively look into why we would close an area to black-powder rifle hunting enthusiasts.
Hon. E. Cull: Again, this is not an area that I'm familiar with. As the member has indicated, I guess this is a special group. Can the member confirm if this hunting closure is for this type of hunting only? In other words, was other hunting continued in this area, or was there a restriction on other forms of hunting, other types of rifles and whatever within the management unit?
R. Neufeld: Just so the minister is aware, I'm not a hunter. I've never hunted.
I'm not exactly sure, even when they talk about management units, what the areas actually encompass. I'm not familiar with them. But this one obviously.... I guess they changed the time, but for some reason, when Mr. Lansing went to pick up his licence to hunt in that area.... It was the only area, as I understand it -- I'm going by memory from some of these letters -- that they were allowed to do this. I don't think any other hunting takes place in the area with high-powered rifles; they totally closed the area. This gentleman is saying that very few successes in black-powder hunting are evident, or ever have been evident, and that was part of the problem.
Maybe, for the minister's benefit and mine, I will again forward to the minister the information that has been brought to my attention. Maybe we can get a response from the ministry directly to the Black Powder Association, if that's possible. I see the minister nodding her head.
I have two more questions. Can the minister explain to me where we are with the use of MMT in gasoline in British Columbia? Is there any move to discontinue it, have we already or is it contemplated for the future?
Hon. E. Cull: It's my understanding that the federal government has brought in legislation banning the use of MMT.
R. Neufeld: You say the federal government is in the process of banning it at the present time? Thank you.
The other question I have is in regard to the cost of land in Fort Nelson. There's another small thing that happens in my constituency -- you may be surprised. A couple of years ago a person built a truck shop along the Alaska Highway, within the town of Fort Nelson, and received a permit from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to access the Alaska Highway. He did that. It comes right out from the business onto the Alaska Highway. There's no frontage road through there. Since then, it has been discovered that there is a piece of Crown land there, and the ministry is trying to tell this gentleman that he either has to purchase this piece of Crown land at a certain price or he is going to have to access his property from a different area, which may be a bit difficult.
The cost of the land quoted to the gentleman is $20,000. I want to tell the minister, because she might be surprised. This piece of land is pie-shaped. On its widest side, it's 15 feet. It's 280 to 290 feet long on each side. If you figure it out, it's about 2,800 square feet. The Ministry of Lands has quoted $20,000. Now the gentleman in question has no problem purchasing the land for what would be an acceptable price -- he states that. But $20,000? I'm not even sure if you could get that for a little piece of land right out here in front of the buildings. Well, I suppose you would here.
But 2,800 square feet in Fort Nelson is absolutely unbelievable, when you think that you can stand on the highest point in Fort Nelson and look in any direction and the Crown owns the land. The Crown owns everything up there.
[ Page 16200 ]
In fact, there was a development for a residential subdivision, and I think the price of the lots -- the land component -- was about $2,000 or $3,000 for a full 70-by-120 city lot. I can only assume that because this is in the middle of this person's driveway, we want to charge $20,000. It seems to be rather ridiculous. I'm not sure what the ministry would do with the land, even if it was given back to us. If the gentleman said, "Look, I'll make other access," I don't know what you'd do with a piece of land that's pie-shaped, 290 feet by 15 feet on its widest side. I don't even think you can erect a sign in there.
[8:45]
I bring that to the minister's attention so that the minister can understand that there are some difficulties with trying to deal with Lands in Fort Nelson when they're trying to think about the price of land in the rest of the province of British Columbia. There has to be some rationale in some of these decisions. This just doesn't seem to be one that makes too much sense to me.
Hon. E. Cull: I think the member will understand when I say I'm not particularly familiar with this parcel of land. As he has described it, it does seem that the value may be somewhat overstated. We'll have another look at exactly what's going on there and provide the information back to the member.
G. Wilson: I'm going to try to limit my remarks to two subjects: first, water management and matters with respect to watersheds; and second, waste management, in particular some of the difficulties between industrial and municipal waste in some of the rural areas. I'm going to cut right to the quick, too, because of the way things are proceeding in the big House.
I have some serious concerns, and I hope the minister will explain what role the Ministry of Environment sees itself playing in the community committees that are struck once parks are established with respect to municipal water management concerns. I raise this in particular, given the announcement of the Tetrahedron. I've had the benefit of speaking with Mr. Gunton on this at some length, and I've had some reasonable assurances from Mr. Gunton. I offer the minister a chance to clarify on the record for the constituents what the Minister of Environment's role is going to be.
I wonder if the minister would tailor the remarks to address three concerns. First, because there have been previous forest interests there, there is a real perception that a move towards the establishment of a class A park was designed primarily to prohibit forest activity in that area. We had a process that looked after that, with the exception of about 13 percent of it, which is still contentious and in dispute. But the government has decided in its wisdom to set it aside. There is a concern that forestry and forestry interests prevail in that area, particularly in light of the fact that the Forest Renewal money that's going into the area, which is in the millions of dollars, is being largely administered through Interfor. It is felt by Interfor to be part of their stumpage, and therefore it's their money, so they feel they can apply their money in a manner that they prioritize and in terms of how they feel it should be spent. So the first thing is the question of forestry concerns.
Second, there's a real concern that if a class A park classification is put in place, regional district interests with respect to water -- and in particular the construction of water management projects -- will be greatly inhibited because of what may be deemed to be unacceptable activity within a park. What we're doing is creating in this area the concept that those lakes are protected in their natural state as part of a protected-areas strategy for recreational users to use, whereas the vast majority of the population is saying that that's not what they expect to do. They say they are setting aside those lakes because they are the primary source of water for everybody who lives on the Sunshine Coast, and they therefore want to limit recreational activity. Whatever the future classification of that land would be, they want to make it easy in future to construct water management projects that might greatly increase the head of water behind those projects. That's the second issue: if you go to a class A park classification, what is it going to do in terms of that management?
The third thing is the extent to which the community process that is now struck is going to have Ministry of Environment personnel as a significant component -- particularly water management personnel -- and the degree to which there is going to be some concern with respect to maintaining all the water above the lowest intake. I raise the point about the lowest intake specifically because under the new amended Forest Practices Code, that is the water management area as defined in the statues, or it will be as soon as it is given regulation by the province.
I know I've asked a lot of questions all at once, but if the minister could respond in those three areas, we might cut to the quick and get these questions finished with.
Hon. E. Cull: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and I had an opportunity to discuss the watershed issue around the Tetrahedron protected area a couple of weeks ago, and I want to assure the member again that when we do the master plan for the parks, the requirements of water for the community -- the watershed issues -- will be one of the priority issues to be addressed. It was made very clear to all when we made the announcement that the protection of water quality was one of the most important issues in this particular protected area that all decisions made with respect to the plan for the park in the future had to support the provision of water to the local communities.
The Ministry of Environment will be involved. Our parks people will lead the process of the master plan, but we will have staff from the water management branch involved in the planning process. There will be the ability under this park designation to deal with exactly the kinds of issues the member raises. We would expect the planning process to address the needs of watershed management and to ensure that whatever planning is done to the park respects first and foremost the need in future to provide high-quality water sources for the communities in the area.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: It wasn't my decision. Hon. Chair, I was about to engage in a side conversation here.
The decision was taken by this member's government, not me. I'm just arguing that now that this decision has been taken, especially because there was 13 percent that was under dispute, and the government in its wisdom has decided that it's going to take 100 percent of that area, what we're hearing now from the community is that recreational interests have
[ Page 16201 ]
prevailed. We're hearing that this is going to be a class A park, and that it is now going to be open for recreational interests to go in and use the facility. They will be able to camp, hike and have access into that area.
The concern is that if the Tetrahedron was set aside, and the 13 percent wasn't going to be used for any logging, then we don't want to mitigate or potentially mitigate the use of the water by any recreational activity that is unrestricted, because it could be equally as damaging as anything the loggers did.
I've explored this with the deputy minister, and I'm not going to waste our time in this committee going through that conversation. It seems to me that there has to be another designation within the protected-areas strategy that defines a municipal watershed or protected area for the purpose of a municipal watershed or water management or something that isn't a class A park. A class A park sends out an entirely wrong signal to those people who look at it on a map, read about it, see it or find it promoted in some way. The difficulty we have with that is that in very short order, given the population increase on the Sunshine Coast, which I don't think we can stop....
We can't play King Canute here and pretend that we can sit on the beach and prevent the tide from coming in. We may have to construct some form of water reservoir, which will greatly alter those lakes. We're likely to hear, from the very people who were saying that they didn't want logging: "No, you can't alter its natural form; this is a class A provincial park." Yet the primary interest in that whole protection is to maintain our water supply. What we need to hear from the minister is that nothing, through the designation of class A provincial park, will prevent the regional district and/or its agents from expanding that water supply system, when necessary, to supply municipal water.
Hon. E. Cull: Whether we had protected the area or designated it as a class A park, I suspect that the people who have been lobbying for greater recreational use and an end to forestry activities there would still be making those statements with respect to any construction that would have to be done in reference to water quality. I don't know if there was anything that we could have done to make those people go away or have a different perspective on what should happen in that area.
What we have done, though, in protecting the area -- and the member was present the day I made the announcement there -- is to state that water supply use is the first priority. We will be addressing that through the master planning process. I guess what I'm saying is that "a park is a park is a park" is not the case with all class A parks. The master plans can determine to what extent recreational activities of various kinds are allowed throughout the park, whether they are restricted and whether other uses, which might be unique to the area, are permitted under a park use permit. I would expect that in the course of the master planning process for this particular area, watershed use will be the priority use that will have to be protected, and any recreational use will have to be compatible with that use.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I'm not for a moment saying that the government made the wrong decision in protecting it and setting it aside. I think the community as a whole -- at least, I would guess, 95 percent of them -- were strongly in favour of action being taken to protect it, so I congratulate the government for doing so.
I would like to ask one more specific question on that matter with respect to the community process; it has to do with the set-up of the process. How will membership on this community committee be determined, and to what extent is the Minister of Environment going to have staff available for it, especially given that they did the water management plan?
Hon. E. Cull: I believe we announced the park nearly four weeks ago, so the community process has not yet been established. The member looks shocked and appalled that all this time has elapsed and we have not yet done that. However, the committee will be struck fairly soon. I can assure the member, again, that there will not only be Parks representatives from the ministry on it but also water management people. The committee will be struck in consultation with the regional district and other stakeholders in the community. We will be drawing together a group of people, probably some of those who worked on the protected-areas strategy in the first place, to represent the various interests.
T. Perry: I don't want to prolong the debate, but I was surprised to hear the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast apparently advocating our recognizing the possibility of damming the lakes in Tetrahedron. Although I was equally pleased with the announcement of the park there, I'd just like to record that there are other members of this committee who would not like to see those lakes dammed.
It strikes me that there are alternative ways of supplying the water needs of residential customers in the Sechelt peninsula, the first of which, just like everywhere else in the province, would be water conservation. We know that we squander more water than virtually any other country in the world. I doubt that the Sechelt Peninsula is any more entirely innocent than Vancouver is. I think there are other ways.
One way to secure those watersheds, of course, is protecting the Caren Range. I hope we'll see action from the minister to protect that watershed a bit further northwest in the near future.
G. Wilson: I rest my case with respect to the controversy that may in fact come about. However, I'm hoping this community committee will be able to address these concerns and issues. It may well be 20 or 30 years down the road, but I cannot believe, given the population growth -- and as I was at one time the chairman of the public utilities commission for the regional district, I know the water system very well -- that there will not be need within at least the next 15 to 20 years to have some additional waterworks constructed in those areas. I flag it for concern for whoever is in a position of authority at that time.
With respect to the Caren, I did want to talk a little about the Caren Range. In fact, I think there is probably a more solid argument with respect to conservation interests on the Caren than there was even on the Tetrahedron, even though it's not the same watershed interest. I would echo the member's concern and comments on that.
[9:00]
Could the minister tell us what is happening with respect to the protected-areas process on the Caren Range, Mount Richardson and on the Sechelt Inlet, the corridor system?
[ Page 16202 ]
Hon. E. Cull: I had a very interesting meeting with the Friends of the Caren Range, I believe, when I was up there for the Tetrahedron announcement. They acquainted me with many of the unique characteristics of that particular area.
As the member may know, there is a protected-areas strategy being developed for the lower mainland area which, by the definition of government regions, does include that part of the mainland. Thirteen percent of the area will be protected one way or another in protected areas. We announced the process at the Pinecone-Burke announcement. This area could be a candidate for inclusion in the protected areas that have yet to be designated.
G. Wilson: We look forward to hearing what the process is going to be for determination of that. Again, I know there are conflicting forestry concerns there. It's going to be very important if we're to overcome what could be conflict within the community to make sure that that process is open and that everybody is understanding where everybody is at each step of the way.
To wrap up my set of questions, I wonder if I could very quickly switch gears and talk about waste management. I want to know what the ministry's position is with respect to incineration. I raise this knowing it's a somewhat loaded question, so I'm going to tell you where I'm coming from. I'm talking about Powell River, a community that has gone through a long and exhaustive process in trying to identify an acceptable solid landfill site. The only one that has been identified is within a watershed basin. The community soundly rejected it in a referendum. I guess referendum is not the correct term; it was more a plebescite of sorts. I suppose it was a kind of a public opinion survey, as it wasn't a referendum in the legal sense of the term. We still have inaction on this question.
Currently the municipality is paying B.C. Ferries to haul Powell River garbage and dump it in the Courtenay-Comox landfill, which is obviously not a solution. The tipping fees are extremely high because they have to pay for the cost of transportation and so on. We understand from local officials that the reason they're dragging their feet is that the government is adamant in its opposition to incineration, which begs the question: why would the ministry have approved the movement toward a question-and- referendum style ballot if one of the questions put there for the public to accept -- incineration -- would be unacceptable to the government if they decided to go that route?
Hon. E. Cull: I believe this member was not present earlier when we were talking about solid waste management plans having to be completed by December 31 of this year. I believe the regional district in this case is still working on its plan. They have not yet submitted it to us. I do understand the difficulties they've had in trying to find an acceptable landfill site.
I'm advised that the regional district met with the former minister at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting last year and that the minister and ministry staff expressed concerns about the incinerator as the preferred method, partly because it doesn't totally resolve the landfill issues. There's still ash to be disposed of and matters that have to be dealt with there. However, I'm advised that he did not rule out incineration as an alternative. He simply asked that as part of the solid waste management plan which the regional district is currently preparing, they evaluate both options of a landfill and incineration and that a decision be made as part of that process. All those plans have to be completed and approved by the ministry by the end of this calendar year. I expect Powell River will be coming forward sometime between now and December 31.
I should just add, since this is some information we covered a bit earlier, that the process of preparing the waste management plans involves several steps, and there is quite a bit of reiterative work that goes on with ministry staff in the early stages before it gets to the ministerial level for approval. My expectation is that most of this should be resolved at the staff level by working with the people in the ministry and people at the regional district level.
G. Wilson: I won't take up the committee's time. I will read Hansard with regard to the solid waste management plans, and I'll go back and cover that through reading Hansard. But I do want to get clear in my own mind what the minister is saying. Is there no stated policy that prohibits incineration as an option? Therefore, if the waste management plan, given that the community has overwhelmingly said that they want to go that route -- rightly or wrongly; I'm not going to get into that debate -- my question to the minister is.... We note that MacMillan Bloedel, a commercial industrial user, has an industrial incinerator that they're currently putting together.
Would the minister entertain an opportunity for the mill and the municipal incinerating systems to be combined? The reason I ask this is because there are different regulations for industrial incineration than there are for municipal incineration. I ask it also because the volume of material that would be burnable through municipal waste would be marginal in terms of its cost-effectiveness, whereas if it was combined with industrial waste, it would probably be cost-effective for both parties, but there would have to be some exemptions provided to MacMillan Bloedel in order to make it worthwhile.
It's a two-edged sword, and I recognize that. One of the problems with incineration is that if you build fuel into it -- especially if you're going to use steam heat, for example, to heat the complex and the swimming pool -- garbage then becomes a fuel, and therefore you encourage people to produce more garbage in order to reduce the cost of fuel, which is counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish. So a combination with the mill would be usable, and I wonder what the minister's thoughts are on that.
Hon. E. Cull: Let me just repeat that while we have reservations about incineration and may have some very strict guidelines that have to be followed, we have not ruled it out in this case. So we would expect the solid waste management plan to evaluate carefully both options. The public's opinions and views on the matter are an important part of the preparation of the plan. So it's appropriate that the public would have a say -- have an opportunity to review the options and the available information about their cost and environmental impact and then be able to make a decision.
With respect to the possibility of combining with MacMillan Bloedel, I can't give an answer off the top of my head here tonight. Again, this would be the type of thing we would expect to see addressed through a waste management plan. The whole idea of the solid waste management plans is to look carefully at the specifics in the community and try to
[ Page 16203 ]
address the environmental objectives of reducing waste and dealing with the waste that has to be dealt with in the most environmentally friendly manner possible. But there certainly isn't a cookie-cutter approach that affects every community, and that's why they each have to do their waste management plans.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask the minister for an update on the ministry's views on alternative motor fuels. The minister might know that in 1992 her government passed something called the Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, which called on the government to start imposing a road tax on alternative fuels such as propane, natural gas and ethanol starting in 1997. It's been brought to my attention that there is an increasing consumer resistance to converting vehicles to alternative fuels because of the threatened phase-in of motor fuel taxes. So to begin with, perhaps the minister could tell us whether her ministry has done any studies to measure the effect of the road tax implementations on fuels such as propane and natural gas.
Hon. E. Cull: Given my dual portfolio, this may seem a bit of a strange answer. But questions with respect to taxation are really a Finance issue as opposed to a Ministry of Environment issue, and I am loath to try to deal with both ministries' estimates at the same time. At the minimum, I will undertake in my other capacity to correspond with the member on the matter, or talk to him afterwards. But I really don't think that because I have the knowledge of Finance issues, I should start to delve into them here tonight. It would not be appropriate.
The Chair: The Chair agrees. The hon. member continues.
J. Weisgerber: Well, that makes three of us. But the fact of the matter remains that the most direct result of a reduction in the use of alternative fuels, or consequently an increase in traditional fuels such as gasoline or diesel fuel, has a direct impact on air quality. That quite clearly falls under the purview of the Minister of Environment. So my question again is: has the Ministry of Environment, in whose estimates we are now involved, taken any measures to study the impact of the slowdown in conversions to alternative fuels such as propane and natural gas?
Hon. E. Cull: We are involved in an overall clean air strategy on a number of fronts. The member may wish to pursue this. We're not only working with the oil and gas industry but also looking at alternative fuels, not all of which are as environmentally friendly as one might assume. The word "alternative" leads a lot of people to assume that they're better environmentally than some of the other more traditional fuels. That may not always be the case. We have been doing research on it. We have been looking at how to encourage the use of more environmentally sensitive, or less polluting, fuel. We've also been working with the automobile industry with respect to the vehicles themselves, trying to promote lower-emission vehicles and research into zero-emission vehicles.
So there are strategies being pursued on a whole variety of fronts. We're certainly not unaware of the role that tax incentives or disincentives may play with respect to conversion to better fuels, but it's not being looked at in an isolated stream. We're looking at a variety of actions all at once, trying to promote cleaner fuels, cleaner cars.
J. Weisgerber: I expect the minister would agree -- I'm not sure what fuel she was talking about -- that in general propane and natural gas are cleaner-burning, more environmentally friendly fuels and have less of an impact on air quality than fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel and, arguably, ethanol. I would argue that one should group ethanol with natural gas and propane as being more environmentally friendly. Maybe the minister will clarify whether she was talking about propane and natural gas as being not necessarily environmentally friendly.
Hon. E. Cull: Natural gas appears to be a better choice, but there are problems with propane. I'm advised that many of the conversions to propane don't pass the AirCare program. It may have as much to do with the way conversions have been done as with the fuel source itself. There are some concerns with respect to propane, and it isn't always a better choice.
J. Weisgerber: I'm a bit surprised, because I expected that for general application, with vehicles that are properly tuned and running properly, propane would be seen as a better and more desirable alternative to gasoline.
Having said that, I'm quite willing to enter into the debate. I expect that the minister has already acknowledged the effect of taxation. It seems to me, when I look at the history of alternative fuels in automobiles and buses, which the government was very involved in the promotion of, it used to be the case that federal and provincial governments provided direct incentives for conversion, but that has become somewhat passe.
[9:15]
The real savings are in fuel costs. I looked around today; in Victoria it is 56 or 57 cents a litre for gasoline and 31 or 32 cents a litre for propane. In other parts of the province, the difference is greater, and that has been the primary motivator to encourage people to spend $2,000 or perhaps as much as $2,500 on a conversion. Is the minister not concerned that the announced phase-in of road taxes on this fuel is going to significantly reduce the number of vehicles being converted to propane and the amount of propane and natural gas that is used?
Hon. E. Cull: As I indicated, from the Environment perspective we're not unaware of the impact that taxes have on the choice of fuel. However, the decision with respect to the phase-out or with respect to providing a subsidy in the first place has to do with supporting an emerging industry. One then has to ask at what point the industry has emerged and at what point the consumers have had ample opportunity to make the conversion and no longer need a price incentive to continue with that. You can't view that strategy in isolation. We are pursuing a number of other initiatives to encourage the use of cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels, which all come together as a unit to deal with the fact that the tax subsidy may be phased out.
J. Weisgerber: Let me conclude by saying that I believe the decisions have been and will continue to be primarily price-driven. Consumers will decide only to invest $2,000 or $2,500 in an alternative fuel conversion if there is either a direct incentive from government to cover all or part of the cost of the conversion or a benefit in terms of operating
[ Page 16204 ]
efficiencies. People aren't going to spend $2,000 to convert to propane simply because it's seen as the sensitive thing to do. They may well be sensitive to the environment, but most people are driven by the same hard realities that you and I face, and they are not going to.... In an area that has a high number of propane conversions, it's already starting to be felt.
I believe that the takeup with natural gas conversions, which arguably are better in some applications, has been slowed down by this cloud hanging over consumers, particularly people considering investments in refuelling stations. This 1997 horizon has been hanging out there. Let me appeal to the minister in her role as Minister of Environment and any other position she might hold, to seriously reconsider the whole notion of introducing road taxes on alternative fuels. I don't expect the minister will make a commitment today, but if she wants to, that would be great.
I will finish by saying that I believe the government should revisit the decision to introduce tax on fuel from an environmental perspective.
L. Stephens: I have a few questions to ask the minister around groundwater in the province. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for ensuring the protection, enhancement and wise use of groundwater resources, and the principles of sustainable development around that issue to make sure that it is there for all of us in the future. I've had some correspondence with the previous Minister of Environment around this issue. At that time, he said that his ministry was in the process of doing a considerable amount of work on policy and legislative options to enable better groundwater management in the province. Is the minister aware of what has taken place? Perhaps she could she bring us up to date on what the policies are for groundwater management.
Hon. E. Cull: I don't know the date of the letter, but....
L. Stephens: April 6 of this year.
Hon. E. Cull: Okay. I'm glad that it's such a recent letter.
We have been looking at the whole matter of groundwater management as part of the overall water protection work we've been doing. As the member is aware, the legislation that was passed recently in this session with respect to water protection did not specifically address groundwater, except for groundwater that was removed for export.
The ongoing issues of groundwater protection continue to be very complicated. They involve a number of different ministries, including the Ministry of Health -- in your area, if I drag my memory banks back to my days as the Minister of Health -- and also the Ministry of Agriculture. They also involve international issues, because the source of the aquifer, of course, doesn't necessarily pay much attention to international boundaries. So there are some very complex issues related to groundwater, and we continue to work on them. Obviously we do not anticipate any legislation in this session on the matter. It's going to take considerably more work before we're ready to come forward with anything in terms of legislation.
L. Stephens: There are a couple of issues I would like to raise with the minister that perhaps her ministry will consider when they get down to talking about what they want to put in the legislation. It's my understanding that the ministry staff is aware of the needs for groundwater protection, particularly records management of wells, certification of drillers and aquifer mismanagement or depletion. I wonder if the minister has a comment on the records system for wells. I know the B.C. Ground Water Association has been communicating with the ministry for quite some time around this issue. Is the ministry considering having some kind of well record system put in place to enable individuals in the communities to access those records in order to provide better service in the communities?
As the minister is aware, in Langley and the township we have the aquifer that the minister spoke of, and it is becoming a serious concern to us out there because of the urbanization that continues to come our way. Along with the agricultural component, the contamination is a serious concern.
Those are the three issues, but I wonder if the minister would comment on the well record system -- whether there is one in place and whether the minister is contemplating changes to the system that is there now.
Hon. E. Cull: Clearly, any groundwater management policy is going to require an understanding of what the use is on groundwater right now -- where there are wells and what quantity of water is being taken. So the beginning is to develop a database. We are doing that on a voluntary basis right now, asking those who are using groundwater through wells to provide the information so that we can have the data about what's happening with groundwater.
L. Stephens: It's my understanding that Victoria has an incomplete data bank. There are a number of records in boxes in different ministry offices around the province that would be useful if they were put in this data bank. That is one of the concerns that the drillers and the groundwater association people have -- to make sure that the information in the data bank is accurate, particularly with old wells. In our area, where we have urbanization, the real estate industry and developers need that kind of information about old wells concerning whether building will be prohibited. I wonder if the minister could take that into consideration when she's looking at the well record system.
The certification of drillers needs to be addressed as well. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about whether the ministry is considering certification of drillers and whether there would be an apprenticeship program around certifying drillers and whether or not and in what manner this would be available to existing drillers in the province.
Hon. E. Cull: We have initiated some consultations with drillers with respect to some kind of process, as the member has just described, but we have not yet made any decisions around it. We're in the early stages of discussing the matter with those who are involved in drilling wells.
L. Stephens: I will simply say that I will be in contact with the Ministry of Environment to monitor how that is progressing, because it is of concern to the drilling industry in this province. I'm sure the minister is aware that there is a program in Alberta where a number of drillers from this province go to receive the kind of training we're speaking of, which should probably be available here.
[ Page 16205 ]
Around the question of aquifer mismanagement or depletion, the contamination of aquifers is a concern. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not she has any plans in place or what policies there are now around the issue of the release of substances into aquifers and groundwater. Considering that we have an agricultural community, the question of fertilizers and so on comes into play.
Hon. E. Cull: There is a code of agricultural practice developed under the Waste Management Act that deals with various agricultural practices which could result in contamination of the aquifer. I believe there is a sort of peer group of farmers available to advise or review practices that may be leading to contamination. The Waste Management Act is the appropriate act that deals with it.
L. Stephens: I'd like to ask whether there are any provisions for designating contaminated sites, whether there is a policy in place for the enforcement of remedial action against individuals or companies that contaminate aquifers and whether there is restriction of use.
[9:30]
Hon. E. Cull: We are in the final stages of reviewing the regulations that will come into place under the contaminated sites legislation, which will deal with this matter. Since they're in consultation right now, I'm unable to advise the member of the details.
L. Stephens: I have one final question; it's around land farms and the form of waste treatment used by industry to biologically degrade sludge. Is that something the ministry is looking at? There was a company in my constituency that wanted to provide an area where products could be stored or where contaminated soils and other materials could be treated to eliminate the by-products of manufacturing. I would like to know whether there is something in place now and what the policy of the ministry is around these industrial land farms, as they're sometimes called.
Hon. E. Cull: This particular method of disposal of sludge is subject to a permit under the Waste Management Act. It is often publicly controversial because of the nature of the material that is being spread, but it is tightly controlled under the Waste Management Act and has to meet standards that are applicable and in the permit.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:32 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]