[ Page 5573 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: This could be a long introductory session this afternoon. I have a few people to introduce. First of all, we have on the floor of the House today the Premier from the Yukon Territory, a good friend of British Columbia, a good friend of mine -- someone who stood up with British Columbia against the United States on the Pacific Salmon Treaty and who has been very, very supportive. I'd like to ask all members to welcome Piers McDonald to the chamber.

Earlier today, hon. Speaker, the Women's Equality minister and myself had the honour of meeting with some very accomplished women. They are the Victoria and Vancouver 1997 YWCA Women of Distinction recipients. Among these women are two very special young women, and as Minister Responsible for Youth, I'd like to introduce to the House Aliyah Rahemtulla and Riga Godron. I ask the House to give these outstanding young women a very warm welcome.

Last but not least, I'd like to ask all members of the House to give a warm welcome to my wife -- who's in the gallery for the first time this year, I think -- Dale Clark.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, as the Premier just mentioned, we had the privilege of meeting with the women who are leaders in their field and who have made a positive influence on the lives of others. It was a pleasure and an honour to meet and have dinner with the 1997 Women of Distinction, and I would like to present them.

They are: Elaine Holmes, Anne Spicer, Lara Lauzon, Jannit Rabinovitch, Heather MacAndrew, Lynda Raino, Nancy Turner, Janine Fuller, Shushma Datt, Dana Brynelson, Renee Strong, Jill Bodkin, Sandra Stevenson, Maria Klawe and Rita Akselrod. Would the House please, with me, make them very, very welcome.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have as my guest today a retired provincial judge, Cunliffe Barnett. Mr. Barnett was a judge in the Chilcotin for many, many years and has led the province with respect to justice for aboriginal people. On many other issues, he's been a very outspoken and very forward-thinking individual. He's done a great deal for the justice system.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Barnett has also provided yeoman's service in terms of matters around probation issues and has given me great service in understanding more about the probationary services. Would the House please make him most welcome.

H. Lali: I have two sets of introductions. Touring in the Legislature today and also having several meetings with various ministers and ministry staff are Mayor Kevin Taylor of Lillooet, along with councillor Brian Grossler and economic development officer Dale Wheeldon. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: With us in the House today is Mrs. Marie Ash. Her husband served this Legislature as an MLA in the years 1948 to 1952. He served as the Liberal member for Saanich. I'm delighted that she has joined us this afternoon. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

The Speaker: My apologies to the member for Yale-Lillooet. You blended into the background and I lost you.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I don't know if the members sitting beside me are all getting tans or if I'm getting a little lighter because I haven't been able to go out there to refresh my tan. But anyway. . . . It's the tie.

I have some very close people who are here visiting us in the galleries today: my niece Nindy Nann, as well as my wife Rani, my six-year-old son Ajhmair and four-year-old daughter Suman. Would the House please give my family a warm Victoria welcome.

K. Whittred: Seated in the gallery today are 33 grades 10 and 11 students from North Shore Continuing Education. I'm pleased to see that our schools are continuing throughout the summer. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Cynthia Bunbury. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

P. Calendino: I'd like the House to give a warm welcome for the first time in this chamber to the woman I share my life with, my wife Chedna.

K. Krueger: Although I introduced her on Monday, I'll ask for the House's indulgence once more to introduce my daughter Keturah Krueger. Keturah has been coming back every day to question period. She insists that she's going to keep doing that until she hears at least one of our questions answered. So I ask for the mercy of the cabinet to not make my daughter grow old before my eyes. Please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll resist the urge to bite on that one. It's question period, not answer period.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome my wife Gail Ballard. Just to set the record straight, I want everyone to know -- no disrespect to Victoria -- that we actually prefer Prince Rupert, and we're looking forward to getting back there.

E. Walsh: It is my pleasure to stand here and introduce to the House. . . . Actually, I have two introductions today. First off, would the House make welcome my husband, who has been my best friend for about the last 27 years. I would like the House to join me in welcoming my husband. I guess I should tell you: my husband's name is Gerry -- my best friend Gerry.

Also, I would like to introduce to the House a delegation from this morning, representatives from the East Kootenay Educational Consortium.

And somewhere in the precincts are Mr. and Mrs. Storteboom, their son Scott Storteboom and also Brian Conrad and Jim Forsythe. Would the House please welcome them also.

W. Hartley: It gives me great pleasure to introduce someone who I just recently discovered may be a cousin of mine. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. It will be passing strange if the Journals have to record that we called the House to order during introductions.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members; thank you, hon. Speaker.

My newly found cousin is Peg Orcherton, who happens to be the wife of the Victoria-Hillside MLA.

[ Page 5574 ]

S. Orcherton: I can't let that go. I haven't found a new cousin, but it is indeed a pleasure to introduce to the House the wife of the MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, Alice Hartley. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

[2:15]

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is my wife Aileen, who has come over to spend an exciting evening with me.

G. Robertson: With us today we have Karen Schwalm, who is an outstanding woman. Karen is patient, hard-working, supportive and compassionate. I would ask all members to please welcome my partner Karen to this House.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What a wonderful. . . . I'm glad to join the group on this, to introduce my spouse joining us here in the House. It's a long way from Prince George to Victoria. I'm very pleased that Hazel is able to join me here for this evening and also for the entire week. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the House to welcome my partner and the person who runs the ranch when I'm away, Susan Zirnhelt.

G. Bowbrick: I know everyone is thinking: "When will this end?" I'd like the house to welcome today my spouse, Ana Santos, who is the one who allows me to come over to Victoria and do this that I love so much.

The Speaker: On behalf of the singles, the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: I don't have a spouse to introduce to the House, but if I did I'm sure she would be here today, and I would. . . . [Laughter]. Consider this a paid advertisement.

Although we're not married, Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see some friendly and familiar faces in the gallery when I walked into the chamber this afternoon. Seated in the gallery are Doug and Donna Steinson from Chilliwack. In fact, Doug Steinson has had an ongoing involvement with the B.C. Liberal Party in some capacity since the 1950s. This was not always an easy task, especially in a riding such as Chilliwack. Doug Steinson is also a member of Chilliwack district council and has been, I believe, since 1993. Would the House please make Doug and Donna Steinson welcome.

T. Stevenson: I would like to introduce my spouse, but unfortunately we haven't changed the legislation yet. Hopefully, after that I will be able to do that in the House. [Laughter.]

Oral Questions

FUNDING OF COMMUNICATIONS
CONSULTANTS FOR GOVERNMENT MLAS

Over the last couple of days, the members opposite have vocally criticized the opposition for their use of government mailers and government funds. I accept the criticism. But I have in my hands a document obtained from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where it shows that a Mr. Paul Jeune has been contracted to spend his time writing speeches and press releases for the NDP backbench members. Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell us why it is that someone being paid out of his ministry funds is doing the communications work for members of the NDP back bench -- something that no other members of this House are entitled to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll take the question on notice.

G. Farrell-Collins: A new question. I'm surprised, actually, at the answer to the last one, because on April 19, 1995, Mr. Jeune did a press release for someone who was humbly known to this House at the time as the member for Port Coquitlam and who now occupies the seat of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'm surprised at the lack of understanding.

Perhaps the minister, now that I've refreshed his memory, can explain why the Ministry of Municipal Affairs continues to do press releases for NDP backbench members and write speeches for NDP backbench members -- a service that's not provided to anyone else in this Legislature.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is the same as the other one. I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The last question, as you know, was out of order. I hope this is a new question.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, hon. Speaker, it is a new question. I find it interesting when I look through the contract that I referred to, because perhaps it explains the non-answer by the minister to the last couple of questions -- different questions, I might add.

It says under schedule A that part of the duties of the contractor, in his press releases and speeches, is to include realistic quotes, for the members must sound like people actually speaking. I just want to ask the minister whether or not Mr. Jeune is writing answers to questions yet. And if so, had he not received the answers to these questions today?

M. de Jong: The question comes to mind: what is the world coming to when an NDP cabinet minister can't go in-house for a good piece of propaganda? What is the world coming to when they have to contract out?

The contract that I'd like to deal with says that Mr. Jeune. . . . It's very specific, between the ministry and Mr. Jeune. It says that he must get approval from the NDP caucus communications before he does anything. The question is very specific, as well, to the minister: why is he violating his own budget vote to provide special communications services to his caucus colleagues?

You will be interested to know that besides being charged with the task of creating realistic quotes that sound like real 

[ Page 5575 ]

people. . . . I might say that based on what this gentleman has to work with, he may not be paid enough to carry out that task. [Laughter.] The contract also charges him with reviewing files for the previous three news releases involving the same communities to ensure consistency of information and to avoid duplication of those made-up quotes. It seems like the government doesn't mind making things up, but they do draw the line at repeating them too often. . . . [Laughter.]

Can the minister -- here's his chance -- explain to the House why his ministry is spending money for NDP MLA news releases when every other party in this House has to do that from the basis of its own budget? It's a simple question, Mr. Speaker. Let him answer it now.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's the same answer as before. I'll take the question on notice.

TRANSFER OF
YOUTH PROBATION OFFICERS
TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

On Friday this government intends to move youth probation services to the Ministry for Children and Families. The 36-month investigation process that was supposed to go ahead has been collapsed by the Premier to six months. The movement of those probation services runs contrary to the advice of every front-line service officer and many in the judiciary.

To the Premier: will the Premier commit today not to move on the transfer of youth probation services to the Ministry for Children and Families until such time as there has been a proper investigation with respect to where youth probation services should best reside in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: Just as someone's child ages before their eyes, I've decided that this cough will last until the House ends. I don't know if that's an incentive for any of you who have to listen to it to get through faster.

In relation to the serious question that the hon. member asked, Judge Gove did not go into it to a great extent, but No. 107 of his 118 recommendations was that youth probation services be one of the services moved from the Attorney General ministry to the new Minister for Children and Families. Cynthia Morton, the transition commissioner, in her report to the Premier reinforced that recommendation and, in point of fact, expanded on that and said that when the youth, justice and social service systems had been integrated in other jurisdictions, the experience had been a positive one.

There are already five provinces in the country who do this, and in the province that has been doing it for the longest length of time, almost half the number of youth who actually reach the court system, as opposed to the rest of the country.

G. Wilson: By way of a supplementary, the reference to the province of Quebec as a comparison is completely specious. It's a completely different system. Furthermore, I would say to the Premier that there was a commitment to a 36-month review and integration period, which was collapsed by the Premier to six months. The system demands that the office and Ministry of Attorney General be independent from political interference or political pressure.

To the Premier: will the Premier acknowledge today that by the movement of youth probation services to the Ministry for Children and Families, it will severely compromise the independence of probation officers who may be required, on the order of a judge, to make reports against their superiors, who will rest within the ministry that they will be moved to?

Hon. G. Clark: We make no such acknowledgment. The issue of creating the Ministry for Children and Families is one which has been debated in British Columbia for several years now. Judge Gove worked on this at great length, with a great amount of debate and public consultation. Members on the opposite side of the House raised the question of the implementation of Judge Gove. We had a longer process, but in the meantime, in the process of implementing Gove, children were falling through the cracks.

I took the decision on behalf of government that we would expedite the process to create one Ministry for Children and Families, with all child-centred programs in government in one ministry to do what Judge Gove recommended, what Cynthia Morton recommended and what members of this House recommended. We are determined to move this ministry forward to protect children, and this is part of that process.

FUNDING OF COMMUNICATIONS
CONSULTANTS FOR GOVERNMENT MLAS

Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: why on earth would the Minister of Municipal Affairs be subsidizing NDP caucus communications by paying a contractor to write press releases, something no other member of this Legislature is entitled to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess old Shep needs to be told the answer more than once. I'll take the question on notice.

G. Abbott: I think Shep frequently shows more sense than the members on the other side. At least Shep knows when to roll over. [Laughter.]

[2:30]

[ Page 5576 ]

JOB LOSS IN
FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: can the minister explain why British Columbia, given its strategic position as an exporter, continues to fall behind other provinces in the food and beverage processing industry?

Hon. C. Evans: Firstly let me say thank you for the question. That makes two in two years on the subject of farming. You guys are getting better. Someday you might actually care about these people. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: It's a real question.

An Hon. Member: Let's hear a real answer.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: As the hon. member knows, the province as a whole has seen a 50 percent increase in real growth in five years. However, the food processing sector is trying to swallow the end of the Crow rate, which used to bring grain to this side of the mountain. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: No? It didn't happen, hon. member? You were asleep when it happened?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: The British Columbia processing industry and others, as the hon. member knows -- also the milk industry -- are trying to cope with the ending by the federal government of the Crow rate and the grain transfer subsidy, which used to be an advantage to the processing industry in British Columbia. We will find ways to make up that advantage over time. But the hon. member is absolutely correct: in the short run, capital has followed cheap grain to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. It is our job to reverse that trend, in spite of the fact that the federal government didn't care.

J. van Dongen: In a recent meeting, the government staff promoted the NDP mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs." In response, the agrifood processing representatives said: "Gone, gone, gone."

An Hon. Member: Shame, shame, shame.

J. van Dongen: To paraphrase, the representatives of the agrifood industry said that every indication they have is that jobs will continue to move out of the province and that there is absolutely no indication that this trend is going to reverse. My question to the minister is: why has the government done nothing to stop this serious and continuous loss of jobs from British Columbia?

Hon. C. Evans: As the hon. member knows, there is one province in all of Canada where the number of family farms is on the increase. What is it, hon. member? It's British Columbia. As the hon. member knows, the agrifood sector continues to grow every year, and I know he knows it, because we took him to Quebec last week to tell that to the other ministers of Canada. He has a different line elsewhere in Canada than he has in this room. As the hon. member knows, we go to meeting after meeting -- he and I -- to see to it that that processing sector stays here in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the 1995-96 annual report of the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. D. Streifel: The reports are tabled, and we are about ready to do business. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Streifel: I didn't want to add to the marathon record of introductions, but my wife Linda is here this afternoon with the partners and spouses. Again, she is travelling with her friend Sidney. I bid the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading continued)

M. de Jong: To quote that boxing great, Mike Tyson: "Lend me your ear."

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member for Vancouver-Burrard complained. But I had to write my own speech.

It seems to me that a debate around an issue like this can go in a couple of different directions. There are those who would say: "Look, it's a short bill; it's only a couple of sections contained on one page, really. The bill is short; the debate should be short. We'll just get on with fixing a problem that exists." There is another line, though, that suggests that in a debate like this it is worthwhile to consider why we find ourselves in the present circumstance -- why the government 

[ Page 5577 ]

has come before this House, essentially asking members to extricate it from a problem it has created for itself. I do think it's worthwhile, as others have done during the course of this debate, to point out how we find ourselves in these circumstances.

I will say this, also: I would like during the course of this debate to move beyond that very relevant issue to the question of broader reformation of House rules, of electoral rules, and what can be done to improve the relevancy and the credibility of this chamber we call home -- those of us who are MLAs.

I don't know how long the debate is going to last. I think thus far, from what I've heard, it has been a very useful debate. By way of speculating. . . . I've gone to my almanac for guidance, as I often do on these issues, in terms of speculating about the length of the debate. I note that it was on this day in 1964 that the Beatles released their movie and album A Hard Day's Night, and that in 1955 the record "Rock around the Clock" was released by Bill Haley and the Comets. Let us hope that we can deal with this matter more expeditiously than those two titles suggest.

We're in second reading debate. We are considering. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I just hope the hon. Minister of Education isn't walking around the deck tonight unattended. I really hope that he's got a life preserver tied around him the entire time they're at sea.

Purpose and principle, in second reading debate -- that's what we are charged with addressing at this stage of the discussion on Bill 13. The Attorney General didn't have a great deal to say about those two components of this debate. He didn't have a great deal to say generally about the bill, but I guess I understand that. I hope that others in his caucus will take advantage of the opportunity that this debate affords them to address both why it is that we are engaged in the debate around Bill 13 and, again, the broader issue of electoral reform. I don't know that anyone beyond the Attorney General has demonstrated the willingness or the courage to do that, but I hope they do.

I taunt them somewhat in jest, but also with a serious bent, because it isn't often that we have opportunities in this House to consider something as fundamental as electoral reform. I think -- and others have said this, and I don't want to dwell on this any more than I guess I'll dwell on it -- we're here debating this bill because the government ignored the rules. It's that simple. The government ignored the rules and now has decided that the only way that it can deal with a difficult situation that has arisen as a result is to change those rules. That's why we're here. No amount of denial, of clever obfuscation by the government, can change that fact.

Last night it was ironic, because I was watching television -- and there are so many channels now -- and I came upon one particular program called "The Dukes of Hazzard," which was popular, I think, in the seventies. The particular episode I was watching contained a situation that I think was analogous in a very specific sort of way, which I will draw to your attention shortly through the course of my discourse here. The sheriff in the town, Boss Hogg -- I think he was the mayor, actually -- was caught speeding, travelling down the road in that American state he called home with the boys chasing behind. He was caught speeding and was issued a ticket. The episode centred around his concern as the mayor of the town in having this ticket issued to him. He went to court and the episode built to where he appeared before the judge he had appointed -- as you might expect on this particular television show -- and the judge asked: "How do you plead?" He said: "I plead not guilty, Your Honour." The judge asked: "How can you plead not guilty? The speed sign was 40 miles an hour; you were caught going 60." Well, the boss had an answer. He had been out the day before and had changed the sign. The speed limit was now 80. They changed the rules.

[2:45]

This is a letter from Erikka Nishimura. I'm going to read parts of it. It's a letter she wrote to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education. I know that the Education minister, if he's not already aware of this, will want to listen carefully to what she says:

"I graduated from W.J. Mouat Secondary School. . .in 1990 and received a Passport to Education. Dissatisfied with the results I had achieved in three courses, I remained in grade 12 during 1990-91 to upgrade. At the end of that year. . .I was eligible to go to Japan as an exchange student for the year 1991-92. On my return to Abbotsford, I registered for courses at the University College of the Fraser Valley in 1993. After I had completed seven courses in 1994, I decided to redeem my Passport to Education so I could be reimbursed for the fees I had paid."

"When I asked at the UCFV about doing this, I was informed that it was too late to use the passport and that I should have presented it when I had first registered for courses. I was not told that I could still use the passport to help pay for new courses. Had I been given that information, I would have registered for another semester. Because I did not have the required tuition for additional courses, I decided to go to work. I took advantage of an opportunity to go on active duty with the Canadian Armed Forces.

"In 1996, while I was working out of the country, my mother contacted. . .our MLA for support in trying to achieve some benefit from my Passport to Education" -- which heretofore had not been validated. "After his staff contacted UCFV, my mother was told that there would be no difficulty if she registered me for another course. . . . When [the university college] applied to the appropriate office of the Ministry of Education for the amount the registrar's office had paid to my mother for me, they were told that my passport had expired in 1995" -- and that the university college would not be reimbursed by the ministry. "As things now stand" -- and here's the nub of it -- "University College of the Fraser Valley states that I owe them $400 and that I am not eligible for further courses there, nor can I receive an official transcript of my marks for transfer credits, until I pay them this amount."

[ Page 5578 ]

to Education. No one disputes that she is entitled to a $400 credit, or would have been if the confusion regarding the time of validation had not existed.

She wrote to the deputy minister. I wrote to the deputy minister, as well. This is the response she got from the Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Pallan. I won't read the whole letter, but he said, during the course of the letter:

"Of the more than 500,000 passport stamps issued to date, 80 percent have been redeemed. The information provided to your MLA. . .by the University College of the Fraser Valley was incorrect. The college was aware of the stamp years. The stamps were expired and could not be redeemed. We will contact the college to ensure they are precise in the information they provide in the future. . . . While this is an unfortunate situation, reimbursing you for an expired stamp would set an inappropriate precedent and be unfair to students who have already been denied. . . ."

What kind of message is that? What kind of message are we sending to Erikka when we say to her, on the one hand, "I'm sorry; you don't qualify anymore, on the basis of a technicality; you don't get the money that you earned," and on the other hand, the government says on something as fundamental as appointing an electoral commission: "We can ignore the law, and when we do ignore the law, we'll just come in and rewrite it." There's something to be said for leading by example. And it's something all of us. . . .

I'll give you another example. A gentleman in my riding came to me about six months ago -- it might have been more -- with a story about how he had made a sizeable donation to a particular charity. In this case, the donation was a hockey card collection, but it was of significant value. It was designed to raise money to send a hockey team off to a tournament, to play some games elsewhere in the world -- a noble endeavour, we would all agree. The problem was that there was confusion around the payment of the provincial sales tax on that donation, which ended up being sold at an auction -- not because no one asked, but because the information they received from the ministry was confusing.

I don't blame anyone within the ministry. I think it could have been handled better, but these things happen. Sometimes there is confusion; sometimes the message is miscommunicated. There were personnel on the ground at the auction, but it wasn't dealt with properly. What this volunteer, this person doing nothing more than giving his time to a charity, has been left with is a bill in excess of $30,000 for unpaid sales tax. He has corresponded with the ministry. He has sought relief on the basis that the property, although it perhaps pursuant to the letter of the law passed through his hands. . . . Therefore, although it is technically possible to attach liability to him, it makes no sense, by any measurement of morality, by any measurement of fairness.

The government hangs its hat again, when it is convenient to do so, on a technicality. There's no second chance for that individual. The government waves the statute almost mockingly in front of his face, in front of his wallet, and says: "Pay up, mister; pay up." And yet, in almost the same breath, it comes before this House and says: "We deserve a break." That's what the minister is here saying: "We deserve a break because we missed the deadline." It's a double standard that isn't lost on the people who are captured by a government that in every other case pursues them with a zealousness that really is unparalleled, that pursues them to the nth degree when it is convenient to enforce every technical aspect of a law.

It's a case of a government saying: "Don't do as we do; do as we say." I think that's reprehensible, and I think it sends all of the wrong signals to a population that really is looking for some leadership. The examples continue. It's not simply a case of those grand examples that we can all think of, but every day, day in and day out, people have to deal with the bureaucracy and are obligated to follow the rules. When they look in their newspapers, when they look at the debates in the Legislature -- to the extent that they do -- what do they see? They see their government sheepishly excusing itself for not having followed the rules that it put in place.

You've heard other members talk in this debate about the government and how it believes, according to certain members of the cabinet, that it can do anything it wants. As I reviewed some of the legislation we've seen from this government, I thought about how they title bills. This NDP government has been very good at titling bills. We've had employment protection legislation, so-called, that's led to increased unemployment. We've had health care protection bills that have resulted in even longer waiting lists. So the titles are always good; the results are always something far different. Generally, the results of the legislation are opposite to what you read in the title.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: What would Bill 13 be called if it had been sponsored by the Minister of Forests? Well, I think it's clear that the title of this bill would be: "The NDP Government Can Do Anything They Want." That's what the Minister of Forests would call it, because that's what it amounts to. I thought to myself: what would the title of this bill be if the Attorney General's staff had been charged with the task of titling it to reflect what it properly meant, what it properly referred to? They might title it, "Who's Going to Tell the Premier We've Really Screwed Up?" because that, as well, is what's happened here, and no amount of denial by this government can change that fact. The Finance minister, of course, would call it the balanced representation bill. But, of course, his use of that term is something we have all become accustomed to; the balanced representation bill is something that would be a favourite of his.

If the Premier could name Bill 13, I think he would probably name it the "Tell Me Who's Responsible for This Fiasco So I Can Declare War on Them" bill. That would be the Premier's approach, I think, to a situation that he's not terribly comfortable with. And, of course, last but not least, I think that the Government House Leader and Health minister would title Bill 13: "If This Were a Health Board in My Ministry, I Would Just Fire the Whole Bunch of You and Be Done With It." That's how she'd deal with it, again showing a callous and cavalier disregard, in my view, for the rule of law and for setting an example that is important for us all -- in particular, for the government and executive branch to show to British Columbians, who don't have the option of coming to this chamber when it is convenient to rewrite the rules that they have broken.

[ Page 5579 ]

Beyond that, we have heard from certain members of the Legislature who have seized upon this as an opportunity to consider what we may do in the way of broader reforms of the electoral laws in this province. I've listened with interest as certain members have contemplated the disparity between urban and rural ridings, the numbers of people that are served, the distances that must be travelled. I think those are all legitimate issues, legitimate matters for this House to be considering. But I thought -- and I'm surprised, and I hope that members of the government benches will seize upon this as an opportunity -- that we would hear from government members who would take advantage of the opportunity to discuss broader reforms of the electoral process. There is certainly, for example, across British Columbia, a growing sense that the basis upon which all of us sit in this House, a constituency-by-constituency basis. . . . "First past the post," I think, has become the turn of phrase in British Columbia and in and of itself needs to be reviewed.

I'm not advocating any particular model of proportional representation or some of the other models for parliamentary makeups that exist right around the world. What I'm saying is that I'm lending my voice to those who have suggested that this represents an excellent opportunity for us to charge a legislative committee with the task of reviewing what those options are and bringing recommendations back to the House, possibly even to the people of British Columbia for their voice.

[3:00]

At a time when we as a province and as a country are increasingly facing challenges that will test our ability to remain a country -- be they economic challenges, be they the stresses that we associate with our historical and longstanding constitutional debates in this country -- if this chamber isn't to be seen as a source for solutions any longer, as a legitimate instrument by which we can confront those challenges, then we've got a problem.

I heard one of the other members -- I can't remember who it was -- talk about the need to seize the opportunity to begin an examination from the top down, from the bottom up, sideways, end to end, and we really need to consider that. I think we are unnecessarily limiting ourselves in not recognizing that we do have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to say to British Columbians, to ask the question: "Is there a better way, in your view?"

We asked that question on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The minister knows that we got a whole range of answers; some, I think, are pleasing to the minister, some perhaps less so. But I think the minister, if he does address the contents of the report -- and I hope he does -- will say that at a minimum, it was valuable to hear what those people had to say.

I think we have come to a point in our history and our political evolution in British Columbia -- maybe not by choice, maybe because events from outside have forced us to this point -- where it is necessary for us to confront these very fundamental questions. It disturbs me greatly to see that there is a reluctance, an unwillingness on the part of the government -- the government in the sense of the executive branch, but also government backbenchers, whose interest in these debates I will only say appears to be fleeting -- to consider these fundamental questions and offer some solutions.

That's something we on the opposition side hear about often from government: "Where are your solutions? Where are your suggestions for the better way?" Well, we are making them. We are endeavouring to entice members of the government benches to enter into that debate. But the Attorney General spoke for five or ten minutes, if that, and we have heard nary a word from a government that I think, prior to their being elected to government, prided themselves on being open to new ideas.

We can quarrel, and I have my own views about how effective this government has been in administering the affairs of this province. For a whole host of reasons, as you know, I have suggested in the past that it has been far from effective. But I think one can say, if you trace the history of the New Democratic Party, that at a minimum they have tried, historically, to present themselves as a source of new ideas. Where has that gone? Where have the members of the NDP gone? Has the well dried up? Is there no longer the willingness to consider, in every sense of the word, how we can make British Columbia work better -- how we can make government work better?

Apparently, that is the case. Apparently, something has happened between those days when certain members of the government sat on the opposition side and called out for a new, fresh approach -- called out for government leadership that said: "Let there be no sacred cows. Let us consider, from every possible perspective, how we can change government to make it work better for British Columbians." Now they sit silent, resigned -- resigned, I think, to the notion that this is the way it will be, because this is the system that landed us in office, and perhaps we will tinker with it through the electoral commission process in a way that will enhance our chances to be re-elected. It's unfortunate that that element of partisanship has been permitted to creep into this, insofar as the numbers are concerned.

Where is that freshness of ideas? It does not exist on the government side, and people are disappointed. People are legitimately asking themselves: "If there is no prospect of change, if there is no prospect of improvement, where do we look?" We all suffer as publicly elected officials when our credibility, our legitimacy, as the source of some of those solutions really disappears.

There have been, in my view, two components to the debate that we've heard today. One, of course, is those circumstances that have led to our needing to debate Bill 13. Let there be no mistake: we have spent this day on this bill because the government didn't do its job -- pure and simple. There was a deadline; the government failed to meet it. It didn't consult; it didn't do the things that the legislation required it to do, and that is why we have spent the day debating this bill. People should understand that, and I think they do.

If it were an isolated incident, it would be perhaps easily forgiven, but it's not. When you factor that in with the treatment people like Erikka Nishimura get when they seek the same compassion -- the same sense of decency, fairness -- from the government and they are turned down, you begin to understand why people regard what is happening in govern-

[ Page 5580 ]

ment with a very jaundiced eye. The word "hypocrisy" is increasingly creeping into their vocabulary when they describe what is happening in Victoria.

To the extent that this has not been a pleasant experience for members of the government to hear their foibles repeated over and over during the course of four, six, eight or ten hours of debate. . . . I suppose it hasn't been pleasant. But they have no one to blame but themselves. Far from remaining silent, I would have hoped that they would have taken the opportunity, at least, to see something positive arise out of this error that they have made -- out of this problem -- and that is to speak to the issue of broader electoral reform. They've chosen not to do that. We on the opposition side will continue to make those positive suggestions throughout the course of this debate.

L. Reid: We're here today debating Bill 13, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997. As my hon. colleague from Matsqui suggested, we're here because the government missed the mark. They knew full well what the expectation was: that indeed this commission would be struck. They knew what the time lines were. They chose not to proceed as the expectation would allow -- an interesting message to send to members of this chamber and, frankly, an interesting message to send to British Columbians.

This is about correcting a mistake this afternoon. It is an oversight this government willingly entered into, in my view. What were they thinking -- that somehow they didn't need to follow the rules of this chamber, of this province? The expectation of British Columbians, of taxpayers, is that they will indeed follow the rules; they will indeed make sure they are law-abiding citizens.

This was legislation that required this government to act; they willingly chose not to act. I think that sends a very dangerous message. I mean, I come to this debate as a teacher. This is not the message I want for young people in this province or for their parents. It's a concern to me that somehow they can disregard what is required and come in with backfill, with a piece of legislation that's going to correct a problem that would have been easily handled had they arrived at the appropriate conclusion -- that they were responsible for meeting that deadline. I can't imagine why they believe that they were exempt from that. Certainly the hon. minister has given no indication that he has a rational explanation for the oversight.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that as well as being a teacher, I come to this as a school administrator. In all my years, I have heard many creative excuses -- frankly, probably written by parents opposite -- as to why their children were not available on a particular day. I have yet. . . . I look forward to hearing the creative response from this minister responsible.

There has to be some rationale. I don't understand today why this government would believe they are above the law in this sense, so I wait and trust that the minister, when he concludes his remarks, will acknowledge the reason. When these individuals were in opposition, they were ever vigilant, so I'm not convinced that this slipped by them. I'm not convinced of that notion for a moment. The expectation was clear and, frankly, was disregarded -- not a reasonable move for this government to have made.

As legislators, I think we understand that this is something that is simply not on. I know that this side of the House has a clear understanding of that. The public expectation, I believe, is that the government will follow its own rules. And that's where we come to the creative explanation that I trust will be before us in a very short space of time. They chose not to, and yet have not provided a reasonable explanation to the House. This piece of legislation, Bill 13, is the solution. It's the only solution left to them, because they chose not to act in a timely manner.

I await with some interest the actual explanation for this. I can't imagine. . . . But again, I will pose the question: does this government believe that it's exempt, that it doesn't have to meet requirements, meet deadlines, meet the expectation of its own legislation? I believe taxpayers in this province, as effective citizenry, believe that they have obligations when it comes to obeying the laws of this land, the laws of this province. This, again, is not a reasonable message to convey.

It seems to me that there is lots of notice built into this bill. New section 5(2) says: "A new commission must be appointed during the first session of the Legislature following every second general election following the appointment of the first commission." It seems to me that no matter what parliament, every government will have five years' notice. They will know that this expectation must be met.

I trust that this will be the only time we have this debate in this Legislature, because again, I don't see it as being defensible. I don't believe that it is appropriate not to meet the requirement that they themselves set. I think it's just bizarre that they wouldn't believe that they had to follow the rules, obey the laws of the land, similar to every other British Columbian.

I do agree with my colleagues who have spoken, when they talked about a lack of confidence in this place. People need to have a high regard for parliamentary process. They need to understand that this is a professional place, that people come to this with the right intentions, to bring good law to British Columbians -- not to overmanage people's lives but to have laws that clearly set out circumstances, clearly set out repercussions, if any, so that people can be communicated with in an honest, straightforward, forthright manner. We as official opposition members have that expectation of the Legislature. We believe that fundamentally -- that democracy can work. But it only works if people understand that it's a trust relationship between those elected and those who elect them. That's the fundamental relationship.

It's alarming to me when that relationship is disregarded: "You, average British Columbian, must obey the laws of the land, but this government as legislators -- no, those same laws don't apply to us." You can't send a mixed message and expect to have any credibility. So again, I look forward to the minister's response, because it will indeed be intriguing to me to see how he has managed to extricate himself from this mistake, from this oversight.

It is an issue of integrity, and when issues of this nature arise, it does tarnish every member of the Legislature. Because the public at large lumps together all politicians. Very few of them make distinctions. They say: "Another politician behaving in a hypocritical way." I don't appreciate that. I do the job to the best of my ability; I don't appreciate others who disregard that and somehow suggest that it doesn't matter.

[3:15]

[ Page 5581 ]

issue we take very seriously on this side of the House. It's an issue where indeed the relationship that I spoke of earlier in terms of trust between those elected and those who elect them is manifest around this province. Everyone has the right to expect reasonable representation, and they have the right to expect an MLA appointment, if you will, to be close to where they live, so they can have access to government.

So when this commission recommends an additional number of seats, that will come back to this House for debate. At that time I think we will have a very interesting discussion in terms of whether or not that's a fair and accurate report -- or indeed whether or not we can be convinced that it's free of any type of political interference.

Again, my colleagues referenced earlier the times when that process has been interfered with to create some very interesting ridings around this province. We trust that this commission, once it's struck, will rectify some of those issues and come back to this House so that taxpayers around this province can believe it was a useful exercise, not just another report put on another shelf to craft more government to invade people's lives in greater ways than is currently the process.

We need to ensure that government is seen as being something that's credible. Lots of folks around this province have issues around that. They have some real concerns about the relevance of this place; there are some real concerns around the Commonwealth about the role of government. Any parliamentary conference discusses the role of government. What should it be? What do people expect from government? I, for one, believe they expect honesty, forthright behaviour, immediate action, some reasonable understanding of how the process works. We need to make sure that those are always the principles that we have uppermost in our minds, because this is about crafting good citizenry.

At the end of the day, I believe that any legislator understands the necessity for citizens to understand their responsibilities in society, for obeying the laws of the land, for giving something back to their community, for being responsible at election time. All of those kinds of aspirations and expectations are built into the discussion this afternoon. Because I think they're vital when we talk about representation, about who the representative might be, what the riding might look like and how we expect the citizenry to be involved in that process. Those are issues, when we talk about electoral reform, that I know we as official opposition will revisit many, many times.

I would certainly submit that the principles of electoral redistribution are worthy of our support, that indeed it is about providing better representation for the individuals who live in this province. We are a burgeoning province in terms of population. My riding alone has grown by thousands of people over the last number of years and will continue to grow. The lower mainland of this province will continue to grow. We need to come to grips with how best to put in place electoral representation for those individuals.

It is, for me, a very serious issue. This government has often been fond of saying that they can do anything they want. I want them to follow the rules, to obey the laws of the land -- particularly when they structure those laws themselves and then ignore them. I have some serious difficulties around that.

I don't wish to see what I've seen today in terms of arbitrary behaviour, selective behaviour, cherry-picking: "Well, we'll make sure we comply with this, but we won't necessarily comply with that." Where's the accountability in that? Where's the fairness? Where's the leadership? Those are issues that I think need to be addressed. Frankly, where is the regard for this chamber? Seventy-five members in this House deserve an honest answer when it comes to the reason for this oversight, for this mistake.

Now that the minister is present, I am looking for the explanation as to why this requirement was not met. I believe it's an important question, and I trust that the minister in his response will answer that question. As I noted earlier, these individuals were ever vigilant in opposition. What happened? What went wrong? I await the minister's response.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to stand and speak to Bill 13, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997. I do have to take a moment, though, to comment on why this bill is here before us today to speak for or against it. It's like déj� vu. Last session, in 1996, this same government had the opportunity to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission, with Bill 19. This didn't happen because this very same government doesn't pay attention to the very rules they make themselves. I have to ask myself the question: why is it that this government doesn't seem to care? Why is it that they feel they can ignore their own legislation? The only answer that I could come up with was a statement that this government itself made: "Governments can do anything they want." To me, that speaks volumes.

As my colleagues have stated before me, this bill essentially forgives the government the error of its ways. Now we have Bill 13, 1997, which correctly allows the government to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission. When it passes, it will hopefully be allowed to do the job that it was intended to do.

We have a government that can do anything it wants to, and we have seen that time and time again. It makes it very difficult for us on this side of the House to take seriously anything that they say they will do for the people of this province.

The real issue is the need to have this bill here in the first place. It is legislation that should have been taken into consideration before its time had expired. I'm talking about Bill 19 in 1996. We will all agree that there is a need to have a commission. There are many reasons why this bill should be passed, and I have every intention of supporting this bill. I support reform of our electoral boundaries, as do my colleagues that have spoken before me.

I feel it is important that we on the opposition side make sure that this government is well aware why we have great difficulty believing that their intentions are of the highest order. When Bill 13, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997, is passed, we on this side of the House are hopeful that this government will actually appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission.

If this government does appoint the commission, as they said they will, then this House can begin to restore some faith in government. The faith today is sorely lacking in this province because of this government's past actions of saying one thing and doing another.

We must find a way to distribute our electoral boundaries to make sure that all parts of the province feel that they are being equally treated and served. What we see today is the northern part of the province feeling neglected, and their voices are not being listened to. They feel very strongly that those who live in the southern part of the province should not 

[ Page 5582 ]

dictate what the north should do. They want a say in what is happening in their area of the province, in things that affect their lives and livelihoods. I hope that this government will show them that they are listening to them and not just saying that they are.

With that, I will close and hope that the members opposite have listened closely to the concerns that we have put forward on this side of the House.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in second reading debate of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. Certainly a lot of good comments have been made by my colleagues with respect to this bill. The history given by the critic was, I think, very important to have on the record. The term he used, of "a troubled history," was quite appropriate. In that regard, I just want to add to his comments my personal disappointment in how the matter was handled by the Attorney General and the government.

I was particularly disappointed that there was no apparent response to the comments made by the Opposition House Leader on March 24, the last day of the first session. After the second election, as set out in the bill, I would have expected some kind of response from the government at that time -- certainly an indication that there was a problem and that it would be dealt with. Further to that, the opposition was put in the position of having to write a letter to the Attorney General on March 27, and that letter was also ignored. Given the seriousness of the issue, and all of the comments that have been made with respect to the fundamental rights of people's vote in a democracy, it was disturbing to me that there was no response by the Attorney General to the March 27, 1997, letter from the opposition critic.

It wasn't until legal action was actually taken and a proceeding was initiated in the B.C. Supreme Court that something happened. Even then, there was no response, as I understand it, to the tabling of the action, but about a week later the government did table this bill; the bill was tabled on April 10. I find that sequence of events as it evolved quite disturbing. It's one thing for the government to make an oversight for whatever reason -- I'm not going to try to judge why it happened -- but certainly, after the issue had been raised a number of times, I would have thought that there would have been some specific acknowledgment and response and action taken.

Some of my constituents have waited a long time for the review of the boundaries of the riding that they are in. They have been waiting since the last Electoral Boundaries Commission, when the Chilliwack version of Gracie's Finger was set up. The boundaries as they are now set up simply cannot be explained in any other way.

I just want to describe my constituency briefly. It's called the constituency of Abbotsford. It includes the eastern half of the city of Abbotsford, but it also includes a number of other smaller, local areas, including the Chilliwack River valley, the Columbia Valley, the district of Yarrow and Cultus Lake. All of these areas are smaller areas, somewhat different in terms of their local government organization. Yarrow is part of the city of Chilliwack. Cultus Lake is a provincial park, yet at the same time is owned by the district of Chilliwack, and it has its own form of local government through its Cultus Lake park board. Chilliwack River valley and the Columbia Valley are both unorganized territory and part of the Fraser Valley regional district.

These people have waited a long time for the opportunity to comment to a commission on the boundaries that were set up in 1991 -- earlier than that, actually, but prior to the 1991 election. They would have been really concerned that this bill be tabled or that this action be taken to give them the opportunity to have a review, which was their right under the law. Certainly right from the very first meeting I had with them, they were asking me about the boundaries. They're very concerned about that, so they're looking forward to this bill passing. They're looking forward to the boundary review commission being set up. Hopefully, it will be a fruitful process for everyone, and we'll have a truly independent review done and all of the relevant considerations taken to protect the interests of the people in these smaller areas. All of their shopping, all of their business and all of their connections are with the city of Chilliwack, and they want to be able to express that to the commission. I'm pleased that this bill is here. On the other hand, as I've said, I'm very disappointed in the process by which it got here.

[3:30]

Tabling Documents

I now recognize the hon. Attorney General on Bill 13.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Much has been said about this issue, and much has been made of the sequence of events as this bill came to the House and was introduced in the House. I'm not going to dwell on any of those details, except to say that when I received the letter from the member for Richmond-Steveston, I, of course, had to look at the issue and consider my response. As I was in the process of doing that, the writ was issued. As a result, in fact, I have said very little on this issue, as the matter is, theoretically speaking, still before the courts; the writ is before the courts.

However, let me just say two things. First, some interesting ideas have been presented before the House by several members in terms of the general reform that can or should or even may take place, and I am sure that those ideas would be looked at in any future general review of this legislation. Second, I got the distinct impression that there was an implication in some of the remarks -- and I would stand corrected if I'm wrong -- that because the process would now be one year late, somehow the process and the work of the commission might have less integrity and less credibility. If anyone has that notion, I want to disabuse them of that. There was no question that this should have been done in the last session of this Legislature. It wasn't done. We attempted to rectify the error at the earliest possible time, and I'm delighted that this bill has now concluding second reading. I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 5583 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 34.

MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill now be read a second time. Obviously I wish to discuss the purpose of this bill in more detail. I made some introductory remarks at the time this bill was introduced. In principles this bill is intended to minimize the incidence of high-speed pursuits by police in the province and to provide consistent and clear guidelines for those who enter into pursuits. As we have witnessed over the last several weeks and months, in fact, there have been several incidents. There have been some high-profile incidents in the more recent past which highlighted this issue and made it urgent for us to deal with the issue. I can indicate to the House that my ministry is currently, in fact, holding discussions with the B.C. chiefs of police to ultimately develop regulations so that we can append those high-speed chase guidelines to this legislation once it's passed.

Section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act currently permits police to violate certain traffic rules, allowing them to speed and to ignore traffic lights in the interests of pursuing a known or suspected offender. However, the circumstances in which such pursuits may occur is not clarified in the act. Consequently, individual police forces and the RCMP have developed guidelines and standards for their members to follow. However, these guidelines are inconsistent and, in some cases, in need of improvement. New regulations will provide consistent and clear guidelines to protect both police officers and the public. I anticipate that the new regulations will provide better guidelines for the exercise of discretion by police officers, resulting in few high-speed pursuits, and that the new standards will require the expanded use of lights and sirens on vehicles during pursuits. As I've said, meetings with the chiefs of police to develop these guidelines are already underway.

This bill also increases the minimum fine for causing a police pursuit from $300 to $500, reflecting the severity of the offence and providing a deterrent to those who may cause a high-speed pursuit. On its own, $500 doesn't appear to be a very high amount. I want everyone to know that that is the minimum amount. Obviously the courts have the discretion to provide for higher fines in particular cases. And in circumstances where pursuits ensue and injuries or accidents happen, obviously courts will have the jurisdiction to provide further penalties if other charges are pursued with respect to those incidents.

Police will still be able to react quickly and effectively in emergency situations, but they will also have to ensure that their actions do not risk public safety unnecessarily.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into the second reading debate this afternoon on this bill because I've had some personal experiences with this particular issue, and I'd like to relate them to the Legislature today and then pass some opinions back to the minister with regards to it.

First of all, I must state with regards to the legislation that I find it somewhat lacking in a number of areas. I'm pleased that we'll be discussing regulations on some things to do with this particular legislation at a later time. The fact of the matter is that the penalty section of this will need some beefing up with regards to certain people that would be affected by high-speed chases.

I'd like to go back to May 21, 1977. I remember May 21, 1977, vividly because I was sitting in a police car, a 1977 Ford LTD -- actually, the only air-conditioned police car on the detachment in Alberta that I was posted to at the time. I turned on my emergency equipment to go after a vehicle, just to pull it over for running a red light, and the vehicle took off. The thing that, first of all, people should understand in the case of a police officer is that there's a snap decision that is made by the particular officer at the time to decide to engage in a pursuit or not. All the nice things that we say a police officer should take into consideration -- a plethora of things -- when they're making this decision are often not that easy. The decision to pursue was made because the person took off.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Back in those days, there were specific guidelines for police chases, and there are still specific guidelines. The specific guidelines at that time indicated that all emergency equipment would be activated in order that the chase could take place. This particular chase went through a small residential area and then headed out into the country. When you end up in a police chase, what happens is that everybody gets involved. You have a dispatcher at the detachment -- or, in the case of this situation, you trip a repeater to a larger area so that you can actually communicate with a number of police cars within a particular enforcement area, so that they can back you up with regards to the chase.

You have parallel chases taking place where you have a police car heading down another road to try to break off one area or another in order to control the pattern of the person that's being chased. In this particular case -- and I want to relate a couple of stories -- the chase took place on a highway, on paved roads, and moved off paved roads onto a muddy road.

The vehicle that was being chased was basically a souped-up 4-by-4 with large balloon tires that was able to cut through the mud where it had rained that evening. My police car was not so lucky. I had the opportunity to enjoy, at about 100 miles an hour, what it's like to see a police car roll end-on-end twice. It was something that one would not want to repeat, and one would not want to have to go through. It's a difficult situation for the police officer to make the choice at the time.

You know, 40 percent of all police chases end up in accidents. In the case of an accident, it's not always the person who's being pursued that the accident has occurred with. Sometimes it can be an innocent party, sometimes it can be a fixed object, and sometimes it can be the policeman himself.

Here's the next thing that happens with regard to something like this. After the chase was over, I crawled out of the police car, fortunately only with what I thought were minor head injuries and probably a damaged neck and what have you -- the reason for the twitch I make every once in a while. The fact of the matter was that after the chase, I got out of the car and was unable to communicate, because the radio wouldn't work.

You have to appreciate that I had members out looking for me. I obviously needed to get to the hospital, so that's where I went with a passing motorist. Incidentally, the vehicle did not stop. I went to the hospital and I was treated. My colleagues and my family were worried about me because nobody knew where I was until they found me at the hospital, and they sent a member, finally, to find out.

But that transition period of the ten- or 15-mile distance while I was going to the hospital caused a lot of grief to a lot of 

[ Page 5584 ]

people. It made me recognize that the one thing that's very important here is to realize how the job of a policeman and how the decisions that are made by policemen every day affect families and affect their everyday lives.

Unfortunately, the individual being chased was found -- unfortunately, because in this particular case we had a driving pattern where somebody continued to carry on that pattern. Thirty days later I was called to a single-vehicle rollover accident where there was a fatality, and the individual that I was chasing that night and his vehicle were the ones that I found in a ditch. It was a case where if maybe he had been caught that night, maybe we could have turned the driving pattern around; maybe we couldn't have. Those are the types of balances we have to make when we engage in a chase.

That one there would be what we would probably call a low-risk chase or a lower-risk chase, because we really didn't know whether a serious crime had been committed.

I was involved in another one a few years later. Actually, I was involved in a number of them over the years, but this one in particular disturbed me. At that time, I entered into another chase. It was on the No. 1 Highway. The No. 1 Highway, in the summertime in Alberta, is one of the busiest roads there is, and it was only two lanes at that time.

This individual car took off after a robbery where there was a gun involved, and a chase ensued. The chase went through a number of jurisdictions and a number of areas, and went on for an extended period of time -- close to an hour -- when I finally was able to push the car off the road. The individuals got out of the vehicle and ran.

Obviously, knowing they were armed, I had a number of choices, and my first choice was a warning shot. The warning shot stopped the perpetrators, who then were told to lie on the ground and were arrested. The biggest shock of that particular one was that the perpetrators were 14 years old. And when I have a perpetrator 14 years old who's committed an armed robbery, who's driving a full-sized car at a high speed on a major highway, it's pretty scary.

One of the things that we don't address when we deal with legislation like this is the fact that we have high-speed chases taking place in our communities in vehicles that are being driven by people who are not necessarily going to be affected by a fine. They are people who are not necessarily going to be affected by anything but some other form of discipline. One of the biggest areas, policemen will tell you, is the joyride, a stolen vehicle. That's taking place in our communities, and they're juveniles. Some of them are very, very young.

There was an incident a year or so ago in the Fraser Valley where one of the drivers in a high-speed chase on a regular basis -- on two different occasions -- was ten years old and had a habit of continuing to do this. We also have a situation now where we have younger people who do this when they take the vehicle.

I think when we deal with this legislation we have to recognize that there have to be some penalties within our legislation and within these regulations to deal with these particular people. My biggest concern would be that we take a look at the juvenile side of this issue. First of all, this is where we have a lot of drivers who are driving a vehicle at a high speed, putting police at risk, putting communities at risk. They have to be stopped because (a) they're going to continue to do it and (b) they have to have some impact from what we do when we catch them.

[3:45]

I've seen fatalities come out of high-speed chases, and fatalities are not good for anybody. The decision that police have to make is often so difficult because they have to make that decision at a point in time when they're doing it so quickly that they're trying to decide what's best for the public, what's best for public safety and, frankly, probably what's best for them.

When pursuing a vehicle, the most dangerous and deadly aspect of police work for officers, suspects and innocent citizens, in my opinion, is the fact that the chase is taking place to begin with. The fact that you have a vehicle driving at speeds of 100 to 150 kilometres per hour in an area where maybe the speed limit is designed to be 50 kilometres per hour is obviously something like a time bomb waiting to explode.

The other difficulty we have within the police community in the province is the lack of some form of consistent communication between police organizations. All police forces, as the minister said, have some guidelines with regards to high-speed chases, but there is a difficulty when moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the lower mainland because the radio systems oftentimes don't match. We have to get to some standardized communication control of our policing system, particularly in areas like the lower mainland where that effect takes place.

Like I said earlier, about 40 percent of all police chases end in accidents. According to a 1996 study of 800 police agencies, one in four chases ends up in injury. So if you take a look at that. . . . These are U.S. numbers. Canadian numbers are not kept in the same detail, but it's still applicable because the jurisdictions are somewhat of the same spread.

The interesting thing is that a number of them also end up in death. During the 1980s, nearly 300 people lost their lives in high-speed chases. That's a toll that we have to get control of. The balance that we have to come up with is where public safety comes into it and where the decision-making process is.

Clearly the national trend is to reduce driving pursuits to the point where we can reduce this danger to public safety. It is a nationwide initiative we see in a number of states in the United States, and it's also an initiative we've seen in a number of provinces in Canada. I think we should laud ourselves for making these decisions today to move forward and to try to come to grips with this particular issue.

There's a growing awareness that high-speed chases can create risks that run counter to police basic purposes. The basic purpose of police is protecting the public good, protecting us -- bad versus evil, if you wish to say it. The RCMP's motto is: "Maintain the right." But in maintaining the right, they don't want to be injuring and hurting public safety, so they have this incredible balance that they have to deal with.

The progressive trend nationwide in police pursuit is to largely limit instances in which police are trying to apprehend suspects to violent crimes. These are crimes where the decision sometimes is made. If it's a runaway from a break-and-enter where it's a property crime and there's no real life at risk 

[ Page 5585 ]

or what have you, if there's not an opportunity for somebody to get hurt as a result of that person getting away. . . . That's the one decision we have to make. But if we have a situation where somebody has killed two people and is now getting away armed, we have to do the pursuit. The likelihood in that particular situation would be that somebody else is going to get hurt regardless, and therefore we have to make the decision to do the apprehension at the appropriate time.

As a policeman, if you're choosing someone who has just shot somebody versus somebody who has done property damage, that's a quick, snap decision. That's the decision we ask them to make every day, and we ask them to make those decisions on everything they do, in actual fact. A policeman on the street is a social worker. He or she is also an enforcer, a judge and oftentimes a jury. I mean, they have to make decisions on things that you and I would like to take months to look at before we even address them or worry about them.

The decision to initiate pursuit must be based on the pursuing officer's conclusions that the immediate danger to the officer and the public created by the pursuit is less than the danger to the public should the suspect remain at large. That's a definition I wrote down for myself, and that definition is there because if we could live by those tenets and try to determine systems and regulations that apply to them, it would be beneficial to all.

There's another thing we have to remember when we look at police chases. I want to take it back to the personal perspective of looking at a police chase from the standpoint of the decision. As the public, we like to criticize the decision to enter into the chase. If you've ever had your adrenalin and your emotions popped -- like that! -- it's an incredible feeling, and when you enter into a police chase, that's what happens. You have this adrenalin-packed decision-making process that you have to make immediately, and everybody gets involved. Like I said earlier, you have the dispatcher and all the rest of them involved.

There are some suggestions -- and in some of the major centres in the United States, this has actually been applied -- that when a police chase takes place, a supervisor immediately goes to the communications room and makes a determination about the continuation or the stopping of the chase. That's actually not a bad recommendation.

The reason it's not a bad recommendation is because the guy on the street is into it now. He has made the decision to pursue, and he's into the pursuit. At that point, it's almost like the hunter versus the hunted, and it's a very tough decision to take to cut the chase off. If somebody was there and had the ability to look at and assess the situation from a calmer perspective than the people who are involved in the actual incident, that would sometimes be beneficial.

The biggest thing I want to touch on, in addition to that, is with regard to the bill itself. As we look at it as we go along, I think it's very critical to deal with the juvenile issue. When we get into debate in committee on this particular bill, we are going to have to have some discussion on that issue. If we don't, the public will realize that all we've done is put in place a piece of legislation that hasn't accomplished what in this case is the public good.

I've had a number of situations where I've seen the damage that has been done to lives, to people, to individuals. I saw the outflow of an accident that I had to investigate after a police chase where an individual was left a paraplegic for the rest of his life, that individual being a 15-year-old boy. That was the outcropping of a high-speed chase. I've seen the damage to public property where an impaired driver, operating a large cement hauler on the No. 1 Highway, decided for some reason that he was going to go across the province at a high rate of speed. When a roadblock was set up, he literally drove right through a brand-new Pontiac police car and nailed it, right side by side, where two members had been sitting not minutes before.

I've seen the reaction of the public when a chase doesn't turn out the right way, and I felt for members who had to answer for decisions when those chases didn't turn out the right way. I've seen the hurt that goes on in the public, and I think it's very important that we as a Legislature should recognize with this legislation that we have an opportunity we shouldn't pass up, by making sure that it works for everybody.

This particular piece of legislation, although it's only two pages, is very important to a number of situations that occur within the police community with regard to putting some taps and controls on things that can help them. I don't think we should look at this legislation as something that we're imposing on police organizations because we're punishing them. We have to look at it as a piece of legislation that we're bringing through this Legislature to increase awareness and to assist them in approving their own policies and in getting it all together on the same page, so they can work together.

It's important that we also recognize that as we go through this legislation, this is only one piece of police work that needs to be addressed by this Legislature. We have to recognize the men and women on the streets who are working the shift work and are having to deal with all the things and emotional stress that go with that particular job. The high-speed chases are part of police work. We also have the domestic disputes where members are very much at risk and all the other ills that they deal with.

I would like to say in this House as we go through this bill that, to me, it's important that we also seize this as an opportunity in which we can stand up, congratulate and praise the people who protect our public safety. Those people are out there on the front lines, making those decisions. We, as a Legislature, can assist them. We can assist them by helping set some direction, but the reality of the matter is that the assistance has to be given with some understanding of the pressure they're under and of the time frame they have to make decisions in.

I often find it very difficult to read in the newspaper about somebody who has judged a decision by a member of any police force -- somebody who wasn't there at the time and wasn't there to make the decision. It's very difficult for these people to make these decisions and these calls. It's easy to spend three months reviewing what happened, taking statements from people, looking at the skid marks and all the things that go along with any accident with regard to a high-speed chase or any other incident, and criticize. At the same time as we go through that criticism, though, let's remember that these people are out there protecting our public safety, and they're very important to us.

I could go on and tell a few more anecdotal stories with regard to chases, but I really don't think that is necessary. I think we should recognize -- and I want the House to recognize -- the importance of this legislation from the standpoint of being complete. We should make sure that the fines and the enforcement side for the adult side as well as the juvenile side are absolute and that they have repercussions for the people who are committing these offences.

They don't put just the policeman at risk; they put the family at risk. If a policeman is injured or dies on the job, the 

[ Page 5586 ]

family gets hurt. If the individual who is driving the car hurts or kills somebody or themselves, somebody else is affected. We have to recognize the people side of this particular industry.

I will support this piece of legislation. I will, in committee stage, be making an amendment to increase some penalties and will enter into a discussion with regard to how we should be handling the people we aren't touching, in my opinion, on the face of this legislation. That's very critical. I believe that the opportunity is here, and I look forward to it. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the minister to make sure it works.

J. Dalton: It's certainly a privilege for me to follow my colleague, who, of course, has front-line experience. We must keep in mind as we debate the issues coming out of this bill and when we get to the committee stage, as my colleague has commented. . . . I know that the Attorney General has listened intently, and I know he's very sincere in his concern about the overall issue of high-speed chases, even though high-speed is sometimes perhaps a misnomer.

Sometimes chases are initiated that obviously result in high-speed pursuits on occasion. Sometimes those chases don't even continue in and of themselves, but you still have a panic situation, particularly with young drivers. I recognize, and my colleague has also pointed out, that the police are in a very difficult position, because they have to enforce the law.

There are, unfortunately, too many situations, and I'll be referring to that in a few moments, where young drivers, car thieves or whatever they may be, precipitate very dangerous situations. The police have a very difficult job. Do they enforce the law by catching the perpetrators, or do they pay attention, as all police do, to the overall issue of public safety? ICBC is screaming about the accelerated costs of car wrecks and car thefts.

There are many issues that Bill 34 raises, but before I get to the actual bill, I want to talk through some of the history leading up to this, starting with the Oppal report. Justice Wally Oppal tabled his report almost three years ago, and high-risk policing is in chapter H of his report. He deals with police pursuits. If the members of the House wish to review the Oppal commission, pages H19, H20 and H21 address the issue of high-speed pursuits.

[4:00]

Justice Oppal goes on to indicate that the 700 reported incidents that he made reference to in 1992. . . . Those are probably underreported, and that's because of inconsistent reporting policies of the municipal police and RCMP. For example, Justice Oppal cites that one department had little specific procedure for police pursuits, while another department had a policy that permitted pursuits for any reason, even minor offences. So over the years we've obviously gone through a state whereby there's virtually little guidance to either the RCMP or municipal forces as to how to conduct themselves when the potential for a high-speed pursuit exists.

Back in 1993, the Attorney General at the time accepted some guidelines. These were actually endorsed on February 8, 1993. These are also referred to in Justice Oppal's report. I won't bother getting into those guidelines, because I think that we can recognize that even though we may have had guidelines in place over the years, they really have not properly addressed the issues coming out of the Oppal commission that I have just commented on.

Justice Oppal then gets to the important things: recommendation 207. I wish to read into the record the recommendations Justice Oppal has made. There are five in number: (a) criteria for initiating and continuing police pursuits, (b) alternatives to pursuits, (c) cautions about hazardous pursuit techniques, (d) criteria and procedures for abandoning pursuits and (e) definition of supervisory control over pursuits. That is the essence of the Oppal commission as it dealt with high-risk and high-speed pursuits.

It was 1994 when Justice Oppal made those recommendations, and I might even back the clock up a little further, if I may. On February 10, 1993, I had occasion to give a presentation to the Oppal commission when it came to West Vancouver. I remember the day well, not because I made a presentation but because the lawyer presenting right after me was the lawyer for Daniel Possee -- or the late Daniel Possee we'd have to say, unfortunately. His father Derek had to hire a lawyer, because his son was shot and killed in a police incident in North Vancouver.

I just want to make a couple of references to things that I suggested to Justice Oppal should be dealt with. I had my research staff go back to the late eighties to examine the stats on high-speed pursuits and the sometimes resulting casualties. In the five years from 1985 to 1989, 17 people in this province were killed and 323 injured; 18 percent of those killed and 9 percent of those injured were innocent parties. My colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove gave reference to the very fact that unfortunately in some of these situations, innocent third parties are drawn into the action.

I'll just briefly relate this one, because I remember it very vividly from law school, and I did give reference to it in my submission. A case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada involved the death of two nurses who were innocently waiting at a bus stop, when they were struck and killed by a vehicle that was being driven by a sixteen-year-old car thief. This was in York, in the suburbs of Toronto. What led up to the pursuit itself was that the police received the information that there was a reported stolen vehicle in the area, and they actually spotted the vehicle. They put on their siren, indicating that the car should pull over. The sixteen-year-old panicked, hit the accelerator and took off, and they pursued the vehicle through the crowded streets of York. There were two officers in the car, and the passenger officer pulled out his service revolver with the intention of shooting out the rear tire of the car they were pursuing. Unfortunately, his arm was jiggled when he squeezed the trigger, and the bullet ricocheted off the back window frame and struck the young driver in the back of the neck. Needless to say, he lost control of the vehicle; it left the roadway and killed the two nurses. That blossomed, as you might expect, into a major lawsuit involving the employer, the police officer and, of course, the sixteen-year-old.

The main issue that the Supreme Court of Canada had to deal with was the liability of the officer who discharged his 

[ Page 5587 ]

weapon in those circumstances. In a 3-to-2 split, the Supreme Court of Canada said that there was no negligence on the part of the officer for that particular incident. I'm just citing that because it has vividly remained in my mind over the years as to the very serious tragedies that sometimes come out of high-speed pursuits.

This is an ongoing problem, and it's not getting any better. I've done some further research, and it's unfortunately very simple to do the research these days. All you need to do is go through the newspapers, in a far too frequent situation, and find cases where innocent parties and pursuing parties and others are being killed and injured. I think we all have to recognize that car thefts are up, particularly with young offenders. Impaired driving is still a very huge problem in this society, and it's a very huge problem for the police. Of course, when we use the highways and byways we all know that there are more people than ever who seem to feel that driving like an idiot is acceptable, including driving too close and changing lanes without signalling or warning. Running stop signs and red lights is epidemic.

The Attorney General will of course be very familiar with the very unfortunate case in Kamloops of March 1995, when two teens -- two innocent parties -- were killed by an RCMP vehicle that was pursuing another vehicle. It was reported that the RCMP vehicle was going about 125 to 140 kilometres per hour at the time, and he had no lights or siren going. In August 1995 a youth driving a stolen jeep was killed; he was forced off the road by a pursuing police vehicle. In November 1996 a Mission mother was killed when a pursued stolen car slammed into her car. In April 1997 two young people in Surrey, a 12- and a 13-year-old driving a stolen car, were both injured when their car ran a light and hit a taxi. Happily, I gather that no other parties were injured in that particular case. In April 1997 a Surrey mother was killed by a stolen car driver, who was a 20-year-old fleeing the police. There was another death in that same month of April, just three months ago -- and I believe my colleague who will be speaking next, the member for Parksville-Qualicum, will be addressing this one -- when a Parksville youth was killed on a rural road when his car, which was being pursued, struck a security gate. Unfortunately, the force of the impact literally sliced the car horizontally, and of course, he got sliced in half at the same time.

In May of 1997, on a highway that I'm quite familiar with -- Highway 20, leading to Bella Coola, outside of Williams Lake -- a 17-year-old car thief was pursued by the RCMP. While he was driving at a high rate of speed on Highway 20, he tried to avoid a spike belt, lost control and was killed in that accident; his female passenger was injured. Also in May 1997, a Chilliwack teen was injured in a stolen car pursuit. In June, just last month in Victoria, two Victoria police officers and a driver of a vehicle that was being pursued were injured.

We must not forget that police are at very high risk. My colleague described the one where he went end-to-end twice over, and he was very lucky, of course, to walk away from that one. Also in June of 1997, another death occurred. A 21-year-old passenger was killed in Vancouver, when the 19-year-old car thief was being pursued at 12:30 in the afternoon in a school zone. Maybe some people will accuse me of making some editorial comment by the example. Needless to say, that one sparked a great deal of controversy, just given the very fact that the police were pursuing in a school zone at 12:30 p.m. during the school year.

So what do we have? We have seven deaths in 1996. The average is roughly three to four, so in 1996 we had some true carnage on the highways. Obviously that's just to set the stage for the importance of Bill 34, which we are now dealing with. I think the important thing -- I know the Attorney General will listen intently when we get to committee stage -- is how the various regulations and the guidelines should be set up. This enabling bill, the amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act, basically addresses two things.

Number one, it increases the penalty from $300 to $500 for those who flee from the police. I think my colleague who made reference to that may be indicating in an amendment that perhaps that should be increased. Certainly I think we all have to recognize that those who choose to leave the scene -- being pursued by a police car -- are not only breaking the law but putting innocent third parties at very real risk. They're also putting themselves at risk, they're indirectly putting their families at risk, and certainly they're putting the police at risk.

Just to give reference in my remarks. . . . Recently we've had two high school students killed. Sure, they were car thieves, but the unfortunate consequence is that in the last month or two we've had two high school students killed -- one in Parksville and one in Williams Lake. We have to be very vigilant in how we set up the regulations and how we address the overall issue.

The other thing that the act does is amend sections 122 and 210, whereby -- through order-in-council -- new regulations, or certainly different regulations, will be imposed. To conclude, I am pleased that the Attorney General has brought this forward to the House. Perhaps it could have been done earlier. I've just gone over the facts and figures of the last few years, and this is not just a current problem, but it does seem to be getting worse. As legislators, we have a very real responsibility to put law into place so that the police will have proper guidelines, the public will have more assurance that safety issues will be addressed -- and a very clear message is sent to people who choose to violate the law, whether that be through stolen vehicles, impaired driving or just driving like idiots, as I said earlier. We have to send a message to those people that this sort of conduct is not acceptable.

[4:15]

We have to send a message to the perpetrators. We have to assist the police with proper guidelines, and we have to give credit to the police, who are in a very awkward situation. We must also address the very significant issue of third-party public safety.

P. Reitsma: I too rise to speak in endorsement of second reading of this particular bill. I was particularly impressed with the comments of my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove. He speaks out of personal experience, and it's also a bit of personal experience as far as I'm concerned. My brother, although he lives in the old country, the Netherlands, has been a policeman for some 19 years. Holland, with so 

[ Page 5588 ]

many people and being not too big, is about the size of Vancouver Island, and, of course, the police are motorized -- with motorcycles, as well. I have talked to him about pursuits and speeding, and let me assure you that speeding on a motorcycle is a bit more dangerous, although the outcome is often the same as in a police car.

This is not going to bring back the life of Ryan Bjork, whose life came to a very abrupt end on April 25 when he slammed a stolen taxi into a locked steel gate on that particular morning. Speeds reached 120 kilometres during the ten-minute chase, which happened early in the morning -- about 1 o'clock. If there is any cause to be thankful, it is that it happened at 1 a.m. and not at 1 p.m. It's not going to bring back his life. But in all seriousness, I hope that the accidents and situations, as outlined by my colleagues, will assist the police and indeed send a message to the perpetrators that this cannot be tolerated.

The minister indicated that $500 is not a maximum; $30 is minimum. I too would like to see discussion on the amount being higher, although I appreciate that the courts, of course, have that opportunity. I appreciate that the new regulations will apply to any emergency vehicle engaging in high-speed chases or violating other traffic rules. I appreciate that the new rules will cover all the aspects of pursuits, including the circumstances under which pursuits can be initiated, the use of lights and sirens during pursuits, how and when pursuits should be abandoned. I think that is very important, as well. Perhaps there comes a time of no return. Perhaps under certain circumstances and through proper training, just before that time arrives, it should be abandoned. I note that it will apply to all RCMP and municipal police officers, as well.

When this unfortunate accident happened in Parksville with Ryan Bjork, I believe an inquest was held. However, I asked the minister -- and regrettably it has not happened -- if the minister would consider an inquiry. The coroner recommended no inquiry. I know that the minister had an opportunity to have an inquiry. Not to lay blame, let me assure the minister, but as has been mentioned eloquently by my colleagues, perhaps an inquiry would bring out the reasons why this happened. It might assist policemen, as those in authority are so often blamed -- as my hon. colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove mentioned. Comments are made; accusations are made by people who weren't even there, who read reports in the newspaper. The best captains generally seem to stay ashore, as they say. It would have been a good opportunity to bring everything out and assist our policemen as well. In almost every case, police generally do a good job but also do a very difficult job. They have to make the decisions. If people are put in the same position to make decisions. . . . At least I know that the law officers are trained.

I would have liked to have seen an inquiry not only to assist the police but at the same time to have sent a message to the perpetrators and also to have sent a message to those young people. You and I and everyone else have gone through the young stages -- with wild hair, as well, I suppose; I guess with more hair than brains, as they often say. It happens to all of us. But sometimes tragic circumstances and accidents like this stop us for a moment in time and make us realize that life is so very precious. Sometimes it takes accidents -- and calamities in general -- to make us think, for us to appreciate life. So I would have liked to have seen that.

Be that as it may, I support the bill. I support the intent. I think it's a very good start. It's what we asked for; it's what people asked for. I think it will ultimately send a message to the perpetrators, and it will assist the police, as well.

K. Krueger: In dealing with this legislation, we all realize that we are taking on a tremendously sobering responsibility, and I applaud the AG for his willingness to take on such a tough task.

I am extremely cautious in making comments about it, because it's a tremendously delicate balancing: first, of the concern for the potential victims of high-speed car chases and crashes that occur in them; and second, of the concern for possible victims of those who are trying to outrun the law and the kinds of people the police have to apprehend in this manner; and also concern for respect for the law in British Columbia. We know that if the police aren't able to apprehend violators, then they are encouraged in their activities and they are potentially going to have victims, one way or the other.

On the one hand, I'm sure we seek not to tie the policemen's hands any more than we possibly have to in their obligations to fulfil their duties and apprehend criminals. On the other, we know that we as government have a responsibility to make these determinations so far as is practical and set rules for policemen to some extent, because the risks are so huge and the responsibility so large that those decisions clearly cannot rest on the shoulders of single individuals. So we have to come to grips with this question.

I think we all know, and it's a fact, that car theft is on the rise in British Columbia, particularly car theft by juveniles. In areas where it really gets rolling, it becomes a tremendous problem. There's a huge problem, for example, in Williams Lake, which may seem an unlikely place. But from Williams Lake and on out Highway 20, there's a huge incidence, particularly of juveniles stealing vehicles -- often brand-new vehicles -- and literally going out to antagonize the police and encourage them to engage in high-speed chases. It cannot be tolerated, and it must be dealt with.

Impaired driving and dangerous driving are activities frequently engaged in by individuals who are quite prepared to take risks with their lives and with their potential victims' lives, and to compound their terrible behaviour by indulging in a stupid risk, such as trying to outrun the police.

Society wants those people apprehended and dealt with. I certainly do. I think everyone here does -- and all of our constituents. We come down to the decision that our colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove spoke of earlier -- a lonely policeman in his car having to decide when to engage and when to break off. If we don't make the right decision, then we have failed, because we exacerbate the problem and increase the criminals' propensity to try to evade the law and go ahead with their irresponsible behaviour.

On the other side of the coin is the growing list of tragedies. My colleague listed quite a few of them. Of course, one that's very near to my heart and the heart of everyone in Kamloops is the terrible tragedy which happened there when two beautiful young people lost their lives: a young couple who had recently graduated from high school, had their whole lives in front of them and had very loving families.

An RCMP officer was seeking to apprehend an individual who had a substantial lead on him, and he knew that that individual would have a much greater chance of outrunning him if he activated his emergency equipment earlier. He no doubt believed that the oncoming driver had seen him. Other drivers had seen the police car and knew it was coming at a high rate of speed. But depending on the experience and the particular circumstance, not every driver is going to realize that this type of activity is underway, and people make what they think at the moment to be a normal driving decision. In 

[ Page 5589 ]

that case, the young people turned across the path of a police car approaching at a higher speed than they realized, and the result was shattered lives.

Young people lost their lives, their families have gone through agony -- a very public agony in this case -- and the lives of the policeman and his family have been shattered. He has gone through tremendous trauma over it, and I wish to be on record as saying that the community and I, having seen a great deal of the circumstances of that case, don't believe we have the right to lay it at the feet of the police constable. He was doing what he perceived to be his duty at the time.

As I say, we have shared as a community in the awful agony of the outcome of that incident. I think the one person who probably hasn't felt touched by it much is the person the police officer was pursuing, who got away scot-free and who may have never even realized that he was the reason that all of that happened because someone had reported him as a violator -- apparently with good cause. But the police officer's lights weren't engaged. He doubtless didn't know he was being pursued, and presumably he never stopped and was never dealt with. What a striking travesty that is!

So I applaud the Attorney General's decision to come to grips with this issue. I also applaud his decision to consult with police forces before new regulations are set in place. Clearly they have tremendously important input to give. The whole process of how policemen are dealt with after an incident occurs is also something that I would like the AG to have a very thorough look at. I trust that the consultation with police forces will be very thorough, because, as I say, it's a very delicate balance, and the regulations which come out of the process must balance a concern for the potential victims of those people who are being chased as well as the potential victims of a motor vehicle crash that could ensue from the chases.

I'm somewhat anxious about the timing of the decision on new regulations vis-�-vis the timing of repealing section 122(2) and (3), because if there's any sort of slip-up there, we may find the police somewhat disempowered. The Attorney General's shaking his head, and I trust him. I trust that that won't be allowed to happen and that there'll be extreme care in that regard.

[4:30]

I really like my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove's recommendation that juveniles who are caught in these activities should know in advance that they will suffer through loss of their opportunity to get driving privileges for a good, long time -- I would suggest until they reach the age of adulthood or later. Perhaps we could extend that to those juveniles who ride with joyriders, because very often it's a group decision and a team effort.

I also think it's tremendously important that we equip police forces adequately and that there are enough policemen on the road that the member who is trying to pull over a vehicle can have confidence that there are going to be other members up ahead who can lay down the spike belts and are out there with the equipment and manpower to deal with the issue.

When it comes right down to it, we in the opposition believe that the three principal priority programs of the government of this province -- be it an NDP government or a Liberal government -- are health care, education and public safety. So once again I applaud the Attorney General for having the courage to deal with this issue. I look forward to seeing it dealt with very well, and I thank you for this opportunity to make these remarks.

G. Plant: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in this debate. I suppose I'm doubly pleased, in a way, that I'm getting to rise twice in one day to speak to two different bills -- a new way of moving with the proper dispatch, perhaps, through the public business.

To become fairly serious fairly quickly, we have before us a bill which deals with a situation that seems to me to be unutterably poignant -- a situation of a police officer who, in the course of his or her duties, comes upon someone who is committing an offence -- stealing a car, joyriding or something like that -- and who, in an important moment of personal decision, decides that it is necessary to give chase to the vehicle and its passengers in order to prevent the continuation of an offence or the commission of a new offence. From that moment on, all too often things happen which are beyond control and result in tragedy. Oftentimes it is the particular tragedy of innocent bystanders.

It seems to me that that is a terribly tragic irony of and consequence of some law enforcement activities, and, of course, too often the tragedy is the accident or injury, or death even, of the police officers involved in the incident and also the offenders, who are really the people who caused the whole problem to arise in the first place.

So what can the law do to deal with that very, very difficult situation? The Motor Vehicle Act has provisions in it which give certain privileges, if I can call them that, to the drivers of emergency vehicles. The drivers of emergency vehicles, which include police vehicles, have the power in certain circumstances to exceed the speed limits, to run stop signs and red lights, and to disregard other rules of the road in order to go about their business.

In the act as it now stands, there are constraints on the exercise of those privileges. The Motor Vehicle Act says that the driver of an emergency vehicle must not exercise these privileges unless that driver is doing some things. Those things include sounding an audible signal bell -- or a siren or a whistle -- and showing a flashing red light. It may be necessary that the person operating the vehicle be a peace officer in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or be engaged in some other important police duty. So there are some rules in the statute books of British Columbia that deal with these situations.

But as the Attorney General is all too aware and as my colleagues have said during the course of their remarks this afternoon, it seems that too often the existing guidelines don't work. The existing rules are not striking the right balance: the balance that needs to be struck between, on the one hand, the important need to ensure that accidents, injury and death do not result from the disproportionate exercise of emergency powers -- that's one-half of the balance -- with the other half of the balance. The other half of the balance is the need to ensure that there is the necessary level of respect for the law, that young people and others realize that there will be consequences if they steal automobiles, if they joyride. We need to strike that balance, and we need to recognize that there is a need for a balance.

[ Page 5590 ]

The Attorney General has been moved to obtain the assistance of the government, I suppose, to bring this bill before the House, because he is as aware of the personal tragedies that have formed part of our recent history as is anybody. I know that he has a strong sense, as do all of us here, that we should try to make the rules better and to prevent these tragedies from occurring.

I hope that the Attorney General, as he proceeds down the path of reform, will also be mindful of the other competing concerns: the need to ensure that public safety is maintained and enhanced. I'm confident that the Attorney General understands that need and will be mindful of it when he goes about the consultation process which this bill mandates.

So that's the balance. I think it's an important balance to be struck, and I agree that the current law does not strike that balance in a satisfactory way. At least, it doesn't seem to be working from the perception of members of the public, and I don't think that anyone in this House is of the view that the current regime is working adequately.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The challenge, of course, is that we're here debating a principle of a bill, and we understand how the Attorney General perceives and has stated the principle of that bill. I think we are all in agreement on what the principle of the bill is, but in fact it's difficult to find that principle in the text of the bill, because the text of the bill is simply language which enables a process to take place. The bill does not set out new guidelines or new rules governing police chases and high-speed chases.

What we have is a bill that, upon its enactment and proclamation, will presumably, at one and the same time, remove the existing guidelines and replace them with new ones. That will be the result of a consultation process that the Attorney General has spoken about in his remarks introducing this bill in second reading -- a consultation process which, as I understand it, is already underway.

Obviously the success or failure of that project, and ultimately the success or failure of the bill, will turn on whether the consultation process results in guidelines that are better guidelines -- guidelines that will strike a better balance than the current law strikes.

I have to say -- and I have said this in other places -- that I want to register a note of concern about the fact that we had the bill presented to us in circumstances where the guidelines did not yet exist. I understand that there may be good legislative and parliamentary reasons for that. But as the Attorney General knows -- and I think all members of the public know -- what happens on the streets of British Columbia, and particularly on the streets of young people, young adults and people who are perhaps less respectful of the law than all of us here in this chamber, is that there are hidden messages. There is the language of the streets, there is talk, there is the kind of word on the street about what it is that they can get away with or not get away with: "What is it that this week in Richmond is an offence that the police don't seem to be successful in dealing with? What is it that this year the police in northern British Columbia are having a hard time dealing with?" All too often, regrettably, it seems that to some extent activities of people -- criminal activities, quasi-criminal activities -- are influenced by a bit of a sense of what people can get away with. I suspect this is particularly true for young people, and I suspect it is particularly true of the kind of young people -- it is often young people -- who cause these high-speed pursuits to commence.

So I suppose it's a mild cautionary note to express some regret that I fear that the word on the street in British Columbia at the moment is that there may not be any guidelines, that there may be a bit more licence to joyride than really is the case. I know the Attorney General would agree with me that that's the wrong message, that British Columbians should not be thinking that way. If it is in fact a problem, I think the answer for it is fairly straightforward, given that we're here debating the bill. I think the answer is to encourage the Attorney General and those with whom he is consulting -- the police chiefs in British Columbia -- to move forward quickly with the consultation process, not at the risk obviously of impairing its effectiveness but with the aim in mind of ensuring that the new guidelines come into place as quickly as possible.

If there is one message, I suppose, that I have here, it is to encourage the Attorney General to move with expedition in that process -- so that, among other things, we will all get an opportunity sooner rather than later to see the new guidelines and to assess whether or not they are guidelines that will in fact improve the situation.

There is another aspect of this bill, and that is the change in the punishment or the minimum fine for breaching one of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act that deals with the consequences of joyriding. I think my colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has already given notice that he will be moving an amendment to increase the minimum fine. In his view -- and I share that view -- it is important to send a strong signal out to the community that the kind of activity which gives rise to these unfortunate situations is really unacceptable. After all, the real root of the problem -- and I hope I'm not oversimplifying here -- is the fact that people steal cars and engage in this kind of activity. What we all need to work harder at is finding ways of preventing this activity from taking place.

The regulations that are contemplated by this statute are regulations that are intended to deal with the consequences of that kind of activity. I'm sure that we would all much rather live in a province where there were fewer joyrides, fewer car chases and fewer incidences that needed to be regulated in this way. I'm sure that is not going to happen in the next week or month or year, and so for the time being we need to do what we can to ensure that police officers have the necessary guidelines to ensure that they can carry about their business in a way that protects public safety in all of its aspects, including the safety of those who are sometimes the innocent victims of car chases and high-speed chases.

So with that, hon. Speaker, I again repeat that I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I look forward to seeing the regulations when they finally come into being, and I urge the Attorney General and the government to move with haste to bring this new regime into effect.

[4:45]

Firstly, I want to commend the police forces in British Columbia for all of us, for doing an increasingly difficult job day in and day out. I'm sure other members have expressed that sentiment. It's important that we let them know that we do appreciate the work that they do under sometimes very difficult circumstances.

The hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano talked about Justice Oppal's recommendations. We took those rec-

[ Page 5591 ]

ommendations into account earlier on with respect to the municipal police forces. Updated and enhanced guidelines were presented to the municipal forces to be in effect with respect to those forces. One of the challenges that we've had over time has been to find a mechanism to ensure that we have, firstly, consistent guidelines across the province and that they apply both to the RCMP as well as to the municipal police forces. I believe that in section 122 we have found that mechanism and that there will eventually be consistency across the province, that each and every police officer will, of course, be asked to comply with these guidelines that are then appended to this legislation as regulations.

As I've indicated, we are working with the police chiefs. Work is already underway through the Crown-police liaison committee. Several meetings have taken place. We consider this to be the striking of a balance between the need for public safety, and the need for the police to have discretion to do what they think is best in the interests of public safety, while at the same time providing them with some guidelines to ensure that unnecessary injuries do not take place -- so that they know that sometimes it is in the public interest to not abandon a particular pursuit, if they have a very dangerous criminal on the loose, while at the same time rather than carry on with the pursuits, they might seek guidance from the guidelines to abandon pursuits when it might be in the public interest to do so.

I want to address a couple of other things that members have talked about. I have already said publicly that the same Crown police liaison committee is looking at the issue of how we can ensure that those who engage in causing pursuits by police, high-speed chases by police, lose their licences -- if they have them -- for a long, long time, and as well, that those who don't have licences, whether they are young or old -- and I make no distinction based on age -- lose the ability to obtain those licences for a long, long time. I think it's important that that work continues, and as soon as that work has been concluded, I'm hoping that in the next sitting of the Legislature we can deal with those possible amendments when we're ready.

I believe that it's also important for people, members particularly, to remember that there is an emergency operations and communications centre being established in Vancouver. There is a sod-turning ceremony in the next few days. That emergency communications centre will serve at least one half of the population of British Columbia, to coordinate dispatch for fire, police and ambulance services in one area with the backup facilities in times of disaster. As well, there is the wide-area radio network which is part of that, so we have this coordination of communications in the police forces across this part of the province, at least. That legislation is before this Legislature. That is enabling legislation. We could have similar facilities, for instance, on Vancouver Island or in other major urban centres so that areas can come together.

I'm hoping that the consultation around these issues is completed as early as possible. We have regulations that we can bring forth. Once the regulations are available, we will of course then proclaim this section, and the current section would be repealed.

With those remarks, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee stage on Bill 27.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1997

On section 1.

G. Plant: I have the temerity, as a civil litigation lawyer, to rise and look across the room and find that there are criminal lawyers who will now have to endure a series of questions from someone who barely has any idea about criminal process. That's fine. It'll be a learning exercise.

One of the things that this act seeks to do is introduce a new procedure -- if I can call it that -- into the procedure governing provincial offences. This is the opportunity, in the case of violation tickets, for a first appearance to be an appearance for the purposes of setting a hearing date rather than for the hearing itself. I take it that that is at least one of the objectives of section 1(a). Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I wonder if the Attorney General could explain how he sees this operating on the ground, as it were, in the ordinary course of the administration of Provincial Court Offence Act matters. Will there be changes in forums and a restructuring in the way that, for instance, business is done at 222 Main Street or in other courthouses and that kind of thing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Under normal, run-of-the-mill cases it would simply be a notice of where hearings are generally held -- before JPs, I understand. In more serious matters we might have to develop new forums, where a notice of hearing is sent, and the appearance, then, is before the Provincial Court judge.

I stand corrected. Both would be before the Provincial Court judge; in some cases, of course, it would be a simple appearance notice. In other cases it would be a notice of hearing. A notice of hearing would be in ordinary cases. If the cases are a bit more complicated and involve extraordinary circumstances, there would then be the notice of appearance at a fixed date.

G. Plant: Do we know now -- or does the government know -- which cases will fall into the one category and which cases will fall into the other? Is there an easy answer to that question?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that that is intended to take care of cases where there might be more than one witness required and there might be some complexity to the case. In those cases, it would be a notice of appearance. In other cases, it would be a notice of hearing. This is simply to facilitate the court procedures and save time; whereas now, some cases go there for a hearing, and we aren't able to issue appearance notices.

G. Plant: I understand the purpose in that way, and if I may say, it's probably a good one. I'm sure that there are a number of cases now where it's clear, on the first hearing, that people are not going to be ready to proceed with the hearing in any substantive way. Yet the law is structured in such a way that it gives them no choice but to appear in court, both with counsel, perhaps, pretending that at least temporarily they're 

[ Page 5592 ]

going to embark on a hearing. If in fact we can create a process that allows first appearances where there can be a discussion with the presiding judicial official about how the case should proceed, that's probably a good step.

Again, if you go back to what was really the theme of my previous question, it was more to establish with some certainty, if I can now, the criteria for determining which case will fall into one stream as opposed to the other. I understand that the Attorney General said a moment ago that the criteria include issues of complexity and cases that may require more than one witness. Fair enough. I can understand that at the conceptual level. Perhaps, then, the question is at the practical level. Who decides? Or is it an issue that is simply determined by the fact that it happens to be an offence under one section of the environmental blah-blah act, as opposed to another?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be a representative of the Ministry of Attorney General, possibly a Crown counsel.

G. Plant: So possibly a Crown counsel or some other official in the ministry would, I take it, have to make some kind of judgment call at the beginning of the process on whether the case is one that more suitably falls into the go-straight-to-hearing process or whether it is a case that should go under the notice of appearance process. Is that a fair restatement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I knew I'd get this criminal stuff down pat once I just got warmed up to it.

I'm going to -- I'm sure the word is not cross-pollinate. . . . But this is not the only statute or bill before the House which seeks to amend the Offence Act. At some point, I hope before the end of 1997, we will debate Bill 42, which has some provisions in it that deal with changing the mode of service documents and the kinds of documents that are used now in the prosecution of Provincial Court offences and Offence Act kinds of offences and that replace them with the use of electronic data records.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can assist me now in letting me know whether the notice of hearing, notice of appearance, violation ticket -- all or some of which would be documents now conventionally produced in hard copy that would have to be sent to the person disputing the allegation or fine. . . . Are we to foresee that over the next short little while, these are processes that could now take place electronically? Or is this sort of outside the scope of those changes that are coming down?

[5:00]

G. Plant: I appreciate that answer.

Back to the issue of what triggers which stream is followed, I'm guessing here that the decision that we talked about a few minutes ago -- which is a decision that may be made by Crown counsel or some other prosecuting official, by government -- probably would not be made unless the Crown, as it were, had received a dispute notice. I mean, that would be something that would happen first, because I assume that would be evidence that in fact there was going to be something of a dispute. Is that a fair summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes it is, and that's evidenced by the fact that if you look at section 1(a) -- the last lines -- this notice of appearance or hearing is to be sent to the disputing individual.

G. Plant: Moving down to subparagraph (b) of section 1 of this act, I guess that seeks to repeal three subsections of the act and to replace them with four subsections. I haven't actually sat down recently to review these particular subsections, but I think that the thing that will become subsection (9.1) is new; that is, it is completely new. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, it's not new. If I can assist, this particular subsection repeals and replaces subsections (9) to (11) to add references to appearing or failing to appear pursuant to a notice of appearance. Otherwise, they remain unchanged. These are simply consequential amendments.

G. Plant: So the old law -- and I now have it before me -- essentially always allowed the accused person to try to persuade a judge within 30 days that the fact that they didn't show up was really not their fault and that they should be allowed to dispute the ticket. In substance, that's not changed; that's just now something that you can do within 30 days of either the hearing or the appearance, as the case may be. Is that a fair restatement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.

G. Plant: So the requirement that the judge be satisfied by an affidavit is, I assume, also not new. In subsection (10), there is reference to ICBC. I think the context here is that in some cases where someone has failed to appear, there would have been an order made that would have cancelled the driver's licence or something like that. So we have a process here that allows the justice not only to reset a date for the hearing or appearance, which would be to give the accused person a sort of second chance, but also to set aside whatever action had been taken by ICBC or the superintendent of motor vehicles in the interim.

I have a question or two about that, but perhaps I could start by just asking if I basically set that out correctly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: All right, this then takes me to something I'm a little confused about. I think that when the bill was read for a first time, and perhaps even for a second time, there was reference made to the utility which these amendments will have in the context of environmental offences. In fact, in the explanatory notes for the bill, there is reference made to environmental offences. I'm sure that we will get to other provisions in the bill where the same question will arise, but obviously, proceeding as I do from my handicapped position as a non--criminal law lawyer, I'm wondering whether the fact that here we have reference only to ICBC. . . . I assume there is method in the madness here, in the sense that it's not necessary to give the justice, who is granting relief from forfeiture, any power to set aside any other order of any other 

[ Page 5593 ]

tribunal. The only set-aside power that is here is for an ICBC order. For instance, there wouldn't be the power -- at least under this subsection -- for the justice to say: "I'm sorry, we made an order under the Waste Management Act" -- or whatever other statute is causing the problem -- "but you're stuck with that. There's no relief from that penalty."

It may be that I'm misunderstanding what's going on here, so I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General for an explanation that would clarify my misunderstanding.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member may be correct. That may be a problem with this piece of legislation as it develops and deals with seizure of things with respect to other legislation, with other violations with which it would deal. Currently there is no provision, and we may hit a snag. We would obviously look at that.

G. Plant: I suppose it's good to realize that I may actually have understood it, but I will obviously encourage the Attorney General to take a close look to see whether or not there is a problem there, and to fix it. It would be quite unfortunate if the whole process of essentially giving an accused person the opportunity to obtain relief from the forfeiture -- if I can call it that -- would really be frustrated by the fact that the second justice would not have an opportunity to set aside an order that had been made previously. But I think the Attorney General has the point, and I'll leave it with him.

One last issue with respect to what is section 1 of this act. . . . I think this is essentially old language, except for the insertion of the reference to an appearance. But I take it that the way this works is that an accused person gets his or her second chance, and if they don't appear the second time around either at the hearing or at the first appearance, everything moves into. . . . You're deemed not to have disputed, and essentially, a guilty finding is made.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct. I just want to reassure the hon. member that we have been dealing with other provincial offences under this legislation. We haven't had a problem with respect to the possible deficiency that the hon. member has pointed out, but we would certainly take a look at it. If it's not required, it won't be done; if it's required, it will be done.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: In a sense, this is a consequential amendment that deals with more significant provisions that come later. I will probably want to spend a little more time with the more significant provisions, but there were two questions that occurred to me here.

The context includes the fact that the old seizure provisions in the act, prior to this amendment, generally required the peace officer who has seized something to in fact bring it before the justice of the peace. As I understand the intent of the amendments, it is to allow the peace officer, rather than bringing "the thing," to bring a report of it before a judge. I'm sure that's a good idea, if the thing in question is a 400,000-gallon double boiler from a pulp mill. Maybe later we'll deal with what constitutes a report.

I guess this question could be asked in other places, but I'll ask it now. There isn't an express obligation here that I can find, on the part of the peace officer, to maintain custody in a particular way of the thing seized. I may have missed it, and the Attorney General can probably shortcut the whole dialogue by pointing that out to me. But clearly, at least from my perspective, what we had was an old system where the thing itself would come before the justice and presumably be dealt with according to the justice's orders. Now we have a situation where the thing may be kept somewhere else, and the justice gets a report of it.

I just want to be sure that there is some process, some mechanism, some assurance around an obligation to maintain custody of the thing. It seems to me that that works for two purposes. On the one hand, clearly, a prosecuting agency needs to be able to establish continuity in some cases, in order to prove an offence. But equally the case, there will be situations where the thing seized is an object of some value to somebody, who will want it back at the end of the whole process.

Can the Attorney General assure me that somewhere in all of this -- expressly, hopefully, or if not, by implication -- there is, in fact and in effect, an obligation to maintain the thing seized in safe and secure custody?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Under the law as it exists, and in practice, there is, of course, the need to maintain continuity of custody for evidentiary purposes. There is also the obligation to not allow "a thing" to be wasted, so that it could be returned. That is as the law stands; that's why there is no explicit reference to it in these amendments.

G. Plant: Moving ahead, if I may, then, to section 2(b), this adds a subsection that imposes a time requirement, I suppose, in respect of bringing a thing or a report of a thing before a justice, to be dealt with under section 24, and I think the time requirement is new. The language there is that. . . . It says that if a thing is seized under this section, as soon as reasonably possible after the seizure, the person who executed the warrant must bring it before a justice. Am I right that the language "as soon as reasonably possible" is new? If I'm right, what is intended by that language?

[5:15]

G. Plant: Well, at the risk of getting an advance reading on that, I'm curious to know what, from the ministry's perspective, the difference is between "as soon as reasonably practicable. . . ." Actually, I guess the phrase was "as soon as practicable." So we moved from the phrase "as soon as practicable" to the phrase "as soon as reasonably possible." Is the Attorney General of the view that those words essentially mean the same thing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand this is an attempt to recast the legislation in simple language.

G. Plant: So this subsection is a victim of the plain-language movement. Taking into account everything the Attorney General says about the fact that it will be subject to judicial interpretation -- and I agree with him that that is exactly what is bound to happen -- the point for present purposes is this: from his perspective, there's no intention to 

[ Page 5594 ]

change the policy in respect of the speed at which someone is supposed to be moving to bring things before justices of the peace.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. There is no intention to change time periods at all.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: There is the same language change here. As I recall, the old language was "as soon as practicable." The new language is "as soon as reasonably possible." Am I right that again the intention is simply to update the language and not to change the nature of the obligation in any substantive way?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I'm just rising to halt proceedings for a moment while I see if there was any other change in that subsection. There is change in the language. There's quite a bit of change in the language. Is there an intent to do anything other than to simplify the way the whole process is working in this subsection?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This refers back to section 24. The intent is that things seized pursuant to a telewarrant are also dealt with in the same way as are others.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Plant: Well, now we get into things that are a little bit. . . . There's a bit more change here, and I think that section 4 of this bill actually takes us through the next few pages of the bill.

The Chair: Hon. members, I was wondering whether you would consider discussing it and perhaps passing it on the sections as they are listed there? So we'd deal with sections 23, 24. . . .

G. Plant: Yes, why don't we do that, for convenience.

On section 4, section 23.

G. Plant: For the sake of convenience, I understand that we are now looking at the proposed new section 23 of the act. The old Offence Act, before this amendment, allowed a person who was executing a warrant in some circumstances to seize anything -- not just the things mentioned in the warrant -- that on reasonable grounds the person believed had been obtained by or been used in the commission of an offence. There is very similar, if not identical, language in this new provision. My question is really to get the assurance or the understanding from the minister that there is no intention here to broaden the power of seizure. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the breadth of the authority of the police officer -- or that person who executes the warrant -- is the same as before, except that if goods are now seized that aren't mentioned in the search warrant, you will have to now make a report with respect to those things and deal with that report as soon as reasonably possible.

G. Plant: So there is now a new requirement that if there is something seized that wasn't mentioned in a warrant, there is an obligation to bring the thing -- or a report of it -- before a justice. And that's new -- or is that not correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that a gap previously existed: that if you seized goods otherwise in the execution of your duties and they weren't named in the warrant, there was no mechanism to deal with them. You obviously got them without the warrant, but they weren't covered by the regime and there was no mechanism to deal with them in terms of bringing them before the justice. Now the same mechanism exists whether or not you receive these goods, named in the warrant of execution or otherwise.

G. Plant: I want to say that there may be yet one more category of items, that being the category referred to in what will become section 23(4) at the bottom of the page. It is something that is seized by a peace officer otherwise than pursuant to or as identified in a warrant, or is something that the peace officer believes has been obtained by or used in the commission of an offence.

In respect of those goods or items, whatever they may be, there is a slightly different regime. The regime is that as soon as reasonably possible after the seizure, the peace officer must either return it to the person from whom it was seized, etc., or bring a report of it to be dealt with under section 24.

I'm sure that this is all intended to make perfect sense. I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General to provide us with a practical example or tell a story, perhaps, about how this might all work. Could he give an example of how this might work in the course of a real-life situation so I could get a better picture of it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If a warrant is being executed and goods are being seized pursuant to a warrant, there is obviously a judicial process for the return of those goods to the individual to whom they might belong, if the officer believes that they should be returned. This deals with situations where these aren't goods named in a warrant. If a wildlife officer seizes somebody's gun in the performance of his duty, for instance, but it isn't named in a warrant and it is later on determined that that gun is not required, this then is the process either to return it or, if he or she wants to continue to seize and retain that for some purpose, to bring the thing in the report before the justice.

G. Plant: That's helpful.

There is perhaps a risk that in those circumstances, with the gun, to use that example. . . . Suppose the wildlife officer may be pursuing an illegal hunting case, and we start with the situation where there is a carcass, a dead animal that's been shot, and really, that's been the focus of the investigation, and that in the course of this, the conservation officer or the wildlife officer comes across a gun that maybe isn't named in the warrant.

I suppose the more typical example is that the wildlife officer has a warrant to enter somebody's house, opens the freezer and finds all the elk meat there, frozen. Then, on the way out of the house, the officer finds a gun and decides that there is perhaps the opportunity to do a little further investigation here. It's the kind of situation that gives rise to what the U.S. courts call the poisoned-fruit jurisprudence. We don't want to have situations where peace officers are given any encouragement to fish for items in circumstances where, if 

[ Page 5595 ]

they hold onto them long enough -- not having up until that point any legitimate reason to seize them -- they might generate enough evidence that would support the laying of a charge in ways that some people might find unfair.

If I've given an example that just doesn't work or if the reasoning doesn't work, then the Attorney General can explain that. I look forward to his explanation.

[5:30]

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's assistance on that.

Now we come to the really interesting question. What does the Attorney General think a report of a thing will look like?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The officials who are with me are trying to find the form that is currently in use with respect to the Criminal Code seizures. We are intending to use a similar form, or the same form, for this purpose as well, because these provisions are designed after the provisions in the Criminal Code.

G. Plant: The Attorney General intends that the report will be a document, either in writing or recorded permanently in some form of data record.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: In some cases, then, what will happen is that the peace officer will bring a report of something that has been seized before a justice and at that point will commence a debate about the operation of the various detention provisions and how they might affect a particular item. Essentially you have the peace officer coming before the justice and saying: "I have a gun that I acquired in the following way, and I have a carcass that I acquired in the following way." The justice would then embark upon the process for determining what detention rules should apply and all of that stuff. Is that a relatively fair summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's essentially correct. Much of that is reflected in the form that we intend to use, which is form 5.2 in the Criminal Code of Canada or a form similar to that.

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's assistance on that point. I'm sure, in fact, that the Premier appreciates the Attorney General's assistance on that point, because he was just following that last exchange with rapt interest -- so much so, in fact, that it caused portions of his anatomy to flail about in a very happy way. It was good to see.

That actually concludes the questions I had on section 23.

Section 4, section 23 approved.

On section 4, section 24.

G. Plant: I can't resist the opportunity to say that the use of the word "thing" is a wonderful example of plain English. But is it intended to encompass almost any potential object that could be seized during the course of an investigation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and the definitions so reflect.

G. Plant: What we now embark upon is a bit of a process for how long things may be kept and what may be done with them after a certain time. At this point I don't want to exhaustively take apart that process to put it back together again, but what happens is that there is a period for detention. There are opportunities to continue to detain the object after the period for detention expires, as I understand it, but there are requirements -- hurdles -- that need to be overcome if the object is to be detained for a further period.

Even if the period for detention has expired -- which would mean that in theory the object already ought to be back in the hands of its owner -- it looks to me as though there could be an application made to have the object still detained. It would be unfortunate if it were read by any peace officer as a licence to hang onto things after the detention period expired, and I invite the Attorney General's comment on that.

It also appeared to me, when I was reading this, that in fact there is actually a lower threshold for hanging onto objects after the expiry of the detention period than before it. If you look at the top of page 4, hon. Chair -- and I'm sure you'll be compelled to do this -- it says:

"(b) in the case of an application to a judge made before the period for detention has expired, the judge may order the continued detention for a specified period, subject to any conditions the judge considers just, if satisfied that this continued detention is warranted having regard to the nature of the investigation."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We believe that in fact the onus under subsection (5)(c) is higher than the onus under subsection (5)(a), because at the end of the day, the court has to decide that in addition to being satisfied that the continued detention might reasonably be required for the purpose of an investigation or relevant proceedings. . . . The court has to determine that it is also in the interests of justice to make the order.

G. Plant: There's the additional requirement that has to be satisfied after expiry. I appreciate that distinction.

That is the only question I had under what will become section 24, hon. Chair.

Section 4, section 24 approved.

On section 4, section 24.1.

G. Plant: This has provisions that would allow somebody who owns or has an interest in something detained under section 24 to apply for an order that he or she be permitted to examine that thing.

Is this a process that now exists? Or are there going to have to be new procedures created to ensure, for example, 

[ Page 5596 ]

that continuity of evidence is protected -- that the security interest that may exist around the item be preserved? Is this something new or just a continuation of a process that's quite familiar within the criminal justice system?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The first two subsections of that section are old, and the next two are new, just to fine-tune things and close the gaps. Actually, they were under another section. It was the old 24(5).

G. Plant: What I have is the old 24(5). It refers specifically to the Supreme Court.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that has also been changed.

G. Plant: As I understand it, there has been a change to Provincial Court, but the process is intended to remain substantively the same. I see the Attorney General nodding, so I'll relieve him of the burden of standing up and expressing his agreement with that point.

Subsection (3) in that provision allows the Attorney General or a responsible official to make a copy of a record that has been seized and to retain it even after the original is no longer detained. Apart from the privacy issues that may be raised there, is there not really some inconsistency between a regime that on the one hand, is fairly careful to limit the detention rights that the Crown has for objects but that, on the other hand, allows the Crown to in some cases apparently hang on to things pretty much indefinitely?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is in fact to facilitate the return of the original documents to those who might need them, to make a copy and use it for purposes of the case. Any concerns that might exist are of course taken care of by the Charter and the like.

G. Plant: I understand the way in which it works to facilitate the return of certain original records. My concern is what happens to the copy if it is kept after the prosecution is completed. Obviously I understand the point: you have a bank record or something like that; a photocopy is made; the photocopy then, by virtue of the proceedings -- the process in the next subsection -- can be used in evidence as though it were the original. So we have a prosecution. It results in a conviction, and that's the end of the matter. What happens after that to the document? I suppose if it has become a piece of evidence in a proceeding, then it is dealt with in accordance with the general law of evidence. Is that the intention?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct. These provisions mirror the provisions in the Criminal Code. Of course, if the material isn't used as evidence in the court, then it's returnable in any event, and a person can ask for those back.

M. de Jong: This will likely be dealt with in short order. Does the inclusion of the terminology "person who has an interest" in the thing alter in any way, in the Attorney General's mind, the existing jurisprudence about who would be in a position to bring such an application, who would have standing? My colleague referred to "the person." The logical person would be he or she from whom an item has been seized. Has that category been expanded in any way by virtue of this terminology?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: May I ask the hon. member to make a specific reference to the particular subsection that he's talking about?

M. de Jong: Where we see in 24.1 the reference to making an application to examine a thing, is it any person who has an interest?

[5:45]

Section 4, section 24.1 approved.

On section 4, section 24.2.

G. Plant: This section has the subtitle, "Order for disposition of thing seized." I take it that disposition is a pretty broad term in this context. It could mean the return of the object or anything up to, in fact, some sort of order for its destruction, if that were ultimately the thing that should happen to it. Is that a fair statement?

Interjection.

G. Plant: I asked if that was a fair statement. I'm sure it was a fair statement; I said it. What I really meant was: is it a fairly correct statement. But I'm sure that that's what the Attorney General meant when he answered the question.

In subsection (4) on the next page, which is page 5 of the bill, the judge or justice hearing an application has certain powers and obligations, one of which is set out in subparagraph (c). If an order cannot be to return the thing, in effect, because it has already been forfeited and sold or in some other way dealt with, the justice must order that in certain circumstances the applicant be paid the proceeds of sale or the value of the thing seized. It's not clear to me which it is to be or how the judge would decide which it is to be.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The court will determine which to order, whether the proceeds of the sale or the value of the thing that has been forfeited or sold.

G. Plant: So presumably the expectation is that the court would make whichever order is fair or just in the circumstance. The court -- the judge or justice -- would make whichever order of those two alternatives was fair or just in the circumstances of the particular case before him or her.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That was the implicit assumption in my remark.

Section 4, section 24.2 approved.

On section 5.

G. Plant: I have a question with respect to what will become, or what may be, section 6 -- I'm not sure -- under the heading of "Transitional provisions." I want to be sure I understand this, that the intention is that the regime enacted by this act will apply to all things that are seized after those sections come into force, and also to the things that were seized before the sections came into force, if they're still being detained at the time the sections come into force. I think that's 

[ Page 5597 ]

what subsection (2) means. I just want to have the Attorney General's assistance in determining whether I'm reading it correctly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's assumption is correct. It would apply to things. Whether they had been seized earlier, as long as they are being held, they're in detention. The new provisions would apply to those things, subject to the provisions of any other legislation that may override this general legislation.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Offence Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

The Speaker: I think that's literally just under the wire.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: I'm aware that before this House sits again, members of the government side may be sailing on the high seas. My significant other is in the precincts somewhere, and I haven't been invited, but we wanted to give to the government members a small token of our appreciation. Now, they're not to open this until they're well out at sea, if they could do that. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I had no idea the member for Matsqui was Greek.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, if the hon. member would invite me into the caucus office of the Liberal caucus, I'd be happy to open it there.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

L. Stephens: Before we broke for lunch, we were talking about the monitoring and compliance of various parts of the Environment ministry in regards to contamination of the land. We were talking about drillers and the well record system, the type and the amount of data that are required and the cost of doing that. Would the minister perhaps give some sense of what it is the ministry is prepared to do as far as the well record system is concerned, the kind of data that will be going on their database?

Hon. C. McGregor: The information that we're able to accommodate will include the digital information, which includes the well type, the well depth, the hydrogeological information, and the size and type of pumps. The information we're having trouble accommodating is the mapping component.

L. Stephens: Who will have access to these data? What kinds of groups or individuals will be able to access these data?

Hon. C. McGregor: Right now, access is limited through our offices, but over the long term we hope to have this information widely available on the Internet.

L. Stephens: When does the minister anticipate something like that happening? How much longer will it be before that is available?

Hon. C. McGregor: We really can't give an estimate of the time it would take.

L. Stephens: So anyone who is interested in looking at a piece of property that perhaps may have an abandoned well or a functioning well would have to go to your regional environmental office to access information that may relate to wells or well water on that particular piece of property?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that's correct -- or they could phone us.

L. Stephens: Is there a charge for that? Would there be any kind of a charge -- a nominal fee or whatever -- for that information to be provided?

Hon. C. McGregor: There is a fee for it. I've just checked with the ADM; he can't recall what the fee is.

L. Stephens: Certification of drillers is another area that I'm sure the B.C. Ground Water Association discussed with the ministry. That is one that I understand, if there are to be any changes, would need some legislation. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. C. McGregor: There were discussions in this regard with the groundwater association. It would require legislation only if it were to be a mandatory association. Certainly they 

[ Page 5598 ]

could as an industry, as a model of stewardship, create their own association, their own certification and list of ethical practice and so on, and that could be organized in a voluntary manner.

L. Stephens: There is an apprenticeship program, I understand, with the Ministries of Education, Skills and Training and Labour for the apprenticeship of drillers. There was a proposal that experienced drillers who have been in the business for some time would be able to have journeyman status through a grandfathering procedure. Has this taken place?

Hon. C. McGregor: It may well be that the Ministry of Education has such a program. We haven't been directly involved in that to our knowledge, and I would ask the member to direct her questions on this program to the Minister of Education.

L. Stephens: I will do that.

The third area is the depletion and mismanagement of aquifers. We talked a little bit about that earlier on, and again, the fact that we have farming operations and fish hatcheries and golf courses. . . . Could the ministry explain the policy for industry and municipalities around mismanagement and depletion of the aquifers?

Hon. C. McGregor: Could I ask the member to repeat her question? I didn't catch the tail end -- sorry.

L. Stephens: The ministry's policy for dealing with industry and municipalities. . . . I'm not talking now about farming; I'm talking more about industrial users.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have any policies within the ministry related to the industrial or municipal use of groundwater.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry not have a policy of reviewing industrial and municipal applications for permits to construct and licences to operate effluent treatment and wastewater disposal facilities? If you do, what kind of monitoring is done?

Hon. C. McGregor: On the matter of wastewater discharge licensees -- permittees, I guess, is probably the more correct term -- are required to submit data on the amount, quantity and quality of the discharge. Depending on their permit, it can be a daily or a monthly submission.

L. Stephens: If an organization, group or individual in a community should have some concerns around the wastewater disposal of a facility -- I'm just thinking now of Money's Mushrooms in Langley, where people have a lot of concerns about the water runoff from mushroom composting facilities -- and would make a submission to the Ministry of Environment, which would then come out and investigate, things would move from there to perhaps an investigation, an appeal and so on. Is that pretty much the procedure? Would the minister sort of lay out what a procedure would be if anyone did have a complaint against a wastewater disposal industry?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the member's general description is correct. When a complaint comes in to us, we go out and investigate the situation. If there's a need to issue some sort of a fine or penalty, then that's done. In the case of Money's Mushrooms, in fact, that has been done in the past. There have been complaints. We've gone out and done investigations. We've reported to the local city council, as well, because it is a matter of some concern to that local government.

L. Stephens: Could the minister talk a little bit about investigating the impact on groundwater quality from industrial and commercial developments, including chemical manufacturers, oil refineries and gasoline service stations?

[3:00]

L. Stephens: Is it up to an individual or group to complain or to make a complaint to the environmental agency if in fact they suspect or believe that it is happening? Or does the ministry have a number of inspectors that go out to these kinds of large commercial facilities in a timely way to monitor their operations?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is complaint-driven.

L. Stephens: In parts of the province there's an oilfield and gas industry, up in the northeast. I wonder if the ministry has prepared and maintained groundwater protection maps that are used in those areas to prevent contamination of those groundwater zones.

Hon. C. McGregor: Where those maps are available, that's part of the information that's accessed as a part of the permitting process.

L. Stephens: Is the ministry taking an active role in preparing these kinds of maps?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry believe that these types of maps are desirable and that they should be available?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member raises a very good question, because a lot of these. . . . The question she's raising around groundwater. . . . As a ministry -- I know the critic has mentioned it, and others here and yourself, as well -- we don't have a good, comprehensive groundwater legislative package and so on. These are policy matters that we need to take under very active consideration. I appreciate that what the member's questions are leading us to is a discussion about whether or not that should be an activity that the ministry should engage in. It may well be.

I certainly invite the member opposite and the critic and in fact her entire caucus to consider groundwater issues generally as a part in response to our action plan and perhaps provide us some advice on directions you think would be useful for us to head in -- always, of course, mindful of the 

[ Page 5599 ]

fact that we are subject to budgetary restraint and also of what public opinion is around what efforts we should or should not take around groundwater. But I take the member's point. It is something we should consider.

L. Stephens: This is just one final question. Having spoken to successive Environment ministers over the last four years or so and hearing their commitment to groundwater legislation and to developing some kind of legislation in that regard, and then to hear today that there really aren't very many policies in place, let alone what I would suspect was. . . .

You develop policies, you work through policies, and then you can develop legislation from that. So what I'm hearing is that there really aren't even any policies in place to deal with a lot of these groundwater issues. It's going to be very difficult to get from zero to legislation without something that at least appears to be workable or at least moving down the road to trying to deal with groundwater in some shape or form. Then, also hearing the fact that it's driven by a complaint process, so that the only time the ministry gets involved is if a complaint comes to the ministry about groundwater contamination or some other issue. . . .

So I guess what I'm asking is: what kind of a commitment can the ministry and the minister make today to, probably first of all, developing policy around some of these issues that we have talked about to be put in place and, secondly, to lead to what the minister anticipates it will take to lead to groundwater legislation in this province?

Hon. C. McGregor: I take the member's points. She makes some very good ones about the efforts that we need to make around groundwater. There's no doubt that there has been a bit of a vacuum on that from a policy perspective.

The fact is that we don't license groundwater users. There's a great deal of public concern around even a discussion on licensing groundwater users. It tends to be a very controversial topic. When you don't license, then you don't get good data. That's one of the reasons why we haven't been able to make as much progress on some of these issues as we might have liked to.

We have made some starts. Obviously we are doing some monitoring of groundwater, in particular aquifers in the Fraser Valley. Some of the other priorities we've done that impact on groundwater are, for instance, manure management strategies -- a very important part of groundwater contamination issues -- pollution prevention orders and pollution prevention technologies of all sorts that limit the discharges into sources of water, be they groundwater or surface water. So there are some policy areas that we are making some progress on.

But I take the member's point. There is more work needed to be done. We are endeavouring to move in that direction. With the release of our action plan this fall, we should begin to take the steps necessary to address this issue adequately.

L. Stephens: Just one final question -- it's more of an observation. I wonder if the minister is aware of or working on some policy or some regulations around disposal in the oil and gas field. There are disposal wells that I know the minister is aware of. So what kind of regulation is around the oil and gas industry and well disposals?

Hon. C. McGregor: We did pass a regulation last year on disposal wells for the oil and gas sector. We've had discussions in this chamber earlier about the need to move away from individual permitting to a more broadly based regulatory structure. That's indeed what this regulation does. It sets certain standards in place and limits for discharge, and that applies to the entire oil and gas sector.

L. Stephens: Thank you, minister, for the answers.

C. Clark: My colleague raised some very interesting points with regard to groundwater, and I don't intend to try and improve on the kinds of questions that she asked. Certainly she canvassed it well.

I do have a couple of questions, though, about the action plan. In my recollection, the ministry promised to do some legislation on groundwater in 1993 as a result of the "Stewardship of the Water" report, which I thought was an excellent discussion piece the ministry produced from the water division. Since then, every single Minister of Environment, almost every single year without fail, has promised legislation on groundwater. It was an election issue; it was something that my party ran on. We said that we would implement groundwater legislation if elected. We weren't elected to government. The people who have promised it every single year since 1993 were elected to government. So I'm wondering if the minister can tell us exactly when we will see legislation presented to regulate groundwater in British Columbia.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would like to be able to give the member that information, but I simply can't. I've stated to her and to other members of her caucus that it is an area of priority for me personally. It is also a priority of our government. During the throne speech, the Premier made reference to water as being clearly an area of environmental protection that we needed to move forward on. We are taking action by moving forward with this action plan in the fall. We will draft some sort of legislation. I simply can't give a guarantee to the member on when that will proceed. But I do take her comments about wanting to proceed with groundwater legislation, and I certainly am counting on her support when it does come forward.

C. Clark: When and if the legislation is ever miraculously presented to us, we on the opposition side will certainly examine it and look closely at it with the hope that we will be able to support it. Of course, we'll have to see what the contents of the legislation will be before we can make that commitment.

I can certainly understand why the minister doesn't want to make the same mistake that every single one of her predecessors in every single NDP government that has been in power since 1975 has made -- that is, to say, "We're going to have groundwater legislation, and we're going to have it by a certain date" -- because every single previous NDP minister has failed in that. I'm very hopeful that the minister will buck the trend, prove to be completely different from her predecessors and show some leadership on the groundwater issue.

I would like to know specifically, though, about the action plan. How is this action plan going to differ from the "Stewardship of the Water" report that came out in 1993?

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member points out, there have been previous reports given on water stewardship. In fact, we don't want to duplicate that work, because it really is a good policy document that will be able to serve us well in 

[ Page 5600 ]

terms of setting a general direction. We've done considerable consultation using that document, but we wanted to put out something that's really a bit different than that and that is an action plan. So it's a strategy through which we can deliver on the priorities that I mentioned earlier: clean water, groundwater, water quality issues generally.

An example might be continuing our strategy around non-point source pollution. We have a model program that we put in place with the capital regional district, in cooperation with their local governments, on ways to monitor and improve individual actions around non-point source discharge. So that's an example of an action that would be a part of the strategy document and that would show action on the part of government towards achieving our goals, as they've been outlined in previous policy documents.

C. Clark: If this is an action plan, does that mean that the "Stewardship of the Water" paper was not an action plan? How would that fit into the ministry's definitions of its various plans and planning processes?

Hon. C. McGregor: It was a broadly based framework document.

C. Clark: Okay.

I understand that like the previous broadly based framework document, this action plan is going to result in consultations after it's produced and distributed. Does the minister have a time line for those consultations and when they have to conclude?

Hon. C. McGregor: We would expect that those would be wrapped up over the fall period.

C. Clark: Will there be any guarantee to the stakeholders that after so many years of so many promises and so many consultations, this time these consultations will. . . ? I assume that an action plan is probably the kind of document you can take to the bank, as opposed to a general framework for discussion document. I wonder if the minister can offer the stakeholders any further assurance that there is actually going to be action that results from this plan and also some assurance that the action that results from the plan will reflect the outcome of the consultations that went into it.

[3:15]

C. Clark: In her answer, the minister specifically didn't mention legislation as an outcome of the action plan. Was that intentional? Is she saying, then, that the action plan isn't intended to be the basis on which legislation might be drawn up?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's fair to suggest that groundwater legislation would clearly be a part of this action plan.

C. Clark: When we were talking about groundwater, or when the minister was talking about it with my colleague from Langley, there was some discussion about the number of licensed wells that are out there -- the number of water licences we have in British Columbia. Given that the ministry doesn't have a data bank or any specific way yet -- and I know it is working toward it -- to collect that information and ensure that it is correct, I wonder where the ministry got the information that there were about 41,000-odd water licences issued in British Columbia.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think we have to be careful not to confuse water licence data with groundwater information. When we were surveying this issue with the previous member, we were talking about the Ground Water Association and some of their concerns with our data. It's not that we don't have data; in fact, we do have some data. We have 150 observation wells around the province that we used to draft that groundwater quality report. So we do have data and do collect data.

The question that the member for Langley was canvassing with me was how we could accommodate the concerns of the Ground Water Association in terms of expanding that data network. We are continuing to work with them to see if we can accommodate all the types of information they would like us to contain in our database system. That is a different type of data than is collected for water licences, generally.

C. Clark: Then for the water licence data, could the minister confirm the number of water licences that have been issued, which are currently out there in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 42,000.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell the committee how her ministry collected that information and how it stores that information?

Hon. C. McGregor: As a part of the application process. When someone applies for a licence, information is provided, and that is put into our water information system.

C. Clark: Has that been the case since water licences started being issued in British Columbia? Or has the ministry gone through a process of looking at all the old, old water licences which I imagine are out there, and revising and compiling those into a new set of data that is usable in a modern form?

Hon. C. McGregor: We have information from since we began issuing water licences. So we have that information available, and it is updated from time to time.

C. Clark: I take it from the minister's comments that there is something akin to a water licence data bank in the ministry, that all water licences are registered with the data bank and that the exact number of water licences which have been issued in British Columbia and are currently in good standing could be collected.

I see the minister nodding, which leads into my second question: does that mean that there are actually 42,000 water licences in British Columbia -- even? The reason that I'm pursuing this number is that if the ministry actually knows how many water licences it has issued in British Columbia, then I think it's a huge coincidence that the 

[ Page 5601 ]

number that the ministry has ever issued since the province started issuing them would happen to be an even number like 42,000. I wonder if the minister could maybe sort out my confusion on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: I must admit that they've owned up to the fact that it is not the exact number of water licences. We can find out that number. It is generally in the vicinity of 42,000, and there are 1,200 to 2,000 added each year.

C. Clark: What I was interested in knowing is that the ministry can find out that number. I wasn't aware before that the ministry did have a complete data bank of the water licences that are out there. It's nice to know that's happening. Can the minister tell me how many of the 42,000-odd water licences that are out there are reviewed each year?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, there is an annual billing process, so there is contact annually between our ministry and water licensees. But they're only reviewed if there's been a complaint or if there's a new application that will impact on other water licensees.

C. Clark: Does that mean, then, that whenever a complaint is received about a water licence. . . ? I'm thinking specifically about the major licensees, who are obviously more commonly the cause of a great deal of concern. Does that mean that every time a complaint is received by the ministry, a review is automatically undertaken of that licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, there clearly is consideration given to any complaint that comes in. It doesn't necessarily mean that every licence is reviewed upon every single complaint. When the member asked that question, I was thinking of the individual licensees, not the large licensees like Hydro. There is, of course -- and we did canvass this last night -- a review process in place for those large licence holders. So there is an opportunity to review those larger licence holders in that context. It's only on the individual water licences that a complaint would initiate at least an investigation and a look and then potentially a review.

C. Clark: I want to be sure I'm absolutely correct in my understanding of what the minister said. If an individual complains about, for example, the farmer down the creek who appears to be abusing his or her water licence, that is grounds for a review of that single water licence. But if a group of people or an individual believes that a major licensee, which has a much larger capacity to damage fish habitat in our province. . . . If they determine that that major licensee is damaging fish habitat, perhaps threatening a species or a run of fish, that individual at the moment has no avenue through which they can ensure that their complaint is acted upon within the water branch. That's my understanding so far. The review process that the minister has outlined -- which we probably need to go into a little more detail -- doesn't, so far, include stakeholders. It certainly hasn't in the Cheakamus process. It's a three-member panel, and at the moment there's no avenue for the public to have a say in that.

As long as an individual is complaining about another individual, that will result in a review of the water licence. But if an individual is complaining about a major licensee or, in particular, a Crown corporation of the government not living up to the conditions in its water licence, then the government won't do a review. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member is incorrect in saying that we wouldn't respond to a complaint. In fact, we would.

C. Clark: So far, I'm still under the impression that a complaint would need to be expressed differently in some circumstances than it might be in others. If it was a major licensee and not the individual licence, which the minister thought I was referring to at the beginning, what form would that complaint need to take in order to be taken seriously? More specifically, are there any examples of complaints from citizens and citizen groups ever forcing a review of a major water licensee in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: All complaints are taken seriously. In fact, an example might be the Steelhead Society bringing forward a complaint on the Alouette, which led to a significant review and a change in the water licence.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's comments about the Alouette, but that was an unusual and so far very, very unique circumstance that the water branch found itself in with regard to that licence.

[3:30]

I'm not thinking about just this licence-by-licence review that the minister has announced, which so far doesn't include stakeholders, anyway. I'm thinking about the water branch actually using the powers that it has to review licences. Most citizens would assume that it would be really negligent for the ministry to do anything less than go through a regular review of those water licences, to ensure that particularly major licensees are living up to their commitments under the licence that was issued to them. It seems to me that that would be a normal expectation of the public. If the public were aware that the ministry is failing to meet its duty in that regard, they'd be very surprised.

Hon. C. McGregor: Obviously some of these are a matter of judgment, as the complaints come in to the staff. We treat differently a complaint, let's say, between two neighbours over a water licence. . . . Quite frequently those are turned back to the two, saying: "Look, try to work something out; we don't want to impact on one versus the other." We try to set in place a mechanism through which we might be able to facilitate a discussion to resolve those issues. But when there are impacts on a public resource, particularly related to fish, that triggers a different level, and it has to be one of judgment.

We canvassed this matter with one of the other members, who felt that there should somehow be a list, a checklist that someone goes through. That's what would trigger a certain level of service and so on. Quite often those kinds of models don't address every single concern, and we have to give staff the ability and the discretion to use their professional judgment to handle the situation appropriately.

C. Clark: Obviously we have to allow some flexibility for staff to use their judgment. What's becoming clear to me, though, in the course of this discussion is the fact that the ministry has no regular process by which it reviews the major 

[ Page 5602 ]

water licences in British Columbia. That, I understand, is correct. There is no regular process to review major water licences in British Columbia.

Hon. C. McGregor: Member, I believe we canvassed this last night, and we did discuss the regular review process that we do have in place to review B.C. Hydro licences.

C. Clark: Well, let's talk about that a little bit, because when we talked about it last night, I didn't get the impression that the review was anything close to regular or anything close to consistent. A few questions came up in my mind about the review. I wonder if the minister could provide us with the terms of reference for that review.

Hon. C. McGregor: We did canvass this last night, and I will re-answer this question for the last time. We set up an interagency task team involving DFO, Hydro and ourselves to engage in a licence review discussion. We have agreed that we will review all 34 of Hydro's licences over the next five years and the ten that were listed last night over the next three years. If the member would like me to read them into the record again, I can do that.

C. Clark: The minister is quite correct; she did go through some very, very general principles under which the three parties have agreed to operate. She went on to say, though, that there is still a set of criteria that needs to be set for the review that I imagine would be more specific. That hasn't yet been done, although the review is underway, which I find a little bit backwards. Nonetheless, at least somebody's getting on with something.

Can the minister tell us how the principles she referred to -- these broad principles that the three parties have agreed to consider -- differ from the criteria that they're hoping to put into place as part of the review process when it gets a little further underway?

Hon. C. McGregor: I would ask the member to check Hansard. These questions were answered last night.

C. Clark: Well, the minister did get up and say something last night, but she didn't answer the questions, which is why I am continuing to pursue this line of questioning.

She did say, though, that one of the things that the review was attempting to find was a solution for the flows that would mimic the natural hydrological cycle of the Cheakamus. Can the minister tell me if that will be the intention of each of the reviews as they go on a facility-by-facility basis?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

C. Clark: If the ministry has entered into a review process with the intention of forcing the licensee at that site to implement a flow that meets a natural hydrological cycle -- and I believe that when the minister says that's true, it is true -- doesn't she have cause to question the sincerity of B.C. Hydro when they have now been ordered to mimic the natural hydrological cycle that goes into that dam and are suing the people that have ordered them to do it? Doesn't that give her cause to question the sincerity of the licensee at that site?

The Chair: Members, I have to again give a caution on the scope of this discussion in regard to a judicial matter.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I always take a refusal to answer as a yes -- well, not always, but I will in this case, and I think most people would come to that conclusion. When the three parties came together, and the ministry and the three bodies decided that they were going to try and find a natural hydrological cycle, and then the licensee says, "I don't want to be bound by a natural hydrological cycle," I would suggest that that throws the whole process out the window. Doesn't it?

The minister said yesterday that the process had just been suspended. Can she confirm that the process has indeed just been suspended? I would suggest that given the fact that the licensee is so clearly opposed to the solution the ministry's attempting to reach here, surely now is the time to throw the towel in on this process, because one-third of the parties never did -- or certainly don't now -- agree with the intent of the process in the first place.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think this matter has been canvassed. I answered the member's questions last night. I know that she is in favour of a more strong-armed tactic in dealing with Hydro. That is not the approach this ministry is taking. We prefer a cooperative relationship with industry and business.

C. Clark: I am not interested in strong-arm tactics, hon. Chair. I am interested in seeing a ministry that doesn't roll over every time a major licensee or the Ministry of Employment and Investment tells them to. I am supportive of seeing a Ministry of Environment that is interested in protecting fish habitat, enforcing the rules and using the tools that it has available to it to live up to the duties and obligations it has to protect the public interest with regard to the fishery in British Columbia. That's what I'm interested in seeing. I'm not suggesting that this ministry should go out and reach far past the powers that are allowed to it; I'm simply asking that the ministry fulfil its basic duties. The ministry has failed to do that.

I'd suggest to the minister that she might want to consider, as part of the next reorganization, maybe moving the water branch over altogether into the Ministry of Employment and Investment, because it was certainly misplaced by this government. Having it in the Ministry of Environment might lead people to believe that the water branch is there to protect fish and fish habitat and to ensure that the standards and the conditions of water licences are met. For example, you've got clause (j), which Dr. Ward refers to in his report, the Ward report, on the Cheakamus power plant.

I'll just take a minute to find it here. He says, in his discussions with the Ministry of Environment:

". . .staff indicate that no comptroller of water rights has ever issued an order setting forth the quantity and time of water releases to be made for the purpose of maintaining a flow of water in the Cheakamus River for fish propagation. This is surprising in view of the fact that this order was stated as a requirement in the conditional water licence (clause (j) of licence), which was to be settled by June 1, 1956."

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, this matter is before the courts, and I will not engage in any further discussion around the Cheakamus.

[ Page 5603 ]

The Chair: The Chair would like to again remind members -- and I'm sure a review of Hansard will confirm it -- that this matter has been thoroughly canvassed. Perhaps we should pursue another line of questioning.

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

One of the things that we discovered in the Hydro estimates is that B.C. Hydro knows exactly how much water it takes and diverts at each of its facilities; they have a good idea of that. They pay the ministry for every ounce of water they divert. In the case of the Cheakamus -- and I just want to refer to that report -- the Ward report points out that B.C. Hydro has been paying the Ministry of Environment every year for every ounce of water it has diverted, even when those diversions were over 51 percent in excess of the licence that it had to divert that water. Even in that case.

So we know that in that particular case the ministry was taking money for water far in excess of the money it should have expected, based on what Hydro was licensed to take. I assume from that that the ministry must have known that B.C. Hydro was breaking its licence. But I don't want to ask about the Cheakamus because I know that's under consideration by the courts.

Can the minister tell me if it is normal practice for her ministry to accept payment for all the water that B.C. Hydro may or may not divert in excess of its licence at all of its sites?

[3:45]

C. Clark: Well, if it was the ministry's past practice to accept money for water that was diverted in excess of the amount the ministry said that the licensee could divert. . . . I guess the simple way to put that is that the ministry. . . . I don't necessarily lay blame for this at the feet of whichever licensee it might be. I suppose any given licensee has a purpose for which they need the water, and human nature would dictate that they may want to fulfil and exceed what they can do with that water. They may want to make the best of the resource that they can and use as much of it as they can, and that might be a natural human impulse. But surely it's the responsibility of the ministry to make sure that when they issue a licence for water, the licensee is living up to that licence. Because the nature of a water licence is to protect everybody else who has an interest in that river or that stream.

Some of these water courses we're talking about are an enormous resource for British Columbians because of the way they support our fish habitat. I would argue that in the past the ministry, through its water branch, has failed consistently to meet its obligations to protect the fish habitat in British Columbia, and not just many, many years ago. Certainly we're talking about from 1991 until maybe very recently. Can the minister tell me if it was the ministry's practice in the past to accept money for water taken by licensees that they weren't supposed to be taking? If that was the past practice, can the minister tell me if that practice has changed and if the ministry will no longer, under any circumstances, accept payment for water that is diverted in excess of the amount for which the licensee holds a licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to be clear that I am not trying to defend anything that's happened in the past. What's happened in the past is in the past, and there's nothing that I can do as minister responsible to change what has gone on in the past. We have to move forward, and we have ensured. . . . Currently B.C. Hydro is in compliance, and we are continuing to monitor to ensure that they remain in compliance.

C. Clark: Is the minister saying, then, that if major licensees do not continue to comply with their licences, her ministry will automatically review that licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

C. Clark: If a licensee pays more money than it should, will the ministry start returning that money? What I'm looking for is: is there an actual change of policy here? Clearly it was the policy of the Ministry of Environment to accept payment for water that wasn't supposed to be taken. I would suggest that this makes the ministry complicit in some of these situations where licensees have broken their obligations. I wonder if there has actually been a change in policy to ensure that when the ministry gets more money from a licensee than they're supposed to be getting, bells will ring and someone will say: "Hey, you know, this indicates that somebody's stealing water." Will they return the money to the licensee? And a result of that overpayment, will they ensure that they will do a review of that water licence?

Hon. C. McGregor: We will continue to ensure that the major licensee is in compliance with its licence.

C. Clark: I'll take that as a no, I guess. Every ministry needs a little more money, although I'm very surprised that after discovering. . . . The ministry has known for a long time that the Cheakamus, for example, has been paying more money than was diverted. And if you look at some of the other facilities that are outlined in the Ward report. . . . The report looked at about a third of the major facilities. At the Bridge River facility, 109 percent of their licensed diversion was being taken; Lajoie, 105 percent; John Hart, 108 percent; Ladore, 115 percent; Strathcona, 106 percent. Of course, we know that at the Cheakamus it was 51 percent over their licence diversion rate. So can the minister maybe outline for me the internal control process that has been set up by her ministry to ensure that this policy change filters down to everyone in the water branch, so we don't end up with the same kind of really pathetic failures that we've seen to control major licensees?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll have to take that question on notice. We don't have anyone here that can detail how that internal process works.

C. Clark: Well, I'll put it aside, and perhaps the minister could ensure that the person might be available tomorrow. Or if that individual isn't available, perhaps the water comptroller who's present today would be able to seek out that information for us so that we can have the answer tomorrow.

Can the minister give me a quick number? We know that only 13 percent of the water licences currently held in British Columbia have any environmental conditions attached. Out of that 13 percent, how many of them that the ministry's aware of have been breaking those environmental conditions?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have that kind of detailed information here.

C. Clark: Well, I'm sure the minister will make every attempt to have that information available for us tomorrow.

[ Page 5604 ]

One of my great disappointments is that the Ward report has yet to be completed. I'll just enter into the record the comments from Dr. Ward's report on the ten sites he reviewed. In the covering letter for it, he says: "Note that we do not feel that our analyses are complete and this should be treated as a progress or a draft report only." Can I take it from the minister's comments about the licence-by-licence review that there is no intention of carrying on with Dr. Ward's work to complete the reviews?

Hon. C. McGregor: We've continued our work in that regard with the water use planning process.

C. Clark: So the water use planning process -- I think that means the licence-by-licence review; I think we're using those terms interchangeably -- has superseded and, I guess, basically stopped the continuation of Dr. Ward's work on this?

Hon. C. McGregor: As a part of the water use planning process, that analysis is done on a site-by-site basis.

C. Clark: I'll take that to mean that we cannot expect the third Ward report to come out any time soon. The minister will, I know, want to compliment Dr. Ward for the very comprehensive work that he put in. It's really top quality information -- not all of it either of us would necessarily agree with, but certainly it's useful information by an independent, unbiased third party with a proven track record of being able to determine some of the very serious issues that are facing the major licensees in British Columbia.

What I will do now is maybe take a break from this issue so I can allow my colleague from Richmond-Steveston to ask a few specific questions with regard to water.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on an issue that concerns the city of Richmond. I think it is a water issue. The problem from the city's perspective is the possibility that once in a very long while there might be too much water and, in particular, a risk of floods.

I actually have a letter -- I've made a copy of it that I wonder if I could provide to the minister. Thank you. I don't intend to conduct a cross-examination on the letter.

My purpose here is to bring to the minister's attention an issue that has been the subject of discussion between the ministry and my hometown. The issue is the construction of a mid-island dike. Just to put this in context, everyone who knows Richmond knows that Richmond is at or beneath or not very far from sea level and that without the extensive system of dikes that now exist, there is a significant risk that occasionally flood waters might rise to a level that would inundate some part or all of Lulu Island.

The existing system of dikes, as I understand it, is constructed on something like the expectation of what's called a 100-year to 200-year standard. What I understand that to mean is that they would be high enough to withstand the kind of flood that might come along once every 200 years. As I understand it, what happens is that when you reach a standard in a place like Richmond, there are then certain rules that fall into place about what is ground level for residential construction. If the dikes around Richmond were higher, for example, then the ground level for housing would change. In Richmond, the issue has been discussed for some time about whether or not a dike could or should be constructed more or less bisecting the island north and south, which is different from the current system that circles the island. What has happened, as I understand it, is that a fair degree of residential housing construction has been taking place on the understanding or assurance -- or the assumption, perhaps -- that a mid-island dike would be constructed.

Now the question, of course, is who will pay for this? That is the subject of some correspondence, including a letter which one of the minister's predecessors sent to the mayor of Richmond back in 1995. In March of 1995, something called the Fraser River flood control program expired. That's specifically referred to in the last paragraph of this letter by the minister. The minister then goes on to point out that there is currently no funding available for dikes. There is a discussion of a task force and other things like that. This is still an issue of concern to the city of Richmond. In fact, I think that with the passage of time it probably becomes more of an issue rather than less of an issue.

I wonder if I might impose on the minister for a status report with respect to this issue. I should say that it is a deliberate strategy on my part to raise the issue here in a public forum. If the minister has a bit of an answer now, but then thinks that it might be more useful to carry on the pursuit of this in the form of briefings, I'd be delighted to carry on on that basis. But I'd like to introduce the subject to the minister now, and hear what the minister has to say at this point about the current status of this issue from the perspective of her ministry.

[4:00]

G. Plant: That is helpful. I do want to thank the minister for her answer. I should perhaps just say that the material I received that prompted my interest in this happened back at the beginning of the session. At the time, I thought that we would probably get to the issue fairly soon. That was the end of March, and here we are in the middle of July. Actually, for all I know, the dike could have been built by now. But obviously that hasn't happened. I wonder if the minister could just briefly outline what the process is for this council. Is it something that meets on a regular basis to discuss these issues and that sort of thing?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, the Fraser Basin Council has representatives from the federal government, provincial government and communities. It is somewhat restructured from what it's been in the past. We could certainly provide you with details of the makeup of the Fraser Basin Council. But obviously it has as its goal Fraser basin sustainability issues, and that's their key priority. The first one that they've been working on is flood management. We're expecting to receive a report from them by the end of the year.

G. Plant: I want to thank the minister for her assistance on that subject, and I will take up the invitation for a briefing to get more details. Thank you.

[ Page 5605 ]

J. Weisbeck: I'd like to talk a bit about the dredging of creek beds. In Kelowna over the years, Mission Creek. . . . There are a lot of factors obviously -- probably clearcut logging, whatever. We're having silting problems. We're having the level of Mission Creek rising up with all the silt material coming down. It's created a number of problems, particularly in the lower part of it where we're seeing now that it's creating a high-water table. Every year there are a number of homeowners along the creek who are having flooding problems. I would like to know what sort of policy is in place for potentially dredging creek beds -- if there's been an environmental impact study done.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, first there has to be an indication that there's an emerging flood hazard before dredging would be considered. Then, once a decision is taken that dredging might be of value, what we have to do. . . . We work with DFO. We try and establish what's called a "fisheries window" through which the operation can take place so that it doesn't impact on aquatic habitat. There are limited periods of time that don't interfere with spawning, for instance, and so on. We find out when those windows are and do that work during those windows.

J. Weisbeck: Okay. Let's assume, then, that this has gone through the process. We've had a determination that this is to be done. Who's responsible to do this?

Hon. C. McGregor: We issue the permit. The private sector actually carries out the removal.

J. Weisbeck: The private sector being. . . . In this case, obviously the city of Kelowna would be responsible for this. Are there funds available, then, for the city of Kelowna, for example, to apply for help with this situation?

Hon. C. McGregor: There's no ongoing source of funds, no.

J. Weisbeck: I think some of the difficulties in the past have always been. . . . It seems to be a bureaucratic nightmare to have this happen. I mean, you get a situation where you have an emergency. There seems to be a number of different ministries that have to get involved here. By the time they get around to giving approval to get into the creek, the problem has obviously got to the point where there is flooding. What sort of process is in place right now to try to streamline this emergency problem?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member makes reference to emergency situations. In fact, through the provincial emergency program there has been a coordinating committee. This worked together. . .in which our ministry is a part of that process. As a member who comes from an area that was subject to potential flooding this spring, I would really like to take this opportunity to compliment the work of the coordinating committee and the PEP staff in particular, because I think they did a very good job of pulling things together in very short order, to deal with emergency responses.

I appreciate that the member is concerned with multi-jurisdictional issues. I don't deny that there are multi-jurisdictional issues, particularly related to fish. This is part of the agreement we have with the federal government, in terms of our B.C. fisheries strategy. It is to do more coordination between DFO and ourselves so that we don't have these sort of multi-jurisdictional overlaps -- or at least to reduce the frequency of them -- so we can work together to achieve goals, so that there's less delay as a result and, as you point out, less frustration when those delays occur. So we have an opportunity to work with DFO. Hopefully, this will help in the future with similar events.

S. Hawkins: I just want to follow up with some comments and a question regarding the same creek. I know that the minister is quite well aware of Mission Creek flooding this year. I understand there was a flood in 1990, and the creek was dredged following that.

I understand that Mr. Robert Hobson, who's chairman of the central Okanagan regional district, had some discussion with the ministry regarding dredging after the creek flooded again this year. There was a considerable flood and considerable mess made as a result of it. I understand as well that Mr. Hobson, after speaking with the ministry, has changed his mind on dredging -- which now takes us to diking.

I understand that it may be more appropriate to develop wider dikes or possibly a two-dike system for this creek. Also there was discussion, I understand, of side channels being created and possibly widening the creek. Can the minister comment on this?

Hon. C. McGregor: That was one of the projects that, during this year's flood preparation, we were not able to complete. But our ministry is reviewing with the Attorney General's ministry, which is responsible for the provincial emergency program, the potential continuation of possible dikes and others. So it's still under discussion.

S. Hawkins: Was there a plan in place, or has there been an analysis or report done on this creek, with the likelihood of getting a dike system? Or is this something that's new, that's just being looked at now, because of the flood this year?

Hon. C. McGregor: I've just been informed by one of my senior staff that we have drafted a letter to send to the city of Kelowna to engage in discussions between the provincial emergency program, our staff and their senior staff to see what ways we can address this issue.

S. Hawkins: If the creek. . . . Obviously something has to be done, and it sounds like diking is an option. Are there other creeks where this has been a problem and where dikes have been implemented and where they do work?

[4:15]

Nonetheless, I certainly want to put in as part of the record that we don't view this as simply a provincial responsibility. Obviously there's a lot of local involvement that has to be put into place -- local funding, in particular, and in fact zoning, which is more or less the purview of municipal governments -- to ensure that they are not putting additional personal property and public property at risk through decisions to develop certain regions. So obviously what I'm speaking to is a need for a more broadly based partnership. It's not simply a matter of provincial responsibility but one, also, of local government responsibility.

S. Hawkins: What kind of discussions are you getting into with local government -- specifically Kelowna -- with respect to this problem?

[ Page 5606 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: As I referred to earlier, we're sending a letter to senior government in your community to engage in a meeting with them.

S. Hawkins: I just want to bring to the minister's attention the kind of damage that the flooding of the creek has created for this creek. Unfortunately, there seems to be a problem with the spawning issue, certainly. One of the college professors, Peter Dill, has apparently spent years monitoring the creek and its effects on spawning fish. He explains in this article that the kokanee no longer spawn much above Mission Creek Park, because the gravel from that area has washed downstream. He feels this problem could have been prevented.

I'm hoping this isn't going to be pushed into paperwork and discussions until the next three or four years, when we get a flooding danger again and the creek floods, and then we start talking about it again. I'm also concerned by the kind of cost that perhaps the Ministry of Environment is going to put on local governments and local communities to help manage this problem, when, unfortunately, they don't have the resources anymore. We saw cuts in government grants to municipalities earlier this year. I don't think the local communities have very much leeway to spend on this problem. If the government is serious about the kokanee and salmon spawning in these streams and serious about protecting waterways, I think it's a little bit unreasonable to expect the communities to be spending money to do this. I think it really is the responsibility -- and the people feel it is the responsibility -- of the ministry. I will speak to the mayor and council when they get that letter. I'd be interested in hearing their concerns with the issues surrounding this creek in particular, but I just wanted to put that on the record because I think municipalities are stressed to the max. They don't have a lot of leeway in the funding they get and in the resources they have to spend on something like this.

This is not the first time the ministry has heard about this problem, because this has been a problem, it seems, that has been going on for at least the last ten years. The concerns have been raised with the ministry -- so far, to no resolve. We seem to get floods every three or four years, and, again, we get no solution. So I'd be very interested in the communications that the ministry has with our municipality. Hopefully, we can work towards resolving it. That's all I have to say, and I think the member for Okanagan-Boundary has some concerns, as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd just like to respond briefly to the member's final remarks. I hope she doesn't believe that financial demands are something that are only the concern of local government. I can attest to the fact that within the provincial government, we have many financial concerns as well. The constraints that local government feels are reflected in provincial government programs as well.

While I appreciate the member's interest and desire to protect salmon habitat, which is one I share, there may be an opportunity through the Fish Protection Act -- if this stream were to fit criteria developed for a sensitive stream, for instance -- where additional funds could flow to do the kind of diking work that would help to restore a very important fish habitat and type of fish for that area. So there are some other opportunities, I think, for us to look at.

I appreciate that the member is frustrated by flooding. That flooding occurred in her community, it occurred in mine, and it occurred in the communities of some of her colleagues that are sitting with her today. Flooding is a natural event that we can't always control. We do need to take protective measures as we can. I think the government did a very fine job this spring of putting in place and spending considerable provincial resources to try and protect, first, personal safety and also property of individuals.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate the minister's comments after mine. I'll just get it on the record that I think that the PEP program worked where the province had what they said was clear jurisdiction over the lands that were flooded. Unfortunately, there were lots of flooded areas for which I have gone to the Minister of Highways, the Minister of Environment, the Attorney General and local governments -- everywhere I can -- where there seem to be jurisdictional problems. Those folks are out of luck. That's another problem that's very frustrating. One of them certainly was in my riding, in Westview village. There's still no resolve. The PEP program unfortunately doesn't kick in until there's significant damage and there's a danger to personal safety or whatever. So there's a lot of unresolved issues around flooding in the riding, too.

I just want to ask the minister, then, because she did say there were maybe other resources or other programs that might kick in to help with this creek. . . . I wonder if the minister is talking about. . . . Are there any discussions about Forest Renewal B.C. coming in to help? I believe there's something called the watershed restoration fund. Is the Land Commission or Ministry of Fisheries being called in to perhaps. . . . I'm just talking about Mission Creek because that's in my riding. Are there any discussions with those departments with respect to this creek?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not aware of any watershed restoration programs that are going on in that area, but the reference that I made earlier for the member, related to the Fish Protection Act. . . . If that stream were designated as one of the sensitive streams for priority funding, then funding could be available through the fisheries renewal strategy.

B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for taking the time out of her busy schedule to do some touring of the south Okanagan with me during the flood stage. It was greatly appreciated, and a lot of people recognized the fact that we were there looking over the flood. A couple of my concerns are that just north of Oliver -- the minister has seen that the area to the east side of the river was flooded. . . . Well, that area is still flooded. I guess the concern that the people have there is that the flooding exists because the water levels have gone past the dikes. The concern is that the river level has actually come up over the years; it has actually silted up. I'm just wondering whether the minister could undertake to look at whether -- it would be a major dredging program -- something like that could take place or whether that is actually the case of what's happening there.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member raises a good point. In discussing it with the ADM, it may be that siltation is causing the lake to rise overall. It would need to be a decision of your local or regional government to suggest whether or not they want to engage in some sort of a study to see why it is that the levels are as high as they are. Certainly we could provide some advisory or technical support to that review.

B. Barisoff: It isn't actually the lake level that has risen; it's the farmland to the east. If the minister remembers, we circled over that area where those greenhouses were all 

[ Page 5607 ]

ripped apart: it's all that farmland that's under water. It's not the lake level that they're concerned about. They used to farm the land down below there, and now, for whatever reason, the water has come up so high that they can't farm. There's a vegetable farmer there. I think the concern lies with the farmland; it's not the lake level. I think it would be a ministry concern. If it is the actual river that is causing this problem because of siltation over the years, then it's not a local problem. It's a problem that the ministry would have to look at through your department to find out whether that's the case -- that what is actually causing the flooding is the silt buildup in the river.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we'll have to get back to the member, because the ADM is not able to respond. He doesn't know the details of the situation, and he'd have to look into it.

B. Barisoff: Thank you. I don't mind filling him in. Give me a call or something.

Where I think a lot of the silting is being caused from is from the Shuttleworth settling basin that's up in OK Falls. What's happened over the years. . . . I grew up in that area and have actually spent time working on that particular basin. Years before, they used to do an excellent job of cleaning it out. It's not that they're not doing an excellent job for the kind of money that they're spending on it. I think the ministry has to look at the fact that more money has to be devoted to that particular project and to cleaning it out properly each year. What happens is that that's where a lot of the silting is coming from. When you go down the opposite side of the river and look down, you can see the silt that's building up alongside the edge of the bank for probably three-quarters of a mile to a mile now, that's going down there.

It's not from lack of wanting to do it, I think; it's from lack of having the kind of funds needed for it to be done. My concern, I guess, is the fact that with that, ultimately, sooner or later it's going to cost us a lot of money to fix it up. I'm just wondering whether the minister could look into this and make sure that adequate funding is devoted to that so that we don't have to pay huge costs in the future. Maybe some of the silt is actually what's carrying all the way down to cause the problems just north of Oliver.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, much as I might like to be able to commit to some funding for the member, I simply can't. But we can agree to a follow-up meeting to try to explore the issue and see what can be done.

B. Barisoff: Thank you. I guess that's exactly what I'm looking at. That's as much as you can ask for in today's day and age -- to make sure we look at it.

[4:30]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we can certainly continue to discuss that issue with the member, as well. The coordinating committee that I referred to earlier, which we're a part of with the provincial emergency program. . . . That general topic, the flooding in that part of the province and what we can do about it, would be a part of those discussions, as well.

B. Barisoff: I guess those are probably the major ones. There was some serious flooding that took place in the Grand Forks area, too, and there are some realignment problems that probably should be looked at -- what's taking place there. We didn't have the opportunity to see what had happened there. I know it's close to being serious there, at different points.

I must commend -- I think it's called PEP -- the provincial emergency measures program which looked after, in fact, the entire Okanagan. It was a job well done, including the Forestry people who went out and helped sandbag at Vaseux Lake. On behalf of all the residents of the south Okanagan, and particularly around Osoyoos Lake and Vaseux Lake, I'd like to thank those people for spending the extra time and effort to get through a situation that at one time could have been very dicey.

We could look at these couple of issues and see what's happening. Money's tight, but I think that some of those issues are the kinds of things that could actually save money in the long haul, rather than spending it on floods after the fact. I think flood prevention -- I mentioned to the minister when we had the opportunity to look at that -- not only in that area. . . . Some of the dikes throughout the province are due for some kind of maintenance program that would be ongoing, rather than waiting for the time when we have to pay the big dollars to fix everything up. I'd like to thank the minister for her time.

G. Abbott: I promised myself I wasn't going to say this, hon. Chair, but given that you've given me the opportunity, I just want to say that when I was a lad and old Shep was a pup, there used to exist, back in the eighties. . . . Actually, I was a lad considerably before that, unfortunately. But to grasp seriousness just for a moment, in the 1980s, when I was a director in the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the regional district got involved in a number of cost-sharing programs with local residents -- through specified areas -- and the provincial government through a cost-sharing formula under a program which I believe was titled the stream bank protection program. To begin with, could the minister advise what the current status of that stream bank protection program is?

Hon. C. McGregor: I must say that there is no longer a stream bank protection program.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise when the program ceased to exist?

Hon. C. McGregor: In 1991.

G. Abbott: I will resist the temptation to note the coincidence between the election of the current government and the end of the program. I'm sure that was purely coincidental, although perhaps the minister may choose to correct me on that point.

The issue of stream bank protection, obviously, has come to the fore again, as is indicated by the questions from my colleagues. I'm sure the minister, because of her home constituency, is acutely aware of the difficulties that a number of jurisdictions have faced in recent years as a result of a variety 

[ Page 5608 ]

of things. Some people point to logging practices, and some people point to climatic conditions, and it might well be a combination of all of those things. I don't know. I'm certainly not an expert on why these kinds of events seem to be occurring more frequently in the last two or three years than what we saw for a period of time in the early 1990s.

I'll leave that issue aside. The point I will make, though, is that because of these events, it's obviously highlighted the need for some constructive undertakings on the part of both the province and local governments to not so much respond with emergency works through PEP. . . . PEP is an excellent program, and I think they do a terrific job. But if we can, through local government and the provincial government, have a more -- I can use that overused phrase -- proactive response, we will prevent the events from occurring in more instances.

Now, I do want to say that I think Forest Renewal B.C. has been a very constructive force in the past year in putting resources into protective works, and I commend them for that. Actually, I commend the minister, because I know the minister has been supportive of that. But there will be many instances in the province of British Columbia where the need for protective works is there, but it would be very difficult to justify the use of Forest Renewal funds to deal with them. I suspect that the events around the city of Kelowna and the events around the city of Kamloops would probably be two examples of those. Certainly I can think of examples in my own constituency where it would probably be a bit of a stretch to use FRBC funds to deal with the situation.

Does the minister see any value in a reconsideration of some minor cost-sharing program by the province to deal with this situation on a more progressive or proactive basis than has been the case since 1991?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by saying that there have been significant expenditures through the provincial emergency program this year. The member makes note of some of the ones that went on in his region, my region and in the member for Okanagan-Boundary's region. We've all been beneficiaries of the spending in the provincial emergency program this year. A number of the projects the provincial emergency program has undertaken have been what one might call more proactive rather than simply going beyond the emergency repairs that were necessary in the case of some dikes and emergency diking and so on.

There is certainly no point in disagreeing, because I've had this discussion with other members on your side of the House on the need for us to be more proactive on this matter. It seems to make that old saying, "a penny spent. . ." or, you know, some metaphor. . . .

G. Abbott: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Hon. C. McGregor: Ah, there we are! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

G. Abbott: A stitch in time saves nine.

Hon. C. McGregor: There's another good one. And those are very good metaphors for preventive spending. Certainly I would be interested in examining ways we could do that. The member is aware, of course, of some of the spending restrictions and limitations we have as a government. Nonetheless, I do think that within our current spending, it would make sense to look at ways that we might be more proactive to avoid damage before it occurs.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that answer; that's good. I think the ministry should at least keep an open mind with respect to the possibility of a cost-sharing program. I can't remember what the formula was in the old stream bank protection program -- whether it was 75-25 provincial-municipal or vice versa -- and I don't know that it particularly matters.

What I have found particularly with the two instances -- maybe three -- in my constituency, where FRBC has got involved in doing some remedial works along stream-banks to prevent future damage, is that it is very useful to have the provincial government as a partner, even if it's very much a minority partner in the undertaking. The ministry brings some expertise to bear on the situation, even if it's part of a committee which is structuring remedial works. It's very useful for the locals to have that expertise at the table in terms of getting through the numerous regulatory hoops that are involved in the process. As I say, even if it was on a small percentage basis, I think it would be something that would be very useful in terms of putting those necessary works together. So I do thank the minister for that.

B. Barisoff: Just a couple of water quality questions. The one that comes to mind is Osoyoos Lake. Last year, when I got up in the House, your colleague the former Minister of Environment indicated that Osoyoos Lake had poor water quality. It is of great concern not only to me but to all the residents of Osoyoos. My constituency assistant was at a meeting all day today in Osoyoos talking about the water quality, and they are very concerned. I'm just wondering, considering the report that was put out last year, whether we could be looking at helping that community in some fashion to improve the quality of Osoyoos Lake, considering that it's probably the warmest freshwater lake in Canada. I don't think it's getting any better, and I think we have to do something, considering the tourism industry that exists there. Something has to be done now rather than later, because as the years march by it's a project they've been waiting for.

There's a sewer project around the lake, and they're wondering whether that's going to improve it substantially. But I think it's something that if we wait too long. . . . As you were mentioning before, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, an ounce of prevention will probably be worth the entire lake quality -- period -- and the tourist industry that goes along with it, which represents a substantial amount of tax dollars. I wonder if the minister has been brought up to speed on what is taking place with the quality of Osoyoos Lake.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the hon. member and I have shared memories of Osoyoos Lake in the past, because I used to spend all my summers on Osoyoos Lake when visiting my grandparents' orchard that was not far from there. So I'm quite familiar with the area.

[4:45]

[ Page 5609 ]

being a bit more proactive around the management of those and certainly encouraging the Ministry of Health to work with them on ways that those practices could improve. Those leaking septic tanks are a good part of the reason why water quality in Osoyoos Lake is as poor as it is.

The other issue is agricultural runoff. As we discussed earlier today, we have put in place some preventive measures related to manure management in the Fraser Valley. I'm not sure if that would be a strategy that could be applied in the Osoyoos area or whether it's more a matter of other types of applications that are placed on farms in the area and then end up in the lake.

Obviously they are long-term problems. Non-point source pollution is an individual problem that all of us are faced with in our communities. I know that water quality is a big issue, as well, in the Kamloops area. As consumers we need to be more educated on how our practices as individuals are impacting on water quality. I don't really have a simple answer to this. Obviously it's an area that the local government has some interest in and could take some additional responsibilities in managing. Perhaps it could also engage in a cooperative program with our ministry, as in the example of the capital regional district around non-point source pollution, education programs, and, as I mentioned earlier, it could perhaps do some work around the septic tank issues.

You did mention, I think, the possibility of a sewer project. I don't know the status of that. I understand that it is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I don't know if you have discussed that with him recently to see whether or not that funding is in place to be able to assist in that regard.

B. Barisoff: The minister is right in some respects, but the fact is that local government is seriously involved in it. From what I understand from my constituency assistant, Mrs. Shaw, there were 25 people there today from the Ministry of Environment, from the regional district and from council. There was everybody at that meeting today. When you start getting 25 people out to a day meeting like that, you know that there are some serious concerns. What I'm asking the minister to look at at this point in time is: considering the report that was made last year on the quality of that lake, I think it's come to the point where senior government has to get involved in making sure that we do something to improve the quality of the lake.

I don't think it's the farming as much, because we don't have cattle ranches. I don't think that's where the pollution is coming from. I think it has a lot to do with the sewers and the stuff that's around the lake. But I think it's almost imperative that senior government does get involved.

I talked to Municipal Affairs last year. I would ask the minister if she could undertake to help to give that little extra push to Municipal Affairs -- considering that the Ministry of Environment is writing the reports on what the quality is like -- to say: "Listen, here's a situation where it's one of the lower lakes of the province in terms of quality, and we've got to do something jointly, together with all forms of government, to clean this up."

Hon. C. McGregor: I can certainly give my assurances to the member that I would be prepared to discuss the matter with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but again it's a matter of funding priorities. No one wants to suggest that it isn't an important issue. I don't want to suggest that at all. Obviously, whatever decisions we come to, I have to be within the fiscal context in which we live. But if it would be of benefit to the member for me to talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'd be quite happy to do that.

B. Barisoff: Now that I've got the floor. . . . The critic for this area has given it to me in case I'm not here for a Parks question. I've got one. Going by Deadmans Lake just north of Osoyoos Lake, they had kind of a rest stop. They've had bathrooms there in the past, and for whatever reason, they took them out. I'm just wondering whether the minister could look at this, because people continuously pull into that.

At this point, they're not looking for the $350,000 or $400,000 biffy that they put at the lake between Greenwood and Grand Forks. I think they're just looking for something that would service the public. Even if they're temporary and are put there for the summer months and then taken away in the winter, that would be something that would facilitate looking after the travelling public there.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have anyone from Parks here to be able to answer your concern directly, but we've taken note of it, and we'll get the information to you.

B. Barisoff: That's the main reason I just wanted to get it on the record, and then I can expect to see an answer coming from the minister at a later date.

I have a couple of questions that I just want to touch on before I leave. I know the member for Shuswap is going to canvass this area quite substantially, and that's the milfoil problem that's taking place. I've got two areas that are of real concern to me. One is Vaseux Lake. If the minister has a chance to even drive by there, she can see how bad that lake has become. It's almost totally infested. I would suspect that in some areas it's unswimmable. The concern I have is that this kind of thing spreads from one lake to another. The other one is Christina Lake; milfoil is showing up there.

We have been cut back. I think both regional district governments have been cutting back the funding for the milfoil cutter. I'm sure the member for Shuswap has got all the facts and figures, and he'll probably walk you through it from one area to the other. I just want to express my concern on behalf of the residents of Okanagan-Boundary about those two lakes in particular. There is some in Osoyoos Lake also, but it's not nearly as bad as Vaseux Lake. I think Christina Lake's not too bad. I'd like to stress to the minister that it's something that we don't want to allow to get out of hand, because when you look at Vaseux Lake, you can see what happens when milfoil does get out of hand.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think we're getting to the point where I want to say that an ounce of prevention will lead to pounds and pounds of cash. I think we've heard the line a few times that we need to be more proactive, and indeed I agree generally with that principle. Unfortunately, prevention costs money, too.

We as a government have made a commitment to milfoil programming. It hasn't been as much as local governments would like us to spend. I have written to my colleague the Minister of Finance to talk to him about other methods that we might use to generate additional funds to build a fund for a milfoil program. If I could have the support of the members opposite in this regard, it would be very helpful in encouraging him, and it would allow us to make a decision to introduce some sort of boat-trailer tax or fee that we could direct to 

[ Page 5610 ]

milfoil programs. So if the members opposite are also interested in supporting that kind of an initiative, that would probably help us to create some new access to revenue so we could expand the program beyond what our capacity to deliver is at this time.

B. Barisoff: Well, I'm not going to tackle that one. I think I'll turn that one. . . . When the member for Shuswap speaks about the entire area of milfoil, he can tackle how he's going to fund it.

S. Hawkins: I'm going to defer the milfoil issue to the member for Shuswap, as well, since he has extensive knowledge on that issue.

I just have a short question for the minister. I wonder if she is aware of the Mysis shrimp problem in Okanagan Lake and its effect on the fish population in there. I understand there was a program initiated to try to reduce the shrimp, and I'm wondering if funding for that will continue.

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand that it is a very serious problem. In fact, the shrimp are competing with the kokanee for food in that habitat. There has been, though, through the habitat conservation trust fund, two years of funding into a kokanee enhancement program. This year I understand it to be about $268,000 for a program to try to enhance kokanee. In fact, early indications are that the numbers are up, so those kinds of efforts will need to continue in order to successfully compete with the shrimp population.

S. Hawkins: Does that mean that the minister is committed to continue funding for this program if it is proving as successful as she says?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's always subject to the application process to the habitat conservation trust fund.

S. Hawkins: Then I hope the habitat conservation trust fund gives applicants the consideration that is due, when and if they do apply again, because that is one area of concern to the residents and community, because that is a habitat area for the kokanee. We certainly wish them to continue.

I'm going to defer now to the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: After the major buildup by the member for Okanagan-Boundary about what I was going to do, no doubt both my line of questioning and my grasp of the subject will be revealed to be woefully inadequate.

Eurasian milfoil and its control are a particular interest of mine, in part because back in 1981, when milfoil was first discovered in Shuswap Lake, I had the good fortune -- or misfortune -- to be selected as the chair of the regional district committee that was trying to deal with the problem. The committee and the regional district have continued to work with the province for some 15 or 16 years now in an attempt to come to grips with the problem of Eurasian milfoil.

Just to begin, could the minister bring me up to date in terms of what was termed then, at least, the aquatic plant management branch? I'm not sure if it's still titled the aquatic plant management branch or whether it's changed. Could the minister advise if that branch still exists and how many FTEs are involved in it?

[5:00]

G. Abbott: Are the two FTEs that are in the Vernon branch effectively the liaison for the rest of the province in terms of this program?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what the goals are for the province's program over the next year?

Hon. C. McGregor: The milfoil program will provide technical assistance to a number of regional districts -- three regional districts in the Okanagan and in the Columbia-Shuswap as well. In addition, there are smaller programs in Cultus Lake, Christina Lake and around Nanaimo.

G. Abbott: Would those same goals be there for the next five years? Or are there broader goals involved, over a longer time frame?

Hon. C. McGregor: It was a five-year program set to expire in 1999, so it would be reviewed prior to that.

G. Abbott: At one point or, I guess, at more than one point over the years -- there have been cycles in this regard -- there have been a variety of attempts over time to look at alternatives to what have become the conventional methods of controlling Eurasian milfoil. Rototilling, bottom barrier, harvesting -- these have become the sort of conventional, accepted ways of dealing with the Eurasian milfoil problem.

But at different points in time there have been attempts to look at alternative programs -- i.e., biological controls and different, more scientifically based methods of dealing with it. Is there any work being done at all in this area at this point of time, either by this ministry. . . ? Or is the minister aware, outside of this ministry, of any work being done in that regard?

Hon. C. McGregor: Our ministry is not currently doing any of that work.

G. Abbott: Would I be correct in surmising, based on the minister's previous answer, that no work of that nature is anticipated in the next five years, as well?

Hon. C. McGregor: Not for the balance of the five-year program in 1999, but it certainly is an option that could be looked at for subsequent program development.

G. Abbott: The Eurasian milfoil is certainly the most prominent of the non-native aquatic weeds that pose difficulties, because they tend to get attached to people when they're trying to swim, and they get fouled in fishing lines, boat props and so on. Everyone's well aware of the problem that's posed by Eurasian milfoil.

Are there other non-native aquatic weeds that are of concern to the ministry at this point in time, apart from Eurasian milfoil?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there is another plant. It's not actually an aquatic plant, but it is one that infringes on the 

[ Page 5611 ]

riparian areas. It's called purple loosestrife. There is currently a variety of research going on, at the university level in particular. We're looking at integrated pest management as an opportunity maybe to develop some strategies to deal with it.

G. Abbott: Purple loosestrife -- could the minister advise us how widespread that is as a problem at this point in time and whether local or any other governments are addressing the issue of its spread?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is an aggressive plant. It's been noted in the lower mainland. It's not nearly as much of a problem as milfoil is. But if the member would like more information about this particular plant, then we could arrange a briefing to discuss with him the details of it.

G. Abbott: I don't know how much detailed knowledge I want to try to cram into my head on purple loosestrife. I'm not trying to trap the minister; I'm just curious as to whether there is any local or other jurisdiction that feels that it is of sufficient concern that they have actually been trying to address the problem, or whether it is something that is sort of evolving at this point in time.

Hon. C. McGregor: Not that we are aware of.

G. Abbott: Given that I have been away from this issue for a year or two now, could the minister advise as to what is the current spread of Eurasian water milfoil -- if indeed it is spreading? Has it entered into any new waterways in the interior or elsewhere in British Columbia? Within those areas -- i.e., Shuswap Lake -- where it has been a problem for 15 or 20 years, is there significant spread in the past year or two?

Hon. C. McGregor: In total, there are more than 80 water bodies in the southern one-fifth of the province infested with milfoil. Shuswap Lake is the known northern limit. But one lake that seems to have developed a more serious problem and that hasn't had it in the past is Nicola Lake.

G. Abbott: As I recall, again from my experience in regional district government, the Thompson-Nicola regional district and the provincial government had some difficulty in getting together on a coordinated program to address the problem of Eurasian milfoil in Nicola Lake. Have those difficulties been overcome, and is there a program to deal with it in Nicola Lake at this time?

Hon. C. McGregor: There was some work done with the Thompson-Nicola region on ground control several years ago; matting is the technique that is used to try to inhibit growth. But there is no current funding arrangement with the Thompson-Nicola regional district.

G. Abbott: Again, just to get a sense of the rate and type of spread that we need to deal with in relation to Eurasian water milfoil. . . . The minister mentioned that some 80-plus water bodies in essentially the southern interior of British Columbia are now affected. Could the minister advise as to how many of those water bodies have been newly affected in the last three years?

Hon. C. McGregor: We will have to get that information for the member.

G. Abbott: The minister may have to get back to me on this one, too, because it is a fairly detailed technical question -- but I think it's an important one. That is: could the minister advise, in terms of acres or hectares, what kind of spread we have seen in those 80-plus water bodies in the past few years?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll get back to the member on that.

G. Abbott: Turning to just a little different perspective on this: is it the intention of the provincial government to see more responsibility for the control of Eurasian water milfoil devolve to the local level of government, and a withdrawal or reduction in the role of the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: That is really a matter of future policy consideration. If the member thinks that is an appropriate way of handling the issue, you might want to suggest it to your local government. As I said, as a member of the joint council with the UBCM, that would be an appropriate vehicle through which we could discuss that.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure that it was a matter of future policy, anyway. Let me pose the question this way: in the minister's view, does the province continue to have an important or vital role with respect to this problem of Eurasian milfoil?

Hon. C. McGregor: I believe I answered the member's question.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure I did get an answer to the question, and I think I've been here for the whole time. Let me put it to you this way. The problem of Eurasian milfoil first emerged in British Columbia in Okanagan Lake or Skaha Lake, I believe. We're talking, I think, about the mid-seventies. Because it was a new problem, the province effectively moved in and had 100 percent control and 100 percent responsibility for the problem, and attempted to deal with it, as I recall, largely through chemical means, initially. That quickly became very controversial, as anyone who is old enough to remember knows.

[5:15]

The question I'm really trying to get to here -- and I think it is an appropriate question for estimates -- is whether in the ministry's or the minister's view, the province would like to continue to have a role in the funding of this program. Or is it something that they hope to see devolve to local government in the years ahead, presumably after 1999 when the current five-year agreement expires?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member has partly answered his own question in making reference to the current agreement that is in place until 1999. There will be a period of time in which there will be an opportunity for a review, when we can all review our commitments to this program. I think it is appropriate to make decisions about what one might do in the future in that context.

[ Page 5612 ]

G. Abbott: One of the sore points with me, and I'll be very blunt about it, is the failure of the provincial government to honour the agreement that they signed in 1994. I'll be entirely candid about that. I am particularly candid and particularly sore about it, in part because I was one of the signatories to that agreement on behalf of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. The agreement was a five-year agreement, as the minister has noted, which was to run from 1994, when it was signed, through the 1999 operating season. This five-year agreement was to provide a total of $450,000 a year to all of the local governments in British Columbia to deal with the problem of Eurasian milfoil. Again, just to continue this particular theme, from the perspective of the provincial government and indeed even from the perspective of this ministry, $450,000 is not a huge amount. I think there are a lot of programs that dwarf this one in terms of cost, and in many ways they are not as obvious to the public in terms of impact. So when I was the chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, I was very disappointed when the provincial contribution was reduced in 1996 from $450,000 to $340,000. I was even more disappointed when the overall provincial contribution in 1997 was reduced from $450,000 to $200,000.

I could try to engage the minister in an argument here. I suspect the response I'm going get is that the government had to make hard decisions and had to protect health care and education and that kind of thing, but I think that government is all about making decisions about the allocation of scarce resources. In this case, it's my view -- and the minister may disagree -- that the provincial government should honour the commitments that it makes to local government, or indeed to anyone. If the provincial government enters into a five-year agreement to provide $450,000 a year for a function, the highest priority should be to see that agreement realized and honoured. I'll let the minister defend the provincial position on that, but I think the first priority of any government ought to be to live up to its commitments.

Given that the $450,000 agreement was one that we. . . . I've been speaking on behalf of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district; I guess I can't do that anymore. I know that the regional district board of the day reluctantly entered into the agreement, because it's a 50-50 agreement as opposed to a 75-25 agreement. They were persuaded to go to a new funding formula by the security of having a five-year agreement. On that count, as well, I'm disappointed that the province hasn't been able to live up to its commitments.

I want to say at this point that in structuring the budget for this ministry in 1998, I hope the ministry will look very seriously at trying again to live up to the fourth and fifth years of that five-year agreement, in terms of their funding commitments. If the province doesn't have the will to live up to their side of the agreement, it's going to be very difficult for local governments to muster the resources to keep this very considerable problem under control.

With those comments, I'll be pleased to hear the minister's response to my rather lengthy plea.

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member knows, I am going to engage somewhat in a discussion about priority spending. Much as it might appear to be glib to the other side, none of these decisions were taken lightly by anyone in our government. It's been very difficult for us to make decisions on where to reduce spending. So it has been a matter of determining goals and priorities.

I appreciate the member's concern that the sufficiency of the funding for the milfoil program isn't as high as he would like. We made other decisions within the ministry. In particular, I'd like to draw attention to a remark I made a couple of days ago, I think, relating to staff reductions.

One of the things I said is that we carefully examined programs within the ministry to try where we could to reduce our spending commitments to programs so we could protect staff, because we believed, as the member opposite has said on many occasions, that there was a need to preserve staff in the field who are providing services to communities and who are providing very necessary pollution prevention measures and other important goals of our government. So it wasn't a decision entered into lightly.

I appreciate the member's concern that there needs to be more. Unfortunately, I've heard today from a number of members from the other side about needing to spend more money in lots of areas. I would certainly invite the members opposite to attempt to prioritize the requests they're making for expansion of programs. We can certainly take that into consideration in future budget planning.

However, this ministry is not the only one that is charged with looking for efficiencies and spending reductions. There are other priorities across government. They may not fall into Eurasian milfoil, and that doesn't mean that we don't believe it's important. There is still a budget line in the current budget, and as I discussed with the member earlier, the program is extending until 1999. There are mechanisms, I think, for us to review it together, and maybe there should be an opportunity for an earlier review. I would certainly encourage the member, if he thinks that's an appropriate vehicle for us to engage in a discussion with UBCM or with regional districts. I'd be quite happy to do that.

G. Abbott: I do think that a very useful and appropriate area for the minister and the ministry to engage in discussions on with the regional districts is aquatic management control. I think, as much as anything, that local government likes to know from year to year what to expect. It's very difficult for them, in the 1997 operating year, to find out quite late in the game that the allocation from the province is not going to be $450,000, but rather is going to be $200,000. As a consequence, they have to make a range of decisions about the implementation of the program that pose some very serious difficulties.

The related question here is. . . . Again, I'll go back to the experience of the development of the five-year agreement to which I was a signatory. We had some considerable discussions with ministry staff in 1994 about what the appropriate level should be for provincial funding -- and, indeed, the matching local funding -- to produce an effective milfoil control program. The discussions in 1994 led to, I think, consensus between all parties that the appropriate level to achieve effective control was $450,000.

I expect the minister will have to consult staff on this question, but does the ministry agree that $450,000 is still the effective level needed to achieve control over this menace?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it would be fair to say that we must recognize the value of spending in this area. I mean, obviously it is an important program. We've continued to maintain it even when we've reduced or eliminated other programs within the ministry. So we've kept it going, and that shows our commitment to it and the importance we place on it.

Would more be better? Yes, I think the answer to that is probably true. More would probably be better. But again, it's a matter of funding priorities. As I said to the members opposite 

[ Page 5613 ]

earlier, I have committed and have corresponded with the Minister of Finance to try to find some alternative means of getting some funds that we could dedicate to this particular problem. We've targeted a surcharge on boat-trailer licences as the way of doing that, because that is one of the mechanisms through which milfoil is spread. That might make some sense in terms of an option to consider. We are continuing to try to find additional funding.

G. Abbott: The reason I ask the question about whether $450,000 is still deemed to be more or less the level at which effective control might be maintained across the province. . . . One of the provisions that was contained in the agreement of 1994 between, in this case, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and the province of British Columbia, through the Ministry of Environment, was section 3(b): "That the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks hereby undertakes to submit to the Treasury Board an appropriation request sufficient to meet the needs of the services for each and every year that this agreement is in effect." That, I guess, begs the question of whether the minister can, under the terms of this, continue to make the appropriation request and whether that has been done. I appreciate, obviously, that the final decision with respect to whether the request will be accepted is up to Treasury Board. But does the minister anticipate continuing to fulfil the obligation under the contract of requesting an appropriation request sufficient to meet the needs of the services for each and every year of the agreement?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I will be making the request to Treasury Board for the full amount.

[5:30]

In summarizing my views on this, I suggest two things: one, that the minister pursue as aggressively as she can the proposition that I've made that this is an important program and deserves the level of funding which was agreed to in 1994. I hope the minister is successful in undertaking that. The second point I'd like to leave with is that I think it's very important to have an ongoing dialogue between the province and local government with respect to this issue. Again, I think that if the local government can appreciate from year to year the difficulties that the province is facing, but at the same time, if the provincial government appreciates the difficulties that face local government in terms of the need for secure and stable funding so that they can plan ahead and direct their resources in an appropriate direction, that kind of dialogue would be very much appreciated by local government, as well.

So with those two themes, I thank the minister for her straightforward responses to my questions. I think the member for Cariboo North would like an opportunity to ask some questions, as well.

J. Wilson: I have a question for the minister on another wildflower problem. Could the minister give me an update on the status of orange hawkweed in the province?

Hon. C. McGregor: We have no technical staff here who are aware of the orange hawkweed, but we are certainly prepared to provide materials to the member. If you want to give us a series of questions that you'd like answered, we'll endeavour to provide that information to you.

J. Wilson: Orange hawkweed is a noxious weed. It grows very readily on land that is not really fertile, and it has certain characteristics that resemble knapweed. It tends to poison the ground around it, and when it moves in, nothing grows there. The weed's seeds are spread, I believe, by the wind, and in a matter of a year it can invade thousands of acres of Crown land. It appears to be just overnight. It wasn't there the year before -- maybe the odd plant was. The next year everything is just solid orange. This year in the Cariboo, especially to the east of the Fraser, there is a massive invasion of this plant. It is everywhere you look on Crown land -- just red. As a result, you get a tremendous reduction in the other plants that would normally grow there.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Apparently the minister and her staff are unaware that the plant exists out there and has become a problem. I'm looking for some comfort to know that the ministry is at least willing to jump on this problem immediately and try to find a solution. I don't believe spraying is going to be the solution. It's going to have to be some type of biological approach that we take with this. Is there anything being developed or researched at this moment with regard to this plant?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid we can't answer the member's specific questions about what we're doing within the ministry, because we don't have the staff here that can provide us with those answers. But we will endeavour to find out for you and bring the information back.

J. Wilson: Could the minister tell me the amount of money that has been allotted to her ministry by FRBC this year to do environmental work?

Hon. C. McGregor: We currently have approvals from FRBC for $110 million in funding for a variety of different programs that could all be described as environmental work. The member will need to be a little more specific if he wants more specific information than that.

J. Wilson: I read an order-in-council last night that is allowing FRBC to come in with the possibility of protecting biodiversity on private land; they've even gone that far. To my way of thinking and to the way of thinking of many other people in British Columbia, there's been considerable waste within this Crown corporation as to how the spending goes on. Here we have an example where we have millions of dollars -- $110 million -- to go out there.

No doubt part of the mandate of the Minister of Environment is to protect biodiversity. Now, when you look at the effects of Eurasian milfoil or knapweed or things like scarlet hawkweed on the environment and the adverse effects they have on biodiversity, it seems to me a bit ridiculous when the ministry says we have no money to combat these problems.

Take knapweed, for instance. It kills everything around it; it kills all the other varieties of plants. Nothing grows there -- similarly with orange hawkweed. Now, surely to Almighty there's a solution here, when we have the money available. Surely there's a solution to apply that to noxious weed control, in most cases, in order to protect the biodiversity that exists at present.

[ Page 5614 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member may have a point that could be perhaps made, related to Forest Renewal B.C., in terms of how funding could be used. You'd have to discuss that with the FRBC board. The programs that we offer as a result of FRBC funding are incremental programs in areas related to the funding envelopes and the goals of FRBC, including watershed restoration, enhanced forestry, resource inventory, biodiversity research and forest recreation. We don't believe that the noxious weed program would fit into any of those funding envelopes.

J. Wilson: Not that I would like to advise her how to do her job, but. . . .

Hon. C. McGregor: Oh, go ahead.

J. Wilson: When we have all this money, and we have something that is so flexible, as the board of directors of FRBC can be -- when one day they're doing one thing and the next month they're doing something else, and then they decide none of this is working, so we're going to give $300 million to the IWA this year so they can run the programs. . . . I mean, there's nothing more flexible that I can imagine.

I would love to see this minister pick this up, carry it to the board of FRBC and say: "Look, we have a major problem here. We need money. We have to change these rules a little bit. After all, we've been changing them on a monthly basis for the last three years."

I guess what I'm asking is that the minister would give us some assurance that, yes, she will go out and fight to change it a little bit, so that her ministry can then incorporate the mandate or change the mandate of FRBC so that it can come in and do a job to protect biodiversity where it is threatened by things like noxious weeds.

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member opposite would like to draft some sort of correspondence to the board of directors, I'd be quite pleased to take that forward in my role as a director of FRBC.

G. Abbott: On a slightly different topic -- and I almost hate to introduce any new species into the discussion at this point -- there was a concern a few years ago, and maybe it's still a concern, about the spread of zebra mussels in British Columbia at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any recent concerns.

G. Abbott: Noting the hour and noting that the Love Boat is expecting you, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada