Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12297 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION
(continued)

G. Plant: This morning I looked at a letter which was delivered to me on May 4 in response to a letter I had written on March 19 requesting information to assist in preparation for the estimates process. There was a question I had asked about impaired driving. It is probably a question for the criminal justice branch. I recognize that yesterday we essentially sent Mr. Quantz home, but what I want to do is read the answer to the question that was given, and then point out the issue and leave it with the Attorney General. If he is able to answer it now, then that would be helpful; if not, hopefully, we could get the answer later in the day.

[1010]

The Attorney General will already have seen that between 1996 and 1997, if these numbers are correct, there was a precipitous drop in the number of charges reduced to driving without due care and attention -- from 6,334 to 831. It may be that there is a typographical error in the letter. It may be that the number 831 for 1997 and the number 859 in 1998 are not correct. There are public policy issues that arise with respect to the relationship between cases where there is a charge of impaired driving and cases where there is a charge of driving without due care and attention. I think -- at the risk of getting it wrong -- that sometimes people will have a charge reduced to driving without due care and attention in circumstances where the Crown considers that it will be difficult to sustain a conviction for impaired driving.

To get some sense of how the Criminal Code of Canada is being used in relation to the issue of impaired driving, it's legitimate, I'm told, to look at both the status of charges and convictions for impaired driving and the status of charges and convictions for driving without due care and attention. If there isn't a typographical error here, then these facts suggest there has been some significant change in charging policy. Perhaps I could begin, then, by asking the Attorney General whether he is able to say if the numbers given me in the letter are correct. And if they're not, what are the correct numbers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me preface my response by saying, firstly, that those are decisions that are made by Crown counsel in an absolutely independent way. They may tell a story, and that's something that we can discuss. But the figure for 1996, I am told, is wrong. That's an error, and I don't know how that occurred. The information went from court services, to prepare this letter, and that information indicates that in 1996, there were 460 of those cases, not over 6,000. The figures for '97 and '98 are correct.

[1015]

That's by way of a general preface, if you will. It now appears, based on these corrected numbers, that there is an increase -- a statistically significant increase, at least as a percentage -- in the number of charges reduced to driving without due care and attention -- from something like 460 in 1996 to 831 in 1997. That's not quite a doubling, but it's pretty significant. I have been led to believe, on the basis of what amounts to nothing more than anecdotal evidence, that there are instances in particular registries where people are observing, or claim to be observing, an increase in the reliance upon the charge of driving without due care and attention as a way of dealing with people who might be presented as impaired-driving cases.

The question arises of whether there is, in fact, a deliberate policy in place which is influencing charging decisions or whether -- from the Attorney General's perspective, as far as he knows -- this is nothing more or less than the ebb and flow of particular facts and cases. Is there a policy in place with respect to the relationship between impaired driving and driving without due care and attention that the Attorney General is aware of?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General responsible for the criminal justice branch isn't here. But if my memory serves me correctly, I don't believe there has been a policy change in the policy manual

[ Page 12298 ]

I think that these are obviously issues that Crown counsel deal with on a day-to-day basis. I think there is general agreement that over the last several years, there has been a reduction in the number of drunk drivers on the roads in British Columbia. That's due to CounterAttack, road checks and the like. There is a trend, because there are fewer charges every year. There is not a very significant decrease, but there is some decrease in the number of charges in this area.

I think these are simply decisions that are made by Crown counsel based on the evidence they have before them and nothing more than that. I would stand corrected if I'm wrong in terms of any policy change.

G. Plant: Perhaps I could impose on the minister or his staff to this extent: if there is an opportunity over the course of the day to pursue the question with the criminal justice branch and clarify the information, that he do that, and we can maybe revisit the issue this afternoon.

[1020]

In the course of these debates, we have asked the Attorney from time to time whether the ministry keeps track of the cases that are actually stayed as a result of the application of the Askov principle. Earlier, we here were looking at some numbers, pretty careful numbers, about the tracking of impaired-driving cases and charges and convictions and so on. It seems to me to be not unreasonable to ask whether the criminal justice branch is yet keeping track of Askov decisions. My understanding is that they're not. At least that's my recollection of the answer that was given to me about the letter I wrote to that question. That is, there is no system in place to track judicial decisions to stay a case for unreasonable delay as defined by the Charter under section 11(b). Could the Attorney confirm if that is indeed the case and explain why that is so? Let me say this: if that is something where the Attorney would benefit from consultation with the criminal justice branch, again, my apologies for not having pursued it yesterday. I'd be happy to revisit it, but it does seem to me to be a fairly straightforward question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member has recognized, we have made some strides in other areas. This is one area where we haven't been successful in tracking these numbers. As our computer systems are updated and improved, I'm hoping that this can be done, because this would shed some light on whether or not we are really succeeding in the ultimate objective of eliminating the backlog. The ultimate objective is that cases are not Askoved -- or at least not as many as there might have been before. That's been a real concern with me, and I'm certainly prepared to take a look within the next years to see if we can try to make some change.

G. Plant: Does the ministry have any sense of how many cases have been stayed under section 11(b) of the Charter?

[1025]

G. Plant: I acknowledge the Attorney General's commitment to making some progress in terms of getting this information. I could maybe make this comment: one of the challenges presented by all these kinds of problems in the court system is to find out how the court system is coping with a particular problem. It may be that if there was a time a year or so ago when the threat of an unacceptable number of Askov applications was becoming more like a reality, lawyers within the ministry -- at least, on the desks of individual people in the Crown and elsewhere -- began to respond to that by perhaps making decisions to proceed with lesser offences to ensure that they could get a guilty plea, rather than fight the case with the risk of an Askov application because of the delays. Again, this is a hard thing to track. It's a hard thing to verify on the basis of anything other than anecdotal evidence.

I hope as much as anyone that the case management process which is going to get up and running will provide the tools that the system needs to ensure that cases are not being thrown out for unreasonable delay and that Crown counsel are not forced to make unreasonable decisions about charging or proceeding with a trial based on factors like the absence of resources or of judicial or court time. I suppose that what's required here is the Attorney General's recognition that these are the issues -- or part of the issues, anyway -- that this project is designed to address and, hopefully, resolve as those new rules come into force.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the case management rules would be helpful. I do want to put on the record that in many areas of the province, the backlog has been brought down considerably. In other areas, we are wrestling with it, and I'm hoping that this will happen.

G. Plant: I acknowledge that there has been progress in reducing the backlog, in the sense that the statistics that are now available with respect to the number of months that it takes to get to trial indicate that there has been improvement

[ Page 12299 ]

[1030]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I agree.

G. Plant: Judge Metzger's report included provisions with respect to changing the way the family court system works, to some extent. Is there progress on that front in terms of Judge Metzger's recommendations? They actually were not Judge Metzger's recommendations; I can't remember who was responsible for that part of the report. It may have been Associate Chief Judge Schmidt. Could the Attorney indicate what progress, if any, is being made on the family side of that general issue?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There has been progress, on the family side in particular. Obviously the implementation of the new family-case-processing rules that expand the use of mediation under the Family Relations Act happened in December of 1998, just last year.

We also have put in programs such as education programs for parenting after a separation. I think they have all helped, as well as our emphasis on the family justice centres. So we are making progress in that area. I don't believe things have gotten worse in terms of the backlogs and the like in that area. They haven't improved as much as we would have liked; they are sort of at a standstill. I think that with the appointment of new judges, as they have been appointed, the court would be able to deal with all aspects -- family, civil and criminal -- more appropriately. There were pressures earlier to get the criminal backlog under control. Despite the fact that new judges had been appointed, some resources had to be funnelled into that area. Now we are at a point where we have a sufficient number, an adequate number, of judges to deal with all of the issues, particularly if you take into account the programs that are going in with respect to the family case-processing rules, the parenting-after-separation programs, as well as mandatory mediation in construction cases, which takes cases away from small claims court -- another area of the court that's somewhat overburdened.

G. Plant: At the risk of repeating myself, the challenge in dealing with these problems, I suppose, is a little bit like the challenge of stemming the risk of flood from a dike. Sometimes when we put our fingers into the hole that's leaking the worst, other holes start to become a problem. At least for the purposes of this debate, my goal was to get some acknowledgment that there is a potential risk there -- that there is a need to ensure that all areas of responsibility of the Provincial Court is work can be done without unacceptable delay -- and that we have the Attorney's acknowledgment of that.

There isn't, I suspect, much more that can be done on the criminal court front in terms of the backlog until we see whether the new rules achieve their intended purpose. We'll have the opportunity to do that over the weeks and months to come.

[1035]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is seeking information about the total amount of money that ICBC provides the Ministry of Attorney General. That's $17.7 million, essentially, and that, of course, goes into various programs.

G. Plant: Now I want to impose on the Attorney General to break that down. Let me exclude $10.74 million from the $17.7 million, which I understand goes to the public safety and regulatory branch for enforcement purposes and which includes something like $8.7 million for police officer salaries, $353,000 for charging-officer salaries and $1.7 million for costs related to operations and maintenance. My understanding is that those are the three components of the $10.74 million that goes to the public safety and regulatory branch for enforcement costs. But there are, I think, also amounts that go to court services and criminal justice. Does the Attorney General have those numbers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member's figures are slightly wrong. The amount that goes to the public safety and regulatory branch is $15.82 million, and the amounts for the criminal justice branch and the court services branch and judiciary are $830,000 and $1 million respectively.

G. Plant: I got the $830,000 for the criminal justice branch and then a $1 million figure, but I didn't get where it goes to -- court services and judiciary?

[1040]

[ Page 12300 ]

G. Plant: Maybe we'll get to the public safety and regulatory branch component of that when we get to that branch. I want to focus on the amounts that are allocated to the criminal justice branch and the court services branch and judiciary. The $830,000 allocated to criminal justice. . . . I want to be able to describe that in colloquial terms, and perhaps the Attorney General could do that. My assumption is that this is, generally speaking, an amount of money intended to permit the criminal justice branch to hire more Crown counsel support staff to prosecute motor vehicle charges.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is the court services-judiciary component of that $1 million directly an offset against the salaries of Provincial Court judges?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Not judges' salaries, JPs' salaries.

G. Plant: And what else?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just give the total $1 million breakdown so that the hon. member has it. This is how it's assigned -- and this is provincial judiciary: photo radar, $89,000; speed enforcement, $124,000; intersection safety cameras, $35,000; escalating speeding fines, $67,000; auto crime, $44,000; enhanced CounterAttack, $44,000. That's how they are sort of assigned -- the cost of doing business -- and that's a total of $403,000. With respect to court services, there's a breakdown for $596,000. This money does not pay judges' salaries. There are 3.5 JPs, plus the staff for them, that are part of this cost.

G. Plant: Are these justices of the peace people who adjudicate ticket disputes?

[1045]

G. Plant: Well, let's start with the first step in the analysis. JPs do have jurisdiction to hear violations and motor vehicle tickets. So JPs across British Columbia do spend time doing that. Isn't that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: So what we have is a situation where the government makes a policy decision with respect to enhancing enforcement against speeding violations and the like, whether that's photo radar or intersection cameras or whatever. The government then realizes that if there is enhanced enforcement out there on the streets of British Columbia, there is likely to be an increase in the volume of tickets and perhaps in the volume of tickets that are disputed and contested, and therefore there will be an increase in the number of cases that will come before justices of the peace for disposition. What the government does is actually project what that increased demand for court time before justices of the peace will be. The government goes so far as to say: "Well, systemwide, we may hypothetically need as many as three of four new JPs to cope with the increase in demand."

Then the government is faced with the question of where to find that money, and at least looking through the box of the Ministry of Attorney General, there is limit on the amount of money available, and there isn't ready access to the money from ministry funds to pay for that increase in the number of JPs and the attendant staff requirements going along with having those JPs. So it happens that the way in which that revenue and expenditure issue is dealt with is that there is an amount transferred to the Ministry of Attorney General from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is, hopefully, about enough money to, in a general way, accommodate that increased demand.

I conclude, from what the Attorney General has said that ICBC doesn't send a cheque which the Attorney General holds onto with one hand while he goes out and hires three specific new JPs. The money from ICBC goes generally into the pool of revenue available to the Ministry of Attorney General, but it's expected that the ministry will in fact hire those additional staff and JPs to ensure that they can cope with the demand that is anticipated because of these enhanced speed and related initiatives.

I think I have characterized the situation roughly correctly, but I want the Attorney General to correct me if something that I've just said in that fairly lengthy exposition was wrong.

[1050]

G. Plant: Which I would assume means that in a sense there's a double step, then. There is a step first from ICBC to the Ministry of Attorney General, and then there is this additional step, if you will, to the judiciary -- which is independent, really, of the basic operational funding of the Ministry of Attorney General. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Then, with that preamble, if you will, let's get to the public policy issue. The public policy issue is, obviously, a question of rent-a-judge. And there is, I think, reason from this situation to be concerned about the risk that essentially a Crown corporation is subsidizing the operation of the judiciary -- and reason to raise the question of whether that whole process by which the insurance premium payers who pay money to a Crown corporation called ICBC are ultimately

[ Page 12301 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I disagree with the hon. member's conclusion. I think it is appropriate that we have the intervention of the Ministry of Attorney General. I raised that very issue, in fact, even with respect to policing -- CounterAttack and the like. When I had heard that ICBC was going to give money directly to police to do an auto theft task force -- and the ICBC was out there saying that they were going to set up an auto theft task force -- I spoke very clearly against that on the front page of one of the dailies in British Columbia. I said that it's highly inappropriate -- absolutely inappropriate -- for any Crown corporation or private corporation to do so: if they are desirous of providing funding, the Attorney General is responsible for that; they could give us the money, and we would deal with it. It's up to us to receive that money and then to deal with it, and it's up to us to not receive that money. It doesn't involve the judiciary. The judiciary is at arm's length. I think it is appropriate that that's the mechanism. I'm satisfied that there is no impact on the independence or integrity of the judiciary, including the JPs, with the system that we have in place.

G. Plant: One can imagine the scenario if other agencies of government or Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro were to embark upon initiatives that might have an effect on the justice system by bringing more cases before the courts, and it would be considered appropriate for B.C. Hydro to make a grant of some amount of money to the Ministry of Attorney General; and the Ministry of Attorney General, by some remarkable coincidence, would then find an amount equal to that grant that would be spent ensuring that there were adequate resources in the judicial system to cope with that increased demand.

[1055]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the answer is yes, but with this proviso: at the end of the day, the money is in the Attorney General's budget, and we decide what use to make of it. If we decide tomorrow that we're not going to do what this money was sent for, nobody could ask for that money back -- at least for that year. I think it's important that that be recognized. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of this ministry to deal with that money as it sees fit. That's the cornerstone on which we then protect the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

G. Plant: Is there a document -- a memorandum of agreement, a memorandum of understanding -- between the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Ministry of Attorney General with respect to this $17.77 million? I'm particularly interested in whether or not such a document or agreement says anything about the issues we're talking about -- that is, the use that will be made of the money. What is the legal process, if you will, by which the money gets from ICBC to the Ministry of Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is no such document. It is being worked on, and hopefully, it will be finalized by the end of June. Obviously this is an issue that will be addressed in the way it's crafted.

G. Plant: Well, even in the fiscal year just passed, ICBC was making grants or contributions or whatever they're called -- payments -- to the Ministry of Attorney General that had something to do with photo radar and other initiatives. Were those amounts paid without any documented agreement between the parties? Was a cheque just handed over with a pleasant handshake, or was there something put in writing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there were interim agreements as the program expanded. Now we're trying to do a global agreement with all the elements of the program in it and with appropriate provisos to safeguard both the independence of the judiciary and deal with other issues.

G. Plant: Are the interim agreements available? Could they be released to the opposition, or are they subject to some confidentiality constraints?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I haven't seen them. They would be available, subject to FOI concerns.

[1100]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: That's certainly an ambitious approach to openness in government.

The question that all this related to, I suppose. . . . Putting it another way, having identified these issues and concerns around the independence and integrity of the judiciary and, frankly, the independence and the integrity of Crown counsel and other aspects of the justice system, I think there is a risk of a public perception that that independence and that integrity is being undermined through the back door, if not through the front door. For all that the agreements may say, I think the reality is that if the Attorney General decided tomorrow to reduce or eliminate the programs which these funds were directed to, there would not be a cheque from ICBC next year. He might have the money for this year, but he wouldn't get it next year.

So the question again is: is the Attorney General satisfied that necessary safeguards are in place and will be in place, and

[ Page 12302 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. In fact, that argument goes to the very point I made, which is that the functions of the judiciary will continue whether or not we get that money. It's really up to us in this ministry, at the end of the day, to carry on the work that needs to be done.

The fact that they give money is of little consequence in terms of maintaining the judiciary and the independence and integrity of the judiciary in this province. The money that they give does help; the money could come through different routes. But the fact is that we structured it in a way that money comes directly to the ministry that's responsible for dealing with these issues. And then the ministry deals with these issues in a way that removes the judiciary, including the JPs, from any taint whatsoever.

G. Plant: One can imagine. . . . Well, let's look at a little history.

ICBC and the motor vehicle branch were independent of each other; they were separate institutions for many years. In the interests, apparently, of administrative efficiency and expedience and all of those sorts of considerations, government in its wisdom decided to merge the motor vehicle branch with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. So we merge the vehicle licensing function with the vehicle insuring function, and now we take another step.

[1105]

It doesn't stop there. ICBC also ensures that there is enough money out there, in the world and in different organizations like the RCMP, to staff roadblocks. I'm told that there's also work done by ICBC in connection with road design. No doubt we will soon hear the argument that there isn't much point to having a separate Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Insurance Corporation of British Corporation. After all, who better to tell us how to make the roads and highways of British Columbia safe and effective than the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia? It may be that the MOTH-ICBC merger act is one of the statutes that the government will be bringing down in the current legislative session.

That's not good enough for ICBC. ICBC says: "Well, you know, the judicial system. . . . Gosh, it's functioning under stress these days. We've managed to persuade the government to introduce photo radar and a number of other initiatives. The consequence of all of that is that there will be more tickets issued, and there may well be greater demands on the judicial system. So what can we do, as an insurance corporation -- well, we used to be an insurance corporation -- as a corporation for vehicle licensing, ensuring highway design, intersection safety design and whatever else -- and oh yes, as a corporation vitally interested in ensuring that auto glass repair shops are adequately equipped with dustpans and toilet paper? What else can we do? Let's just make sure that the Ministry of Attorney General has enough money so that in its independence and integrity -- and completely insulated from any pressures whatsoever of the real world -- it will decide, in its infinite wisdom, that there may well be an opportunity to hire a few more JPs, a few more Crown counsel and similarly. . . ."

I wonder if the Attorney General -- and I realize that it may sound as though I'm being facetious, but I'm not -- can, in light of all that, be absolutely confident that the integrity of his ministry, the integrity and the independence of the functions that relate to the enforcement of laws in British Columbia, is in fact being adequately maintained, notwithstanding this process that we've just talked about.

[1110]

ICBC did not go out and create those laws on its own. We enforced those laws; ICBC cannot enforce those laws. We would have enforced those laws whether or not the money came from ICBC. That's the distinction.

G. Plant: I have one last issue around ICBC, but it's a quite a different issue from photo radar. It's an issue that relates to the court services branch. ICBC from time to time undertakes initiatives in respect of the way in which it responds to particular types of claims. One that has entered the popular lexicon is "no crash, no cash." I'm not about to ask the Attorney General to get involved in a debate about whether or not those are good initiatives or bad initiatives.

There is one initiative that has been brought to my attention that I do want to ask the Attorney General about. I am told that ICBC has adapted a practice in the case of minimal-impact actions to deny benefits and say, in effect, to claimants: "If you want anything, not only will you have to sue us, but you'll have to issue a jury notice." Rather, ICBC will issue a jury notice. So I guess one of the public policy perspectives here is that ICBC is saying: "All right, here we have a prob-

[ Page 12303 ]

Over time, I suppose, you could study the impact of that in terms of how it affects claimant costs for ICBC. It does, though -- at least in the early stages -- create the possibility that there is going to be increased demand on that part of the civil court system that has to respond to jury notices. Is court services aware of any increase in the use of juries? Is this a phenomenon that has come to the attention of the branch? And what, if anything, is the branch doing about it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't think there are any numbers here, but I think that process started some years ago, as the hon. member knows. I think it may have created an initial problem. We have not heard of any difficulties with it these days. I think that one thing needs to be remembered, and that is that we are trying to alleviate some of those issues and concerns by extending and expanding the notice to mediate still further.

J. van Dongen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to introduce to the Legislature today 27 grade 5 students from Terry Fox Elementary School. They are here with a number of their parents and their teacher, Mrs. Geissler, and they are very interested in the discussion that is taking place here in terms of the court system. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1115]

The sheriffs, as I understand it, are currently armed with 38-millimetre handguns. The question arises as to whether that is safe. The auxiliary program -- and the decisions made with respect to the guns that were held by auxiliaries -- has made available, conceivably, a body of 9-millimetre handguns that have a value. The question arises as to whether the 9-millimetre handguns that the auxiliaries used to have should be made available to sheriffs.

My sense is that this is a question that is under review -- that is, there has been no hard-and-fast decision made about this. Among other things there is, I suppose, at least the financial question. The firearms that the auxiliaries had have a value -- maybe as much as half a million dollars, if you add up all the costs. It does seem to me necessary, for example, to try and look for ways to make sure that the government doesn't lose that half-million-dollar investment.

Can I have the Attorney General's views on whether or not this issue of whether the sheriffs should have their 38-millimetre handguns replaced by 9-millimetre handguns is an issue that he has under consideration? Is it an issue he's made any final decisions on? What is the status of it? I should say that I have seen media reports in which the Attorney General indicated that the province intends to give away the auxiliaries' guns to the RCMP. That's part of the context for the question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this matter has been under review within the ministry. In fact, the hon. member knows more about it than I do, because I have not been briefed. I'm now being briefed by the hon. member, and that's a good thing sometimes -- to be briefed.

I think that if we can, at the end of the day, after reviewing this matter, utilize these guns with the sheriffs, it may be a good thing. I know nothing about firearms. Therefore I wouldn't pass judgment on whether or not that change should be made, although I know that all the other enforcement agencies and people that have guns -- in terms of peace officers -- have 9-millimetres. They don't have 38-millimetres anymore. The sheriffs are seeking changes. That matter is under review. If that can be done, that might be appropriate at the end of the day. Then we won't have to give them away to the RCMP. When I was talking about handing those guns over to the RCMP, it wasn't the federal RCMP. We were talking about the RCMP in British Columbia, so they could use the guns in British Columbia. Somebody misconstrued those remarks to mean they'd go to Ottawa -- not at all.

[1120]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct. The matter is under review, and I have not been given any options on that matter to decide one way or the other.

G. Plant: Court reporters in Provincial Court. This is an issue I should have raised during the briefing and forgot to. The general practice in Provincial Court is that proceedings are now taped and that transcripts from those tapes are made upon request, I suppose. This is not a new practice. But recently I have had brought to my attention the question of whether it should not be possible, in cases where one party or

[ Page 12304 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The assistant deputy minister responsible for court services tells me that that's an issue that hasn't been raised with him, and I'm not aware of the issue myself. I think the problems might be, though -- if one raises the issue and wants to think about it -- that if you have a recording and then a reporter sitting, which one of the two is certified as the record. But this issue has never been brought to my attention.

G. Plant: The Attorney General, I think, is quite right to identify that as a challenge. I don't think it would be efficient or useful to move forward on a basis where the official court record in all cases has to be the audiotape on the one hand, but on the other hand, litigants outside could essentially hire privately the services of a court reporter to prepare a transcript. The problem with that situation is that the transcript is not the official record and could be challenged. Its utility would be, I think, quite limited.

[1125]

I don't want to second-guess, at this point, the logistical challenges that might stand in the way of implementing this proposal, but it does seem to me that the proposal or the idea that in some cases, particularly in long trials, there may be value in ensuring that people -- lawyers -- have access to daily transcripts. . . . There's some merit to that idea. I understand that the Attorney General has not had his attention directed to the issue personally, but if he is saying that the matter is under consideration by his branch, then presumably we will await the outcome of their further deliberations on that and hear more about it in due course.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This matter is not under consideration. It has not been brought to anyone's attention. I understand that transcripts are available the next morning, if requested and needed. That's what I'm told.

G. Plant: I misheard the minister earlier. I thought he said that it had been brought to the attention of his deputy minister, and I guess what he actually said was that it had not been. If it is the case that daily transcripts are now available in Provincial Court upon request and payment of the appropriate fee, then that certainly deals with a big part of the public policy motivation behind the issue that I've raised. Could I just get the Attorney General to confirm that that is in fact the case?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told by the assistant deputy minister that that is the case.

G. Plant: I want to move on to the question of probate fees. The issue that I'm pursuing here is, generally speaking, the cost-recovery idea within the court system. What I'm hoping to do is get on the record some numbers so that people can see the impact of this revenue measure. I understand that it's not altogether easy to figure out how much the civil side of the court system of British Columbia costs. You have to make some assumptions. You can't sit down and add up the number of hours that judges sit in courts and necessarily, with complete accuracy, allocate them to family justice or civil justice or criminal justice. But there are ways in which you can determine something that might be called a workable expenditure base for the cost of operating the court system.

In the course of a briefing on this subject that I had a few days ago, the expenditure base number that I was given for the civil non-family side of the justice system in B.C. was $55.6 million. Is that the right number? Are there some qualifications that need to be attached to that number?

[1130]

G. Plant: Litigants in the civil justice system, of course, pay a variety of fees -- fees to start an action, fees to file motions, fees for juries and so on. But litigants or applicants for grants of letters probate also now pay probate fees. An increase in the probate fee was imposed on April 1, 1997. Essentially, there have been two financial years in which that increased rate has applied. Can the Attorney General indicate what the figures are for the collection of probate fees for those two fiscal years? If there's a projected fee for the year that we're now in, I ask for that also.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: For the 1997-98 fiscal, the actual was $21 million; for 1998-99 and for 1999-2000 as well, the projected was $27 million.

G. Plant: If you use the $55.6 million expenditure base for the civil non-family side of the justice system, the $27 million from probate fees is just a little bit less than half. My understanding is that if you were to bring into the calculation all of the other fees that are charged, you would get a recovery for the cost of the civil non-family side of the justice system in the order of about 103 percent. That is, more is collected in the form of fees than is paid to operate the civil non-family side of the justice system.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's true, but that also includes some Supreme Court family writs and petitions for divorce and other petitions under the Family Relations Act. They all require fees to be paid when documents are filed, so that would be included in this as well. But the provincial family court itself costs us $15 million, and that's not included in the $55.6 million figure.

G. Plant: So to the extent possible, we're comparing apples to apples. If you were to try and set aside that $15

[ Page 12305 ]

Interjection.

G. Plant: Oh, I see, we're talking about fees in Provincial Court, and there are no fees for family law matters. So I guess the Attorney General is saying that there's a $15 million cost component of the justice system, broadly speaking, that's out there without any corresponding fee recovery. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Nonetheless, the general issue that I want to get to from the numbers remains. And that is this: with the additional revenue from this probate fee, the civil justice system, excluding the family law side, has become virtually a user-pay system. The question arises, I suppose, as to whether that's good public policy. Does the Attorney General have any views on that?

[1135]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If that can be accomplished without hindering people's access to the system of justice, then I think that's a good public policy. If it begins to interfere with that access to justice, then I would have concerns.

G. Plant: To carry the Attorney General's thought process a step further -- and he'll get a chance to tell me whether I'm doing so illegitimately -- the implication is that. . . . I suppose the implication is that more affluent users of the civil court system are, or ought to be, subsidizing less affluent users. I'm not sure if that is the right implication. It does, however, seem to me to be close to right, because the majority of these probate fees, for example, are going to come from people who are writing cheques for $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 or $10,000 to probate estates.

In effect, the value of estates in British Columbia then becomes the vehicle through which the court system is funded. It may be that this is all a bit too esoteric. The Attorney General, I think, said that user-pay is all right as long as it doesn't compromise access. Is the Attorney General of the view that the current fee structure in the court system does not compromise access?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is the Attorney General's view, particularly when one takes into account the fact if you are impecunious, as we say -- there is an indigent applicant -- as an indigent applicant, you can apply to go before the court without paying fees. I think that's an appropriate remedy for people who can't afford those fees. Other than that, that is the Attorney General's view.

G. Plant: One occasionally hears the suggestion -- and by this I mean primarily now the Supreme Court of British Columbia, not so much the Provincial Court -- that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has become the playground of the rich and of government, because no one else can really afford to litigate there. That obviously is a composite of a whole bunch of costs, including the cost of obtaining legal services. But court fees are a component of that. I want to ask the Attorney General again, in light of concerns that are expressed about access. . . . There are other fees that have been imposed over the last year or so to increase the cost of obtaining access to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Is the Attorney General satisfied with the status quo?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that no one ever likes to pay any fees. I think that if one could legitimately avoid paying taxes, no one would like to pay taxes. That's the nature of what we do as human beings; I can understand that. But I think, given the fiscal restraints and the burden on our resources, that the current fee structure in place is appropriate. I say that particularly in the context of the fact that the largest percentage of what litigants have to bear in terms of costs is the legal fees for us lawyers. I think that, in the context of that, the fees are not prohibitive, and they are appropriate.

[1140]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This has been in place for some time. These fees have been in place for some time. I've been part of this government, and I support that initiative. Places like Ontario continue to do the same with a government of a different stripe. So I think it's important that we recognize that, as well as the fact that these fees go into general revenue. They don't come to the Attorney General ministry to support the justice system directly. They go into general revenue. The comparisons that the hon. member was seeking in terms of what the revenue is and what the cost is in terms of the court services cost. . . . Those are appropriate things to look at, but one needs to disconnect the two, because this money doesn't come directly to the ministry. It goes into general revenue.

G. Plant: Well, that's true with respect to all court filing fees, isn't it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I certainly wouldn't want the opportunity to pass without pointing out that the government that first got the bright idea of jacking up probate fees to roughly the level they're at now was the Bob Rae NDP government in Ontario, I think. So. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: No, it's quite true that the current government of Ontario, faced with the disastrous fiscal situation left by its predecessor, has not taken any steps to repeal that. But we don't need to go down that path.

I want to ask something about fine enforcement. At the risk of oversimplification, if we could divide the universe of

[ Page 12306 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of the motor-vehicle-related fines are now the responsibility of ICBC to collect. The other non-motor-vehicle court-ordered fines are the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General to deal with.

[1145]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have not been given that figure; therefore I am unable to confirm the figure. There's no question that there would be some money outstanding.

G. Plant: Then let me get to the other issue. Recently the Criminal Code was changed to make different provisions for the sentencing of offenders to serve time in default of non-payment of fines. The court services branch follows certain practices with respect to enforcing fines. If you look at the number of fines outstanding and the balance outstanding in fines -- fines for which the court services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General is responsible for collecting -- it does not appear that there has been any significant increase in the number of fines outstanding. But the balance outstanding is rising incrementally. To what does the Attorney General attribute. . . ? What are the causes of what's happening with these numbers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member looks at the number of fines outstanding, they are stable. I think the reason that the amount -- the balance outstanding -- has changed is that the fines have gone up. The fine surcharge and other things have been added, and some fines have been increased. That's the reason that has happened.

[1150]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On that note, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:13 a.m.

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

M. Coell: Just to finish up our discussion of fees and increases for parks and Crown lands, I'll leave the minister with two thoughts. One is that in the past, provincial parks were seen as an affordable holiday. It also has a great effect on surrounding communities in that if people are going to our parks system, they're buying food and gas and possibly staying in a motel for one night. So there is a generation of other spinoff benefits for B.C. parks. I've had a number of letters where people have said: "I'll be making fewer trips or less use of the parks system in some of the more remote parks because of the increases." So that may have an effect. I hope it doesn't, but I suggest that it is a possibility.

The other one. . . . I had, over the course of the year, a number of comments from people, saying: "Well, I'll just find a place and make my own campground on Crown lands or on private lands" -- which we all know does take place and does create problems like pollution, forest fires and a range of other things. When we increase fees, there are other side effects -- not benefits -- on the province.

I wonder if we could move for a moment to the construction of facilities in parks and whether the minister could update me on the campsites that were in last year's budget. How many of them were completed, and were they on budget?

Hon. C. McGregor: We completed 502 campgrounds, and they were all on budget.

[ Page 12307 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: It was a two-year program. We began with 500 last year, and the goal is 1,000 this year. A lot of the reason we structured it that way was because it takes some planning. It has to go ahead of some of the campsite construction. The ones that we had already planned -- and had plans in place that we could easily implement -- were the first batch of 500. As we worked on active construction of the 500, we worked on identifying sites and putting in place plans for the second phase.

[1015]

Hon. C. McGregor: As the member knows, our campground expansion program is designed to try and take the pressure off some of the more popular locations around the province. So we've identified some sites, and we're quite confident that we'll be able to achieve our goal.

M. Coell: The construction of the sites -- when do you anticipate construction being started and completed?

Hon. C. McGregor: There is some work still ongoing. It does depend on the location of the park. Some can begin earlier than others. Some can go on through the fall, whereas in other parts of the province that's more difficult. But we expect that we will begin within a month and that everything will be finished by October.

K. Krueger: I want to make inquiries about road maintenance in Wells Gray Park -- a couple of roads, specifically. Last year the road up to Trophy Mountain meadows, which is a very popular place to go to look at alpine flowers, was cut by a water bar. These water bars, as I understand it, are presented as an erosion control device. But some of them are built rather overzealously, and people can't get through them. There are a lot of elderly people who use the road up to Trophy Mountain meadows, and they were cut off for quite a while. FRBC and others did pull some money together and get the problem fixed, in order that the whole season was not lost. Wells Gray Park is a tremendous economic generator for the whole Clearwater area. People are very proud of it, and access is so important.

I want to be on the record with the minister as to what measures will be taken to ensure that access is maintained both to the Trophy Mountain meadows and also to Clearwater River Road, which seems to be in question each year as to whether it will be opened or not.

[1020]

On the question of Clearwater River Road, however, I understand it's a deactivated Forest Service road. We've entered into a park-use permit with the commercial river-rafting operator in there so that he can do what maintenance is required to keep that road open.

K. Krueger: Does that mean that the government, through the Ministry of Parks, is not budgeting anything to reopen Clearwater River Road this year and in future years?

Hon. C. McGregor: We just don't have the specifics here of how much has been committed to that, but let me assure you that part of the budget for that district has been committed to keeping that road open.

K. Krueger: Does the minister see that as a long-term commitment to the people in the Clearwater area -- that Clearwater River Road will be reopened each year?

Hon. C. McGregor: As the hon. member knows, in the budget estimates we can make commitments for one year, and beyond that we don't make commitments. Generally, one can say that of course we want to maintain access, but sometimes we have environmental reasons for removing access to certain regions. You know, this sometimes puts us into conflict with people who want to use the area. But it's a very important balance that we maintain, in making sure that environmental values are every bit as important as people's access. This is a mandate we have in this ministry. It has a lot to do with how we manage our parks and protected areas. While that does create conflicts from time to time, I think the member would acknowledge that it's an important role for us to play.

K. Krueger: Going back to the road that accesses the Trophy Mountain meadows, there's a perception among the public -- and not just in the Clearwater area -- that this water bar procedure is being used to actually deactivate and decommission roads throughout the interior while masquerading as an erosion control device. In people's minds, it's in fact a device that keeps them from access to Crown land that they've always enjoyed. Are there any roads within Wells Gray Park that the ministry is either deliberately decommissioning or allowing Mother Nature to close?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any immediate plans to deactivate any roads, although it could be that under the parks master plan there has been roading identified for deactivation over time. We're not instantly aware of whether that is or is not identified in the plan. But that's where it would be if they were identified for deactivation. From a Parks perspective. . . . That's where you would find that information. It is important to know that the Ministry of Forests has responsibility for a lot of the roading, and they make decisions on deactivation, which are not necessarily decisions of this ministry.

K. Krueger: I'd like, please, to have the minister's commitment that I'll be provided with documentation of whether or not any such plans exist.

Hon. C. McGregor: We'd be happy to follow up with a letter on plans for any specific roads, if there are any, and give the member a copy of the master plan, if he doesn't have it.

K. Krueger: Moving from roads to fish, the minister and I recently discussed an issue that has a lot of people in the

[ Page 12308 ]

[1025]

K. Krueger: Just to get my information on the record, I'm advised that there was one local representative who may not have actually realized what was being approved and didn't have the blessing of the organization that he was representing. This is advice I have from that organization. I'd very much appreciate this decision being reconsidered -- and reversed, in fact. There are a lot of people, many of them seniors, who enjoy those lakes. I'm told that there's absolutely no problem with the stocks. In fact, they're heavily stocked. A lot of these people have had something to do with enhancing the stocks and putting in volunteer effort in the past. It's something that really offends them. So I appreciate the minister's commitment to continue to follow up on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: I could just add that the member reminded me of part of the conversation, which is on the access for seniors. It would seem to me that even if it was appropriate to close vehicular access to some of those lakes, we could, I would assume, make some agreement that some lakes would have an opportunity for vehicle access, for seniors in particular. I think that might be the kind of compromise we'd be able to achieve. Again, I'm just saying what my intention is. I don't want to preclude what process might go forward, but I just think that's the kind of solution we should be looking for.

M. Coell: I'd like to touch base on two subjects: the Park Legacy project and park management plans. The province has acquired a large number of parks in the last few years, and I think management plans are an important part of acquiring those. I just wonder whether the ministry is planning on producing a number of management plans this year and what the situation is with the number of parks that we have purchased and the number of management plans that we have to date on parks.

[1030]

M. Coell: I couldn't find the number.

Hon. C. McGregor: I remember reading it, so we are busy looking, trying to find it as well. I think that's one of the things that the business plan is really going to help us do: keep us on our performance targets. You know, we're one of the few ministries that's ready to go with a plan like this, but it gives us some measures to say how much progress we're making under our goals. So I think that'll be a good one to sort of hold feet to the fire, as it were, to make sure we're continuing to do that work.

In order to speed up the process. . . . As the member's comments indicate, with a lot of parks and protected areas being created, it's important that we try and put management plans in as soon as we can. So we've done it in a couple of ways. One, we've developed sort of a template that we use to develop park management plans, so that streamlines the process of developing the plans. For smaller parks that are created almost immediately, coming out of the LRMP process, we create what are called management direction statements. They are shorter documents that give some interim guidance before a full management plan can be developed. There is an opportunity for public involvement in developing and responding to these management directions, as well as involvement of the IAMC, the interagency management committee that exists within regions -- cross-ministry representation -- which meets from time to time to ensure the implementation of the LRMP.

M. Coell: After we received the business plan yesterday, I had a chance to look through it, and I would just reiterate what the minister said: I think it's a good start. It allows people to understand that there's a process for planning. I have one question: is the business plan going to be on the government web site?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it will be.

M. Coell: That's good; I compliment you on that.

With regard to the Park Legacy project, I want to have some confirmation in a couple of areas. In general, I think they did a very good job. If I had one criticism -- and it would be a mild one -- it would be that it's written in stone today but doesn't leave future generations an opportunity. . . . I suspect they have the opportunity to change the direction for parks and protected areas, but it may be because the people who did the report were so strong in their beliefs. When I read it, it sounded like, "This is it; 100 years from now nothing will change," and I know that's not going to be the case.

But I would say the strategy is positive. I think that it gives you an opportunity to work with protected areas and parks in a little bit more. . . . If you follow the direction and the lead of it, it gives you the opportunity to work pretty closely with protected areas and parks in common boundaries to have some common strategies for protection of ecosystems -- and wildlife as well. I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments on that.

[1035]

[ Page 12309 ]

I think it's a particularly strong report from the philosophical approach to the management of parks. The first thing that Mark Angelo said, when he came to me with the first draft of the interim recommendations, was that we're going to reconfirm our principle of ecology integrity, with ecosystem representation being the number one issue for us in managing our park system. What the public has said, over and over again, is that the legacy we leave is an ecological one. I think that was really important. Related to that was the restatement of no commercial activity within parks, so those were heavily linked.

There are some new opportunities that the report points out for us. It talks about the potential of rewriting the Park Act, and that's one that I'm kind of excited about, because I'm looking for a way for us to more adequately represent the interests of communities through the Park Act -- through the LRMP process -- and to be able to reconfirm that legislatively and to really protect those decisions that were made by communities. I think that's a real opportunity.

It also talked about ecotourism and about tourism and gateway communities. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has left, but Wells Gray and Clearwater are good examples of gateway communities and how the Clearwater region has come to depend very much on Wells Gray as an economic generator for the region. That's the kind of opportunity that the report also identifies.

It also identifies -- and rightly so, from my perspective -- the need to invest in B.C.'s parks. That's why I was pleased to be able to recently announce a $2 million investment in. . . . "Decaying infrastructure" is too strongly stated. But clearly we do have to do some reinvestment in our parks system. That is also linked to the fees we charge. The public was very much onside with saying that we need to make a long-term commitment to how we fund our parks system. We need to make a long-term commitment to maintaining that infrastructure. We need to make sure that we have the tools -- and that includes fee increases through which to get the revenue to keep our parks in that kind of condition -- so they have that recreational opportunity at the same time that we have the services we need to maintain ecological integrity.

I'm very pleased with the report. I think the members did just a superb job of talking to the public about it. We have a working group within the ministry that is working on the recommendations, going through all of them and developing a work plan on the basis of those recommendations. We're consulting regularly with those members of the panel to make sure that we're heading in the directions that they indicated in their report.

It's a very exciting time for us in the parks branch. We're working very hard. We think that we're going to have, hopefully in the next legislative session, a really high profile around our parks system. It'll be the year 2000 -- a time to celebrate, having doubled our parks system, and also to have an innovative parks management plan for the future.

M. Coell: I share the minister's desire for a throne speech; I think that would be very good.

Two issues that come out of the report that. . . . I think I've just had copies of letters to the minister, so she is probably aware of both of them. One is mining and logging in protected areas. The province, in going to 12 percent or plus of the province's parkland and then with the protected-areas strategy and with the local area plans as well, has sort of defined where mining and forestry will take place in the province.

The minister may want to comment on it. I think that's probably something that both her government and the B.C. Liberals agree on: mining should not take place in parks. But in many instances, you have mining and logging close to parks. I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments on some of the protected-areas strategy and mining, if the minister can comment on that.

[1040]

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's interesting that you have a concern around the mining industry being involved in the protected-areas strategy. They're the ones that have actually withdrawn from participating in the protected-areas strategy. I find it very concerning, because I thought we had developed with industry an opportunity to work together to develop a clear plan and land use certainty, which means that there are opportunities for mining.

When we go through the land use planning process, the protected-areas strategy is only one small part of that. That's what, of course, I hold near and dear to my heart. Nonetheless, I recognize that the land use planning process is not about creating protected areas; that's part of it. It's about creating land use certainty, and that includes creating zones of economic activity: mining, logging, fishing, other types of resource extraction, commercial development, urban development. All of these things are on the table through the land use planning process, and it's always unfortunate when one of the partners decides not to participate in the process any longer, because that makes it difficult for their interests to be represented. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Energy and Mines is continuing to sit at those tables that are ongoing at this time, so that mining interests are represented.

M. Coell: I make the point because I think it's important for us, if we're going to have buy-in from everyone on the protected-areas strategy and enhanced parks, that we don't cut out the industry interests. I think there's a balance there. I think that there is an opportunity to make sure that mining thrives in this province outside of parks and that there are forests that are working for us. I guess the problem that lies therein is that these industries are going to carry out their operations next to protected areas and our parks. What I'm interested in is just that the ministry, in carrying out its business, is aware of those two. . . . I don't think they're competing interests; they're interests that are necessarily a part of British Columbia.

Hon. C. McGregor: That's the reason, member, that this government developed a land use planning process and was

[ Page 12310 ]

We've taken a multi-stakeholder approach. Does that mean that we should be complacent? Absolutely not. We should continue to work with stakeholders on trying to address their issues. I think we've done some good work in the north, particularly around the Northern Rockies decision and the special management zones and resource-enhanced zones that were created through that land use planning process. We endorsed some interesting technology; it's called directional drilling. It enables us, from the edge of a protected area, to be able to go in, actually, to part of the protected area underground, to be able to access that gas resource. It's very innovative, and it leaves no management issues on the ground.

[1045]

Hon. C. McGregor: Of course, member, that is the reason why we need to have the mining industry at the land use table. If the members opposite have. . . . I'm sure you have regular contact, seeing as they contribute quite regularly to you through donations. I'm sure you do have regular contact with them. If you could encourage them to come back to the table so that they could participate in these processes, I think it would go a long way to resolving some of these questions.

I would like to finally say that other industries do acknowledge and in fact commend us for the approach we take with land use planning. I was recently in Dawson Creek when we announced that land use plan, and there was a representative from Sun Oil Ltd. They have companies in the United States and in Alberta. They talked about how they want to use our model as a tool to sort out land use conflicts in other jurisdictions in which they work. They came to us and publicly, in fact, during the announcement said: "This is the best process we've ever participated in. We want to take your idea and model it in other jurisdictions." So it truly is the right way of doing business.

M. Coell: I think any changes to land use -- I'll draw on my municipal experience -- are always met with a fair amount of discussion, so you need that wider group of people at the table. I think that if there's always seen to be a balance between what keeps people employed and what keeps the environment healthy, you'll have success.

One other area in the report is the commercial uses in the park. I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments on ecotourism. I can give you an example of a company that is based in my riding and in Paris, and does ecotours all over the world and brings people in for a six-day trip to different parts of Canada and other parts of the world. Will this sort of industry be acceptable as a commercial use in parks in British Columbia? I'm thinking of some of the larger parks in the north.

Hon. C. McGregor: Of course, it is our intention to continue to use our B.C. parks as a way of promoting ecotourism development. In fact, I've participated in a number of tourism workshops in the economic summits that we've had around the province. This is something that tourism operators understand very much -- that they need to have access and want to have access to our beautiful British Columbia, much of which is preserved in our parks system. We have a number of existing park use permits that give operators the opportunity to use our parks in a way that promotes their own businesses.

We already have examples of those very successful partnerships. Can we do more? Absolutely. That's what our green economy initiative, which was announced as part of the budget this year, is designed to do -- to really focus on not only environmental industries, which I think is a very important part of jobs and the economy and of promoting a green technology, but also ecotourism, which in many communities has become the development of the future, especially those that are close to our provincial parks.

The Park Legacy panel, when they dealt with those questions, talked to. . . . Recommendation 83 says that we should ensure that when we engage in these for-profit, they call them activities -- so commercial activities that occur in parks, which they certainly support -- they need to contribute to the purposes of the protected-areas system. In other words, they need to be consistent with the environmental values, and they need to be consistent with the parks management plan and the interests of the community. Again, this is something that tourism operators understand well, and it was reiterated to me in the workshops that I've been a part of that we cannot degrade the experience, because if we do that we lose the very resource that gives us this economic opportunity.

All of that has to be packaged together so that we ensure we continue to protect the valuable resource that's represented in the protected area. We also encourage activity that's ecotourism-related to go on within the park, but large-scale commercial facilities should be located outside B.C.'s parks, in gateway communities, rather than putting those large-scale facilities directly inside the parks.

[1050]

G. Abbott: I'd like to briefly explore with the minister some forest health questions in provincial parks. This, as the minister knows, is a very hot issue in the north currently and in the Cariboo area, but it is of interest to me in a broader sense. As we set aside our 12 percent of the province for parks and protected areas, it does set up a large piece of our province that will have, over time, an aging forest which will be increasingly vulnerable to insect and other forest health problems as it ages. I'm not knowledgable enough to put this in perspective; perhaps the minister's staff is. I don't know what the characteristics of an aging pine forest are, but perhaps we are seeing that in the Tweedsmuir Park instance, where an aging pine forest is becoming increasingly vulnerable to the attacks of the mountain pine beetle particularly.

The most recent correspondence I've seen with respect to this issue is a letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to Wayne Berard, who is the chair of the North Cariboo Share Our Resources Society. It talks about the pine beetle infestation in Tweedsmuir Park. The letter notes:

[ Page 12311 ]

"This issue is now incorporated into a larger coordinated mountain pine beetle control strategy for the Tweedsmuir/Entiako. B.C. Parks and the Ministry of Forests, along with the land use coordination office, are actively involved in the development of this strategy and are coordinating plans for Tweedsmuir Park, the proposed Entiako protected area and the neighbouring timber supply area lands. An announcement on the government's overall strategy for these areas is expected soon."

[1055]

We have tried for the last couple of years to engage in a bait-and-burn program that has not been as successful as we had hoped. The weather hasn't cooperated. The unfortunate part of bait-and-burn. . . . When you bait up the trees, the beetles are attracted, and then you burn in that location. It's a great idea that hasn't worked because we had wet weather. Then it got too dry, and we were concerned about wildfires. Again that's related to the nature of the aging forest. It hasn't been as successful as we had hoped.

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, there you go. I'll just contradict myself now: according to my ADM for forests. . . . He said: "No, it's actually the other way around, minister." The bait-and-burn program has actually been more successful. It's the prescribed fires that we had hoped to use that have been less successful; let me make that clear. Apparently we used bait-and-burn very successfully in Chikamin narrows and a prescribed burn at Eutsuk Lake. Those are some of the strategies we use within the park.

We've also talked about a program of individual-tree fall-and-burn onsite. Again, that is consistent with the kind of environmental values we want to maintain within the parks. It's very important for the member to know that we can't engage in what can be described as commercial logging in B.C. parks; it is not permitted under the Park Act. Philosophically, I have to say that I wouldn't support it even if it were permitted under the Park Act. We are talking about a very different treatment here, one that can be done in a way that respects the ecological values in the forest. I know that for some communities, it's hard for them to see a tree other than as fibre, but a tree has a lot of value to a whole forest ecosystem, even when it's standing nice and red. People say: "Well, that's just a waste; you should just harvest that timber." Well, we in the Environment ministry and in the parks system recognize that that tree, even if it isn't alive, forms a natural part of that ecosystem and leads to the overall forest health that's maintained over time.

In the working forest next to Tweedsmuir, we take a different approach. The Ministry of Forests has engaged in a number of what we call snip-and-skid operations. I had the pleasure of actually touring Tweedsmuir Park and seeing some of the operations. Very, very good work has gone on to try and target areas where, if we don't take some steps now, the beetle will fly to next. So we've taken some directed action there, and we're hoping to develop a plan to do more in this upcoming year.

G. Abbott: I'll try to fit two questions into one here, so that we can deal with this expeditiously. The snip-and-skid operations would certainly apply to the timber supply lands adjacent to the park. In the Entiako protected area, is the regime or the menu of forest health treatments different than it would be in Tweedsmuir Park proper? Is that part of the strategy discussion that is ongoing?

[1100]

G. Abbott: Thank you; I appreciate that information. The conclusion that I hope is correct here -- a nod from the minister would do it for me -- is that the limitations of the Park Act in respect to methods of treatment do not apply to protected areas. There is somewhat more flexibility in response to LRMPs and that sort of thing with respect to the regime or menu of treatments that could take place in a protected area. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: We largely view the application of what we call the Environment and Land Use Act, which is the tool through which the Lakes-Entiako area is currently protected. . . . Is it currently?

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: We haven't done it yet. But we're recommending that we protect it under that mechanism in order to permit the continued application of snip-and-skid, which wouldn't be consistent with the Park Act. So we're using it as a tool, but the goal would be to move it to park designation over time. The Environment and Land Use Act is really an interim opportunity for designation that permits some activities that would otherwise not be consistent with the Park Act. But when those activities end, then it's our intention to move them to designation under the Park Act.

G. Abbott: I was pleased to hear from the minister that the bait-and-burn approach has enjoyed some success in the Tweedsmuir Park area. That's good to hear. I know it has enjoyed some success, actually, in small infestations in other areas of the province as well. Overall, though, I gather that bait-and-burn has not had the results that had been hoped for, particularly in Tweedsmuir Park generally. Can the minister outline for the committee, in hectares or square miles, the

[ Page 12312 ]

[1105]

However, as I made mention of, especially when I toured Tweedsmuir Park from the air, we have had some treatments that have been deliberately applied in some areas to protect working forest, based on the direction in which beetle was heading -- in some cases, towards the working forest and, in some cases, towards visual areas that were accessed by boaters and so on. There are some recreational interests we were also trying to manage for. They did some individual-tree fall-and-burn on site -- just excellent work. It's hard to even tell where they've actually gone in, and they've gone in and identified trees that have yet to be killed by the beetle. But they found evidence of the beetle, and they went in and felled those trees and burned them right on the site to stop them from moving in particular areas. That has been a very effective tool in Tweedsmuir Park, and we're certainly hoping to apply prescribed burning as well in the upcoming season.

G. Abbott: One of the dilemmas that the parks branch presumably will face one day -- as we go through our cycles of dry and wet weather and so on -- is that we will get a combination of weather like we had in Salmon Arm last year, where we get a lightning strike, and the lightning strike will be located in a way that the 15,000 hectares that are dead and the area around it will obviously be subject to fire. Perhaps this isn't a dilemma. Perhaps the branch has already made some decision with respect to how fire would be dealt with in that case. Would the branch look at letting it go, appreciating that -- I guess, depending on the intensity of it -- it may make some long term changes to the area? Or would the fire be fought?

Hon. C. McGregor: The public thinks that fire is bad and that fire is terrible. But in the parks system, from an ecological perspective, we think that fire is a good thing, because it does restore and rebuild lots of the natural forest system. Part of the problem we have in British Columbia is that because we've been very active in fire suppression, we have forests in stands of largely the same age with a lot of dry undergrowth that, with the right weather conditions, could have significant fire outbreaks.

[1110]

However, there are some residences and commercial operations that are either within or close to Tweedsmuir Park. In the case of that park or any other park, if the fire was progressing in such a way as to threaten any of those, we would take immediate action with the Forest Service to engage in fire suppression. But if it was in an area that was largely isolated, we would allow it to burn.

G. Abbott: Does that general policy apply to the perimeter of the park where the fire might quickly move into a Crown forest? Would that apply there as well? I guess the question then is: does or will the active firefighting effort begin after the fire exits the park or before it exits the park, in a case where Crown timber resources are on the edge?

Hon. C. McGregor: All of our decisions would be coordinated with the Forest Service. During a forest fire, there's always that day-to-day look at an individual situation, and any time there was a concern about it moving in a direction that would threaten others, actions would be taken at that time. So it's a general policy, but it has to have flexibility on the ground. We do have a vegetation management policy for B.C. parks, and if the member is interested I'd be happy to share it with him.

G. Abbott: I would be interested in seeing that.

Just a final question or two here. The minister made reference to a newer strategy in terms of forest health: the bait-and-burn strategy, where the logs are felled and burned right on the site, presumably, where they are located, after as many beetles as possible can be induced to. . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: . . .jump into the area. I gather this or something like it has been attempted in Wells Gray Park with some success. Is that the strategy that was used in Wells Gray recently, or was there a somewhat different approach, where the logs were removed from the site and then disposed of?

Hon. C. McGregor: There has been evidence of some small amount of pine beetle in Wells Gray, but at this time we're simply monitoring it. We haven't taken any active steps to remove or go through a bait-and-burn program, but it is being monitored to see if that would become necessary at some time.

[1115]

[ Page 12313 ]

As a result of that we've carefully crafted a vegetation management policy that reiterates the importance of the ecologically sound way in which we should handle blowdown or beetle kill or whatever the matter is that has to be managed. We do it in a way that is consistent with those values and principles, to preserve the ecological integrity of the park.

M. Coell: Just a final question to the minister with respect to the province generally. I know that depending on the species of tree that we have in a given location, the pest is going to vary. Are we facing, in other provincial parks in this province, emerging forest health problems that defy or at least test our ability to deal with them at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: In addition to the pine beetle -- and we just identified a small amount of pine beetle in Wells Gray -- in Tweedsmuir they also have spruce beetle. There's some pine beetle -- not a large, significant quantity -- in Manning Park and at Schoolhouse Lake.

M. Coell: That's all the questions I have in that area.

J. Dalton: I wonder if the minister can give us a status report on some ski resort applications, specifically Cayoosh, Garibaldi, Jumbo Glacier and any others in the hopper that would be of interest to us.

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member would like, we'll get appropriate environmental assessment office staff here to give an update on those issues. I'm afraid we don't have anyone here at this time. We can either do them all now. . . . If we call the staff over, I hope the members opposite would agree that we will generally try to stick to the topic of environmental assessment for a while, then, and deal with the ski resorts, so we don't have to come back to it later. Or did you have it already on your list, hon. member -- and we should do it at a different time? I'm certainly happy to cooperate with whatever methodology you would like to use, but I'm just trying to avoid having staff run back and forth each day during estimates.

J. Dalton: I have no quarrel with that. We don't want people running back and forth. Perhaps now that I've asked the question, it's on the record. We can deal with it later, or if the minister prefers, a written response would be more than satisfactory.

While I'm on my feet, then, I can also flag another point that I do want to raise again later -- or through written responses. The Canada-British Columbia agreement on environmental assessment, the cooperative agreement. . . . I also wish to thank the minister and her officials for setting up a meeting a month or two ago dealing with the Cleveland Dam issue, which, of course, is in my riding. I'm also interested in the status of that cooperative agreement, so we could deal with that later as well.

[1120]

I think there's an opting-out clause where the feds could say, "Sorry, we don't want to do your process; we can add ours on top," if they feel that they need to do that. But it has worked very well to date, and it's an example of the kind of work we're trying to do as the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment across Canada, which is to create a level playing field across Canada -- related to business and industry, in particular -- so that they don't have to have different sets of rules from province to province. We're working on a number of initiatives, as ministers, to try to bring the same standards to every province across Canada.

There's a number of initiatives ongoing at this time related to the creation of standards. Our government is taking the lead on some, and other governments are working on others. If the member is interested, I could certainly get him a copy of the latest report that we have from CCME on the work we're doing around standards. I think it is a really good initiative and one that's well supported by environmentalists, who know that by creating standards that are on a high level. . . . That is, of course, a principle that we bring to the table -- that we have a high level of environmental standards when we develop standards for things like mercury and ozone and so on. But also it creates the certainty that business and industry needs -- knowing that if they have operations in different provinces, they'll be treated the same in each jurisdiction.

J. Dalton: I certainly will take the minister up on her offer to see that report and any update on it.

Just one other question: what was the starting date of this agreement? I know it's for a five-year period. How many other provinces are also party to that agreement?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm sorry, member -- I'm not certain. We'll get the details of that answer to you. I think we signed the agreement two years ago. I believe that's correct, and I believe that there is an agreement with most, if not all, provinces. Again, I'm working from memory. We'll get the details and make sure you're provided with them.

M. Coell: If we could move to some water-use issues. . . . In the past couple of years we've talked about groundwater legislation, and I just wonder whether the minister can update us on the progress of that legislation.

Hon. C. McGregor: At this time, for this session, we're not working on groundwater legislation. However, we have agreed with the Islands Trust to run a pilot on one of the islands. I can never remember which one it is. Don is going to look in his book, and we'll see if we can find it. But I think that this provides us with the opportunity to work with a local government on how to best manage the question of groundwater management from the perspective of water use and water quality and so on. It's my hope that, as a result of this

[ Page 12314 ]

M. Coell: As I think I have done over the last couple of years, I encourage the minister to do that. I think there are some major benefits to be had out of some groundwater legislation in this province, even if it is minor to start with and builds on it. I'll be interested in seeing the project with the Islands Trust this year.

One area that I've had some correspondence on is the costs of certificates of public convenience and necessity and proposed application fees. I wonder if the minister could update me on the changes to those fees.

[1125]

On the second question the member asked, which is related to the certificate of public convenience and. . .

M. Coell: Necessity.

Hon. C. McGregor:. . . necessity -- hon. member, thank you -- we have done a review and a fairly significant consultation. At this time we've decided not to proceed with any fee increases.

M. Coell: That's, I think, good.

The other -- I asked about groundwater legislation, which we've discussed -- is a biologists act. I realize that biologists are very involved in water in various positions in government and the private sector. I just wonder if the minister could update us on the proposed biologists act.

Hon. C. McGregor: I have met with representatives of the biologists myself, and I think very highly of the work they do not only in government but in the private sector. I think they make a very compelling case for the need to have standards developed by professionals for professionals to create a professional organization very much modelled after, I would say, organizations like I belong to. Those are the B.C. Teachers Federation and the College of Teachers, which talks about the kind of standards that a professional brings to their day-to-day work. I certainly support that initiative, but I'm not able to commit to legislation for this legislative session. I am continuing to support an application to have it considered at an upcoming legislative session.

M. Coell: Not that I'm negotiating, but I can tell you that we on this side of the House would see the legislation for a biologists act with a very favourable eye as well. If you're not looking for six months of debate, I can say that it would go through the House relatively quickly, I think -- at least the draft of the biologists act that I have seen. I agree with you: I think that when professionals regulate themselves, you generally get a higher quality of regulation and a higher quality of professionalism. I would leave that with the minister, with regard to the biologists act.

The other area that I would be interested in an update on is the Fording River power project and the government's involvement at this point -- whether there is any, and the extent of it.

Hon. C. McGregor: According to the note I have in my hand, this project is subject to review under the Environmental Assessment Act. They are currently in what we call the preapplication stage. When we say preapplication. . . . We work with the proponent to talk about the details of their proposal, so that they can develop it into a formal proposal. That assists in having it assessed in a relatively quick way as it goes through.

D. Jarvis: It's been going on since '91.

Hon. C. McGregor: Their more recent meeting was on April 20, 1999. The member opposite makes the comment that this has been going on for some time. Apparently this is a second application, but it's very similar to an application that was made in 1989. It's not the same application, hon. member; it's a different one.

M. Coell: The other issue -- and I think we touched on it in question period -- is the Sumas 2 generation facility. I'd be interested in knowing what role we would play if this project goes ahead -- with or without B.C. Hydro or Powerex. I'd be interested to know about the coordinations we would have.

[1130]

It's not the same kind of proposal, but, for instance, in the case of Tulsequah Chief -- when we were doing an approval on that mine -- because of the nature of the close geographic presence of Alaska, we were very interested in having Alaska involved in that process. I would assume that Washington State would have a similar view towards us here in Canada and British Columbia -- to want to involve us -- but that hasn't been finalized at this time. Once that agreement is finalized, it's our view that we will want to monitor very carefully questions like air quality, because that is of significant importance to residents in the lower Fraser Valley.

M. Coell: The other issue with regard to the Sumas 2 facility is the water exports. The minister, I think, made it very plain in the House that the government does not support water exports. I'm not aware of the technical deal that Abbotsford and Sumas have for their reciprocal sewage water treatment facility. I wonder whether that falls under the guidelines that the minister has outlined for us.

[1135]

[ Page 12315 ]

D. Jarvis: The information that was given to us with regards to the Sumas 2 project pertained to, as you have said, the waste coming back through Canada and being dumped out extensively into the Fraser. However, in that same agreement it called for four million gallons of water per day to come from the Abbotsford area. So that in itself, whether it's wastewater or bad water or good water, is still in conflict with the moratorium on water export. And if you do go ahead with it, is there any guarantee that it will not fall into compliance with the NAFTA agreement? Therefore, once we start exporting water, the precedent will be set that we'll have to continue exporting water in any other form, where we're now restricted only to bottled water.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. member, I've been as clear as I know how to be on this question. I have said: "No amendment to the act, no amendment to the act" -- repeatedly. I've said it to your mayor; I've said it to your newspapers; I've said it on CBC Radio; I've said it in the House; I've said it in a letter. We are not amending the Water Protection Act to permit the export of water across the American border. This is something that British Columbia has taken some leadership on, in fact, on a national basis. I've been pressing my colleagues from across Canada to take a similar position.

As the member notes, I think that water could be subject to a NAFTA challenge, if we don't have a moratorium. If we continue to treat water as a resource, then the investment mechanism can be used to trigger a payment, as it was in the case of MMT and Ethyl Corp. When we decided to take a decision to ban a substance that had significant environment and health impacts, we were successfully sued by a multinational corporation, and the government of Canada had to pay 20 million of our tax dollars to Ethyl Corp. and then permit the import of MMT. There is something fundamentally wrong with these kinds of agreements if we cannot protect our sovereignty, for one thing, and if we cannot protect the environmental health of our citizens. This is of great concern to our government, and that's one of the very reasons why we will not amend the Water Protection Act.

G. Abbott: Back in the old days, when I was chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and used to have the pleasure of occasionally meeting ministerial staff about milfoil control issues, there used to be a branch of the ministry called the aquatic plant management branch. In my brief perusal of the last annual report of the Ministry of Environment, I couldn't find a reference to the aquatic plant management branch. Has the branch gone? What functions remain? And if it doesn't exist, what takes its place?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid to inform the member that that branch is long gone. The remnants of that branch and the work that they did is now handled by the water management branch.

[1140]

Does the role of the remnants of the branch in the water management group have a mapping and surveillance role, as the province did up until at least a couple of years ago? Does that portion of their mandate remain?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, our obligation to ongoing monitoring ended when the program funding ended in March of this past year. I know that the member opposite is unhappy, as are some regional governments. But I do want to assure the member that we have taken steps to try and give these regional governments the tools with which they can manage milfoil. We've agreed to transfer ownership of all of our milfoil equipment to the Okanagan Basin water board, Columbia-Shuswap regional district, Kootenay-Boundary regional district, the Cultus Lake Park board, and the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. They will have the equipment in order to control milfoil in their communities. That equipment was originally worth over $1 million, so that's a pretty significant way of trying to support communities, even though the direct funding for the management of that program is now gone.

G. Abbott: We've had this debate before, and I won't ask the minister to engage in a full-scale debate on this again. Briefly, this is an issue that's been around for almost 30 years. Originally it was entirely a provincial role. They brought their local governments in on a 25 percent basis and a 75-25 agreement. Later it moved to 50-50; then later it moved to province 25, local government 75 percent; and now it's gone.

I think it's unfortunate that it's gone. I know that some people don't think it's a big deal, but they haven't gone down to their favourite beach lately and had to swim through the mass of aquatic weeds that grow up very quickly. There is a serious tourism implication to not controlling Eurasian milfoil. I think there's an economic impact that certainly affects recreational fishing and a whole range of things. I'm sure that there have been vigorous debates within the ministry itself over whether this should properly be part of the ministry's role, and that's fair enough. Governments have to make decisions around that. But I do think it's unfortunate that we have moved out of what was an important and relatively low-cost area of control over a public nuisance problem.

Given that the province has pretty much moved out of surveillance and those kinds things -- effective with the end of the last cost-shared agreement -- how would we know, for example, whether milfoil was moving into other lakes in the interior where, to this point at least, local governments and most likely regional districts hadn't taken on a program because they hadn't appreciated that there was a problem? For example, if it was to move into one of the lakes in the Cariboo, how would we know that -- by boaters notifying the ministry or the ministry advising the regional district? What would happen in an instance like that?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we do have staff in all the regions of the province that do water quality monitoring from time to time, and that would be an opportunity for our staff to actually see if there was a problem developing. We also would depend on people to give us information, either from the local government -- if they determine from residents that there is a problem -- or boaters or whatever. Or they could report it

[ Page 12316 ]

[1145]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm told that there was a staff person in the Vernon area who did a report last year on the spread of milfoil and its status around the province. We'd be happy to try and find a copy and send it to the member, if that'd be helpful.

G. Abbott: Yes, I would appreciate that. I do think that the same concerns which prompted the province, 25 or 30 years ago, to take some steps to deal with this aquatic plant nuisance are still very much a concern today. So I hope that at a minimum, we can be clear about, from a provincial sense, what's going on with that weed so that local authorities -- if they wish to take on the exclusive, I guess, task of dealing with this -- can have a good idea of what's going on. So I would appreciate that report.

Hon. C. McGregor: I thank the hon. member for his concern over milfoil. I do take it seriously, and I understand why you care about it, member -- so do a lot of other people. It is a difficult decision in the ministry whenever we have to reduce programs. Unfortunately, that's been something we've had to deal with over the last couple of years.

With that, hon. Chair, if I could, I'd like to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada