Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12317 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

M. de Jong: John Mitchell is a former resident of Abbotsford, and he's now returning home to British Columbia after living in the U.K. for a number of years. He is noteworthy for many endeavours, but most notably, he is the father of our researcher, Hazel. I hope the House will make him welcome.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will actually -- because I think he wants to do it first -- defer to the member for Surrey-White Rock and do it after him.

G. Hogg: For the introduction, or for many things? Is this an omnibus deference, or just for the introduction?

I have the privilege of introducing a school trustee from Surrey, a woman who has been a trustee for 14 years, Ms. Laurae McNally. Would the House please make her welcome.

On behalf of the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I'd like to welcome 65 students from Martha Currie Elementary school and their teachers, Ms. Crowdis and Ms. Beaubien. Please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to make a very special introduction. In the gallery today is a group of wonderful young people representing youth-in-care from around the province. They had lunch with the Premier and me today, and I would like the House to welcome them: Jamie, Arthur, Gurjeet, Chris and Panja. With them -- not youth -- is their social worker, Elain Lamb; also with them -- and very much not youth -- is my deputy minister, Mike Corbeil. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I, too, as someone from Surrey, would like to welcome Laurae McNally to the precincts today. But I'd also like to do that because I served for quite some time with Laurae when she was the board chair of the Surrey school board -- which she was for quite a period of time. What I frequently tell people about Laurae is that some of the most creative and innovative programs in the school district in Surrey came about under her tenure as board chair, and I want to acknowledge that work. Will the House please make her welcome.

The Speaker: The Chair has a couple of guests in the gallery: Alison and Jim Prentice. They have moved to Victoria from Toronto, where they, at that point, were academics in very significant enterprises. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

[1410]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .that after this many days of discussion, the member opposite would know that the program is entirely voluntary.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Let me get this right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: The minister, the NDP minister, the minister for the party that used to stand up for the little guy -- or claim to stand up for the little guy -- describes as voluntary a program that, at least for Mr. Sid Smith in Princeton, means that if he doesn't comply, if he doesn't get accredited, ICBC has said it will no longer accept his claims over the phone. His customers are going to have to go to Princeton. He's going to lose 30 percent of his business, and he's going to go out of business.

Sit down, minister -- I'm not done yet.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon. The member for Matsqui will take his seat, unless he wishes to ask a question in an appropriate fashion.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I appreciate it, but there were some other words that the member said that were totally inappropriate. I recommend that you withdraw those remarks and get on with the question.

M. de Jong: My question for the minister. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, member. I did ask the member to withdraw those particular comments.

M. de Jong: I withdraw whatever it is that seems to offend the Chair or the minister, Madam Speaker. It's withdrawn.

The Speaker: Thank you.

M. de Jong: The question to the minister is: if he really did want to stand up for the little guy, for the Sid Smiths of the

[ Page 12318 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Not only, alas. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .is the member apparently incapable of listening, but he's also apparently incapable of reading. This morning a document was released that says very clearly that I have directed the president of ICBC to meet with those small business owners who are concerned about the negative impact that this might have on their business and to put the program on hold until we can review it to ensure that it isn't harmful to small business. That's the point.

G. Plant: Earlier today I talked to Joe Mann, who runs a glass shop in Nelson. He's been in the auto repair business for over a quarter of a century. According to his reading of the guidelines, he's going to have to spend $75,000 completely reconstructing his house and $2,500 to move a pole that sits in front of the house that he lives in, which is the heart of his business. Will the Minister for ICBC tell Joe Mann: what is it about this program that is so good that even today he stands up in this House and defends ICBC's oppressive overregulation of the very small businesses that his political party used to stand up and defend?

[1415]

The Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, we've had three shots now, Madam Speaker: inability to hear, inability to read and inability to comprehend. So let me repeat what I said just a moment ago. I said that I have directed the president of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to review this matter to ensure that it is not harmful to small business and that the program will be put on hold until it is resolved to our satisfaction. I can't make it more clear than that. Sorry, member, if you can't comprehend.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Well, here's what's perfectly clear: two days ago this minister didn't even know about the problem, yesterday he was happy to stand up in the House and defend the program, and today he's having discussions with ICBC. Will the minister not have the courage to stand up and do exactly what is required for small business in British Columbia and shut the program down altogether now?

Hon. D. Lovick: Wrong again. Wrong again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have been saying for the last week that I would look into this matter. I would discuss it with ICBC and ensure that the program did not have that negative impact. That was in Hansard last week. If the member has forgotten, that's his problem.

What I am being asked to do today, however, is to scrap a program that, frankly, has been in development for about three years, a program, moreover, that has been developed in consultation with the authorized representative of the people who provide those services in the province. They represent some. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry that I'm stretching the ability of members opposite to follow. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister is finishing up his answer.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .but I'll be as simple as I can. That organization worked in consultation with ICBC to put this accreditation program together. They represent some 80 percent of the total volume of business done by that industry.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, minister.

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN SKEENA CELLULOSE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

H. Giesbrecht: . . .and my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The member will. . . . Thank you.

H. Giesbrecht: This is Thursday again, and my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development. I have received dozens of letters from constituents, from mayors, chambers of commerce, logging contractors and business folk -- asking the government to continue the next phase of the investment in Skeena Cellulose because of the importance of Skeena Cellulose to the economic stability of communities in the northwest. Can the minister confirm that the government is still committed to the people of Prince Rupert, Stewart, Terrace, Hazelton and Smithers, and that the investment is under active consideration?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[ Page 12319 ]

It's still very difficult going, but we will go forward to Treasury Board. We will present a business case. Hopefully, if that passes the test of Treasury Board, we can get on with making further investments and strengthening the economy of northwestern British Columbia.

[1420]

The Speaker: Order, members.

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

Tim Smith tells us that it's going to cost him between $15,000 and $30,000 in renovations to his 34-year business to move the bathroom from the back of the shop to the front of the shop in order to be accredited by ICBC. If he doesn't get accredited, he's going to lose up to 30 percent of his business. Why does the minister responsible for ICBC, who didn't even know about this program two days ago. . . ? Why didn't ICBC in the last three years once talk to one of the individual small businesses that isn't represented by the big guys?

Hon. D. Lovick: Watching members opposite embrace the cause of the little guy is like listening to the Marquis de Sade talk about clemency or something. I mean, come on. Come on.

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Look, come on. The point, alas, has not yet been made, try as I have in the last 12 minutes. The point is that it is precisely because of the Tim Smiths of the world that we have done what I announced today. That's why we're doing it. I had been given advice from the corporation and, indeed, from the Automotive Retailers Association that they had significant buy-in from large numbers of their members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Minister, finish up.

Hon. D. Lovick: Alas, it has come to our attention that it is apparently not the case. I have therefore done what I think is the responsible thing to do. I have asked Mr. Thompson, CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, to review the matter as expeditiously as possible and to put the program on hold until we get those assurances.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unlike the union movement, small businesses. . . . There may be some representatives, but they don't necessarily speak for everybody that's in their association -- or not even in their association. The reality is that this group is one small group in the automotive industry. If the minister can finally tell this House the answer to the real question. . . . If this program has been in development for three years, why in those three years did the Minister Responsible for ICBC not once meet with the small people that are working in this industry, trying to get by, trying to pay their bills, trying to keep their family business alive? Why does it take three years and three days in question period before the NDP listens to small businesses?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that indeed there has been significant consultation in the past few years in the development of this program. In terms of whether the minister directly had any involvement, certainly I can't comment, because, as you know, I've only had this file for a very short space of time. I have. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Minister, finish up your answer, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: One gets the distinct impression, despite the non-partisan flavour of what's happening in Nanaimo tonight, that maybe these people who've suddenly rediscovered or discovered ICBC and question period have a connection with that. Is that possible?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members, come to order.

[1425]

NDP OBLIGATIONS IN NCHS AFFAIR

The Speaker: The question is out of order.

The bell ends question period.

[ Page 12320 ]

Ministerial Statement

YOUTH WEEK

Youth Week is a unique opportunity for people of all ages across the province to celebrate the diversity, the energy and the contributions of youth in our local communities. This week is a time for us to really appreciate the enthusiasm and drive of youth, for they are not just our future, they're our present.

I'm sure we can all think of many examples of young people in our own lives who really make a difference and who may have faced serious obstacles. In my ministry alone, there are many youth who have turned their lives around. Today I would like to share a couple of stories about the wonderful achievements of our youth -- like the former youth in care who recently got her degree in criminology instead of ending up on the other side of the law; like the UBC student who has supported her family as well as herself but who has been able to stay in school because of earned tuition credits through Youth Community Action. Or we have the E-team leader who, despite ongoing surgery to remove a brain tumour, worked with her 14 team members to add five new kilometres to the Trans Canada Trail.

I mention these three youth; however, there are literally thousands of youth across this province who are proving themselves on a daily basis. They are excelling in academics, in sports and in society as a whole. They are overcoming obstacles in their lives and making a difference in others.

I encourage all British Columbians to take part in Youth Week 1999. Events celebrating the contributions of young people are planned across British Columbia. I believe that together we can make a difference. I believe that the young people are counting on us, and I know that we're counting on them. Please join me in paying tribute to the youth of B.C. and the future of this province.

L. Reid: I believe, fundamentally, that we have an obligation and a responsibility to safeguard the next generation. There's no question in my mind. I'm tremendously proud of the young people we have in this province, who work very, very hard. I have numerous experiences as a teacher, as a school administrator and certainly as a member of the British Columbia Youth Parliament. I sat as a member of their board for many, many years.

One of the issues that concerns me is constancy of purpose -- the commitment of this government to deliver services. I think it's interesting that we would have a discussion honouring youth. I think it's useful; I think it's helpful; I think it's important. But it concerns me that we would have it at the same time that we would have a 1.5 percent clawback in the budget. Those decisions will dramatically impact on young people in this province and on the choices they will be allowed to make. That's a concern.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, replies to statements are to be brief, and factual as well -- not debatable.

L. Reid: Absolutely factual, hon. Speaker. That is a fact.

The question I would leave this government with is: how many young people will be impacted? They won't be impacted positively by this decision, which will impact every, single contracted provider in the province. That's a decision and that's a discussion, I think, that the minister has to have in a more forthright way. I take nothing away from the young people in this province who have every opportunity to go forward and accomplish wonderful things. I have tremendous concern for those who are compromised, those who are hindered and those who are hampered by their ability to get on and have some choices that are truly theirs.

I respect the ability of each and every young person in this province to make some choices. It confounds me that the constancy and the consistency of the message from the members opposite is often lacking.

[1430]

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; P. Calendino in the chair.

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

L. Reid: In terms of the hon. minister's response, my questions may indeed be very condensed. I have questions surrounding the funding, the budget items, for the royal commissions that have been called. It's my understanding that it falls under the Inquiry Act and was funded on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General last year.

[1435]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that we administer those issues, but the money comes directly from consolidated revenue.

L. Reid: I bring it up at this juncture because when I attempted to canvass both of these issues under their separate ministries last year, whether it was the Ministry of Labour or

[ Page 12321 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We'll be able to give you the answer that you're seeking in terms of the amounts, and that information is coming. I'll be happy to give that to the hon. member. How it's administered, and who is responsible. . . . At the end of the day, I guess the buck stops with the Ministry of Attorney General in terms of. . . .

L. Reid: I am happy to pose my financial questions to this minister at this time. Is the minister saying that further questions surrounding the administration of those dollars will be in the bailiwick of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Labour? Or will all the questions be answered today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Ministry of Attorney General administers the process. Therefore we'll be able to give you the answers as to both the amount and where it might have gone. But the hon. member must recognize what happens with royal commissions and the like. They are absolutely independent. We quite often simply end up picking up the tab on behalf of the taxpayers, obviously, at the end of the day. I'm being told that there are Treasury Board guidelines with respect to those matters. All those expenditures are usually within those guidelines.

L. Reid: Perhaps if the minister is prepared to share those guidelines, that may suffice in terms of my questions. If not, I certainly am interested in the actual expenditure for each of those royal commissions. I'm interested in each of the overruns. I'm interested in the review process that allowed for those overruns.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there is an overrun per se with respect to those matters, because they don't have a budget. They're estimated expenditures. When I refer to the Treasury Board guidelines, there are no specific guidelines for royal commissions. They are guidelines for hotel expenditures and the like for governmentwide purposes.

L. Reid: When those commissions were announced -- whether it was the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia or indeed the commission on residential construction in British Columbia, hereinafter referred to as the Barrett commission -- each of them came to the table with a sum of money that was the anticipated expenditure. Both of those went back, I assume, to Treasury Board and received additional dollars. So, to me, that's an interim supply debate. They went back at some point in their process and asked for additional dollars. There was never any opportunity to debate that additional expense, to review it or certainly to ask any questions about it. I hope that this is the forum to do that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The OIC that's put in place does not deal with the money. It only deals with the term and the mandate. It doesn't deal with the money. Therefore I would say that those matters don't go to Treasury Board in terms of the expenditures.

[1440]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't really want to get into an argument over whether or not I'm a responsible individual. I believe I am, and I view these issues in a very responsible manner. I'd leave the hon. member to determine how she conducts herself. I simply want to say that when the term has to be changed at the request of a particular commission, that issue is appropriately and thoroughly considered both by the minister that might be bringing that forth -- which would be the Attorney General, usually, on behalf of royal commissions -- and by cabinet when cabinet grants that extension.

Obviously one knows that if a commission is going to work for a larger number of days, it's going to cost more. But they don't have a budget per se. You have a sense of what the expenditures are, and you know that the longer the commission goes, the more the expenditures. I think it's highly argumentative for us to say to each other here in this chamber whether one is more responsible than the other. I don't really want to get into that kind of debate, because it's not helpful. Let's deal with facts.

L. Reid: I await the facts on the question. Are those dollar values indeed available in terms of what was first approved for the commission on workers compensation? What was first approved for the residential construction commission? What was granted as interim approvals, and what were the final costs of both of those commission reports to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've said before that budgets for royal commissions and the like are never approved by cabinet or Treasury Board. There usually are estimates generated by the ministry that may be directly concerned with the commission. In the case of Workers Compensation, it may have been the Ministry of Labour that estimated what the costs might be. I don't have access to that information. I may have access to what the bill finally came to. I can assure the hon. member that once the bill comes into our ministry, we do due diligence on it and determine whether or not the expenditures are appropriate, and then they're paid.

L. Reid: In that I am truly interested in the process, can the Attorney tell me whether or not that information will be available to me from the other ministry if indeed the estimates are contained within the Ministry of Labour? Can he indeed send that information on?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would undertake to provide the information that I can provide -- within the constraints of the law, including FOI and all of those issues -- that resides with my ministry. I'll be happy to provide that. I understand that some information is coming, and as soon as it's over, we will hand it over to the other side. I don't have a problem with that. If there are estimates that my ministry might have, I'll be

[ Page 12322 ]

L. Reid: In terms of commission X that's going to be appointed, do I understand that there is no discussion about the parameters of the cost, that each one is indeed considered on its individual merit, that those dollars come out of consolidated revenue and that there is never any opportunity for any kind of public debate as to the cost?

[1445]

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that.

He will know that I have enormous concerns around the lack of transparency of that process. Certainly the residential construction commission report started out as: "Let's take a look at leaking condominiums." Then it expanded into residential construction in the province and went on far longer than was anticipated. We've yet to learn the actual cost, and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for the taxpayer to even review that level of expenditure. The Attorney is saying that he will provide that to me. I certainly appreciate that, and I thank him.

G. Plant: Earlier today we canvassed one or two items where there was the possibility that further input from the criminal justice branch would be sought and would be helpful. I don't know if there's anything back from that branch on those matters yet.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have any information with respect to those matters. I know that people from the ministry are watching, and I expect them to bring that information before 5:30 this evening.

G. Plant: The minister will know that earlier today there was a judicial decision in the case involving Glacier View Lodge on Vancouver Island.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, the minister now knows it.

My understanding is that the judge hearing that case decided that the issue with respect to the expropriation of the assets of the society was moot because there had been an agreement negotiated between the society and the government. I don't know if that is a correct description of the outcome; my information is, at best, secondhand.

But there is a question that exists in the volunteer sector with respect to a practice that the government has followed in some cases of expropriating the assets of voluntary associations and societies under, for example, the provisions of the Health Authorities Act, I think. The government has been on the receiving end of at least this one lawsuit, involving Glacier View Lodge. The question that arises, I suppose, is why the government is vigorously defending these claims and, in particular, what the cost of this defence has been to government. I assume that the Glacier View Lodge case would be a case where it would be the legal services branch that would be responsible for ensuring that the Crown was represented in the courts.

[1450]

Just to figure out where this inquiry or discussion will go, can the minister tell us whether the Glacier View Lodge case -- the expropriation case -- was handled internally, by counsel inside the legal services branch, or by outside counsel?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was handled by in-house counsel.

G. Plant: In order to attempt to attribute any kind of cost to government in respect of the defence of that action, one would have to engage in the exercise of ascribing a value to the time spent by someone who was an employee of the ministry and who presumably, some days or weeks, engaged in the defence of the action. Or it may have been more than one employee. There would not be, in that case, I suppose, a readily identifiable cost in the form of bills of outside lawyers paid, because there were no outside lawyers. Is that a fair analysis?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I correct my previous response. I now understand that there may have been someone from the outside brought in at some point during this, but ultimately the case was concluded by in-house counsel. The hon. member's interpretation is fair, with the exception that there might be a better way of quantifying, at least, what the outside counsel cost.

G. Plant: From time to time I am asked questions about the cost of legal services in circumstances where the Crown has hired outside counsel. My understanding is that generally those costs, if they ultimately took the form of bills for services rendered by a lawyer to his or her client -- in this case, the government -- would be disclosed as part of the public accounts of British Columbia, according to the rules that govern disclosure of those accounts. This would require doing a fair bit of research into the public accounts, according to the amount of the fee and the rules that apply to disclosure at different levels of accounts. Is that a correct statement of the way it works?

[ Page 12323 ]

G. Plant: That is, the public accounts are organized by the identity of the recipient of the money, not organized by the subject matter of the work done. You might find a particular law firm with a dollar figure beside it, but that dollar figure could represent fees for one matter or a dozen matters. Is that correct?

[1455]

G. Plant: Let me ask another question about activities within the legal services branch. I suppose I could begin with the observation that the budget for the legal services branch is experiencing a fairly significant increase. I am given to understand by the officials who helped me with the briefing that a very significant component of that increase is represented by the cost of creating, within the branch, a group of lawyers specifically organized to deal with litigation in aboriginal matters -- an aboriginal litigation group.

I wonder if the Attorney General could provide a little bit of flesh to those bones that I've just described. Is there such a group being established? What are the parameters of that group? Am I right that the creation of this group represents a relatively significant initiative on the part of the legal services branch to take a slightly different approach to how it contracts for and provides litigation representation to the Crown in respect of matters involving aboriginal rights?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I didn't understand the latter part of the hon. member's question.

In response to the part of the question that I did understand, yes, there has been an increase in the number of lawyers, and that's to make sure that we are appropriately equipped to deal with aboriginal litigation as well as treaty negotiations. There are several tables currently in progress in terms of the B.C. Treaty Commission negotiations. We need to provide all of those tables with appropriate representation to assist them so that they can move forward, as well as, obviously, to have people defending litigation that's being launched from time to time.

G. Plant: Is it the minister's observation that there has recently been an increase in the amount of aboriginal litigation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes. The temptation is to say something about the opposition's own litigation, but I won't, because I think it's fair to say that everybody has a right to go to court. We were talking about that this morning. I think that generally there has been an increase in litigation and that Delgamuukw -- and this is no comment on the Supreme Court of Canada -- certainly hasn't helped in that regard, in the sense that that has obviously provided more clarification for rights and obligations of different parties. That has led to both an impetus for negotiations and the inclination on the part of some to go to court rather than negotiate.

G. Plant: Responding to both an increase in the volume of litigation and the increased demand created by the scope of activity on the treaty negotiating front, the ministry has made an investment of additional dollars and hired additional staff in order to ensure that it can meet the demands that are being made upon it. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I think there has been an increase of $5.58 million and 26 FTEs, and that includes support staff, as well, for this purpose.

L. Reid: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure to introduce a grades 3 and 4 class from Rutherford community school that are joining us today and are going to be watching the proceedings for a short while. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1500]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The other issue I want to deal with in the context of the legal services branch is the question of the policies and practices of the government in providing an indemnity to government employees and elected officials in cases involving lawsuits. I guess that I have a couple of points to make here. I've had provided to me a copy of an extract from the government's "Personnel Management Policies and Procedures" -- I think it may be directive 119 or something like that -- that deals with the issue of indemnity protection for employees in particular categories.

I don't want to go on, and I'm not proposing to examine this document in detail. But at the risk of oversimplification, it appears to me that the provisions of this policy are fairly clear, in terms of the extent to which the government has undertaken an obligation to indemnify employees of the government in respect of the legal costs that they assume or experience as a result of having been sued for something done in the course of their office or employment or, in some cases, in relation to actions for defamation.

What the policy does not really say at all is what the Crown's obligations are to indemnify employees in respect of the costs of retaining counsel in circumstances where the employee is not being sued or about to sue, but, rather, may be called upon to give evidence in connection with a proceeding -- whether it's a proceeding in court or a proceeding in the form of an inquiry or an investigation. That would be a situation where the individual -- the employee -- is not, as I say, named in the action but is called upon to give evidence.

[ Page 12324 ]

[1505]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct. It's a Treasury Board policy, which is obviously assisted by PSERC from time to time, as to whether or not a particular matter comes within it. Our role at the end of the day is to determine whether or not the fees that have been charged are appropriate. That's the role of the Attorney General ministry.

G. Plant: I think the ministry has additional responsibilities in terms of providing opinions with respect to whether or not there is a cause of action and defamation, if it's a case to which that part of the policy applies. I think the Ministry of Attorney General also has obligations to undertake the defence of lawsuits against government employees. There's clearly a bit more to the ministry's obligations, looking at the policy as a whole.

Coming back to the specific question of who makes a decision about the reach of the policy in cases where the issue is whether an employee of government is entitled to legal representation when he or she is not a party but, rather, someone whose evidence is being sought, is the minister saying that that is not an issue that his ministry has any responsibility for? The question of whether or not to apply the policy to those cases has nothing to do with his ministry; it belongs somewhere else?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those kinds of decisions are made by PSERC, in consultation with the appropriate ministry to which the employee may belong. But the Ministry of Attorney General is consulted to determine whether or not what they're doing is appropriate if there are any legal questions.

G. Plant: There is a public policy issue here. At the risk of oversimplifying it, let me explain how I think it comes into existence. The policy, generally speaking, is directed at ensuring that employees of the Crown who are parties to litigation have legal representation. The policy, generally speaking, is not directed at the issue of whether employees of the Crown whose evidence is being sought in connection with a particular matter should be represented, yet the practice followed by the Crown, in some cases, is to provide that representation.

The issue that arises is whether or not there's a gap between what the policy says and the practice that should be dealt with. Is it the minister's view that there is a gap, and if so, how does he respond to a question about that gap?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has obviously constructed the question in a particular way. The only way that I can answer it is that it is PSERC's policy to implement, and they take advice from us, from time to time, as to what they're doing. It would be difficult for me to say, in a specific case, whether or not a particular action is appropriate.

[1510]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Does the minister have a view on the question of whether it's good public policy for the Crown to indemnify employees in respect of the cost of representation where the issue is simply giving evidence and not a case to which they are actually a party? We identified an issue of public policy, and we identified the fact that PSERC has a decision to make, and that's fine. We can deal with that one way or the other in terms of the way the actual policy is written and what PSERC does or does not do. The question now for the minister is: what is his view of good public policy here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure I'm going to be shot down by another minister, because it's not my ministry's policy. It's a policy governmentwide that doesn't reside with the Ministry of Attorney General.

Let me make some general comments -- not about the policy specifically. When an employee is asked to give evidence or be interviewed by someone with respect to what may have transpired during the course of his or her employment, I think it's only appropriate that if the individual feels the need to have some representation, then that representation should be provided. I think that's good public policy. I don't think it's appropriate for employees to be left hanging out there if they believe that they require and need representation.

G. Plant: So far we've been talking about the situation of employees. There is also a separate mechanism in place by which the government indemnifies ministers of the Crown in respect of legal costs that may arise in connection with their office as minister. The way in which this mechanism works is that ministers get the same coverage, in effect, as is available from time to time under the terms of the PSERC policy. Maybe just to begin, I could ask the minister if that's his understanding of the way the indemnity works.

[1515]

G. Plant: Does it follow, then, that the responsibilities of the Ministry of Attorney General, in respect of the implemen-

[ Page 12325 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: This issue of indemnifying government officials for legal costs has recently arisen in the context of the auditor general's report on the estimates process. That report took a long time to prepare. During the course of his work, the auditor general apparently sought assistance, evidence and statements from a variety of government officials. I assume that to the extent that those government officials had legal help or representation -- and to the extent that that legal representation was paid for by the government -- it was done so under the PSERC policy that we talked about earlier.

One of the questions that flows from that -- which relates to, I guess, the issue of public accountability -- is: what did that cost? How much did the government spend for legal advice to those government officials who were called upon by Mr. Morfitt to give evidence and who obtained legal representation at the Crown's expense in order to do so? Is the Attorney General able to assist in answering that question?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to those matters, the Attorney General's ministry pays the bills after determining that they're reasonable and then journal-vouchers the appropriate ministry with which the person may be associated. Now, with respect to the amounts and the like, that information is the subject of solicitor-client privilege, and it's difficult for me -- impossible for me -- to actually give the hon. member that information without violating that confidentiality.

G. Plant: But the government does, through the public accounts process, make public the cost of outside legal services. Admittedly, it does so without allocating the cost on a matter-by-matter basis, so I'm not sure how I reconcile those two facts -- that is, the assertion that solicitor-client privilege operates to prevent disclosure of the amounts, but on the other hand, the public accounts process ensures that the public does get to see how much the costs are. Perhaps the Attorney General could clarify that for me.

[1520]

G. Plant: I was going to say that when I heard the minister give that explanation, I think the minister's conclusion expressed the principle that in the contest between the obligation to make public disclosure on the one hand and the obligation to protect solicitor-client privilege, the Crown yields to the obligation to make public disclosure but attempts to do so only to the extent absolutely necessary in order to protect solicitor-client privilege. Is that a fair statement of the approach?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Community justice. I want to talk a little bit about legal aid and a little bit about residential tenancy, family maintenance enforcement and the community accountability program.

I think we can maybe begin with the family maintenance enforcement program, because I think the discussion that we're going to have is at a high level of generality. If I were to bring to the Attorney General every case, every letter from someone who has a concern about the application of the family maintenance enforcement program in their lives, we would be here a very long time. So I don't propose to do that.

I believe it was during his opening remarks that the Attorney General made reference to the number of cases that are currently enrolled in the family maintenance enforcement program. Of course, as I understand it, there have been some changes in those enrolment figures, partly because of recent changes in the way in which Ministry of Human Resources benefits payments interact with that program.

One of the things that people who either make payments or receive them under this program often have a hard time understanding is that the role of the program is not to determine what is a fair amount of support but simply to administer the enforcement of court orders. The challenge presented by that fact can work itself out in the real world in ways that undoubtedly create hardship. Not everyone who is on the side of a support order, where it's their obligation to make payments, is going to be an individual who understands well the court process for obtaining a variation in support obligations or who, even if they understand it, is going to be someone who'll have ready access to lawyers and the processes for getting before a judge to apply for a variation.

[1525]

It does seem to me that there is enough of that hardship out there that it's worth looking at whether or not there could be some introduction of some kind of mechanism that would mean that in circumstances where someone who was obviously a regular employee earning a salary with a paycheque every couple of weeks then found themselves without a job and on welfare could at least suspend the increase in the accrued obligations, or do something to ensure that the system is not piling up his indebtedness -- or her indebtedness, but most of them will be men -- while the issue of a variation

[ Page 12326 ]

Before I ask the Attorney General what is really a policy question, let me make this observation: there are lots of people who make support payments and who receive them whose lives are organized in a very complicated way, some of whom become experts in the art of obfuscating what their income is for the purpose of making it complicated to figure out what the support obligation is. I would be reluctant to support any change in the way that this program and the courts work that might encourage that phenomenon. There is already enough of that.

Nonetheless, it does seem to me that in a number of cases. . . . The way this program works, in conjunction with the way the court system works, there are cases where the program is just not quite as flexible as it should be in order to achieve fairness. I don't have the practical solution to that problem. I'm not sure whether you put a box on the form or whether that's just an invitation to abuse. I want to know what the Attorney General's thoughts are on that problem, which, over and above the question of bringing individual cases before him here, is perhaps the one general question that concerns me about this program.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member's comments are well made, because they both raised the concern initially with respect to some unfairness that is visited upon some people so that everybody else could be made to remain fair. That's unfortunate, because there is no system in place anywhere in Canada that takes into account the kind of eventuality that the hon. member is talking about.

[1530]

We have family justice counsellors and other programs that we're trying to put in place, such as family court rules and those changes, to assist people to get before the courts sooner. As well, I think the maintenance guidelines -- the child-support guidelines -- are very clear. If there is evidence and the payee is persuaded that the payer's income is now below what it used to be, they can really settle this very quickly without even going to court. I think these matters are only difficult where there is a level of distrust between the payer and the payee and things are not very clear.

G. Plant: The Attorney General points out the possibility of varying maintenance obligations by consent. But does that not also require the sanction of the court in the case where there is a court order with respect to maintenance?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it does. But I'm sure that courts are much faster than they used to be, seven or eight years ago when I last practised before them, in terms of allowing consent orders of the nature that we're talking about to go through.

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments on what is obviously a difficult issue. I think it's probably some progress that at least there is the identification or the recognition that the potential for unfairness exists in a certain number of cases. Perhaps over time a better solution to that problem will present itself.

I want to ask about one component of the complexity of that solution. In terms of fixing the amount which should be payable -- that is, of determining what is a fair and reasonable and appropriate level of support that an issue which, on the law as it now stands, has to be the province of the courts, as opposed to a program within the Ministry of Attorney General. The government's understanding is, in effect, that the constitution requires that it be so. I may be wrong on that, but my sense has always been that one of the challenges that governments are faced with here is that it is not possible to remove that decision from the judicial arena. Now, that may not be an issue of constitutionality. It may simply be the fact that the Divorce Act is federal and the province can't change the Divorce Act. The Family Relations Act is as it is, and therefore it works as it does, which is to make judges the decision-makers here.

I guess the question is: in terms of looking at the possibility of changing the system someday to accommodate this potential issue of unfairness, are there barriers presented by the constitution here? Or are we simply looking at a program that works the way it does, because the government sees it as being, as a matter of policy, appropriate to leave it to the judiciary to fix the amount which should be owing?

[1535]

There is, of course, always the talk about a unified family court. We had that in British Columbia once; it did not work. I know there are currently three or four unified courts in Ontario, and I understand that the results -- in the survey results -- are not bad. I haven't seen them, but I've heard about those results. Obviously, at some point, we may try and have another go at it to see if that works. I think that's the only answer to the concern that the hon. member has raised -- unless we change the constitution, which I think, as the hon. member knows, is much more difficult to do.

G. Plant: I suppose the point of my question was in part to open up that issue just a little bit, and we're not going to pursue it at great length. I think that we sometimes look at changing the structures of legal institutions as a way of fixing social, economic or cultural problems. Perhaps a more appropriate focus for the issue presented by family maintenance and support is how to reduce the incidence of family breakup and, in cases where families break up, reduce the incidence of litigiousness following that. The minister has talked about some of the initiatives underway in his ministry on that front.

[ Page 12327 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: One of a number of issues that was raised a while ago when there was a considerable amount of stress between the Legal Services Society, on the one hand, and the government, on the other, in terms of the budget for the Legal Services Society, had to do with the problem presented by major case funding. The Legal Services Society, as I recall, responded to that problem by creating a cap of $50,000 for major cases.

That cap ran up against the problem that there might be cases where the courts would order that someone be afforded a defence in a case where the cost of that defence might exceed the cap. There was some correspondence that went back and forth between the society and the government in which the government, I think, at one point said that if the Crown was forced to bear the cost of providing a defence in a case where that exceeded the $50,000 cap, the Crown would take the position that the excess should be set off against the contribution to the Legal Services Society.

[1540]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely.

G. Plant: I want the Attorney General's commitment to continue to work hard to fix the problem in a way that ensures that there is no resort to a setoff. I'm not asking for his guarantee that the problem will be solved, but I do ask for his commitment that he will continue to attempt to achieve a solution which does not result in a setoff.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. That commitment is there, and we have been working. . . .

I'll take this moment to say on the record that the board has been very helpful. The board has been trying very hard to live within the budget they have. In fact, they've had discussions with me where they are thinking of making some enhancements to the services that are available to the needy and the poor. In matters like that, within the context of the budget they do have, I think they need to be commended. I do so publicly today on the floor of the House, because I think they've done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Plant: Another flashpoint, if you will, in the relationship between the Legal Services Society and government has to do with the accumulated deficit of the society. Not that long ago -- a couple of years ago now -- the government, having frozen funding, if you will, also took the position that the Legal Services Society had an obligation to repay the accumulated deficit over time. A time period was imposed as part of that original decision by government.

I wonder if the Attorney General could assist in explaining the status of that arrangement -- whether the society has in fact repaid any of the accumulated deficit or not and what the government expects on that front over the next little while.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that the Legal Services Society continues to repay the deficit and reduce it. I understand that the deficit, according to my information here, was the highest in '96-97, at over $17 million, and in '97-98 it was just over $16 million. I understand that at the end of March of this year, it was about $15 million. That is in addition to the fact that 85 percent of the accounts of all the lawyers who bill legal aid are now paid within 30 days. I think that's good news.

[1545]

When the Attorney General explains the progress that the society is making in reducing that deficit, it sounds like it could take a number of years for the deficit to be repaid in full, and that the government, while committed to having the deficit repaid, is committed to doing so in a way that will not cause -- not unfairly, at least -- the impairment of service delivery by the Legal Services Society. In other words, the government wants to act as reasonably as it can here. Does the Attorney General have in place, at this point, a time limit for the expectation that the deficit will be repaid?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's fair to say that I recognize that if they had to repay it by 2001, they wouldn't be able to without impairing services that are particularly for the needy. Therefore we are speaking to them, and we're trying to make arrangements. At the end of the day, those are decisions that are made by Treasury Board. All I can do is try and present the case. At the end of the day, I think we all recognize that these are very difficult issues. We have tried to assist the society before in terms of carrying a certain amount of deficit, and we will continue to try and do that in the future.

G. Plant: Recognizing that the Attorney General is not the decision-maker here, he is obviously, nonetheless, somebody who has influence; more importantly, his perspective is relevant. At the risk of overgeneralizing, it sounds to me like there has been, from the ministry's perspective, some progress. There is a constructive dialogue, there is the sense that there will continue to be progress, and there is as close a commitment as you can get -- by this ministry, anyway -- that as long as those conditions are present, then there may be nothing more required.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Generally, the hon. member's observation is correct. I want to add that if the deadline for repayment

[ Page 12328 ]

[1550]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: The public debate around whether or not the government adequately funds legal aid has a number of components. One issue that is raised in this context is the question of the amount of funding that the government of British Columbia receives from the government of Canada that is intended for legal aid or the provision of legal services. My understanding is that one of the calculations that is done to try to determine that amount is an allocation of the CHST transfer, which is really a global transfer. I suppose we could argue about how much of that is actually, really, supposed to go to legal aid. If the minister has that number, I would ask for it. In addition to that, if there are any specifically targeted funds that are intended to go to legal aid that come from the government of Canada, could the minister provide that number also?

So I'm asking, firstly, for the number, if the minister has it, that represents an allocation of the CHST that, from the government's perspective, should be going to the provision of legal services under the legal aid system and, secondly, whether there are any specifically targeted funds.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that government, in the last several years, has taken the position with respect to CHST that there can be no allocation to legal aid. But with respect to criminal legal aid, I understand that the province receives $9 million a year.

G. Plant: So that latter number hasn't changed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that number has not changed. Actually, my concern is that over the years their share of the funding has decreased because ours has increased. They now pay a very small share of legal aid funding in the province.

G. Plant: Residential tenancy. I'll begin by identifying the fact that rules of procedure to govern the process in arbitrations, which were talked about a year ago, have come into being. In addition, the ministry has put forward guidelines that deal with -- I suppose you could say they are policy questions on -- how the act should be interpreted in a substantive way; that is, what does it mean to give somebody reasonable notice or to not give reasonable notice, for example. I understand that the ministry is continuing its work on that front.

The other question that has been pursued in this debate annually for as long as the minister and I have been doing this is the question of rewriting the act. That question is sometimes talked about as though what was required was a plain-language rewriting of the Residential Tenancy Act. The act is a lawyer's dream; it's not really the kind of statute that is very user-friendly for people without legal training. We've had the debate here on an annual basis, and on an annual basis there have been commitments given with respect to delivery of the plain-language rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act.

[1555]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it does.

G. Plant: Could the minister assist in explaining what, if any, process is underway to make progress towards the goal of updating the Residential Tenancy Act in a way that ensures that it works better for landlords and tenants.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member has mentioned, there have been some policy issues that have arisen or have been brought to the attention of the ministry by both the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and the Rental Housing Council. We're looking at those and determining whether or not it might be possible to bring forth some amendments to clarify some issues. But I think the rewrite would have to await. . . . There are other, larger policy questions that would have to be taken into account in the rewrite; therefore I don't believe that the rewrite would be before us this sitting. I want to be quite candid about that with you, hon. member.

G. Plant: Does the ministry have any kind of time line for the completion of the project of updating and rewriting these things? And if there isn't such a time line, then the minister could tell me. . . . I ask the question about time lines partly to know if we can measure progress or not. If there's progress happening, clearly that's a good thing, and an artificial time line is not necessarily a good thing. But I guess the question really comes down to this: what is the likelihood that other things being equal, the minister and I will be having somewhat the same discussion a year from now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's reasonably likely that we may be having the same discussion next year, but I want the hon. member to know that we are making changes, although we haven't been able to do the rewrite and present it to the Legislature. We continue to make changes with the guidelines, and other issues that are currently being considered continue, I think, to enhance and improve the Residential Tenancy Act.

One of the things with respect to the rewrite is that even if we are able to complete it next year, it's a question of legislative time. There are competing and contending demands, and that's why, in fact, we've adopted the approach that we should make the changes that we can, given all of the pressures, and do the rewrite whenever it can be done.

[ Page 12329 ]

[1600]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

B. Penner: I've been contacted by people in the northeast part of the province -- by the president of the North Peace Justice Society, which, for three years now, has operated a community justice program. I'm told that that program has been a tremendous success in Fort St. John. In fact, they estimate they have saved the courts, police and others up to $525,000 over the course of the last three years. Not all of their success can be measured in monetary terms, but I think that is one indicator we can look to. This organization, like other community justice programs, works by bringing together victims and offenders, families and friends under the guidance of a facilitator, who works with everyone to discuss the impact of the crime and to attempt to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution designed to repair the harm of the offence.

This program started before many others in British Columbia and did not receive the benefit of a startup grant, like the one in Maple Ridge or even in my community of Chilliwack, where there is a similar program now underway. The North Peace Justice Society has helped about 2,100 people since it started, and they claim a compliance rate of approximately 97 percent.

However, the program is in dire financial straits. They did receive a one-time grant last year from the municipality of Fort St. John, but apparently that funding has not necessarily been approved for this year. The question that I was asked by the president of the North Peace Justice Society, Mr. Bruce Lantz, is whether the provincial government, through the Attorney General ministry, has any plans to fund these community justice programs in an ongoing manner.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that my temptation is to say that we would help, but I'm constrained because of the lack of funding available within the ministry. This $1 million is only available for startup funds. These people were way ahead of us and started the program, and that's a wonderful thing. They have served many people and individuals and saved time and expense both to individuals and, more particularly, to the treasury, by saving court time, police time, and the like.

We would certainly be interested in speaking to them. I would certainly hope that someone from the ministry, as they're listening and watching, would speak to this particular group and see if we can assist them, perhaps, in starting alternative measures programs which are then funded through contractors as well as the Ministry for Children and Families, which has responsibility for youth. They might be able to assist them with some funding -- at least to carry them over for a certain period of time.

I'm not committing on behalf of the ministry -- I don't want the ministry to be throwing bricks at me -- because that's the responsibility of another minister. All I'm saying is that my ministry would be prepared to actually sit with them and determine how we can help them, given the constraints that we have fiscally. They're doing good work.

[1605]

I wonder if the ministry has undertaken any type of study or review to determine what kind of financial benefit there is to community justice programs. To be more specific, is there any plan to determine how much of a payoff the taxpayers get for every dollar invested in community justice programs? If the stated goal is to reduce court backlogs and reduce the need of police to come to court to testify while receiving overtime pay, obviously that will result in financial savings. I'm curious as to whether we could try to quantify those savings and come up with a cost-benefit analysis that determines what the appropriate amount of investment should be in community justice programs, as measured against the return on that investment by savings elsewhere in the system.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm certain that there is not just financial benefit but benefit to the communities in terms of reintegration of people that go through these programs. They're obviously then at peace with the community that they're part of, and the community is healthier and happier as a result of that.

We are trying to compile a report for the last one year to determine what has happened in that one year with respect to these programs. I don't think there has been a study done with respect to the savings both to the individuals and, more importantly, to the system of justice.

One of the things that I made very clear when we started this program and had discussions across the province was that I was leery of starting another layer of programs that are government-funded. In fact, we've been told by police officers and by people who have been involved in these programs that they work best if there is no funding coming to them -- if the impetus comes from the community and if we don't have people directly employed by the ministry or anyone else that is doing the work, in terms of the actual panels that deal with individuals that come before them.

Yes, you need money for an office and perhaps a coordinating function. Our view was that the communities could come together and perhaps fundraise to do that as part of being healthy communities. But at some point, maybe a year down the road, once we've been able to evaluate it and we have some more money, we may want to actually fund a small amount of core functions so that the volunteers and the like can be supported to do the work they do free of charge.

G. Plant: The corrections branch is what I hope to move to now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's colleague from Richmond East was asking questions about the cost of the commissions. The Barrett commission cost $414,573. The total

[ Page 12330 ]

[1610]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Workers Compensation Board. That's the only information I have; that's the only commission that I have that information on.

G. Plant: I have some questions on the corrections branch now. I suspect that they are questions where staff are going to be helpful.

First, I am going to simply ask the Attorney General to outline what the drug interdiction programs are in provincial corrections facilities. This is in the aftermath of the public controversy around the program known as IPSO. I have had discussions with the minister's officials about some of the details of current initiatives. If the minister is able to provide some explanation or exposition of those matters, I would like to hear it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is perhaps interested in sort of determining what we have put in place subsequent to the Stewart review. Let me just say first, generally, that elements of the drug interdiction strategy obviously include the use of ion scanners, an additional drug dog, sharing of criminal intelligence with police, and changes to the inmate visiting areas and procedures.

The information with respect to the review and the implementation of those recommendations. . . . I understand that the following action has been taken, and here's a list that I've been given. In consultation with the police and federal corrections, a new drug interdiction strategy has been implemented. Protocol agreements have been developed with the RCMP, Vancouver police and Saanich police to assist with information-sharing and the investigation of illegal drug activity. An information exchange through a linked computer-based program is being established between correctional centres and local police agencies. Two ion scanners used to detect and identify trace amounts of illegal drugs have been leased and tested at both Fraser Regional and the Vancouver facilities. Amendments to the correctional centre rules and regulations are being developed to include urinalysis. Revisions are also being made to the policy and procedures used in correctional centres for drug interdiction, visit supervision and search and seizure. An additional drug-detecting dog, which I've referred to, and handler are in training and will be available by early June for use in lower mainland centres.

A senior branch official has been assigned responsibility for the implementation stage, which includes specialized training with other agencies, security improvements and new policies. The director of operations in each centre has been designated the local manager responsible for drug interdiction strategies.

And there are some other changes that have taken place. So the work has been underway; obviously it's not complete, but it's slow and steady.

[1615]

Can the minister indicate whether there are specific success indicators attached to these initiatives, and if so, what they are? Or is this left hanging in a more general way, awaiting the possibility of review at some point down the line?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would assume that once the implementation was completed, the assistant deputy minister who was in charge would take a look and come and give me a full report. We will then set some goals in terms of determining whether or not the whole apparatus is functioning appropriately. If that means having someone else look at it to see what progress we've made and how we've changed and whether or not it's been effective, that's an option always available to ensure that we're doing the right thing.

We have someone in the ministry at arm's length from Corrections -- the investigation, inspection and standards office. Mr. Anderson heads that office, and he's done many investigations. He might play another role which he hasn't done so far in this respect. I might at some point -- a year down the road -- ask him to take a look at how it's functioning. Those are possibilities.

G. Robertson: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: With us today, all the way from the North Island, from Zeballos, we have Zeballos Elementary students from grades 4, 5 and 6. They're down here on a field trip and are going to be spending four days in Victoria. It's a real pleasure to have them down here today. Accompanying the students is their teacher Kathleen Woodley, Bill Heidrick, Debbie Hawkins, Elizabeth Hanson, Fidelia Haygupis and Debra Brown. I would ask the members to please make them welcome.

G. Plant: The Attorney General spoke about the possible options for identifying goals for the drug interdiction strategy that he has outlined. Well, let me just say this: it may be that the specific means by which the success of this initiative is to be assessed are not as yet identified. But then the more general question, I suppose, is: do we have the Attorney General's commitment to ensure that once the program is fully implemented, there will also be put in place some process for review and assessment and monitoring to ensure that the program does achieve whatever objectives are eventually set for it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

[1620]

[ Page 12331 ]

G. Plant: I want to ask a question about one specific fallout, if you will, from the IPSO story. On December 1, 1998, the TV program called "Fifth Estate" aired a documentary on Ron Leskun and the IPSO drug interdiction program at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre. A corrections guard named Wayne Pasiecka appeared and stated -- and this is apparently from the transcript of the program:

"Staff decided they were going to have a little party off the grounds, and I attended that party. The staff were drinking, and all of a sudden they started passing drugs around. They say what staff do on their own time is their own business, and it shouldn't matter to anyone else what they do. I disagree with that because, as a correctional officer, you're a peace officer, and second of all, that's illegal. As a peace officer, if you know someone's breaking the law, it's your obligation to report it."

Let me ask, first of all, the general question: does the Attorney General agree that a corrections officer who sees lawbreaking -- on or off the job -- by his colleagues should report that illegal activity to the appropriate authorities? In general terms, what is the Attorney General's sense of the obligation of a corrections officer who sees lawbreaking taking place on or off the job?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that it's a very clear and basic rule that if you are an employee and you see wrong being done or a law being violated, you do two things: (1) you report to your superiors that this is happening; and (2) if it's a criminal matter, you report it to the police. I think that if that happens, then appropriate actions could be taken.

G. Plant: That statement applies to corrections officers, as it would, presumably, to any other employee in the service of the Ministry of Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Turning now to the specific instance of Mr. Pasiecka and the CBC "Fifth Estate" program, why was Mr. Pasiecka suspended? Was he terminated or simply suspended? What is the status of his employment at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's an appropriate practice for a minister of the Crown not to talk about personnel issues on the floor of the House -- or otherwise -- because I think those are personnel issues involving personnel matters and privacy issues. I'm reluctant to get into that line of questioning. I understand that the matter is still unresolved.

[1625]

What is the policy of the Ministry of Attorney General with respect to employees of the ministry who speak to the media without express authorization to do so from an official in the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's quite clear that what's appropriate in these circumstances is first and foremost for the employee to speak to his or her superiors so that the matter can be rectified. And then, obviously, there are other avenues for reviewing those approaches if the matter is not rectified. I think that in an area as sensitive and as difficult to manage as corrections, if employees did not act appropriately, there could be rather difficult consequences for others. And I think it's important that that be done. I don't think there's a specific code; I'm not aware of any. I think that's just the general practice. I think that's good practice.

G. Plant: The practice the minister refers to is a practice at least, I suppose, of caution around media statements. Is that what the minister meant?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, because that would mean that you would be talking about information that might be personal, private information relating to either other employees or inmates. I think it's appropriate that there be that caution, and there is that caution.

G. Plant: Moving to a different subject, the minister recalls that not that long ago this branch was responsible for youth corrections as well as adult corrections. That's no longer so. Youth corrections are now the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families. There were implications flowing out of that transition for probation officers who in many cases had responsibilities for adult probation, young offender probation and also responsibilities around custody reports and family matters.

[1630]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member makes a good point. I think, historically, it has developed the way it has. I think the ministry did consider, actually, transferring those matters to community justice. One of the reasons that wasn't done is because community justice doesn't have a provincewide

[ Page 12332 ]

G. Plant: I spoke earlier about the three different roles that the individuals who are probation officers might be fulfilling -- adult probation, youth probation and responsibilities around custody reports and so on. My understanding is that one of the ways in which the transition and the change into Children and Families in respect of youth offender matters has resulted is that there are now, generally speaking, people who are adult probation officers, and that's all they do; people who are young offender probation officers, and that's all they do, although they do that for a different ministry; and people who have responsibilities only around family matters. But it may be that there are still places where there are probation officers discharging both the adult probation function and the family function. Is that the case, or has the separation been complete?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the separation is now complete.

G. Plant: Presumably that creates the challenge of delivering the responsibilities associated with family custody and access reports and so on in rural areas. I assume you have the situation where there may be just one of these individuals in a community who's now responsible for a fairly large area of the province. If that assumption is right, can the minister indicate whether that's working or what the ministry's experience is with that new situation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, when you have fewer bodies to provide services in as many locations as you did before, it does provide some challenges. Therefore I think the ministry does enter into contracting for services in some areas where they can't provide them directly. Those are difficult challenges, but the fact is that the separation is complete, and there's no going back. We've got to contend with limited resources and the need as it is.

[1635]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's true.

G. Plant: With the objective, hopefully, of reducing the remand inmate count in facilities like FRCC and other provincial secure custody facilities -- is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: That's with the further objective, as I understand it, of perhaps enhancing or helping to enhance the delivery of programs inside the secure custody facilities like FRCC, which, I gather, is made more of a challenge when the institution has a high percentage of remand inmates. So perhaps one consequence of this initiative, from the ministry's perspective, is that there'll be easier-to-deliver programs within institutions like Fraser Regional Correctional Centre than there are now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that it's our hope and our intention.

G. Plant: I propose moving to public safety and regulatory services.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, until the officials come, I have this information. I understand there has been no change with respect to policy regarding impaired drivers and charges in terms of the Crown counsel policies. I would be happy if the hon. member wants to discuss that matter with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. That's the information that has come to me from him.

G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the clarification. That, of course, relates to the criminal justice branch question we were asking earlier.

There are a number of issues I want to pursue under the heading of public safety and regulatory services, with the consequence, I suppose, that Mr. Stackhouse may be here for longer than Mr. Demers was. But I'm sure he's happy to hear that.

[1640]

I don't propose here to debate the issue of the need for regulation. I understand that the ministry has a concern that there are some security guard companies where the uniform worn by employees is confused with the uniforms that are worn by police officers. So from the ministry's perspective, there is a need to make sure that it's easy to recognize security guards and to not confuse them with police officers. We'll take that policy objective for granted for the moment. The fact is that the implementation of this kind of a regulation, if it happened in a way that did not respect the cost implications of changing uniforms for some small businesses and according to a timetable that was perhaps faster than it really needed to be, could be serious. We're talking about the potential for some serious harm, at least to some smaller outfits.

That is an issue that has been raised with the ministry. My understanding is that the ministry is now taking the position that the proposed new regulations will not be implemented until there has been a fuller and broader consultation with people in the industry and, hopefully, even some consensus

[ Page 12333 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Yes means that we have the Attorney General's commitment along the lines that I outlined?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I understand that consultations are ongoing. I also understand the need to, firstly, bring in regulations upon due consultation and, secondly, to perhaps phase them in so that there is no undue cost to those that are involved.

G. Plant: So that being the minister's understanding, he supports that approach and will do what he can to ensure that all this happens with the minimum of unnecessary expense and hardship?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The second issue, under the general heading of security programs, concerns armoured vehicles. Here the specific question relates to training with firearms for people who are in the armoured vehicle business. Again, I think this is an initiative of the director of security programs: to upgrade safety and training requirements in the part of this business that deals with armoured vehicles. But, again, this may be a situation where there is a need to ensure that the regulations that are brought into effect -- or the rules or the practices or the requirements -- are responsive to the particular conditions of participants throughout the industry.

[1645]

Again, my concern. . . . While I recognize the public policy interest in ensuring that security guards on armoured vehicles have adequate training, I want to have a sense from the Attorney General that whatever initiatives are going to be undertaken here will be responsive to and sensitive to the particular circumstances of the industry and won't impose unnecessary hardship or requirements.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct. If the individuals involved don't carry guns, there's no need for training.

G. Plant: I want to move to the issue of photo radar as it affects the operations of the public safety and regulatory branch, and my colleague from Chilliwack, I think, will have some questions on that subject.

B. Penner: At the outset, I'd like to acknowledge that we asked a number of detailed questions of the Attorney General by way of a letter from the official opposition some weeks ago, and on May 4, 1999, we received a reply to a range of questions. I thank the Attorney General and his staff for providing us with that information; that will shorten the need for exhaustive questioning here today. However, there are still a few questions that need to be asked.

On Monday of this week, many news agencies reported that the B.C. government was acquiring ten additional photo radar vans to be added to the current fleet of 30 vans. These vans are the vehicles which motorists see parked alongside B.C.'s busy highways and byways. Can the Attorney General tell us how much it will cost to acquire these vans and whether this purchase has been put to public tender?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the total cost of leasing is $50,000 a year for all of the ten vans. I understand from the staff that it was tendered; if I'm wrong on that, I will bring that information on Monday to rectify the answer that I've just given.

[1650]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Seven more police officers.

B. Penner: Can the minister indicate what the cost will be for each additional police officer to operate the additional photo radar vans?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the total cost for the officers would be $560,000. Divide that by seven, and that's $80,000 each.

B. Penner: Does the Attorney General have any plans this year to replace the fully trained police officers that currently occupy the photo radar vans and take photos -- or monitor the process of taking photos -- of speeding vehicles? Does he have any plans to replace the fully trained police officers with enforcement officers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That has been the intent all along. But I understand that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police has some serious concerns about it. They believe that it is appropriate for police officers to do this, because this is law enforcement. I would leave the matter at that. I think there has been some desire in the past, on the part of the ministry, to make that change. The subject has been broached, and the decision at this time is to continue to utilize the police officers, as that is the opinion of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

B. Penner: With the addition of seven police officers this year for the expanded photo radar program, will the total number of police officers employed by the program now be 90 individuals? What will be the total number of police officers employed by the program once the fleet has expanded to 40 vehicles?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, 90.

[ Page 12334 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that's the total number. If there is a breakdown and the municipal police are involved, we'll bring that information and let it be known.

B. Penner: Does the Attorney General have an estimate of how much more revenue will be collected from photo radar this year due to the expansion in the number of vans taking pictures of speeding vehicles?

[1655]

B. Penner: The minister is quite correct. A Vancouver Sun article which I happened to clip, dated December 2, 1998, "Photo Radar Proves a Bust for Taxpayers," detailed the litany of cost overruns and other expenses related to the creation of the photo radar program here in British Columbia. In that same article, it was noted that it cost British Columbians $6.3 million a year in police enforcement to staff the vans used to photograph speeding vehicles. But this morning, during debate with my colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston, we learned that the projected costs this year on the enforcement side of photo radar will be in excess of $10 million. That's an increase of better than 50 percent over what was reported last year.

I wonder if the minister can confirm if in fact the operational cost of enforcement was $6.3 million last year or if the newspaper was incorrect in its report. If the newspaper was correct, I wonder if the Attorney General can explain to us why the enforcement costs have risen so dramatically, from $6.3 million last year to over $10 million this year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told by the assistant deputy minister that the cost last year was $9.6 million and that this year it will be $10.74 million.

B. Penner: In the past, I was told that an average of 25,000 photo radar tickets were issued per month across the province. However, according to information contained in a letter we received from the Attorney General on May 4, the number has apparently dropped to less than 18,000 tickets per month during the first three months of 1999. Based on my rudimentary mathematical skills, I've determined that that amounts to a decline of about 35 percent. Can the Attorney General explain this rather dramatic decrease in the number of photo radar tickets being issued this year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's good news. People in British Columbia are paying attention, finally. They're not driving as fast on the roads; they are keeping within the speeding limits. We have fewer injuries, fewer crashes and fewer deaths in British Columbia. That's why you don't hear much about photo radar nowadays: because people know that this is an essential tool, not for making money but for saving lives, saving injuries and saving costs.

B. Penner: I believe that's another part of the minister's mantra -- that thing that we just heard. We had this debate last year -- the difference between correlation and causation -- and I don't intend to repeat all of that this year. But I just wish to confirm, if the minister can set us straight, that there is no other thing taking place in B.C. than that there are simply fewer vehicles being caught speeding -- and that accounts for the 35 percent decrease in photo radar tickets being issued. Or have the operations of photo radar been curtailed somewhat in the first three months of 1999?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, it's even better news, if you look at the fact that the number of cars in British Columbia is going up every year -- because the number of people living in British Columbia has gone up every year; every month it's increasing -- and the enforcement has not been curtailed. If you look at all of that, then you come to the conclusion that photo radar is finally working the way it's supposed to.

[1700]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there have been any changes in the threshold, and those changes are made by police as operational decisions. There has been no curtailment -- as I've been told by the assistant deputy minister -- of enforcement.

B. Penner: I agree with the minister that there has been a decline in the number of injuries and accidents in British Columbia. In fact, the last time the rate of injuries and accidents was this low was during the last recession, in 1982-83. That's according to ICBC and a detailed analysis they did of the accident and injury rate -- the decrease that took place in 1982.

I have a question now related to prosecutions of photo radar tickets that are disputed by motorists. It's my understanding that up until last year, photo radar prosecutions were handled by Crown counsel lawyers in a number of central locations. This meant that local Crown counsel offices didn't have to worry about assigning their staff lawyers to deal with an increased burden of contested photo radar tickets. To state it differently, the presence of photo radar cameras in communities across the province didn't distract the local prosecutors from more serious crimes. However, I'm being told by local Crown counsel offices that they are now responsible for prosecuting photo radar tickets that arise in their communities. In most communities, additional prosecutors were not provided by the government in the past year, so the workload for individual prosecutors has increased. I wonder if the minister can confirm what appears to be a change in policy and perhaps explain the purpose of the change.

[ Page 12335 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that question would be better answered through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General responsible for the criminal justice branch, because I don't have information on this very issue right now. I think that initially, obviously, lawyers were required to deal with these issues because this was new. There may have been some test cases, and that's now no longer the case. We're functioning smoothly. These cases are not very difficult to prosecute. I'm prepared to have the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, who's responsible for Crown counsel, speak to the member and provide that information, since we have finished the estimates with respect to the criminal justice branch.

B. Penner: I'd appreciate confirmation from his deputy on that.

Moving to the question of intersection cameras, last year during budget estimates I asked the Attorney General about this. He said at that time, I believe, that a pilot project was underway in six different locations across British Columbia and that ultimately the hope was to have a total of 30 cameras purchased by the provincial government and used in a total of 120 selected locations. Can the Attorney General provide us with a status report on the intersection cameras?

[1705]

B. Penner: It seems to me that this program is a little bit behind schedule, if I remember what the Attorney General expressed last year. It's my recollection that he indicated a desire to have the program up and running by this point in 1999.

The minister is a little bit vague in his setting out of the details of the project. We have a number of cameras now that are being tested, presumably on a prototype basis. Has any decision been made by the government about which type of camera they wish to purchase and from which vendor? If that decision has been made, was that decision reached as a result of a competitive tendering process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there are negotiations between ICBC and a potential vendor of the technology. We're involved in those discussions, but we're not carrying those discussions. The ministry doesn't carry those discussions. The technology is purchased by ICBC, and the discussions have not concluded at this time.

B. Penner: Does the minister have any target date in mind for when the program will be operational?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're hoping that that will happen by, hopefully, mid-July or the end of July -- that it will be operational, maybe not necessarily fully, in terms of 30 cameras, but perhaps with fewer, if we can at least get that going. It will take time to expand.

This is obviously a law enforcement issue. I have said before that the law needs to be enforced right across the province in a uniform way. Obviously, we are speaking to the municipalities in that regard. Those 120 intersections have been identified in various localities right throughout the province. Those 30 cameras, if and when we do have them -- hopefully, this year -- will then rotate in those locations.

B. Penner: Has the Attorney General ministry budgeted any specific amount for the startup cost of the intersection camera program, and if so, how much is it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those would be ICBC costs, not Ministry of Attorney General costs, because they would be purchasing the cameras and installing them. They're responsible for processing the tickets and the like. The matter is only dealt with by us indirectly, as part of the court services when the tickets come up and they're disputed.

B. Penner: Is the minister aware of what the startup costs will be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that question would appropriately be addressed to the minister responsible for ICBC. I can give you, generally, some information about what I know. The initial cost of implementing the program would run to about $14 million. That would include purchasing, installing and the like. I think the exact cost of implementation and the annual cost of operation would be better addressed by the minister responsible for ICBC.

[1710]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I may have misspoken, but I don't think that there was ever any intention to specifically say that the municipalities that allow photo radar cameras would get a cut of the photo radar fines. I think there was a general understanding that the municipalities would get a share of traffic fines, and that has been negotiated with them -- with the UBCM -- and announced. I believe it was announced in December of 1998 by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I think, if I remember my figures correctly, the amount involved was about $13 million, and the amount of the $13 million that you would get would be based on policing costs. It wouldn't have any relation to where the tickets were issued and what you'd get based on the tickets being issued in your locality.

B. Penner: I anticipate that this will be my last question on this topic. Just to clarify, then, the minister does not anticipate any specific revenue-sharing agreement with municipalities for intersection cameras?

[ Page 12336 ]

G. Plant: I did have another question which relates to the security programs division. I apologize in advance for the fact that I probably should have pursued this with the minister's staff.

I'm told that Justice Oppal recommended in his report that non-police personnel involved in providing security services to the public -- specifically, locksmiths -- be required to demonstrate an appropriate level of competence before obtaining or renewing a licence from the security programs division. I'm also told that the Attorney General -- and it may have been the current Attorney General's predecessor -- accepted this recommendation, and that the B.C. Association of Professional Locksmiths was appointed by the government to work as an industry liaison to establish a qualifying exam for all locksmiths.

Over the past couple of years or so I've certainly had correspondence around this issue, and while there is a public interest component here that relates to public safety and security, there is also an issue with respect to the impact of regulations like these -- training requirements, examinations and so on -- on people who oftentimes conduct their businesses as pretty small operators in small towns across British Columbia.

I guess the question is: where, if anywhere, are these particular reforms at, at this point? That is, what is the situation with respect to creating a standardized licensing procedure for locksmiths in B.C. at present?

[1715]

G. Plant: By that, does the Attorney General intend to suggest that there is forward movement, as opposed to the matter simply being stalled out there in limbo?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hopefully, forward movement.

G. Plant: The minister's staff have provided me with information about the protection order registry. The minister himself talked about the progress that's been made in terms of the volume of requests -- or the volume of applications for registration, I suppose -- that are being made and the progress in ensuring that there is no backlog -- or rather, that there is a rapid turnaround time for processing entries on this registry. I don't want to pursue the details of the way in which the registry works. But I understand that on most days, the people who operate the registry are now able to provide same-day service -- that is, an order enters the registry the same day as it's brought to the attention of the registry. There are days, I am sure, where that is not possible, but presumably efforts are made, as required, to make sure that there is no accumulated backlog. That seems to me to be an achievement worth noting.

My question for the Attorney General is to secure his commitment that that level of service, if you will, is his continuing commitment for this service -- that is, that he is committed to ensuring that this registry will continue to provide same-day service for as long as the foreseeable future.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is the commitment, and we will continue to do work on that. Sometimes, despite best efforts, one doesn't succeed, but the aim is to continue to do what is being done and not let these orders accumulate and have a backlog. I just want to say for the member's interest and others' interest, that we now have 65,000 protection orders maintained in the registry, and the police agencies have 24-hour, seven-day-per-week access to those orders.

G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the Attorney General's commitment in respect of continuing to make the registry work on the basis that we've discussed.

I want to ask questions now about firearms registration. This is the province's responsibilities in respect of the implementation of the registration requirements in Bill C-68. I understand that there are something like 27 area firearms officers who have the responsibilities in respect of registration and inspection in this area. I also understand that these officers are paid for by the federal government. So this part of the discharge of the province's responsibilities under Bill C-68 is entirely revenue-neutral -- and expense-neutral, I suppose -- to the government of British Columbia. Is that correct?

[1720]

G. Plant: If there is full cost recovery for the cost of the 27 or more area firearms officers, then presumably in the RCMP detachments and the municipal police forces from which those 27 officers have been drawn there has been a complete replacement of those 27 positions. I may be getting it wrong, but it seems to me that in addition to the advantage that the Attorney General may have just described, we're also getting those 27 officers back. The problem arises -- at least in my head -- because the people who have been appointed to these positions have been serving police officers in various detachments across British Columbia. They're moving out. That leaves a gap of 27 officers. Can the Attorney General confirm that all of those 27 positions have been filled?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Unfortunately, I don't have the exact data. I don't think all of them have been filled, and that's part of the concern I expressed in talking about the 400 vacancies which might balloon to 600 by the end of the year if nothing is done by the federal government.

G. Plant: We will get to that issue shortly. But the Attorney General is alive to my concern that by complying, essentially, with the requirements of a federal statute -- even though there has been full cost recovery -- British Columbians may have lost 27 police officers from the streets of British Columbia without knowing whether or not there has been a complete replacement on a one-for-one basis. It seems to me that while we may not know what the exact status is, there is some compromise to the complement of police officers on the streets.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that maybe we're talking at cross-purposes here. In fact we have gained 27 police officers,

[ Page 12337 ]

G. Plant: I agree that's so, in principle, if the 27 positions have been filled by backfill. We had earlier established that the Attorney General can't say if that has actually happened. That may be just a matter of a phone call or two to find out what the current status is, and that may be a useful exercise. But let me do this instead, and that is to ask this question: to the extent that it is within the Attorney General's power to make it so, is it his commitment to ensure that we do take advantage of those economies and make sure that those 27 positions are in fact filled?

[1725]

G. Plant: From time to time over the course of the last couple of years, issues have come to my attention with respect to the time that it has taken to process registrations for firearms. It may be that in fact the majority of these complaints have actually related to the legal regime prior to the coming into force of Bill C-68. But the existence of those complaints provides the context, I suppose, for a question that needs to be asked in any event, which is: in the carrying out -- the rolling out -- of this registration program, does the ministry have goals around time lines for registration, for responding to registration applications and for ensuring that people who make application have some assurance that their application will be dealt with promptly and that they'll be able to go about their business with a minimum of delay?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The applications and the processing of the applications are handled centrally in New Brunswick, with a 1-800 line throughout Canada. That system is obviously computerized, and I understand that it has had some difficulties in getting off the ground. But I understand that those difficulties are being ironed out. We have some call clerks in British Columbia that are able to assist people with information and advice.

G. Plant: The provincial government's responsibilities here relate to the activities of the 27 area firearms officers, and presumably that includes, as much as anything, inspection and those kinds of things. Those will just be dealt with on an as-and-when-needed basis -- plus, I suppose, there will be regular audits of shooting ranges and things like that -- rather than being. . . . That's all different from what I realize now was the error in my previous question, which is to say that the responsibility to ensure that the registration process itself works expeditiously, and that latter part, is federal.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is federal, but I want to commend the people in our branch that deal with this, because they have consistently worked hard with Ottawa to make sure that this process that registrants have to go through is not cumbersome, not inconvenient and not costly.

G. Plant: My colleague from Chilliwack informs me that he has another question on photo radar.

B. Penner: I'll just encourage the minister to contain his excitement. I know that he's pleased at the opportunity to answer another question on this topic. There was a question that came to mind when I read the letter we received from the Attorney General answering a number of questions raised by the official opposition. I'll start by reading into the record the answer that we got pertaining to photo radar.

"There were 291,577 photo radar tickets issued in 1998. For 1999 there has been an average of 17,900 tickets issued per month -- January through March. The average penalty per photo radar ticket in 1998 was $112.78. In 1999 this has dropped to $107.70. This indicates a continuing decrease in violations at the higher speeds. The 1998 dispute rate for photo radar tickets is 7 percent. I'm told that the conventional speeding ticket dispute rate may be somewhat lower than the photo radar rate, and I've asked my staff to determine the actual rate. Through July, 1998 -- most recent statistics available -- 95 percent of all disputed tickets decided by a justice of the peace resulted in a guilty judgment."

[1730]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I think there has to be some error. This information was received from ICBC. They may be calculating fines on other moving violations as part of the average they have given us, because mathematically it is not possible to come up with the figure of $112.78 or $107.70. Therefore I would get my staff to go back to ICBC and find out what they're doing, because the lowest fine is $115; that includes the $15 surcharge. The hon. member is right in asking that question.

B. Penner: The only possible explanation other than the one offered by the Attorney General, which I think is the correct one, is that perhaps justices of the peace are reducing the indicated penalty upon application from aggrieved motorists. I suspect that it wouldn't account for a sufficient amount to decrease the average by the amount indicated in the minister's letter. So I presume that the minister is correct in his explanation. But there is that one other possibility, and that is that JPs are reducing this amount upon application from motorists. I don't have any further questions on this topic. But if the minister wants to answer, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would stand corrected if I am wrong, but I think JPs do have the discretion to reduce the fine. That may be the factor in bringing the figure down to where it is. That's my information, gathered from one of my sons some time ago.

B. Penner: I'd just conclude my participation in the photo radar debate by asking if the Attorney General could have his staff send us the correct information on the average amount of photo radar fines.

[ Page 12338 ]

G. Plant: I'd like to pursue the RCMP funding issue for a minute or two. The letter that the minister sent to the Solicitor General of Canada, dated April 30, 1999, includes the contention that at the end of March 1999, RCMP vacancies totaled about 400 in British Columbia. As the Attorney General said a few moments ago, that number may approach 600 by the end of the year. There is this additional interesting statement:

"In response to our concerns, the RCMP have assured us that they would fill vacant municipal and provincial police positions with RCMP members currently allocated to federal policing duties. This is both an unacceptable and untenable solution. It means reassigning critical positions from other federal RCMP units, including the federal drug enforcement and customs and excise squads, which are carrying the fight against organized crime and the drug trade, a paramount priority in the province of British Columbia."

[1735]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe I would be able to provide that answer. I think it's difficult to assess. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that low-level crime may be ignored that might otherwise not be ignored by the police because they are busy dealing with more serious issues. I think that question, though, is a legitimate one and may perhaps be answered better by someone from the RCMP itself. They would be able to tell us what the exact impacts are. We know that last year, when $10 million was not provided to us, aircraft were grounded, boats were simply left sitting there and other issues remained unattended to. I believe that if you have the need to have police officers in a certain area and you don't have them, then you ignore certain responsibilities, because you can't meet them all. That would be the impact.

G. Plant: One of the concerns here, I suppose, for anyone involved in the justice system is that we don't want to contribute to an undermining of the sense of public security by being too specific about some of these things, because then people will start to become really alarmed. I guess that would be a consideration for people who are trying to understand the significance of the funding shortfall. It does seem to me that it's an issue which the Attorney General should be concerned about. Like him, I have also heard anecdotal evidence about police investigation and detection activities that suggest that there are some parts of the work of the RCMP in British Columbia, including work in relation to serious crimes, that are not being attended to in the way that they should be.

I suppose this is one of those issues where I encourage the Attorney General to continue his efforts beyond what he's done to date. What we have is a letter sent last Friday, I guess -- and, of course, there's been some publicity around the delivery of that letter. It's absolutely an issue that can't be allowed to languish. Has the Attorney General had any response from or on behalf of the Solicitor General of Canada to his letter yet?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, I have not had a response. I was pleased to see both a New Democratic Party Member of Parliament and a Reform Party Member of Parliament actually combining their efforts to urge the Solicitor General to do the right thing. I know that one mayor and perhaps others, including UBCM representatives, are anxious that this matter be dealt with. One of the things that they have considered -- and that I have considered -- is actually leading a delegation of UBCM mayors who are concerned about this and meeting with the Solicitor General in Ottawa -- unless he came here before I could get there. That's something we are considering. I'm anxious that this matter be dealt with at the earliest possible. . . .

[1740]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Maybe I didn't give the hon. member the correct impression about my concern. I already have my ministry working on a possible visit to Ottawa. Arrangements are underway. Of course, given the time commitments around the House and the opportunities for getting leave and not getting leave, that may hinder the progress, but I'm prepared to consider all options.

G. Plant: Let me, for a moment, though, take this issue and just explore the question of priorities. My colleague from Chilliwack asked the minister some questions about photo radar, and it looks like there are a few more police officers, over the next year, who are going to be sitting in photo radar vans than are already doing so. I understand that the cost associated with that is indirectly borne by the premium-payers of ICBC rather than by taxpayers. But I must say that people have come to me, after the announcement of this letter to the Solicitor General, and asked if this situation is as serious as the Attorney General maintains -- if this is really the appropriate time, for example, to be adding ten new photo radar vans. The question of priorities arises.

Is it the Attorney General's view, for example, that adding ten more photo radar vans with police officers in them is a better dedication of what are ultimately public resources than ensuring that some of the vacancies that currently exist are attended to? I suppose in practical terms the question is: if there's a vacancy of 400, does that number grow if seven more RCMP officers in various communities are taken off the streets and put into photo radar vans? I guess I want to probe the Attorney General's sense of his priorities around these issues and get some sense of his reaction to that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is usually difficult for ministers to admit things, but I will say this: I did not know about this announcement about ten vans being purchased. I knew that this had been discussed some time ago and had perhaps even

[ Page 12339 ]

[1745]

G. Plant: Well, I think that what I hear the minister saying is that while it may be too late to undo what has been done, there's not complete certainty around that. I think the minister is saying that he is going look into that to see whether it's not too late to take some action that might allow people to get, I think, a better sense of priorities along the lines that we've just discussed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those were my directions to the Deputy Attorney General some days ago, when the matter was first announced publicly and it came to my attention. I understand that the lease arrangements are in place, but we are looking at all of those issues to determine what can be done.

On that note, hon. Chair, 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 resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

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

Hon. C. McGregor: Before we start, I've been joined by some new staff that I want to take the opportunity to introduce to the members opposite. On my immediate right is Sheila Wynn, deputy minister of the environmental assessment office; Derek Thompson, assistant deputy minister of the land use coordination office; and Patty Shelton, director of corporate services for the environmental assessment office.

M. Coell: Thank you -- through the Chair -- and welcome.

I want to talk about the time frames that the office works under. I know there were some recommendations from Barry Sadler. I just wonder whether the minister can update me as to any changes with regards to time frames that the office works under and whether there have been any changes in the length of time that the process takes.

Hon. C. McGregor: There were a number of recommendations that arose from the Sadler report. Largely, it was a good-news story for the environmental assessment office. The report indicated that we'd made good progress towards providing a consistent and comprehensive project review process, as the act had contemplated. He noted in fact that it was open, accountable and neutrally administered, which I think is an important function of a fair review. It includes broad participation by the public, proponents, first nations and government agencies, and it provides for thorough, timely and integrated assessments.

Those were all the positives related to the review. But stakeholders did identify some concerns. Largely, they were to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. There has been significant effort to implement those recommendations in particular. The deputy minister was just relaying to me the information that out of the last eight reviews, only two had required time line extensions as a result of our efforts to improve the process.

We have also really increased the efforts by the environmental assessment office in pre-application work. You'll recall that we had a conversation about this briefly this morning. We're working with proponents prior to entering the process, so they understand clearly what the expectations will be in terms of information for project proposals. Doing that work up front assists us in getting a much more timely review process.

[1440]

In addition, at the request of the Business Task Force, the environmental assessment office is undertaking some work to compare environmental assessment in our province with other jurisdictions, with the goal of identifying if there are similar processes elsewhere. They're looking at Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Washington State, Oregon and Chile.

The environmental assessment office is also developing initiatives for streamlining the post-EA-certificate permitting and licensing review processes. This is something that we hear from businesses. Once they come out of the process, they're

[ Page 12340 ]

There's a lot of other approvals that have yet to go, and that work isn't really coordinated. So we're doing some work with proponents on that topic as well, and I think that will go a long way to assisting businesses in British Columbia.

M. Coell: One of the recommendations was to address the problematic thresholds for oil and gas, mining and public highway developments. If you could just highlight whether there have been any changes with regard to that recommendation.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there were a number of threshold adjustments, which we announced earlier this year. Those were designed largely to take out projects that really had been inadvertently captured as a result of the way the reg had been written. The intention of environmental assessment was always to capture large-scale projects. It was never intended to capture smaller-scale projects that could be handled in other review and permitting processes.

I have a list here. Under mining, there were some new thresholds for coalmines. For instance, the previous threshold was 100,000 tonnes a year. The new threshold is 250,000 tonnes a year. Modifications to existing mines -- the previous threshold was 250 hectares, or a 35 percent increase in production. It's now 750 hectares, or a 50 percent increase in area disturbed. Clearly, trying to apply fair criteria to a project that had already been reviewed on at least one occasion and to capture then if there was going to be a significant environmental impact that needed to be reviewed separately. . . . There are other thresholds related to oil and gas and to power projects as well.

But let me assure the member that all these changes, as I said in the beginning, were designed to capture projects that are relatively small in nature, which in fact can be managed through existing environmental and other statutory approval processes. They in no way compromise our environmental standards in the province.

M. Coell: It would appear that that addresses some of the stakeholder suggestions, I think, that were made to Mr. Sadler.

I'd be interested in hearing what policies have been set with regard to first nations. The recommendation was to establish a clear policy dealing with first nations input to make sure that there was a policy and that first nations knew they had direct input into the process. Have changes been made to that?

[1445]

It's very wide-ranging in its implications, because it doesn't talk about just if it's directly in traditional territory. If it's also close to or adjacent, all those first nations are involved. It does include an assessment of potential adverse impacts on first nation interests and makes it clear that they have an opportunity to address their environmental, cultural, health and socioeconomic concerns, as the act makes clear. Some of the issues that are worked through with first nations are particularly relating to hunting, fishing, trapping and areas of cultural, historic or ceremonial significance.

Those are some of the policy statements, if the member. . . . And we have three full-time staff in the environmental assessment office who work full-time with first nations. In fact, there's often financial support given to first nations groups to give them the capacity to be able to respond to some of the issues throughout the process. So it's very comprehensive, and it gives first nations a very clear opportunity to participate. If the member would like a copy of the policy statement here, I'd be happy to provide it.

M. Coell: That would be appreciated. Can the minister tell me how many new projects have come into the assessment office that are currently underway since the beginning of the year?

Hon. C. McGregor: Since January of this year, three projects have entered the process. However, there are 18 potential projects, and those are in the pre-application stages, doing work with the environmental assessment office staff. There are currently 15 projects involved in the process.

M. Coell: I'd like to move on to the Yukon-to-Yellowstone conservation initiative. I have read through the literature on this initiative, and I find it interesting and potentially positive. I have had some correspondence from municipalities concerned about their planning processes and this initiative that may affect some of the protected-areas strategies and municipal bylaws. I just wonder whether the minister would be willing to share with us her thoughts on the province participating in this initiative, with specifics on how she would see the effects on the protected-areas strategy and on municipal and regional regulations and bylaws.

Hon. C. McGregor: If I could just take the opportunity to introduce Warren Mitchell from the land use coordination office. . . . He has come over especially to help me answer this question, although I must say I am feeling quite comfortable being able to answer it for the member, because I am somewhat familiar with the Y-to-Y issue.

[1450]

[ Page 12341 ]

So the principle, I think, is a good one, and one that we encourage through our land use planning table. It's done through that process so it doesn't interfere with -- and is not meant to interfere with -- any local land use plan, official community plans, municipal-level government and so on.

M. Coell: I think that I share the minister's little bit of apprehension, because when you take the maps and overlay them on the ones that the local land use planning groups have been doing, they don't necessarily fit. It's a much broader scale, I would think, than what we've been doing. I think there's some fear out there that you would be adding to the parks and protected areas in a somewhat new way, I guess. Also, this process or initiative isn't part of the local planning process that the government has initiated.

I just wonder how we're going to mix the two -- consider, I guess, would be a better word -- when they're not part of the process that the government has approved at this time.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, of course, some of the proponents of Y-to-Y are involved in the land use planning tables. So they bring those values and concepts to that planning table, and then they're debated by all the members of the community who have an interest in the area. In fact, in cases where there's agreement, there are adjoining areas. In cases where there isn't, there are none. We really respect the land use planning process.

We believe in the work that goes on -- like community-based planning. Sometimes I might not be particularly pleased with a recommendation that comes out of a land use planning table, but it's not up to me to decide. It's up to the community members to make recommendations on the basis of their best interests and the best interests of their region. So we set some goals. We make sure that when they are developing land use plans, they have to be consistent with government policy and so on. But we do depend on and, frankly, reflect the views of community members who take positions on these questions.

M. Coell: I think it's important that the local people who are working on the government-sanctioned programs are taken first. Maybe this is an initiative that will unfold and be part of the process. But I think it's important that it start at the local level. I appreciate what the minister is saying.

I'm happy to move on to PMHL, if the minister has staff here.

Interjection.

M. Coell: I didn't want to be quick with that last speaker, but what I was looking for was some clarification. The minister was very succinct and gave me that clarification. So I'm happy.

[1455]

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I'll confirm that there are negotiations ongoing between ourselves and the federal government. We both share, at both levels of government, a commitment to trying to preserve lands in the Gulf Islands -- and in some areas within the Gulf Islands in particular, the areas that are captured through the current PMHL agreement. That is reflected not only on the basis of the need to protect certain types of representative marine ecosystems, which I think is particularly important, but also recognizing that on the Gulf Islands there's a lot of private ownership and very few -- in fact, fewer -- opportunities for us to create protected areas that have recreational values, say, for communities or ecosystem -- or representation of values as well.

So PMHL gives us the tools to do that. The original agreement was five years, and it's getting close to expiring. We want to live up to our commitment to do that, but we are under significant financial constraints, as the member knows. So we're looking for a tool through which we can negotiate a different agreement. We want to extend it. We want to keep up with our commitment, but we need to find a more creative way of the provincial government making its contribution.

So while we've always managed the program and done the acquisition costs and ongoing management, and that's been very much appreciated by Parks Canada, we would also like them to acknowledge contributions of Crown land, which we believe are a significant way for us to acknowledge and to add to the representation on the ecosystem side.

M. Coell: I think I may have asked this question last year in estimates, but I'll try again. With regard to the Galiano Conservancy and Pebble Beach, I don't believe there has been any movement or agreement for a management with them.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we do have a memorandum of understanding with the Islands Trust board. They would hold the property in question, and the conservancy would operate it. But unfortunately, we still have some access issues that we cannot agree to sign off until the access questions are resolved. That includes existing access and adjacent access. Until such time as we can receive assurances from both the conservancy and the Islands Trust board that they're prepared to permit those accesses, we can't complete the agreement.

M. Coell: Thank you very much for that clarification. The process itself. . . . I think I'm concerned that if we get to the five years and we haven't completed, the federal government may walk away. I don't know if the minister shares that belief. But it appears to me that with the five-year commitment, whatever is not finished may be in jeopardy if the federal government just decides that it's got other places and other environmental projects that it would turn to.

[ Page 12342 ]

[1500]

So let me assure you that -- in my conversations with Andy Mitchell, Secretary of State for Parks, as well as, at the staff level, with my ADM of Parks -- there is significant interest and ongoing dialogue. We certainly hope to resolve the matter before too much longer.

M. Coell: Well, I hope that's the case. I can assure the minister that it's a widely supported program, not just in the Gulf Islands but in the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria areas. The islands share a lot of visitors by boat every day. I would encourage the minister to continue in that vein.

I am looking to go to the wildlife section now. I have a number of issues with regard to wildlife and fish. Maybe we'll start with what is probably the most controversial one, and that's grizzly bears. The minister and myself have probably had representations from a wide variety of opinions on the hunting of grizzly bears. I have spoken to guide-outfitters, people from Bear Watch and a number of different ecological groups as well as environmental groups. I am of the feeling that we don't have an accurate count of bears, especially grizzly bears. I am interested in pursuing how the province comes up with its count. Maybe if we can look at that process. . . . I have some suggestions that I'd like to make as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, inventory is an important aspect of wildlife management, and we have invested more than $2.5 million in inventory work around grizzly bears alone. In fact, we're even investigating the possibility of using some new technology -- things like satellite technology -- to track the wildlife. It's an idea that I've personally had in discussions with MacDonald Dettwiler, which does a lot of aerial surveillance and satellite work. It's trickier in British Columbia than it is in other jurisdictions because of the nature of the terrain and habitat in which bears live in British Columbia, and that may be a complicating factor.

We have done some very innovative work on the DNA front. What we do is a DNA hair-capture program. There are these small items placed in traditional bear corridors that capture the hair as the bear goes by. Through DNA analysis, we can tell how many bears there are; we can tell by the DNA makeup of the hairs. I guess bears have different hair, depending on who the bear is.

We're using that DNA work to back up the data we have on a regional or subregional basis, to confirm the inventory numbers that we've generated -- largely through what we call habitat-modelling tools -- to determine the bears in a given area. When we use habitat modelling, we select a number of habitat areas around the province that are representative of certain regions. We go out and do some inventory work and then extrapolate, using the habitat model that's been developed.

[1505]

We've also involved the grizzly bear scientific panel, asking them to assist us in redefining and reorganizing our habitat-modelling methodology to see if there are ways we can tweak it, so to speak, to make it more accurately reflect regions, as well as to further improve our DNA capture techniques.

M. Coell: Could the minister tell me what the provincial estimate of grizzly bears is?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's between 10,000 and 13,000.

M. Coell: I realize how hard it is to get accurate readings. I'm not under the illusion that you can pinpoint an amount of animals -- how many there are. But that's quite a broad range, when you're looking at 10,000 to 13,000.

One of the things that struck me from talking to the guide-outfitters and the environmentalists who don't want to hunt -- period -- is that they have very different numbers. It strikes me that we need to somehow pull all of those people together. They may not ever agree on hunting or not hunting, but I think they need to somehow agree on the number that are actually out there. I think that goes a long way with a number of other species that are hunted, or managed by the ministry, as well.

I don't have an easy answer for that, but there needs to be some sort of scientific forum. I appreciate the work that your scientific panel did. But on an ongoing basis that would address a number of issues regarding grizzly bears -- and, I think, other species also. . . . I'd be interested in the minister's comments on an ongoing panel that would bring in the expertise that the guide-outfitters have, as well as environmentalists. I think there is a lot of expertise there which those groups aren't necessarily in agreement with; but they seem to have varying degrees of expertise.

The scientific panel -- I think very highly of their recommendations -- is. . . . How do you couple all those people together to try and find some resolution to this issue? At the end of the day, we may find that it's more of a political decision, whether to manage grizzly bears or to hunt them or to have them as a protected species.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, the grizzly bear scientific advisory committee that I made reference to is not just a one-time committee. It's an ongoing standing committee. In fact, what I asked them to consider doing, as a part of the last meeting that I held with them, was to examine the methodology we are using around inventory and to give us some advice on how we should move forward on this question.

The member is right: there are differing opinions. I think it's probably fair to say that there are differing opinions on the scientific advisory committee as well. But it is the tool of bringing scientists and experts together that we should use to define this issue and to try and reach resolution on it. There is a lot of interest in the hunting community to use anecdotal evidence in the field to suggest that bear populations are up or down or that elk populations are up or down.

[ Page 12343 ]

[1510]

There seem to be increasing bear-people conflicts. There also seems to be an increasing number of problem bears that are put down by conservation officers. I'm just wondering about the number of conservation officers we have in the field. I'll leave it at that for now.

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, we've increased the number of conservation officers by two provincewide. That's not a lot to add, and I'm not trying to imply that we're increasing enormously in that area. But I have deliberately given instructions that we don't do any reduction in conservation officer service. In fact, I've given exactly the opposite. . . . I've made a commitment to the Wildlife Federation and others that as soon as we're able to restore some spending to this budget, we would actually increase conservation officers. There are 147 COs currently around the province.

They are very well respected people who do just fine work on behalf of wildlife. I think it's important to acknowledge that COs do a whole lot more than wildlife management. That's probably how COs got started; they did, largely, wildlife management issues. But they've really become the backbone of our regulatory regime in the Ministry of Environment, in being able to enforce things like Waste Management Act pollution, investigation of waste permits and so on. They do a whole lot more.

I would like to speak to the issue of bear-human conflict for a moment, if I could. As the hon. member noted, I think we had a record year this past fall related to bears that had to be killed by conservation officers. This is an issue that's very difficult even for the officers themselves to deal with, because they take no great pleasure in having to kill bears.

It is as a result, frankly, hon. member, of our mismanagement as people, largely related to the handling of waste and food waste. But it was exacerbated this last season by the fact that we had a very dry summer period. There was limited food supply for bears. So they came down from the mountains and hills and into urban centres, where they found garbage cans and landfills without proper fencing or proper cover, on a daily basis. Or fruit in people's back yards, even barbecues, composts, bird feeders -- all of those things are sources of food for bears. So what we found was that there were more and more bears coming into city centres.

We've tried over the years to really implement a strategy of bear relocation, because the public, conservation officers and ourselves are not interested in destroying bears if we don't have to. The research we've done indicates that even when we do relocate bears, they come back into the communities. I'll just give one example. In Kamloops last year, on the Indian reserve, there was a bear in a local family's landfill. It wasn't even a proper landfill; it was just a little garbage dump there. The people in the community said: "No way, don't kill this bear. We don't want this bear killed." They said they'd pay for the relocation of the bear. So off we go. We helicoptered the bear out and dropped it miles and miles away into a different region. Within two weeks that bear was back on the other side of the river in a different community, in somebody's back yard eating garbage. When bears become habituated to human food sources -- they're smart animals, boy -- they come back year after year. They'll teach their cubs how to come back to certain areas. So once a bear is habituated, there is really little we can do.

[1515]

So I think there are solutions, and I think the solutions lie in education. It's what we're trying to emphasize in communities around the province in order to deal with bear-human conflict.

M. Coell: I appreciate those very detailed comments. I'll tell you that my colleague from Shuswap fed three bears last year; his berry crop was their summer meals.

I would offer this: I have a great concern that we need to get accurate numbers, and they have to be accepted, I think, by a broad community. If there's anything that we can do as opposition, working with government to facilitate an accurate count and an accurate process by which that account can be managed, I would be more than willing to assist.

I wonder if we might switch to touching on the Rhodes report and the changes to the ministry. I've read through the Rhodes report a couple of times, and I see that there's definitely a strain of logic through the report. The ministry has decided not to create one ministry -- I guess it would be fish and wildlife. . . . I wonder if the minister could just outline briefly the reason that they've chosen the one way over the one ministry.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's largely a result of there not being consensus amongst different stakeholder groups. Some stakeholder groups felt that would be the appropriate model; others felt that the integrated approach we use within the ministry now is a more effective process.

One of the groups we consulted, for instance, was COFI and others in the forest industry, who had significant concerns that if we created a separate branch in a different ministry,

[ Page 12344 ]

I don't think the Rhodes report, in its initial consultation, consulted as broadly as it could have. When we engaged in broader stakeholder discussion, we ended up with a model like this, which gives us the ability to make sure we're appropriately flagging wildlife issues and paying good attention to them. I acknowledge that some stakeholders believe that those haven't been addressed as adequately as they had hoped. They believe that this kind of an organizational model will assist in that regard, so we decided to work with them to implement that.

M. Coell: The other issue -- and I'm sure the Minister of Fisheries wouldn't want to hear this -- is to have a ministry more like some of the other provinces, and that is a ministry of natural resources, where you would bring fish back into the ministry and put wildlife and fish together as part of that ministry. I don't know whether the minister wants to comment on that option.

Hon. C. McGregor: In other jurisdictions it also includes forests and mining, and the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Energy and Mines might not like that, either. I think there are a variety of models, but in British Columbia, because we are so much a resource-based province, we've taken a different path. We want to acknowledge the importance of different resource-based industries to our economy.

M. Coell: I could have predicted that. When do you see the changes to the ministry taking place?

Hon. C. McGregor: Our target is to have it completed by the end of May.

M. Coell: A topic we touched on last year was the banning of leghold traps. There were some target dates that the ministry was looking at with regard to leghold traps and also the water. . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: . . .the drowning sets. Could the minister update me on the progress in those areas?

[1520]

M. Coell: I would appreciate that. It strikes me that Canada isn't moving fast enough on this issue. I don't believe we, as a province, are either. I think it's hard to see that a number of these traps are humane at all. I would encourage the minister to push forward on that.

The issue of the Vancouver Island marmot is one that continues to fascinate young people throughout this province and, I think, capture the imagination of politicians as well. The minister, I think, made reference last week to a project that would bring marmots together up-Island for the process of mating, and I would like for her to explain this program -- possibly not in great detail. I thought I'd give you a free opportunity to discuss this project if you want.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, hon. member, we supply the candlelight.

It's a very unique program in Canada. In fact, the Vancouver Island marmot is the most endangered mammal in the world. Our captive-breeding program, in both Toronto and Alberta, is starting to have some success, I'm told. It's an important area for us to pay attention to. We do hope -- through the fund-raising program we're doing with community members, as well as through the financial commitment of both MacMillan Bloedel and the province of British Columbia -- to actually build a captive-breeding site in British Columbia, probably in the Mount Washington area, which is close to traditional marmot habitat.

Actually, we've been trying to profile the marmot. I would like to publicly commend the community of greater Victoria and the Times Colonist in particular, which often profiles this issue and does a very good job of raising the profile of this question. If I could offer this to the member opposite, there is a group of young people in Victoria who have developed for their OM competition. . . . They're heading off to the U.S. They've made the finals, and I'm going to go and see their performance, which is apparently about saving Vancouver Island marmots. Well, I just think that's the greatest. When we have made an issue so real to kids that they want to solve the problem on the ground, then we've really taken the kind of steps necessary to move forward.

I'd like to go back, if I could, to the question of leghold traps and humane trapping. I agree with the member that we're probably not making progress as fast as we should. Here in British Columbia we've had these kinds of standards for a long time, but the rest of Canada really needs to move forward. We are having a meeting of wildlife ministers in the fall, and I'll give the member my commitment that we'll bring this up and try to push this question forward. I don't think it will be resolved unless someone puts in the effort to do that.

M. Coell: It's interesting. I remember that when the minister brought the issue of marmots up in the House, there was a lot of humour that went with it. It's funny. Some issues just catch on fire, and for young people, this issue really has. I think it's a learning issue. We all want to save species and see species enhanced; I don't think that's a question. But this is a vehicle -- a very good vehicle, I think -- for young people to get involved with the idea that when a species is low in numbers and potentially going, it's gone and won't come back. I think we share similar views on the project, so I will be supporting this project in the future as well.

We have a few questions on fishing licences, if we can fit those in.

[1525]

[ Page 12345 ]

Perhaps I'll begin with a general question as to whether the ministry continues to work on any streamlining efforts in terms of fishing licences, conservation surcharge stamps, and so on.

Hon. C. McGregor: I always hate it when I have to give these answers, although I appreciate the members' need to have answers to their questions. While we get a part of the surcharges from licence fees for the habitat conservation trust fund, the actual fishing licence policy is done by the Ministry of Fisheries. I think you'd need to ask the minister responsible whether there's any policy review related to changes in the licences.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that explanation. The responsibility for issues around the conservation surcharge stamps. . . . Those questions should be going to the Minister of Fisheries now that that program has moved over to that ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

M. Coell: One of our members has to leave for another meeting. I wondered whether we. . . . We have some questions with regard to recycling, if we can skip down there and deal with beverage containers and Tetra-Pak.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise if they are receiving regular reports from the Beverage Container Management Board?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we are.

R. Thorpe: Not quite a year ago we had asked, as a follow-up to the estimates process, to have the opportunity to attend and to get some information on a timely basis. Unfortunately, we have not been able to achieve that. Would it be possible, then, to get the latest reports that you've received from the Beverage Container Management Board sent over, for our own review?

Hon. C. McGregor: I know the member made a request last year, and the board declined to have you visit a meeting. However, I understand also that your office recently made a new request, and there is a new board, and we're putting it to the board at their next meeting. Hopefully, the member will hear back in the affirmative. We will provide the member with whatever reports we have, and in fact we can probably make the minutes available on a regular basis, if the member would like.

R. Thorpe: That would be very helpful. I appreciate that undertaking and look forward to receiving it.

Approximately two weeks ago, I think, the minister answered a question from a member from Burnaby with respect to. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I listen.

[1530]

Hon. C. McGregor: All juice products will. But milk will not; milk was exempted from the beginning.

R. Thorpe: The minister, I think, said milk in the House two weeks ago. So milk will be exempt; it continues to be exempt. That is correct.

Will the government's new business lens on regulations apply to this expansion of the beverage container management regulations?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand how the business lens is supposed to work, it's supposed to screen new regulations or amendments to regulations. In fact, we aren't amending or changing the regulation, so it doesn't need to be applied; however, in fact, we have. One of the principles of the business lens is to ensure that there is appropriate consultation. That's one of the reasons why we set up this committee and gave an exemption for a period of a year. We are looking at the economics of it and so on. So the key features of the business lens will certainly be met.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister realizes and knows -- I know that the staff will know -- that the business lens with respect to regulations is a major undertaking by her government. There are at least ten published items within that business lens. So I'd like a stronger answer, either yes or no -- it seemed like I got a little bit of a soft "maybe" there -- that these regulations are going to be put through the business lens that your government is committed to doing on regulation.

Hon. C. McGregor: The point I was making is that it's not required of us to do it, because it isn't a new regulation or an amended regulation. But I'm certainly quite prepared to do it.

R. Thorpe: Has the minister undertaken any research into the price impact of deposits on consumers since this deposit refund system has been put in place?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

R. Thorpe: The deposit system is not revenue-neutral, as it involves a handling fee on every container sold. Does the minister expect industries to absorb the incremental cost of the deposit system without passing it on to the consumers?

Hon. C. McGregor: Obviously it's a business decision for the individual product, in terms of whether they make a decision to pass on or not pass on the handling fee. It does depend, of course, on the nature of the product that different businesses use. In the case of glass, for instance, there's a great deal of cost attached to the handling of glass because of its weight and so on, whereas aluminum has a very low handling fee because of the nature of that product.

So we've really taken, I would say, a businesslike approach to how to deal with the question of deposit refund systems. Instead of saying government will decide, government will collect, government will control, we've said to

[ Page 12346 ]

[1535]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we haven't funded any of the stewardship groups that have been set up to handle their products and product waste. So this ministry has not funded the poly-coat management group at all, although it may be that there was some money given by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It's possible. I can't say one way or the other.

But there was a request that we support an application to FRBC to assist in building a recycling facility for Tetra, and we've agreed to support that application.

R. Thorpe: So is that support by way of -- I don't mean just a letter -- a letter or a written endorsement, or does your budget for this year in fact have some financial support for such a venture?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, the request was for a letter of support, and that's what we've given.

R. Thorpe: The deposit system has meant that packaging of significant economic value is not being moved into municipal blue box systems. What is the minister's view regarding the future of blue box and other municipal recycling systems in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'm very supportive of blue box programs, because I think it gives consumers a way that they can act to recycle products from their home. As a resident of Oak Bay here in Victoria, I can tell you that we recycle a lot of material. The blue box that we put out in front of the residence where I am a tenant is packed with mixed paper and cardboard and tin and all kinds of different products, including glass and others.

In our initial consultations and discussions with municipal governments, they very much supported the expansion of the beverage container system. It gives them the ability to remove certain products from their blue box system and to then add in new products. Mixed paper, I understand, is being considered by the CRD. I would really encourage them in moving forward with that initiative, because I think it's a good one.

R. Thorpe: I understand that other jurisdictions have put in place voluntary industry programs to recover plastic milk jugs. Does the minister have any views regarding a voluntary recovery system of that type here in British Columbia?

[1540]

R. Thorpe: Overall, the recovery rate targets in the regulations are 85 percent for containers. Does the minister believe that that figure is attainable for all types of containers?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's difficult to predict for certain, but I think it's certainly possible that every beverage container could reach the 85 percent mark. But we agreed early on, with the wine industry, to set a lower target to begin with, because we know that there's a significant personal-bottling U-brew industry in British Columbia, and people often decide to keep those bottles instead of returning them. We did agree, in the initial stages, to adjust that overall return rate for wine products. We may find that, through experience, we can get 95 percent on beer products; we may well be able to get 85 percent with wine.

R. Thorpe: I look forward to receiving the reports that the minister and staff have undertaken to supply. Once I've had the opportunity to review them, I look forward to maybe having some discussions with staff on that. That's all the questions I have on containers.

If I could just ask one question on behalf of my constituency, I'm sure the minister. . . . Well, I shouldn't be sure. The minister received a letter dated May 5 from the mayor of Penticton regarding the possibility of staff reductions in the regional Ministry of Environment headquarters in Penticton. I would just like to know on behalf of the community and the families -- because these rumours have been going on for two or three years, and around this time of the year they get quite rampant again -- just so that people can have some peace of mind. . . . I'm very sure the minister will address the mayor's concerns in writing. I'm just wondering when people in the area can have an answer, a definite plan, as to what is or is not going to happen, so that those who have to get on with the rest of their lives can get on with the rest of their lives and look after their families.

Hon. C. McGregor: I take the member's question very seriously. We spent considerable time in the first day in estimates canvassing these questions, because they are very important for the employees of this ministry, every single one of whom is a valued employee. We want to treat them fairly and openly. I gave my commitment here -- and the critic opposite will know -- that the first job we have to do in the ministry is talk directly to our employees before we publicly talk to anyone about any staffing changes there might be. Of course, we will follow the collective agreement. We are going to work with our local article 29 committee to find appropriate placements for all of those staff. We're going to work very hard to make sure that people don't have to change their community of residence, if indeed there are positions that are eliminated in one region versus another.

I can give you assurance now, hon. member, that we will not be closing the Penticton office at all. To begin with, that is the first message I would give to you. But I would also give you my commitment that we are going to work very carefully with employees. As soon as possible -- within several weeks -- we'll be meeting with employees to discuss with them directly whether or not their positions have been eliminated

[ Page 12347 ]

[1545]

M. Coell: Returning to the deposit system and Tetra-Pak coming into the process later in the year, since the program was initiated, has there been any study into theft? I'll explain that a bit further.

In many instances, there are lots of stores with huge amounts of bottles and containers, which weren't there before. I've had a couple of comments from smaller businesses finding that they go to work in the morning and they're all gone -- but I don't know how widespread that is. Some of the bigger operations I've spoken to haven't had any. . . . I don't know whether the ministry would undertake those sorts of follow-ups or not.

The other one is with Tetra-Pak. With those, you would easily have a large amount of money in a truck with Tetra-Paks, and you could also bring them in from other parts of the country or the United States -- where there isn't a number on them. I don't know whether the minister wants to comment on those two things. They're sort of unanticipated events in a program. Granted, it may not be significant, but whether we're going to follow up on those sorts of things would be of interest to me.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member might not be aware, but in Alberta and Saskatchewan they already have a deposit on Tetra. For all we know, they may be out bundling them up from B.C. and taking them to Alberta and Saskatchewan as we speak.

I think we have to take all the implementation issues very seriously, and I would endeavour to pass on to the members of the board that they ask the questions related to theft or any other implementation issues that we should and could be addressing.

M. Coell: I appreciate that. I think it's something that may not be an issue; but when you look at it in face value, it could be.

I wonder if we could move back to the Mac-Blo lands on Vancouver Island. I have had a briefing from the company. I've also had a number of briefings from environmental groups as well. This issue does go back quite a number of years -- the reason why we're at this position. I wonder if the minister can update me as to time frames for public input and whether there have been any changes in the process to this point.

Hon. C. McGregor: David Perry, who has been asked to do this review, has already begun this process. As I understand it, it is going on from now until the end of June.

[1550]

The only issue that I want to canvass is the environmental controls on the lands that are transferred. Is the ministry comfortable with the authority they will have for protecting the lands adjacent to those now privately owned lands that were Crown lands, and that we will have adequate protection and not clearcut logging right up to Crown land or park boundaries?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, the answer is probably a bit more complex than the question. First, one of the activities we engaged in early on was a process of putting certain lands forward as potential for exchange. At that time, we took great effort to eliminate all of those properties that had significant environmental values, recreational values and so on. We worked very hard to make sure that those lands that had been identified by environmentalists and by our own ministry staff as being environmentally sensitive were removed from the list for consideration.

Also, it's our view that we should work very hard to ensure that MacMillan Bloedel takes the best steps possible to manage their land appropriately when they log it. MacMillan Bloedel is one of today's companies that takes great pride in its environmental record. MacMillan Bloedel has talked a great deal about, and is actively implementing, a no-clearcut-logging policy. We fully expect that they'll live up to that, if and when there are lands transferred through this agreement.

We also will look to tools like protective covenants to ensure things like stream protection and other types of issues. We have worked together to develop a privately managed forest regulation that will indeed put in place some basic standards, particularly related to riparian protection, which are very important to us.

M. Coell: I guess one of the issues -- and the minister touched on it -- is that if Mac-Blo still owns the land. . . . Once it's theirs, it's theirs to sell if they wish. That was one of the concerns: that it may get sold off to different companies who have different practices. In any event, before the deal is complete, are those side deals going to be part of the agreement?

[1555]

[ Page 12348 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: As the agreement-in-process goes on, the important thing to know is that there was a final agreement on the total compensable number. What we agreed to do was to talk about a potential exchange of lands to reach that compensable number. Certainly there's been no decision taken, whether it is land, cash or some combination. But it must equal the number that was negotiated at the beginning of the agreement.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that clarification. I don't see money appearing. I personally wish there was. I think that would be a cleaner way of doing the compensation package. I say that because I think that these particular pieces of land are growing in value all the time. Given that there is a process going on where you get input, is the ministry in a position to exclude some of the lands and compensate with some money -- if that's seen as a possibility? Or is it all or nothing?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll be looking to David Perry to make recommendations as to what he believes is. . .on the basis of his consultations, and then government will consider all of that before making a decision.

M. Coell: I would be interested in, just for a moment, canvassing the issue of the value of these lands -- how the province came to the value of the lands that are up for exchange.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that question is probably more appropriately canvassed with the Minister of Forests, who has responsibility for the overall matter. I've tried to accommodate the member's questions from the environmental side of things, but I encourage him to ask those questions of the Minister of Forests.

M. Coell: It's a shame that the Minister of Forests has just left the room. I could have done it right now.

Just one final group of questions. As far as an environmental assessment of the lands that are negotiated, I would presume that one hasn't been done -- that it would be done as projects or changes to the property were initiated by the new owners. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: It would depend on the use. There are thresholds under the Environmental Assessment Act itself. If it's being managed as privately managed forest land, for instance, then the privately managed forest regulations and other forestry regulations as they apply to private land would need to be enforced. If the proposal was to build, for instance, a large-scale natural gas plant or something, then they would have to go through the environmental assessment process -- if it met those thresholds.

[1600]

I am able to move to the Georgia basin project. I don't know whether the minister has staff here for that. I would just like to say that I support this project, and I think that it has widespread support throughout the community. I'm anxious to find. . . . Let me explain this. I would hope this is an ongoing project, that it is not something that just has a five-year time frame or a ten-year time frame. I just wonder whether the minister can comment on the ongoing time frames for this project.

Hon. C. McGregor: When we announced the Georgia basin initiative with the federal government, it was announced as a five-year program. We've now just completed the first year. We are working jointly on a five-year implementation and action plan, and we certainly hope that it will actually roll into an ongoing program, because the Georgia basin is probably one of the more threatened urban areas on the Pacific coast. We do need to work together at all levels of government. That's what is so exciting about the Georgia basin initiative. It does bring all the partners together. We can coordinate the actions we are taking to be sure that the effects of our urbanization in the Georgia basin is managed in an appropriate way so as not to degrade the environment to such an extent that we end up as they have in some major urbanized communities in other parts of the world.

M. Coell: I agree. I think that the Georgia basin is there for a long time, and so it. . . .

Hon. C. McGregor: Forever, we hope.

M. Coell: Yes, forever.

There were a couple of issues that jumped out at me. One is the environment youth teams that are part of the project. What number of jobs that we discussed with the environmental youth team will be part of this initiative this year?

Hon. C. McGregor: We haven't announced all the E-teams yet, and we just got the list of potential projects for approval. Some of them will be related to the Georgia basin, but we can't immediately identify which ones they are because they have a variety of different sponsors. We'll get that information and get it to the member.

[1605]

The other one that is of some interest to me is the stewardship clearinghouse. It just says "web site" in the thing, so I don't know whether it is an active part of the process or whether it's got any more depth than that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, as I understand it, this is a web site that's under development, and it will provide links between all federal and provincial agencies and other funding partner agencies so that people will be able to see all the programs and to jump from one to the other. So it's very. . . . For NGOs, in particular, I would see it as a real resource to be able to find out what programs are offered.

The real plus to the Georgia basin initiative is the fact that it is joint planning between levels of government, and it

[ Page 12349 ]

M. Coell: I took part, as I know a number of members of your caucus did as well, in the Coastal Community Network and the parliamentary process with that. I found that very good. I think it's similar to many aspects of this program, in that there is an increased awareness of some of the major problems. So I look forward to watching this program unfold. As I said at the beginning, I don't view this sort of. . . . It's more of a thought than a process, and I think if we can keep thinking that it's not just for five years. . . . It's for ten years and so on, and will be incorporated into federal programs as well as provincial. So I look forward to that.

I wonder if we can move to air quality. Last year in estimates we looked at a number of programs, and I've sort of kept up to speed as to any of the changes. Some I've seen and some I haven't. I just want to touch base on the greenhouse gas emissions, and if the minister could comment on progress made in. . . . I think we're really looking at the greater Vancouver area for progress and changes to programs that would be in this year's budget or this year's program.

[1610]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, making progress on greenhouse gases is extremely important to British Columbians and Canadians. I must express, as the Greenhouse Gas Forum and environmentalists have expressed to me, the fact that our national process is not making as much progress as we had hoped. I think that when ministers of environment from across Canada meet next -- and I certainly hope I'll be able to participate in that meeting -- we need to make some adjustments as to how we're managing that national process. We have to start taking more actions to reduce greenhouse gases, instead of talking about plans for reducing greenhouse gases. We'll never meet our commitments if all we do is talk about plans.

However, there are a lot of exciting things on the new technology side in particular. The Ballard fuel cell is probably the most exciting, and our province has made a number of investments in supporting that research, as have the automotive industry and others. So I think that that's one of visionary things our government is working on related to greenhouse gas reduction. We're continuing to use our Greenhouse Gas Forum as a tool through which we identify actions for this government to take and for individuals and communities to take. We've recently developed a new action plan as a result of their work. If the member would like a copy of their action plan, I'd be happy to provide that. I think the forum itself has come up with some very interesting ways in which we can move forward on greenhouse gas reduction.

The greenhouse gas emissions reduction trading pilot project is also. . . . We took the lead here in B.C., and it's beginning to show some signs of making some successful trades. We certainly hope that in the near future there will be some announcements here in British Columbia about trades that have been achieved and that will achieve greenhouse gas reductions.

I think probably the most exciting work we're doing is related to what we're calling the green economy initiative, and the member may recall the reference to that in the budget speech. In particular, there were a couple of specific items mentioned, which include a commitment to review opportunities for what we call a revenue-neutral tax shift. A tax shift talks about how one could really move taxes from an environmentally-friendly or greenhouse-gas-reduced kind of technology, and shift them to, say, a more polluting technology or something like that. The principle is that you reward people and reward industry and activity that is engaged in reducing pollution. I think this could be a tool for us to use in greenhouse gas reduction.

It's early yet for us to be making decisions. We do want to engage in very important consultation before we proceed with any of these measures. I think it is a tool that we find exciting as a way of really encouraging business, industry and individuals to make behaviour changes related to greenhouse gas emissions.

We also announced a partial refund of up to $500 of provincial sales tax for alternate-fuelled vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles and bi-fuelled vehicles. That's a direct tax incentive designed for individuals who are prepared to use more emission-reduced, greenhouse-gas-reduced technology through their motor vehicle purchases. We've agreed that in the future, there will be a motor fuel tax exemption for ethanol-using gasoline blends, once we get a commercial-scale ethanol plant operational in the province. The introduction of ethanol into gasoline really reduces its emissions, including greenhouse gases. I think that that's an exciting tool we're continuing to use as an incentive to really say to industry: "Work with us on developing a pilot here in British Columbia for an ethanol plant." There will be an outcome that's worth achieving in the end, because there will be this tax reduction for ethanol-based fuels. So there will be an incentive in the marketplace for creating and purchasing that fuel.

[1615]

We're also looking at ways of encouraging renewable energy sources -- things like wind and solar power -- and at ways in which we can work with our important environmental industries here in British Columbia to really enhance those uses throughout the province. Those are some of the things that we've been working on. I think it's a very exciting area, and I'd be happy to share with the member the action plan that's been developed by the forum.

M. Coell: I would appreciate having a copy of that.

One of the things that strikes me -- and the minister has touched on a few of them -- is the many things you can do to cut down on greenhouse gases. There's everything from van pooling to walking to cycling to using transit -- those sorts of things. One of the issues for greater Vancouver, probably, is that the biggest polluter is the car, and we're not going to see a change in that until we see a change in the type of engine that cars have. That may be a few years away, but I suspect it's coming.

[ Page 12350 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: There is no doubt that AirCare is a very successful program. It's being copied in other jurisdictions including Ontario, which is trying to implement a program very similar to AirCare. I'm told that AirCare has tested one million motor vehicles in the lower Fraser Valley. That's amazing. It's the single largest emission reduction measure we've taken in the province.

I recall from a recent speech that I gave related to AirCare on-road -- which I wouldn't mind speaking to as well -- that it's achieved about a 50 percent emission reduction for the lower mainland. So it's a very significant program. It's probably the number one tool that we've used to date to improve air quality in the lower mainland, because transportation is the key. Statistically, we're told that 75 percent of emissions are from vehicles in the lower mainland. So unless we take measures related to transportation -- and that includes, of course, the creation of new public transportation methodology to get people out of their cars so we can reduce overall emissions. . . . That's a very important feature of the work we do.

[1620]

The interesting part about it is that we did a pilot for a number of years, and it worked very well with the trucking industry itself as well. What they recognized is that by improving emission performance for their vehicles, they actually achieved cost savings through fuel economy and ongoing maintenance of their vehicles. So it really is also a cost-effective program from the point of view of the individual or company that runs the fleet of trucks, vans or buses. It has the win on the side of environment and our own personal health, as well as a win on the industry side as it relates to cost and performance.

M. Coell: The other one -- and we touched on it last year and, I think, the year before -- is Burrard Thermal. They have undertaken a number of initiatives to attempt to clean up the emissions. Have there been any changes, from the ministry's perspective, in the monitoring of Burrard Thermal in, I guess, the past year?

Hon. C. McGregor: The current permit, which was amended in 1994, is still in effect. It has required retrofitting to the new emission control technology -- the selective catalytic reduction -- at the rate of one boiler per year, in order to reduce NOx emissions. Just this past year an additional SCR unit has been added to Burrard Thermal.

M. Coell: We have some questions on the aerial spraying of the gypsy moth.

I. Chong: As my colleague mentioned, I would like to pose some questions to the minister in regards to the aerial spraying of the gypsy moth. As the minister must be aware, this is a fairly controversial issue in this region. I raise a number of questions that have been passed on to me from one of the constituents, although they are a collaboration of questions from many constituents. As the minister is probably aware, some weeks ago I was requested to present a petition of some 3,982 names representing southern Vancouver Island, from as far, I think, as Duncan down through to Victoria, and also another 1,056 names, I believe, from the lower mainland as well. As indicated, it is a very controversial issue. I wish to raise it at this point in the Ministry of Environment estimates because it does affect the ministry. I recognize that it also affects the Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Forests. There are economic issues that we want to address as well. I don't profess to have the answers on why we are at the stage we are at, but I do need to try to ascertain, on behalf of these constituents, why we have got here and where we intend to go from here. I hope the minister can understand that.

I think I'll ask my first question in regards to integrated pest management. Does her ministry deal with that, and has her ministry in fact allocated funds for a budget amount? Is there is anything in her ministry for that?

[1625]

I. Chong: Looking back on past years' Hansards, though, I did notice -- and it may have been in the Ministry of Agriculture, in fact -- that $100,000 had been allocated. I think there was mention of that back in 1993-94. I don't know who the minister was then, but the now Minister of Forests was the one who had made that comment back in 1993-94. Having seen that $100,000 was allocated towards it, if that wasn't sufficient -- whether in dollars or in terms of staff time. . . . It has created the situation we're in now. I am curious as to whether this ministry is intending to pursue this by any great stride, I suppose, over the course of the next few years.

I don't know where we will end up with this program. I know there are many opponents out there. I know the minister has received many letters, as I have, because I have been copied them. I think people are looking for some answers -- legitimately so -- as to where we will head with this in the next two or three years.

I recognize that economic issues are of high priority, and I would support the fact that we have to protect the industries that are here. But at the same time, these pose some very serious health concerns. The environmental aspect of this, of course, is air quality. Any time you use a pesticide or insecticide or whatever they wish to call it -- any kind of bacteria that is sprayed over a populated area -- certainly you have to be concerned about what that may do to affect the environment and the balance of nature, if you will, over the course of the next few years. As I understand it, although this spray

[ Page 12351 ]

I stress that I don't have the answers for these. I'm just looking for the minister to provide, if at all possible, some clarification as to where she or her ministry intends to head in this area and if she intends to have aggressive interministerial discussions with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that there is a very coordinated effort to mitigate, wherever possible, environmental and health concerns as well as to protect the economy, which clearly will be affected by this.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member has hit the question extremely well. She's summarized all the conflicts and different views there are related to gypsy moth spraying -- whether it should or shouldn't happen and some of the conflicting evidence that's presented by health professionals versus pest specialists. There are a lot of implications for decisions we're making related to gypsy moth management. It is fairly controversial in communities. It is, in fact, a measure that was taken as a result of what was seen to be an emergency. We were faced with a quarantine being placed on all products on southern Vancouver Island, as a result of gypsy moth infestation. The questions we then were faced with was: how do we limit the economic impacts of such a quarantine?

When it was initially proposed, things like vehicle inspections. . . . Every time a resident of Vancouver Island wanted to exit Vancouver Island and head to the U.S., they would have to go through that. People had to have their vehicles searched for evidence of gypsy moth eggs and have their wheel wells and RVs inspected. There were significant implications on the basis of this very serious threat of quarantine.

[1630]

But faced with a quarantine, the government made the right decision -- to say, "Well, we do now have to engage in an overhead spray program, but we must take all necessary precautions," and to limit that spraying to only those areas where there clearly was an infestation. We put very strict controls on the program we put together, and that included the kind of health precautions that are necessary for families and, in particular, children. This was one of the concerns I expressed early on, because I'm a teacher and I know about kids going to school early in the morning and so on. I said we had to design the program in such a way that if it is done on a school day, there is sufficient notice and it's done well before children would be expected to be outdoors. So we timed the spray program in such a way as to do that.

We consulted at great length, and Btk. . . . While there is some controversy about its impacts on humans, clearly the CRD health officer indicates that there are not health effects. He did indicate, as I have in my comments, that those people with respiratory issues -- asthma and other types of respiratory issues -- will need to take precautions prior to going outdoors on a spray day. They can make decisions, of course, to stay indoors when the spraying program is on, and that's why there is very adequate notice given to communities prior to spraying.

We do need, as well, to recognize that the gypsy moth loves Garry oak ecosystems in particular. Garry oak ecosystems are one of the most threatened ecosystems, and the Garry oak meadow is the most threatened ecosystem, really, on southern Vancouver Island. So an infestation has implications from an environment perspective as well.

So having taken all those questions into consideration, I think the member is right in saying that there is some controversy. We have had for some time a task force in place to look at this question. They've made recommendations to us. They have recommended that we go to an integrated pest management planning model, and we will be doing that in the future. But in the short term, we will have a gypsy moth spraying program in this region. I understand that it's been postponed again from next week because the weather conditions are still not right, so it's likely going to be another week or two before the spraying program will begin.

I. Chong: I don't want to belabour the issue. It's just that the minister made some comments and I still would like clarification. She indicated that in the short term this will proceed, which I have come to accept and acknowledge. But does "short term" also refer to the next two or three years? I am looking and seeking to find an answer to whether her ministry, which is responsible for the pest management guidelines, is going to do a risk-benefit study of some sort to determine how long this will continue in the short term. I'm referring to the next three years, for example. Can the minister also indicate when the last time was that her ministry released pest management guidelines, which I understand has been done in the past -- some four or five years ago?

[1635]

[ Page 12352 ]

I also do want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that the. . . . I realize that the capital health region medical officer believes that this particular bacteria, Btk, is safe, but I have several reports from people in Vancouver -- medical doctors as well -- who would disagree. I'm not a doctor, so I'm not going to place any kind of weight on who is right or wrong. I do appreciate, though, that as a result of all the efforts that have been made out there in the public forum, this will perhaps be the first year that someone will actually monitor the effects of Btk, which has not been done in the past. I understand that children -- asthmatic children particularly -- will be monitored.

That's part of the problem when comments have come in that this is a safe product. It is because we have not had any results or any findings, because no one has been able to document this, either because no one thought to or because no one expected that these findings would have been taken seriously. So I am appreciative that as a result of the attention that has been drawn to this, in fact there will be some statistics that we can look forward to.

If in fact those statistics prove that it is detrimental to health, again I would pose this question to the minister: if we see that this is clearly going to pose a health risk, as a result of this year's findings, would this ministry then commit to speaking to whichever authorities are necessary to prevent further spraying in future years -- if in fact, as I say, health reports come back stating that it is a concern? I don't want to belabour the project, and I'm just giving these comments to the minister. If she wants to refer to this in Hansard in the next day or so and get back to me on these, I'd be quite willing to accept answers in that sense.

I do have a number of questions which I don't expect I can get answers for today. I'll just read out a few of them as examples, then I'll give this list to the minister. Perhaps she can help provide those answers, then I can respond to those constituents who have asked these questions. The first question they ask is in regard to the $2.5 million for this year's aerial spraying. They're particularly concerned as to where the money is coming from. They're also wondering how they're going to finance future programs if this is to continue. Another question refers to the ground spray program at a cost of $250,000 a year and comparisons with the $2.5 million.

[1640]

So even though we are looking at the aerial spraying proceeding this year, clearly the minister and all the other ministries affected will have to make a decision as to what happens in the future -- next year, the year after and beyond. I think it's incumbent upon her and those ministers to sit down and seriously think bout how we can proceed, especially given the fact that there will be statistics available at the end of this summer.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member asks some very important questions about the work that needs to be done in terms of ongoing monitoring. It is our intention to monitor the success we have with this program to determine whether it's necessary to engage in an aerial spraying program in the future. If we're moving to an integrated pest management model, then it may well be that we won't need to engage in an aerial spraying program in the future. But I think we have to assess our success to see how well we are able to achieve the goals to reduce or eliminate the gypsy moth in the region, because it does have implications, as we've talked about before, from an economic sense.

I do think it's important for the member to realize that this program has been carried out in the past by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are the permitter of that work, as opposed to the person who engages in that work.

This year we are working with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as a result of the emergency that's been declared, but it was, in fact, the CFIA who had delivered the gypsy moth spray program in the past. I think it's fair to say that there hasn't been a lot of support for that on a regional basis, and that's what led to an appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board related to the issuing of a permit to continue spraying. That's why there was, as an alternative, a ground-spraying program substituted. But as we can see, the results of that were not what we had hoped to achieve.

We have to work harder on that alternate way of doing business, because I think it is in the interests of residents to look for as many non-toxic ways as we can find to manage pests, whether it's gypsy moth or any other pests -- that we look to find remedies that are natural in scope. We've got some good examples of pest programs in the Okanagan that have been funded that use natural methodology rather than aerial spraying to solve an insect pest problem. I think we should look to those alternatives wherever they exist.

It's important to note that there has been a study done on the effect of Btk. In fact, the research that was done during the period April to June 1992 was printed in today's Times Colonist. This research was undertaken by the academic staff from the UBC faculty of medicine -- Dr. Michael Nobel, Dr. Peter Riben and Dr. Gregory Cook. Their evidence -- this is direct evidence as a result of aerial spraying -- shows that of the 33,636 visits to the emergency departments in greater Vancouver during that time -- there were 12 days of spraying -- there was no evidence of an increase in people attending emergency departments during the time of the spraying or any increase seen in asthma or other respiratory diseases. That's a fairly strong statement for a group of physicians to make during an active spraying program. Studies on 1,085 patients seen by 24 physicians before, during and after each spraying period showed no increase in respiratory infections, pharyngitis, allergy, asthma, sinusitis, conjunctivitis or skin rash.

Surveillance of Btk bacterial isolates in medical laboratories was undertaken during the time of the Vancouver spray program. Based on the examination of all significant bacterial

[ Page 12353 ]

[1645]

I. Chong: So the minister is aware. . . . I too read the report in the Times Colonist. How could you miss it? It was quite large. But I'm sure that tomorrow or the day after we'll see another article by those who will dispute everything that's there. In fairness, I would only offer to the minister that I'm not looking for her to provide me comfort in terms of there not being any health risks. It's those who are concerned who need to have that comfort. They won't get it from myself, and they probably won't get it from this minister. Who they will get it from are their doctors and their medical practitioners. Unfortunately, those who have gone to see their doctors have not felt that they have got that level of comfort.

I just want to leave the minister with a few things. She mentioned the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which previously was responsible for and paid for this program. What I want to clarify and be certain of here is that this was once a cost borne by the federal government; it is now a cost borne by the British Columbia taxpayers -- at a cost of $2.5 million. I'm wondering whether the minister can advise us if in fact that $2.5 million cost will be borne by us, I guess, in perpetuity. Is it a precedent that we have set? Will the CFIA ever go back to accepting financial responsibility for this? Or have we unduly added an additional cost to B.C. taxpayers as a result of that? That's one question.

I'll get these out quickly, so she can answer. The second one is: will this definitely be a committed three-year program, as I understand it? Or is this a one-year program, with a view to seeing what happens in the next two years? If it's committed for the next three years, can the minister advise us of the total cost, then, to British Columbia taxpayers as a result?

I want to leave her with one last comment made by the minister at that time. I think he was the Minister of Agriculture then, and he is now the Minister of Forests. When he was the Minister of Agriculture, this is what he said: "If a practice is seen as environmentally detrimental, then that should be discussed with the industry; the ministry will participate in those discussions." So the then Minister of Agriculture, who is now the Minister of Forests, very much made a commitment that if a practice is seen as environmentally detrimental, then you have to take a look at it. I leave that up to the ministry officials to decide if it is in fact environmentally detrimental.

For those other questions I have in terms of the financial aspect, if the minister can at least provide some information on that at this point, it would be helpful.

Hon. C. McGregor: This is a one-year program. I understand that the cost is attributed to be $2.5 million. Do I believe that the federal government should pay it? Absolutely, I do. I don't believe they should off-load this cost onto us at all. Unfortunately, they appear to be trying to off-load it onto us. In the end, we may have to pay the full $2.5 million. I guess that part of our deliberation was to make a determination on whether we should proceed and spend $2.5 million or incur ten times that loss in economic activity in the region. That was one of the issues we had to consider in making our decision. But let me assure the member that we will be continuing to press the federal government to pay for the spray program.

[1650]

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't believe there is any new information since the last set of estimates, in terms of emissions. I do think it's something that we will have to pay attention to.

I would like to share with the member something very exciting on the innovative front that we're hoping we might be able to use on the fast cats and B.C. Ferries generally. Again, this references our important environmental industry. There is a company that's working on a product called bio-oil. I'm told that if it is used with diesel fuel, it reduces emissions to zero. Now that is an amazing outcome. We would like to do some work in trying to really promote the production of this bio-oil in British Columbia. I would see that as a possibility -- for the government to really give attention to the question of emissions from diesel fuel. I think it's very exciting, and I'm going to be pursuing that route quite vigorously.

M. Coell: I too have had a briefing on that product, and it looked very hopeful. I would stress that if the new ferries are going to run on the route that has been suggested, there is a need to do some environmental work -- whether it's by B.C. Ferries or this ministry -- on the wake from the ferry and the effect of that wake on the shoreline. I'll leave that with the minister. I'm sorry that there isn't any further information available.

The other one is SkyTrain. I suspect that there will be an ongoing discussion of environmental issues related to SkyTrain. I wonder -- more for the record than for the minister or myself -- about the process by which we're doing an environmental assessment on SkyTrain, provincially and how that meshes with the federal process.

Hon. C. McGregor: First, on the issue of B.C. Ferry fast cats, in terms of the wake question, apparently that's federal

[ Page 12354 ]

[1655]

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, he's sitting at the back. It identifies a number of biophysical issues that were identified, actually, some time ago and mitigation measures that can be taken to avoid those environmental impacts. In terms of the federal jurisdiction, the federal government has been working with the special commissioner and the SkyTrain office on making sure that the provisions under the federal act are met as a result of our decision to move forward on SkyTrain.

M. Coell: My understanding -- and I stand to be corrected -- is that the project isn't dependent on his review. The project is going ahead without regard to the review. The recommendations in the review would be done as remediation, but the route isn't going to change -- or how it's going to be done. The recommendations in the review will be dealt with individually. That's correct, I think.

Hon. C. McGregor: The actual alignment of SkyTrain was not within the terms of reference of the special review. But there were a number of biophysical issues that were identified early on, and those are all contained within the special commissioner's review and recommendation, including issues related to noise and vibration as well. We're expecting that report to be released fairly soon. It will provide guidance to the SkyTrain office in the decisions they take related to implementing the decision to move forward on SkyTrain.

M. Coell: I understand what the minister is saying. I guess, from an environmental perspective, I'm disappointed, in that the project isn't driven more by environmental reasons than by obvious political reasons. I gather that the review. . . . The choice of the technology wasn't even considered; there wasn't a choice between light rail or SkyTrain. It was just to mitigate against SkyTrain as a project.

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to correct something that the member said. SkyTrain is driven by an environmental agenda. That's because it's going to improve air quality and reduce emissions enormously by giving a public transportation alternative that is incredibly well liked in the lower mainland. There's no region of the province that's more impacted by air quality than the lower mainland. I see it very much as a project driven by environmental reasons.

On the questions related to SkyTrain technology, you're probably better to ask those questions of the minister responsible for Transit. But nonetheless, it was outside of the mandate of the special commissioner to examine the type of technology.

M. Coell: I wonder if the ministry has ordered any soil samples where the stations or guideway pylons are likely to be located. I'm thinking of the Lougheed corridor, which has, really over the last century, had a number of industrial uses and may have contaminated sites along the guideway.

[1700]

M. Coell: I just wonder whether the minister can outline the federal government's role and whether their report has been given to the provinces as yet.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have a letter of understanding with the federal government that was designed to try and coordinate our processes and so we could share information that was gathered through our environmental review. That's being provided to the federal government. Once these recommendations are completed, they'll be passed onto the federal government. We're expecting that they will report out probably about a month after they've received the information we'll be providing them with.

M. Coell: Just one final question on SkyTrain. Construction began on the Columbia Station in New Westminster. Have we done any environmental studies on that site as yet -- prior to the start of construction?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll have to look to see if the specific work was done on that particular portion of the proposed route.

M. Coell: That's fine. The minister can get back to me on that. I have no problem with that.

Another issue that came across my desk a number of times was the Cantex asphalt plant in Grand Forks. I don't know whether you have staff here to answer that. If you don't, that's an issue that. . . . If the minister could just update me on that plant, I would appreciate it.

Hon. C. McGregor: There was a meeting held with the owner of the facility in the fall. At that time we made sure that he understood the concerns of the community residents.

We are doing both stack tests on a regular basis, because he has to meet the conditions of his permit, and we're also going to be doing some ambient monitoring. We'll be sharing those results with the community and with the owner, and he's made a commitment to review those results with residents in the area. We can only hope that the way we can resolve this matter is to have the plant move, but it's very difficult to require that kind of thing when the owner is meeting the conditions of their permit. I think he's gone a long way by suggesting that he will work with the community to try and deal with some of the ambient air quality questions.

[1705]

[ Page 12355 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: On January 1, 1999, the wood residue burner and incinerator regulation was amended to provide continued operating authority for 26 tier 1 beehive and solo burners for an additional period of up to two years. I'm going to try and find in this note the details of some of the burners that have been phased out.

There was quite a process we went through with communities and with the owners of all these burners to ensure that we were not inflicting a significant economic requirement on communities to phase out and move to a different kind of technology or to incur new costs at a time when the industry was clearly in an economic downturn. That was our motivation, but we also wanted issues related to air quality dealt with, so we insisted on public meetings. The communities themselves, in some cases, put conditions on what they believed were important issues that had to be dealt with.

For instance, as I recall, in the Smithers area, not only are there a number of burners but because of the physical nature of their community, it draws in air quality issues from other parts of the region. We've put some limitations on when the burner can operate. If air quality is at a low level, then we said we want to apply these additional conditions to shut down the burner during those periods of time. That was one of the ways in which we could accommodate what communities were concerned with.

In March 1999, Canfor closed their Netherlands mill and shut down one of the remaining tier 1 beehive burners operating in Prince George. In May -- that's this month -- Carrier Lumber will be starting a project to dismantle another tier 1 burner in Prince George, leaving only one remaining beehive, operated by Northwood. They've indicated their intention to enter into a joint venture to produce bio-oils, and that will end the shutdown of their burner by the end of the extension period.

The city of Revelstoke and the Downie sawmills are continuing negotiations on an exciting project related to a district energy project, and that would lead to the elimination of two silo burners. There are still co-gen projects being considered in the Kamloops, Prince George, Kelowna and Houston areas at this time.

In many ways, what we're doing is really trying to work with these companies to develop some innovative ways in which we can actually take the wood waste and use it in some capacity to add value to it -- develop it into a bio-oil, use it in another part of the sawmill operation in a co-gen sense or access energy in a district power grid. These are all exciting ways in which we can say: "Let's not just burn this waste; let's take this waste and use it and add value."

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that update. It's obviously important to all of us to see that air is as clean as it can be, but in this instance I think that we found ourselves again in a position where the economy was down and these businesses weren't able to afford to do the renovations. They would just close in the meantime, so I guess you get clean air, but you don't get anyone with jobs there. There needs to be that balance, and I think the minister has provided me with an explanation that meets that balance in this instance.

[1710]

Hon. C. McGregor: The jobs and timber accord advocate is engaged in a consultation and in the design of what we're describing as a pulp sector strategy for the pulp industry. We all recognize that there are some significant issues facing the pulp industry, not the least of which is the price of pulp as it currently is on the market. But I've got to share some bias here. It's not my view, frankly, that we should simply look for environment regulations to be tossed away as a result of concerns on the economic side of the question. I think what we have to do is to say, "What are the reasons for a high-cost jurisdiction? Or what are the issues that are not making the pulp sector profitable at this time?" and look at all of the reasons -- not just point to environment regulation and suggest that in some way we should just cave on that side in order to achieve a cost savings.

I think there is the technology to get us to zero. It is a significant cost. I understand that, and I think we should be prepared to talk about that. But I'm not prepared to renege on a commitment to move to zero AOX that was made by our government some time ago. AOX has some significant implications on a health front, and it has made rivers dead of any life. Let's not kid ourselves. When we talk about AOX, it's easy to say: "Oh, it's AOX. It costs a lot of money. We should just be nice to industry." But we have to recognize that there were significant reasons -- important reasons -- why we moved to eliminating AOX, because of its highly toxic nature.

Communities still care about those issues. I mean, it was near a riot point in communities over this question, and it was actually the Socred government who started the move towards zero AOX because of the health concerns. So I think we have to acknowledge that we need to work together, and we need to work with the pulp industry. But I don't want to leave the member with the impression that it's my view that we should eliminate an important environmental regulation, because it isn't.

M. Coell: I appreciate the tone of the minister's comments. I guess it's coming down the track as an issue. I'm pleased to hear that the advocate is working on the issue, and possibly some recommendations will come back to the ministry and to government. From my perspective, I think that all we can do is wait and see what those recommendations are.

I touched on the issue of eco-fees last year, so I don't want to spend a lot of time on this particular issue. I think we covered the tire and battery levies quite adequately during the year with your staff. The eco-fees on pesticides -- slug bait. . . . All those fees that were put on I have some real disagreement with, and I would be more than willing to hear the minister's side of that story. After a year of fees, have we seen success? Have we seen failure? Are we seeing a rethinking of the program?

[1715]

[ Page 12356 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: This program began in December of '97. There are currently 35 depots or other types of services operating in the province. So far, in the first year of collection activity, consumers returned 99,000 litres of flammable liquids and 31,000 litres of pesticides. That's a pretty significant amount of product to take out of the landfill stream.

We did make some changes to the eco-fees, and we took out all those products that were non-toxic, non-poisonous. I think that's a good example of how we should move forward on this kind of an eco-fee. In other words, what we're doing is saying to consumers, that if they're using a product or choosing to purchase a product that doesn't have toxic values and therefore can be safely used and safely disposed of, then there is no need to have a recycling return recollection program. However, if you are using products that do have significant toxic effects on the environment, then there is a requirement to have that fee so that it can be returned to the producer and safely disposed of and kept out of the landfill.

I think it's the right approach; it's the right philosophy. We are prepared to offer the member a detailed briefing on how we're doing with the program -- where we might need to go next, and so on. I think it's a good program. Without a doubt, I'm sure it could use some improvements, and I'd certainly be prepared to offer a more detailed briefing to the member.

M. Coell: I just have one question. With all the stuff that we collected, what did we do with it?

Hon. C. McGregor: The picked-up pesticide product has to go to a disposal facility like Swan Hills, so it is trucked to Swan Hills in Alberta and then disposed of through their special waste facility. The flammable materials are actually burned as a fuel.

M. Coell: Just to switch topics here and to deal with one particular issue that is in this area. It's the gravel pit development in south Colwood.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Royal Bay, yeah. I realize that this is a municipal issue. I also realize that both the minister and I have been asked why there hasn't been an assessment triggered on this project because of the size of it. I'd be interested in the minister's perspective. As a former municipal politician, I have a perspective on it as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The Royal Bay development does not meet the criteria of review under the Environmental Assessment Act. It's not a reviewable project in that sense. I think the member is aware that we do need to take great care about questions that fall in the jurisdiction of another level of government. I've been trying to be very, very clear in my comments on this question. In no way do I want to suggest that we should impose our jurisdiction in a place it doesn't belong.

[1720]

M. Coell: With regard to contaminated sites -- I'm thinking particularly of Britannia Beach -- there are a number of older minesites throughout the province that are parentless -- orphans. They've fallen on the provincial government. I wonder whether the provincial government has any plans to go in and start any reclamation of Britannia Beach.

I'll share this thought with the minister first. There are a number of projects around North America of the brownfields type, where you make a site like that more profitable by rezoning or by tax-free status -- those sorts of initiatives. Someone would say: "Okay, I'll go in and, for acquiring the site for a dollar, I'll do the cleanup if it's rezoned to a certain way."

You know, that's an opportunity that doesn't cost the government any upfront money, although you would possibly forgo the taxes on it for a period of time, while that money is generated by the private sector or an individual to reclaim that site. That's my line of thinking for dealing with some of these sites that continue to pollute and have been a mess for some time -- and, as the minister said, are orphaned and now the responsibility of the province. I'd be interested in her comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: There is a current property owner, which is Copper Beach Estates Ltd. They've been ordered to submit a plan to treat the acid rock drainage. We're working with Copper Beach Estates, Environment Canada, Energy and Mines, and the Fraser Basin Council to address this question.

I'm sure the member is aware that the Fraser Basin Council is out in the communities near Britannia Beach at this time, trying to talk with them about the applications that have come in under the Waste Management Act as a way of trying to pay for the remediation of the site. The member would probably appreciate, as well, that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to take a position on the nature of those applications, because it will be subject to adjudication at some later date.

M. Coell: I was using Britannia Beach more as an example of one that's high-profile. It's more the issue of the brownfields, where you take a piece of property and upgrade its worth through either rezoning or tax status. I'm throwing that out as a suggestion, and I'd be interested in the minister's comments on it -- as a way of getting rid of some of these sites and having reclamation done on them at no cost to the taxpayer up front.

[1725]

[ Page 12357 ]

Largely what we use are the tools under the contaminated sites regulation, which is to use it as a means of determining who the appropriate party is that should be paying for the contaminated site cleanup. It may be that a time will come when we will have the kind of site the member describes -- where we cannot find a responsible owner to pay for it -- and we should look to creative solutions like that in order to find a way of managing what could be described as orphan sites. The purpose of our legislation is not to allow orphan sites to develop, as they have in the U.S., but to clearly go after the appropriate party who contaminated the site originally and require them to clean it up.

M. Coell: We've got a number of smaller issues -- shorter issues -- that we'd like to address.

J. Reid: My questions are regarding programs, and time and resource allocation, as well as clarification of the role of the ministry with regard to the E&N spraying. There's a process in place where a permit has been granted, has been appealed, and the appeal has been lost. In that process, the same situation has occurred in the past. E&N -- I know the name has changed, but the situation is the same -- had applied for a permit for spraying, and many years ago they were granted the permit. It was appealed; the appeal was won. Now the same situation has repeated itself, and the appeal has been lost.

My question is whether in this process, and with the ministry's objectives in mind -- especially as the minister stated somewhat earlier that the purpose is to look for alternatives wherever they exist -- what direction, and what resources are put towards this process, first of all, to look historically at this situation? There's been a number of intervening years where spraying hasn't taken place on the railway, and the railway has still been operating. What has the minister has been doing to address this issue, to look at the historical facts and to look for alternatives?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member needs to understand that in our experience with these permits. . . . One of the reasons why the appeal was not overturned is that we took the time to work with E&N and to really tighten the permit so that it restricted their use to a much smaller period of time, a smaller area to be covered, and so on. That's probably the reason why. You would have to read the decision of the Environmental Appeal Board, but I would assume that that's the reason that they actually upheld the permit.

[1730]

J. Reid: With the granting of this permit, the question is again whether any work is done to look historically at the situation. I do understand that the terms have certainly been tightened up, but in the rural areas. . . . There's certainly been the terms around the municipal areas and hand-spraying, etc., but around the rural areas, that hasn't been implemented. When the appeal was won many years ago, it was partly on the basis of protecting drinking water because of the reliance on the artesian wells and the aquifer and partly on the basis that chemicals degrade in sunlight, but once they're in that dark, cold environment, they don't have the same ability to degrade within the time frame that we're looking at for safety reasons.

So in the rural areas -- again all this was presented in the case many years ago -- the situation has repeated itself. Was there any historical viewpoint? Looking at the minister's objectives of wanting to protect drinking water and wanting to look for alternatives, are there any resources allocated within the ministry to be able to address these issues and look at the historical process and whether anything, environmentally, has actually changed?

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member would like, we can do some follow-up in terms of trying to determine if there was ongoing water quality monitoring as a result and to determine if there were any ongoing impacts, for instance, related to the spray program, which is what we're assuming her question is about.

In terms of adjudicating the permit, there would usually be a look at the historical nature of the. . . . That's one of the reasons why, of course, the permit has been adjusted over time -- to reflect the issues that have been raised in the past, as well as how we could better address questions like impacts on groundwater.

J. Reid: As far as allocating human resources through the ministry for people who have concerns that are still outstanding, whether they are concerned about pregnancies because they are living alongside the tracks, about their organic gardens or about their drinking water, these people tend to be quite definite about their viewpoints and are suggesting that they are willing to do things like standing in front of the train. In terms of human resources, on the part of the ministry, are there any allocations to consult with these people or try to mitigate the concerns of these people?

Hon. C. McGregor: Our staff in regions deal with the public on these questions all the time, and they are extremely helpful. They try and assist residents in finding alternative ways and work with the proponent to try and change their practice. I mean, this is the work that we do on a day-to-day basis in the ministry. I must say that I get a lot of compliments from people in regions who say: "Your staff are so great. They really help us with these questions." They care as much about these issues as the person who has entered the office to make the complaint or to try and investigate the issue. But just for the member's information, we are actually adding two new people on Vancouver Island to work on pesticide management. That will provide even greater resources to the Vancouver Island area.

J. Reid: With reference to the water quality -- the artesian wells, certainly on central Vancouver Island with the aquifers -- it certainly is a very unusual situation. It is definitely part of studies that have been done about protecting water quality. Is the protection of water quality and the protection of aquifers being merged together in the ministry so that the part of the

[ Page 12358 ]

[1735]

J. Reid: If it's all integrated and works that well, then can you explain what happened in this situation -- because these are aquifers, and they should be protected. From what the minister just said, this permit should not have been granted.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not sure where the member is trying to take this question. Yes, we do all of that kind of ongoing integrated management of these questions. Does that mean that at the end of the day we never give a permit? The answer to that is no.

S. Hawkins: I have a couple of constituency issues that I would like to raise with the minister. The first one is with respect to the kokanee. The minister is aware that the kokanee is a landlocked salmon in Okanagan Lake. Certainly over the last 15 years, we've been tracking the decline or the crisis in the crashing population of the kokanee.

I believe that in the mid-1970s there were about a million kokanee spawning in the Okanagan, and about 50 percent of them came from Mission Creek. Today I believe there are only about 50,000 to 100,000. I raised this before with this minister, I believe.

Dr. Peter Dill, who is a biologist, has done a considerable amount of research and work in this area. I know he has reported to the Ministry of Environment. I'm just wondering if the minister can give me an update on what's happening with the kokanee and what we are doing to save those stocks.

Hon. C. McGregor: We treat the kokanee fish problem extremely seriously in the ministry. In fact, recently there was an announcement, under the habitat conservation trust fund, for additional funding of this ongoing program we have been doing, to try to determine what caused the population crash with the kokanee. The most recent statistics that Jon has is that the population is beginning to sort of level out and hold its own. That is a very encouraging sign.

We're working jointly with the Ministry of Fisheries on this program, so it is our regional office staff in the Okanagan as well as the Ministry of Fisheries. This is a very high priority for the staff in the region, because it is a very significant population. The population crash was significant, and we do have to take efforts to try and recover that. The good news is that it does seem to be holding its own, and we're hoping that it will lead to recovery.

[1740]

S. Hawkins: If the minister would provide this member or the critic with ongoing information about how the ministry is dealing with this problem and helping to save the stocks, that would be appreciated.

The second issue is one that I raised about a year ago as well. It was with respect to Mr. John and Mary Olinger, constituents who had ongoing dealings with the ministry over a period, I believe, of about ten years with respect to an interest in land they shared with the Crown. The minister did commit to helping solve this problem, and they did hear from the minister. Sadly, Mr. Olinger passed away a short time after I raised the issue. They were in their eighties. The widow is still dealing with the issue, and she has asked me to raise it again with the minister. If the minister would commit to looking into it again and seeing if we could help this elderly widow with solving it, that would be much appreciated.

Hon. C. McGregor: I will do follow-up again on this matter, but it is a matter that is now managed by BCAL. But I will make sure that Lorne Seitz is contacted to raise the profile of this issue again, because it seems to me that we ought to be able to assist.

M. Coell: Just a couple of comments -- and the minister may wish to get back to me on it -- on the habitat conservation fund and the sustainable environment fund. I don't see any significant changes from the last time that we spoke in estimates. Has there been any significant program changes in either one of those funds since the last time we spoke?

Hon. C. McGregor: This should be the last year in which the habitat conservation fund is in our blue book, because we're going to draw it down to zero. That would be the only significant change I see in those two programs.

M. Coell: I overlooked something, when we were dealing with the Rhodes report, that I wouldn't mind touching on. That was the role that the new assistant deputy minister will play in conjunction with the Ministry of Fisheries. How are they going to relate back and forth?

Hon. C. McGregor: The member raises a very important part of the role that this new individual will play in terms of ongoing consultation between the ADM and regions, because we have regional fisheries functions as well as the Ministry of Fisheries. So we're going to have to work very hard at engaging in an ongoing mechanism through which we consult on a regular basis. This is one of the commitments we gave to the wildlife and fish stakeholder groups, and we'll be working with them to make sure that we can achieve that goal.

M. Coell: I think that earlier on the minister described the new structure and where the ADM fitted in. I'm just wondering how that person will be selected and whether they'll have a line authority or whether they're going to be more isolated in their authority.

Hon. C. McGregor: They will have line authority for wildlife management, enforcement and habitat in headquarters. There will be a limited public service recruitment, so it'll be recruitment from within the public service. There will be a posting for people to apply.

[1745]

[ Page 12359 ]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for those comments.

Just one question on the Environmental Appeal Board. I think the last annual report was '97-98. Is there a report. . . ?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's coming. It should be available within a month.

M. Coell: Thank you for that.

On behalf of the opposition, I want to thank the minister for her straightforward answers during the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. If I could briefly sum up in a couple of sentences, I have a disappointment -- and I think the minister probably shares that disappointment -- with the cuts to staffing. I think those cuts will affect services. It will be incumbent on the people who are left in the ministry to pick up the ball and do the best job they can.

I look forward to working with your staff in the year to come. I have found your staff to be very forthright, and I enjoyed the briefings that we've had. The staff have arranged a number of briefings during the year with regard to the cuts that are coming to the ministry and the effects of those cuts. I look forward to those, and thank you.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to thank the member, because I too appreciate the approach he takes to estimates, as do all the other members on the other side of the House. I've always found this to be a very useful time for me too, on a personal level. You learn more about the job and the important work that people who work within the civil service do on our behalf each and every day. I appreciate that member's comments, and I'd like to thank him for the work we've done together. I guess I get to sit down now.

Vote 27 approved.

Vote 50: Environmental assessment and land use coordination, $15,100,000 -- approved.

Vote 51: Environmental boards and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,995,000 -- approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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