2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2001
Morning Sitting
Volume 22, Number 23
[ Page 17743 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
I. Chong: I'm very pleased today to introduce 29 grades 5 and 6 students accompanied by two adults and their teacher, Ms. S. Gifford, from Campus View Elementary School, a school I attended when I was younger. They are also part of a French immersion class, so not only would I like the House to welcome them, but I'd also like to say bonjour et bienvenue. Would the House please make them welcome.
Reports from Committees
R. Thorpe: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the thirteenth and fourteenth reports of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Follow-up Reports" and "Miscellaneous Matters."
I move that the reports be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the reports.
Leave not granted.
[1010]
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Janssen: I call continued debate on Bill 20.
DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ACT
(second reading continued)
M. Coell: I'm pleased to rise and to offer some comments on Bill 20 in principle.
I've been here almost five years, and I look back at the number of times I have requested on behalf, of the opposition caucus, that the government bring in groundwater legislation and a drinking water protection act. Then I look back into the records of the Liberal opposition over the last five years, and indeed, critics for the Ministries of Health and Environment have been asking for an act on drinking water regulation for eight years. The government hadn't budged until approximately two months ago, when they decided to go out and have ten meetings throughout the province -- that ended at the end of February -- and then to draft a very, very intense bill and bring it to the House.
I guess it's late in their agenda and late for this House, but in principle, it's a good bill. In principle, it's a very good bill, but I wonder why it took eight years for the government to bring it into this House. Minister after minister said that they weren't able to do it: "It is too complicated. We're working on it." And then in two months, they can bring it into the House.
Some of the things we want to deal with in committee stage are why a regulatory impact statement appeared yesterday on the Web rather than with the bill when it was tabled and what's in the regulatory impact statement. I think too that many of the issues, the details, that arise from Bill 20 are in the regulations, which we and the people of British Columbia haven't seen. The costs to individuals, the costs to municipalities, to businesses, to water districts aren't accompanying this bill. There is uncertainty as to the effects of the regulations on users of water. The government's inability to bring forward an organic-matter recycling regulation and have that in force before this bill was introduced is also an area of some concern.
I wasn't able to hear the minister's comments in the House yesterday, because we were having a briefing by his staff and the medical health officer at the same time as the regulatory impact study was going up on the web site. I realize the government is rushed and in the final days before it goes to an election, but I would hope that people affected by this bill would be given an opportunity to comment on it before the regulations are produced by the government.
The one area I want to spend just a little bit of time on, because it's a
small section in the bill, is ecosystem management. I think that one of things
the regulations will need to look at is how you protect water. You can't
regulate and legislate morality. You can't change the way people do business
without making it possible to have success. I think one of the things that I
would like to see, and I'll be anxious to hear the minister at committee stage,
is how you present the ecosystem management aspect of this bill so that
individual watersheds have an analysis done and that what's going on inside the
watershed is actually perfected rather than just regulated. I think that's one
area that
[1015]
As I said, it has been eight years since this side of the House has been encouraging the government to do the right thing and bring in drinking water regulations, groundwater and water protection. The auditor general has been doing the same for four years, and I believe some of their ministry staff have actually been encouraging them, but it hasn't been a high priority for the government.
So I'm pleased to speak in favour of this bill in principle. It's about time that the government recognized that this is an important issue to British Columbians and brought it before the House. As I said, the detail is in the regulations, and the regulations should have input from the people affected by this bill -- the individuals, the municipalities, the water districts and the businesses. The bill, hopefully, once the regulations are completed, will be results-oriented and not prescriptive.
I think that some of the members over on the other side who wish to speak to
this issue will ask themselves: why did it take the NDP government eight years
to bring this in after it was first brought
[ Page 17744 ]
Hon. C. Evans: It's kind of interesting to me, because I prepared my comments yesterday, and right at the very top of what I intended to say was to speak to the question that the hon. member just raised in terms of the timing of the bill.
It is my understanding -- I don't remember the exact year -- that the Water
Act in British Columbia
Any logical government, of course, would know over time that you had to move from a placer mining regime to a more modern and sophisticated understanding of the difficulties in the distribution of water, the treatment of water, water quality, the ability to disturb water, the complexities in sharing water. And there have been improvements over time. The hon. member left out of his comments the memory, which I'm sure he has, of the fact that the Legislature did debate water on several occasions, and one time -- I hope everybody is quite proud of the fact -- we legislated the question of the ability to export water.
But the hon. member is quite right in his comments that bringing British Columbia's legislation in terms of water treatment and the like into the modern era is way overdue, and not only for this government. It's overdue for the latter part of this century and all the people who governed here over that time.
Why is it so difficult? Hon. members know -- some of them were here -- that the Minister of Environment in the early 1990s attempted to rewrite the Water Act and to bring it here. Members will know that in more recent years, parts of the Water Act, or its impact on health, have been attempted to be rewritten.
[1020]
People can blame one another. I heard some hon. members pointing out that the last time a water act was brought here, there were other people in the seats opposite who attacked it on the basis of the possibility that it might add cost to water. But I don't really think the failure to rewrite the legislation is the fault of Social Crediters or New Democrats, and I don't think the failure to pass the legislation is the fault of the present opposition or historical opposition.
I think the difficulty is that this is British Columbia, and water is kind of the essence of environmental questions. And whoever governs British Columbians has to govern an ecosystem that is more complex than all the other provinces of Canada combined. I'm sure hon. members opposite have heard the statistic that there are more natural flora and fauna in nature in British Columbia than in all the other provinces from Alberta to the Atlantic Ocean -- numerically more. Why is that? Because we here live in an ecosystem that has a high desert; an interior wetbelt, with the steepest mountains inhabited by people on the continent; the rain forest, up-Island or on the midcoast; the rain shadow, where this hon. member opposite lives, with a west coast regime in terms of temperature but with, in fact, less rainfall in the growing season than they get in the Okanagan. That would be sort of from here to the ferry.
Trying to legislate the use of water in such complexity has meant in the past that Ministers of Environment have stood and tried to pass laws that might make sense in Vancouver and were opposed by people from the Peace River. I remember that the '72-75 government attempted to resolve water questions in the Okanagan. Hon. members opposite may remember that there was a great initiative for the Okanagan Basin, recognizing that their water was a terribly important issue. It failed because they couldn't reconcile what they were attempting to do in the Okanagan with the aspirations of the rest of the province.
Members on this side of the House essentially struggled with the same thing in the Columbia River system -- once one of the greatest salmon-producing rivers in the world, and now, I think, perhaps the greatest hydroelectric production river in the world with literally hundreds of dams and irrigation projects stopping the water. And in order to deal with it, the government in the early nineties actually had to legislate a separate form of governance to make it work, because it wasn't possible to do something there that would apply to the entire province.
What Bill 20 is about is attempting to come up with legislation -- and as the hon. member said, a regulatory regime to follow -- that will apply everywhere. Far from being embarrassed by the amount of time it took, I'm incredibly proud that anybody is getting here at all, because of the complexity of where we live. We're dealing not only with the diversity of the landscape but also with the diversity of income levels and where we live. Imagine: some two-thirds of the population of the whole province live in two water systems where they turn the tap, and the water comes out. That's their expectation. The limit of their responsibility is to turn the tap, and the water comes out.
The other third get their water from a myriad of kinds of systems: some of it from seepage, some of it from wells, some of it from groundwater, some of it out of the river. Every single one of those systems requires someone to pay to assure that when you turn the tap, the water is clean. What works in Vancouver or in Victoria, with respect, will not work in the rest of the province. So in building a law, you're not only dealing with the rain forest and the desert; you're also dealing with people running systems essentially on a shoestring.
[1025]
Let me give you a picture of how many systems I'm talking about. During the debate around this bill, some people just said: "Let's take the regulatory regime in Alberta. If it's good enough for Alberta, it's good enough for us." There are more surficial water systems in my constituency alone than in the entire province of Alberta. They tend to be run by six people, 13 people or 100 people. The majority of the systems we now call municipal systems weren't built by municipalities; they were built by farmers. They were irrigation districts, and in some cases, they have since been taken over by municipalities. In many cases in the interior, they're actually still run by the farmers who built them.
In Naramata, we had a case where the water system was built by the farm community essentially to irrigate the orchards. They had a mandate and a methodology and some rules, and they thought they knew what their job was. At some point they decided to say that their mandate was that the water was primarily for farmers, and they denied somebody a right to use that water to build a subdivision. It went to court, and the net result has caused personal travail, the threat of violence, political trouble and huge taxation, because it evolved from the control of the farmers to the municipality.
[ Page 17745 ]
In Bill 20 the government had to consider systems as big as the city of Vancouver and as tiny as six people on a mountain somewhere. Who would pay to fix it up? It's easy to stand up and say: "Bah! Well, everybody should have clean water -- darn right they should." But if you sit inside this building and make one set of rules and attempt to apply it to a group of people in my constituency or in the Peace River or in Naramata, if you take the form from the city of Vancouver or Saanich or Victoria and apply it elsewhere, you do to our sophisticated and diverse society the same thing you would do to the environment if you thought you could impose an environmental system out there on the land.
In my own constituency, many of these stresses are resolved internally by the people right there. For example, in Erickson, near Creston, the government said: "We should clean up the water. We should get the pathogens and bacteria out of the water system." And the people said: "No, we don't want you to do that."
Imagine that, hon. Speaker. A lot of the rhetoric in the stuff you read in the newspaper implies that governments ought to clean the water for the people who want it. In fact, it's way more complicated than that. At times the people don't want the government telling them what to do with their water. Legal and political and social and economic stresses -- and solutions, I hope -- fall out from that situation.
The hon. member said: "Why didn't the government do this years ago?" Exactly what is it that the hon. member would have had us do that would be benign to the rural people as well as to his constituents? It's incredibly difficult not to build a system that shoves it down their throats.
I'll give you another example from my own constituency. I logged for 20 years in a place called Perry Ridge, where my water system comes from. Now, some of the citizens there think we should not log. We should make it a park so that they won't have any logging in their watershed. I know that here in Victoria, that sounds like a really good idea. But if we stop working there, we might as well all just leave. And historically, we worked there and we drank the water there.
In constructing this bill, the Minister of Environment had to figure out a way to allow the community to protect the environment to the degree that is required for the water, but not using the kind of simplistic mind-set that says we in this building would be able to tell them what ought to happen on their land -- working or not working. He had to construct a law that has a series of steps in it, and I hope when we get to committee stage that we go through the steps and everybody will think they are good steps. He had to construct a law that had a series of steps in it where it wasn't the hon. minister or this group of people that was going to tell them how to manage their watershed, but the people out there.
Then there had to be a question of how they were going to pay for it, because it's one thing to say that everybody should have clean water -- avoid Walkerton -- and it's another thing to imagine exactly whose money we are spending. I don't think the province is going to pay to upgrade all the water systems in B.C. At least, I've never known or heard of a government that made such a promise. I've never even heard of a political party running for office that made such a promise -- that the province would pay to upgrade all the water systems.
[1030]
Whatever rules the people make in here, they're going to apply to and impact on people out there. The minister had to construct a law that assumed the ability to pay, that gave people a phase-in time to raise the money, that recognized the partnerships required between irrigation districts or municipalities and the province and the federal government and then said to people: "We know where we want to go. We will get there within your ability to pay." Would the hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago and who asked why we couldn't have done this years ago like to propose how we would have got there in the absence of building the partnerships of all the parties?
I also want to say that besides social and environmental diversity, the other thing that makes it difficult to pass this kind of legislation is that it's easy for governments to think in stovepipes. It's easy for the Minister of Education to come in here and deal with education or for me to come in here and deal with health. It's exceedingly difficult, as everybody knows, to put forward initiatives that require government departments to work together, because that's not their best trick. Historically, that's not the way governments have been organized.
Great leadership requires getting the diversity of the departments of
government to work together, because in a bill like Bill 20
All I really wanted to add is my appreciation to the Ministry of Environment and the minister and the staff for having realized that they had to work with municipalities and the Ministry of Health and others to build something that was not an ideological package but in fact a practical and doable package out on the land, where in order to make it work over time, employees of different ministries are going to have to work together. I hope, when we get to committee stage, that members opposite will actually observe that that's what has happened. This is unusual in government. Quiet as it's kept, historically we're not very good at figuring out how to legislate people working together.
Part of the issue we found in trying to build this law was the question of what the standards are. Some people said we should measure all the time for everything possible that could ever be in the water. And some people said no, we should measure for what actually is in the water or is likely to get into the water.
Ideologically, we could have gone to Europe or the United Nations or Ottawa or whatever and adopted somebody else's standards and said: "Here, you've got to measure for all these things for all time, because somewhere in Germany, those chemicals have been found in the water." What this legislation attempts to do is say we will measure for everything once, and then we will allow the flexibility out on the landscape for the officials to decide what needs to be measured in the water in future. So we didn't deliver on local people an enormous cost of having to measure their water for everything just for the ideological satisfaction of the people
[ Page 17746 ]
who brought in the law or for the benefit of the press. Without actually going anywhere, they could say whether it was the best in the world or the worst, or something.
That's very difficult. That's very unusual for governments. Governments usually just want to write something that looks good. This legislation is more complex than in other provinces, and I'm proud of that. And when the hon. member asks why we didn't do it years ago, I am proud that it took this long, because it's better, because it might actually work out on the landscape.
[1035]
The people who live in the interior wetbelt -- and also probably in the Okanagan and maybe in the rain forest -- have been asking for a long time: "Who is the official we talk to?" Logging, mining, roadbuilding, residential development, grazing, placer mining, recreational tourism, 15 other activities I can't think of -- all these things impact on the land, and the land impacts on the water, but the people don't know. Every time somebody wants to go into business, they don't know who to talk to about water.
What the legislation does is say we recognize that historically that's been true, so we're going to create a drinking water officer, and that person will actually be responsible. That is the person who you talk to about water forever, and then that person will go and find the appropriate ministry to deal with. That constitutes what members opposite have always been asking for, which is to simplify government. When we get to voting for it -- if any of them are listening -- I would encourage you men and women to vote for what you have always said you wanted, which is entrenched in this legislation.
In order to make this legislation work, we're going to have to spend some money. I know that in this room, people don't like to do that, and in the press they like to denigrate that. I would like people to celebrate that. There are two ways to guarantee clean water -- or to work toward clean water; I don't think anybody can guarantee it. One is that we impose those costs on the people out on the land, and another is that we accept societal -- and that means taxpayer -- cost to be shared with the local people.
It's not going to be in the bill, but I want to give some assurance to the people, when they come to vote on the bill, that it's backed up by the Minister of Finance with appropriation of funding to assist in paying for the steps that are contained in the bill. That's really important to say. At several points in the construction of the bill I said, on behalf of rural people especially, that I wouldn't stand here and speak in support of the bill in the absence of some kind of financing assistance to rural people to help pay for the improvements that are required.
All too often what happens in this room is that we make rules and then devolve those rules to the lowest common denominator, and somebody out there has to pay for what the people here thought was a good idea. This bill is backed up by $11 million worth of funding appropriation to the appropriate ministries to assist people to do the work that is required. I'll just give you one example. Doing the water testing that will be required when the regulations for this bill are passed will cost a couple of hundred dollars per system, but built into this government initiative is assistance to pay for the water testing so that the people out on the land will be encouraged to do that testing rather than resist it as a cost measure.
I will close my comments now simply with this request. I would hope that members opposite would actually look to the contents of the bill and its value to the citizens when they decide how to vote. It is a good bill. Ideologically, I don't mind if they stand up and make speeches and say that the government is stupid for having waited so long or that anybody smart would have done it 100 years ago. They can do all that kind of stuff. But when it comes time to actually vote for or against the bill, I would like to encourage everybody here to vote for the bill, because even if you think it's 100 years too late, it's important to do now. It was constructed by the minister and others out of logic and common sense rather than an ideological position. That's rare and wonderful and deserves the support of all parties.
[1040]
M. Sihota: I was hoping that somebody on the other side of the chamber would get up and speak, but I note that all but two seats are empty. Perhaps the members are right; perhaps no one will let them speak. I notice that the muzzle is on. They've been told that there's no democracy allowed in the party.
I notice that in the Environment minister's seat. They've decided that they're just going to select their candidate. Martyn Brown is telling everybody: "Don't answer a questionnaire, because we don't want to screw up and tell anybody what our policies are." So they're a little afraid of outlining their policies. They don't want to stand up in this House and talk, because they're afraid that they may screw up and say something. They're taking a lesson from the last election campaign. They had decided to outline the entirety of their policy during the course of or just prior to the election campaign, and they lost. So they're figuring that this time they should not articulate any policy whatsoever, and they just might win.
Well, the pendulum doesn't swing from one extreme to the other. They should stand up and express the courage of their convictions and outline just what it is that they stand for, particularly when it comes to an issue as salient as water.
We all consume water. We know that our water, which is an essential ingredient for human growth and development, must be pure, that it must be there for human beings to be able to consume without threat. Therefore it would seem to me that both sides of this House would embrace this legislation and congratulate the Minister of Environment for his hard work over the last couple of months -- in going out to the public, seeking input from people across this province, listening to them and intervening. He's an activist Minister of Environment who's been at the hearings himself to watch what people have had to say.
And having gone through that process, he has now tabled before this House a bill which should get unanimous consent and for which I would hope the opposition would stand up and say, "We want the regulations right now. We want those regulations brought in to breathe life into the legislation," and, through their support, demonstrate to the people that we need to make sure that there is no Walkerton -- ever -- here in British Columbia. I think this government and the Minister of Environment ought to be congratulated for taking the time to make sure that we bring forward a regime that will prevent the kind of disaster that occurred in the province of Ontario.
I want to make a number of points with regards to what the opposition has had to say about this bill. You know, they
[ Page 17747 ]
can't quite come out and say, "We're against it," when we know they really are. I'll demonstrate that in a few minutes. So really, all they can do today is stand up in this chamber and say: "Well, it's taken you eight years. Why has it taken you so long to do something about water?" That's their argument; that is the essence of their argument. They hope that they can just kind of slide out of the House and that people buy into that argument.
Well, let me say, hon. Speaker, that it's a lie for anyone to suggest that this government has not moved on water protection over the course of the last eight years. In fact, as I'll demonstrate in a few minutes, it's quite accurate to say that the members opposite do not want to see water protection legislation brought forward in this province, because it would incur the wrath of their friends in the corporate sector. That's why they really don't want it. Let me explain why I say that -- the members opposite being friends of large corporations. They say we haven't done anything for eight years.
Well, I think it was about eight years ago that we brought in, here in
British Columbia, the toughest AOX standards in the world. We said that it was
unacceptable that pulp mills could just dump effluent into our ocean and water
bodies across this province. We said that industry had to come forward
Now, think about this. The members opposite have not said a word about those standards during the course of this debate. And I'll tell you why they have not said a word about those standards. The largest corporate donators to the members opposite are the forest companies and the pulp mills in this province. And I'll tell you something right now. The members opposite want to make sure that those AOX regulations that we brought in as a government are rescinded. That is their agenda.
I see the Opposition House Leader sitting there saying: "Oh no, that's not true."
[1045]
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Well, then stand up and say it, hon. member. Engage in the debate.
The first thing that the Liberals would do is get rid of those regulations in
order to pay homage, to pay
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Hon. member -- through you, hon. Speaker
If I'm wrong
The Speaker: Member, could you take your seat for a moment, please.
I must insist that members use parliamentary language and perhaps tone down their enthusiasm in this debate. I know you feel strongly about it, but we are using words that are unparliamentary.
The hon. member will continue.
M. Sihota: I didn't mean to quote the member opposite, but I wanted to put on the record what he's saying.
Let's move to another topic. We brought forward, most recently in this province, an order to protect water. And remember, the opposition says that we're not protecting water, that we haven't done anything for eight years. Well, it was only about six or eight months ago that we as a government brought forward new regulations that protect urban streams. We said under those regulations that you could not build a house or a commercial building or any type of industrial activity adjacent to urban streams. We said that there had to be a setback from those urban streams so as to make sure that there was no pollution.
The reason we did that is because most of our streams in urban British Columbia have disappeared over the years. I can't remember how many there used to be in the city of Vancouver -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple of hundred -- and we're down to a handful now. They've been built over, they've been bulldozed over, and there's been development over top of them. In order to protect our watercourses and maintain the integrity of our water supply systems, we have said that developers can no longer develop adjacent to corridors -- and they're flexible corridors between 15 to 30 metres.
On this side of the House we've brought forward the toughest regulations in Canada in terms of urban stream
[ Page 17748 ]
enhancement and protection. That's what we've brought forward. The members opposite say that we haven't done anything about water protection. We have, and that's a good example.
[1050]
But it's a better example in this context: guess who opposed us bringing forward those regulations. When the current Minister of Environment stood up and took on the large development interests in this province and said that we were going to bring in urban stream setback provisions, the opposition stood up and criticized our government for doing it. There they were, again, in the pockets -- puppeteered -- by the large development interests in this province, succumbing to their views, arguing once again that this government ought not to proceed with water protection, because it offended the development interests which they opposite represent only too well.
When it comes to water protection, when it comes to environmental protection,
when it comes to protecting the integrity of our resources so that future
generations can have access to them, those kinds of values take a back burner to
business and big development interests that the members opposite advocate. And
British Columbians should understand
I see again the Opposition House Leader waving his hands, unable now to speak, muzzled as he is, incapable of engaging in debate, wanting instead to just kind of hide and not defend the interests of his party -- afraid, of course, to admit, to confess, to say outright that indeed they're there to represent interests different than ours, that they have a value system different than ours. I challenge that member to stand up in this chamber and just confess to the fact that he's there to oppose those kinds of water protection provisions that we brought forward, because they offend the interests of the development industry. I challenge him to do that, rather than stand up in this House on technical arguments, saying, "Well, there's an inquiry going on in Ontario, and we really don't want to speak to this bill" -- you know, hiding behind the skirts of an inquiry in Ontario, unwilling, unable and not sufficiently courageous to stand up and just admit the truth: that they're in the pockets of the large development interests.
They've forgotten that they opposed those regulations. When one of their spin doctors said, "Well, here's a good line; let's just say the NDP hasn't done anything for eight years," and tried to avoid the debate on that point, they forgot that we'd brought in the AOX standards. They forgot that we'd brought in the municipal standards; they forgot that they opposed those standards; they forgot that they had demonstrated on several occasions that they weren't committed to water protection in British Columbia.
But their opposition isn't limited just to those two examples that I cited. Let me give you another example, which again is a perfect example of the members opposite sort of being for corporate interests and against the need for water protection.
They say that we haven't done anything for eight years. About eight years ago we brought in the Forest Practices Code to change the way that we manage our forests. We said under the provisions of that legislation that you could not cut timber right to the edge of all of the streams. We said that there had to be a 50- to 100-metre setback, because the streams required that kind of protection in order to protect the integrity of our salmon resource.
If you cut right to the edge of those streams, two things would happen. First of all, water temperatures would rise because there wasn't protection from foliage adjacent to the water, which would make it difficult for salmon to survive. Second, if you cut right to the edge of those streams, you would have silting, which would cause critical salmon habitat and breeding areas to be wiped out. So in order to protect water both for human consumption and for the survival of our salmon species, we brought in these streamside protection measures under the Forest Practices Code.
[1055]
How dare they say that we haven't done anything for eight years. We brought in the Forest Practices Code around 1993 or maybe 1994 -- again putting a lie to the argument that we haven't done anything for eight years. We brought forward the Forest Practices Code.
Just to make my point, who was it that stood up in this chamber and said that they were opposed to the Forest Practices Code? Who was it that went around this province and said: "Oh, it's too much red tape; we have to get rid of the Forest Practices Code"? Who campaigned during the last election campaign and indeed continues to campaign today on the promise to gut the Forest Practices Code -- the very code that protects our water resources, our watersheds and our critical streams for salmon habitat and for human consumption of water? Who was it that said they would get rid of the Forest Practices Code?
I think all members opposite know it was the party opposite, again bowing to the wishes of their good corporate friends, their large corporate donors. Let's not forget that the two largest donors to the Liberal Party, based on the recent numbers that have come out, have been the forest companies -- I believe Weyerhaeuser and another American-based forest company whose name escapes me at this time.
And guess who's leading the attack to get rid of the Forest Practices Code. Guess who's saying that the Forest Practices Code is overregulatory and full of red tape: none other than people like David Emerson. He stood up the other day -- representing, of course, Canfor -- and spoke volumes of praise for the Leader of the Opposition. He knows that the Leader of the Opposition is bought and paid for. They've made their contributions, they've got their deal, and part of that deal is to get rid of the Forest Practices Code.
How dare the members opposite stand up and say that this government's done nothing for eight years, when it was seven or eight years ago that we brought forward the Forest Practices Code and protected streamsides in British Columbia from the adverse effects of logging.
Interjection.
M. Sihota: The members opposite, particularly the Opposition House
Leader, who's muttering away there
[ Page 17749 ]
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, member.
M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I have no problem taking a body check or two
from the member opposite, if he stands up and speaks to this matter. I challenge
him to deny in this House that they won't get rid of the AOX standards. I
challenge him right now to stand up in this House and say that the Liberal Party
Interjection.
M. Sihota: I will sit down on the clear understanding that the member opposite will get up. I'll sit down, and I challenge him to stand up and say: "We will maintain that AOX-free regulation that's supposed to come into effect for 2002. We'll stand up and tell the pulp mills that we're committed to doing that." I challenge him to do that. I challenge him to stand up and say publicly in this House: "Oh no. We'll look all the developers in the eye, and we will not get rid of those municipal regulations requiring protection for urban streams." I challenge him to stand up in this House and say that they will not get rid of the provisions of the Forest Practices Code that protect streams.
Hon. Speaker, I challenge him to do it. I'll give him a place in this debate
so that he can get up and do it. I suspect that somehow, just like a lot of his
members
Interjection.
M. Sihota: He's been up on intervention saying: "Oh oh, there's
an inquiry in Walkerton. I don't want to talk about this." Well, you know
Interjection.
M. Sihota: Oh, I see. I get it. The member for Richmond-Steveston just got up on his own and did that without the consent of the members opposite. He just did it on his own, and it wasn't part of the strategy.
Interjections.
[1100]
M. Sihota: I see, hon. Speaker, that they had to send in the
lightweights. It's time to send in the lightweights, so they got the member for
Kamloops-North Thompson in here now just to boom away. But you know, we're
getting a comment
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
M. Sihota: I'm quite happy to remain on my feet while they just boom away over there. You know, it's amazing. They're quite happy to come in here and heckle, but they're most incapable of standing up and engaging in debate, hon. Speaker. It's amazing.
An Hon. Member: Drives you crazy, doesn't it?
M. Sihota: No, it doesn't drive me crazy. It gives me the opportunity just to comment on the fact that they're afraid to take a position. It's very simple. Last election they took a position on a number of issues, and they lost. This election they think they shouldn't take a position on any issues, and they just might win. It's not that simple.
They say we haven't done anything for eight years. Well, let me give
Interjection.
M. Sihota: Oh. Making a total mess of the economy. I'll tell you one
of the things that we did to protect water, which didn't have an effect on the
economy. They said we haven't done anything for eight years. We were the first
government in Canada to ban the export of bulk water -- the first government in
Canada. The members opposite got up and criticized me for making those changes.
You know, they took
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Oh, now the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is upset again.
Interjection.
M. Sihota: Well, I'm reading something else, hon. Speaker. I'm reading the number of times the members opposite have stood up and opposed these great environmental initiatives that we brought forward as a government, and they should be ashamed of it.
Now again, let me just say to the heckling hackle over there, if he wants to
get up and speak, hon. Speaker, get up and speak. Get in this debate. Deny. Just
stand up here and deny that you will look
Just tell us that you will look your developer friends in the eyes and say: "Oh, no. We agree with the NDP on those municipal regulations. You know, we agree with those setback provisions." I challenge him to say that. He will not say that. I challenge him to stand up and say: "Those AOX regulations are great in terms of water protection, and we're committed to maintaining them." I want him to stand up and say: "You know, we support the Forest Practices Code. We support the Forest Practices Code when it comes to streamside management, and all those provisions will remain intact." I challenge them to stand up and say that. I challenge all of them to stand up and say that. But of course, they've got their one designated speaker, and off they go.
The export of bulk water. We brought in a ban on the export of bulk water -- yet another commitment on our part to make sure that the integrity of our water resources in British Columbia was protected. We said: "It's B.C. water, it's a B.C. commodity, and it ought to be available for B.C. residents for their use and enjoyment." I remember that debate, because I brought in that legislation. I had the privilege of doing that. The members opposite were very uncomfortable with us bringing in that legislation, because they thought intuitively from their way of thinking that we ought to be allowing for the export of water. So there's another example of an initiative that we've taken over the last eight years.
[1105]
Let me give you another example that the members opposite voted against them. In 1996, I believe it was, maybe
[ Page 17750 ]
1995, we brought in an urban streamside program to fund the rehabilitation of urban streams. It was based on the recommendations of a group headed by Mark Angelo which is called the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia. They had wanted us to bring forward a program to rehabilitate streams in British Columbia. We brought those forward as an urban initiative that was confined to resurrecting streams in urban British Columbia. If I'm not mistaken -- in fact, I know I'm not mistaken -- the budget that made provision for that, somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $3 million a yearLet's be clear, hon. Speaker. Every time we have brought forward initiatives in this House to deal with water protection, the members opposite have voted against. They voted against that budget which brought forward the urban streamside \program.
They say: "You've done nothing for eight years." Well, we brought forward initiatives to this House, I believe in 1994, with regard to regulating and managing groundwater in British Columbia to make sure that there was no contamination of wells, to ensure that groundwater was properly tested and to ensure that we didn't have the kind of problems that arose in Walkerton. And you know what? Much like they did today, when they stand up and come out with this kind of camouflage argument, "You haven't done anything for eight years" -- and I've been able to demonstrate that's not true -- you know, they didn't want to quite come out and say that you should not protect water. They don't want to say that. They don't want to stand up and say: "Look, the corporate interests that have sort of bought and purchased the Liberal Party don't want these kinds of initiatives."
Instead, what do they do? The opposition that year stood up and criticized me as Minister of Environment for "bringing in a tax on wells." In order to frustrate legislation that was designed to protect and enhance our water resources in this province, they launched this great scare campaign, particularly in the Cariboo, which they're very good at. I remember it vividly -- sort of not telling the whole truth but just telling some things, and saying: "Well, you know, the NDP is going to tax your wells. We can't have taxes on wells, and we're going to oppose the introduction of groundwater legislation to protect our water resources."
The members opposite should hang their heads in shame for engaging in that kind of fearmongering and frustrating the implementation of good water legislation that was designed to protect our water resources. It is untrue for any member to stand up in this House, in this chamber, and say that nothing has been done for eight years. We brought forward a number of programs, some which I've enumerated and some which I will enumerate a little bit further on. But that groundwater legislation was good legislation, and because of the fear campaign the members opposite launched, that legislation was frustrated.
Again it goes fundamentally to this very basic difference between the members on that side of the House and on this side of the House. On this side of the House we have an environment ethic, and it shows in the policies and initiatives we bring forward. The members opposite don't have a green bone in their body. They have been diametrically opposed to every single environmental issue that we've brought forward. We bring forward parks legislation. They say it's wrong to bring forward parks legislation, because they believe, as their member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, that there ought to be mining in parks. We bring forward legislation to protect the integrity of forest resources through a new Forest Practices Code that changes how we manage our forests. They stand up and say: "Oh, it's red tape. We've got to get rid of it." We bring forward legislation, as we have today, to protect our drinking water resources. And they stand up and say: "Well, you can't debate it, because there's an inquiry going on in Walkerton."
You know, the silliness of the members opposite just demonstrates the difference between us and them. There's an environment ethic on this side of the House, and there's not a green bone in their bodies. If I'm wrong, I'll issue my challenge again to the members opposite. Three things. Stand up in this House and say that those AOX standards are good and ought to be implemented and that they are committed to their implementation by the year 2002. Stand up and say that the streamside municipal regulations are good, that they were wrong to criticize those and that they should remain intact. And let them stand up and say that the Forest Practices Code is a good code -- not overly regulated, not full of red tape -- that protects our salmon resources abundantly because of the streamside provisions.
Here on Vancouver Island we've taken a number of steps to protect the integrity of our water resources. Again, the members opposite say we've done nothing for eight years. The member for Saanich North, who lives here on southern Vancouver Island, stands up in this chamber and says that we haven't done anything for eight years. While he was a member of this chamber in 1997 and 1998, what we did, in terms of protecting the water resources in Victoria, was unprecedented in the history of British Columbia.
We protected the Sooke watershed. We brought forward a new regime to protect
the integrity of the drinking water resources here in the greater Victoria area.
We established the Perry commission to take a look at the concerns that were
articulated by the public health officer. The public health officer was
concerned at the time that there was a highway going through the watershed in
the Sooke region, which provides water for the greater Victoria area. We
established the Perry commission. Mr. Perry made a series of recommendations
under that commission which were embraced by the public health officer, which
were embraced by environmentalists, which were embraced by people in the
[1110]
Interjection.
M. Sihota: I think, hon. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker here.
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
M. Sihota: So we brought forward the provisions under the Perry recommendations that were embraced by environmentalists, the forest sector and the public health authorities here in the greater Victoria region. We brought forth those regulations so that we could protect the integrity of the water resource here in British Columbia and make sure that future generations and future members of this chamber would have quality water here in the greater Victoria region. And we implemented those recommendations. Every single one of those recommendations brought forward by Mr. Perry was implemented by our government, by the capital regional district and by the water authority here in Victoria.
We also changed the structure of the water authority so as to ensure that it was more accountable to the way in which it
[ Page 17751 ]
reports through the CRD, through to the province and Ottawa. We brought
forward those provisions. So when the members opposite say that we haven't done
anything for eight years, when the member for Saanich North, who represents in
this area
They say that we haven't done anything for eight years. Let me give the members opposite another example. You know, they're quick to criticize B.C. Hydro, which of course oversees many of our water courses in this province. They have their little agenda with B.C. Hydro these days, again underestimating significantly the capacity of that organization to provide revenue to the Crown and underestimating significantly the environmental initiatives that B.C. Hydro has implemented so well over the last while.
I see the member opposite smiling. He knows as well as I do that those are grossly conservative numbers. He knows as well as I do that those numbers will be surpassed in every sense of the word. He knows that. But he also understands that when there's a political opportunity, he can't bypass it. So he's playing a little game with Hydro revenues, which again will prove him to be wrong.
He needs to recognize, if he were to ever study B.C. Hydro, that we've taken a number of steps to protect the watercourses covered by B.C. Hydro. For example, in the Comox area we've made some changes with regard to the Puntledge system, which I'm very familiar with, that help protect the water resources in that area. We made some changes with regard to regulations in the flatlands of Vancouver Island, particularly in areas like Parksville-Qualicum and my constituency, as they relate to septic tanks. We've taken steps to bring forward a new regulatory framework to protect effluent from septic tanks getting into our water resources; bringing in new stringent requirements in terms of the percolation, timing and soils testing; bringing forward regulations in terms of runoff; and suggesting new technologies that can assist in maintaining the integrity of septic tanks and, at the same time, maintaining the integrity of our water resources.
We've done that over the last few years in terms of new regulations and a better enforcement system through the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. When you add it all up, there is a lot that has been done by our administration to protect the integrity of water resources in this province and to protect the integrity of drinking water in this province.
This latest initiative is just a further amplification, a further example of that commitment. We've brought forward these changes because it builds on that fine tradition that we have as a political party in terms of protecting our drinking water resources in this province. It is not a singular isolated event, as the members opposite would prefer to characterize it. But it does benefit from the experiences in Ontario around Walkerton, which has caused us to go back and re-examine our structures as they relate to water. And this new, more efficient system of setting up these 18 regions reporting in centrally will assist us in doing a better job of monitoring what we're doing with water, reporting on it and making sure that the kind of catastrophe the people in Ontario witnessed would not ever be witnessed here by the people of British Columbia.
I want to conclude on that point. I'll take my place now, because the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said that he wanted to speak. I would challenge him again to stand up and meet the bar, in fact exceed the bar, that I've just laid out for him and to articulate on behalf of his party their commitment to the three items that are referred to. Of course, if he doesn't do that, I suspect we're free to campaign during the election campaign on their lack of commitment to those regulations.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister to close debate.
[1115]
Hon. I. Waddell: In closing the debate, I want to make some very brief observations and respond to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the opposition Environment critic, who spoke in the debate earlier today.
As the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin just said, the Liberal critic raised, really, the only argument I could see, which was: "Well, we've been waiting eight years for this bill." I think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, in his own inimitable way, just demolished the argument of the opposition, quite frankly. He could even have added more.
As he was speaking, I noticed that in 1992, a time when he was in government -- I wasn't here then -- we in fact enacted a safe drinking water regulation and the operation of waterworks systems to require some control and to require purveyors to provide safe drinking water. In 1994 we had a voluntary code of practice for wells after the members opposite really torpedoed the groundwater legislation by raising false tax increase expectations. Typical, isn't it, what the Liberals will do? But we put in a voluntary code of practice for wells to improve protection for groundwater resources.
And as the hon. member from Metchosin mentioned, in 1995 we brought in the Water Protection Act to prohibit large-scale transfers of water between major watersheds and bulk removal of B.C.'s water to locations outside the province. This is now a huge issue in Canada and will be one of the big issues of the twenty-first century as the Americans seek to get Canadian water. We're leading the provinces here.
We've also, as the hon. member kindly mentioned
The Public Accounts Committee has indicated that of the 26 recommendations
made by the auditor general, three have been fully implemented. These are the
words of the Public Accounts Committee, not mine: "Three have been fully
implemented, 22 have been partially implemented and one recommendation is being
addressed by alternative action. The committee's two recommendations have been
partially implemented." So let's have the truth. Let's cut this misleading
But now we have Walkerton, and Walkerton changes the world, so to speak. When we went around British Colum-
[ Page 17752 ]
bia
Today I heard the Liberal critic, the member for Saanich North and the
Islands. The second point that he made was: "We're in favour of the bill,
but, but, but the costs, the uncertainty, the details and regulations and so on
[1120]
I want to summarize the bill. I think it's one of the most important bills that has been introduced in this House. What this bill does is improve the regulation of water supply systems and the protection of water sources. It affirms the public's right to know about their drinking water by requiring that assessments be made. This is the answer to the critic's question as to how you will determine what you would do. You will make assessments and there will be money for assessments. The water-monitoring results and emergency response plans will be made public. It will enable individuals to assess and to request an investigation if they believe there's a threat to their drinking water. It will add requirements for monitoring and reporting drinking water quality. It will set up provincewide and systems-specific water quality standards.
In his speech the Minister of Health told the members how difficult this is to do in a province as diverse as British Columbia. We've done it in this bill with some flexibility. We'll provide stronger standards for treating and distributing drinking water and for the training and qualifications of systems operators. We'll require water suppliers to assess their drinking water sources and systems to identify potential threats to public health. It will require plans to address and manage these threats. And it will ensure that local governments are involved and that medical health officers and drinking water officers are consulted on statutory decisions impacting water quality, such as waste management, mining, arranged permits or logging plans.
Now we'll have water involved as a priority in some of the land uses of the province. We'll enable the development of community-based drinking water protection plans as ordered by the Minister of Health or as requested by drinking water officers in local government. The drinking water officer will be right there at the local level. It will strengthen the inspection and order powers. It will establish new prohibitions and penalties against contaminated drinking water or even tampering with the water system, as happened twice in Vancouver in the last six months. It will establish statutory obligations for water suppliers and others to report threats to drinking water in B.C. communities.
There you have it: no Walkerton in British Columbia. I plead with the members opposite: help us pass this legislation, because this is the time to strike. It may not happen again. The planets are lined up for this one. We should do it. I believe that the public wants us to do it, and they will hold the people accountable who don't do it.
Having said that, I close the debate on that and move second reading.
Second reading of Bill 20 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, we'll see what happens in committee stage.
I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill 20, Drinking Water Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[1125]
Hon. G. Janssen: I call committee stage on Bill 19.
VIDEO GAMES ACT
The House in committee on Bill 19; D. Streifel in the chair.
[1130]
On section 1.
G. Plant: Section 1 is the definitions section, which is important to
an understanding of the regulatory scheme contemplated by the Video Games Act.
There are some threshold questions, though, that are important to understanding
the scheme as a whole. One of them is that this act creates a parallel process
for classification of video games -- parallel to the classification process that
already exists for movies and videos in British Columbia. While the process
intersects at some points, including the fact that the director who has
responsibilities under the Video Games Act will be the director of film
classification under the Motion Picture Act
One of the things that people have observed about video games over the last number of years is that the technology of video games is making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between what appears on a TV screen when you're watching a video game and what appears when you're watching supposedly live-action video. Indeed, that's part of the context which has caused the public to be concerned about this issue and has motivated the government to legislate. So why do we need a separate bill with a separate process when what we are really talking about, fundamentally, is expanding audiovisual technology?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'll begin by introducing Kimberley McLean to the House, a senior policy analyst with my ministry, who's in here with me today.
It's a legitimate question -- that one option would have been to proceed by way of amending the Motion Picture Act. That's always a judgment call as to whether you proceed under existing legislation and amend it significantly, or whether you have a stand-alone piece of legislation.
We made the determination to go with a stand-alone piece of legislation, because there is different technology involved here than with traditional motion pictures. The nature of the product we're talking about here is interactive,
[ Page 17753 ]
unlike motion pictures. It's a different industry, and it operates differently. It has its own rating system, as we know, which we've discussed in second reading.
[1135]
This bill also allows us to take into account changing and new technology in the future, although I grant the member that we could have done all of that under the Motion Picture Act with significant amendments to that act. But we made a judgment call that this was a significant enough issue, a significant enough technology, that it merited a stand-alone bill.
G. Plant: The bill will add to the responsibilities of the director of film classification under the Motion Picture Act. I suppose a thorough and complete implementation of the legislation could well involve the government in hiring or funding additional enforcement resources.
Can the minister outline what the budgetary implications of the implementation of this legislation are for the current fiscal year and on an ongoing basis?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: This fiscal year and, we expect, on an ongoing basis
the cost will be
G. Plant: The motion picture classification work that this government does under the Motion Picture Act is, I believe, done on a fee-for-service basis. In fact, my recollection is that the government collects more in the way of fees for film classification than it spends to operate the office. I stand to be corrected on that. In any event, that is just the context for a question around the Video Games Act.
Is it the government's intention to recover the costs of the operation or application of these rules through fees that would be charged for classification and other services under the act? If the government has that intention, can the minister indicate what the government's expectations are in terms of the amount of fees that they expect to collect under this act?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The member is correct that for motion picture
classification, we do charge fees and try to do cost recovery. But that's not
how this system will work. The classification will be done
[1140]
The attempt to recover some of the cost will be through our licensing system. That will recover about one-third of this cost. Our intention and our estimate right now is that there will be increases in the cost of licences, but we don't anticipate the increase being any more than 20 percent. And it will vary in terms of actual dollars, according to the level of licence that's held. Right now there are licences held by the industry -- for example, when they're renting videos. The cost of those licences can range from on the order of about $58 a year if they're just handling general product up to as high as about $560 a year if they're handling adult product. But we expect that any increase in fees should be no more than 20 percent, and it'll only be about one-third of the actual cost of the program.
G. Plant: The minister's answer takes me back to the earlier issue of "why not do this all under one act?" when it sounds like he, in fact, is contemplating a licensing scheme that will work in that very way. That's fine. We won't pursue that issue further. The important point I wanted to ascertain was the minister's expectations around who was going to pay for the scheme and what the government was going to collect or was expecting that it might collect as a result of fees charged under the act.
One last money question at this point. In this year's budget, the amount set aside as the anticipated expenditure of the film classification branch is about $400,000 more than last year. Has the minister in fact budgeted for this increased expenditure in this year's estimates?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, that's where, as a line item, this increase would be found. The member refers to $400,000; I said $360,000. I'm not sure about the difference of $40,000 at this point, but that's where that money is going.
G. Plant: I want to move now to some questions on the basic scheme. In British Columbia it's not possible to sell or license for viewing a motion picture unless it's been classified. You get classified first before you can show a movie in a movie theatre or rent a video in a video store. It's not completely clear to me from reading the act, in relation to what's been said publicly about the act -- particularly in the context of the ESRB stuff -- whether that's the same principle that will apply under this act. So let me ask the question: does this scheme operate so that it will be a precondition of the sale or distribution of video games in British Columbia that they be classified under this act before they can be distributed?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The answer is yes, unless the products are specifically excluded. For example, at this time we would exclude arcade games, but in the future we might include them. The estimate is that about 80 percent of all the products right now on the market are classified through ESRB. The remaining 20 percent would have to go through the existing mechanism in British Columbia, as provided for or reinforced in this act, before they would be allowed on the market.
[1145]
G. Plant: With respect to that 20 percent, that mechanism may be to require the distributor or manufacturer of the product either to obtain an ESRB rating or to obtain a classification under the act directly. Is that a correct reading of the procedure?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, that would be the case. But we're also looking at the fact that because this is an enabling piece of legislation, there would be nothing stopping us. For example, if there are products coming from Asia and if there is a rating
[ Page 17754 ]
system in existence in Asia which we feel is satisfactory, we could adopt that as our own as well. But ultimately, we retain the right to classify it ourselves.
G. Plant: The ESRB rating categories include, as I understand it, the following categories: early childhood, kids to adults, everyone, teen, mature, adults only and rating pending -- which would be for a product that has been submitted to the ESRB and is awaiting final rating. As a first step leading into the question about the mature and adults-only categories, maybe I could establish that it's the minister's understanding that, at least at this point, those are the ESRB rating categories. To the extent that this bill ultimately, through regulations, will rely substantially upon those categories as the tool for classifying video games, those are the categories that consumers in British Columbia are likely to see.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, those are exactly the categories consumers will see. The ones that we're concerned about, of course, are those rated teen, mature and adults only. The underpinning of this legislation is to provide us with a mechanism to deal appropriately with the ones with those ratings. But those are all of the categories, yes.
G. Plant: One of the things that the government has said it intends to do here is adopt the ESRB system that applies to the majority of video games that come into B.C., with some changes. The principal change is a change to the age limit that applies, as I understand it, to the mature and the adults-only categories. Maybe it only applies to the mature category. In the context of the mature category, the ESRB rating system says that the titles rated mature have content suitable for persons aged 17 and older. As I understand it, the government's intention would be to raise the age limit in respect of this category of video games from 17 to 18.
If I'm right about that -- and the minister will correct me if I'm wrong -- I ask the minister to provide the public policy rationale for raising the age limit from 17 to 18, for mature videos.
[1150]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: First correction. We're not changing the age on adult. It's the ages for teen and mature. The question was on mature, but I think the public policy rationale is the same on both. First of all, I should say that the ESRB has already dropped the number from its label. So it used to say M(17), but now it just says M. So there's not going to be a labelling problem, I'm told. I think that's an important point -- that we won't see retailers having to change every single label that comes into British Columbia. And this has been done, apparently, because the ESRB has already anticipated there may be international differences in the way that the rating system is applied -- slight variations.
Some other factors underpin this -- first, the ages. We've taken teen, and instead of 13, as the ESRB says, we're saying it should be 14, and that mature, instead of 17, should be 18 in British Columbia. That makes it consistent with our provincial standard for movies and videos. It makes it consistent with the Canadian standard for movies and videos, with the exception of Quebec. Arguably, it's a Canadian community standard and a provincial community standard that we're just ensuring there's consistency with. As I say, it is only a oneyear difference. As I understand it, from what I've been informed, this should make no difference in terms of actual labelling.
G. Plant: So what the ESRB south of the border would decide is that a video game that has content suitable for persons aged 13 and older -- and accordingly, a video game that should be given a teen rating -- will then cross the border, and the label will remain the same. But the application of the rule in British Columbia will preclude the sale of that video game to a 13-year-old and instead limit its sale to people 14 years of age and over. Have I got it right?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes. It's correct.
G. Plant: There's sort of an additional category of material or types of video games that isn't really its own classification, but it recurs as an issue throughout the act, and that is video games that include depictions of what are defined as prohibitive materials.
Would I be right in analyzing the bill this way? In certain circumstances, a video game may contain so much prohibitive material that it will simply not be classified. It will not be permitted for sale. But in other circumstances, the director may require some scenes to be removed and then classify the video game according to any one of the classifications that seems appropriate after prohibitive material has been reviewed. Is that a correct analysis?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes. That's right. It's just as with film classification. If there are prohibitive materials, there could be an outright prohibition, or scenes or elements can be removed in order to allow it to be rated according to the ESRB standard and according to the director's standard. Then it would be offered for sale or rental in British Columbia. Of course, it's the same with motion pictures, and therefore the director is open to appeals and arguments on questions, for example, of artistic merit and the like.
The Chair: Richmond-Steveston, minding the time.
G. Plant: The act is a bit hard to read for lay people, because it talks about adult video games and mature video games without really giving much indication to the reader about what those might be, and then it goes on. It's quite clear about what prohibited material might be. But I understand that in that respect, the act is somewhat following the structural example of the Motion Picture Act. We'll just have to see what the regulations say.
I'm in the Chair's hands, but I really don't have very many more questions. I would be able to move forward to section 4.
[1155]
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
G. Plant: Let me just make a couple of comments that relate to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7. The first is to observe that in section 4(c) -- I say this with great respect -- is the kind of legislative drafting that is sometimes difficult to understand. In other words, what this section does is to except from the
[ Page 17755 ]
application of the whole scheme certain kinds of video games. It gives two examples of that and then creates a basket clause that just explodes the category so as to make it meaningless. Then in sections 5, 6 and 7, instead of enacting prohibitions there is this very confusing, I think, use of the word "ensure." I think legislation should simply prohibit things from happening rather than requiring people to ensure that things happen.
In section 5(2), for example, a video game retailer has to ensure that things happen. I have to admit, viewing that language, that I'm not sure what that really means. If you're actually trying to prevent or prohibit something from happening, you should just prevent or prohibit it rather than place this kind of onus on a video game retailer.
These are fine-tuning points of drafting that don't
Lastly, in that context, section 5(3) -- the language at the very end of that, the words "for different circumstances" -- again, doesn't give the reader of the act much guidance about what the intent here is. I understand that we're looking at framework legislation, and that may explain some of that.
Those are just drafting observations. I have no other questions until we get to section 20(2)(j).
Sections 4 to 19 inclusive approved.
On section 20.
G. Plant: If you look at section 20(2)(j), you'll see that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations which would exempt classes of video games from the application of one or more provisions of this act. I guess in some legislative drafting person's fantasy, one would always want to do this. That is, you would draft a bill that says A plus B plus C and then make sure that buried near the end of it is a clause that says "except when the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council says it won't be A or B or C."
That is, by giving the cabinet the power to exempt classes of video games
from this bill, we're actually giving cabinet the power to denude this bill of
any application or substance whatsoever, which may be the tool that the minister
is using to exempt arcades for the time being. But it seems to me to be a
[1200]
Section 20 approved.
Sections 21 to 27 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 19, Video Games Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada