Hansard -- Thursday, April 11, 2002, p.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 5 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		2775

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2775
	Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15) Hon. S. Bond Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31) Hon. J. Murray

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2776
	Vaisakhi Day P. Sahota K. Manhas Collingwood Neighbourhood House R. Nijjar

Oral Questions		2777
	Funding for lab tests J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Referendum on treaty negotiations J. Kwan Hon. G. Campbell B.C. credit rating R. Sultan Hon. G. Collins Drug prescription levels and Medical Plan premiums V. Anderson Hon. C. Hansen Disabled access to parks J. MacPhail Hon. J. Murray

Second Reading of Bills		2780
	Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29) Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of Supply		2781
	Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (continued) J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray

Royal Assent to Bills		2797
	Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2002 Gaming Control Act Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 Registry Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

Hon. S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a very hard-working constituent of mine. He's here with the B.C. Real Estate Board meeting with MLAs: Mr. Steve Nicoll. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We have the great pleasure of having 25 grade 5 students from Irwin Elementary School in West Vancouver. They're accompanied by Ms. Kathy Canfield and Mrs. Sarah Forward. I would like to ask the House to make them really welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have Mr. David Soberpena, who is here to meet with several ministries regarding the possibility of promoting some trade with the Philippines. With him is a longtime supporter and longtime friend of mine, Dan Haughian from Mission. Could the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: We have a Royal Banker in the gallery today, checking on our condition: Ab Hallowell, his spouse Shirley and their daughter. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: The second half. Also in the gallery today are Mr. Burt Epstein, the CEO of E.G. Communications, and Larry Scheurer from Euro Developments. They're here to hold meetings with the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

I first met Mr. Epstein several years ago in my riding. He wanted to make a substantial investment in this province at that time but did not like the investment climate here. With the change to this government, he is back and wanting to make an investment here. Would the House make him welcome.

I. Chong: In the gallery today is a class from the distance education program in the school of social work at the University of Victoria. The distance education program has been established for over 20 years and continues to grow in terms of course offerings and enrolments. It's a flexible, part-time or full-time course of study offered across Canada and leading to a bachelor of social work degree.

We have 19 students in the gallery with their instructor, Rena Miller. The 19 students are Sherry Anderson, Ruth Bikowski, Sandi Cardinal, Maria Clark, Dan Cowan, Robin Croteau, Linda Czechowski, Lorraine Gassner, Susan Gencarelli, Brenda Gladue, Donna Hartford, Scott Haryett, Fiona McColl, Lynne McLain, Della McLeod, Kathryn Sandberg, Christine Southall, Panayota Stamatakis and Jody Studney. Will the House please join me in making them very welcome indeed.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms asked for an update on the health of your deputy, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. We really appreciate the interest that the staff in the buildings and everyone here takes, including the opposition, in matters such as that. The member for Kelowna–Lake Country appreciates it very much too.

We have good news. He told me this morning that he'll be reporting back to work on Monday. He's going to try and get back in the saddle. He's really grateful for the prayers and expressions of support he's received from members and everyone in this place, and he's looking forward to getting back to us. He said that the cabinet ministers and their staff have been incredibly helpful to his staff while he's been away from work. Let's bid him a warm welcome back.

L. Mayencourt: I have a visitor in the gallery this afternoon. She is my very wonderful sister, Bernice Willoughby. In addition to working on my campaign, she's been a source of great strength and compassion and just a joy to have as a sister. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Degree Authorization Act.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 15, intituled Degree Authorization Act, be read a first time now.

Hon. S. Bond: This bill is a progressive step forward for post-secondary education in British Columbia. It will lead to expanded learner choice and opportunity and will enhance the capacity of British Columbia's post-secondary education system. It will promote quality post-secondary education, and it will protect our students.

The bill will establish a clear and transparent process for private institutions and public institutions from other jurisdictions to obtain authority to offer degree programs and grant degrees in British Columbia. The bill will also expand the authority of public colleges, institutes and university colleges by allowing them to offer applied degrees.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Murray presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that Bill 31, intituled Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002, be read a first time now.

Hon. J. Murray: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today, one that promotes more efficient delivery of environmental enforcement services offered by this government. The amendments contained in this bill will accomplish three objectives.

First, they will streamline administrative procedures within the conservation officer service by creating a more efficient process for appointing conservation officers. Second, this bill consolidates and harmonizes conservation officer empowerment, enforcement powers and immunities. Third, it will enable more effective partnerships with environmental protection agencies in other jurisdictions and at other levels of government.

While these changes are administrative in nature, they are important for the effective and efficient operation of British Columbia's conservation officer service.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

P. Sahota: Growing up as a child in India, I had the good fortune of celebrating the many festivals and religious holidays that marked the Indian calendar. It felt like there was a festival every day of the year in some part of the country. This coming Saturday, April 13, is a special day for the Sikh community. It is a celebration of Vaisakhi.

On this day in 1699 the tenth Guru Gobind Singh founded the Khalsa Panth. It is about celebrating universal justice and tolerance, about sharing. It is also about prosperity. It is also a celebration of the new year, as the farmers in northern India celebrate the harvesting of the winter crop.

In the state of Punjab, where I grew up, I still recall Vaisakhi being celebrated with music and folk dance. Most of my colleagues know that British Columbians also celebrate Vaisakhi with great fanfare. Both Vancouver and Surrey will be holding parades. Thousands of Sikhs from across North America will gather in the lower mainland to be part of the celebration. The Premier, along with a number of my colleagues, will be part of the occasion.

As we gather, let us also reflect on the contribution that the Sikh community has made to British Columbia. People from the Indian subcontinent have been in Canada for over a hundred years. They have made great contributions to the economic and social fabric of this province. As I look around this chamber, there are seven members from the Sikh community, a first in Canadian history.

The level of success the Sikh community has reached in Canada is significant. Sikhs are participating in every aspect and facet of Canadian life. This not only speaks to the hard work and dedication of the Sikh community but is also a commentary about the country we all call our home and our nation. The greatness of Canada is that not only do we as Canadians accept all cultures, but we celebrate them with enthusiasm. We live and cohabit peaceably with one another. We as Canadians participate in a truly global culture, and we are a nation that is second to none.

Today I ask my colleagues to join with me to say congratulations to the Sikh community. In the words of the great guru, "Wahe Guru ji ka Khalsa, Wahe Guru ji ki Fateh. Lakh lakh Vadhai," to the entire Sikh community.

K. Manhas: I too, along with my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, rise to speak about Vaisakhi, a seasonal and traditional holiday of the Sikh religion. Vaisakhi embodies the Sikh ideals and values of truthful living, hard work, the equality of all humankind and compassionate service as integral life experiences and principles to maintain perpetual union with God while creating a just social order in this world.

The first Sikhs came to British Columbia in the late 1800s as part of their tour of duty as soldiers in the British Indian Army. Many of them were so impressed with this beautiful land that when they went home, they told their families about the wonder of British Columbia and made arrangements to move here.

My grandfather was one of those people. He came to B.C. as a teenager in the 1920s and settled in Paldi, a small town in the Cowichan Valley which his fellow travellers named after their own native village in India. Throughout his life he sought to live by the ideals which Vaisakhi stands for. From the early days Sikh pioneers have persevered through hard work and industry and persisted through some very difficult times.

As British Columbia's Sikh community prepares to celebrate Vaisakhi this year, it is important to remember the many important contributions the Sikh community has made to the life and history of British Columbia. The community has worked hard and employed many people and contributed in every facet of British Columbia society. Today there are two government ministers, several members of our Legislature in British Columbia and many members of our caucus and ministry staff of Sikh heritage.

Vaisakhi will be celebrated this coming Saturday. The Premier has participated for many years, and I know he, along with many of my colleagues, will be looking forward to taking part in Vaisakhi parades in the lower mainland and all over British Columbia. I encourage everyone to join in the festivities as the Sikh community celebrates the 303rd anniversary of the Khalsa brotherhood with celebrations this Saturday.

R. Nijjar: We realize the most reasonable direction for our government to take regarding capital construction is the development of public-private partnerships, P3s. At the same time, our government is encouraging communities and families to take responsibility for and ownership of local issues.

I believe there is an excellent example in my riding, the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, of residents taking ownership of an issue and of how well partnerships between business and three levels of government and community can work. Collingwood Neighbourhood House is an excellent example of what I believe is the future of development of community centres and schools in British Columbia. The house was born when residents came together and decided to do something about the neighbourhood at Kingsway and Joyce, which is known as Renfrew-Collingwood.

Collingwood Neighbourhood House was developed successfully with a partnership with the developers at Concert Properties, formerly known as Greystone Properties; the city of Vancouver, which worked aggressively with the developer to ensure community needs were met in exchange for the opportunity to develop; the Vancouver school board, which assists with space for child care and programs; a variety of community organizations; the provincial government and the federal government. It was through the initiative and involvement of residents that the city was able to work with the developer to ensure full neighbourhood amenities in conjunction with the house.

Because it was born out of ingenuity, Collingwood Neighbourhood House had the makeup to adjust and grow through the years. The construction of CNH included future plans to build the school on the property so resources could be shared between the two facilities. Now we have been able to celebrate the opening of Graham Bruce Elementary annex.

I encourage government to take a close look at Collingwood Neighbourhood House and see how partnerships can work in the development of joint community centres and schools.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday we saw that thousands of British Columbians are going without their prescriptions because of cuts to health care. Today I would like to ask the Minister of Health Services about a matter involving a British Columbian living with HIV and hepatitis C. After having to endure two cancelled appointments for a liver biopsy, Bart Wittke was told that he had advanced liver disease that requires immediate treatment. A blood sample was taken and sent to St. Paul's Hospital for a genotype test, but the lab at St. Paul's won't do the test because the government won't fund it. Without the test, Mr. Wittke can't get the drugs he needs to save his life.

Will the Minister of Health Services step in and fund genotype tests at St. Paul's so that Mr. Wittke's life-saving drugs can now be prescribed?

Hon. C. Hansen: In British Columbia we have one of the best cancer agencies anywhere in North America. In fact, our outcomes are the best in North America when it comes to survival rates and treatment. I certainly do not know the details, the specifics, of the individual the member is referring to, but if she will provide me with details, I'll make sure it is followed up on.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Wittke needs the attention now. He has written to this government. He wrote to his MLA, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, informing him of his worsening condition. I'll quote from that letter: "During the 1990s I never encountered any obstructions or barriers to the delivery of my health care. It has only been during the past year that things have become unravelled."

Mr. Wittke's blood sample is sitting at St. Paul's waiting for the minister to take action. If the test is not done very soon, he will die. It's that simple.

Again, to the minister: can he not commit today to fund the lab at St. Paul's Hospital so that Mr. Wittke and others like him don't die waiting for treatment?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd be very pleased to follow up on this. If the member could provide me with the details immediately after question period, I will ensure that it is followed up on.

J. MacPhail: To just urge the minister…. I take the minister at his word. My question is this: will you please do this as soon as possible, so that Mr. Wittke and others can live a good life?

Hon. C. Hansen: I undertook to review the material as soon as she can get it to me. I will ensure that it is followed up on in a forthright manner.

J. Kwan: Yesterday in this House the Premier said that aboriginal self-government should be modelled on a municipal style of government. The Attorney General

has stated that turnout does not matter. He said that a no vote is not binding on the government.

To the Premier: since the government has already determined the position it is taking to negotiate issues around self-governance for aboriginal people and that a no vote will not move the government from its position, just what is the point of asking the referendum questions if the answer does not matter?

Hon. G. Campbell: One of the things we have tried to do with the referendum is include British Columbians in allowing us to move forward with treaty negotiations. I am very pleased to say that as of today, over a quarter of a million British Columbians have been involved in resolving treaties for the long term for the benefit of every single British Columbian. That was what we committed to do, and that's what we're going to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The Premier claims that this referendum is an exercise in democracy, but it is clear that the fix is in. No, the no vote doesn't count. Turnout doesn't matter. Faith groups, environmental groups, human rights groups and, most important of all, the first nations community are all saying that the referendum is wrong.

To the Premier: just what version of democracy is this Premier defending when the only votes that count are the ones that he agrees with?

Hon. G. Campbell: There was a vote, actually, that took place in the province. It was last May 16.

This government said to the people of this province that we would have a legislative committee that would tour the province and develop questions that were potentially going to be put on a ballot for a referendum. This government undertook to the people of British Columbia that we would put a referendum to them that would help us establish the principles that we would take to the table to negotiate with the federal government and first nations.

This government has said to aboriginal people that we are committed to protecting aboriginal rights and living according to the constitution. This government has said that it is critical for all British Columbians to be included in this.

Unlike previous governments, which have excluded the people of this province, this government said that we were going to bring the people into the process of resolving treaties. That is exactly what we've done. We encourage people to vote. I'm encouraged by the discussion that's taking place, even if some of it is misinformed. At least we are having people talking about one of the most critical issues we face in the province: the resolution of aboriginal treaties.

A number of bond-rating agencies are currently releasing their annual reports on the state of British Columbia's finances. The bond ratings contained in these reports give a good indication of how the province's economy is performing and where we seem to be heading. Can the Minister of Finance tell us how these bond-rating agencies are reacting to the government's fiscal plan?

Hon. G. Collins: I thank the member for his question. I'm very pleased to say today that yesterday afternoon Moody's credit rating confirmed its credit rating for the province, as well as confirming British Columbia's stable outlook. I just want to read….

Hon. G. Collins: I have to divert from what I thought I might answer, given the comments from the member opposite. She says: "You're as good as the NDP."

Well, actually, we're somewhat better, because in April of '99 DBRS downgraded British Columbia. In April of '99 S&P downgraded British Columbia. In April of '99 CBRS downgraded British Columbia. In January of '99 S&P revised from negative to a stable. In April 1998 CBRS downgraded British Columbia. In May 1997 S&P downgraded British Columbia, and in May '97 Moody's downgraded British Columbia.

The difference is: we give them the truth, and they leave us there. We've got a lot of work to do — a lot of work — but we're well underway.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano has a supplementary question.

R. Sultan: These bond ratings dropping off are the most important indicator of whether people from all over the world decide to invest in B.C.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us how our bond ratings compare with the other provinces in Canada?

Hon. G. Collins: The reality is: British Columbia used to be first. It used to have the best credit rating of any province in the country, and over the last decade British Columbia did slip. It slipped. Moody's ranks us second; Standard and Poor's and Dominion Bond Rating rank us third in the country.

Hon. G. Collins: I hate to disappoint the members opposite with good news, but I'll do it. This morning

They also issued a bit of a warning. I want to quote it for members, because it shows that we have much work yet to do as a province. They state: "The government has demonstrated strong resolve in undertaking some unpopular measures during its short tenure in office. However, any slippage from the province's targets that would slow the pace of deficit reduction and boost the province's debt burden to higher than anticipated levels would potentially result in a revision to the outlook for the rating."

What that says is that we have to stay the course, follow through on the plan, and our credit rating will be going up, not down.

V. Anderson: There are reports today that the prescriptions bought by seniors across the province have gone down 38 percent in the last three months of this year. Some have suggested that this drop is due to the fact that government changes have come to the Pharmacare program. Would the Minister of Health Services respond to this concern?

Hon. C. Hansen: The information contained in some of the media reports is not accurate. If you look not at the claims submitted to the Pharmacare program but rather at the number of prescriptions issued in the province, as reflected in the PharmaNet data, it actually shows that for the first quarter of last year to the first quarter of this year, there was a change in the magnitude of 0.07 percent. There are as many prescriptions being filled the first quarter of this year as there were last year.

What we did see was a significant increase in the number of prescriptions that were filled in December, which usually happens when there's a change in Pharmacare policy because of stockpiling that takes place. The articles today are really quite misleading in that there has been no decrease in the number of prescriptions filled in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara with a supplementary question.

V. Anderson: There are many constituents who are concerned about what effect the changes to the Pharmacare program will have upon premium assistance recipients. Can the minister explain to us how these changes will affect the ability of low-income British Columbians to reserve and receive their prescriptions?

Hon. C. Hansen: When we made the changes that were announced in December, we were very careful to protect low-income seniors, the 50 percent of seniors who qualify for premium assistance. The change in the deductible that was incurred by those seniors has not changed from what it was a year ago. In fact, because of the changes that were announced by the Minister of Finance with regard to the MSP premiums, the threshold for qualifying for premium assistance increases for 230,000 individual British Columbians. As of May 1 we will see an additional 230,000 low-income British Columbians qualify for premium assistance and the other benefits that come along with that.

J. MacPhail: British Columbians with disabilities are receiving letters from this government taking away their provincial park passes. Some are describing this as incredibly mean-spirited and showing just how low this government is prepared to sink to pay for its reckless tax giveaways to big corporations and the wealthy. Some people are saying that, but apparently some Liberal backbenchers agree with that.

Cathy Woods, a disabled British Columbian, has written to every Liberal MLA asking them to reconsider that decision. The member for Cariboo South wrote back saying that he, too, is very upset.

To the minister for parks: will she stand up in the House, apologize to disabled British Columbians, agree with the member for Cariboo South and immediately give back their park passes?

Hon. J. Murray: Despite the fiscal challenges that we're facing in British Columbia, we have chosen to maintain the subsidy to seniors for their camping, and we are maintaining free camping for the disabled of low-income. We actually have the most generous disabled-camping subsidy in Canada, and we're the only province in western Canada that provides free camping to low-income disabled people.

Hon. J. Murray: What we did change is that we no longer are providing free camping to every disabled person regardless of income, so taxpayers will no longer be paying for a person with adequate income to pay for their own camping. We will be focusing our resources on low-income disabled.

Hon. J. Murray: We're very pleased to be able to say that disabled children and their family members will be able to camp for free as well.

The Securities Amendment Act, 2002, proposes amendments to the Securities Act that will help economic growth in British Columbia. The bill provides a foundation for attracting capital to our province by complementing rules that liberalize the environment for raising capital and that anticipate the entrance of non-traditional trading systems into our market.

The bill contains four groups of amendments to the Securities Act. It introduces additional investor protection measures to complement the easier access to capital and investment opportunities made available under the new capital-raising exemption rule, which the Securities Commission adopted in early April.

It provides a framework for recognizing competing security trading systems to complement a market operation's rule that the securities regulators across Canada adopted last December. It increases the maximum administrative penalties that the commission can impose and increases fines that can be imposed on persons convicted of security fraud. It makes some housekeeping amendments.

Under the new exemption rule, companies can seek capital privately from a broader range of investors than is now possible. Artificial restrictions on the amount raised have been removed. The rule was developed because existing securities legislation has not prevented investors from making unsuitable investments even though issuers faced onerous and time-consuming conditions in raising capital.

The amendment in this bill would balance the liberalized exemption by giving the following additional protections to investors. Investors who purchase private placement under the new offering memorandum exemption would have two days to change their minds. If an offering memorandum describing an investment contains misrepresentations, investors would have the statutory right to sue the directors and officers who signed the memorandum as well as the issuer.

The act would prohibit anyone selling or promoting a security from engaging in unfair practices. These include high-pressure selling, taking advantage of an investor's inability or incapacity to protect his or her own interest, or imposing inequitable terms or conditions.

The commission developed the capital-raising exemption rule and these proposed amendments jointly with Alberta. The rule and related proposed statutory amendments are largely uniform in the two provinces.

The bill also provides a framework for recognizing and regulating innovative trading systems on the same basis as traditional exchanges. With the dynamic changes now occurring in security markets, we need to give the commission more flexibility to deal with different types of trading markets with specifically tailored requirements.

The commission has worked with its counterparts throughout Canada to develop a new framework for regulating in the marketplaces. The market operations rule came into force in December 2001 and will permit the competitive operation of traditional markets and innovative trading systems while ensuring that trading is fair and transparent, and eliminating the duplication in the oversight process.

The increased competitive environment will increase investor choice, stimulate innovation and encourage marketplaces to offer better services at lower costs. The bill complements the rule by updating the legislation and harmonizing it with the legislation in Alberta and Ontario.

The amendments would more clearly authorize the commission to share information with other regulators and law enforcement agencies. This is necessary in view of the increasing globalization of investment trends and the swiftness with which market misconducts can be repeated.

The amendments will also establish the foundation for the commission to work with other regulators on a proposed national registration database. The objective of the database is to provide significant benefits to registrants and regulators by eliminating duplication in the application process and significantly reducing the volume of correspondence between them. The database is proposed by all Canadian security regulators with the exception of Quebec.

The amendment would create more meaningful enforcement provisions by increasing the maximum penalties the commission can impose for market misconduct. The maximum administrative penalty of $100,000 was set in 1989. This bill would increase the maximum to $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a company.

This bill supports the government's objective of a more efficient and effective regulation that will contribute to the economic competitiveness and the economic growth of the province. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after….

Mr. Speaker: One second. Let us call the question on second reading. The question is second reading of Bill 29.

I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29, Securities Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Kwan: While canvassing the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management about initiatives that he had for protecting the environment, he brought up sustainability principles that are being developed by the ministry. As the ministry ultimately responsible for environmental protection, what role has this minister or her staff had in the development of those principles?

Hon. J. Murray: Ministry people at all levels have been involved in the development of these principles. Staff have been involved. Deputy ministers and the cabinet subcommittee of ministers of environment and economy have had a chance to review the principles. So, yes, I have been involved.

Hon. J. Murray: The principles don't fall into categories like that. The principles are more about what kind of things one needs to pay attention to, to ensure that a balanced decision is made that incorporates the environment as well as the economy and social issues.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management said that the principles would guide other agencies in making decisions, as those decisions would have to be in accordance with sustainability principles. How will WLAP be held accountable to these principles, and what is the accountability structure?

Hon. J. Murray: The sustainability principles are in the process of being developed at this point. They haven't been reviewed by cabinet and haven't been completed. Specific questions about the principles are appropriately answered when they are available for public comment and through the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. Kwan: As the ministry responsible for the protection of the environment, could the minister please elaborate on what she would like to see as an example of a sustainability principle with a focus on the environment and ecosystem health?

Hon. J. Murray: Sustainability involves making decisions that take into account environmental objectives as well as social and economic objectives. One of the things I believe is that the time is over of seeing the economy and the environment at two opposite ends of the pole, that we can either suppress the economy to protect the environment or we can damage the environment in order to have an economy. I believe that a thriving economy, a healthy environment and a healthy social situation are synergistic and work together.

One of the aims of my ministry is to find ways to get away from that linear formula that so many people seem to follow and that was the basic premise around environmental protection in past decades. Current environmental policy and thinking actually debunk the linear formula that says one unit of economic activity equals one unit of damage to the environment and that therefore the only way to protect the environment is to suppress the economy.

I think we have to get away from that way of seeing things. As our population increases and as people naturally aspire to prosperity here in Canada and other parts of the world, if we agree that that linear equation is our only option, then over time we will have a degraded environment. None of us is willing for that outcome.

We actually need to look at a different way of thinking about the environment in which that linear equation is not our only option. We need to find ways that we can have greater efficiency in terms of our use of resources. We need to find ways that we can bring innovation and technology forward that allow us to have the economic activity and prosperity and to continuously reduce the impact on the environment.

I believe that's the kind of shift we need to make in order to protect and improve the environment over time. That's the kind of direction my ministry is working on: sustainability principles that enable us to shift people's thinking and arrive at the formula that says we can find new ways of doing the business of living in our communities so that we reduce the impact on the environment while having economic prosperity. That's an important direction.

J. Kwan: The reason I ask this minister's take on environmental sustainability is because in the estimates debate so far, the government has shown how much focus it has on the economic side of sustainability

rather than the environmental side. We in the opposition fear that this government and this minister's voice is not going to be heard. Members of the opposition have even gone so far as to canvass about the definition of sustainability being used. All the answers come back lacking reference to sustainability of environmental integrity.

The traditional definition the opposition has been working with is that of the Brundtland report and the notion that sustainability involves efforts to reduce consumption of energy and resources to be more efficient with what we take so we can meet our present needs and preserve the ability of future generations to achieve theirs.

What is the definition of sustainability that this ministry uses? Is it the one the Brundtland report uses?

Hon. J. Murray: The definition of sustainability this government will be using is part of the project of developing sustainability principles. As we discussed, that process is underway. I appreciate the member's commitment to the environmental integrity aspect of sustainability. It is a very important component, and certainly in my role and my ministry's role we are advocates for environmental integrity.

J. Kwan: I didn't hear whether or not the minister utilizes the Brundtland report's definition of sustainability. Is that the definition the ministry is using?

Hon. J. Murray: My ministry is involved in the project with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management in developing a definition of sustainability that government will be using. The key concepts around the balance of the environmental, economic and social objectives, and the key ideas around maintaining the option of the assets and benefits for future generations will naturally be included in the wording in some way.

J. Kwan: I'm still not clear in terms of the utilization of sustainability that this ministry uses. The traditional one, as I mentioned, is the Brundtland report's definition, and the minister has not answered whether or not that is the definition the ministry is using. Could she just advise? If it is, say yes. If it isn't, say no.

Hon. J. Murray: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is working with Sustainable Resource Management to develop government's definition of sustainability. That work is not complete, but it should be complete soon.

J. Kwan: That's disappointing, because I would have thought that the minister, who is the champion for the environment and the protection of environmental integrity for British Columbians, would actually bring forward a clear definition of what sustainability means and then move into the discussion with other ministries and then ultimately form a government position. But this minister is not doing that. She's actually going to go into the room and say: "Okay, everybody. Let's just develop one. I don't actually have a perspective which I'll bring to the table." That's very disappointing for British Columbians.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions around water quality. Water quality, as we are all aware following the tragic events in Walkerton, is a major concern for all Canadians. However, there is a concern that B.C. is moving in directions similar to that of Ontario, with deregulation and guidelines replacing legally binding standards. As this ministry is responsible for quality, could the minister provide the province with assurance that there will be no deregulation of any standards around drinking water?

Hon. J. Murray: This Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection identified clean and safe and high-quality water as one of its top priorities, so the ministry has added funds to its budget for drinking water quality monitoring. Earlier today I listed the areas around water management roles and responsibilities that are this ministry's, because the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and Land and Water British Columbia share responsibilities around water management. When it comes to drinking water quality, the Ministry of Health Services has an important role to play in that that's the ministry responsible for the safety of drinking water at the tap.

My ministry is responsible for groundwater protection. The ministry is committed to using the best available science and to setting standards. The drinking water panel was one of the first projects the ministry undertook after the election because the issue of clean and safe drinking water is a high priority for this government and is a concern to everybody in British Columbia. That panel had an in-depth look at issues around drinking water quality. The recommendations are under review at this point, and my ministry is involved in that review.

J. Kwan: Will there be any deregulation of standards around drinking water? Could the minister just answer that — yes or no?

Hon. J. Murray: The intent of bringing a drinking water panel into the role of advising government on drinking water quality issues is to strengthen the protection of drinking water quality. The ministries may be looking at changes to legislation or regulation as part of the implementation of the drinking water panel recommendations, but that's not my definition of deregulation. The high-level intent is to strengthen the protection of drinking water quality in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Murray: I support having high standards for protection of drinking water quality. That's what

I've been working towards on this issue since eight months ago. The ministry will have a role in developing the process by which drinking water protection will be carried out. We'll have a role in regulation and legislation development. Certain aspects of the standard-setting will be the role of this ministry.

One of the things we are doing in this government is having a clear cooperation between ministries, where we identify what exactly the responsibility is of a particular individual in a particular ministry so that we reduce the number of gaps and overlaps in responsibility that we've seen in the past. I think some of those gaps and overlaps lead to problems. One of the ways we'll be improving our process is by having very clear accountability for the different parts of that very complex issue, which is improving the protection of drinking water so we have safe and clean drinking water.

J. Kwan: What British Columbians would like to know from this minister is where she stands on these issues. Is she going to be an advocate around the cabinet table, or is she just going to be pushed over by other cabinet members who want to deregulate within government? We've seen deregulation coming from all sides in all areas of government.

The question that is critical to the health and safety of British Columbians centres around our drinking water. This is a simple question. Does the minister support the deregulation of drinking water standards — yes or no? I've not been able to get an answer. Maybe the minister doesn't know. It's a simple question. Does she support it — yes or no?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm very clear that I am an advocate for clean and safe drinking water and the processes and standards that are required to ensure that in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The minister refuses to answer the question on deregulation. She says that she supports high drinking water standards, yes, but does she support the approach of deregulating drinking water standards? Does she think that deregulating drinking water standards would actually achieve a high standard for drinking water quality in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Murray: The word "deregulation" probably has as many meanings as there are people using that word. What I'm clearly an advocate for is safe and clean drinking water and putting the processes in place that can assure British Columbians that we're improving how we manage drinking water so that their health and well-being is protected.

In the process of reviewing the drinking water panel report, my ministry and the other ministries are also reviewing the provincial health officer's report on safe drinking water and the auditor general's report on safe drinking water and are, of course, watching very closely the information and reports that are coming out of the other provinces around the issue of drinking water. We're committed to improving the processes that will protect drinking water in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: What is the ministry doing to protect regulations around drinking water while others are wanting to off-load this responsibility?

J. Kwan: What is the minister doing to protect the regulations around drinking water while others want to off-load this responsibility?

Hon. J. Murray: No one is talking about deregulating drinking water except, perhaps, the member opposite. The other ministers and I and all the members of this government are clear that we need appropriate and effective standards and regulations to protect drinking water.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister, for the third time — and I'll say it slowly for her — is: what is the ministry doing to protect the regulations surrounding drinking water while the others are wanting to off-load that responsibility? What is this minister doing?

Hon. J. Murray: This ministry and this minister are part of a process of reviewing reports from a drinking water panel, from the provincial health officer, from the auditor general and from other provinces. We are in the process of looking at our current legislation and regulations for the protection of drinking water as well as at our internal processes — the government and our accountabilities. We are working on improvements. In British Columbia we will be improving the protection of drinking water.

J. Kwan: There's nothing in the minister's answer that indicates to me that she's doing work around the protection of the quality of drinking water. The minister said earlier that nobody's talking about deregulating. Well, I have news for her. In the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management's January 2002 mini–service plan released by the ministry on Black Thursday, it was stated under the heading of "Sustainable Land and Water Management" that the ministry would "minimize the provincial role in water utility regulation by transferring appropriate regulatory authority to regional or local government." There's a lot of confusion here.

Since the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is responsible for licensing, they seem to be moving toward decentralizing and deregulating. I asked the minister if she supports deregulation. She had no answer for that. I asked the minister what she was doing to protect water quality, and she hasn't given me any specifics around that. She talks broadly in flowery language about how there's going to be a higher standard, but there are no specific plans.

Hon. J. Murray: I'd just like to clarify for the member opposite that utilities deal with volume of water and tenure, and those are the issues that are in the responsibility of Sustainable Resource Management. Water quality is a responsibility of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. We are working with other ministries in a process to make sure that the regulations and standards are appropriate and are improved in order to improve the quality and the safety of our drinking water.

J. Kwan: The minister can outline again and again, if she wants, about who has what responsibility. The responsibility of this minister is to be a strong advocate for the environment on behalf of British Columbians. On the question around drinking water safety and quality, she has the responsibility to let British Columbians know where she stands and whether or not she supports the regulations.

How is she going to hold the government accountable in making sure the drinking water of British Columbia is that of the highest standard? What method is she going to use, and specifically how is she going to get there? So far I have not heard one answer from the minister that responds to these issues, and I suspect that if I keep going on all day, I'm not going to get any answer from this minister. That seems to be the theme so far in these estimates.

Now I want to turn to another area. Could the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection advise the House on some of the cases where she has stood in defence of the integrity of the environment against those other ministries that have attempted to minimize environmental standards for British Columbians?

Hon. J. Murray: First, I'd like to put out the proposition that in this government, ministries work together with a common objective of ensuring environmental protection. Environmental sustainability is a mandate from the Premier to the ministers and the ministries that Water, Land and Air Protection works with.

For example, in considering the kinds of environmental safeguards that are needed to expand the aquaculture industry in a sustainable way, the Water, Land and Air Protection ministry staff and deputy and minister have worked very closely with the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries staff and deputy and minister to ensure that conditions are in place for the outcome we have as a common objective: to increase the economic opportunities and increase employment in small first nations coastal communities with a sustainable environmental protection regime.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has some very specific areas of focus around protecting the environment with respect to this issue, and members of this ministry have been working in a very focused way to ensure that those protections are in place and that we have a sound environmental management regime.

J. Kwan: So there has been no instance where this minister felt she has had to stand up and push back against other ministers who have come forward with competing demands or competing pressures that would potentially put at risk the environmental integrity in British Columbia. There has been no instance where those competing demands and pressures have arisen for this minister, so she has not had to stand up and push forward with her mandate of providing for the environment first.

Hon. J. Murray: I have a common objective with the other ministers, which is that as we move forward, we have clear and strong standards for protecting the environment. In the delivery of that objective, of course, as the member opposite knows, there are often issues of making decisions and needing to factor in environmental issues and also pressures to take into account economic issues.

I am a tireless advocate for the environment. That's my job. I bring that forward in the discussions with other ministers, and we work to solve problems and come forward with new mechanisms to improve our approach. We do that in a collaborative and cooperative way. Our staffs and deputies are also working together in a cooperative and positive way.

J. Kwan: In what decisions that the government has made to date did the minister have to stand up to defend the integrity of the environment against other ministries?

Hon. J. Murray: Discussions that I have with other ministers at the cabinet table are not for public disclosure. I will give an example, though, of the kind of cooperation and results at a staff level.

For example, tenure reviews incorporate information from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection staff on environmental protection issues. Over 40 percent of applications for tenure requests have been refused. That is because part of that will tie into environmental concerns that are brought forward by my ministry staff, and decisions incorporate that information.

J. Kwan: When there's a conflict between ministries, which one overrides? Is it this ministry or other ministries?

J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, no, she hasn't. I'm asking the minister the question because I've asked this question in other ministries as well. Other ministers have advised that on the questions particularly around environmental protection, we should canvass it here with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

So I'd like to ask the minister: what happens in the case when the information from, let's say, WLAP scientists conflicts with the goals of the Ministry of Forests?

What happens in that situation? Who ultimately has the authority to make the decision? Is it the Ministry of Forests, or is it the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection?

When there are conflicts at the staff level, the staff work together to resolve the conflict. If they're not able to, then the issue comes to the deputy ministers, and the deputy ministers council discusses the issue, looks at the objectives, looks at the views at all sides and solves it. If it's not solvable at that level, it will come to the ministers. The process is: if it's not solvable at the ministers' level, there is a cabinet subcommittee that can address the issue, and if need be, the issue can go to cabinet for a resolution.

J. Kwan: So this minister does not have the authority to override contradicting science, even, that's been brought forward with competing ministries with different interests? If she is truly the minister of environment with a true mandate to protect British Columbians on environmental integrity, then she ought to be able to say: "The science that's provided from this ministry ought to override that of others, and that would be the science that would be utilized." That's not the case. The case is that it would go through a variety of difference places. Ultimately, I guess, it would land at the Premier's office, and it would be the Premier who'd get to make the decision. That's what we have seen so far.

I want to now turn the minister to calls that have been coming into our office. Our office is getting calls on the cancellation of the B.C. parks access passes for British Columbians with disabilities. As an example, a call just this morning from a gentleman on level 2 disability in Port Alberni. In addition to finding that his pass had been cancelled, when he tried to get information from this government, he was given a complete runaround. He first phoned Human Resources, who told him to phone Children and Family Development, who then told him to phone the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — this minister's own office. Apparently, the Premier's office also told him to phone this minister's office.

If this man is on what is to be called level 2 disability, according to the minister's statement in the House earlier today in question period, he should still be eligible for his pass. I would like the minister, first, to confirm if this is true or not.

Hon. J. Murray: As the member mentioned, I had an opportunity to say in the House this afternoon that this government is proud to be the only western province with a subsidy for low-income disabled that enables them to camp for free. Also, this ministry has maintained a seniors subsidy for camping.

What we have done is change the disability eligibility for free camping to include the low-income component. Before, we were providing free camping to anyone with a disability, whether there was any financial need or not. We don't believe that it's in the best public interest to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize campers that may have a physical disability but have ample means to afford camping.

Also, in order to not run a completely separate process for qualifying people for camping under the disability subsidy, we are using the Human Resources definition of subsidy. People that qualify for benefits under Human Resources as disabled will be able to camp for free by showing a letter from the Ministry of Human Resources. The reason Children and Family Development was involved is that disabled children who are registered with the At Home program under the Ministry of Children and Family Development are also eligible to camp for free along with their caregivers.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that there would be a low-income threshold. The threshold which the minister uses as a definition for qualification is the one that the Ministry of Human Resources provides for individuals who qualify for disability. For individuals who are on CPP, which actually pays less than disability 2, and other disabled citizens, many of whom are not well off: will they be qualified if they don't fall into the category of disability 2 within Human Resources but still fall within the realm of low income? Would they qualify?

Hon. J. Murray: The maximum rate for the federal Canada Pension Plan disability is approximately $240 more than the payment under the disability benefits that are provincial. We have had a discussion with the federal government to find out how we can use the federal government's CPP disability designation to also create an eligibility. The federal government is not willing that there be a disclosure of information that relates to income qualification. We are still in discussion with the federal government, because our goal is that people who are disabled and can't afford to camp should be able to camp for free. We're still talking with the federal government about how people on their program who are in financial need can be eligible to camp for free without violating the information and privacy concerns that the federal government has.

J. Kwan: The minister has said the maximum CPP is above the rate of those on disability 2. What about the minimum?

Hon. J. Murray: We're in discussion with the federal government to find out how people who qualify and are on the CPP disability program can also participate in the free camping program.

J. Kwan: For the time being, then, who should they contact specifically? Who should those British Colum-

bians affected be contacting to get information and to voice their concerns over this government's petty cancellation of the B.C. Parks access program? Is it this minister?

Is there a phone number that the minister can share so that people can phone that number directly? Quite frankly, when they phone the government, they get the runaround. They are told to be phoning every other ministry, every other office, going through a lot of red tape. This government purports to want to cut red tape. Who should these people be contacting?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm very pleased that we're able to offer to disabled people in financial need the benefit of free camping, which is not something provided in any other western province. On our website the information as to what is needed to qualify for that free camping has been posted. I encourage anyone who believes they might be eligible for free camping to look at the instructions on the website.

J. Kwan: This is an actual caller's experience. A caller had phoned the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — the minister's office. The minister's office had no information to offer this individual other than to say that the decision has been made and that there has been a huge outcry at the shortsightedness and mean-spiritedness of this decision.

Again, I would ask the minister: who should these people phone? They're on CPP, their income is lower than the threshold of disability 2, and right now they do not get access to a pass. Who should they phone? Is there anybody that person could phone and get a straight answer from the ministry?

I suspect that these individuals would not be able to get the pass right now from this government. I would urge this government to have a sober second look at this decision. Do the right thing and reinstate this small amount — these small pleasures, if you will — for individuals with disabilities so that they can have access to our parks and campgrounds at no cost.

Hon. J. Murray: I just would like to clarify something on this topic for the member opposite. If a person qualifies for CPP disability payments that are less than the payments allowed through the provincial government program, they would then be eligible for a top-up from the provincial program. In that case, they would be registered with the provincial program and, on request, would get a letter of eligibility from Human Resources, which they can take to the park and receive free camping privileges.

J. Kwan: I may stand corrected on this. I wish it were true. The fact of the matter is, as I understand it, that if you're on disability, CPP or otherwise, and if your income is lower than what income assistance provides, you do not get a top-up. I believe the minister is in error on this piece of information. If I'm in error, I stand corrected, but I don't believe that's the case.

Again, I would urge the government to have a second look at this. It is a small amount of money. It ought to be provided to individuals so that they can seek some pleasure through low-cost means, to assist them and make sure the parks are not inaccessible to them by way of financial barriers. I would urge the government and the minister to have a sober second look at this issue.

I'd like now to turn to another area of discussion, which is concerns regarding the civil servants for the environment. Is the minister aware of a group called the Public Service Employees for Environmental Ethics? It was formed last month and consists of about a dozen civil servants representing the Ministries of Forests, Sustainable Resource Management and Water, Land and Air Protection.

This group's main mandate is to ensure that there's an opportunity for civil servants to raise their concerns with regard to government action that would have a profoundly detrimental effect on the environment and the public good, so that they can bring the matter to the public's attention without consequence. Is the minister aware of this group, and does the minister support the efforts of this group?

Hon. J. Murray: I am aware of the group the member is referring to. I have a great deal of confidence in staff and in the decisions that staff are making, which are grounded in science. I recognize the importance of ministry credibility and making sure that there's high-quality information used to support policy. I encourage the publication of information in professional peer-reviewed journals.

In the new organizational structure of the ministry, we are providing clear lines of accountability and opportunities for discussion of science-based proposals from within the ministry. People within the ministry will have a clear protocol for who to discuss their concerns with within the ministry, and I am confident that the accountability channels of communication are clear in this ministry and that that will satisfy the need to provide information on scientific issues.

J. Kwan: I'm sure there is a protocol in place, which is basically: "Don't let the public know about it." The issue here is this. Does this group of concerned civil servants have the worst to fear? Is their concern about environmental integrity and its protection in the work the ministry is undertaking now…? If they do go forward publicly with this information, will they be reprimanded? Would they be dismissed? What consequences would they face?

Hon. J. Murray: My responsibility as the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is to make sure that there are clear protocols for people in the ministry to express concerns, that it's clear who they express their concerns to and that, if appropriate, those concerns are acted on. My objective is to make sure the ministry structure and function ensure that those kinds of concerns

that may be raised by people within the ministry are addressed in a way that is appropriate and acceptable.

J. Kwan: What I heard from the minister is that if they did come forward, there would be no protection, and they may well be reprimanded if they breach the protocol that the minister talks about.

In a March 22 article in the Vancouver Sun, the group actually said they are concerned enough about the dangers of the government legislation, of relaxing environmental protection, that they're willing to take the chances of coming forward. Can the minister guarantee that environmental protection will not be relaxed?

Hon. J. Murray: Environmental protection is the basic mandate of this ministry. The staff and managers' executive and myself have been dedicated, over the past months, to finding ways to restructure the ministry and update our policies and approaches to ensure that environmental protection is something we successfully undertake as a government — through this ministry's focus on standards and enforcement, through cooperation with other ministries, through clarifying the roles and responsibilities and creating service agreements between ministries that make it very clear whose job is what. There are many ways in which the ministry and myself personally, as the minister, have been working to make sure that we do as good a job and in fact a better job of protecting the environment as we move forward. I am very confident we will be able to do that.

J. Kwan: I'll take that as a guarantee from the minister that environmental protection will not be relaxed. If I'm wrong, I ask the minister to please rise up and correct me.

Have there been any risk management studies into the deregulation process for environmental protection?

Hon. J. Murray: Risk management is a concept that weaves its way throughout the various activities and operations of this ministry, because what it means is to focus on the issues that constitute the highest risk to the environment. One of the ways we've included that in our priority setting is by identifying the industrial facilities that have the greatest impact on the environment and by focusing ministry attention on the 8 percent that represents 90 percent of the impact on the environment, rather than spreading ministry resources and focus across the entire spectrum of activities.

Risk management is something that ministry staff work with as a concept in creating their plans, developing their priorities and making operational decisions as to where to focus. The ministry has not undertaken a formal risk management analysis of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: Has the ministry done a study on the impacts and risks of removing mineral refining from the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm not aware of any such studies. I am aware of a study that relates to risk management that's been undertaken in the province of Ontario. When it's completed, we'll be looking at it with interest to see if there's anything of value that can be adapted to British Columbia.

J. Kwan: On the issues around performance-based standards, throughout the estimates process my colleague and I have been exploring, on numerous occasions, what this government means by performance-based standards, also known as outcome-based or results-based. So far, the Ministers of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, of Sustainable Resource Management and of Energy and Mines have indicated that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is the source of all of these standards. WLAP is also apparently the agency that will lead in ensuring accountability with these standards.

A series of questions were asked around these issues. I asked a question. I will quote this so that it sets the context for the series of questions that I'll ask the minister now. The quote goes as follows: "In fact, who will monitor the performance-based standards that have been established and are being monitored in some cases by the industry? Who will double-check on that, if you will? Is that WLAP?"

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management stated: "In the case of the Forest Practices Code it would be Forests. In the other instances, it would be Water, Land and Air Protection."

Question: "Would it be the WLAP ministry's responsibility to ensure that the private sector will hold themselves accountable within the standards that have been established?"

Answer from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management: "Absolutely…. There will be provisions for compliance and enforcement, which are not carried out through this ministry. Those are carried out through Forests and through Water, Land and Air Protection."

My colleague asked another question of another minister: "On page 10 of the service plan, back to goal 2: to maintain high environmental and health and safety standards. There's performance measures and performance targets laid out. Where would we find the performance measures, the performance targets pertaining to environmental standards? Am I missing it? This is where I was looking, but I couldn't find them."

Answer: "Again, this would be something that Water, Land and Air Protection would set the standards for. This ministry would have to meet or exceed those standards. I encourage the member to pursue that with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection."

Question: "Will there be consultation? Is there going to be public input, industry input or stakeholder input into those changes? How does it actually happen?"

Answer: "How that actually happens is…. And I'm not refusing to answer the question. For the environment side of it, we have the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, which will develop results-based processes that we have to meet or exceed. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is charged with getting that access to the land base. It's part of that minister's process to be able to make that happen for us."

To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: does this sound about right? Is this ministry setting all of their standards as well as enforcing them? What are the other ministries doing?

Hon. J. Murray: WLAP's responsibility is to set standards in environmental issues and to manage requirements and standards under certain acts that the ministry is responsible for and also to ensure that there is adequate compliance, enforcement and penalties if necessary.

J. Kwan: Could the minister provide some clarity about what performance-based standards are and how they'll be implemented?

Hon. J. Murray: I would be very happy to pass on to the member a three-and-a-half-page essay and analysis of what performance-based and results-based mean — some of the concept around them and where they're used. If the member would be interested in that, I could make sure she has a copy.

An example of a results-based standard or a performance-based standard is in the area of aquaculture. In the past, under the previous system of ensuring environmental protection under the previous government, there was a standard that related to how much food a farm operator provided to the fish. There was no relation, necessarily, to the currents or the amount of waste produced by that amount of feed, so how the industry was being regulated was by the prescription or the rule that said: "No more than a certain number of kilos of feed for a certain number of kilos of fish." That would be considered a prescriptive regulation.

What we've moved towards is a results-based regulation where, rather than prescribing how the farm operator should go about managing the feeding of the fish, the results-based regulation is looking at a way to identify the actual result on the environment and is proposing that certain chemical and biological measures relate to the impact on the benthic community. Those measures should be incorporated into a standard so the farmers are working with a standard that relates to the actual impact on the environment rather than one that prescribes how they should feed their stock.

J. Kwan: Yes, the opposition would appreciate the information the minister has to share. I would assume that the three-page essay the minister mentioned would be the cornerstone of how performance-based standards are being defined and implemented within the ministry.

Could the minister please comment on how big a role industry and the private sector will play in performance-based standards?

Hon. J. Murray: In response to the comment that this essay is the definitive statement on science- and results-based standards, that's not correct. This is a guideline right now for internal use, but the ministry, with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, is embarking on a project to do a more comprehensive analysis of what the definition of performance-based and results-based standards should be and to propose definitions that would be adopted by this government. That's a project that's been started and hasn't been completed.

In terms of the input from industry on results-based standards, it would be in a particular standard that was being updated or changed. Industry would have the role of other stakeholders that are interested in the issue and would be consulted.

J. Kwan: How big a role would big industry and the private sector play in the definition of performance-based standards?

Hon. J. Murray: This government is working with specific standards to update them and to identify whether the standard needs to be changed from a prescriptive standard to a results-based one. The work internally of identifying what we mean by a results-based standard is a process that is being looked at right now, so I have no specific plan to present to the member in terms of a general conceptual definition of results-based. When it comes to specific standards that are being developed, the input that industry would have would take a different form, probably depending on the regulation and the specific circumstance.

One example I have to offer the member is that in the review of the streamside protection regulation, I've created a streamside protection regulation advisory group. It does include members of environmental groups. It includes members of industry and various levels of government — including municipal, federal and provincial governments — in looking at the current regulation in order to make recommendations as to how it can be improved.

J. Kwan: Could the minister provide a list of who the stakeholder groups are that she has consulted with to date?

Hon. J. Murray: Could the member clarify her question? Consulted with on what project?

Hon. J. Murray: With respect to the project of clarifying the definition of results-based and performance-based standards, that's an internal process at this point.

J. Kwan: How much would it cost industry to come up with action plans to accommodate the performance-based standards? Will they have to hire professional biologists, foresters or other scientists?

Hon. J. Murray: If I understand the member's question correctly — what would it cost industry to provide input on a results-based standard? — that would depend completely on the standard in question, the kind of input being sought, whether industry had in-house staff or was contracting to other professionals. I'm not able to provide that information.

J. Kwan: What I'm trying to get at is this. I think that large multinationals would likely have in-house expertise, but smaller companies likely would not, and they would have to incur extra costs, perhaps non-sustainable costs, to carry on their business. Will the minister then, in her work developing the sustainable performance-based standards, be doing analysis in terms of what the cost impacts might be?

J. Kwan: When the minister has the definition for performance-based standards, will she make that available in her service plan?

J. Kwan: Why would the minister include results-based standards in her service plan when she doesn't know what definition she will be using to define performance-based standards?

Hon. J. Murray: The shift to performance- and results-based standards from prescriptive standards is one that's happening in jurisdictions that lead in environmental policy across the developed world. This is something that is being seen to be an effective approach to regulating to protect the environment.

I would like to mention that when the member opposite was in government, Ministry of Environment staff of the day were already engaged in reviewing some standards and regulations and making improvements in bringing them to a performance-based rather than a prescriptive approach. This is a project that has been underway in the ministry since before the election. We're building on the good work that is being done. We believe it's an effective approach, and we will continue that approach in a systematic way.

One of the regulations that was finalized in the first few months after the election is the organic matter recycling regulation. That is one that went from a prescriptive to a results-based model. Much of the work on that regulation was done under the previous government, so this is something that has been underway. We will continue with the process of having a more and more results-based approach to the regulations and standards that the ministry manages.

J. Kwan: One definition of performance-based management that we have received from concerned stakeholders is as follows: "…licensees will manage the risk associated with achieving specified results and…government will hold licensees accountable…." The concern from groups like the Canadian Environmental Law Association is that deregulation and the accompanying shifts to performance-based management are an attack on the public interest, citing the Ontario experience. These groups contend that far from being a simpler test of rules, the system is more complex than our current legal regime for both industry and government administration.

I'm wondering: has the minister examined what other jurisdictions are doing in this regard? What have been the impacts on these jurisdictions? Could the minister comment on the claim that the system is actually more complex than the current rules-based system?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, we are looking at best practices in other jurisdictions. I agree that it is sometimes simpler to just prescribe, "Do things this way," or "Do them that way," than to identify the results that society is looking for in terms of protecting the environment.

That's why we're taking this approach of moving more to results-based regulations one step at a time, working on one regulation at a time — to have a good results-based regulation takes knowledge, expertise and a good basis in science as inputs into the regulation at the front end. That's why we're working on this carefully.

One of the other elements that's very important in a results-based approach is that we have an enforceable standard so it's clear what result was expected and when that result was or wasn't achieved. That's part of the complexity of doing a good results-based standard.

I'm happy to say that with the aquaculture waste management regulation, that's what we're working towards as an enforceable standard. When we have that in place, we'll be one of the only jurisdictions in the world with an aquaculture industry that has an enforceable standard.

J. Kwan: KPMG Management Consulting conducted an annual poll of managers of over 300 institutions and businesses regarding their attitudes to environmental management. Repeatedly, for 95 percent of the enterprises, they found compliance with regulation to be the prime motivation for establishing environmental management systems.

The minister has said that compliance and enforcement are big parts of the ministry's operations. I'm afraid switching to a results-based system will only increase the demand for compliance and enforcement work. If corporations are allowed to operate in the system with more guidelines and outcomes and less regu-

Hon. J. Murray: Effective environmental management is the mandate of this ministry. Our intent and our work are directed toward the outcome of having effective environmental management regimes and environmental protection.

J. Kwan: Can the minister guarantee that these performance-based standards will maintain the current level of protection for the environment?

Hon. J. Murray: My objective is that we have strong protection of the environment and that we have high environmental standards, clear standards, and effective compliance and enforcement. We also have a principle in our ministry that ties into continuous improvement, so we will be working with industry and the public on the concept that an environmental standard is not something that is locked in. We expect that enterprises that have an impact on the environment, whether they be an individual or an organization, will seek eco-efficiencies and other improvements to continually reduce the impact on the environment. It's our collective and additive impacts that are a concern to people in society.

One of the projects that, again, commenced before the election — and I'd really like to commend the ministry for the work that was done on this project — is pollution prevention planning. That's a program that we intend to extend. I've had discussions with members of industry about my enthusiasm for P2 planning. That's considered a compliance-plus approach in which businesses are no longer managing to the environmental standard; they're actually looking at all the impacts of their processes on the environment and working out a plan for reducing those impacts. In a number of cases, industry has discovered major cost savings through their P2 plan. I think that's a very positive approach to environmental management when we are ahead of the regulation.

At the same time I understand that regulation and standards are important tools, and we'll be continuing to work with those tools as well as the tools of compliance and enforcement to make sure the standards and regulations are respected.

J. Kwan: There's a big switch from government in terms of the models that are going to be utilized. As we engage in discussion in these estimates, we've talked about a performance-based, results-based approach. What I would like to do is establish a baseline for measurement. The minister said that environmental standards are not fixed; rather, they should be a moving target. One would hope that what the minister means is that the moving target would actually be one where environmental standards go up and not down.

Can the minister provide her assurance to this House that environmental protection would, at a minimum, be maintained at the current level with the change of the different models that the government and the minister are introducing, that as a baseline the current practice is the minimum and that environmental standards would actually increase with the new models the government is introducing?

Hon. J. Murray: In response to the member's question about continuous improvement, yes. In my view, continuous improvement does, by definition, mean continuously reducing impact on the environment.

With respect to the question around measuring environmental protection, could the member please let me know what would be the baseline that she would be using to measure how well we protect the environment in British Columbia today, so that I can know how to understand the question as to improvements in that baseline?

J. Kwan: One example, of course, would be on the question of the oil and gas moratorium. The fact is that there is an oil and gas moratorium, and there's conflicting science with respect to the potential impacts of lifting that moratorium. So the baseline is that right now there is a moratorium, and there's protection of the environment. There is no risk in terms of harming the environment. As we move forward with a performance-based approach, as we move forward with new government policies and direction, there's something to which you can measure against. Would whatever the government introduces based on best science actually put the environment at risk, for example? That would be one place I would look.

Another area that I would look at would be farm fish. There is the closed containment approach. Scientists have come forward and said: "Here are the protections for the environment, and here's how they work." That's a baseline in terms of measurement. If you move away from the closed containment because the moratorium is being lifted on that issue, there are going to be further impacts on our wildlife, particularly our salmon and fin stock. Those are just some of the base measures.

I would assume, then, that this government would be utilizing the base measures that community experts in this area have identified from the existing science now in place and that further action by this government would not further erode our environmental standards.

Hon. J. Murray: Just a point of clarification, closed containment is not the current baseline for the operating process of the aquaculture industry.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is managing a pilot project that has to do with trial in closed containment, but net pens are the current model for aquaculture. There are environmental impacts from waste based on the practices and regulating approach of the prior government that are not acceptable to this government.

One of the downsides of the moratorium on the aquaculture industry was that farms that were poorly sited were not authorized to change locations. There were farms sited in places that didn't have enough current or depth to deal with the waste being produced in the farm. Those farms should be sited in places where the environmental impacts will be eliminated or reduced. Part of our approach will be to re-site the farms that are poorly sited and to have standards, which we haven't had in the past, for the impact of salmon farming on the environment.

J. Kwan: I wasn't going to get into the closed containment question. New technologies have been found, so that ought to be a standard which the government is utilizing to determine the baseline of measurement with regard to farm fish.

The science on this issue has been put forward, and I think the information has even been brought to the minister's attention. We've had debates in this House. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has introduced a motion on this issue of closed containment fish-farm technology.

The question has been asked of the minister by the media around the issue of sea lice, which are a major problem caused by fish farming. When the question was asked, the minister apparently replied that it is a natural problem, but it is also intensified by fish farming. That is the issue around sea lice.

It is my understanding that the minister went on to say that a study was done by an Order of Canada scientist that said sea lice were not a major threat. Other scientists have come forward to dispute that. They have said that the study the minister referred to is quoting a scientist, Dr. Dick Beamish, and that the information apparently has been misquoted. That was pointed out by a biologist, Alexandra Morton, who identified that the study looked at only seven salmon. Alexandra Morton's study around fish farms looked at 924 wild salmon over ten weeks and found that 45 percent of the sample was doomed because of sea lice. Sea lice "suck the juices, suck the life" out of fish. Young salmon are especially at risk after leaving the river.

Morton continued to explain the sea lice problem, which wildlife salmon transmit to farm salmon, where the population intensifies. Every 21 days in a fish farm, there's an exponential jump in population of sea lice. In the spring when the young fish go past the farms again, they're swimming through a cloud of sea lice. There is much debate in the broader community around this.

Yes, there is a pilot. The pilot has set new environmental standards with respect to farm fish, and I assume that ought to be the base mark that this ministry and this minister would adopt in the best interests of environmental protection and, of course, in the best interests of wild stock salmon. We can, I suppose, debate about where the measurements should be, but I think the minister knows where those measurements and the bases and the standards should be.

What I was trying to do in this new era of the Liberal government was establish the baseline in which one could measure the performance of this government, so one could go and hold this government accountable. If the minister wishes to look backward in time as opposed to forward in time in terms of the new technologies that have come forward, I guess the minister could do that. Quite frankly, that is not acting in the best interests of British Columbians in the area of environmental protection.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. How can this government proceed with developing an improved regulatory framework when the land use planning, the keystone to performance-based management, is not anywhere near ready? With deregulation already occurring, how can this minister get rid of the current regulatory framework when its replacement is not yet ready and is actually some years away?

Hon. J. Murray: With regard to the conversation around pilot projects and baselines and performance, I would like to note that this government is the first government in B.C. history to lay out performance measures for environmental accomplishment and to set targets. These are set in our service plans.

There is also a progress board that is reporting on environmental indicators to the public. The government also has a three-year strategic plan that incorporates environmental indicators, which I think are very important tools for accountability and for measuring the government's performance and progress in terms of protecting and improving the environment.

With respect to the shift from the current regulatory regime to a new regulatory regime, that's something governments naturally do in the course of reviewing regulations and improving regulations. The current regime stays in place until the new regime is adopted. At times, there may be interim guidelines and standards or interim operating instructions that may need to bridge the two, but we will not be abdicating our responsibility for managing environmental protection during a transition from one regulation to another.

J. Kwan: I get no comfort whatsoever from the minister's promise or the New Era document promise. Through this set of estimates, here's what we have established. The minister does not have a regional budget. She doesn't know what that is. The minister has no definition of sustainability. The minister has no definition of performance-based. She has no baseline from where she's going to establish these measures of protection for the environment in British Columbia.

I have, quite frankly, very little confidence in terms of the direction this minister is going and very little confidence in terms of what this government is doing to the environment. You would think that the minister, who is responsible and whose mandate is to protect our environment, would have these base measures, would have guidelines with which she will go forward and have concise and clear definitions of what she's

going to move forward with. What we have seen so far is that there aren't any. All the flowery words that the minister spouts from the New Era document don't, quite frankly, give comfort on this important issue.

It sounds to me, as well, that a major component of performance-based management is heavily dependent on the stewardship of corporations. The Walkerton tragedy should certainly refute that society can rely solely on stewardship. Furthermore, how trustworthy are big multinational corporations? Does the minister believe that stewardship is an adequate replacement for law? What would the legal framework of this proposed results-based regime look like?

Hon. J. Murray: Our objective is to have legally enforceable standards. That's what we'll be continuing to put in place as we improve the standards and the regulatory basis for protecting the environment in British Columbia. There's been several examples of results-based regulation that do have legally enforceable standards. These will not be voluntary standards; these will be legally enforceable standards.

J. Kwan: Can the minister guarantee that industry and the private sector will hold themselves accountable and act with a high level of stewardship towards the environment and ecosystem integrity?

Hon. J. Murray: Where we have a standard, we will hold individuals and organizations accountable for respecting that standard. We will have tools for enforcing the standard.

Hon. J. Murray: In compliance and enforcement there is a set of tools, and they will be used as appropriate, depending on the situation. The tool might be feedback to an individual or an organization about the results of the monitoring. It could be education if the non-compliance is inadvertent or through not understanding the options or the practices that can actually accomplish that standard. It could be industry peer review in some circumstances. There's also publication of non-compliance information.

As things become more serious and of more concern, there could be warning letters issued. The individual or organization could be ticketed and fined for non-compliance, and there's also the tool of taking the situation to court and prosecuting, should it get to that level.

J. Kwan: This is where the performance-based system proposed by the minister really starts to make a little sense. An extremely strong compliance and enforcement regime would be crucial as a sense of deterrence that would need to be maintained in this after-the-fact system. Audits after projects are done will only detect poor practices after they occur; the damage would already have been done. Therefore, to ensure proper compliance, audits will have to be done at the interim stages.

What are the projected costs associated with audits both in the final and interim? Surely this must have been reviewed and studied by the government as this is a direction they want to move forward in. What about the administrative burden of reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of audits? How much has been put aside to deal with that aspect?

Hon. J. Murray: I'd just like to clarify for the member that compliance and enforcement are not processes that kick in after the fact. For example, in aquaculture the ministry will be monitoring and sampling the water and the benthic community around the farms — ongoing. Industry will be required to monitor chemical and, at times, biological indicators and be transparent with those results.

The purpose of compliance and enforcement is to avoid problems, and that's why there's feedback. There's education. There are a number of levels of working cooperatively with the individuals and organizations to make sure that the standards are respected.

J. Kwan: I'd like to offer the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection a word of caution and advice. Throughout this set of estimates process we have learned that water, land and air protection is going to face heavy cuts and immense pressures from other development-oriented ministries. This government seems to be proceeding without due care and diligence for the environment and public safety. If they had, they would have listened to the warnings that have arisen in Ontario as a result of the Conservative government's approach to environmental management.

The minister is no doubt aware of the tragic events in Walkerton that killed seven people and caused the illness of over 2,000. The deaths ranged from two-and-a-half-year-old Mary Rose Raymond to 82-year-old Edith Pearson, representing the most vulnerable in our society. This tragedy touched on the entire country and ultimately led the Ontario provincial government, its Premier and the Minister of Environment to take full blame for the events.

What caused this tragedy? The inquiry led by Justice O'Connor found that the Ontario government and its Ministry of Environment was at fault. Ontario's Premier himself said: "I, as Premier, must ultimately accept the responsibility for any shortcomings of the government of Ontario as identified by Mr. Justice O'Connor." Then he went on to say: "Walkerton was a wake-up call not only for Ontario but for municipal governments, other provinces and countries around the world."

Here are some of the key findings from the report: "The provincial government's budget reductions made it less likely that the Ministry of Environment would have identified both the need for continuous monitors…and the improper operating practices of the

Walkerton" utility. O'Connor continued to say: "I'm satisfied that matters as important to water safety and public health as those set out in these guidelines should instead have been covered by regulations which, unlike guidelines, are legally binding."

To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: her government has been proceeding at breakneck speed to deregulate and slash budgets. I can only hope that when it comes to the environmental issues, proper, thorough and intense studies have been done on the risks and their management.

This point is not just for water quality; it stands for all environmental issues. Regulations exist for a reason. Yes, some may say that they're outdated. Some of them may well have become outdated, but slashing the budget and deregulating by up to some 30 percent is downright dangerous and potentially deadly, as seen in Ontario.

I urge this minister to step back from this government's agenda and seriously look at the issues objectively. Is balancing the budget as important as people's lives and the well-being of our community? I would submit that the answer is no. I would hope that's the same answer from the minister.

I'm just checking with you, hon. Chair, on whether or not the minister was planning on responding.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is this: is balancing the budget as important as people's lives and the well-being of our communities?

Hon. J. Murray: These are not mutually exclusive objectives. I'd like to confirm to the member that safe and protected drinking water, quality drinking water processes, is a high-level objective for this government as is balancing the budget. The ministers are working together with the common purpose of achieving both of those goals.

J. Kwan: Turning to a June 30, 2001, Globe and Mail article: "But slashing and hacking away at a big and complicated organism like government is like battlefield surgery. You're bound to cut an artery once in a while. If you're lucky, no one dies."

Is this minister prepared to take the responsibility for any harm to the environment or to the public, like her counterparts in Ontario? Has this government learned any lessons from the Walkerton tragedy? Cutting budgets and slashing regulations is not the easiest answer, and it can have dire consequences.

Hon. J. Murray: I'd like to assure the member that this ministry has increased the budget that's devoted to drinking water. In the headquarters operations, the total of the budget last year was about $2.5 million. That's been increased to $3 million in this coming year.

Another point that will provide some assurance to the member is that in British Columbia, we have a different system for managing the quality of water coming out of the tap. That is the responsibility of medical health officers for the testing of drinking water and for the protocols around notification of any problems. Also, the medical health officers have the authority to order action immediately if they should have any concerns. Our existing system is a better one than was found in Ontario before the Walkerton crisis.

Notwithstanding that, we're very committed to improving the protection of drinking water quality, which is why one of the first things we did was put together a highly respected and qualified drinking water panel to look at all of the complicated issues from source to tap in terms of the protection of drinking water. We are reviewing the panel's findings as well as other reports on drinking water quality. These deliberations take full account of the results and the analysis coming out of Walkerton.

J. Kwan: The issue is not just about drinking water. It is about drinking water as one component, but it is also about other safety and health risks that British Columbians would face relative to the environment. Actually, the judge who presided over the case cited it very clearly. This is her quote: "I'm satisfied that matters as important to water safety and public health as those set out in these guidelines should instead have been covered by regulations which, unlike guidelines, are legally binding." We ought to learn from the Walkerton experience that it is not just a drinking water issue, but rather a broader issue relative to the health and safety for all British Columbians.

The minister is fond of saying there are increases in the ministry, but if you look at the three-year plan within the ministry, we actually see a substantial reduction both in FTEs and in funding. In the area of planning, innovation and environment we see the budget for '01-02 go from $17 million to $11 million for '04-05. It's a substantial decrease in one area.

Other areas: in the wildlife program, staffing levels are reduced by 74 FTEs. This represents only 32 percent of the program as it existed in the mid-1990s. There will be only 225 staff charged with the responsibility of maintaining fish and wildlife populations and the habitats for the entire province. This is compounded by the cancellation of Fisheries Renewal B.C. and four more regions impacted by the cuts to wildlife programs: Vancouver Island, 50 percent; lower mainland, 43 percent; Cariboo, 40 percent; and Skeena, 32 percent.

Workers remaining are proportionately more heavily burdened with administrative and regulatory tasks. There is less time to conduct field activities — so much for best available science. The area management function to manage and monitor valuable habitats is being placed in the underfunded and understaffed parks program.

Fisheries program — cuts to nearly 30 percent in all; Vancouver Island region, cut by 60 percent; the lower mainland, 50 percent.

The urban salmonid habitat program, focused on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland, had the goal of ensuring sustainable wild salmon stocks and habitat in populated areas of the Georgia basin. The program paid over $3.3 million to fund 252 projects with 89 local stewardship groups. How does this jibe with the ministry's commitment to seeking stewardship partnerships? The volunteer stewardship hours are estimated to be valued at $4 million. No project applications are currently being undertaken or funded.

Watershed restoration projects which lead to road reactivation or rehabilitation, slope stabilization and habitat restoration — 575 high-priority watersheds are yet to be completed. The program has been cut.

Another area is the habitat protection program. Cuts overall are 23 percent. Once again, regions are disproportionately affected: Vancouver Island, 35 percent; Kootenays, 33 percent; lower mainland, 42 percent. Traditionally, the habitat protection program dealt with urban-rural or fish-wildlife-forestry issues.

Parks program. The parks system has doubled in recent years, but the WLAP ministry has cut 63 FTEs. This will leave only one field officer per seven parks, the heaviest cut of the four programs — 34 percent overall. Vancouver Island loses 51 percent of staff. The lower mainland loses 45 percent. All 13 district extension officers are cut. These are the people who provide public outreach and ensure public safety.

On the question around protection for British Columbians in the area of environment, I actually have very little comfort from the words of the minister and the direction of this government. I have to be very frank. I have very little comfort in this area. Can the minister stand up today and say she's prepared to accept the responsibility for damage that relaxed regulations, budget cuts and understaffing will cause? Is she confident that the road the government is on is the right one and that the minister should be moving forward without deviation?

Have adequate risk analysis studies been done? The minister earlier advised that there hadn't been risk analysis done in areas of the ministry. Will the deregulation and budget-slashing process be put on hold until risks have been properly assessed and managed? The Ontario Minister of Environment had it wrong. The government thought it was right, but they were wrong, and the Walkerton report has proven that.

Hon. J. Murray: This government has been clear that in reducing the regulatory burden that has mounted in this province — and in my ministry alone there has been a doubling of regulations in the past decade — we are committed to maintaining environmental standards. In fact, we've talked about maintaining the highest environmental standards. That's a clear objective for this government and for my ministry, so there are some focuses that we've adopted in order to be able to maintain high environmental standards. We've said we will adopt a scientifically based, principled approach to environmental management that ensures sustainability, accountability and responsibility.

We are restructuring the ministry. We're rethinking many of the ways we've approached our responsibilities, and we are doing things differently. I am very confident we are doing things better. We're reducing gaps and duplication so we have a more focused use of resources. We've identified the ministry's priorities, and we're focusing resources on those priorities. We're clear that we are committed to doing the right things and doing the right things right. There are some things the ministry has been doing that we won't be doing any longer and that we shouldn't be doing.

I have just one example. A very small example of that is the subsidy for firewood in parks. One of the things I heard again and again as I visited the parks offices around the province is that free firewood costs the taxpayer, and when the firewood is free, there is no limit to the size and frequency of fires in campgrounds. What then happens is that responsible campers are camping in an area that has smoke and haze all throughout the campsites, because there is no need for people who like a large roaring fire to decide whether a dollar is best used to have a campfire or to do something else. They just have a great big fire because the taxpayer is paying for it.

There are some things we can do that make sense for the environment and save us money. That's one small example. We will be setting priorities. We'll be making sure we have clear standards, and we will be enforcing those standards. We are committed to protecting and improving the environment as we move forward, and I'm very optimistic about some of the non-linear and creative problem-solving and thinking that's been coming forward from the ministry. We'll be working with scientists and with non-profit groups. We'll be working with industry associations. We'll be working with other levels of government and with other ministries to move forward towards the common objectives we have.

We have one environment. The federal government doesn't have an environment, the city an environment and the province an environment. This is one environment. So we will be working much more closely together with other levels of government so that the environment is protected and improved as we move forward.

J. Kwan: These standards the minister talks about — will they be brought into law? Will they be brought into legislation?

Hon. J. Murray: Some will be legislation, some will be regulation, and some will be policy.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know which sets will be which? I'm sure her answer is going to be that she doesn't have that information yet, but I thought I'd test the floor anyway.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know which piece will be brought into law, into legislation, and which will be guidelines and which will be regulations? I'm sure the minister probably doesn't have the answer to that and likely will say something about that information being brought forward in due course, but I thought I'd test the floor.

Hon. J. Murray: The answer to that question depends on what category of environmental protection she's referring to. If the member has a specific area of environmental protection she's asking about, I'm happy to answer it.

J. Kwan: I'm talking about all areas that the minister is responsible for in terms of environmental protection. Which area does she know now will be brought into law by way of legislation, and which would not? Does she have any idea?

The Chair: I caution the members. The Committee of Supply is not for the discussion of legislation or a debate about legislation or the need for legislation.

J. Kwan: I suspected as much. I suspected the minister actually doesn't know which would be brought into legislation, which would be in policy only and which would be in regulation. I was testing the floor to see what the minister's answer would be.

The minister as well as other resource-based ministers have pledged to uphold high environmental standards. However, they're under immense pressure from the Premier to deregulate. What, then, are these standards going to look like? We don't know. Are we talking about guidelines? Maybe. Maybe not.

This method of environmental management is the exact mechanism that Justice O'Connor blamed for the Walkerton tragedy. All of these ministers have also relied heavily on the fact that they're moving towards results- or performance-based standards. There are also many concerns and loopholes around this issue that the government seems to be ignoring. All we know so far is that this management method is unproven, risky and actually more administratively intensive and expensive.

For a minister responsible for environmental protection to stand up and say that her government's actions are in the best interests of environmental integrity and public safety is, quite frankly, preposterous. We all know that it is about balancing the budget. We all know it's about the bottom line. British Columbia is on the same path as Ontario, and this minister knows it.

This province deserves and needs to see that the ministry has undertaken a thorough and intensive analysis of the risk to public safety as a result of these budget cuts and deregulation process. The Walkerton tragedy and the Justice O'Connor report cannot and should not be ignored. The minister can spout flowery words from the New Era document, but the fact remains that this ministry is faced with substantive cuts to our environment. She's faced with substantive cuts to her ministry in all areas. I've put onto the record some of those areas.

We see in her own budget that there's a huge reduction around the issue of enforcement. The minister says, "Don't worry; be happy. The environment will be fine," but from the opposition side we are concerned. We're very concerned because the minister, quite frankly, has not been able to answer many of the questions the opposition has put forward. She's not able to advise us what the regional budgets are. She's not able to provide basic definitions that this ministry will be utilizing to set sustainability, performance standards and a results-based approach. She has not been able to come up with a firm approach that this ministry and this minister will be committed to. All of that will simply be brought forward to be done in consultation with other ministries whose interests are completely contrary to that of this ministry.

Without a baseline, I fear that this minister will go to the table and will easily compromise what the demands are from the pressures she's faced with from the Premier's office and from her colleagues. The result would then be a lack of environmental protection in British Columbia, and British Columbians would be faced with health and safety risks because of the action of this government.

Hon. J. Murray: In the New Era document, we have a statement that comes from the Premier: "It's time for a new era of environmental management based on sound science, cleaner air, cleaner water and sustainable practices. It's time to unite British Columbians to find solutions to our common environmental goals and challenges." Statements like this, as well as instructions from the Premier to the ministers to maintain high environmental standards, provide a touchstone for me and for the executive, managers and staff in the ministry as we move forward in our work.

Of course it is a challenge to reduce a budget. There's a metaphor for the challenge that we face now. Had this province been returned to fiscal accountability in the mid-nineties when every other province in Canada systematically reduced their deficits and debt…. Had we done that at that time, it would be as though we had the early stages of cancer and we were treating it through diet and herbs.

What in fact happened is that the previous government proceeded to suppress the economy until this economy in British Columbia was by many measures

the worst economy in Canada. The previous government continued to ratchet up spending wildly until spending was out of control. It counted on a one-time spike in electricity prices as though it were a legacy that would continue year after year and ratcheted up spending to spend every penny of that one-time windfall.

What we've inherited as a government is not a minor malaise, economically and fiscally. We've inherited a major, major challenge. Rather than early-stage cancer with a mild treatment, the analogy is that we're facing major surgery, radiation and chemotherapy because of the advanced stages of economic malaise and fiscal overspending in British Columbia. That has led, as well as our commitment to maintain our health care and maintain our Education ministries — though, in fact, we're spending over $1 billion more on health care this fiscal year than was spent last year…. Because of this government's commitment to health care and education, the reductions to become fiscally responsible have fallen more heavily on the other ministries, and my ministry is no exception. That has created a fiscal challenge for me as a minister and for this ministry. We've used that challenge as an opportunity, because we've had to find new ways of doing things. We've had to find ways of doing things differently. We are finding that the approaches we are shifting to give us confidence that we can actually do a better job.

We are very determined to protect the environment, and we have a touchstone in the instructions that the New Era document provides for cleaner air, cleaner water and sustainable practices. As we move forward, these touchstones of high environmental standards and sustainability inform each of the projects that we undertake and each of the regulations and legislation that we review. As we move forward, we will be doing the job that we need to do: protecting the environment. We'll be improving the environment. I know that we can do it with the approaches that we're adopting. [Applause.]

I'd like to just close with this statement. The fact of the matter is that with the spending of the previous government, which has been verified by the auditor general….

J. Kwan: …that the previous government spent within its ability to pay. That was done by the auditor general.

This minister likes to read from the New Era document about how they will protect the environment, and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that she was not able to answer any questions in this set of estimates in terms of specific programs that related to how she would define and set the standards of measurement towards environmental integrity. She was not able to come up with one answer on any of that. She was not able to even tell the opposition — tell British Columbians — what her budget is going to be in terms of a regional breakdown and where those program dollars would go. She has no idea.

I have no idea how a minister could set a budget and then turn around and say, "We'll do all of these things," and not know how that budget will break down region by region, program by program. This is the only minister that I know of to date who's doing that; yet she can stand up and say: "We're going to do all of these things to protect the environment." Well, we'll wait and see.

I will leave with a word of caution for this minister. I am going to quote once again…

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. If other members would like to speak, they can rise up on this floor and do so.

Let me just end with this quote from the Ontario Premier: "I, as Premier, must ultimately accept the responsibility for any shortcomings of the government of Ontario as identified by Mr. Justice O'Connor. Walkerton was a wakeup call not only for Ontario but for municipal governments, other provinces and countries around the world."

I ask the minister to heed the words from the Walkerton report and from this Premier who is now stepping down and make sure that British Columbians have the highest standards of environmental protection and integrity and that lives are not lost because of this government's new direction in the new era. The work that she's embarking on has not undertaken to do risk management in association with her decisions.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and ask leave to sit again.

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we will call a short recess now, awaiting the arrival of the Lieutenant-Governor. I shall ring the division bells when she is in the precincts.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'm advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, and I ask that members remain in their seats. Thank you.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

           Clerk of the House:
           Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
           Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2002
           Gaming Control Act
           Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002
           Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
           Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
           Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
           Registry Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
           Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2002
           Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002
           Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Mr. Speaker: Have a very pleasant weekend. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday next.