Hansard -- Tuesday, October 21, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 4 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7409

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7409
	Alternative route to Pemberton area
	B. Penner
	Fred Randall House
	J. MacPhail
	Economic development in Burnaby
	J. Nuraney

Oral Questions		7411
	Management of Coquihalla Highway and cost of proposal
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins
	Health care service levels
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Emergency surgical services in Kootenay area
	B. Suffredine
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Recruitment of nurses
	G. Trumper
	Hon. S. Hawkins

Petitions		7414
	G. Trumper

Tabling Documents		7414
	Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, financial statements, year ended March 31, 2003
	Auditor General of British Columbia, audit report on Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission

Second Reading of Bills		7414
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 73) (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Hagen

Committee of the Whole House		7416
	Environmental Management Act (Bill 57)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. J. Murray
	D. MacKay

Reporting of Bills		7435
	Environmental Management Act (Bill 57)

Third Reading of Bills		7435
	Environmental Management Act (Bill 57)

Hon. S. Hagen: It's my pleasure and privilege to introduce to the House today Eugene Hodgson, Tony Duggleby and Paul Manson of Sea Breeze Power Corp., who are meeting with various government agencies today with regard to the investigation of a wind power plant on Vancouver Island and also wind data on Crown land on Vancouver Island. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: On behalf of the Surrey caucus, I'm pleased to introduce to this House Surrey's finest hard-working firefighters. Joining us today are Tim Baillie, vice-president of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association; Lorne West, president of the Surrey Firefighters Association; Larry Thomas, treasurer; Mike Starchuk, secretary; Capt. Jon Caviglia, vice-president; and Joanna Fletcher, executive assistant to the fire chief. Will the House please join me in welcoming these hard-working firefighters to this House.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Today it gives me great pleasure, particularly as a former firefighter myself, that I can introduce Mike Richards and Wayne McKenzie, who are firefighters from the Penticton Local 1399. These people are the ones who are going into burning buildings when we're trying to get out. If the House could give the ones that my colleague introduced and these two gentlemen a very fine round of applause.

B. Kerr: I stand with a relieved smile on my face today because my son lives in Pemberton, but that's not the story. Friday was the due date for his wife for their second child, and there was great concern on my part about what would happen when this child decided to arrive into the world. My daughter-in-law didn't seem to be too concerned, but on Sunday, when the water was actually rising up over their driveway, she decided it was time to helicopter out. Shakespeare said — how does it go? — all things are well that end well. I want the House to welcome the newest Liberal supporter, Jordan Kerr.

R. Lee: We have four Burnaby firefighters in the House today. They are in Victoria to attend the British Columbia Professional Firefighters Association meetings. In the gallery we have Joe Robertson and his wife, Sherry. Joining them later will be Michael Hurley, John McQuade and Jim Peever. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's with pleasure that I get to introduce two gentlemen from northern British Columbia. You will know that I don't get up there very often. I don't have that opportunity, so I'm really proud today to introduce two professional firefighters from Fort St. John, whom I visited with earlier: Tom Worton and Curtis Redpath. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to welcome to the chamber today Mr. Michael McCoy. Michael is the executive director of Touchstone Family Services in Richmond and has been in this sector for more than 30 years — outstanding expertise that he shares with each and every soul in British Columbia. I'm grateful that he's come. Please make him welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure, as well, to introduce two professional firefighters from my community. Ray Skucas and Randy Hamel have come over to the House today to speak with various members. I've had a chance to chat with them over lunch. Would the House please make the two of them welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House the president and CEO of the Anemia Institute, Durhane Wong-Rieger, and the western program coordinator of the Anemia Institute, Lynn Roodbol. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Visser: Today we've heard a lot of words to describe firefighters — "brave" and "the finest" and "professional." Actually, mine is "pesky." They're friends of mine from Campbell River: Reid Wharton, Scott Kratzman and Ken Dawson. I've known some of them all my life, and they’ve spent many hours convincing me of their superior ways over the last day or so. I'd like to make them welcome.

Also, we have Al and Marilyn Grant here today from Campbell River and their son and grandson, Bob, from Australia. They're visiting. So would the House please make all of those people welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: During this past summer I worked very, very hard to try and find some more friends. I have four candidates that I would like to bring to your attention here, who have joined me this afternoon. Jim Anderson and Diana Chadwick, and Kirk and Ann Mitchelmore are here, and hopefully they'll consider me to be their friend. If you could help me along, I would appreciate it if you could give them a very warm welcome to the precinct.

L. Mayencourt: On behalf of my colleagues from the Vancouver area, I'd like to welcome our firefighters, who were also a little pesky over the past year but very persistent and very dedicated gentlemen, who have joined us today. Unfortunately, I don't know all of their last names, so I'm just going to use their first names: Rod, Mike, Dave, Gord and Jeff. Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

B. Penner: Over the past few days many of us have been saddened by the tragic loss of lives and property

destruction caused by flooding along the Sea to Sky corridor. The sense of isolation caused by the interruption of road access has only made matters worse, so I've been pleased by the quick response to this crisis from the Ministry of Transportation and the Solicitor General.

In January of this year I joined my colleague the member for Chilliwack-Sumas on a four-wheel drive adventure. We explored an alternate route connecting the lower mainland and Fraser Valley to Pemberton, Whistler and the southern interior via Lillooet. The existing Forest Service road runs along the west side of Harrison Lake from Highway 7 at Harrison Mills, north to Highway 99, just east of Mount Currie and Pemberton. The total distance of what we like to call the Sasquatch Highway is about 175 kilometres. Along the way, the scenery is beautiful, yet the actual topography along the road right-of-way is fairly benign.

Following discussions involving my colleague from Chilliwack-Sumas, the Transportation minister and her senior officials, I sponsored a preliminary meeting with stakeholders this summer, on August 15, in Harrison Hot Springs to discuss the possibility of establishing a hard-surface secondary highway along this low-elevation corridor. First nations representatives from the north end of Harrison Lake told me they are eager to improve the lives of their people, who now live in isolated conditions few of us can even imagine — no telephone service, no B.C. Hydro electrical supply, an ambulance service that is hours away and only sporadic sightings of police officers. These are facts of life for people living north of Harrison Lake.

Private sector groups attending the meeting were also interested, including the Hemlock Valley ski area, the Abbotsford Airport Authority and small hydroelectric power developers. Clearly, the possibility exists for a public-private partnership that would allow British Columbians a chance to see and enjoy a great part of their province.

In September mayors, councillors, Fraser Valley MP Chuck Strahl and our Minister of State for Community Charter joined me on a caravan tour of the route. Once in Pemberton, we met with chamber of commerce officials, some first nations members, as well as consultants hired by the province to identify economic opportunities and costs associated with improved road access. The study should be complete in a few weeks, and perhaps some day you will be able to see for yourself what a real sasquatch looks like.

J. MacPhail: I want to speak today about an event I attended late last month in Burnaby, an event that marked the opening of a new facility as well as celebrating in many respects the life of a truly dedicated public servant with whom I, and many of us as well, had the privilege of serving in this House for ten years. I'm speaking of the opening and dedication of the Fred Randall House in Burnaby, named after former Burnaby-Edmonds MLA Fred Randall.

Many in this House also sat with Fred on both sides. Those who did will know of his dedication to many causes and, in particular, to helping the most vulnerable in our society. After retiring as MLA prior to the 2001 provincial election, despite knowing that he was dying, Fred devoted an amazing amount of energy toward raising money and awareness for the mainstream association for proactive community living. Fred particularly wanted a facility in Burnaby that was dedicated to youth with developmental, physical or psychiatric challenges. Fred wanted those youth to have a home that they could call their own in their own community, and now, thanks to the legacy he left behind, they do.

I'm sure other members of the House will recall that when Fred wanted something for his community, he became an unstoppable force. Not only was Fred an incredibly effective advocate for his community and his causes, but he was extremely modest about his own involvement. While I know he would be incredibly proud to know that the association named the facility after him, I also know that he would have wanted the focus to be on the others who worked with him to make this facility a reality — people like Dr. Donald Rix; the firefighters of Burnaby, which makes it very appropriate today; and the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades. I know he would be thrilled to see that his wife Aileen and his kids, Brad and Barb, picked up where Fred left off when he passed away in July 2002, and that they are now making this happen.

To all of the Randalls: well done. Fred was the embodiment of the spirit of public service, and now he lives on through this wonderful new facility.

J. Nuraney: Some more good news about Burnaby. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony at Metropolis at Metrotown, a regional shopping centre in Burnaby. This development will cost $80 million, and it will become the second-largest shopping mall in Canada. This development is another proof of the return of confidence in our province. The president of the Urban Development Institute recently said that we are experiencing an exciting era in British Columbia with the rebirth of economic activity.

Don Mattrick, the president and founder of Electronic Arts, at a luncheon held in the Burnaby Board of Trade recently, announced an expansion of his company, adding another 2,300 jobs in the next two years and bringing the total workforce to 3,300 people. These people will all have computer skills. BCIT, on the other hand, is stepping up to the challenge to train the resources needed, by adding more seats to their computer science program.

I also had the opportunity this morning to participate in the joint announcement between BCIT and Metrotown, launching a program to train marketing and retail management. This program will offer formal

training for marketing and management in the retail sector, a first in our province. We are now seeing more of these partnerships between the private sector and public institutions. SFU also has embarked on a very exciting university project — a residential development around the campus.

Burnaby is buzzing with renewed excitement and development. Our province is poised for economic growth in the areas of construction, mining, oil and gas exploration, high-tech industries and others. This is the direct result of the initiatives this government has taken in the past two years, and I feel very confident that British Columbians will experience renewed faith in the future of our province. Our fair city of Vancouver was voted as one of the best cities in the world to live in, and we are well positioned to move forward to make our province the best in Canada.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Provincial Revenue is responsible for the waste-buster site, a site that has been created to get rid of waste where there's no value for money. Today we learned that the B.C. Liberals wasted $6.5 million of taxpayers' money on consultants to help them privatize the Coquihalla Highway.

To the Minister of Provincial Revenue, Mr. Waste-buster, I ask this question: could he stand up and explain to British Columbians how blowing millions of dollars on the failed Coquihalla privatization scheme is good value for money, and was it ever submitted to the waste-buster site?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm glad to answer the question on behalf of the Minister of Transportation. In fact, government spent approximately $6.5 million in the preparation and evaluation of the potential Coquihalla partnership. A big part of that, probably up to half of it, will continue to be used by the Ministry of Transportation for a number of issues.

Certainly, the traffic surveys and the asset condition surveys that were done on the Coquihalla will continue to be used for future maintenance and rehabilitation of the Coquihalla Highway in the years to come. Tourism planning in the region — the traffic study, where people come from and where they go to on the highway — is also of value.

Quality assurance standards were developed for the Coquihalla project which will be applied to future operations, maintenance and rehabilitation contracts throughout British Columbia, not just with the Coquihalla. As well, the generic concession agreement is something that we expect to be able to use or possibly use with the GVTA or other bodies as they look to expand upon future partnerships in the transportation sector. There are other projects and other uses, as well, for the information that was done.

J. MacPhail: Boy, the Minister of Finance must be constrained for the first time. He's forced into a message box. No wonder this government is in such trouble in its message boxes. What he forgot to mention, though, was that according to media reports, $1.2 million of this $6.5 million of wasted money was handed to KPMG, who — we all know — are big donors to the B.C. Liberals. Now, that $1.2 million was paid to KPMG for so-called business advice and direction. Can the minister…?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Let us hear the question.

J. MacPhail: I betcha it won't be the waste-buster's man who stands up and asks this question, but can the minister responsible for the waste-buster site tell us what business advice taxpayers got for that $1.2 million? We paid for it. Did anyone actually, after the collapse of the failed Coquihalla privatization, send it to his waste-buster site to say that it was wrong?

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, the work that KPMG did on this project will be used with other concessions, as I said earlier. A great deal of advice, legal work, accounting work and business work needs to be done as you go forward with partnerships for concessions for all sorts of transportation projects, so I expect most, if not all, of that information will be usable.

But I remember another $1 million bill that the province of British Columbia got from KPMG, which was actually the $1 million….

It was a $1 million contract that Glen Clark and the NDP government, of which she was a part, commissioned in their very first days in office to tell them how to get their costs under control. Had they followed that advice, I doubt they would have racked up the $17 billion in debt that they did in their ten years.

J. MacPhail: I do remember our government paying for good economic advice that said tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Perhaps they should have dusted off that and listened to that exactly.

J. MacPhail: He's mixing up all of the money that's been wasted. He's stirring it up, and he thinks that maybe the mud will make it look like they didn't do anything wrong. Well, the government knew that the Coquihalla privatization scheme was a non-starter from the beginning, but they were so desperate for cash to pay for their high-income and corporate tax cuts — failed, I might add — that they pressed ahead, flushing away millions of dollars, increasingly scarce tax dollars, down the drain: $730,000 blown on legal advice, $225,000 on marketing direction, $854,000 to study the highway.

But the government won't say how much was spent on advertising this botched boondoggle. That's right. This government refuses to tell taxpayers….

J. MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Because this government refused so far to tell how much of their money is spent, telling the government….

J. MacPhail: Was the government right and the community wrong? Can the minister…? Can any one of you who's left behind stand up and say: why won't the Liberal government come clean? Tell British Columbians how much more of their money they blew on advertising the failed Coquihalla privatization scheme.

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, all of the government's advertising costs are disclosed in the public accounts, as they've always been, and they will be.

But I must say I am intrigued, and I'm glad she pointed me to my message box, because I almost missed it. Perhaps I will have to file a complaint with the waste-buster website. Perhaps they can tell me how it is that the NDP spent $747,000 on a Coquihalla Highway project when that minister was in power, and perhaps she can explain what we got for that money.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, whose time is being eroded by her seatmate. [Laughter.]

J. Kwan: The government MLAs might think it's funny wasting money, scarce tax dollars…

J. Kwan: …that are needed in the health care and education systems. People in Kamloops are outraged by this waste, especially when they see health care and education services being cut, and so are the residents of Nelson, who have seen their hospital services cut to the bone.

Two weeks ago the member for Nelson-Creston stood up and told this House that health care in Nelson was in great shape. He says: "Don't worry. Be happy." He claimed that emergency room care had improved. Wrong. He claimed that fewer patients are now transferred outside of the Kootenays. Wrong again. The president of the Kootenay Lake Hospital medical staff, Dr. Andrew Murray, heard the member in this House and has demanded that the member correct his statements.

To the Minister of Health Services: who is right — the member for Nelson-Creston or the president of the medical staff at the Kootenay Lake Hospital?

Hon. C. Hansen: I welcome the opportunity to clear up a few things about how the health care system is working in the Kootenay-Boundary region of the province. The emergency department in Nelson has not been reduced and, in fact, has seen several improvements, including additional monitored beds and several thousand dollars' worth of physical upgrades to the facility.

The only services that have actually been moved out of Nelson as a result of redesign are the areas of general surgery and ICU, which have been moved to Trail so that we can consolidate those services to get better care in the region. As a direct result of this redesign, we now have more effective care for all patients and all residents who live in the Kootenay-Boundary area. We have been able to attract an additional five specialists into the region, and that is resulting in better care and in less burnout for physicians.

Do you know what, member? It's actually providing more care for residents of the Kootenay-Boundary region right in that area, so that they do not have to travel as often to other parts of the province to get the care that would have had to take place under the arrangement set up by the previous government. So, yes, we are going through some changes…

Hon. C. Hansen: …in the health care delivery system throughout the province. As a direct result of that…

Hon. C. Hansen: …there are more patients getting the care they need, when they need it and where they live.

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

J. Kwan: So the people who provide the medical services in the area and the people who live and need the services in the community are wrong, according to this minister. Well, today in the Alberni Valley residents are driving over the Alberni highway to Nanaimo to protest the government's shutting down of beds and services at West Coast General Hospital. The cost of those cuts is $400,000 — a fraction of what this government blew on the failed Coquihalla privatization scheme. As a result, residents of Alberni are losing vital health services.

To the Health minister again: what's a better use of taxpayers' dollars — providing health care services in the Alberni Valley area or paying off big Liberal contributors for failed privatization schemes?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know the member's colleague sitting beside her served as a Minister of Health in this province, and I can tell you there is never enough money in a Health budget, as I'm sure she could attest to. I cannot tell that member how much I would love to have in the Health budget of B.C. today the $454 million that that government wasted on fast ferries in this province.

Two weeks ago the member asked me if I would meet with a delegation from Port Alberni and give them the assurance that their hospital would not close. I stood on my feet and said yes, that first of all I would give them the assurance that their hospital would not close and, secondly, that I'd meet with them.

When I did meet with them, they presented me and the member for Alberni-Qualicum with a petition of 9,000 names that asked that I as the minister would assure them that their hospital would continue to provide service in the Alberni Valley and that it would continue to have surgical capacity. I said to them that I could give them a 100 percent unqualified yes to both of those demands in the petition.

B. Suffredine: My question, coincidentally, is also to the Minister of Health Services. A recent case at Kootenay Lake Hospital in Nelson highlighted the importance of emergency surgical services there. It has been suggested that without the intervention of local surgeons, the outcome might not have been as positive. Some of my constituents believe they may not have access to emergency surgical services when they need them.

Can the minister tell this House what is being done to ensure that West Kootenay residents have timely access to emergency surgical services?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am familiar with the particular case the member refers to. There was a medical review done by physicians and other medical professionals to review the decisions that were made in that case. I can reassure the member and his constituents that the Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital, located in Trail, was ready to receive that patient — they were on standby — and that it would have been totally appropriate and medically safe to transfer that patient to Trail, who would have got the care she needed in a timely fashion. A decision was made to provide care to that patient in Nelson by a surgeon who happened to be there, and again, the medical review shows that that was also an appropriate medical condition.

I think the bottom line is that the patient had a successful outcome and would have had a successful outcome regardless of whether the surgery had been provided in Trail or in Nelson.

G. Trumper: My question is, again, to the Minister of Health Planning. The Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report that said nurses are working full-time in Canada and that more nurses are staying and working in British Columbia. This is good news for patients in British Columbia. However, our nursing workforce is aging and will be retiring in larger numbers than in other provinces over the coming years.

Can the Minister of Health Planning tell us what her ministry is doing to ensure that there are enough nurses to care for patients in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Unlike the NDP, which did nothing to address the nursing shortage, this government actually thought it was a priority, and we invested $21 million in August 2001 to retain, recruit and educate nurses. We invested in continuing and specialty education. The Minister of Advanced Education has added more than 1,800 seats. The NDP cut seats in the decade that they were in power.

We initiated a loan forgiveness program and invested in mentorship programs and in aboriginal nursing strategies. In fact, we've invested $59 million since August 2001 to make sure nurses stay in this province to make sure patients are looked after. We also gave nurses a 23½ percent increase in wages and benefits.

The good news is that the Canadian Institute for Health Information has supported what we are doing

here today. B.C. ranks first when it comes to recruiting nurses to B.C., 91.4 percent of nursing graduates are staying in this province, and B.C. saw a net increase of 538 more nurses in 2002 than the previous year — all good news for patients in B.C.

G. Trumper: I would like to present a petition from the Alberni Valley regarding the proposed cuts to services at West Coast General Hospital.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm presenting today, on behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education…

Hon. C. Clark: …a report of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission entitled Financial Statements of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission for the year ended March 31, 2003, as required by section 9 of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act. Along with this statement is an audit report of the auditor general of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I'm rising to not discuss Bill 73, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, because once again we see these Liberals showing absolute disdain for parliament — absolute disdain. They don't show up to answer questions, they table legislation one day, and less than 24 hours later they ask to have it debated. That's exactly what's happened with this legislation, Bill 73, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Last night there was a very ugly exchange between the Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, and me about House business. He claimed that this government was better than any previous government about the respect they showed for parliament and this chamber. What a mockery his words make of the reality in this Legislature.

Bill 73 is 16 pages long. I will read into the record what changes this government is making and to what legislation. The public and the opposition have had less than 22 hours to even read the legislation, let alone figure out what it means. The nerve of the Government House Leader to somehow suggest that they treat this House with respect, whereas the previous administrations didn't, is just simply…. It's hard for me to…. Well, I can't stomach it, Mr. Speaker.

Today is a perfect example of why it is hard to stomach how much the Government House Leader and this government disrespect parliament here in British Columbia — let alone question period, where question period makes a mockery of holding a government to account. Now we're in second reading debate of a piece of legislation that nobody has had a chance to figure out. And the minister stands up…. I bet you that the minister doesn't even know what's in the bill, because his comments at second reading were ridiculous — absolutely ridiculous — on how he skated over some issues.

Here's the legislation being amended by this government, and they've given less than 22 hours' notice. The only thing worse that could happen is if they introduced this legislation tomorrow for committee stage and rammed it through. That would be such an abuse of parliament I don't think even this government would risk doing, because the world is watching. The world is finally watching with interest the disdain this government is showing for parliament.

Here's the legislation that's being amended: the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Assessment Act…. There are major changes to the Assessment Act. The Assessment Authority Act. There are major changes there as well, many of which affect every single homeowner's and landowner's ability to exist in this province.

They're amending the Community Charter. That's very interesting. I wonder whether that's the original Community Charter legislation. Is it the Community Charter redux edition, or is it the Community Charter lite version they're amending? Before we adjourned the House for last week, they introduced a brand-new Community Charter after the previous one had been on the books four months. What Community Charter version are we dealing with that they're now amending again?

The Land Act, the Land Title Act. Well, we know what disdain this government has for land titles offices. We know how ineffective the lower Vancouver Island MLAs are in delivering services to their community through the land titles office, so they probably want to have a look at how the Land Title Act is being amended and what it means for their community. Is it a further erosion? Is it a further erosion of the access to public services for lower Vancouver Island residents?

Will the members from lower Vancouver Island be standing up and questioning the minister closely on this about what it means for their community, or will they sit silent and fail their community once again?

Those amendments go on and on and on, page after page. Oh, here are more amendments, to the Local Government Act. Gee, I was just up before lunch dealing with amendments to the Local Government Act brought in by the Minister of Agriculture. Can they not get their act together, this government? Are they in such a state of chaos and confusion and disarray that they've got to keep trying, day after day, to get it right and hope nobody will notice the draconian changes they're trying to make?

Oh, here's a good one: the Oil and Gas Commission Act, and the Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Why should we be concerned about changes to these pieces of legislation? We've got a situation where this government has basically said: "We're going to put all of our environmental regulations and our land use decision-making into the hands of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management." The Minister of Forests is not going to have responsibility for these, and believe you me, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is being shoved aside in any land use or environmental questions.

What does it mean for the Oil and Gas Commission Act — these amendments that were given superpowers for environment regulations by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management? Well, we don't have time to examine it. We don't have time. The Taxation Act, affecting rural areas; the University Endowment Land Act…. Gee.

Oh, here's a good one: the Water Act. Boy, I've got a lot of questions from Bill 57 on water, and here we have amendments to the Water Act that directly affect Bill 57, the Contaminated Sites Act. Yes, the Contaminated Sites Act has been on the books for several months, and we'll be debating it this afternoon, but I suspect this legislation the government's ramming through will affect the contaminated sites legislation. Certainly, I know the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management doesn't know that. I can pretty much guarantee he doesn't know that, and I can pretty much guarantee that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, when I ask her questions about that, won't know it either.

That's pretty significant. Those amendments go on and on and on, page after page — amendments to the Water Act. Why would this province care about the Water Act? Why would they care? They're planning on privatizing certain aspects of water control, water administration and water quality in this province. Who knows? Maybe that's what this legislation does, but who would have a chance to even look at that? Then we have the whole amendment to this act that amends everything at the very end. That goes on and on and on.

Well, it is shameful, disdainful and embarrassing — the continuing and ever-escalating abuse this government shows of this Legislature. Bill 73 epitomizes that abuse and disdain, but it does not stand as the only example at all.

I can hardly wait to see when the government's going to bring this bill to committee stage. If they do it tomorrow, it will be the ultimate insult to parliament. But they're quite comfortable in insulting and ridiculing anyone who dares to stand up and ask a truly legitimate question in here. It will be an absolute insult to the people of British Columbia.

You know, the backbenchers, the government caucus members in this chamber, stand up and ask stooge questions. The minister offers pat answers. Then they can't even hold it together themselves. They're forced to table the points of view from the outside world, the citizens of British Columbia, in the form of petitions.

We just saw a perfect example of that, where the opposition asked the Minister of Health a question about Port Alberni health care. He stood up and said: "Oh, everything's fine." The member from Port Alberni asks a stooge question, and he says: "Everything's fine." Then she's forced to table a petition — a new petition — where the citizens are saying: "Hey, wait a minute. Everything's not fine." The minute this government is forced to hear voices from outside this chamber — the chamber of silent government caucus members who do none of the work in their own constituencies — when there's a voice of reality from British Columbians, it just shows how wrongheaded and failing the government's agenda is.

I know that this government cares not a whit about the opposition being given time to talk to people, to do the research, to have a thoughtful discussion in holding the government to account. We are forced to do this at the committee stage. There will be detailed questioning at the committee stage.

I just say to this government…. I'd actually say it to the Premier, but the Premier, of course, won't show up anywhere. The Premier will go to such extremes around the world to avoid coming here. I would say to the Premier that it is absolutely essential that the Premier finally live up to his commitment to openness and accountability, and allow this parliamentary system — this B.C. legislative chamber — to do its job properly on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, and stop ramming legislation through.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair has allowed more than considerable latitude to the member regarding this debate. Second reading is to discuss the bill in principle, but the Chair also takes umbrage at the remarks regarding question period and "making a mockery of holding government to account." I just want the member to know that.

I will enjoy looking forward to the spirited debate that we'll have as the bill goes into committee, but it gives me great pleasure at this time to move second reading.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 73, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 57; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I was interested in knowing what they do in terms of…. Is it possible for me to know who the advisers are and what they're advising on?

Hon. J. Murray: Erik Partridge is director of environmental management. Terry Roberts is the manager of the development of the act. Sohee Ahn is legislative officer/drafter.

I've reread the comments of the minister at second reading about why they're doing what they're doing in combining two pieces of legislation. Just to reiterate, the Environmental Management Act is a combination of the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act. Really, 90 percent of this legislation is a complete and verbatim reiteration of those two pieces of legislation — so fair enough.

That's why the debate will focus around certain clauses. Even though the piece of legislation is huge, it is really just a combination of those two previous pieces of legislation with some changes that the minister touted at second reading.

One of the changes she touted at second reading, which I'm going to explore a bit right now under section 1, is that she said they're moving to a model of risk management. I remember other members of the government caucus also standing up and saying that this is wonderful that the government is moving to a system of risk management as a new approach. They were taking great pride in this being a new approach to environmental protection.

I was a bit taken aback by this debate, because I didn't see any definition of risk management in section 1. I also know there's lots of literature that I've found in my research on risk management. It's a model that exists in the previous two pieces of legislation and around the world. So I want to explore that bit about risk management and risk assessment with the minister. How does the minister define "risk"? — because it's not contained in the bill.

Hon. J. Murray: In this legislation "risk management" is a model, and it's not a defined term.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your indulgence. Through to the minister: I just didn't hear the last part of the answer.

Hon. J. Murray: My answer was that risk management is a model and not a defined term under this act. By "a model," what that means is that we're using a classification scheme that has been developed by ministry staff, using certain risk factors to determine whether to permit a facility or activity or to have it operate under a code of practice or under the general prohibition against pollution.

The classification scheme includes risk factors such as significant potential for harm to human health or the environment, the environmental impact assessment rating factor used in the permit-processing procedure currently, degree of public concern about this kind of facility or activity, consistency of permits in the industry or activity, value of a site-specific review and the number of operations in the industry or activity.

J. MacPhail: From the frameworks of risk management that exist throughout the world now, upon which has the ministry relied?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry staff reviewed legislation from a number of jurisdictions. My request was to look at the jurisdictions that are considered exemplary and advanced in terms of their regulatory practices. Different parts were drawn from different jurisdictions in what my ministry considered to be the best practices from various areas.

Hon. J. Murray: California, Oregon and Massachusetts are some of the ones that were reviewed.

J. MacPhail: Were any Canadian jurisdictions reviewed? There's quite a substantial body of frameworks in Canada.

Hon. J. Murray: Canadian jurisdictions are Alberta and Ontario. As the member probably is aware, there

has been a significant amount of work done to review environmental regulations and practices in Ontario over the last three years.

J. MacPhail: Well, thank you. The minister is aware of the report, so I feel comfortable asking her questions about it. Also, I am pleased. It may be implicit acknowledgment that while the government caucus members may think this is breakthrough and new, it really isn't at all. Risk management has existed in parts of British Columbia, with some substantial differences, since the 1970s and exists substantively throughout Canada as well. It will be a comparison between what exists elsewhere in Canada and what the government is changing here that I'll be exploring.

There are other jurisdictions that actually do define risk management in legislation, but this government chose not to. Let me ask the minister, then…. She used examples in her second reading of high, medium and low risk. How will she define what industries fall into what category when, indeed, the regulatory powers of this bill are left up to the minister?

Hon. J. Murray: The definition of which industries or activities will fall into which category of risk will be determined through a regulation, and as with the act itself, the ministry will be consulting with both industry and environmental groups as well as municipal government in developing that regulation.

J. MacPhail: Well, okay. So once again we have a government where we're debating legislation, and the substance of what the government is touting as change hasn't yet been determined or will be done in regulation. That's interesting.

When is this bill going to actually be put into effect, and what are the public consultations that are occurring around definitions of high, medium and low risk? Specifically, when are the meetings occurring, who is the minister talking to, and when will the results be tabled publicly?

Hon. J. Murray: We'll be beginning the public consultations next week — Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We'll be meeting with dozens of groups, including municipalities, business groups and environmental groups.

J. MacPhail: Let me quote from the basic framework for risk management that came out of Ontario. The minister referred to it, so I'm pleased she has read this. This is called Basic Frameworks for Risk Management: Final Report, March 28, 2003, and it was prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Environment, to which the minister just referred. Let me just start with what they say in the executive summary around basic frameworks for risk management. The reason I'm quoting this is because it relates to what the minister just said about what work still needs to be done on this legislation and when.

Page 1 of the executive summary: "A good risk management framework should enhance and improve risk management by (1) making it more transparent and understandable to stakeholders, (2) making its processes more efficient and (3) allowing for sharing of best practice in the implementation of risk identification, risk assessment and risk treatment."

Does the minister agree with that analysis? And how will that be achieved, given that none of the terms of risk are defined in this legislation?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, I do agree with those principles that the member has just noted. We will be developing our categories of risk management, and the transparency will include…. The results of our public consultations will be posted on our website.

J. MacPhail: This report was done for the Ontario government by the Network for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. I went to the website to see if the government of British Columbia is a member. Let me identify for you who are members of this: the Alberta government, the Ontario government, Health Canada, Hydro One out of Ontario, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, Imperial Oil, Inco, the Ministry of Environment from Ontario. Those are some of them. I noted that given the fact the government is proudly saying it's moving to a framework for risk management, they're not members. I did take this off the website a couple of days ago, so….

What partnerships does this government have with people who already have a risk assessment framework in effect?

Hon. J. Murray: We've been drawing from information and advice from jurisdictions including those that I've mentioned in Canada — including Australia, in fact. I would, I guess, like to make the somewhat obvious statement that this ministry can learn from many organizations without actually needing to be a members of those organizations.

J. MacPhail: Oh yes, I'm sure they can, and that's why I'm trying to find out who the ministry is working with and what work is actually being done with whom to fill in the blanks left by this legislation. Once again we see that so much of the main work to institute principles of risk management will be left to the cabinet to be done through regulation.

One of the reasons why I was asking about what the definitions are for high, medium and low risk is from reading this report. Again, it's in the introduction of the report from the Network for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management: "Risk management is unique in that it focuses on uncertainties that an organization faces: uncertainties in the probability of occurrence of events, uncertainties in the value to the organization of consequences of events and other uncertainties that fall outside the normally expected range of variation. Generally, risks are low-probability but

So they're actually defining levels of risk there. The minister has said — even though she talked at length about low, medium and high risks in her second reading remarks to this legislation — that will be left up to her to set by regulation.

I ask the minister this: when dealing with human and environmental health, why did the government choose to not better define these levels of risk?

Hon. J. Murray: There are compounds. There are standards in various jurisdictions as to what levels of those compounds constitute what magnitude of risk that changes from sector to sector. We will be working with our business, environmental and municipal stakeholders to identify, based on a framework, a model here in terms of what the risk factors are, but we will be looking at it from sector to sector, and we're comfortable that this is the correct approach.

J. MacPhail: I also have heard this minister say over and over again, both inside this House and outside, that all of her decisions are science-based. Will these determinations be science-based?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, we'll be working with a science advisory board as well as scientists from Environment Canada and from other post-secondary institutions as we move forward and develop this regulation.

J. MacPhail: How does that fit in with the consultations the minister is about to hold?

Hon. J. Murray: Scientists give us information about their research — the numbers in terms of parts per million or billion of certain compounds and the impacts of those compounds given the receiving environment, whether it's water, land or air. The consultation takes that scientific data and discusses the data, compares it with the risk factors and makes some recommendations.

Hon. J. Murray: Through the course of the consultations, we will be getting feedback from the various stakeholders that we'll be consulting with, and I will be making decisions with my ministry as to what the regulation will finally say.

J. MacPhail: Because the minister named not one scientist in who she was going to consult with when I asked how she would consult on the regulations…. I'm not sure municipalities have the expertise to offer scientific advice. So I must say, Mr. Chair, it's quite a murky little process that the minister is going to go through in my…. Well, I would prefer that it would not be murky, but it sounds like a pretty murky process of who exactly she's going to consult and what advice she will actually receive.

I have another document here. It's from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The minister listed three, I think, jurisdictions in the United States upon which she is moving forward to base her risk management model. I wasn't actually going to use it until she said that those were the jurisdictions she was looking at.

Here's what it says — the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that has guided the state risk management process. It says: "Risk assessments don't give accurate estimates of risk. They do, however, give upper limits on risk. Just because a risk can't be measured with existing scientific methods doesn't mean that it's unimportant from a public health standpoint." So it was on that basis that I asked what basis science would play, because the minister says over and over again — always — that her decisions will be science-based.

Well, let me ask this. Given the fact that there is some evidence that science can't determine risk, who will have the final say in determining what level of risk applies to what industry? Is it the minister?

Hon. J. Murray: We'll be working with the Ministry of Health, which does the work of identifying substances and their statistical impact on human health, and we'll be working with the ministry of the environment federally and comparing the feedback from those organizations and using that as part of our decision-making.

J. MacPhail: Okay, now we have the Ministry of Health at the table. Who else is at the table? Perhaps the minister could just tell me the whole list of people who will be at the table, because there are two groups that have just been added that weren't added as part of her first group. Tell me everybody. Rather, don't make me ask; don't make me beg. Tell me everybody.

Hon. J. Murray: I would be happy to compile a list of all the organizations and individuals and scientists that will be part of our consultation process and our science advice as we move forward and make that available to the member.

J. MacPhail: Well, I don't know what I can do. I'm not quite sure why. I just heard the minister say this process is starting in a couple of weeks. I would have assumed that list would have been readily available. Will the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management be there?

Hon. J. Murray: That's not part of the plan at this point. This is developing science-based standards. The ministry does have PhDs in science within the ministry and will be working with some of the organizations that I've already mentioned.

J. MacPhail: In the United States model, the goal of risk management, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency clearly states: "Good risk management emphasizes public health protection as a primary goal. Statutes and regulations seek to ensure that standards are established at levels associated with risks that are considered sufficiently low to protect public health."

Is that a goal that the minister will be sharing in establishment…? We know it's not in statute. She has already said she's not going to put it in statute. Is that a goal she will emphasize as a primary goal in establishing of regulations?

J. MacPhail: That's good, because then it goes on to say here in that same goal of risk management: "Non-scientific factors enter into the regulatory process, including technical feasibility and economic, social, political and legal factors. The risk characterization and these factors are used in the analysis of whether or not to regulate, and if so, to what extent." Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. J. Murray: All of those factors the member opposite listed are factors that are taken into account with government decisions, yet standards are based on the scientific and the health risk and environmental risk science, as I mentioned before.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I forgot to take the minister up to accept the minister's offer of the list of people — the full list. I'd appreciate that as soon as possible, certainly before the consultations begin. I would appreciate that.

The other jurisdiction I looked at besides Canada and the United States about risk management, risk assessment and management in the environment was the United Kingdom, which has had a system of environmental risk assessment and management in place for some time. I have the actual regulations that apply in terms of determining risk management from the United Kingdom, and they're about 60 pages long. Because the minister has said this is going to be results-based risk management, what areas of regulation does she contemplate covering in determining risk assessment and the factors of risk?

Hon. J. Murray: The risk factors we're basing this work on are the ones I previously noted — significant potential harm to human health or the environment and so on, the environmental impact assessment rating factor used in the permit-processing procedure. I have already provided that set to the member.

J. MacPhail: I didn't hear terms like risk financing, risk communication or risk assessment. These are terms I found throughout other models of environmental risk assessment and management as well. "Source identification" — I didn't hear that, or "risk control." I'm just looking at the ones that were absent. Where did the minister get the set of factors that will be risk assessment? Is this a made-in-B.C. set?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it is. This is the result of a substantial consultation that the ministry has conducted over the course of a year on this issue. A number of the items that the member was noting were missing are actually part of the first point I described, the risk factor that is the significant potential for harm to human health or the environment.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, I very much will be watching that process with a great deal of interest. I'm not quite sure how I'll monitor it, because I don't know exactly what's going on, but I'll await the minister's compilation of the list of people who are involved, and maybe I'll talk directly to them.

There's a definition in this definition section, section 1. It's the definition of hazardous waste or…. No. Actually, it's not. "Hazardous waste" replaces the term "special waste," but it's not defined in the legislation. Why not?

Hon. J. Murray: The definition of hazardous waste is found in the regulation that governs the regulating of hazardous waste. The change in title is to make British Columbia consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada which do call this hazardous waste and not special waste.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm encouraged by that answer. So will the special waste regulation be just now renamed the hazardous waste regulation?

Hon. J. Murray: There's a substantial degree of consultation going on between now and the coming spring on our special waste regulation. We'll be making amendments to it, and yes, one of those amendments will be to change the name to hazardous waste.

J. MacPhail: Well, what will the minister be consulting on — the special waste regulation? Is that what it will be?

J. MacPhail: Well, the special waste regulations index is four pages long. Has the minister had a chance to…? Will she be consulting on every single aspect of the special waste regulation that is now in existence, or will she be putting forward a regulation that is more or less than this?

Hon. J. Murray: We'll be consulting on the entire regulation. We'll be hearing from the range of stakeholders, again, from environmental groups to industry, municipalities and post-secondary institutions. The idea is to get feedback on what needs to be updated in the special waste regulation.

J. MacPhail: Ninety percent of this bill has been in existence for decades. The minister just said that the

reason why the name "special waste" has been changed to "hazardous waste…." Why is there change around the regulation that's attached to that?

Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Chair, I didn't understand the question. Could the member repeat it, please?

J. MacPhail: Well, I was trying to determine whether the change in definition from special waste, which has been in existence for decades, to hazardous waste was part of some other package of change. The vast, vast majority of this legislation is just a rewrite — and I make no criticism of that; that's fine — or amalgamation of two previous bills. When I asked the minister whether she would just rename the special waste regulation as the hazardous waste, it was to determine whether the new hazardous waste regulation will just become the same as what existed before, and she didn't give me comfort in that area. I'm asking: if it's just a renaming to match us up with other jurisdictions, why is she choosing this regulation to go out and consult on?

Hon. J. Murray: Because there are improvements that need to be made in that regulation in order to do an effective job of regulating hazardous wastes in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Murray: That's what we intend to conclude out of the consultation we're contemplating in the future.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister didn't pose it as a question to see whether there are changes that need to be made. The minister said there are improvements that need to be made. It's not a judgment call. It was an assertion the minister made.

Hon. J. Murray: The environmental groups and industry alike have given me feedback and feedback to my staff that this is a regulation in need of being updated and improved. That's why we are undertaking a consultation that gets the details of that input, and that's why I assert it does need improvement.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I'm asking for the specifics. What did the environmental groups say? What did industry say?

Hon. J. Murray: For the member's information, we do have on our website a discussion paper on the special waste regulation that outlines the framework for the consultation we're embarking on. That will provide a set of issues that we're getting feedback on and that were based on what I've heard in terms of potential improvements and potential changes.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I've actually been to the website, and I have seen that. There's much more to discuss here, so I guess I won't belabour this point. But I'm trying to find out from the minister why she chose this particular regulation to change, when 90 percent of the bill and regulations have not been changed. What led her to believe that there were improvements?

The discussion document on the website is as a result of her concluding that change is necessary. The discussion document does not in any way list the feedback or the request for change. That's why I'm trying to figure out why this particular regulation is getting special treatment, because that's what we're debating here — changes to the previous legislation.

Hon. J. Murray: We're reviewing and developing 13 regulations and codes this year, and we will be reviewing our whole set of regulations over time. That's part of what I committed to do coming into this job two and a half years ago: to review legislation and regulation and make sure that it's up to date, that it incorporates best practices, that it enables this government to do an effective job of protecting the environment and, at the same time, that it supports the other goals that we have as a government.

J. MacPhail: Were the 13 regulations and code pursuant to this piece of legislation that we're debating?

Hon. J. Murray: The codes will be the regulatory regime for the medium-risk facilities and activities. Those codes will need to be created, also, as part of the consultation.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so codes are new. Could the minister please describe…? There are codes dealing with medium risk? Could the minister explain how that will work?

Hon. J. Murray: Activities and sectors that are deemed to be medium-risk, out of the consultation that we described earlier in this debate, will be regulated by codes. Those will be enforceable codes that we will be developing over the coming time period. As a code is developed and finalized, then that sector and that set of activities will no longer be required to have facility-by-facility permits, but they will be operating under a clear code of practice.

J. MacPhail: So is this a code for the forest industry or a code for a cleaning facility?

Hon. J. Murray: Sector-specific codes of practice will be applied to businesses such as the fish products processing industry, the plastics products industry and

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I see that code of practice is listed anyway and defined as what the minister means as a code of practice. I guess we'll explore that more under section 22 of the new legislation, at which time I will be asking her for the full list of codes that are to be developed.

J. MacPhail: Is section 3 new? It's unclear to me whether this is a new power. I'll read it into the record. Section 3 is "Director includes delegate," and it's the clause that allows delegation of power by the director.

Hon. J. Murray: This section needed to be added because decision-making power had been transferred from the regional managers to the director. Therefore, it was necessary to empower the director to delegate his or her authority, and that could be to a manager.

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it is new, and I gave the reason why. The member was distracted for a moment there and may not have heard. The reason this is added is that formerly the regional managers were the statutory decision-makers under this act. That has been transferred to the director, and this section enables the director, then, to delegate those powers.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I appreciate the minister repeating it. She's right. I was distracted. Okay, there's been a name change, and much of the legislation is about that name change — changing "regional manager" to the term "director." But what made the minister now give powers of delegation to what was formerly the manager, now the director?

Hon. J. Murray: What this act does is centralize the statutory authority in one person's hands, and that's the director. That person won't be making all the decisions, however. That decision-making will be delegated to the managers in the regions. Having the statutory power in the director's hands, though, enables the director to ensure that the decisions being made in the various regions are consistent and are within the direction and framework as set by the province.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm confused about how delegation of power from the director to others provides consistency. How does that work?

Hon. J. Murray: The director maintains the statutory decision-making power. The delegation enables the managers to make decisions that they are delegated to make within the policy and direction that's been set.

J. MacPhail: Okay. How did it work before, then? Much of this legislation is about name change only.

Hon. J. Murray: Before, the regional manager in each region had the final statutory decision-making power. The repercussion of that is that there could be a different interpretation and a different decision made, given the same factors, from region to region. There was an absence of consistency. This is a way to make sure we have consistent decisions at that statutory decision-making level, while the delegation to the regions means there won't be just one person that is entertaining the decision-making, because that's not practical.

J. MacPhail: Section 6 is the first article in part 2, "Prohibitions and Authorizations." Section 6 is entitled "Waste disposal." The opposition has had quite a bit of feedback — unsolicited, I might add — on this particular article, clause, section. I'll read the first part into it: "6 (1) For the purposes of this section, 'the conduct of a prescribed industry, trade or business' includes the operation by any person of facilities or vehicles for the collection, storage, treatment, handling, transportation, discharge, destruction or other disposal of waste in relation to the prescribed industry, trade or business."

It's new, and as I understand it, it's up to the minister to determine by regulation what a prescribed industry is.

That's why I was asking earlier about how the minister is going to determine levels of risk and what industries fall within what level of risk. So much is being left in the hands of the cabinet and this particular minister as opposed to clearly stating it by statute. Given that this bill gives the minister alone — not the L-G-in-C, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but the minister alone — the regulatory authority to determine what is a prescribed industry, what assurances can the minister provide that the application of risk in the determination of a prescribed industry will be a transparent process?

Hon. J. Murray: The regulation that describes which facilities and sectors are considered high risk, which are medium and which are low will be passed by cabinet. That is not at the minister's discretion.

J. MacPhail: Later on I will be getting into some interest around…. This bill is unusual, in that there are regulations created by the L-G-in-C, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and then there's another set of regulations made by the minister. This is one that's being made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If that's so, could the minister follow me through on that?

J. MacPhail: I do appreciate the quick reference, but prescribing for the purposes of section 6(2), industry, trades, and businesses…. Oh, I see. That is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. All right. Well, fair enough. Then it's going to be cabinet making them. What process is cabinet going to go through?

Hon. J. Murray: Cabinet will go through the usual process in approving a regulation.

J. MacPhail: It's not me asking this question. I just told the minister that we've got a lot of feedback from this, particularly from environmental, non-governmental organizations who have deep concerns about this. The minister is aware of that.

I said: "What will be a transparent process?" The minister has said that she's got a consultation process on setting up the regulations, etc. But what will be the transparent process in this one particularly? This is the nub of the issue about prescribed industries, trades or businesses. Everything in this legislation flows from this definition.

Hon. J. Murray: I accept the comment that this is a very important part of the new legislation. I agree that it is. That's why we had the discussion under section 1 of the consultation — the bringing in of scientists from the ministry of environment; the advice on human health risk from the Ministry of Health; the discussions with environmental groups, municipalities and industry; and the posting of those discussions on our website in a transparent way — which will contribute to developing this regulation once it gets to cabinet. Cabinet debates the regulation, as it does others, and makes a decision.

J. MacPhail: What role will the industry, trade and businesses that are affected by this regulation play? Do they have an appeal process?

My first question: what role do they play? Do they sit as an equal with others at the consultation table?

Hon. J. Murray: Everyone's equal in the consultation. We'll be talking to stakeholders that are interested in this regulation, and we'll be looking forward to what they have to say.

J. MacPhail: What ranking of priority does the establishment of regulations have? Where will this definition, "establishment through regulation," rank in terms of priority of consultation?

Hon. J. Murray: This is our highest-priority regulation, so it'll be taking place first.

J. MacPhail: Will this definition of the conduct of a prescribed industry, trade or business be established before moving on to any other regulation? If so, what's the time line for establishing this?

Hon. J. Murray: We will be working on a number of the regulations in parallel, but this is the priority regulation. It will need to be completed before the act is brought into force. We're aiming for completion in January or February of this coming year.

J. MacPhail: Section 6(4) of the waste disposal section that we're debating now reads: "Subject to subsection (5), a person must not introduce waste into the environment in such a manner or quantity as to cause pollution." When I read this, I searched to see whether this was a repetition of anything in previous legislation, and it isn't. The reason why it struck my interest was that this section jumped out at me as one that seems to place the onus on the cause of pollution rather than on the existence of pollution.

This definition of waste leads one to believe that all waste is pollution. I would expect that there would be many who would disagree with that. Why was the concept of causation introduced into this clause, rather than by linking waste to pollution, because all waste isn't pollution?

Hon. J. Murray: This comes directly out of the Waste Management Act. It's section 3(4).

J. MacPhail: Okay, I don't have the act in front of me. Could the minister please read it out, then?

Hon. J. Murray: In the Waste Management Act, section 3(4) reads: "Subject to subsection (5), a person must not introduce waste into the environment in such a manner or quantity as to cause pollution." As the member has mentioned, 90 percent of the new act is the same features that are in the Waste Management and Environment Management acts.

J. MacPhail: Section 7, carrying on in Part 2, "Prohibitions and authorizations," is entitled "Hazardous waste — confinement." Now, this section is the same section as section 4 of the current Waste Management Act, with the exception that the current section 4(3) of the Waste Management Act is omitted. I'll just read that into the record. I did write that one down. The current section 4(3) of the Waste Management Act states: "If a special waste is released from or escapes from the confinement required by subsection (1), it is, for the purposes of this act, deemed to have been introduced into the environment." Where is this covered elsewhere in the legislation?

Hon. J. Murray: I am advised that this was consolidated into the introduction section, and "introduce into the environment" is defined in the definitions.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Yes, "introduce into the environment" means…. This is in the new act. It says, "in relation to waste, includes discharge, emit, dump, abandon, spill, release and allow to escape into the environment." I thank the minister for that answer. Perhaps, then, my question should be: where else is this? Why was it consolidated? Is there an effect elsewhere in the legislation?

Hon. J. Murray: Better drafting to have definitions all consolidated into one place. What was 4(3) is essentially defining "introduce into the environment" of a special waste.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I accept that. Just to go back, because transparency is very important in this area. Under the old act, special waste was defined, and in the old act, section 4 talked about what happens with special waste. That's where the concept of "deemed to have been introduced into the environment…." In this particular case hazardous waste, which replaces special waste definition, isn't defined, and therefore there's nowhere in the new legislation, as I see it…. Or maybe the minister can point to where in the legislation it talks about hazardous waste, which hasn't been defined, and what it means in terms of part of the definition being deemed to have been introduced in the environment.

For clarity it's important. If part of the definition of hazardous waste is to include "introduce into the environment…." There is no linking in the definitions, and there was in the old act between "special waste" and "introduce into the environment."

Hon. J. Murray: The definition of hazardous waste is in the regulation, and I'm not really clear what the substantive issue is here. In the previous Waste Management Act, section 4(3) talks about "if special waste is released from or escapes from confinement" — and so on — "it is…deemed to have been introduced into the environment."

Special waste is a category of waste that's defined in the regulation. In the new act it talks about waste and that "introducing into the environment" includes discharge, emit, dump, abandon, spill, release or allow to escape into the environment in relation to waste.

I think the member's concerns are addressed in that releasing waste into the environment is defined in section 1, and hazardous waste is a subsection of waste that is defined in the special waste regulation.

J. MacPhail: Then the minister is a better person than me. But we'll just have to wait and see how this unfolds. I've spent quite a bit of time dealing with legislation, and this leapt out at me as being less clear. If the minister feels like it's clearer, then we'll just have to see how it unfolds.

The Chair: The minister has an amendment on section 8. We'll deal with that first.

Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

J. MacPhail: As I understand it, this government amendment will actually mean the wording in the bill will now be the same, back to what it was in the current act. Is that right?

Hon. J. Murray: This amendment to section 8 corrects a drafting error in the first reading bill by replacing the language in the bill with the correct language from the existing Waste Management Act. The language in section 8 excluded from the regulation certain activities such as treatment, recycling, storage, disposal and destruction, which are in the existing act. These activities are necessary for a comprehensive scheme for hazardous waste management facilities. This House amendment corrects this error.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for confirming that it does return it to what the current act is.

So was it simply a drafting error, or was it pointed out in your consultation that things were missing?

J. MacPhail: We are still under part 2, "Prohibitions and authorizations." Section 14 talks about permits. As I read it, sections 14(3) and 14(4) are new, and section 14(3) introduces the procedure for codes of practice to eliminate a permit. This is what we were talking about earlier on in our discussions about codes of practice.

Mr. Chair, for people who are interested, section 22 talks about the minister making regulations "establishing codes of practice for industries, trades, businesses, activities or operations." But section 14(3) actually establishes the code of practice, where it talks about a code of practice that is established in regulations in

relation to the industry, trade or business that applies for the permit or amendment.

I'm going to ask my questions about codes of practice under here. Can the minister tell me whether there are examples elsewhere where there's a ministry code of practice used instead of a permit system?

J. MacPhail: How does that work, then? Is the minister going to follow that model in Alberta? As I understand it, this code of practice eliminates the need for a permit.

Hon. J. Murray: That's correct. When there's a code of practice, the requirement to issue a permit is eliminated, so it is an alternative to that.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. I mean, we are kind of trying to do something for the public here, so I was just wondering whether the minister could explain the difference. What used to take place under having to go for a permit that is now being eliminated, and how will the code of practice work?

Hon. J. Murray: Under the previous regime, every facility needed to negotiate a permit with the ministry, whether that facility or that activity had negligible or no risk of damaging human health or the environment. That tied up ministry staff time, and people in those organizations were tied up with the process of negotiating a permit on a facility-by-facility basis. The code of practice will be drafted to apply across a sector, and all of the members of that sector will adhere to that code of practice, which will be an enforceable set of expectations for protection of the environment by that sector.

J. MacPhail: So in order of importance, I guess we could say that the definition of the industries, trades and businesses in terms of categories of risk is first in importance, and then these codes of practice would be the second level of importance, because that code of practice will determine how one lives up to the risk category in a legal way. Will any industry bodies, businesses or trades be subject to the need for individual permits now, or is it all sector-based?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, there will be some sectors where individual facilities will still be required to get a permit. Those are industries like smelting, like pulp production. Sort of major industrial facilities will still require a permit.

J. MacPhail: How does the ministry organize itself? Are there two different groups of staff, one that monitors compliance with a code of practice and another that issues permits? How will this work?

Hon. J. Murray: The compliance function is carried out by different staff than the permitting function, and the compliance staff will be monitoring the adherence to the rules — whether it is the permits rules or the code of practice. It will be different staff that issue permits than those that do the compliance function in the ministry.

J. MacPhail: What role will first nations play in establishing these codes of practice?

Hon. J. Murray: We haven't begun our consultations on codes of practice at this point. As we get to the stage of doing that, we'll be developing the list of appropriate stakeholders to consult.

J. MacPhail: We have had feedback from first nations around their hope and belief that they should be involved as a stakeholder in establishing both codes of practice and those…. I assume — maybe I'm wrong on this — that part of the consultation will determine who gets subject to permitting and who gets to work under a code of practice. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Murray: The initial consultation will be identifying which of the sectors will be governed by permit and which by codes of practice. The consultation in the development of a code of practice will be a separate process.

Will the consultation on development of codes of practice include any input from the general public?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank you for your accommodation. I appreciate it — and to the minister.

Section 21 begins the section on regulations for the purposes of this part that we're discussing, which again is "Prohibitions and Authorizations," so this is the first of several sections in the bill that provide the regulatory powers for various parts and divisions of the bill. It provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the power to make regulations, but section 22 then gives the minister the right to make regulations regard-

ing codes of practice. What model are these — the two avenues of regulation-making — based upon?

Hon. J. Murray: Various jurisdictions, including Alberta, have divided regulation-making powers into different levels to reflect where flexibility is needed in terms of updating and making changes.

J. MacPhail: Where does this exist elsewhere — the dual stream of regulation-making?

Hon. J. Murray: Well, I did mention Alberta, but other jurisdictions as well.

Hon. J. Murray: We're not aware of other legislation that has the two streams. The contaminated sites regulation did have two streams that were the director's ability to make certain decisions on and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make another set of regulations.

J. MacPhail: Well, the reason why I'm exploring this is, one, because of its unique nature and, two, because so much of this legislation will be done through regulation and there's no ability to discuss it in this chamber. Therefore, the public is not only required to rely on the goodwill of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — i.e., the cabinet — but now must also, I gather, rely on the goodwill of openness and transparency from the minister of the day in this portfolio.

My third point on this — those are the first two — is that at the end of each of the regulation-making description sections, there's a repetition that says that section 139 — "Regulations, general rules" — applies for the purpose of making regulations under this section. So we have regulations done by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and there are about 22 categories that allow for the cabinet to make regulations. They're also given the ability to have the general rule-making apply for that, and then the minister has about 24 subsections where she can make regulations. Then she also gets access to section 139, the general rules for applying for the purpose of making regulations under this section.

It does seem to be the delegation of a lot of power outside of the context of statute, and that's why I was looking for a model other than Alberta, in any other form of legislation, where this exists. It's unusual, and the minister's explanation, other than it exists in Alberta, just doesn't…. It's not calming my concerns. Perhaps the minister can explain what 21(2) and 22(2) are there for.

Hon. J. Murray: These are standard clauses that are in most legislation, which govern regulation-making powers.

J. MacPhail: Well, again, I've been away from legislation-making for quite a while, but the difference between this government and previous governments is that clauses 21 and 22 in legislation would often negate the need for article 139. You either have regulation-making — the general rules — or else you have the specific rules as are listed here under 21 and 22.

In this particular case, this government has not only now had two streams of regulation-making, which is unusual, but then we have the general regulation-making as well. Did anyone comment on a government putting so much into regulation-making, as opposed to legislation, in your consultation?

Hon. J. Murray: In the consultation there were a number of comments, both pro and con, from environmental groups and comments, both pro and con, from industry and business. By far, the majority were favourable to this concept, as it introduces responsiveness and flexibility into the regime.

J. MacPhail: So the vast majority were in favour of two streams of regulation. Hmm, that's interesting. I have no way of challenging that statement, but I see the people on the other side say it's absolutely true.

I'm a bit taken aback by the people who deal with…. I can understand the industry wanting two streams, but I would be surprised if municipalities, ENGOs or first nations believe that two streams of regulations are their preference. What happens when there's a conflict between regulations in section 21 with regulations in section 22?

Hon. J. Murray: I don't see that there would be conflict. Section 22 is the minister's authority to establish codes of practice. Those would be governing different sectors than the regulations would be governing, so I don't see that there would be conflict.

Just a note in terms of the rationale. The highest-risk activities and cross-government issues are incorporated in the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulation-making powers. Section 22, the minister's regulations, which are the codes of practice, are related more to ministry-level issues, and they are policy-level issues.

J. MacPhail: Let me just say something that jumped out at me where there could be a conflict. In section 21, there are quite specific regulations made around packaging and disposal of that packaging. In section 22, there will be regulations around audits of that packaging and disposal of packaging. The minister doesn't see that there could be conflict between those two — about when to audit, if to audit, how to audit, what to audit?

Hon. J. Murray: The one is how you handle the packaging, and the other is how you check the handling of the packaging.

J. MacPhail: Let me read into the record, then, section 21(1)(s), regulations made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council: "…requiring prescribed indus-

trial, commercial and institutional operations or classes of operations to conduct periodic packaging or other waste audits, and prescribing the terms and conditions of the audits, including to whom reports should be made and other reporting requirements."

Then if you look at minister's regulations with codes of practice, it says…. I'm sorry; let me make sure I've got that. The other one was section 21(1). This is section 22(2)(u): "…requiring prescribed industrial, commercial or institutional operations or classes of operations to conduct periodic packaging or other waste audits, and prescribing the terms and conditions of the audits, including prescribing to whom reports should be made and other reporting requirements." No potential overlap there?

Hon. J. Murray: Section 21(1)(s) is dealing with operations that are not covered by a code of practice, whereas section 22(2)(u) is dealing with operations that are subject to a code of practice. It needs to be dealt with differently, because we are considering the two different streams that we were discussing before.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm well aware that one applies to organizations or trades that need a permit and another that will be subject to codes of practice. But what happens if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has more rigorous tests for those subject to permit than for those established by codes of practice? What happens when there's a difference and there's a conflict?

Hon. J. Murray: There may well be more rigour in the audits of the higher-risk operations and sites, and that's appropriate. So there may well be less rigour in the ones that are listed here for the purpose of section 138(2)(s), because those are deemed to be a lower risk of problem.

J. MacPhail: I guess what I'm asking is: are there challenges that can be made in terms of application of regulation between the two streams? I can't find out from the minister who is going to be in either stream, so this is a hypothetical debate — believe you me, not by choice. I'd love to know who the higher-risk organizations, trades and businesses are going to be, requiring permitting, versus those who will be subject to codes of practice, but I can't. That information is not forthcoming today.

Let me ask this: has the minister received any legal advice on potential challenges to the two different streams and the two different applications?

J. MacPhail: This begins a new part 4 in the legislation called "Contaminated Site Remediation," division 1, "Interpretation." We therefore have a new set of definitions and interpretation for this part.

Now, the minister had an advisory committee on contaminated sites. I actually have that report here, but I know the minister's very familiar with it. It was published in 2003. The chair was Margaret Eriksson. I'm wondering whether the minister can tell me the cost of the minister's advisory panel on the contaminated sites final report.

Hon. J. Murray: I don't have the exact figure for the chair, but we can certainly get that for the member, if you'd like.

J. MacPhail: Well, yes. I'd like it now, if I may. Otherwise, I'm going to report a figure that is rumoured. And $500,000 for a report is an interesting amount. I'd like to know what portion of that $500,000 went to Ms. Eriksson. Does the staff not have that available?

Hon. J. Murray: No, the staff doesn't have that figure here, and yes, we can get it.

J. MacPhail: Good. I hope we get it during this debate, please. It does seem to be unusual that the minister wouldn't have that available.

Now, the minister hinted in her second reading speech that contaminated sites will be dealt with more fully in the spring session. What did she mean by that?

Hon. J. Murray: The panel's recommendations were quite comprehensive. We're staging in changes to the contaminated site remediation process. The first set of changes are in this legislation that we're debating now, and we're contemplating putting forward another set of changes which I hope to table in the House in the spring. That will be a second phase.

J. MacPhail: What's the thinking behind a two-stage process? The auditor general's report has been available for — what? — almost a year now. So why two stages?

Hon. J. Murray: The complexity of this regulation is the primary reason. We want to talk with people from all viewpoints on this issue. Also, there's a considerable number of organizations that are involved in court actions around contaminated sites. We have to be very careful that we don't have any unintended consequences of changes we may make, so we're proceeding on a careful basis.

J. MacPhail: Referring to the minister's advisory panel on contaminated sites final report of January 2003, I refer to the executive summary. On page 2 of

that executive summary, under the heading "What Stakeholders Told the Panel," there's this: "According to stakeholders, there are four main problems with the current system of regulating contaminated sites." The second point is: "The ministry charged with this program is understaffed to deal with its legislated tasks in a timely fashion and, because authority is delegated to regional managers, lacks consistency."

What has the minister done? I asked the minister earlier whether there had been any delegated authority to regional managers, and she said no, that this delegation to directors was the first time this has occurred. I was taken aback by that. What has the minister done in terms of this legislation to deal with the issue of adequate staffing? On contaminated sites first, please.

Hon. J. Murray: In terms of the comment about lacking consistency, that comment reflects part of the rationale for the change that the member and I were debating earlier around having a single statutory decision-maker — i.e., the director — as opposed to having separate statutory decision-makers in each region. That actually ties into the rationale for the change we made. I may not have explained that clearly enough.

In terms of not having adequate staff — the comment that was made to the panel — I would say there's an infinite demand for government staff to be available to do things in the public interest, and there's limited staff available in virtually every ministry at any time in any decade. The job of government, the job of a minister, is to make the best use of the staff available, and that is part of the rationale for the changes we're making here. We need to have people focused, again, on the sites that present actual risk to health and the environment. Previously, there were sites with no identified risk that were tying up people's time.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I've heard that several times. Could the minister give an example of that — no identified risk tying up staff time? Just a couple of examples would be enough.

Hon. J. Murray: An example, in answer to the member's question, is that under the previous regime, if you had a site where one compound was above a prescribed level in the soil, but that contaminant was completely contained and had no pathway to reach water, fish, people or the air or create any risk to the ecosystem or human health, that would still be considered a contaminated site and would need to follow all of the steps in the regime that might be appropriate for a site where the compounds actually did present a risk to human health or the environment.

J. MacPhail: I was actually asking for specifics, like specific examples, because we did discuss this issue at the Public Accounts Committee according to the auditor general's report, where there were government caucus members who raised exactly the same questions. They'd heard the same rumours. It was the member for Maple Ridge–Mission who raised this. The auditor general staff came back and said no — it's in Hansard, so feel free to do it — that the application of contaminated sites level of scrutiny is virtually the same as in other jurisdictions in Canada, and, indeed, it's the use of the land that determines the attention that it gets. That was the auditor general's staff who investigated that.

When I heard the minister say this again, I wondered. I want specifics. It's one of these things where this government just sort of presents things in a broad brush — the past was awful, and that's why we need change — and they never give specifics. I would refer the minister to the auditor general's staff comments around that very specific issue where there's complete disagreement with what she just said.

We're talking here right now about availability of staff. There's a recommendation out of her minister's own advisory committee saying that stakeholders say there's inadequate staff. The minister says the way they've dealt with that is to say staff were doing inappropriate activities in the past. I want names, I want examples, and I want cases, because that doesn't cut it — what the minister just said.

Hon. J. Murray: Just a clarification. The auditor general's staff were auditing Crown land remediation, not all sites in British Columbia. They were focused on the remediation of Crown land. I do agree that the assignment of numerical levels of different compounds is something that is done in all jurisdictions. British Columbia was somewhat unique in that the operational approach under the contaminated site regulation was that a risk-based assessment and a risk-based option were very rarely selected, and the regime was highly dependent on those numerical standards.

I'm not actually clear what the member is saying about the inconsistency between the auditor general's report and what we're attempting to do in this legislation and what I've been saying this evening. If the member could clarify the question.

J. MacPhail: I would be happy to do that. This section is about contaminated site remediation. The minister's advisory committee on contaminated sites deals mainly about remediation or the consequences of contaminated sites and remediation. Part one of the recommendations that I've asked the minister about is inadequate staff to deal with legislated tasks in a timely fashion.

The minister responds by saying that in the past under the old regime, staff were doing inappropriate, unnecessary tasks around contaminated sites remediation. I'm saying that's wrong. That was addressed by the auditor general both in the report and subsequently in a Public Accounts meeting, where the sort of broad-brush statement that inappropriate tasks were carried out doesn't hold up to the test. That's why I was asking the minister about it.

My question is about what tasks specifically they were doing in the past that were unnecessary and inef-

ficient, case by case. The minister didn't answer. That's the connection to all of this.

Hon. J. Murray: Any implication that I was criticizing the staff for doing inappropriate tasks was certainly not my intention. What I was saying was that all sites were being treated as though they had the same level of risk, because that's the regime under the contaminated site regulation that the staff have been applying, and the staff have been carrying out their tasks according to the regulation.

With the new regime, staff will not be devoting time and effort and scrutiny to the low-risk sites. They will be focused on those that actually present a risk to human health and the environment. That is our response to the question: do we have adequate staff? Well, yes, if we have those staff focused where they are needed as opposed to being busy applying a complex regime right across the board, dealing with a few molecules of compound over a standard and no pathway to humans or the ecosystem in the same way as a site of major concern with major risks to people and the environment.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I was not accusing the minister at all of undermining the staff. I was definitely not doing that. What I was saying, though, is that this government does broad-brush stuff, saying the previous laws said all sites got treated the same, and therefore, regardless of risk, staff were doing exactly the same work.

That question was put to the auditor general's staff, and they said: "No, that's not the case." The amount of investigation and application of staff time was directly related to the risk by use of that site. If it was high risk because of what the site was going to be utilized for, then more rigour was applied, but if the site was not going to be used for high risk, then the rigour was not applied. Staff were not doing their jobs in a way that wasted their time, or whatever. That's what the auditor general's staff said as recently as last week.

Now we have a situation where the government has made massive cuts to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, and somehow things are going to be better in terms of contaminated site remediation because of this legislation. Well, let me ask this. In estimates, I think it was, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, who was heading up the cabinet committee on contaminated site remediation, informed me that in the '02-03 budget and '03-04 budget a total of $400,000 is budgeted for contaminated site remediation. What portion of that $400,000 is out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection budget?

Hon. J. Murray: None of that budget is out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Just to go back to the previous debate, I do want to clarify that the auditor general staff were auditing the remediation of Crown land only. That's a small subset of the total issue of contaminated sites. How the private sector is engaged in the remediation of contaminated sites is not always the same as the public sector. I think it's not accurate to extrapolate from the auditor general's comments about Crown land remediation where staff may have been more inclined to take a risk-based approach than the contaminated sites outside of Crown land, where the regulation did result in the scenario I've described where staff were engaged in the very low-risk sites as well.

J. MacPhail: Well, then perhaps the minister could give me details from the private sector, where she says there was inappropriate or unnecessary application of regulation. That's all I'm asking for, and I have yet to have an example.

Hon. J. Murray: Just for the member's information, we'd be happy to pull some of those files. We have dozens and dozens of files of sites that couldn't be classified as high-risk sites and yet were being regulated according to the numerical standards approach. We'd be happy to provide the member with that information, if she requests that.

J. MacPhail: How's the minister coming along on the money paid to Margaret Eriksson?

J. MacPhail: The definition under this section now talks about contaminated sites. It has a definition of contaminated sites, defined as those areas that are polluted by hazardous wastes or other substances but only in excess of risk-based criteria. As the minister has just demonstrated, the previous criteria included a risk factor. In fact, the control of pollution has always been risk-based in this province in the private sector and on public lands. Now the risk-based concept is being introduced into law but with no definition.

I also note, in section 63(1)(n) of this legislation, that it's the minister who gets to decide on the risk-based criteria. Given that we don't have a definition of "risk" in the act or its regulations, and since it's now the minister and not cabinet who gets to decide how the risk is to be measured, how will the minister demonstrate confidence that British Columbians can embrace risk-based factors? Also, how will the minister be able to demonstrate confidence that there will be no pressure to approve a risk-based standard in order to, for instance, speed up the sale of land?

Hon. J. Murray: The levels of risk to health, in terms of a percentage of a thousand people that might contract cancer from a compound — those kinds of levels of risk — are already identified in the contaminated site regulation. In the old regulation there were barriers to using the risk-based approach, which is why most of the site owners chose not to go that route.

J. MacPhail: Okay. For those of us who don't work for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection,

could the minister explain that a little more — that there are regulations? Is she going to continue on with those regulations? Has she removed the barriers to using the risk-based approach? Perhaps she could fill in the gaps there.

Hon. J. Murray: Two of the barriers to using the risk-based approach in the past have been…. One has been in and around the conditional certificate of compliance. We are addressing that in this rewrite.

Another barrier had to do with the fact that a site would be considered contaminated whether or not there was really a risk or a low risk. It was determined as a contaminated site as soon as the compound levels were over an identified standard. That's being changed, and a site will not be considered contaminated unless the compounds exceed the standard levels and there is a pathway to human health and the environment that constitutes a risk.

Part of the rewrite of the regulation that we'll be doing concurrently as we move forward will be to bring the standards for the compound levels in line with other parts of the country and in line with the research of the human health risk of those compounds.

J. MacPhail: I gather the minister means by saying that we've dealt with the barrier of the certificate of compliance by moving to a code of practice model…. How has the minister dealt with that barrier?

Hon. J. Murray: In the previous regime there was a conditional certificate of compliance and a certificate of compliance. The certificate of compliance was issued when the site owner chose the standards-based remediation approach. The conditional certificate of compliance was issued when the owner chose a risk-based approach. The market established a different value for those two certificates, and the conditional certificate of compliance became a barrier to choosing a risk-based approach. I hope that answers the member's question.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. It does. But what did the market do with those, that the minister is now suggesting the market should prevail and eliminate the conditional certificate? What happened there? It doesn't sound like it was legislation. It sounds like the market did something.

Hon. J. Murray: There was a perception of a difference in the validity of choosing a risk-based approach or choosing a standards-based approach.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Which did the market place a greater value on? In whose interest was the market value increased or decreased?

Hon. J. Murray: Whether a certificate is a conditional certificate of compliance or a certificate, it's equivalent from the ministry's perspective. It's a certificate that the conditions are in place to ensure that the site is safe. This was not an interpretation that was always placed on it by the lenders.

There was a prejudice against the conditional certificate of compliance that then skewed the application of this regulation and these regimes towards the standards-based approach, which led to the overly complex, expensive and prescriptive manner of dealing with sites that did not necessarily have any risk to human health and the environment.

J. MacPhail: This is a government that believes strongly in the market. Here we have two systems, one a standards-based approach and the other a risk-based approach, both of them available under the previous regime. The market determines that there is less value attached to the certainty of a risk-based approach.

Sorry. The staff is saying that's not true. I thought the conditional certificate of compliance was through the risk-based approach, and the minister said there was less value placed on that through the lenders, through the market. That's what I'm saying.

The lender, the market, the financiers say there's more value attached to a standards-based approach, and yet that's the one the government is eliminating. They're going to a risk-based model almost entirely. The minister is somehow suggesting that the perception created about a standards-based approach versus a risk-based approach is having them now move toward the lower standard, according to the market.

Hon. J. Murray: I think we're dealing with a perception issue, and we're also dealing with a reality issue. So in answer to the member's question, both the risk-based and the standards-based approaches will be available to be chosen under the regime that we're proposing, as it was before.

There was a perception that the standards-based approach was better, and in fact, in many cases it was a worse approach. So a lender could not necessarily know the details behind this relatively complex regime in which every situation has unique features. The fact that the standards-based approach was perceived by some lenders to be more valid was actually inaccurate in some cases, because the standards-based approach led to what was called a dig-and-dump remediation solution in which the soil was dug up, transported to another site and unloaded at that site.

That actually in some cases occasioned a release of organic chemicals and volatile materials into the atmosphere and into the surrounding environments. So the perception issue is being addressed here by having one form of certificate of compliance, which actually is consistent with the fact that — whether the remediation is under the standards-based approach or the risk-based approach — before a certificate is issued, there are conditions that will assure the public of the safety of that site.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's interesting. This free enterprise government is saying that the market got it wrong, and government knows best. Now we have

legislation here that says: "Gee, market. Gee, financiers. You got it wrong, and we're going to show you got it wrong by changing legislation."

Maybe there was actually something to the fact that the market placed greater value on a standards-based approach. Dig-and-dump sounds a little like Ralph Klein's "shoot, shovel and shut up" comment that got him in so much trouble. Anyway, in deference to my colleagues, I think that I'll move on, because others have questions as well.

I have one other question on this section on definitions. In the current act an orphan is defined as "(a) a contaminated site for which a responsible person cannot be found or is not willing or financially able to carry out remediation in a time frame specified by a manager, or (b) a contaminated site of which a government body has become the owner subsequent to the failure of the former owner to comply with a requirement to carry out remediation at the site."

I remember lots of discussion around orphaned sites and what happened to them, but I see this definition has been moved to regulation. Why is that?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm advised that the leg. counsel advised this as a drafting convention, that the determination of an orphan site would be in accordance with regulations as opposed to defined in the act.

J. MacPhail: A drafting convention — hmm. I'm not quite sure what drafting convention that could possibly be, because there are other definitions in that very same section. This is a section of definitions, and the previous section had a definition of an orphan site, and this one doesn't. For instance, it has a section called contaminated sites, etc. Anyway, whatever.

What drafting convention…? It's just not acceptable. I mean, I'm not in any way suggesting that that isn't the reason why it was done, but it does seem to be a little bit curious that the definition of an orphan site…. Orphan sites often create a great deal of controversy and expense for government in terms of remediation, so it does seem to be a bit unusual that all of a sudden those sites are now no longer defined and perhaps will be defined according to what the government wishes to have as the description of an orphan site in order to lessen costs on their own purse.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague in the Legislature, but I do await the answer on the money paid to Margaret Eriksson for the final report of the minister's advisory panel on contaminated sites.

D. MacKay: I'm a bit confused. These questions I'm going to ask might better be asked under part 5 dealing with the mining section of Bill 57, but I think I did hear the minister state that the regulations would define what a hazardous waste was — the regulations that will flow from this act once it's proclaimed. Is that right?

Hon. J. Murray: There is currently a special waste regulation that covers the management and regimes around hazardous wastes, so that exists. What I was saying earlier was that we are about to engage in a consultation with the range of stakeholders as to how that regulation could be changed and improved and updated.

D. MacKay: The reason I ask is because I'm going to ask specifically about sulphuric acid. It is naturally occurring in rock, where sulphuric acid reacts with the sulfides in the rocks. The catalyst to get it leaching, of course, is exposure to water and air. How do we determine at what point sulphuric acid becomes a hazardous material if, in fact, it's occurring naturally?

Hon. J. Murray: Currently, any level of sulphuric acid is defined as hazardous waste. That's under review, and we'll be working with the science advisory panel and with health experts as to what level actually does constitute a health risk. We're engaged in that consultation now.

D. MacKay: So what we have in place today could change with this rewrite. Is that what you're saying?

Hon. J. Murray: That's correct. That could change with the amendments to the regulation.

D. MacKay: Now, looking at section 45, where it deals with the following persons who are responsible for remediation of a contaminated site, it talks about the current owner or operator of the site, and sub (b) talks about a previous owner or operator of the site. Should it be a small mining operation and if the owner or operator dies, does the liability issue die with him if there's a contaminated site generated from his activities?

Hon. J. Murray: That liability would follow the deceased's estate, and there would still be an obligation to clean up the site.

D. MacKay: Section 46 is a section in Bill 57 that deals with the people who are not responsible for remediation, and sub-sub (d) is somewhat…. I think I

understand what you're doing there. It says that an owner or operator who establishes that at the time the person became an owner or operator of the site, if he knew that the site was a contaminated site or he's taken all steps to try to establish whether or not it was a contaminated site, he is now exempt from any liability on remediation. Is that what I'm reading there?

Hon. J. Murray: That's what that section says. I just would like to point out that at this stage there's no change from the Waste Management Act. This section is the same as the Waste Management Act, section 26.6. There are, of course, the liability issues around contaminated sites that were discussed by the panel, and there were recommendations made. We're consulting on the liability regime over this coming year. It's not part of this first set of changes, though.

J. MacPhail: Section 53 is about the approvals in principle and certificates of compliance. We've had a little bit of discussion about certificates of compliance. In this particular section, in reference to compliance with the remediation order, the current act states in section 27.6(3)(a)(i) that the remediation has been in accordance with (i) "prescribed risk-based standards and prescribed environmental impact standard."

This bill states, in accordance with (i), "the numerical or risk based standards prescribed for the purposes of the definition of 'contaminated site.'" So the new act, as I understand it, has removed any reference to compliance with the remediation order, any reference to prescribed environmental impact requirements. I thought I heard the minister say that risk-based standards and risk-based assessments and standards-based compliance would still be available under the new act. Where is the section elsewhere in the legislation that adds prescribed environmental impact requirements, which are the standards-based applications?

Hon. J. Murray: In section 53(3)(a)(i), what it says there is "the numerical or the risk based standards." So the numerical is the standard just based on the numbers. The risk-based is based on the potential impact on the environment. So that covers both.

J. MacPhail: So "prescribed environmental impact requirements" of the previous act has been replaced with the word "numerical"?

Hon. J. Murray: The term that the member is asking about is included in the risk-based standards description, which covers risk to environment or risk to human health.

J. MacPhail: Okay. But what I understood is that under the previous legislation, there are two types of applications. There are standards-based applications or regulations, and there are risk-based regulations. The previous act had prescribed risk-based standards, and they had prescribed environmental impact requirements — two different processes. I'm just confused about how you can then refer to the risk-based standards to somehow say there are prescribed standards. Wouldn't that get confused with the people who want results-based standards, which are risk-based?

Hon. J. Murray: In the previous iteration of this legislation, under what was section 27.6(3)(a)(i), prescribed risk-based standards and prescribed environmental impact requirements were both descriptions that are now covered by the term "risk-based standards" — risk to human health and risk to the environment.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister feel it was redundant? Is that the conclusion — that prescribed risk-based standards are the same as prescribed environmental impact standards?

Hon. J. Murray: Prescribed risk-based standards and prescribed environmental impact requirements both refer to the risk of the compound in terms of human health. The risk and then the prescribed environmental impact were both aspects of the risk to human health. We now have, under the new act, risk-based standards. We have two kinds. One is impact on human health, and the other is impact on the environment or the ecology.

D. MacKay: Just a follow-up to a previous question I asked the minister, dealing with section 46, where people are not responsible for the remediation — dealing with subsection (2). If an individual had passed on, you said the liability would follow his estate. If, in fact, he didn't have any estate — he was broke — who would be responsible for the remediation of that site? Would it revert back to the Crown, or could a new owner come along who knew the site was contaminated and be absolved from the liability issue that was left when this person passed on?

Hon. J. Murray: If a new owner came along and purchased the site — and presumably would know it was a contaminated site — that new owner would have the liability for the contamination and for the cleanup. If the owner is deceased and the estate is not able to carry out the remediation, that's the circumstance under which sites become orphan sites. They do revert to the Crown in that case, and they become the Crown's responsibility.

D. MacKay: Well, I'm a little bit confused now. Sub-subsection (d) says…. This is someone who's not

responsible for remediation. It says: "(d) an owner or operator who establishes that (i) at the time the person became an owner or operator of the site, (A) the site was a contaminated site…." He knows full well that the site is in fact contaminated. Are we not absolving him of the liability issue under subsection (A)?

Hon. J. Murray: In 46(d)(i), the clauses (A), (B) and (C) are additive, so if at the time…. If it's the owner who establishes that at the time the person became an owner or operator of the site, and the site was contaminated and the person had no knowledge or reason to know that, and the person undertook all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership, and so on…. Those are additive. They all need to be part of the situation.

Just dealing with section 58 and orphan sites, when I read the definition of orphan, I'm assuming it means a site that has been contaminated, and there's nobody left to assume liability. Is that right?

D. MacKay: The definitions section doesn't say that very well. Is there a time frame involved to determine an orphan site? What is it that determines an orphan site, and how many do we have in the province today? Does the minister know that?

Hon. J. Murray: We have no inventory of orphan sites, and that is one of the issues that was addressed by the auditor general's report. It was the recommendation that Crown sites are inventoried and we have a registry of those sites. We don't currently have a list of orphan sites.

D. MacKay: Dealing with subsection (3) of 58, it says: "If the minister has made a declaration under subsection (2), the minister may carry out remediation and recover the reasonably incurred costs of the remediation." My question is: if it's an orphan site, from whom is the ministry going to recover those costs?

Hon. J. Murray: Under the current liability scheme, which includes retroactive liability, the Crown can look to previous owners before the owner that was not able to remediate the site or was deceased or let go of the site. The Crown can go back to previous owners.

D. MacKay: Well, that causes me some concern. How far back would government go to find someone to pick up a liability issue? If it's an orphan site, it means there's nobody available to pay. It's been determined to be an orphan site by the ministry. Are we going to go back and go after grandchildren for remediation costs? Is that what this intends to do?

Hon. J. Murray: This set of changes has not addressed the liability issues. As I mentioned earlier, there were some concerns expressed through the consultation that the panel reported on, and there were some recommendations by the panel. That's a complex issue. That's part of our ongoing work on contaminated sites. We haven't addressed that at this stage.

D. MacKay: Well, I just want to understand this. Would the government go so far as to go back to some grandchildren from some old miners to get some costs for remediation? I'm concerned about going back a couple of generations, because some of these sites have been around for a long time. They're now an orphan site. There's nobody there to claim ownership for them. When I read that, it caused me concern that perhaps if I was to have had a mining site, when I passed on, my grandchildren — who had nothing to do with the minesite, except perhaps they probably helped me along a few times — are going to be responsible for any contamination that I may have caused at that workplace. That's what that section tells me.

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry would be looking to prior owners that contributed to the contamination and got benefit from the contamination of that site. It's unlikely that would land on the grandchildren of an owner.

D. MacKay: I'm sorry to belabour this, minister, but the issue is that I opened up the site. There are no other previous owners. I'm the sole owner. I started the minesite; I generated the problem. There's nobody else we can blame. I die and have no estate. We're not going back on the grandchildren?

J. MacPhail: Section 60 relates to a discussion the minister and I have had previously. Section 60 is entitled "Government retains right to take future action." Now, the current act, section 28.7, states that the director…. Actually, it says "manager," but I have assumed that everywhere manager was before, it has changed to director. So the previous act stated that the director/manager may exercise power under the act even if they've been exercised previously, if — and it says in (b) — "standards under the regulations have been revised so that conditions at a site exceed or otherwise contravene the new standards."

Now, that's been removed from the new bill. Given the fact that this is an area where new science may become available — and the minister has said that these standards will be science-based — or new technology becomes available to show that the current standards don't satisfy the needs of human or environmental health, I wonder if that site now, under this new legislation, can't be made to come up to standards de-

So to the minister: why is the consideration of new information, either new science or new technology, removed from the instances where the government could reassess a contaminated site? Given the fact that the minister has said all of these standards will be based on the priority of protecting human or environmental health, why is it that the government now can't reassess the contaminated site? Isn't it really the role of the government to ensure that human or environmental health is protected on an ongoing basis rather than just at any given point in time?

Hon. J. Murray: The section the member is referring to…. It's correct. The implication here is that if an owner has taken action to remediate a site adequate to the standards of that time, then should standards change in the future, that person would not be liable to remediate the site according to the changes in the standard of the regulation. That's needed so the owners can have some certainty and finality with respect to the investment they're making in remediation of the site. Should society's values change with respect to the remediation and the standards, it is not then imposed on an owner who has already taken the steps to remediate the site according to the proper standards at the time of their remediation.

J. MacPhail: I am confused by that. The minister has said that all of this is science-based, that she operates on science-based evidence and that all of this is done to protect human and environmental health.

Well, I guess what this government means by that is: given a Wednesday in October, if the owner meets those standards…. If some new information about detriment to human or environmental health comes available on a Thursday in October, then it doesn't apply. Who does absorb the costs of that effect on human or environmental health?

Hon. J. Murray: Well, should the director identify that the site poses a threat to human health and the environment, the director may exercise the powers to require remediation. It's not automatic, but it still is within the powers of government should it be a risk or threat.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister please point to me where the director has that power in the legislation?

J. MacPhail: Section 65(5) is, I think, a new section. It says that "a person who requests a director to issue an approval in principle or a certificate of compliance under section 53…or to provide any other services in relation to a contaminated site must pay the fees prescribed in the regulations for those services." Are these new fees?

Hon. J. Murray: Subsection (6) has been added to rectify an oversight when the provisions in part 5 were originally introduced. Mine owners and operators sometimes request this ministry to provide a service such as issuing an approval-in-principle or certificate of compliance. The way subsections 66(5), 67(4) and 68(4) of part 5 are now written, they restrict the ability of this ministry to collect fees for such requested services. This was not the intention of either this ministry or the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

J. MacPhail: The minister referred to a subsection (6). Or did I misunderstand her?

D. MacKay: Looking at section 68(1)(a), it says: "Despite section 45 [persons responsible for remediation of contaminated sites], a previous owner or operator of a producing mine site is not responsible for remediation of the site if (a) the owner or operator obtains a transfer agreement…."

How does one acquire a transfer agreement, and with whom — the government or the previous owner?

Hon. J. Murray: Firstly, I just want to note that there's no change from the Waste Management Act of section 28.92. To clarify, what this means here is that if an owner or operator obtains an agreement to operate the site with the approval of the chief inspector of mines, they can operate it without taking on the liability. The intent here is to enable sites that are already engaged in an activity to continue to be able to produce economic value without creating a liability for the operator.

D. MacKay: Following up on that, then, under section 68(1)(b) it also says that the owner can be excused for that site if, in fact, he gets an indemnification out of the Financial Administration Act. What is the process? How does one apply to get indemnification from a liability issue under the Financial Administration Act?

Hon. J. Murray: It's up to the risk management branch of the Attorney General to approve this. They can set terms. They can require a bond if they're satis-

fied that the risk is being managed, and they can give their approval to that agreement.

D. MacKay: If I understand it, it would just be a matter of a formality of submitting — what? — a letter of request for indemnification under the act.

Hon. J. Murray: It's a relatively informal process. The party that intends to or would like to operate the mines under a transfer agreement would go with the inspector of mines to the Attorney General's risk management branch and put a proposal forward to obtain that transfer agreement. Then the risk managers would make a determination as to whether the Crown is protected from risk in that situation and approve or turn down that request accordingly.

D. MacKay: Section 69(b) is my final question to the minister. It also talks about remediation of a historic minesite and people not being responsible for the cleanup. It says: "The person acquired the mineral or coal rights at the site for the purpose of undertaking mineral or coal exploration activities and the exploration activities have not exacerbated any contamination." My understanding from reading that is that it's okay to go and do exploration at a contaminated minesite providing you don't create more of a problem than already exists. The second part of my question is: if we allow that to happen for the exploration, why do we not allow it for mining if we're not going to increase the contamination that's already on site?

Hon. J. Murray: For the first question, the answer is: that's correct. For exploration, the person isn't responsible for remediation under those circumstances. The reason why that's the case for exploration but not for the activities is because the assessment of the Ministry of Mines is that there's far less disturbance with the exploration in there, so it's less likely to lead to an increase in the contamination than the actual operations of mining.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have the information about Margaret Eriksson's fees, please?

J. MacPhail: And what was the total bill she submitted for expenses and fees?

Hon. J. Murray: Overhead for Margaret and the rest of the panel was $39,441.25, and staff of Margaret's panel was $40,135.50 — for a total of $215,506.75.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have the final figure for the overall cost of the report? She said approximately $500,000, but is that still the figure?

J. MacPhail: In terms of the staff, the rest of the panel, how much money did…? The minister said money for the rest of the panel as well. Did they get paid fees as well? I'm just trying to figure out how much money went to those who are of Margaret Eriksson's office and her company versus what went…. That's just what I want to know: what went to her office, her and her company?

Hon. J. Murray: There were bills by the other two panel members who were not ministry staff, and that's Dennis Konasewich and Peter Lloyd. The figures I just gave the member were billed by Margaret, her staff and overhead that was incurred by her company on behalf of the activities of the whole panel.

J. MacPhail: I see. That money that you listed went to Margaret Erickson, either her company or herself. The final figure was…?

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 107 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 108 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 129 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. J. Murray: I move the amendment to section 139 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. J. Murray: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY