2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 17, Number 1

[ Page 5161 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: We have two very special guests here from Ducks Unlimited Canada. One is Wendy Thatcher, and the other one is Jeanette Daigneault. They are here from Ducks Unlimited, and their office is in Surrey. Last night they had a very good function for all the MLAs from the government and the opposition, and they had a nice dinner to explain both what Ducks Unlimited does and also to get support for other projects that they're doing. Would the House please make them very welcome for the great work they do.

Speaker's Statement

rules for public bills
in the hands of private members

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I had the opportunity to review Bill M202, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2010, which was introduced in the House by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. The bill seeks to impose a penalty under section 33 and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Environment — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 11.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On section 114 (continued).

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and staff.

I think we left off at section 114 the last time. I just have a couple more questions relating to the 5 percent of the land that's proposed for being set aside as parkland dedication. If I just get some clarification…. I think the way I read this is that the parkland "must not exceed 5% of the land being proposed for subdivision in respect of all the land to which the phased development agreement" applied.

I have a question. What if the developer volunteers more land than the 5 percent? I'm assuming that's permitted under these amendments — just to clarify. I've seen it happen before where the developer wishes to actually set aside a larger chunk of land because it will be a benefit. It's a win-win situation to the development and also to the community and the local government.

Hon. B. Bennett: There's still no limitation or restriction on local government or the developer, for that matter. If the developer did wish to donate more land to parkland, it can still be done as before.

[1010]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. Then, just on this whole section 114 — it's fairly large. Again, in this section, with the changes that have been made from what we had before to where we are now with these amendments, how will that benefit local government? Is that going to make life easier for these development decisions? Is it specifically to streamline things for either the developer or the local government in their planning stages?

Hon. B. Bennett: I was negligent in not introducing my staff that I have here this morning, Lois-Leah Goodwin on my left and Meagan Gergley on my right. Both provide excellent advice to the minister, and they're great people and great, dedicated public servants.

First of all to the member, a phased development agreement is a contract. It's a legal contract that is entered into willingly by both parties. So it's entered into by local government and the developer, and local government is under no obligation or pressure to enter into that contract.

In terms of the dedication of parkland, what we're doing here, basically, is changing the way that the 5 percent minimum land is dedicated to parkland. Under the current provisions, if there is a large project that is subject to a phased development agreement that has various stages of subdivision, at each one of those stages, local government and the developer have to determine where that 5 percent parkland will go within that subdivision. It's a time-consuming and can be an expensive process for local government and the developer.

What we're doing with this amendment is saying to the local government and to the developer that when you are entering into a phased development agreement,
[ Page 5162 ]
you can sit down and determine overall for all of the land — all of the land that would be subject to the various subdivision stages — where that 5-percent-plus land will be identified, put that in the agreement and basically be done with it.

It is, I think, an improvement. To answer the member's question, it's an improvement both for the developer and for local government, and local government, through UBCM, does support this particular amendment.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. I thank your staff, too, for the latitude. I find some of this confusing. The changes seem subtle, and I'm sure they are, in a lot of cases. In many cases, they're just clarifications, or they're reducing ambiguity. I appreciate that for everyone involved.

I want to clarify on this. In some phased-in developments, there's some fluidity to the future of these developments as they unfold. Sometimes circumstances change. Sometimes even the values of the communities change through amended OCPs and growth strategies and such.

Is it safe to assume that the parkland dedication, that issue, can be adjudicated right at the outset of a phased-in development? Aren't there cases where that might cause more problems down the road? The original thoughts may have changed as far as the values of the community go, as far as dedicating that parkland, for both the developer and the community.

If there were issues like that, is there anything in the act that will allow for some latitude later on, if things need to change?

[1015]

Hon. B. Bennett: The purpose of phased development agreements — one of the purposes, in any case — is to provide certainty to local government; certainty, of course, to the developer; and, frankly, certainty to the folks who buy the lots so that they know what the rules are in their subdivision. If the scenario that the member describes developed….

For example, you've got a large piece of land that's going to be subdivided in stages and is going into the phased development agreement, and the developer and the local government agree on where the 5 percent dedicated parkland is going to go. Let's say it's a 20-year agreement, and ten years down the line, the local government — a different regional district board — says: "You know, we're not really happy with the decision that was made by the previous board, and we'd like to have the parkland dedicated differently, in some other part of this large piece of land."

I think that's what the member is getting at. It's a legal contract. It can't be broken without being in breach of contract. However, it's certainly possible for the local government and the developer to sit down and talk and renegotiate that part of the phased development agreement.

Section 114 approved.

On section 115.

S. Fraser: Just a small point here, just a clarification. Section 115 amends section 905.4 of the Local Government Act. The way I think this section ensures that the specified subdivision bylaw provisions may not be dealt with…. If I get this right, it's not as a minor amendment to a phased development agreement.

First of all, is that correct — that interpretation?

Hon. B. Bennett: This particular amendment requires that a bylaw process be gone through by local government where a subdivision servicing agreement will be part of the phased development agreement. As I mentioned yesterday, zoning agreements are already part of the phased development agreements, since 2007. With zoning, if you're going to include zoning within your phased development agreement, you have to go through a full bylaw process, which requires public hearings.

With this amendment that we talked about yesterday, we're adding the subdivision servicing standards to zoning that's already there. We're saying that as with zoning, local government will have an obligation to go through a full bylaw process, which will require a public meeting, before they can include subdivision servicing standards as part of a phased development agreement.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification, because I find the legalese on this a little confusing. Section 115 says specifically that it "provides that specified subdivision bylaw provisions may not be dealt with as a minor amendment to a phased development agreement."

I just have one question, if I can harken back to yesterday's discussion. We were at 113. It also dealt with minor amendments, and there were changes made in section 867. It said the section "requires the establishment of an intergovernmental advisory committee if there is a proposed amendment to the regional growth strategy that is not a minor amendment."

Since we have this apparent change on 115 that says that the "specified subdivision bylaw provisions may not be dealt with as a minor amendment," I'm just wondering: is there any link here? Does this have any effect?

[1020]

Could this kick in 113 and require an intergovernmental advisory committee to be established? Is there any link there, or am I just off base on that one?

Hon. B. Bennett: Other than the use of the term "minor amendment," there is no linkage here. There is no parallel, no connection. On one hand, you've got
[ Page 5163 ]
phased development agreements and, on the other hand, regional growth strategy, so just no connection.

Sections 115 and 116 approved.

On section 117.

S. Fraser: Just moving to a slightly different issue here, where this section eliminates the wording "commercial" and "industrial" on this. I note that 117, 118 and 119 are all dealing with some of the same issues here — just more clarification.

I assume this is tidying things up in some way, but I guess I need a little bit of help and explanation of how this will specifically assist local government — these changes around the wording of "commercial" and "industrial."

Hon. B. Bennett: The existing provision provides that where procedures and policies on the process for requiring development approval information are established, an applicant for a temporary commercial or industrial use permit can be required to provide the necessary information.

The occasions under which a local government would be able to grant a temporary permit — in other words, to go against, essentially, their own bylaws temporarily — are limited today to "commercial or industrial."

What we're proposing to do with the amendment is to broaden the situations under which local government could utilize a temporary permit, make it a little more flexible and, I think, a lot more useful to local government.

There are situations such as…. Maybe all of a sudden you find that as a local government you need to create a housing shelter or something, and you don't have time to go through a full bylaw process. You need it next week or next month. Right now you wouldn't be able to grant that temporary permit. You wouldn't be able to, essentially, contravene your own land use bylaw in a particular neighbourhood in your community to do that.

There are other examples that I can provide to the member, but I think he will get the drift of what we're doing. Again, this helps local government because it gives them more flexibility to deal with situations that do come up from time to time.

I think, since I'm on my feet, I should mention that this amendment also extends the term for temporary permits from two to three years as well.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification. If I have it clear, this basically gives more discretion to local government, allowing them to do a temporary permit for things that are maybe not classified as commercial or industrial. So it allows them more latitude, then? If I can just get a nod if that's correct. Okay, thank you.

I know we're moving beyond this, so maybe we should wait until we get to…. I think 119 is when we get to the extending of the period. Maybe I'll just hold off until we get down to 119.

Sections 117 and 118 approved.

On section 119.

[1025]

S. Fraser: As I forewarned, I will stand up again on 119. I made note of the extended period from two to three years. That's in which the owner of the land…. This is for the use permit, which now can be issued by a local government regardless of whether it's an industrial or commercial property.

It can be potentially for any development that the council, the regional district or whatever the local body is sees as worthwhile. They can put in a temporary use permit, which now extends from two to three years under this change, in which the owner of the land in respect of which a temporary use permit has been issued….

Is that again a discretional thing? Does the local government decide it can be up to three years? Does it have to be three years, or is it allowing more flexibility — which I hope it does — to local government again?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a good question. The temporary permit can be granted for up to three years.

If we sat down and thought about this, we probably could come up with all manner of scenarios where local government might need a temporary land use permit in place that temporarily contravenes their own zoning for, perhaps, some sort of a festival or parade or something. Then there are other cases — if it's, perhaps, affordable housing or something like that — where they might need the full three years. But it is up to the local government to decide the term.

S. Fraser: I realize that there are an infinite number of scenarios, and the minister is right on that, I believe. I'll throw another one of those infinites out there.

If you have a three-year temporary permit which, essentially, is allowing flexibility and getting around the rules in some cases…. I think that's a good bit of flexibility to have, for some of the reasons that the minister mentioned. If it extends past an election period where, for instance, maybe this is a controversial issue — maybe some disagree in the community or some potential candidates disagree with the issuing of the permit because it does maybe contravene the spirit and intent of the community plan or something like that — can that be overturned by a subsequent council?

I'm not trying to be cheeky here. It's just that I've seen complete reversals on policy after an election, so I was just wondering. Council, in theory, is a continuing body, so they should be beholden, I would think, to the agreements made that the use permits, in this case of a
[ Page 5164 ]
previous council…. Are they? Do they continue, or can they be overturned by a subsequent council?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are two pieces to the answer, I think. The first piece goes to the stage prior to the temporary permits being granted.

Local government is limited by this legislation to granting these temporary permits to areas of their community where they've either got a zoning bylaw in place or an OCP in place and have identified in that OCP or zoning bylaw that temporary land use permits may be granted in that area. So they can't just pick a place anywhere in the community and say: "Well, I think we'll grant a temporary permit over here."

[1030]

It has to have been identified through a public process prior. The public will have had an opportunity to be involved in that and to know that there's a potential for temporary permits to be granted, and I thought the member would be interested in knowing that.

With respect to whether or not a temporary permit could be arbitrarily cancelled by a local government, whether it's a new council or an old council, my advice is no, not legally.

S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification from the minister.

Just the last probe on this particular change: might not a temporary permit of this nature require…? Say it contravenes the spirit and intent of an official community plan. As the minister knows, in local government there is a process for amending an official community plan. An official community plan has some flexibility to it through amendment. Is there a case where there might be a requirement, in issuing such a permit, to amend the official community plan to make sure that it's in line with the spirit and intent of that plan?

Hon. B. Bennett: The local government would not be able to issue a temporary permit unless the area in which the permit was proposed was identified in the OCP or the zoning bylaw, as I said a minute ago.

If there was a desire on the part of local government to issue a temporary permit in some part of the municipality where residents had not had the opportunity to be involved in that decision through a zoning bylaw or an OCP, they would actually have to go through the OCP or zoning bylaw amendment process, which would involve the public. They would have to then change the areas of the community where temporary permits could be granted and, as I say, go through the public process. After that amendment was adopted formally they would then be able to issue the temporary permit, if they wanted to.

S. Fraser: I'm sorry. I misled the House here. I said that was my last thing, but the minister has just sparked another question, hon. Chair.

Can these permits be issued in the case of an emergency? Say you're on a waterfront, and you're facing a major erosional aspect. Is this the right tool? Can this tool be used, the temporary permit? Can it supersede some of the established rules in the case of an emergency — for somebody trying to protect their property, for instance? Or is that the wrong mechanism to use?

Hon. B. Bennett: That's another good question. I'm advised that there are other tools within the legislation that would allow local governments to address emergency situations more effectively, more easily than this particular tool, although this particular tool, the temporary permit, does not require any sort of an OCP, public type of process. It's a permit that's granted by the administration of the municipality. Nonetheless, apparently, there are other legislative tools that would be more useful.

Section 119 approved.

On section 120.

S. Fraser: I'm a little confused on this section, if the minister could help me with this one. It's dealing with development cost charges. If I'm reading this correctly, it now provides, with the changes, that funds may be used to pay a person for projects if certain requirements are met. My history dealing with DCCs, which are often controversial in the development community in communities across the province, is that they are usually dedicated towards community infrastructure, that sort of thing.

[1035]

What are we talking about here — paying a person? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if I could get some clarification.

Hon. B. Bennett: Of course, the DCC reserve fund is a dedicated financial account that's created to receive funds that will be used for a specific purpose, and the fund can only be used for the purpose that it was created for. So that's what the fund is. What this amendment does is it clarifies the authority for local government to use that fund to pay the capital costs of services that are constructed by a developer that are beyond the developer's obligations to construct for their particular development.

Let me give you an example. Where a developer is putting in services — underground services, you know, sewer, water; aboveground services, sidewalks, gutters, roads, etc. — there may be a need for local government to have the same sorts of services constructed very nearby. It maybe a connection to existing services.

The contractor is there, the equipment is there, the materials are there, the expertise is there, and the local government may say: "Well, while you're at your own
[ Page 5165 ]
development, we'd like you to do this little piece right next door to you." This enables local government to use that DCC reserve fund to pay for that kind of work.

S. Fraser: Thanks, that helps. The term "person," I guess, is what threw me. I didn't see it specifically aimed at an infrastructure project. The person being a contractor — is that what we're talking about here?

Hon. B. Bennett: If I understand the member's question, the use of the word "purpose" is the broader legal meaning of the word "person," so it could be an individual developer or a limited company that enters into this agreement with the local government to provide these extra capital works, which will be paid for from the DCC reserve fund.

Section 120 approved.

On section 121.

S. Fraser: Just a clarification again here. The section provides that a DCC bylaw "has no effect for one year if the bylaw is adopted after an application for a building permit has been submitted." Is that a change? What's the current situation? How does this amendment change from what we have now?

Hon. B. Bennett: It is a change, but it's paralleled with another section in the Local Government Act, section 943, that protects developers for 12 months from changes to land use bylaws after a subdivision application has been submitted and the required fee paid. I would hope, for obvious reasons, that once the subdivision application has been completed…. They're obviously quite complex and expensive to put together. They're submitted, and the required fee is paid. They have 12 months' protection from changes to land use bylaws. That already exists.

What we're doing with this amendment is we're saying that where you have an application for a building permit submitted and you've paid your fee, if there are any changes — so local government wants to suddenly increase the development cost charges through a bylaw — the person holding the building permit, having paid the fee, will be protected from any changes to the development cost charge bylaw for 12 months.

[1040]

So it is a parallel to the same situation that already exists in the Local Government Act for land use bylaws.

S. Fraser: Just to make sure I've got this right, it's essentially saying that there's no…. You can't levy a changed DCC retroactively. Is that essentially what we're doing here — just so that the developer has some certainty, contractually, once he's got his business plan and his financing in place? Am I correct? Is that the intent of this?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes.

Sections 121 to 123 inclusive approved.

On section 124.

S. Fraser: On this section where…. It's amending this section. It's replacing the term "approving officer" — which I'm certainly very familiar with, and everyone in local government is — with a "designated municipal officer."

Now, oftentimes, in small communities especially, an approving officer ends up being the city administrator — someone of that nature — with the professional capacity that they have. They're often the only person available that's there locally that can maybe handle that sort of a role. The approving officer is a specific…. I mean, it has almost a quasi-legal role, and it has to be separated from, say, the role of an administrator. In essence, that person would have to wear two hats and often does in these cases.

How does the change to designated municipal officer from approving officer…? I'm just not sure how that…. What's the ramification of a change — just a name change as such? Again, what's the rationale? What effect might this have on local government or the role of what we call now the approving officer?

Hon. B. Bennett: This amendment is intended to deal with the situation that local governments have found themselves in from time to time. For the member's information, local government did request this amendment. They find themselves in a situation sometimes where an application is provided to local government, but it doesn't go directly to the approving officer. As the member has suggested, that's a quasi-judicial officer.

Sometimes it goes to another member of the administration. The developer could come along or the applicant could come along later and say: "Well, my 12-month protection time shouldn't have started, based on the legislation, until the application actually reached the desk of the approving officer." And local government is saying: "Well, no, it should start when it actually comes into city hall."

So by changing the terminology from "approving officer" to "designated municipal officer," we're essentially assisting local government to make it clear to the applicant that "No, your 12-month protection period starts when you bring it into city hall and it is paid for and accepted by one of our staff."

S. Fraser: I wasn't even close on that in my interpretation. I appreciate that clarification from the minister.

[1045]

Essentially, if I've got this right, this will allow clarification that an application comes in to the front desk at the municipal hall. It's stamped, signed off by a clerk in
[ Page 5166 ]
the office, somebody in the office staff, but has been received officially even if it hasn't reached the hands of the approving officer. So again, just clarification. This in no way diminishes the role of the approving officer. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Bennett: That is correct.

Section 124 approved.

On section 125.

S. Fraser: Sections 125 and 126 are dealing with a lot of the same issues here. I have one question regarding…. In this day and age we're dealing with a lot of…. A newspaper takes on different meanings. We have a lot of on-line publications that are very reputable and certainly have the readership in some cases, in many cases, of regular newspapers.

Is there consideration for on-line newspapers to be captured in this? It may have been. It's a fairly long section. Maybe I've just missed it, but if the minister can comment.

Hon. B. Bennett: The amendment does, in fact, include a provision that states: "The council may provide any additional notice respecting a matter that it considers appropriate, including by the Internet or other electronic means."

Section 125 approved.

On section 126.

S. Fraser: Just following up. Thanks to the minister for that previous answer. I guess a question…. This is dealing specifically with the Vancouver Charter. Is consideration allowed for other communities in the province to utilize on-line newspapers for their ads? There are a substantial amount of requirements, legally, for notices to be put out — that sort of thing.

Is that allowed for under the Community Charter or under any of the amendments that we've talked about? Maybe I've missed it, but if the minister could give me a bit of latitude here. It's of interest to me, because I believe it's a new medium that needs to be respected and given its chance too.

Hon. B. Bennett: We are, with this amendment, bringing the Vancouver Charter up to the same level as the Community Charter. Communities other than Vancouver under the Community Charter are already authorized to do what we are now going to authorize Vancouver to do with these amendments.

Sections 126 and 127 approved.

On section 128.

S. Fraser: This will be the last section that I have a question on, just for everyone's edification here. On this section here now…. Formerly, the council could make bylaws related to removing, collecting, transferring, recycling and disposing of solid waste. However, this legislation now allows…. It establishes specifically some differences here — like different classes of waste, classes of persons, different classes of property, different areas of the city and different classes of solid waste service.

For me, this looks like a good move. I need clarification. Was there no ability for Vancouver to have that flexibility in the existing legislation before these amendments?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is one of those situations that I'm learning is very, very common, as between the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter. Because we still have the Vancouver Charter and because the legislation was drafted in really a completely different way than the Community Charter was drafted….

[1050]

On one hand, the Community Charter gives quite general powers for bylaw-making, and on the other hand, you've got the Vancouver Charter, where bylaw powers are quite circumscribed in that piece of legislation.

So to answer the member's question, yes, it's true that currently the city of Vancouver can't adopt a bylaw that would enable them to manage solid waste differently in different parts of town. It seems unusual, but that is the case. This amendment will give them that flexibility.

Sections 128 to 140 inclusive approved.

The Chair: The committee shall recess for five minutes while we wait for the minister to come for section 141.

The committee recessed from 10:51 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

On section 141.

L. Krog: My reading of both this and section 142 is that this is essentially clarifying that you can be a child, a parent or a spouse and you can be a guardian for an adult person or hold power of attorney for them. I assume there's been some issue — some case, some problem — that's caused this to arise. If the minister can just confirm what I've just said and clarify what's led to this change.

[1055]

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, this is part of an effort to align the language which is currently provided in the continuing care regulation act with the Hospital Act.

I have to apologize. The way this is laid out on a number of the issues we're going through sort of breaks up the
[ Page 5167 ]
pieces in a way that doesn't make it easy for me or the members opposite to actually discuss. The meat of this will be in sections 162 to 164.

But in essence, what we're doing is providing the same protection that is governed under the continuing care regulation into the Hospital Act to make sure there is no gap.

L. Krog: Just to clarify, we are dealing with the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act. So again, it is just simply to get us consistent across the board — there's no issue — and to ensure that, in fact, close relatives can be appointed in these positions and the language is clear.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. We're aligning the language to define more clearly what a relative is.

Sections 141 to 144 inclusive approved.

On section 145.

A. Dix: Just to the minister: I presume this section is adding "emergency medical assistant" to a list of people to whom this would apply. Is that the purpose of this section?

Hon. K. Falcon: This section has already been enacted. It's actually consequential to section 148.

Again, I do have to say that this is challenging for both sides to go through when it's broken up in this manner. But it is consequential to 148.

Sections 145 to 147 inclusive approved.

On section 148.

A. Dix: I guess the first question I'll ask on this section, which I think the minister would expect a few questions on, is to clarify his future intention.

On the first part of it, the principle of shifting the regulation-making power from the cabinet to the minister…. Maybe the minister can speak to the purpose of that just to get started.

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, Member. The amendments here are really about enabling the development of new regulations that will allow paramedics with appropriate training and medical oversight to provide an expanded range of emergency and non-emergency services through closer integration with the health authorities.

The regulation-making powers will be transferred to the minister from cabinet. That will align the emergency health services agency with similar powers that are currently enjoyed by the minister under the Health Professions Act. The new regulation-making powers will be similar to those that the minister enjoys under the Health Professions Act.

[1100]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

But the overall intent here is to follow up on a commitment we made, particularly with paramedics working in rural and remote communities, to deal with their very legitimate complaint and concerns that see them, because of very low call volumes, having to be paid a $2-an-hour standby fee while they, you know, work in another job or do whatever they can waiting around for these calls.

We recognize that that is underutilizing individuals with important skill sets and that our commitment and goal was to ensure that we would make some changes that would allow those rural and part-time paramedics to have opportunities to be more closely integrated into the health care system by providing additional services which would result in them being able to have full-time family-supporting jobs which would provide the stability and support they need to really have a very good chance to have a career as a paramedic in British Columbia.

A. Dix: I guess the question to the minister, first of all, is…. We've seen several very successful efforts, I think, in recent years to integrate the work of paramedics with the health care system. One of them is in Trail. The minister will be familiar with that, the critical care team in Trail. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us — if he agrees with me, that that's been a success — whether it's his plan to continue doing this.

Obviously, that's in place under the present arrangements. Whether the critical care team will continue to be around in Trail…. Well, maybe I'll let it…. It's an example of something that exists now, that occurs now, under the current framework. Whether the minister sees that as a model and whether he expects the critical care team in Trail to continue to work, as it has been successfully in the last few years….

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, that is exactly the kind of thing that we're talking about. It wouldn't be limited to that kind of a situation.

It would also include allowing paramedics to work in long-term care facilities, which would allow them to provide some of their very important skill sets they have in dealing with issues in long-term care facilities and also in health care centres. Obviously, this is particularly important in areas that have a real challenge recruiting doctors or registered nurses, to some of these rural, remote communities in particular. These are areas where health authorities could very much utilize the skill set that paramedics have to offer.
[ Page 5168 ]

A. Dix: I don't want to belabour the point. Maybe the minister can satisfy my curiosity, whether it's his plan — in that case, as he says, it's one of the proposals that's happened already, one of the partnerships that happened between the health authority in that case, the IHA and the Ambulance Service — specifically in that case, that that critical care team will continue to function in its existing role.

Further, maybe the minister can take us through the process now. As he says, in this case, it's the regulations that will matter and not the legislation, which is just enabling. So maybe the minister can take us through the process. As he will be aware, we've had a few debates about the Ambulance Service in this House over the last few years and, indeed, the last year since he became the minister.

There's obviously concern when regulation powers are put in the hands of one person, the minister, and it affects people's livelihoods and so on. Maybe he can elaborate as to what process he's going to undertake now of consultation and discussion with ambulance paramedics, because obviously that'll be a critical part of the process — not just ambulance paramedics presumably but other health professions — once he takes on these powers.

[1105]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is entirely correct that a full consultative process would be undertaken prior to the establishment or implementation of regulations being put into place. Staff have advised me we have already committed to some of the respective interested groups — including CUPE and the EMA licensing board, the BCMA, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to name a few — that they will be involved directly in the formation and implementation of the regulations.

A. Dix: Would the minister be prepared to advise us of the time frame for those consultations and when he expects to proceed with these changes, these really important changes, with respect to scope of practice? Those are two questions. I tend to add questions on for the minister. Why don't we just ask him about the time frame of the consultation, for the moment?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess the short answer is: as soon as possible. One of the commitments I made repeatedly, and a number of my colleagues have made repeatedly, to the ambulance paramedics, particularly rural-remote, is that this was an issue that we felt was a priority, should be a priority.

We believe that they have a skill set that can certainly play an expanded role within the health system. It can certainly be beneficial to them in terms of providing the opportunity for a full-time — and family-supporting, obviously — job salary, while at the same time still having them available to do call-outs as ambulance paramedics.

We have committed to getting that done, and my goal is to get that done as quickly and responsibly as we can do — subject, of course, to the appropriate consultative process involving all the appropriate stakeholders.

A. Dix: On the consultation process, is it the minister's plan to consult first and then prepare draft regulations? Would we expect to see draft regulations and consultation first and then a consultation? I know, and he will know, that there's concern amongst ambulance paramedics — but not just ambulance paramedics — about this process. Can the minister let us know what we would see?

Would we see draft regulations in advance of regulations coming forward? One of the challenges with this process — and I understand it aligns with other acts — is that it becomes the minister's discretion. Presumably, if the regulations were ready tomorrow, he could take those forward without even going to cabinet, under these regulations, under this change.

I'm just wondering what the process would be that he plans to undertake, and would it include the publishing of draft regulations and a proposal that would then seek public comment?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, the legislation we're discussing today is enabling, so it does provide the minister the ability to implement regulations appropriate to move forward with the spirit of the enabling statutory authority. It's exactly similar to what we've done with the Health Professions Act, and I think that is entirely appropriate.

How we would move forward would be…. Generally, what we do is provide draft regulations that we take out for discussion with the respective groups. The respective groups then have their opportunity to have input into how they view the regulations, how they believe it will affect their interests, and what suggestions or input they might have in terms of trying to improve those regulations. Then we will take that information and incorporate it, if appropriate, into the final regulations, which would be implemented through the ministry.

[1110]

A. Dix: In terms of the scope of that discussion, what the minister is talking about is enabling ambulance paramedics to take on other roles. I think that's what he's seeing as, at least, his step under that, but certainly his regulation-making power isn't limited to that.

Just for clarification: does the minister plan to make changes with respect to qualifications, examination, training, registration and licensing of emergency medical assistants? Will the consultation be limited to those issues, particularly of rural-remote paramedics and expanding their scope of practice, or are there other changes the minister has in mind?

While I'm on my feet, I might ask whether the minister…. There was some discussion from the previous Minister
[ Page 5169 ]
of Health as to the question of a college. I'm wondering if that idea is still before the government.

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member's second point first. We are maintaining the option of the college, though that's not going to be a priority for government to move forward with respect to the college in the near term. But we have been careful to maintain that option should that be something that we desire, in consultation with the paramedics. We collectively desire that that's the right way to move forward.

With respect to the issue of training, the member is absolutely right to raise that issue, because right now paramedics, generally, are trained to follow protocols. What we are asking them to do is a little bit different than just following protocols. We're asking them to use some form of clinical judgment in some cases in what would be the proposed expanded scope of the role of paramedics, particularly in the rural-remote areas.

With respect to that, there will almost certainly be, depending on where we end up in the discussions and consultations, required training upgrades for paramedics. I think that is a good thing.

The roles will be assessed to determine what level of training upgrade would be required depending on what additional roles are being asked or potentially being asked of paramedics in different areas, and that will be different. It will be different in the Lower Mainland than it would be in a rural-remote community.

We do believe that those are going to be issues, and we are contemplating training upgrades being part of the services to be provided for paramedics.

A. Dix: Just to assist us, then, and take us through what the minister has in mind, take a remote ambulance station like Anahim Lake. The Canadiens are playing tonight, so it seems appropriate to talk about Anahim Lake.

[1115]

I ask the minister: in that case, what kind of thing would the minister envision for the paramedics there? He will know that that station is frequently…. They're unable to keep it open, and it's very important that it stay open. In a community like that, what options would the minister pursue? Presumably, they would be different options in what you call remote ambulance stations than they might be in what are defined as rural ambulance stations. Can the minister just take me through the process there? In some respects the circumstances of a station such as that are unique.

Hon. K. Falcon: Where we're looking at an expanded role for paramedics, a couple of areas would immediately come to mind. One is when you think about long-term-care facilities, for example. You've got a situation where perhaps a catheter has slipped out. Perhaps you've got a wound dressing issue, where right now a paramedic called to a situation like that is actually required statutorily to take that individual immediately to an emergency department, where they must be looked at by a physician. They have to hand them off to a physician.

What we believe is that in a case like that, with appropriate training and appropriate medical oversight, it would be entirely within the skills set of a paramedic to be able to deal with the reinsertion of a catheter or in fact to deal with a wound dressing if there's a problem with a wound dressing. That would be one example.

The other, particularly in rural communities, I guess, is what I would describe as an extra pair of hands to provide assistance in clinics, in emergency rooms or, as I mentioned previously, in long-term-care facilities, where you could have a paramedic working a regular shift in support of other medical professionals but being available for call-out when they have that often rare case of a situation where they're required to be called out as an ambulance paramedic. It is a role not, obviously, to replace the role of MDs or RNs but actually to fill service gaps, particularly in some of these rural-remote communities where it's very difficult to attract and retain health care professionals.

These are a couple of areas that come to mind in terms of where and how paramedics in rural-remote British Columbia could have an expanded role which would meet the needs of the health care system and the health authorities while at the same time providing certainty and income support for those paramedics to ensure that they can have a full-time career as medical professionals, both as paramedics and working as part of a support team in the health care system.

A. Dix: In terms of the work as a support team, is what the minister is talking about, of having ambulance paramedics trained…? I mean, conceivably this could happen already in a certain community. One could be an on-call paramedic and be a health care professional in another area. This is possible today, I would presume.

Is the minister talking about what is essentially not a regulatory change but a training change, where we actively encourage and pay for added training? Is it the minister's intention in this case to make that training the financial responsibility of the ambulance paramedic? Or will the minister have, and is he planning on having, a budget to pay for that training?

[1120]

Hon. K. Falcon: What we're doing…. As you know, it currently stands that paramedics are limited to only doing emergency work, and there are very strict protocols around what they are capable of doing with their training.

Primarily it means, as I mentioned earlier, that if they are out on a call and they're dealing with an individual, they have to take that individual to an emergency department,
[ Page 5170 ]
they have to follow the protocols of handing off to a physician, etc., and there is no ability for independent clinical judgment in terms of how to do that.

So the first thing we have to do is remove that restriction, to allow for an expanded scope. Then we have to determine what that expanded scope should look like. This is part of the discussion and consultation that will go on.

What I can say for sure is that the emergency and health services commission believes that rural-remote paramedics in particular will require upgraded training to be able to appropriately provide some of that clinical judgment, whether they're working in an emergency department or they're working in a long-term-care home or whatever the case may be, whatever the identified needs are.

Dependent on what the different areas' identified needs are, there almost certainly will be a requirement for training upgrading. It will be the responsibility of the commission to determine what level of training upgrading is required, but certainly we will be providing money to the commission to fund the training upgrades that are going to be required for those paramedics.

I actually think that this will be something that will be quite happily embraced in a fairly positive way by paramedics, because they will be not only able to upgrade their skill set, which will provide an additional benefit on their paramedical responsibilities, but it will also give them the ability to, as I mentioned earlier, be more involved more broadly in the health care system. That will allow the system, as I say, to be able to employ them on a full-time basis in a way that allows them to support their families and give some income stability in their livelihoods while, at the same time, providing some significant benefit overall to the health care system.

A. Dix: Just on the first point. The minister talks about providing resources to the commission as a matter of principle, as the minister is saying. These issues of training and the cost of training have sometimes been an impediment to addressing the shortage of rural and remote paramedics. Is the minister saying that this won't be, that he's not planning an incremental cost directly on the ambulance paramedics to be upgraded in these circumstances? That's the first question.

I understand the issue of the independent clinical judgment that was mentioned by the minister in his release on this question. But I think there's that question, and then there's the question of adding responsibilities such that the jobs in question might become full-time jobs or more significant part-time jobs. I don't believe, and maybe the minister can tell us, that just this issue of independent clinical judgment, which might well make sense…. But that, especially in the cases of remote ambulance stations, is unlikely to dramatically change the workload in and of itself.

[1125]

I may be wrong, but I think that in terms of the hours of work, it will make a significant difference in circumstances, and it might very well be a good idea in those circumstances. But the kinds of changes the minister is talking about to make this work essentially full-time work or more significant part-time work would involve something different — wouldn't they? You wouldn't just have people…. As the minister says, an extra set of hands. It would have to be an extra set of hands with very defined tasks and a real job. That would be what would happen, I presume.

Could the minister take us through those things? The cost of the training — have they done any assessment of how much extra work that independent clinical judgment would provide?

Thirdly, can he give us other examples, other than that, of the kind of work that would be done? For example, is he talking about the work of nurses, care aides, LPNs? What kind of work is he talking about in terms of providing the bulk of the paid work for which the paramedical work would be extra?

Hon. K. Falcon: With respect to the member's first point around the issue of upgraded training, I'm advised that we provide additional resources to the emergency and health services commission and the Ambulance Service budget every year to deal with issues around training. So any upgrades of training required for paramedics, I understand, are covered as a result of the budget lifts that are provided and would be covered for the paramedics that are required to upgrade their training.

With respect to the member's second point, the whole question of how does this work, the public policy rationale behind this is fairly straightforward. We believe that paramedics, with appropriate training and with appropriate medical oversight, can provide an expanded role within the health care system. Right now they can't be employed in things like residential care settings because they are not doing emergency work.

So we believe that — particularly in the case of rural and remote paramedics, where the emergency work volume is not sufficient to provide and support a full-time income — there are opportunities for those rural-remote paramedics to play an additional role within the health care system while still being available for call-out. How that role will play out will be different in every area, to be honest. I mean, it will depend on the particular jurisdiction. It might be different in a rural area than in a remote area.

But the principle is that we want to ensure that we eliminate the restriction that says they can only do, first of all, emergency work. We want to broaden their potential scope of activity to include the kinds of examples I gave to the member, whether it's working in a long-term residential care setting, whether it's working in a local health clinic, whether it is particularly assisting in some
[ Page 5171 ]
of the roles that are very difficult to attract to rural-remote settings.

[1130]

It's very difficult, as the member knows, even with enormous financial dollars being put in to essentially try and bribe or do whatever we can to bring health professionals up to rural-remote areas. It's tough to get people to go somewhere where they don't want to go, even though we provide enormous financial incentives to do so.

In areas like that, one of the things the health authorities have indicated to us is that they do believe that properly trained paramedicals can provide assistance in some of these health centres or emergency departments.

Our goal is to make sure that the framework is put in place that will, as we are doing through these statutory changes, allow us through the consultative process to identify what those opportunities are, identify the additional training upgrades that may or may not be required to have paramedics engage in those opportunities and ensure that we have a health care system that is trying to work to the benefit of the public and patients.

A. Dix: I'm not going to spend long. I appreciate very much the minister having a discussion about the regulatory side of this. We're not going to take very much longer. I know that there's also a debate that we'll have about the ambulance service in estimates in the coming weeks. I don't want to go too far on that.

Maybe the minister can help me understand just a little bit more. I'll try and get a little bit more on two specific questions. First of all, the critical care team in Trail — does he see that continuing on? Two, I understand there's budget allocated for training. I just want to clarify: does he see any incremental costs on ambulance paramedics for the training?

Why don't I ask him those two questions. I'll have one more and then finish.

Hon. K. Falcon: To the second point first — any incremental cost to the paramedics. I'm advised that no, the training upgrades that are requested through the emergency and health services commission would not be an incremental cost to the paramedics.

In terms of the critical care team in Trail, again, I don't personally have a huge amount of extensive knowledge on that, but I am led to understand from staff that that is a pilot, and the goal is to continue with that pilot project.

A. Dix: I just want to see if the minister can take me through, very briefly, how this will affect different groups of paramedics — what he proposes.

There are paramedics in remote stations. They're on the $2 standby. It's hard to even call $2 a wage, but they get $2 an hour on standby — right? Although in most of those remote areas there aren't a lot of health care facilities around, presumably today someone trained as an RN, LPN or care aide could conceivably — because those are not in-station standby wages — do that job today and do the job of an ambulance paramedic. They do a call-out, just as they might if they were — I don't know — an accountant or a forest worker or whatever in their primary job. There's that set of things.

[1135]

One would assume that the challenge with that group of people is finding the work, because it is in the nature of remote areas that there aren't a lot of other health care facilities around, and that will continue to be a greater challenge.

Then there's a second group where you're in-station and being paid the $10-an-hour wage. You're in-station, and you get paid the full wage when you're called out. Is what the minister is envisioning a more significant change to that group in rural stations, where you're in-station getting paid a small amount of money and paid the full rate when you're called out?

Is it that group of people that the minister envisions, not staying in the station but rather…? In that case, people are being paid to wait and then called out a certain amount. Is it that group of people that he sees as the primary focus in that, in rural as opposed to remote?

Then obviously there are full-time paramedics who probably would be dramatically less affected by this. Can he let us know what he envisions today? Because I understand that this is a process for remote stations as opposed to rural stations.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, the member is right to point out…. And I should say that the $2-an-hour standby rate, although helpful, is certainly still a challenge for people that are trying to make a full-time career as an ambulance paramedic.

Now, we as a government brought in that $2-an-hour standby rate. There used to be no standby fee at all for the paramedics, which would make it even more difficult, as you can imagine. I don't know if the member opposite grappled with that when they were in government, but we decided to bring that in to make sure we at least deal with the situation in some part.

One thing I will say is that what we're not going to do is prescriptively define, prior to the public consultation and the consultation we're having with the different stakeholder groups, exactly how each of those groups will be impacted. What I would say is that we will target, and we are targeting, both groups to ensure that we provide additional expanded opportunities for them in the health care system.

Both of those groups will be part of the discussion because we want to — in working with health authorities, in working with hospitals, in working with other health care professionals — better define how we can include
[ Page 5172 ]
them in an expanded role that will provide them with some income support to allow them to engage in this as a true career as health professionals.

I can't say to the member exactly how that's going to look, except to say that the principle that will be guiding this minister will be a principle that says that we value the work that rural-remote paramedics do. We want to ensure that they have the ability, through appropriate expansion of their scope of practice, to be able to support them in a full-time position doing not only their paramedical work, which is very important and is still a priority, but also supporting other sectors of the health care system.

I can't prescriptively say exactly what those will be because, of course, we have to engage in a fairly wide-ranging discussion, but the principle of ensuring that rural and remote paramedics are going to be looked after and have expanded scope and roles within our health care system is the principle which drives the changes we're making today and which I will ensure are going to be implemented to the benefit of not only the paramedics, but to the members of the public, which will benefit from the additional services they can provide.

A. Dix: Just a final question about the consultation process. What the minister is proposing is an initial consultation with people, the eventual production of draft regulations, another consultation period after that and then the enactment of the regulations. That's what he's envisioning?

[1140]

I guess on top of that, I think what I get from the minister is that, because of the enormous diversity of circumstances around the province, once that happens, this will also be an ongoing process. In fact, circumstances being different, health facilities being different…. There are some communities that have no long-term-care homes, of course — lots of them — which have remote ambulance stations.

Does the minister think that at the end of that process what we'll have is an ongoing process of dealing with maybe addressing specific circumstances? Or does he see the process ending and letting it work for some time?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member is absolutely correct in that this will almost certainly be an evolutionary process, because as communities change, as they grow or they shrink or what have you, then presumably the roles could also evolve. So it will have to be something that we are constantly monitoring and no doubt will be constantly evolving as we go forward.

I think that the principle that underlies what we're trying to do is a good one, and as I say, every situation, every remote community, every rural community has some unique differences. Some have health centres. Some don't. Some have emergency departments. Some don't. But we do think there is an opportunity for paramedics to play a greater role, and we are looking forward to them doing so.

N. Macdonald: Specifically I'll be asking about Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere and Kimberley. These stations, of course, have people to stay at the station at $10 an hour. For the past number of years there was a logic to what the government did in terms of trying to get paramedics in a place where they could react quickly, but in terms of details, there were all sorts of complications for each of those communities.

As the minister will be aware, in Revelstoke there were challenges, and there continue to be challenges — hopefully, they'll be rectified within the next six months — around paramedics staying at the station. In each of the communities there are retention issues that the minister is trying to address here.

The question, then, is just on the specifics. How does the minister see this working specifically for a community?

Let's use Revelstoke as an example. Does the minister see the paramedics, at a time when they would be on call, working at a health facility and working in employment that would allow them to leave whatever they were doing and then go on a call? Is that what the minister is seeing? And then, as well as that, also stay at the station for $10 an hour? What sorts of things is the minister talking about, fairly specifically?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member may not have heard one of my earlier answers, but one of the things I was saying was that it is actually not even appropriate to try and prescriptively say in every community exactly what that change will look like because that would be presupposing a whole bunch of information that can only come about as a result of consultation and discussion with the health authorities, with the union, with the medical professionals in each of the areas.

All I can say to the member is that those decisions, specifically to an area like Revelstoke or wherever in the Kootenays that the member may refer to, will be decisions that become made only upon a pretty extensive consultation in identifying an assessment of the needs of the area, what expanded role the paramedics ought to play and is appropriate to play. Once that is identified, then of course the emergency and health services commission has to determine whether there are educational upgrades that would need to be put into place in order to meet the expanded roles.

So there are a number of issues that would have to be addressed before I could ever even close to responsibly start talking about what it's going to mean specifically to those paramedics that are currently in a station in Revelstoke. That wouldn't be responsible; nor would it be appropriate.

[1145]
[ Page 5173 ]

What I can say, though, to the member's first issue around retention issues is that this is a very major issue. I think one of the challenges of retention is ensuring that you've got paramedicals that can not only be supported in what they do as paramedics but can be supported in providing other services that will allow them to have the kind of full-time income that will really make a career as a paramedic an attractive career. That, I think, will go a long way towards dealing with issues around retention.

Our goal is to identify opportunities for paramedics — particularly in rural, remote areas — to be able to expand their scope of practice, to provide support in other elements of the health care sector. I can't tell you exactly what those would be. I've given some examples of what they could be, but every area will have to be assessed. That will be work that we'll be undertaking as a result of us going forward once the statutory foundation has been put into place to allow this to happen.

But what I can say to the member…. Certainly, the MLA for Kootenay East has been someone that has been very, very active on this issue, ensuring that whatever changes are proposed are going to be changes that impact rural, remote paramedics in a positive way. That's exactly what we intend to do.

N. Macdonald: The details are going to be the key parts here. Now, the minister has talked about a framework that was put in place that allows for training for new responsibilities. Just to be clear, the minister said that any new responsibilities that members needed to be trained for are costs that would be borne by the government. It would not be costs that the paramedics would have to pay.

If I'm incorrect in understanding that, the minister can correct me, but I think that's what he said. The other issue that is still going to be there is around the initial costs for paramedics to step into the position, and I think that you will have heard from other members that that is an ongoing problem for members and part of the retention issue.

The actual initial training that paramedics have is something that changed five or six years ago, and it continues to be a barrier for retention. There is a huge draw into larger areas so that people are able to pay for that training. As the minister knows — the Trans-Canada, these areas — the types of accidents that the paramedics are dealing with can be extremely challenging. If there was ever a place that you needed your highest-trained people, it would be in those sorts of areas.

The minister has talked about a process that is going to take place, a process that, hopefully, is going to end with a solution that's going to work for these communities, and the minister said that it's going to be an ongoing process. The question for the minister is again: when is the first reporting out — and I know this was addressed somewhat — going to take place for the minister in terms of letting this House know how the process is going on?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the second point first. My goal is to move as quickly as I responsibly can to get this into place so that we can immediately start to see a health system benefit by having paramedics playing a broader role and also, of course, to provide that benefit as quickly as possible to paramedics who, no doubt, have a skill set. We want to make sure that that skill set is taken fully into consideration and fully utilized within the health care system to their financial benefit by ensuring that they get additional financial support for playing an important role in the system. So the short answer is: as quickly as I responsibly can.

In terms of the initial cost of training for paramedics, that will not change. But what I can say to the member is that that has been a barrier, particularly in the past, where a paramedic will invest in their training and then find themselves in a rural, remote area trying, frankly, to get enough business to be able to provide them an income to support the paydown and payback of some of that initial investment. This is, in large part, going to deal with that by ensuring that they have full-time, family-supporting jobs that will allow them to pay off those initial costs.

[1150]

N. Macdonald: I think what the minister is saying is very sensible in terms of if you create a situation where people are paying to train themselves like professionals…. I mean, there are many professions where the professional is responsible for the training outright, and then you step into a position where you make enough money that you're reimbursed for that.

That's not the situation that we have in rural communities, and I think rural members in the Ambulance Service understand that. The challenge will be setting up the scenario that the minister lays out in terms of having jobs in all of those positions. I'll just come back to an accountability piece.

I know the minister says that he's going to move as quickly as possible. What I as an individual MLA would be specifically interested in is at what point is it reasonable to come to the minister and say, for the communities that I represent: "What have you got set up? What have you worked through, as the minister responsible for the Ambulance Service, to make sure that the scenario that the minister has laid out is a scenario that can be judged a success?"

Is the minister saying that within three months it's reasonable that I would come to him and ask for an update on how things are going in my area, or six months? What sort of time frame is it reasonable for me to ask the minister as to what has taken place for the communities that I represent?
[ Page 5174 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I guess the good news is that I'm generally not known for going really slow on issues. I think the member can take heart with that. I am always responsible about what I can deliver, to make sure that I can do it responsibly.

I am aware that I want to make sure that we allow all the stakeholder groups to be able to have input and discussion into this in an appropriate way before we roll out decisions, but I can tell the member opposite that I would be disappointed personally if I did not see progress happening as soon as the fall.

This is certainly not a project that needs to go on for years. This is a project that I think, if we are all working hard and engaging in responsible consultative process, that we should start to see some evidence of change in the fall. That would be my personal goal.

N. Macdonald: Just one more question. So the fall, and in terms of the process, the expectation that the various paramedic stations I represent would have is that there will be personal meetings set up with the Ambulance Service, where all of the complicated scenarios are, as the minister says, unique to each community. The expectation for the paramedics that I represent is that there will be meetings that take place, that there will be a full discussion about all of the complications unique to the community and that we will aim for the fall.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, the draft regulations are going to provide the foundation for discussion with the various groups. It probably will not solve every complaint they've ever had or, you know, make their life perfect as we know it. Certainly, the intent is to go out with the draft regulations that would propose how we can involve paramedicals more appropriately in the health care system, and the appropriate amount of consultation will take place.

The member can't have it both ways, though. I think the member should know that the more you require, the longer it takes. We want to make sure we do the appropriate and reasonable amount of consultation to ensure that we deal with this in a responsible manner while, at the same time, ensuring we also get it right.

Section 148 approved.

On section 149.

A. Dix: On section 149, which is connected to section 166, I know the minister has staff on the sections in between. Just for their purposes I would make the request of the minister that we stand section 149 down until after we debate 166; then before lunch we can pass 150 to 165. Is that fair? Can we do that, hon. Chair? I think we can.

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have any objection to that at all. I think it will make the discussion easier.

[1155]

The Chair: We will stand down section 149 for consideration later today.

Section 149 stood down.

Sections 150 to 165 inclusive approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Noting the hour, I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. B. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,104,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We're doing the budget estimates on Vote 30 for the Ministry of Environment.

Could I remind all members that they can use electronic devices, but they can't use the audio portion. Basically,
[ Page 5175 ]
for everyone in the gallery, the rules are the same as in the big House. There's no waving or trying to get attention, and any messages you want to send up, you have to send through the Sergeant-at-Arms.

M. Sather: I wanted to continue the discussion with the minister about the Water Act modernization. The Water Act provides protection of habitat in and adjacent to streams. It only applies to streams not under jurisdiction of the Forest and Range Practices Act, riparian areas regulations of the Fish Protection Act or when a person holds a permit under section 10 of the Mines Act. So I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what streams would then be covered by the Water Act.

Hon. B. Penner: Just to clarify. In fact, the Water Act is the general law that governs water uses in the province. It applies to all rivers and streams and watercourses. If there is a particular activity proposed that falls under the jurisdiction of a particular statute like the Forest Practices Act or the forest and range act, then there are provisions in that act where particular standards have been developed related to that particular specific activity — i.e., forestry. But the Water Act is the general law of the land when it comes to water.

M. Sather: Well, perhaps I misread the section in the document, the technical background report. So I'll move on to another question.

Section 21 of the Fish Protection Act has not been brought into force but would amend the Water Act to "prohibit the dumping of debris into streams and give the authority to require stream remediation."

I'm wondering about stream remediation with regard to the incident, which the minister will be aware of, that occurred on the North Alouette River in Maple Ridge, where the Aquilini Investment Group had diverted water from North Alouette without a water licence. They had also taken heavy equipment into the North Alouette to, let's say, rearrange the flow of the river such that it would make it easier for them to pump water out. There was considerable damage done there.

[1015]

I'm wondering: in light of section 21 not being brought into force, how does that…? What leverage does that leave the government with in order to address remediation of an incident like happened in the North Alouette River in Maple Ridge?

Hon. B. Penner: The member will know that the particular case he's referring to has been investigated by the conservation officer service. My understanding is that a report to Crown counsel was forwarded, but at this point we haven't heard back from Crown counsel. We'll have to stay tuned for that.

I can advise the member that Ministry of Environment water stewardship division staff believe that the Water Act gives us the authorities we require to address situations where we want to have someone remove things from a watercourse that they may have put in.

I was just quickly perusing the Water Act for the member's benefit. He may be interested in section 88(1)(l), where it says: "In addition to all other powers given under this Act, an engineer may do one or more of the following." This is related to staff that work for the ministry: "order a person to remove from a stream any substance or thing that the person has put or permitted to get into the stream." And there's a listing of other specific authorities.

[1020]

M. Sather: Yes, I am aware that charges have been forwarded to Crown counsel with regard, I believe, to the removal of water from the site. I wasn't clear that it involved charges with regard to acts that had been done or works that had been done within the river itself. Could the minister just confirm that the charges involve not only the potentially illegal removal of water from the river but also the works that were done within the riverbed itself?

Hon. B. Penner: I know we've canvassed this matter previously, including last fall. My understanding is that conservation officers would have conducted an investigation into possible violations under the Water Act and potentially also the federal Fisheries Act. Although they are provincial conservation officers, their enforcement status does authorize them to investigate and do work related to federal statutes, including the Fisheries Act.

M. Sather: I just wanted to know from the minister if he can advise us as to whether, though, the charges that have been forwarded included charges with regard to work that's been done within the river itself.

[1025]

Hon. B. Penner: I just caution the member, again, that this matter is before Crown counsel. I don't believe that charges have been approved. The member, in his phrasing of the question, talked about charges. I'm not aware of any charges being laid at this point.

The conservation officer service of the Ministry of Environment, as previously noted, has completed an investigation about complaints under the Water Act and possibly the Fisheries Act. The investigation looked at the allegation related to unauthorized diversion of water and also investigated allegations that there were unauthorized changes to the banks of the North Alouette River. The result of that work has been forwarded to Crown counsel, and I hope that we hear something soon.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that.
[ Page 5176 ]

I just wanted to clarify something the minister said yesterday when he was talking about invoking a section of the Fish Protection Act, which he had to do last year in the Nicola River. He said he thought it was section 9. The reason I'm asking is because I wanted to ask a question about section 5.

I'm just wondering if it actually was section 5 that he was referring to. Anyway, section 5 of the Fish Protection Act would provide explicit authority for considering fish and fish habitat in water allocations. Was the minister actually referring to section 5, or was it section 9?

[1030]

[S. Cadieux in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: My memory tells me it was section 9 that we brought into force last year. Unfortunately, the collection of statutes that we have in this committee room is quite out of date. I notice that they were last updated in February 2008, so they don't reflect changes that…. At least with respect to the Fish Protection Act, the last update there seems to be February 2008, so it doesn't reflect what would have taken place last year.

Going by memory, I think it was in August — either late July or August — at a cabinet meeting where cabinet passed an order-in-council to bring, I believe, section 9 of the Fish Protection Act into force. It was that section that I relied upon to issue an order in September of 2009 to temporarily curtail water rights for a rancher on the upper Nicola River.

My staff from downstairs, I think, are in the process of sending up a copy of the up-to-date Fish Protection Act. But just a note to the Clerk: perhaps we could have these statutes updated at some time, because it can be a useful source of reference material when called upon.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister. I look forward to that.

I wanted to know if reduced water flows, which we all expect to be experiencing and probably are due to climate change, are being factored into how decisions are being made with regard to the granting of water licences for independent power projects or power projects on the river.

Hon. B. Penner: It's an interesting question that the member asks, because the modelling for the impacts in British Columbia in terms of climate change indicate that we can expect in the long run warmer winters but potentially also wetter. There could be increased flows in the wintertime with more precipitation in the long run falling in the form of rain as opposed to snow in the mountains. I hope that modelling is wrong. I think we all hope that we can avoid the type of climate change scenarios that are forecasted.

We're doing a number of things in terms of mitigation, but adaptation — which is what the member is really referring to — is also a key strategy. When it comes to water licensing for any type of project, including hydro projects, instream flow requirements are set. It is something that the staff and the minister are mindful of — that it's anticipated that climate change will have an impact.

[1035]

It's still not 100 percent certain what those changes will be. As I said, some of the prevailing views — there are differing views — are that in the long run we can expect warmer winters and wetter winters. We've also seen, more recently, drier winters, which don't necessarily fit the modelling. I know that long-term climatic patterns are interspersed with annual variations. It just makes that part of a longer-term trend.

In the case of power projects, they bear the risk of responding to or having to finance the financial difficulties that would arise if water flows are less than they had predicted. The instream flow requirements mean that the operator of a power project has to leave a certain amount of water behind. They can't take more than a certain amount. If there isn't sufficient water for them to operate, that's a risk that they have to bear.

M. Sather: I had another question. It mentions in the technical report for the Water Act modernization that dewatering of riffles and streams can negatively affect fish. That certainly can be a significant issue with some power projects where the discharge back into the stream is below where there's actually fish-rearing habitat. You may have a stream that…. If the decreased water flow as a result of the project means that the wetted width of the stream is decreased considerably, that's a real negative effect for rearing young fish.

I wanted to ask the minister, on the issue of the dewatering of riffles: is that something that is specifically addressed with regard to the assessment of the run-of-the-river hydro projects?

[1040]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to get back to the member's previous question. I've just been handed an information bulletin from last fall, September 18, 2009, which talks about "Water Use Reduction Order to Protect Fish Populations." It does refer to section 9 of the Fish Protection Act being utilized. So that was the section that was brought into force, I believe, in August of last year.

Then to the member's current question. The short answer is yes. Water stewardship staff do take into account a whole variety of factors around stream health, and the minimum instream flow requirements require sufficient water to be left in the channel of the stream for all life stages related to fish and other aquatic habitat. Typically, a run-of-river project would be sited above a natural fish barrier, as I think the member knows, but that doesn't mean that staff aren't also taking into account the water flows downstream of that.
[ Page 5177 ]

So that is part of the consideration. Unlike a traditional hydroelectric project that has large storage — such as the Stave Falls dam, for example, or the one just down below it, Ruskin, near the member's constituency; I'm not sure if it's in your constituency or not, but the Ruskin dam has storage capacity — a typical run-of-river project does not have significant storage.

M. Sather: Recently the Water Act was amended to extend a temporary water permit to be extended from one year to two years. I wanted to ask the minister if this amendment had anything to do with the advent of shale gas deposit exploration and the vast amounts of water that they would require.

Hon. B. Penner: This is a matter that we discussed at some length during committee stage debate on those amendments, and I appreciated the member's questions at that time. As I indicated then, the ministry was facing an administrative burden of people applying for the short-term authorizations and then coming back again the next year for an extension or for another one-year application.

The ministry felt that it was appropriate to move from a one-year to a two-year short-term authorization. It does apply to a number of industry sectors. The oil and gas sector would be one, but it's not limited to that.

Anyone who is entitled to apply for a short-term water authorization would now be able to get up to a two-year short-term authorization. As we discussed at committee stage, that includes people who are seeking water for residential purposes, and often one year is not adequate for them to complete the construction of their home or their water system. That meant that they were coming back again to seek another one-year authorization.

By virtue of going to a two-year short-term authorization, it's hoped that would be sufficient time for them to complete the construction of their water system for their residence.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a question or two on the governance aspect of the Water Act modernizations. Many participants in the water discussions have asserted that the watershed or river basin is the appropriate ecological scale at which to make sustainable water decisions. I want to know if the minister agrees with that view.

[1045]

Hon. B. Penner: Ministry staff advise me that they don't just look at one specific location on a river course when there's a water licence application. They do consider the entire watercourse and/or other streams that either feed in or come out of that watercourse, because there can be multiple water users on a stream or an interconnected waterway. It's been a longstanding practice of the ministry that multiple connection points of a watercourse or stream are examined in terms of what the potential demands are for that water.

M. Sather: Well actually, what I've heard members of the public say is that they think the whole watershed, including the forest, should be part of the assessment.

I want to go on to another question. The government is looking at three governance approaches: a centralized, a shared or a delegated approach. The shared approach would delegate certain water management functions to — and in the paper it's mentioned — First Nations and regional districts. But cities or municipalities are not mentioned in the paper, and I'm just wondering why.

[1050]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to point out to the member, the discussion paper, which is available on our website, is not meant to be limiting. It's meant to stimulate discussion, and it's food for thought, as it were.

That said, we're a little bit puzzled at the member's question, because we feel it does contemplate the roles for local governments. Of course, cities are a form of local government. For example, if you take a look on page 14, the little marginal note references that "the local government system in British Columbia is comprised of 160 municipalities, 27 regional districts and 227 improvement districts."

In the body of the document, on page 14, it talks about: "Current provincial legislation allows local governments to enact bylaws that help protect public assets and the environmental well-being of the community." Then on page 17 it's talking about possible future changes, of a shared approach.

It does specifically talk about regional districts. My understanding is that all cities are members of regional districts, so it's an encompassing term. In any event, the next sentence goes on to talk about locally elected representatives or those who are appointed by government. My interpretation of "locally elected" would include cities.

M. Sather: In the shared approach with local government, it would seem that they would require quite a lot of expertise to fulfil their role. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me: is the provincial government considering extending additional funds for our local governments to be able to fulfil their role in a shared approach to the Water Act modernization?

Hon. B. Penner: We haven't determined at this point what the preferred model is going to be. That's been the matter of the public consultation. As I said yesterday, we will work to put a summary of the various comments and suggestions up on our website in the not too distant future.

That work is actually underway right now to pull those comments together and distil them to some extent.
[ Page 5178 ]
We're not going to prejudge what the preferred course of action is, but the member could appreciate that the amount of additional work or responsibility depends on what kind of model is selected and to what degree local involvement is increased.

[1055]

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a question on the allocation-of-water issue. The discussion of transfer of water rights has been one of the things that's considered as interesting. The technical paper talks about looking at water trading or water markets and says that market approaches "typically involve institutions that facilitate the trading of rights to water, either short or long term."

Also, another quote is: "In the U.S. Pacific Northwest a water transfer program uses market principles to increase instream flows in water-stressed streams." I don't want to focus on that particular sentence, because it seems peculiar in itself. The paper discusses monetization of a public resource — water. So I wanted to know what the minister's view is of water trading and water markets.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that there is a discussion paper, as well as the technical document — a technical background report, it's called — which is longer and discusses a variety of approaches used in different jurisdictions and also some of the theories that are out there in terms of how we could better allocate water in our province. It talks about what some of those opportunities are, but it also mentions that it's not necessarily a panacea.

[1100]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Just referring to page 49, the document goes on to talk about: "If effectively designed, markets may also enhance ecologically beneficial water flow under certain types of water-trading regimes. There are, however, many trade-offs and implementation concerns to consider since markets have not always been successful." I think that it's a balanced discussion paper that's been put out, citing some of the competing theories that are out there.

It's worth noting that under existing legislation it is entirely possible for people to transfer water allocation rights today. It is subject to approval, I believe, by the water controller of British Columbia, but people are able to acquire or dispose of water licence rights today, subject to authorization by the Ministry of Environment.

One thing, though, that I hope we can all agree on is that it makes sense to move towards water metering. That is a form of a market response — to actually make sure you're measuring how much someone is using of a given good. I know that it's been controversial in some communities to move towards water metering, but in my view, it's very difficult to manage something if you're not measuring it, and to put an incentive in place for people to reduce their consumption — for example, at the residential level — makes sense.

The city of Kamloops recently went through a difficult discussion on this, and their council recently voted to proceed with the installation of water metering so that people at the residential level, if they use less water, will pay less. If they use more, they'll pay more for residential water. So that does put an incentive in place for people to be more mindful of the water that they're consuming.

Where I live, in Chilliwack, I think we went through this in the 1980s. It was also contentious, but ultimately the municipal council of the day saw fit to do this, and almost immediately we saw a reduction in water consumption in Chilliwack in excess of 10 percent, which is a pretty good improvement.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister a couple of things about the Cohen Commission and the province's confirmation of having intervener status in the hearings that will be conducted by Justice Cohen this summer. It's not a surprise, perhaps, that the province is participating in the hearing.

Given that there are a couple things overlapping here with his ministry complying with the Hinkson decision to transfer fisheries management to Ottawa on a parallel and congruent path with this judicial inquiry, I wanted to ask the minister if he could give this committee any details about the basis for the province's intervener status — what information they intend to share with the inquiry, what the focus of that information will be — and maybe, depending on what the minister says, a couple of questions about how that might be accomplished.

[1105]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to provide the member with a little bit of history on this issue, you'll remember that last summer there was considerable public concern expressed around the disappointing — to put it mildly — sockeye salmon returns in the southern half of British Columbia on most of the waterways. There were some exceptions, but in particular, the Fraser River return was much below expectations and below forecast.

As a result of that, I had a conversation with the federal Fisheries Minister. I think it was in late July. I indicated to her at that time that I felt there might be a benefit to having a public review of the situation and what led up to the forecast being significantly out of alignment with what actually transpired on the river.

I followed up on August 26 in writing and stated the following: that "a comprehensive public review of the 2009 sockeye returns, the adequacy of scientific data and the capacity of forecasting techniques to address
[ Page 5179 ]
the range of factors suggested as negatively impacting returns" would be advisable.

I'm pleased that some time later the federal government did announce that they would be holding a public inquiry. As the member noted, not surprisingly, the province has sought intervener status to participate in this inquiry. I felt that it made sense for us to do that since we were one of the parties that asked for such a public review.

[1110]

I'm pleased to report that we have been granted standing at the Cohen Commission. This standing will allow British Columbia to express views or ideas associated with improving the future sustainability of the sockeye fishery in the Fraser River.

It will also allow British Columbia to present information and witnesses on various resource management procedures and policies relative to a number of issues that have been cited as a possible factor in the most disconcerting numbers of sockeye that arrived last year on the Fraser River.

R. Fleming: I didn't quite get an answer to the question that I specifically posed. I think it's well understood that public confidence was badly shaken in the wake of the sockeye collapse on the Fraser last summer, both in the DFO and also in this government's fisheries management record.

I'm pleased that the government of Canada went much further than what the minister had requested in terms of a public review, which was being requested by First Nations and commercial and sport fishers, among others. The entire sector that relies economically and has a cultural connection to a salmon fishery was calling for an explanation and calling for accountability for that failure.

The government of Canada named a judicial inquiry, which I think has significant advantages over a public review. I don't exactly know what the minister had in mind when he used that term, but the status, the ability and the independence of this inquiry have a number of advantages for the public that are interested in sworn testimony and in getting at some facts around the sockeye collapse. Also, the scope of the inquiry is much wider now.

The judge, Justice Cohen, has specifically asked for the ability to look at contributing factors to the sockeye collapse that include things like the salmon-farming industry here on our coast, on the Island, to look at climate and to look at a number of factors that could help in providing an explanation. Now, I think what the public is concerned about with the inquiry is that we will see various levels of government pointing fingers at each other, each trying to give an explanation that will place blame on another party.

I wanted to ask the minister…. I mean, the original question was basically: what is the interest or the focus of the province of B.C. in its intervener status? What is the information, in the main, that they are going to be sharing with Justice Cohen when the inquiry gets underway?

Hon. B. Penner: Not to dwell too long on semantics, but clearly, a judicial inquiry, which the federal government has announced, is consistent with what I'd requested, which was "a comprehensive public review." A judicial inquiry is a comprehensive public review. British Columbia is hoping to see the best possible information brought to the forefront. That's one of the reasons we're participating as intervener.

Ultimately, what we'd like to see come out of the inquiry is a well-informed set of recommendations to help better guide fisheries management on Canada's Pacific coast. I think that would be to all of our benefit.

[1115]

Just to provide a bit more context and to add to the record, I can also quote the following paragraph from my letter to Minister Shea of August 26, 2009, which again speaks to the angst that was felt last summer.

"The wide disparity between the forecasted and actual returns of Fraser River sockeye is a serious issue for British Columbians. The release of the annual run forecast creates expectations by First Nations as well as commercial and recreational anglers, and a shortfall has significant social and economic impacts on British Columbians. There are a number of possible explanations being offered from different quarters and debated through the news media."

It's for that reason that I felt and our government felt that it was appropriate to have a comprehensive review to try and provide more information as to what led to last year's very disappointing sockeye salmon returns on the Fraser River.

R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, I'm pleased that he is looking forward to a set of recommendations that will be unfettered by any political interference when Justice Cohen makes them at the end of this inquiry.

But it brings to mind the fact that a special committee of the Legislature issued 55 recommendations to this government, only one of which was ever implemented. There are over 50 others that suggest best practices for fisheries management in British Columbia which this government never acted on. That report is less than three years old.

I would ask the minister again about the line of testimony that the province is going to give in its intervener status and ask him at this point in time which witnesses the government intends to call, who will take the lead in liaising for the province at the inquiry and which witnesses the province anticipates that it will likely cross-examine, either from DFO or from the other stakeholders that are listed as interveners.

Hon. B. Penner: Decisions have not been made as to specific individuals who'll be participating as witnesses
[ Page 5180 ]
on behalf of either the Ministry of Environment or of government generally.

This is an issue that cuts across a number of different provincial agencies. The Ministry of Environment will play a coordinating role, but it's not limited to the Ministry of Environment. There will be participation and advice sought — and already is…. My deputy advised me that he's been working on this with the Ministry of Agriculture as well as seeking advice and input from the Attorney General's ministry, given that this is an inquiry of a quasi-judicial nature with certain legal ramifications.

Our objective here is to get the best possible information, provide it to the public and inform the set of recommendations that will be forthcoming by Mr. Justice Cohen. That is our goal — to provide the best possible information for fisheries management so that we can have the best possible fisheries management in British Columbia.

[1120]

R. Fleming: One thing that I think is probably the most peculiar thing in the backdrop to the inquiry and the province's participation in it is that at the same time, B.C. is negotiating away and transitioning our fisheries management role to Ottawa. They're potentially testifying on the conduct of DFO in this inquiry and the lack of confidence they have in their data and some of their actions and their monitoring over wild salmon health and fisheries management — all aspects of it — while at the same time exiting the stage from having any role in its future. I want to ask the minister a couple of questions about that.

The first question is why the province has never exercised its right to appeal Justice Hinkson's decision. It is peculiar to me. We will have a system in Canada where Atlantic provinces have a very active fishery, fisheries management, and a number of those provinces have their own fisheries ministries. And here on our coast we are preparing to exit any role in fisheries management in compliance with the decision that I think was controversial, that one would have thought the province would, maybe, articulate as not in its interests in terms of the repercussions.

But we've heard nothing from the government about this, and they've never exercised their right to appeal. So I'll ask the minister why it is and who in government made the decision not to exercise the province's right to appeal that decision.

Hon. B. Penner: I have to say I'm a little bit surprised by the tone of the Environment critic's question. It seems like he does not only disagree with Alexandra Morton, who brought the court case claiming that British Columbia did not have constitutional authority to regulate the finfish aquaculture industry, but also disagrees with the judge who made the decision in that case.

The chief legal officer for the government is the Attorney General. It's the Attorney General's ministry that makes decisions about how and when to respond to legal matters pertaining to the provincial government. So I would have to defer to the Attorney General to comment further on that.

I also note that it was the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture to regulate this sector. And again, the B.C. Supreme Court found — after being asked to find by Alexandra Morton and others — that the province did not have the constitutional authority to regulate finfish aquaculture. That's a decision that the government has accepted, and so I disagree with the member's characterization that we are "negotiating away authority." It was a ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court that dealt with the authority issue.

R. Fleming: Well, I'm surprised to hear the minister if he's, in fact, saying this — that the reason B.C. didn't exercise its rights to appeal is because they agree with Alexandra Morton's constitutional arguments.

[1125]

You know, once upon a time, and not that long ago, the government of B.C. had published five great goals for a golden decade. One of the goals was to have the best fisheries management system in the world, bar none. Now, clearly, the only part of that great goal that remains is the bar none part, because the province has not exercised or defended in the courts its right to appeal.

If I'm hearing the minister correctly, that was the call of the Attorney General of the province, and he basically said that he had no role in making that decision. I find it extraordinary that the Minister of Environment wouldn't have been consulted, wouldn't have had an opinion of his own.

If he did, if I'm incorrect in my characterization of how that transpired — that he had no role in it — then I'd be curious to know what position he took inside government and why he, apparently, in the end agreed with the Attorney General that B.C. wouldn't exercise its right to appeal.

It's interesting, too, because at the very same time the province of B.C. was exercising its right to appeal another court decision, which originally struck down what was characterized as the gag law around third-party campaign spending restrictions. It was a controversial bill at the time. B.C. saw no reason why it wouldn't defend the government's desire to have that legislation upheld and did appeal that court decision. Yet for fisheries management they did no such thing.

I want to ask some questions continuing on with the Hinkson decision, because his decision originally only covered salmon-farming operations. It was later expanded or interpreted to also cover shellfishery aquaculture operations.

That's curious, because for almost a century, since 1912, the federal government has given authority to the province to regulate, oversee and manage the shellfish aquaculture
[ Page 5181 ]
industry. Now that is to be ensnared in the Hinkson decision, and the province again, to my knowledge, has expressed no opinion or objection or legal arguments or representation to the contrary.

I wonder if the minister could ask why that is. Let's not forget that the arguments in the court case that Judge Hinkson presided over were not about that industry. It was about fish farming. The ruling stuck pretty close to making only comments on that industry and what he felt was the jurisdictional issues pertaining to its oversight.

So if the minister could ask why that ruling was later opened up and why the province has agreed again to transfer the shellfish aquaculture industry to Ottawa for oversight, I would appreciate that.

Hon. B. Penner: As the member should know by now, finfish aquaculture as well as shellfish aquaculture is led by the Ministry of Agriculture, and those estimates were some time ago.

R. Fleming: Again, the minister apparently is not included in any of the decisions around fisheries management, and I find that baffling, especially considering the scope of his ministry, the involvement in that file.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I want to ask some questions specific to this fiscal year's budget and maybe get the minister to comment on the service plan in its entirety. The question is just around a dollar figure on what the province spends annually on fish habitat and fish habitat reconstruction.

[1130]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to carry on here, I understand that the member is frustrated that he perhaps didn't ask questions to the Minister of Agriculture when the lead ministry for aquaculture was having their estimates debated. That's a matter for the member to sort out with his colleagues.

In terms of the question around work that the ministry helps facilitate and coordinate around streamside enhancement programs, etc., a number of years ago the Ministry of Environment provided funding to the living rivers trust fund, which provides ongoing dollars for specific projects in different parts of the province. The ministry plays a key role in referrals and advice for projects that are funded with those dollars.

I don't have a detailed breakdown here of what projects are anticipated for this year with the living rivers trust fund, but I'm endeavouring to get that information right now. We don't have it with us, it seems, but there are a number of projects that I'm aware of that have taken place recently or are about to take place, including a priority for the ministry for some time, which is along the Osoyoos river in the South Okanagan.

[1135]

That river was channelized sometime in the 1950s out of concerns for flood control, but it had a negative impact on the aquatic features for fish because it was, as the term indicates, made into a fairly straight channel. The water flows very fast and doesn't provide suitable habitat in many locations for fish to spawn or seek refuge.

There are a few areas still where it meanders, but not as many as there should be. So the ministry has a long-term plan to de-channelize that river in a number of locations where we have acquired rights to land adjacent to the watercourse so that it can be allowed to meander. Some of that work, I believe, is underway. I hope to go check that out soon, once the House is not sitting, but that is an example of some of the work that the ministry is doing.

R. Fleming: I think I heard the minister say that for the most part or in all cases, the living rivers trust — which would be an entity or a fund outside his ministry now, having been a transfer in previous years — would pay for streamside enhancement projects.

There's a recommendation or a statement in the Living Water Smart guide that says that government will provide summer jobs for youth between the ages of 16 to 22 to undertake 20 stream restoration projects across the province. So I wanted to ask him if, in this budget, there's funding to fulfil that commitment.

[1140]

Hon. B. Penner: Staff are attempting to find out just what the status is of that particular recommendation. I believe some of that work may have already started. I recall that there was some stream restoration work taking place on the Chehalis River. I think it was last year. I don't know if it responded directly to this particular recommendation, but I know that there's been work done on a number of watercourses, including the Cheakamus as well as the Chehalis, and just whether or not that fits under this heading or some other, we're going to have to check.

R. Fleming: Well, I appreciate that the minister is checking, but I would think it would sort of come to mind if there was a program that was going to restore a number of streams and waterways, and it was specifically for youth between the ages of 16 and 22. It's the fourth of May. University students are finished exams. Summer unemployment rates are going to be, probably, pretty tough this year. Youth unemployment at the best of times is between 12 percent and 20 percent.

Maybe the question is: is the ministry posting for positions and running a program this summer? Or, in the service plan as contemplated by government, is there funding set aside to fulfil this recommendation, and is there a provincial stream restoration program for youth? Has that been created?
[ Page 5182 ]

Hon. B. Penner: We will have to check to get back to the member, because as you read that commitment, it says that government will do that. That means it's not limited to the Minister of Environment. It could include B.C. Hydro or other organizations acting on government's behalf. As indicated, I think some of the work towards that commitment may have already been done, but again, that's subject to check.

We're going to check with the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and the living rivers trust fund. Also, B.C. Hydro may, at times, help fund projects of this nature.

With that, hon. Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee report some progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175