1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1984
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 3821 ]
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Oral Questions
Committee on employment development. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3821
Employment development. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3821
Mr. Nicolson
Mr. Blencoe
Mr. Lauk
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)
On vote 15: minister's office –– 3823
Mr. Nicolson
Mr. Davis
On vote [6: management operations and educational finance –– 3828
Mr. Rose
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)
On vote 24: minister's office –– 3829
Hon. Mr. Brummet
Mrs. Wallace
On vote 25: resource and environmental management –– 3831
Mrs. Wallace
Mr. Kempf
Mr. Cocke
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1984
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to draw to the attention of all hon. members the presence of a very distinguished guest in our gallery today, His Excellency Dr. Hasjim Djalal, who is the ambassador of Indonesia, accompanied by Mr. Abdul Aziz, who is the consul of Indonesia. I know all the members will extend a most warm and cordial welcome to these visitors to our province.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all sides of the House to extend a very warm welcome to Mr. George Chan and his son Newton Chan, who are in the gallery. As you know, Mr. Speaker, they are fine Delta businessmen.
Oral Questions
COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. On July 9 last the cabinet approved an order-in-council establishing the Cabinet Committee on Employment Development, of which the Minister of Human Resources was named chairperson. I would ask the minister if the committee still exists and, if so, when it last met.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the committee was struck to assist in handling the federal-provincial programs as well as initiatives for students. The program ended, or at least was put under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) following the end of the NEED program.
MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that answer with the minister, if I may. Do I understand then that in these times of record high unemployment the cabinet committee on unemployment no longer exists?
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, Mr. Speaker, that is a misconception. I'm sorry, I said the Minister of Finance; it is under the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). That committee and that effort in regard to student unemployment, and all unemployment, comes under the Minister of Labour and very much exists. As you know, the Minister of Labour has just announced two new initiatives in the last month, as a matter of fact. It is very much alive.
MR. GABELMANN: That order-in-council 884 has not, to my knowledge, been rescinded, and because it has not been rescinded, the minister is still chairperson of the committee. The committee presumably still exists, and the minister could theoretically, if she would like to, convene that committee to deal with high unemployment. May I ask her if it is her intention to convene a meeting of that existing cabinet committee on unemployment in view of the alarming statistics in British Columbia today?
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I am no longer the chairman of that committee, but I am the chairman of the social services committee, and I am the chairman responsible for B.C. Transit, which has just this week announced an initiative for 2,200 man-years of employment. I thank the member for bringing to our attention the fact that perhaps a clerical or bookkeeping problem may exist in the non-cancellation of an order- in-council that is still existing. I will certainly check on that with the staff of the Provincial Secretary, who look after those things.
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
MR. GABELMANN: I used the word "chairperson" deliberately. I have never thought the minister was a man, Some of us on this side of the House recognize that creating man-years of employment is not the only thing necessary in this province, because women, too, need work,
I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: inasmuch as no cabinet committee appears to exist or be functioning relating to this serious problem, which minister of his cabinet is responsible for the fact that 20 percent or more of our workers in the southern interior are now unemployed, and which cabinet minister is responsible for working on a strategy for developing jobs in both the public and in the private sector in the southern interior, where the rate is now over 20 percent?
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, all cabinet ministers take part in planning the development of the economic strategy that this government is employing in trying to encourage the private sector to invest and create jobs for our people. We know that our prosperity and recovery will be led by export.
The functions of the committee that Mrs. McCarthy headed have been taken over by the economic development committee of cabinet. I know that the member is aware of that committee. A number of ministers sit on that committee, which meets at least weekly to develop objectives. It meets with individuals and groups as part of the government involving itself and the community in general in establishing solutions. The chairman of the economic development committee is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), but a number of key ministers who have portfolios that relate to industry, economic development and trade are also on that committee. Rather than mention them all, I will name a few: the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is responsible for trade: the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) ; the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who plays a key role in that strategy. That committee is very active. The reason that the extra committee headed by Mrs. McCarthy is no longer active is not because the government is not attending to the problem; it is the fact that the very good work done by Mrs. McCarthy and her committee, and the number of initiatives that they undertook, can now be taken over completely by a single committee structured to operate on a continual basis.
[2:15]
MR. NICOLSON: A question to the acting Minister of Labour, who I believe is the Minister of Education: would he advise which person on that committee has the regional responsibilities for the West Kootenays?
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, taking that....
[ Page 3822 ]
MR. NICOLSON: No, I asked the acting minister, not the Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the question was directed to the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is the only one who can reply to that particular question. However, a ministerial statement could be entertained, but only at the conclusion of question period. Notwithstanding the fact that an answer could be given to the question, the Chair is powerless to recognize the member who is currently standing.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to offer you some assistance, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I could use some assistance right now, hon. member, but I must recognize almost anyone who would be prepared to stand on a question.
HON. MR. BENNETT: The question was addressed to someone acting in the place of the Minister of Labour...
MR. NICOLSON: That's very disorderly, Mr. Speaker — deliberately so.
HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and I'm willing to take that question for the Minister of Labour. If the member is sincere in seeking an answer, then he'll allow me to answer the question.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is a very different situation that the Chair is faced with.
MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the reason behind asking the acting Labour minister was an order from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), given to me by you, that any questions had to go to the acting person. It was by your ruling that we all got these lists of people to ask.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that was circulated to all members. Nonetheless, the Chair must advise that it is possible for one minister to respond in the absence of another minister. If it is the request of the House to proceed, then so be it. If the members are not willing to listen to the answer, then the Chair is powerless to.... Hon. members, on the question, shall leave be granted?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes, hon. members.
MR. NICOLSON: I didn't say no.
I will ask the question of the acting Minister of Labour. Is he willing to defer to the Premier?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, if that's what the member wishes, I'm certainly prepared to defer to the Premier. I would only like to say that everybody on this side represents everybody in the province. I'll take that question, as a matter of fact, as notice. I'm quite prepared to have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) respond.
MR. NICOLSON: Then to the same minister: as the West Kootenay region has the highest unemployment in the province at a rate of 23.5 percent, what employment strategy and plans has the cabinet committee developed for the West Kootenay region?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and pass it on to the chairman of the economic development committee. I should advise the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not on that particular committee — I'm on social services. I'll certainly pass that on.
MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, a question for the same minister as acting Minister of Labour. Victoria and Vancouver Island have faced staggering unemployment increases in the last few months. The unemployment rate has gone from 14 percent to 19 percent. Will the minister adviwse hich member of the cabinet committee on economic development has had regional responsibility for Vancouver Island?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that we are all interested. We all have some concern in this particular area. I mentioned before that I am not on that particular committee. I'll take that question by the second member for Victoria and relay his concern to the Minister of Labour.
MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary. Will the minister bring back to this House the plans and strategies the committee has developed for employment development on Vancouver Island? Close to one-quarter of all the people on Vancouver Island now are unemployed. Will the minister bring back the development strategy for this island?
MR. LAUK: My question is to the Premier. It was four years ago approximately that a new program of encouraging the private sector to create jobs in British Columbia was introduced by this government. In four years we've gone from a producing province to one of the highest unemployment provinces in Canada. There's more unemployment than in Alabama. There's more unemployment than in most areas of the western industrial world. Has the Premier now decided to reconsider his policy of four years ago?
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that's always been our policy, not just four years ago. I guess I could answer that question with a question. It was a few years ago that the government of France decided to have a socialist policy of big government as the answer. Today they have an even worse economy than in any other country in the industrialized world. I would suppose that has been no answer at all. The answer to development of jobs in our province — real jobs, permanent jobs — is to be found in the private sector. The government is not the answer for permanent jobs.
Encouraging investment carries with it a number of things that are very important. I found out recently, when I was in California meeting with high-tech industries and energy development concerns, that they look first of all for areas that do not face onerous taxation, particularly taxation that would be implied in the future because of excessive government spending, particularly large debts and deficits. Secondly, they looked for areas in which their people would be happy to be employed, with good transit access to their
[ Page 3823 ]
work. That's why announcements such as the extension of transit into Surrey is very important to these private sector investors. That those who, for political purpose, claim they are concerned about unemployment — in the name of Solidarity and whatever friends they have left over here in Victoria — would boo that announcement and picket it is a very significant fact. The third thing they look for is a reliable industrial relations climate. That is something that is the responsibility of everyone — management, organized labour and others. That type of plan involves the cooperation and enthusiastic will of all the people — government members and opposition as well — to make it work, and it is working. British Columbia is attracting international investment attention, and that will pay dividends in the way of permanent jobs in the future.
MR. LAUK: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It's my privilege, I think, that every once in a while, when I drop in to visit these folks, I have an opportunity to cross-question a minister or two, without the kind of speechifying that went on from the member for South Okanagan, whose own riding has a 20 percent unemployment rate. I won't mention that in a question of privilege, of course, because that would be out of order...
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.
MR. LAUK: ...or the fact that their employment committee hasn't met, or that their whole employment strategy and policy has failed. I will not mention that as a question of privilege. But I would like to mention...
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.
MR. LAUK: ...that speeches by cabinet ministers....
[Mr. Speaker rose.]
MR. LAUK: On the other hand....
[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has been informed that the member for Skeena wishes to raise a matter under standing order 35.
MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the ill-mannered and insulting statement by the Premier that those in this province who are unemployed and seeking employment are bad British Columbians. We have people in this province who are unemployed because of the policies of that Premier and this government. If ever there was a need to set aside the other business of the House to discuss the plight of those people, and to discuss that callous verbal assault upon those people by this Premier, now is the time to do it.
MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, those statements are entirely untrue. I wish them to be withdrawn in this House. He lied. Those are lies. He wasn't there, but I was.
MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.
MR. REID: He's a liar.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order. please, hon. members.
Hon. members, I must first instruct the second member for Surrey that he must withdraw the remark that he made. Hon. member, the remark is unparliamentary, and the Chair has no alternative but to ask the member to withdraw the remark. In order to maintain parliamentary excellence and decorum, I ask the member to withdraw the remark.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the words spoken by that member are untrue. I will not withdraw.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. For the last time, while we may have differences of opinion and while we may take exception to remarks, I must ask the member to withdraw the words "lie" or "liar." It is incumbent upon the Chair to instruct the member to do so.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in respect....
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must simply ask you to withdraw the remark without equivocation.
MR. REID: Out of respect for the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remarks.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, regarding the matter that was forwarded to the Chair, I will review the matter and bring word back at the earliest opportunity.
[2:30]
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In order to assist the Speaker, I am prepared to meet with him and show him the context of the remarks which form the basis of the motion. They are untrue as related in this Legislature.
Orders of the Day
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 15: minister's office, $186,000.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to very quickly answer some questions which were raised.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. members could afford the minister some parliamentary courtesy.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked a question yesterday. I have a reply and would like to read it into the record, if I may. The question related to an apparent anomaly in student funding at Kispiox Elementary School. This school is operated by the
[ Page 3824 ]
Anspayawx School Society, which is incorporated under the Society Act. It enrols mostly Indian students and is basically funded through the Department of Indian Affairs on behalf of the status Indian students living on reserve.
Last year the school applied for and was granted group 1 classification as an independent school, so that it might claim support grants on behalf of eight kindergarten and primary level students who did not qualify for federal funding because they were either non-status Indian or non-Indian. For those few students the independent school support grant was $290.88 per student. For the other 59 students enrolled, the federal support grant was $4,000 per student.
All of the students living in Kispiox have the choice of attending either the Kispiox Elementary School or the John Field Elementary School in Hazelton, which is a public school. There is a school bus which runs the 10 miles between Kispiox and Hazelton. The anomaly in this situation is that the status Indian students are fully supported through federal funds, directly or indirectly, in both the Kispiox independent community school and the John Field public school, whereas the non-status and non-Indian students are fully supported by provincial government funds only at the John Field school. At the Kispiox school they are supported to the extent of only 9 percent of the cost. This year the Kispiox school is being evaluated for group 2 classification, which if granted will qualify the school for 30 percent of the cost. The enrolment of non-status and non-Indian students is also up from 8 to 2 1. Any simple resolution of this anomaly is not readily apparent. It appears that the federal government is giving full financial support for educational choice to status Indian students but not to non-status Indians, whereas the provincial government is giving partial support for choice to non-status and non-Indian students. It is a complex issue, and we will be looking into it carefully. I think it's important because I think all members will realize that the question which the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked was rather a difficult one.
Another question asked was from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown); it involved ESL. I'll quote from Hansard: "I would imagine that Burnaby is second only to Vancouver South. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong. The funding for that program has been very severely eroded, certainly for the adults who use the program, so it is impacting on the quality of education in Burnaby." I said at the time that I could not give the answer, and I would now like to respond as follows. Next to Vancouver, Burnaby does have the largest number of students for whom English is a second language. In Burnaby the report is that we have 589 students with English as a second language, or 4.04 percent of the provincial total. In 1984, Burnaby School District 41 had included in their allowable budget the sum of $1.206 million to support the education of those children.
A third question came up from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) involving surplus. I wish to advise that the New Westminster School District had a budget surplus utilized and transferred from 1983 to 1984 of $113,418.
The last question I wish to answer was one the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) had asked with respect to the Crane Library. The ministry does not provide funds to UBC for talking books and has not withdrawn any such funding. The production and distribution of talking books by Crane Library for UBC students is funded by the university and private donations.
In the early stages of operation of the Provincial Resource Centre for the Visually Impaired, in 1978, the ministry contracted with the university for production of master tapes and copies of school textbooks. At that time, the university indicated it had some capacity to do work for the ministry but cautioned that the work for UBC students would take priority. By 1980 it was clear that UBC and ministry priorities did clash and that our students were not getting many books when needed. In 1978, 1979 and 1980, UBC was unable to provide the number of hours for the ministry for which it had contracted.
At this time we called for tenders through the Purchasing Commission asking UBC to submit a bid if they could meet our requirements. In subsequent years, UBC sometimes bid and were successful, and other times did not bid at all. Library officials at UBC continued with their stance that UBC students came first, and that's understandable. In fact, they urged us to seek supply elsewhere. In fact, UBC did not bid in 1981 and again did not bid in 1982. By 1983 UBC was doing very little work for us, the majority of the talking book production coming by tender from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind or through contracted readers of the library services branch, Ministry of Provincial Secretary.
Lastly, in May 1983 the president of UBC wrote to our deputy minister advising that no work at all could be done for agencies outside of UBC. That concludes the best answer I can give at this time, unless there's something further with respect to the Crane Library.
I do have some notes with respect to the Western Institute for the Deaf, but I'm not so sure that the member for Nelson-Creston had really finished his comments on that particular issue, so I'll defer to him.
MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his response. By this kind of dialogue at our level, maybe we can help the people at the University of British Columbia and in the ministry to get their acts together. It would appear that there is also more to it. I think it is definitely a two-sided question, and there would appear to be some misunderstanding. I know the president of the university is no longer Dr. Kenny, and one cannot ask the current university president to release such information. Perhaps the minister, having that kind of letter.... I think just the nature of that letter could spread some light on this problem.
While I accept that everything the minister has said is correct, it would appear that the Crane Library has had some troubles in dealing with contracts from the ministry. I've discussed this with people from the university as well, and their understanding goes along pretty much with this article that appeared in the Sun on February 20, in which Melville said that a letter from UBC president Doug Kenny informed the ministry that to keep the facilities going at Crane required two full-time people funded on a continuing and reliable basis of about $39,000, and the ministry just doesn't have that money to spend. He said they wanted a lump-sum advance payment and they certainly could not justify that. Apparently Mr. or Dr. Melville says that he was misquoted in that article. The library did not need upfront moneys, just an assurance that orders would be forthcoming, and some estimate of the scales upon which those orders would be forthcoming. He said that the financing problem was created by the ministry's insistence that the recording work be done on a piecemeal basis. Thiele said that the ministry would go to Crane with a request for, say, 300 talking books, and Crane
[ Page 3825 ]
would quote a price of $265 per book for an order of that size. The ministry would come back with half the quoted number of books, or even less, and expect Crane to do them for the quoted price. He said that the library wanted the money more or less up front.
In my discussions with the university, I got the idea that there was a high-grading, that it was the real tough books to translate.... I guess "translate" is the right term. When the contract was reduced in size....
AN HON. MEMBER: That's not high-grading; it's the other way around.
MR. NICOLSON: Then maybe you've heard it the other way around.
Okay, this is the kind of difficulty between the ministry. I am suggesting to the minister that it's a very important problem, and it may be a thorny problem. Really, the kind of money that's being talked about is not a great amount, even in times of austerity — amounts in the order of $40,000. But we're talking about people too. We're talking about the sight impaired and their ability to participate in university studies. I understand there is one sight-impaired student in the faculty of law right now. Obviously it costs a great deal to translate those books in that profession.
I seek assurance from the minister that he would really take a fresh approach to this, keeping in mind the needs of the students in what has become a bit of a battle between bureaucrats of both the university and his ministry. Let's not worry about fault-finding or blame-fixing or anything like that. I would hope there could be a pretty fresh approach. There must be some way in which some reasonable terms can be realized. I know one could say that the university has a budget, and if it's a small amount they should find that small amount in their budget as well. It would seem that we could find a reasonable course of action whereby this kind of translation could take place. It makes it a more viable operation when your ministry contracts for some of those services. I realize that somebody who is going through the faculty of law is not your direct responsibility, but if the participation of your ministry helps to make this a viable program, then it really benefits everyone. In fact, your ministry and the ministry of universities really shouldn't be separated anyhow and probably won't be in a few months.
[2:45]
I think the Western Institute for the Deaf would like to know if the minister is aware of a proposal by Dr. Frank Cassidy of the continuing education division of the ministry for present and future educational opportunities for adults with hearing impairments in B.C. It is my understanding that not only are we going to be experiencing a baby boom, but right now we're experiencing another kind of a boom. The children who were the victims of a rubella epidemic about 18 years ago and have gone through the school system with some special programs are also entering post-secondary education in colleges and universities. They are wondering to what extent the minister is aware of that study. Is he familiar with the proposal? Has the minister taken steps to implement any of the recommendations?
Again you have this mixed funding. In 1983-84 they received $20,000, administered through the Universities Council of British Columbia, but they also received $33,000 from the Ministry of Education. The grant from the Universities Council has been eliminated for '84-85, and the Western Institute for the Deaf have been told that they'll have to apply for these funds directly from the universities.
Again, there's a 5 percent reduction in those budgets. Is it reasonable to expect, without some kind of grants coming directly from the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, that the) n see the universities take up the slack when they're having to cut other programs to meet a 5 percent reduction in budget? We're talking about reasonable, manageable amounts of money. I think sensible people can sit down and realize that a baby boom of a sort is coming into the post-secondary level of education. These people are hearing-impaired because there was a rubella epidemic about 18 years ago, more or less. Does the minister have any commitment to providing equal access to post-secondary education for hearing-impaired people? If so, is he willing to make sure that funds are provided for the continuation of the services?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the information which he's advanced. I will advise you that this is one area in which I have very little knowledge, since assuming this portfolio not too long ago. I think what is important, in view of the concern which the member raised yesterday, is that I answer with the information which has now been given to me. It might be of some assistance. If I can assist in any way, I will. I'll tell you why I may have a past personal interest in this: I spent two years working with deaf children and blind children at Jericho Hill School.
First of all, some background on the Western Institute for the Deaf, which is a non-profit society that has been in existence for about 50 years. It was funded mainly by the Ministry of Labour. It's an agency of the United Way. Funding was also received from post-secondary...approximately $33,000 which the member for Nelson-Creston has raised. From special education there was another sum of about $5,000. I gather there had been in the past, and I'm not sure right now about whether there were moneys advanced by another ministry in government. The two contracts for special education, by the way: there was $2,000 for special education and $3,000 for Jericho, and both of those items look after interpreter services. We know what the mandate is: to service adult people whose hearing is impaired. I think it's a tremendous organization. It's involved in job placement and counselling. It has an audiology clinic and provides interpreters free of charge to school districts, especially for court appearances. It sponsors social events and looks after appointments with doctors, dentists and interpreters at the university level.
As for contacts for grants from us now or in the past, there have been no outright grants, to my knowledge. The two contacts were those to which I made reference.
Our relationship to the Western Institute for the Deaf and services which we access. Students at Jericho, when they reach age 17, are referred to the job placement counselling service offered by the society. The services are free and are also available to the hearing-impaired in school districts. We assist with interpreters in this area and again for court appearances and appointments. To our knowledge — when I say "our," I mean the Ministry of Education — the Western Institute for the Deaf has never been represented on any committee. Interestingly, the name which was raised, Mr.
[ Page 3826 ]
Eric Cardinall.... He is the past president and also the chief fund-raiser. He did sit on several committees but not as a representative for the institute. As a matter of personal interest, I might mention that Eric Cardinall was the gentleman who hired me about 25 years ago to work with deaf children and blind children.
There have been no requests for funding. It seems that the institute is happy with the relationship with post-secondary. They have been told verbally that what funding is there will continue. The question raised by the member.... It may very well be that even those grants which will be continued may have been reduced. This I cannot give you an answer to, but I will look into it. I can't really say much more than that, but I will look into that; also the funding that apparently had been given by the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. If that funding — and I do not know — has been withdrawn, the concern obviously will be interpretation for those students at the post-secondary level, and we'll look into that.
MR. NICOLSON: I suppose one thing I can do is undertake to give the minister some of the information I have. Because of the rubella epidemic of the mid-sixties, they are anticipating a real increase in demand for service. They have made a proposal for an internship program. Employment and Immigration have agreed to give some funding to that. However, I think there's a shortfall in their funding requirements. That's one of their concerns. I'm satisfied that the minister will look into this, perhaps with a pretty fresh and fairly informed attitude toward the problem.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member has raised something with respect to the outbreak of rubella some years ago. In just checking with one of my deputies, I'm advised that not only are they very much aware of it, because it is now starting to surface with respect to post-secondary, but Cariboo College, the College of New Caledonia and Vancouver Community College are attempting to accommodate those students whose hearing has been impaired. I'm glad you raised that particular point. We're now in the process of determining allocations between all institutes and colleges in British Columbia. I have not yet reviewed those allocations or anything about them, but I think this is one of the items which will be raised. Now it's fresh up here, and we'll keep it in mind.
MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his response.
Just before closing these estimates, if they close, I would just like to say to the minister with regard to David Thompson University Centre.... I know the minister's feelings about the amount of post-secondary educational funding per capita that is going into that part of the Kootenays. I would just ask the minister to temper that thought with the fact that the facilities there predate post-secondary education outside of the lower mainland and Capital Regional District areas. It was the first pretty well full-blown.... It was an accredited university in that area, and a university which predated post-secondary funding. It was a lighthouse — a beacon — for those of us who live beyond Hope, which both the minister and I do. A lot of initiative went into that, and I think for that reason there is a reason to treat it as a different area.
The minister has received a proposal in which the city of Nelson has taken a very courageous step. They have said that they recognize the minister's concern that the institution as it is presently being operated is costing more per student than comparable colleges even though it did provide some university function. The city has said that they would be willing to operate it if they can raise the money locally and get provincial government assistance only on provincial government formula funding, so that, in fact, it would not be getting twice as much per student but simply receiving provincial averages per student in assistance. If the city sought to bring in a new, innovative program, that would be funded through debentures raised in the community, the province or throughout Canada.
It really does put the ball in the city's court as they have undertaken such a huge undertaking. I don't know that they have made a wise choice in going that far to meet the minister's objections, but having gone that far — and that is a consensus of the community — I would ask the minister if he has made any progress in his consideration of the proposal of the city which would really require the local community to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars before they could actually go into implementation. It clearly puts the onus on them, and it also, again, shows the kind of initiative that the area was willing to take before any community college was ever constructed in this province, or even the old campus on the old King Edward site, one of the first in the province. Perhaps the city can't realize its objective, because it is setting a very difficult target for itself in terms of what it would have to raise in funds to go ahead with this proposal. Has the minister given that any further consideration?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am going to confine my remarks to the last point because the member is aware of all of the other material. I cannot advise the member of anything more than when we talked here a few days ago. He requested that I contact His Worship Mayor Maglio as soon as the session concluded that day. I did that. I think I got to him about ten after six that evening. I recognize it has been received; I have looked at it. I am not in any position to make any comment on it at all, and I can't be any more honest than that. I just don't think it's really important. It's important, but I don't think it's wise to say anything more. It was a very difficult decision, and I can't really say any more right now.
[3:00]
MR. DAVIS: I want to ask the Minister of Education a few questions. They relate primarily to students whose first language is other than English — classified, as I understand it, by the ministry as English-as-a-second-language students. One of the questions I'd like to ask is how many students in that category we have in our primary and secondary schools system in the province. My understanding is that it is of the order of several tens of thousands, if not higher. I would like him also to indicate where the principal concentrations are. I gather English-as-a-second-language students constitute between 45 and 50 percent of the school enrolment in the city of Vancouver, for example; lesser percentages, of course, in Burnaby and surrounding lower mainland municipalities.
I'd also like to ask him whether the government condones advertising overseas, particularly by private schools, of space in the school system in British Columbia. There's a problem there. There are eight or nine private schools in the province of British Columbia which currently intensively advertise overseas for foreign students. I'm not talking at all about landed immigrants; I'm talking about students who are upfront foreign nationals. These schools are advertising
[ Page 3827 ]
space in British Columbia and asking prices in the order of $10,000 per year for one, two or three years instruction in the province of British Columbia for grades 10, 11 and 12, but principally grade 12, the main bait being low-cost university or college education thereafter in British Columbia.
The student abroad often has great difficulty getting into institutions of higher learning, particularly universities, despite their abilities as students. Because of their problem of getting into universities and colleges, etc. In other countries, British Columbia is a haven of sorts — no questions asked; first come, first served. If they can get into our school system, particularly if they can get grade 12 accreditation, they are into our universities and colleges where the fees are 10, 12 or 15 percent of the actual costs of instruction. So they not only obtain unqualified entry, but they also get a highly subsidized education at the expense of the B.C. taxpayers.
I'm aiming my remarks principally at those private schools which engage in this kind of commercial endeavour. They cover their costs. They are expanding, and they are really trading on the fact that we have a good educational system in this province, and that entry into our institutions of higher learning is, comparatively speaking, unlimited.
I'd like to ask the minister whether his ministry makes grants to these private schools. I know it has in the past. What conditions are now attached to those grants? Do those schools, when they give a grade 12 accreditation to a student, meet all of our B.C. standards — at least the standards that are required of our public schools? Again, this wasn't the rule a couple of years ago. Is it the rule now? What priority do foreign students have, if any, in getting into our school system? How many foreign, as opposed to landed immigrant or Canadian citizen, students do we have in our public school system? Finally, to what extent does the federal government, which has a major say in immigration policy, participate in the funding of our school system, particularly primary and secondary schools? My impression is that it is next to nothing.
I've heard several members opposite concern themselves about federal moneys coming to British Columbia for education, and they're suggesting that some of those moneys nominally earmarked for education find their way into road and highway construction, and so on. I suggest that on balance the exposure of the province to the immigration policies of the federal government in the area of education is an expensive one, and that moneys coming from Ottawa are more than offset by provincial government expenditures in the area of education.
Mr. Chairman, we have several areas of concern. One is the illegal immigrant into Canada. There are between 100,000 and 200,000 illegal immigrants in Canada. That's the range of figures provided by a House of Commons committee on manpower and immigration recently. I suggest that British Columbia's share has to be of the order of 20 percent of that — 20,000 to 40,000 illegal immigrants in British Columbia. A relatively small fraction of those are children of illegal immigrants, either born here or brought in by the illegal immigrants, Perhaps of the order of 5,000 to 10,000, to use a conservative range, are children of illegal immigrants in this province. They're here and they're in our school system. They're not identified, but they're here. They are being financed by the taxpayers of the province, including, in some instances, those aliens who are here in the country illegally. That's one category — the illegal immigrant; 5,000 to 10,000 in our primary and secondary school system. There is a similar number of visa students: students who are properly identified in their country of origin, and who come in as foreigners and are reported by Statistics Canada in our immigration statistics. The number of visa students who entered British Columbia last year was 6,500. In the previous year the figure was 5,700. The trend has been steadily upward over the last decade or so.
So we have two categories of foreign students — one the illegal immigrant student. and the other the upfront visa student who is identified as foreign — coming to this country. We have in the range of 7,000 to a high of 15,000 foreign students in our school system. That is a significant number. If you assume that the average operating and capital cost of educating a student in our primary and secondary school system is at least $4,000, then the expense is in the order of $40 million, $50 million or $60 million for educating foreign students — not landed immigrants or Canadians of originally foreign nationality, but those who are here illegally and those who are here because we have a good, open and low-cost education system. I suggest that this is a question to which the ministry must address itself. I suggest that it is a matter of some concern to the provincial taxpayer, and I think we should develop an upfront policy in this area. I know it is difficult to identify the illegal immigrant. Certainly the federal government is having difficulty in getting them to come forward, even with various enticements. But they're there and the numbers are substantial.
Once the foreign student — who is brought here in part by the private schools, but also in part by institutions like Vancouver Community College, which has advertised abroad — gets into our public school system, they do not pay anything like the costs incurred by the system and the taxpayers of the province. I've heard various stories, and I know of first-hand examples of students brought here by let's call them tourist agencies. They're brought here for a year of education in North America, even a year of recreation in North America: a little instruction in the English language, skiing at Whistler, and a variety of experiences. After a few weeks they disappear. These tourist agencies are claiming foul; they're saying: "You're allowing them to slip into the public school system. We lose them and are no longer able to charge them because we no longer know where they are." I know of instances like that, where these children are in the public school system — for example, in North Vancouver. They slip into our system. We don't discriminate, we don't ask about an individual's background, and we certainly don't ask about their ethnic origin; first come, first served. Registration in the fall, they're in, and they're in without identification. I can understand why there is this leakage out of the privately sponsored tourism activity, out of the private schools. The private schools advertise up front. They charge substantially for their services, but they deliver a student into our public school system, giving them grade 10, 11 or 12. The majority who reach grade 12 are of course headed toward our universities, colleges and so on.
There's a problem there. I know it is difficult, and a subject which many people don't like to discuss, but it is still a matter of some concern to a large number of people, and one of considerable concern to a significant few. I think it is healthy to talk about and address a problem of this nature. Perhaps the minister is not equipped right now to answer some of these questions, but I would like to know about the standards which the provincial Ministry of Education requires from the eight, nine or ten private schools — most of
[ Page 3828 ]
them relatively new — which advertise abroad and make it their business to bring students here. They make $10,000-plus a year.
An interesting fact is that a visa student coming to this country can get renewals for up to ten years. So once you're in, you can stay here for up to ten years by simply renewing your visa. Under the new federal rules, if you're here five or more year and hold up your hand, you're a Canadian — and that's another subject of some concern.
Mr. Chairman, I'll look forward to the minister's answers. I know this is a subject which will be addressed again, so perhaps if he doesn't give the answers to all these questions, he'll give them at another time.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member is quite right. I won't be giving answers to all of these questions right now.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: "Explain!" "Get on with it." Listen to that!
The number of students for whom English is a second language: I'm advised by the ministry the total is 14,480. Earlier I responded to an inquiry from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), and it seems to me that the number in Burnaby totalled 589. The largest concentration of ESL students is in the Vancouver area. Perhaps it might be interesting to do a breakdown throughout the province. I suspect that information will be available to us under the framework.
[3:15]
The member gave me a list of his questions. A number of them seem to be oriented toward the immigration policy. You know that immigration policy comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the provincial. If there is a concern raised with visa students in Canada and if there are illegal immigrants, as the member believes to be the case, I suppose we ought to be directing our concern in this area to the federal government.
One of the questions is: "Does the government condone the advertising overseas of openings in the B.C. school system?" First of all, our ministry does not have any authority in this area at all.
The next question is: "Does the Education ministry give grants to private schools which advertise abroad?" I suppose the grant to those independent schools which are either group 1 or group 2 funding.... What they do is something over which we do not presently have control. But the funding which is advanced by the government is only for students who are here as landed immigrants or otherwise are legal residents of the province under federal law.
The next question is: "What school standards are enforced as a condition of accreditation?" There are normal curriculum and teaching standards for group 2 funding, and I think the member is aware of the provisions of the independent school legislation.
Next question: "What priority, if any, do foreign visa students have in entering our public school system?" They have none. Such students receive no financial recognition in the funding formula unless they are residents. I might add in that area, with respect to post-secondary, at least as far as the college component is concerned, which comes under the Ministry of Education, that there are contracts which some colleges have to look after overseas students. Three such colleges are Malaspina, Vancouver Community College and Pacific Vocational Institute. What we're doing in these cases is exporting our training and our curriculum overseas. But those people who attend on that basis.... The country from which they emanate pays the full shot, all the costs related to it. Secondly, what is important is that those contracts cannot displace any of our own students. I think that's probably a policy which is followed all around, in other jurisdictions as well.
With respect to question number 7, I do not know the answer but will make the appropriate inquiry.
The last question: "To what extent is the federal government involved, financially or otherwise, in the education of visa students and immigrant children?" The response that I have is that no federal funds are received to support these students, and we assume that the federal government exercise their normal supervision of visa students and illegal immigrants.
That may seem like a number of hollow answers to the member at this time. I will give this undertaking: we will pursue an answer to each of those questions in greater depth when the opportunity affords itself.
MR. DAVIS: Just a comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman. The hon. minister implied that immigration is solely a federal matter. Anyone who has looked at the British North America Act knows that immigration is a concurrent responsibility between the federal government and the provincial government. Certain provinces, notably Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, have agreements with Ottawa as to immigration, and they send scrutineers to foreign points to interview potential immigrants. There are extensive agreements in those provinces. Perhaps I could put it this way: British Columbia has chosen to ignore its responsibility in this area. It may have been a convenience in the past, but I don't think it'll stand up in the future. I think that the province has to take an interest in the flow of people into this province from overseas and that the concurrent responsibility has to be recognized.
Vote 15 approved.
On vote 16: management operations and educational finance, $24,148,535.
MR. ROSE: I want to clarify one of the things the minister said the other day, and I think it'll take me about two minutes. I want you to know that the House Leader promised to buy my supper tonight if I didn't speak at all, so this is at least costing me a meal. But I really don't intend to speak more than two minutes.
The minister intimated yesterday that I and this party are opposed to exams. That's not the case, and I want to make that clear. We're not opposed either to examinations or.... We're in favour of accountability, both as far as the student is concerned and as far as the instructor is concerned. So I wouldn't want to let that go unchallenged. But we believe that everything shouldn't ride on one test, no matter how sophisticated that test may be, and that in contrast we should have as many samples of the student's work as possible before we can make a valid and reliable assessment that is fair both to the student and to the instructor. That's really all I wanted to make clear. Our main criticism of the provincewide examinations, aside from the ones I mentioned earlier
[ Page 3829 ]
— and I'm not going to repeat them here — is that we think too much rides on one test. We don't think that's a progressive viewpoint. We wouldn't object to having a number of assessments, both student and teacher, and, if necessary from time to time, an external assessment. But we feel that both students and teachers need to be held accountable for their work, and from that point of view we criticize the government exams. It's not that we are not in favour of examinations or testing.
Vote 16 approved.
Vote 17: public schools education, $999,534,707 — approved.
HON. MR. McGEER: Not too many years ago the whole of the estimates didn't amount to as much as vote 17.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, hon. member, although you didn't rise in your place, but you're absolutely correct. Just presenting the vote, Mr. House Leader, is fine.
Vote 18: post-secondary colleges and institutes, $308,659,687 — approved.
Vote 19: independent schools, $23,355,960 — approved.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
On vote 24: minister's office, $145,194.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my estimates with a few comments to cover a few areas. First of all, I would like to recognize the contribution of senior and regional staff and, for that matter, all employees in the Ministry of Environment, for their response and adjustments to the restraint measures that they've had to cope with, and particularly for the initiatives that they have shown in restructuring so that services and their performance as individuals can continue and improve. I can assure this House that there is a very strong dedication throughout the ministry to protecting the environment. One thing that is not often recognized in criticisms levelled in a crisis, when a spill or something of that nature happens.... Generally the emphasis is on the problem. But I would like to recognize the effort that these people put forth. They're on call virtually seven days a week, 24 hours a day, when a crisis such as that develops. I also recognize that their interest often extends far beyond the hours of duty, and that is throughout the ministry. I can assure you that throughout the ministry we are committed to preserving the environment.
I can also inform the House that sometimes the choices are not quite as easy as others would have them. Sometimes we have to very quickly choose the least harmful approach to take. I can use innumerable examples in one category alone. For instance, at some point the ministry and I might have to decide whether to drain a reservoir or take a chance on it bursting and doing severe damage. Those choices are not easy, but often they have to be made. It's not a case of burying our heads in the sand and hoping that it will go away.
Some very positive measures have been taken in this ministry. I would like to refer briefly to a few of these, even though they don't come anywhere near touching on the entire scope of the Environment ministry. For example, special waste management; I think it has been agreed for some time that it is an urgent concern. Certainly dealing with special and hazardous wastes in this province is an issue that warrants our attention. I think that most of the public and the House are aware that last September we announced a special waste management plan for hazardous products which included a collection system, receiving and storage, physical treatment and a secure landfill on Crown land. The ministry identified the two most suitable sites according to an objective evaluation, and discussions are now going on in those communities closest to those sites. Also, open houses are being held throughout the lower mainland over a period of time to deal with the treatment facility, which, it was acknowledged, should be in the area where most of the wastes are generated. There are many reasons for that — responsibility, if you like, and transportation concerns. Whatever way you want to approach it, you try to deal with them as much as possible in the areas where most of the waste is generated. That process is ongoing. Hopefully we can come to a successful conclusion in the next little while.
[3:30]
I note that in Alberta the secure landfill site area has just recently been selected, and we wish them luck in their endeavours. I'm sure that they wish us luck in ours, because it is very important to the province. We can look at some of the suggestions that it should be done on each site, at each factory, at each place. There is considerable evidence to indicate that we would have the problem multiplied in a thousand sites, and it would make it difficult for people to comply. The other thing we faced, of course, is that enforcement has been somewhat difficult, in that we could not say to people in this province that there was somewhere to dispose of this properly. Naturally we are also concentrating....
Part of our program is recycling — destruction on site as much as possible. Those incentives are built into the program. As long as we have factories and industries in this province, there are going to be some wastes which just can't be recycled, and those must be dealt with. That is most important if you like to do job creation. If those factories cannot operate here successfully, then they will go elsewhere. So it does mean jobs, and our waste management plan does help a great deal in that regard. That's the special waste plan.
I would also like to briefly comment on the solid waste management plan. Some of this had been in the works last summer, of course, before I became minister. We met and decided to get all communities in the lower mainland to deal on a cooperative basis with the solid waste disposal program. Since then, a study has been ongoing, which should be concluded early this summer, with two years' implementation, to deal with a rational, workable plan for solid waste disposal in the lower mainland.
I'm touching on a few here that I think have been successful. I'm sure we will deal with others later. The salmonid enhancement program has had considerable contribution by the federal government. The two governments have spent more than $157 million to rehabilitate the salmon and searunning trout of the province. We're presently in a transition phase, with estimated costs of around $68 million to continue the operation of the facilities. Then we will be going into the next phase in '86-87. I think that the good news for sports
[ Page 3830 ]
fishermen is that the province has successfully implemented a program of restoring badly depleted steelhead and cutthroat runs through fish culture and habitat improvement. I was pleased to note that some newspapers in the lower mainland had reports coming in from others that the fishing was much better. With continued management, hopefully it will improve.
One issue which has had fairly widespread publicity — an inordinate amount of publicity, if you like — but which was really only an ongoing part of our wildlife management program, is the wolf control program. That has been ongoing in northern Vancouver Island, in the Nimpkish valley. The emphasis, of course, was on the Kechika valley in northeastern British Columbia — and on the Muskwa region, which was a new program. The Kechika program has been ongoing for three years. The results indicate that it is effective and that it does considerable good for wildlife management. The studies are ongoing as well. I suppose the problem there is that as a politician, one is subject to a great deal of criticism and, in my opinion, unwarranted attacks and untrue allegations and accusations. Unfortunately, that is publicized far and wide through the media. I would think that some corroboration efforts or research efforts might go into whether statements are true before they are actually publicized. For instance, I have been accused of political payoffs. That's not true. I have been accused of corruption. That's not true. We have been accused of doing this strictly for the benefit of a game ranch, because it benefits one person in the area. That's not true. Statements were made that that person owns all the land in the area. That is not true. As in many guiding areas, he owns one section of land. The game goes throughout 10,000 square miles. For those of you who are not familiar with land delineation, one section of land is one square mile out of 10,000.
As I say, one gets some of this political flak because one is a politician. Yet to continually respond publicly to ridiculous accusations about campaign funds, which are not true, only prolongs the argument in a senseless way. I feel it interferes with the ability of the ministry staff to carry on with the job that they have to do. The saddest part of this is that game management in this province — for whatever purpose: viewing, hunting, fishing, and so on — is for the purpose of enhancing tourism within the province and attracting people from outside. It is a major factor. In endeavouring to get at me, some of my opponents are trying to harm people and destroy jobs in the tourism industry. Because they don't agree with something, why do they then try to hurt the livelihood of other people?
I would like to again touch briefly on the habitat conservation fund, which seems to be very well accepted by people who have a vested interest in wildlife management. The fishermen and the hunters of this province have gladly contributed an extra $3 to their hunting licences. As a matter of fact, I think they have made a recommendation that the amount be increased to $6. We have not acted on that, but I think it is indicative of their support for the habitat conservation program. Again, let me assure all concerned that the funds from those extra surcharges do go into a special fund which is strictly for those activities and is, in effect, based on recommendations made by the habitat conservation advisory board. Any proposals which come in go to that board, which evaluates them and makes recommendations to the minister.
Despite the many criticisms of the ministry, the enforcement of environmental standards and game, wildlife and fishing regulations have all improved in the last few years because of refinements in our approach. I don't think there will ever come a time in this province when we will have enough "policemen" to control all the users of our environment, in whatever form they take. Therefore we do depend heavily upon the responsibility of the users of our environment. In enforcement we end up dealing with a violation rate of 5, 10 and 15 percent, depending on the areas. I find that the compliance rate of people who are checked in the field is 85, 90 and 95 percent, and that is certainly a credit to the people of the province and the interest that they show in that regard.
One thing that has increased our enforcement ability is the response from the public to the observe, record and report program. Every hunter, fisherman and person who uses that wilderness is, in effect, a conservation officer in their own right. We have asked them not to try to make arrests — because they have no authority to do that — but rather to report to us and let us know what is happening, and they have responded very well. For what value it may have, I would like to recognize the contribution of those people and further promote the understanding that rules are not made by us to try to restrict people from enjoying our environment and having fun, but they have a definite and rational basis. As more people accept those rules for a good reason rather than something to try and beat, I think we will have what we really need ultimately in this province: support and compliance with the regulations because of the value and the good that they do. So again, I think all of us can be conservation-minded. I know the accusation has been made that because I happen to have done some hunting in my time I cannot possibly be interested in conservation. I unequivocally reject that. If I've taken an animal, I've been very, very much interested in never wasting and also, on the other hand, wanting to see a whole bunch left there for the future and for anybody that wants to see them or use them in any form.
Just while I'm on the positive note of commending people, this evening I have the honour of presenting some environmental awards to industries and public service groups and individuals who have shown exemplary action in doing things for the environment or to protect the environment. I think in fairness to them I won't announce who they are at this time.
With that brief introduction, I would like to now acknowledge the presence of my deputy minister, who got here since the last estimates ended, Mr. Ben Marr. I'm sure there may be the odd question that some of you have, and we will do our best to answer them.
MRS. WALLACE: Well, I thank the minister for his remarks. I understand that vote 24 provides for the operation of the office of the Minister of Environment, including the salaries and expenses of the staff. Does that mean that the minister does not get any salary as Minister of Environment?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are some who might support you on that, but no, the answer is that I have the two ministries, but I only get one salary, and that salary is covered in the other ministry. Last year, as you may recall, I became minister during the middle of the year, and so the estimates were prepared accordingly. But this year I suppose if anything else happens, an adjustment will have to be made. So we put zero in this one; my salary comes out of the other one.
[ Page 3831 ]
MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as the minister's salary vote is not paying him any salary, I suspect he's getting paid about what he's worth, and I have no objection to this vote passing.
Vote 24 approved.
On vote 25: resource and environmental management, $88,866,952.
MRS. WALLACE: This vote is the total vote for the ministry's activities. You will note that it's divided into several sections, (a) through (j), which deal with various things. I will try and deal with them in some order of sequence under that vote.
The first is general administration. I note that in an $88 million budget, $22 million is for administration. That's 25 percent of the budget. That seems somewhat high for administrative purposes. According to the description, the subvote provides for executive direction and coordination, for central ministry services, information, personnel, finance, systems, space, laboratory, conservation, communications.... It lists the whole gamut here, a grant to Vancouver Regional District, and some recoveries. Be that as it may, the 25 percent seems to be a fairly sizeable chunk of money for administration. Certainly it's higher than one would normally expect to see in the undertaking of any enterprise. We usually think in terms of more like around 10, 15 or 20 percent maximum, so I'm wondering if the minister has any explanation for why that is such a high percentage.
[3:45]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, thank you, even though by implication I've been told I'm worth nothing. That was an unkind cut, I think, from that member. I do an awful lot of work in this ministry for nothing, if you like.
However, to answer the question, I think even the estimates book, under vote 25, basically gives you that answer. It depends on your connotation of administration, because here administration includes, as the member has already acknowledged, a wide scope of this ministry. General administration not only provides for the direction and coordination of the central ministry services but includes information, personnel, finance, systems, space, laboratory, conservation, communications, planning, environmental assessment, inventory and general administration.
MRS. WALLACE: I recognize that all those things are in there, but they are in there because they're are part and parcel of the responsibilities that the ministry covers. You are simply listing the administration for the various things that you cover. What I'm saying is that the percentage going into administration seems very high in relation to the amount in dollars going into the actual providing of the various programs that are listed there.
I do have a question that relates to administration. I understand that you are now charging individuals for copies of material requested from your ministry. I have a note here from the West Coast Environmental Law Association, which apparently was charged $1 per page for copies of public documents. I understand this is an administrative policy of your ministry. I have certainly not heard of that being the case in any other ministry, and I wonder how it is you have decided on those kinds of charges to the public for government documents. That seems pretty onerous, certainly a lot more than the cost of copying.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know that I can satisfy the member, but because of the nature of our ministry for consultative engineering reports and other documents, there is an expense involved in providing documents. Many requests come in, and yes, there are charges for documents; there have been for a long time. The charges have probably been increased to try to reflect a little more the cost of that service.
MRS. WALLACE: I don't know if it is really in order, Mr. Chairman, but does the minister know whether this is a common practice across all ministries, or is it only practised in the Ministry of Environment?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I think it would be a little dangerous for me to know exactly what goes on in all of the other ministries, but I think it is fairly common practice to charge for documents that are available. For instance, we have for years charged for aerial photos and maps. We happen to have certain documents in our ministry which perhaps other ministries don't have. We don't charge for our annual reports, we don't charge for a number of documents; but the nature of it is that in this ministry we do have quite a few documents that need to be charged for.
MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for that comment.
He mentioned salmonid enhancement, and I'd like to turn to the whole fisheries situation. A lot of concern has been expressed that the rather large artificial things done under the enhancement program have many disadvantages as well as advantages, and there is a strong feeling among a great many people who are very knowledgeable about the subject that the better route to go is natural habitat enhancement. It is less costly — less capital cost — and certainly more productive dollar for dollar. Not only that, but it avoids what often happens when you create an artificial species in a given area: that as a result of quite a major enhancement there may be more excessive fishing allowed. Of course, that fishing does not separate the natural, native wild fish from the others, so they are overcaught. As in the case to the south of us, disease overtook the artificial group and wiped them out, and there was little or none of the wild species left. So there is some concern and much evidence to indicate that by far the best route to go is natural habitat enhancement, rather than other costly measures. I have seen some figures on the sort of things that the program has undertaken, but it always seems to me that those large major operations are the main focal point of that program, and that certainly leaves me with some concern.
While I'm talking about fisheries, I wonder whether or not the minister has been involved at all in trying to deal with, in consultation with the federal government or with any of the commercial and sports fishermen in the province who....
That industry is facing a real crisis. We saw not long ago a fairly massive march on Ottawa, and I recognize that it is basically, under the statutes, a responsibility of the federal government, but certainly it is also partially our responsibility here. Those are our people who live here and who fish and make their livelihood here, and much of the provincially
[ Page 3832 ]
controlled resource industries — forestry and mining, for example — are the industries which create many of the problems for the fishing industry. The same is true of hydro developments — again under provincial control. So I don't think that you, as Minister of Environment responsible for fisheries in this province, really can just say it's strictly a federal problem. What, if anything, has the minister done in working with the federal authorities or with the local fishermen from British Columbia — the trollers, the UFWA, the native fishermen and the sports fishermen — in trying to do anything to resolve this situation? Has he put any pressure on the federal government to take some actions other than those as proposed, or has he even taken any action to support the recommendations contained in the Pearse report and the Cruickshank report? Certainly the recommendations in neither of the reports are acceptable to the local fishing industry here in British Columbia in reality — the Pearse report particularly and the Cruickshank report to a great degree. I know it's the federal responsibility to negotiate international waters, but when it affects so severely our fishing industry here in British Columbia, I'm wondering what the minister has done in relation to dealing with the federal government or working with the fisheries people in that respect.
So there are several questions relative to the whole concept of fish conservation, habitat conservation and, actually, the conservation of our whole fishing industry here in British Columbia.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll try to answer the questions in the order they were delivered. Regarding the salmonid enhancement program or the other fisheries program, I think the member was pointing out that natural enhancement is more beneficial. I can't argue with you on that, because our efforts go about 75 percent into natural habitat enhancement — in other words, the natural rehabilitation of the fishing industry. The other 25 percent goes into the artificial means, and basically those are to supplement situations where because of, as the member mentions, hydro or other reasons something has gone awry and so we try to get it back into the natural situation with enhancing the habitat of these species and also trying to get them back into natural reproduction rather than artificial reproduction. For that reason we have been very reluctant to move in any direction or to any extent on several proposals we've had for fish farms to provide breeding stock. We're concerned about the possibilities of disease and that sort of thing.
As far as the concern over fisheries, certainly we have ongoing discussions and we have an interest and a concern over what's happening to the difficulties that fishermen are facing. It would seem that the two main problems there are marketing — and the province is working on that — and that we need more fish. So we continue our enhancement and protection programs. That's really mostly what we can do, except in the case of the freshwater fish, of course; we manage them on behalf of and along with the federal fisheries people.
As far as the international negotiations are concerned, yes, we have representatives at each of the conferences. We've developed a strong position trying to resolve the impasse with Washington, Oregon and Alaska. It seemed like the negotiations had almost gotten there, in negotiations with Washington and Oregon state, and then there was a problem from Alaska. But as you know, we've discussed that at the senior staff level and the Premier in his discussions with the Governor of Washington state was pursuing that. So we will continue to work with the federal colleagues who are trying to come up with an agreement that will share the fish equitably on an international basis and try to provide the livelihood that the fishermen need. In a nutshell, it would seem there are too many fishermen chasing a depleting stock of fish. We don't regulate the number of fishermen, particularly in saltwater fishing. We regulate the inland fisheries through various regulations — with catch-and-release and enhancement programs — to try to get more fish into the streams, with limits to control the number of fish that people take.
[4:00]
MRS. WALLACE: I certainly agree that it seems to be too many fishermen chasing too few fish. That's a direct result of government policies — both federal and provincial — that have allowed this situation to develop and have allowed the depletion of our fisheries resource. Certainly the marketing situation as it exists in British Columbia today can be laid at the feet of this government, who allowed foreign ownership and consolidation to come into that whole processing and marketing arena, which is part of the problem.
I mentioned earlier the Pearse report, the buyback proposals and the Cruickshank report. Do I gather from what the minister says that he is supportive of those policies, programs and the whole buyback thing now being touted by the federal government? Is he supportive of that way of, well, bailing out the banks at the expense of the fishermen, which is actually what it amounts to? They'll buy back the quota and the fisherman is left with his boat, which he can't fish with. Certainly there seems to be an intention to place real restrictions on the commercial fishermen, much more so than on the sports fishermen. It would almost seem that the federal government is trying to start some kind of warfare among the various groups interested in those fish, with the approach that they are taking under those two reports. I don't know if I understood the minister correctly or not, but he said he had been negotiating very closely with the federal government on this program. I would like to know whether he supports the federal government's buyback proposals.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the member raises some rather interesting points in saying that too many fishermen is a direct result of our and federal government policy. It also raises the question of rights — human rights, if you like. Should governments say that one person may be a fisherman but that another may not. If you had to make those decisions, how would you do that?
As far as the buyback is concerned, no, I think it's unfortunate that the taxpayers now have to correct the mistakes of the federal government. That is the same government which licensed more and more fishboats. No, I personally can't be too supportive of that.
MRS. WALLACE: Well, as I understand the buyback program, it's not a burden on the taxpayers; it's going to be a burden on the fishermen who aren't bought out. The ones left are going to be assessed to cover the payments that buy the others out. But that's beside the point. Anyway, I'm pleased to hear that he is not supporting that particular program.
I want to talk a bit about his responsibility for marine resources — in particular, oysters. At the time the Ministry of Agriculture was renamed Agriculture and Food, I thought
[ Page 3833 ]
that the whole oyster industry was going to be transferred over to the Ministry of Agriculture. Certainly, from my contacts with the people who produce oysters in this province, that's the direction in which they would like to go. They feel that they are producers of food; they're commercial producers of food. As such, their interests are somewhat different than environmentally oriented interests. I understand they have made several approaches to be transferred. Their reading of the situation is that it's the Ministry of Environment which somehow doesn't want to part with them. The excuse that's been given is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food doesn't have any staff to deal with this, because they've been asked to reduce staff. You know, if you transferred them over, you could probably transfer a couple of your staff over to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food — if, in fact that is the direction in which we should be going. It seems to me that commercial oyster growing is quite a different thing than the enchancement of oysters for tourists along the beaches at Yellow Point, or whatever.
I am reasonably familiar with the Ladysmith Harbour situation, because I used to live in that area. I know that the pollution that occurred in that harbour has literally wiped out oyster production there. I don't know how many growers there were back in 1964, but it was a goodly number, probably in the area of about 15 or 20. The one remaining producer in that area has an oyster lease of 189 acres, of which only 25 acres are usable and only five are in production. In order to produce oysters in Ladysmith Harbour now, you have to relay them — take them to other water and leave them for a couple of weeks — before they're saleable. Of the many producers who were there, only one has been able to hang on.
I know your ministry has been studying the conditions in Ladysmith Harbour for a long time. Various studies have been done there, but it is the same old conflict: is it the forest industry, pollution from sewage, or a combination of both? The fact remains that Ladysmith Harbour, which was one of the richest producing areas for oysters, is now almost nonexistent as far as production goes. The area was a great producer of seed as well — there are about four areas on the west coast that produce seed — but Ladysmith Harbour oysters have not produced seed since 1971. There has been no set of seed. That means that not only are the commercial oystermen affected, but also any natural regeneration along the various tourist beaches, and I speak specifically of Yellow Point, because that's the area I know, where that natural seed would set and we would have reproduction of oysters as a natural enhancement of that particular area. You can produce seed artificially and sow it, but it washes off and doesn't catch; the natural seed does. As a result of the lack of setting of the seed, any tourists coming to Yellow Point to pick up oysters, or even see them on the beach, are almost a nonexistent thing now. Raft culture is supposedly going to offset this, but raft culture is a very small percentage. Bottom culture is more economic and much less risky. So it is really not taking the place of natural regeneration.
Relative to Ladysmith Harbour, I think there have been some studies and reviews made. The planning team reported in June of last year and.... Oh, I'm sorry, the other one was not on Ladysmith Harbour; that was on another area. There have been some reports, but it seems impossible to get any final decision as to what the problems are, or to get any action to do anything about them. That could be a very valuable and labour-intensive industry if we could in fact get that harbour cleaned up enough so that the oyster industry could re-establish itself there.
I am sure the same kinds of problems occur in other areas where oysters are produced. I'm using that one as an example because it's one I know very well, but I've heard other members in this House talk about other areas where they have similar problems. Just what is happening relative to ensuring that marine oyster culture is continued and expanded, what efforts are being made to clear up this whole situation, and why is the ministry not agreeable to having the commercial section of that industry transferred over to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food?
[Mr. Ree in the chair.]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, I'd like to deal with the question of whether oyster culture should be under Environment or Agriculture and Food. I suppose an argument could be made for both sides. In her continuing discussion, the member probably gave some of the best arguments as to why it should be under the Environment ministry, because it is affected by the environmental considerations of protection of the water and the adjacent foreshore. I know that we are trying to encourage better methods and better research with the aquaculture industry. We are trying to encourage the raft method. Ongoing studies are being done about trying to clean up areas that have been damaged by pollution, as far as, say, oyster culture is concerned. Immediately, of course, we know a way to do it, and that's to shut down all the forest industry in the area. It's fairly difficult. So not taking that extreme path, the only thing that we can do next is to try to analyze just how we can minimize the pollution effects and how we can rehabilitate the areas that are needed for oyster culture. There will, I suppose, be conflicts as long as we have different industries that are all trying to operate in the same areas and trying to create jobs, which the people seem to want. We are trying to protect various areas from even aquaculture development, because they are breeding grounds for fish, stock and other areas that we're trying to preserve for aquaculture. We then have rehabilitation to the extent that is possible, and studies are ongoing on that.
MRS. WALLACE: Well, the studies are ongoing, all right. They've been ongoing since 1975 when that Ladysmith Harbour report came down. Sure, there's a conflict. There always is when you have multi-use of any resource, whether it's land, water or whatever. But what I'm talking about is resolving some of the conflicts, and that's not happening. It's going on and on. We're down to one of the lowest ebbs we ever were in oyster production in Ladysmith Harbour. It's even worse than it was in 1975, because there were two or three growers there at that time and we're now down to only one.
You talk about raft culture. That's a much more expensive way of doing it, and it's not as sure — It's more hazardous, and it's more apt to have problems. We should encourage more of the bottom culture, and then you also get your seeding if you have the proper water conditions, as you do have in Ladysmith Harbour if that water is pure. But it's just ongoing. Every year for the last I don't know how many years I've talked about this same situation, and every year it's just the same: "Well, we're reviewing it, and, you know, the forest industry, and so on and so forth."
[ Page 3834 ]
The forest industry should be required to utilize less of that harbour and utilize it in a cleaner way, if, in fact, it is the bark that's causing the problem — and that seems to be the consensus. If, in fact, the sewer outfall is part of the problem, then there should be something done to ensure that that is corrected. But to just keep on saying: "Well, it's multi-use and it's a bad situation.... It always seems that it's those kinds of smaller industries that get phased out, and in many instances, those smaller industries are far more labour-intensive, if you're talking about jobs, than the larger concerns are.
[4:15]
In his opening remarks the minister talked about his hazardous waste disposal, and I want to talk about hazardous waste disposal. I think probably we all agree — I'm sure we all agree — that hazardous waste in this province is a problem. It's estimated that something like 70,000 tonnes of hazardous waste are produced per year. The majority of it is in the lower mainland, but it's scattered from the north to all areas of the province. But the minister seems to think that if anybody is opposed to or questions what he's proposing, somehow they don't want to solve the problem. I suggest that this minister's approach is really the reason we're in the situation that we're in today. He has made a decision as to what he's going to do, and then he's trying to sell it to people. I submit that that decision may be an incorrect one.
I think the primary basis on which he has made the decision to allow the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes in this province to be handled by a company for the purpose of making a profit from it is a completely wrong premise for that particular kind of operation. I've no objection to a company doing something to make a profit. But I do think that when you take a very new thing — and it is a new way to go, in spite of what the minister may tell us — and you put it in the hands of a company which, by their own admission, say they're not sure whether there's enough hazardous waste in this province to make it a viable operation, and then you tell them that they can more or less police themselves, but other people can go and have a took once in a while, I have some very grave concerns.
When the company which that minister has decided will have the job has taken.... I'm talking about Genstar-IT. I have no information as far as Genstar goes. I think probably the things they do may be quite adequate. But by Genstar's own telling, they amalgamated with IT because IT is supposed to have the expertise in this kind of thing, particularly in hazardous waste disposal sites. My reading of IT's history is anything but good. I have done some research on three different states; the first one is Louisiana. They have been in there for some length of time, and they still haven't got the landfill in place. The first inkling we had was back in 1980. This was a press release in the Nashua Telegraph, in December 1980:
"Louisiana's chief health officer said...that an independent study should have been conducted before the state approved construction of the world's largest hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility in an area dotted with homes and schools. 'It's insanity,' said Steve Irving, the Baton Rouge attorney, to Save Our Selves, a residents' organization which plans to fight the plant in court. 'We found 28 water wells on the site that IT didn't find, and we didn't even look very hard.' IT has said that all of the toxic waste, including such things as chlorinated hydrocarbons...will come within a 20-mile radius of the site."
Another article is from the Boston Globe, in August, which was later on. It says:
"'If they didn't lie, they were so misleading that you couldn't trust much of what they said,' said Ruby Cointment" — who is a resident of the area. "'IT representatives would tell people in one community one thing and tell people in another community something different. We were led to believe that the hazardous waste would be local. We're in an industrial area, and there are many illegal hazardous waste dumps. But in a community across the river IT was telling people of job possibilities on a waterfront receiving terminal. When we finally pinned them down — you don't need a river terminal for local waste — IT said they were bound by federal law to accept waste from other areas.'"
The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that this company has a very unsavoury record in the United States. This is from the San Francisco Tribune, December 19, 1979:
"The Bay Area Quality Management District has filed a civil complaint asking for $18,000 in fines from IT Corp., alleging 36 violations of the district's odor emission standards. The violations are alleged to have taken place since early this year. District representative Teresa Lee said violation notices have been given to IT Corp. throughout the year, but the company has not paid any of its fines."
Let's move to Massachusetts. This is another area where IT was involved. This is from the Boston Globe, August 2, 1982:
"Citizens' groups in Massachusetts and in other states are unanimous in accusing IT of a lack of candor in its claims and presentations. Some of IT's claims of sophisticated technical accomplishments are overstated and misleading. IT and several state officials are under investigation by the Louisiana State Ethics Commission for alleged impropriety in obtaining land and for alleged conflict of interest in employing state contractors to approve sites."
What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that obviously there should be some serious investigation into just what inspections are happening. If we are going to let a company that has that kind of an unsavoury record be responsible for handling our toxic waste, then I am not at all sure that we can really trust them. They're in it for the sole purpose of making money. As I've said before, I have no objection to that being the sole purpose of any company operating. But how is that going to affect the operation when it comes to safety? Are they really going to live up to the kind of statements that they've been making? There is a tremendous concern about a disposal site. This is from the December 30, 1982, edition of the New York Times:
"Few engineers believe landfills can be made completely safe unless they contain thick-walled subterranean vaults to contain the waste. Some toxins remain dangerous for centuries, and experts say the cost of landfills built to prevent leakage for that long would be very high."
It goes on to say that a number of companies are looking for other ways to dispose of hazardous waste, and certainly I recognize that Genstar-IT is going to have a recovery plant.
[ Page 3835 ]
That's the name of the game — to try to recoup as much of the hazardous wastes that would be saleable and usable and bring them some return.
They are talking about various methods: chemical, biological and incinerating. I'm quoting again from this article:
"Incineration, however, is largely limited to treating hazardous substances that contain organic or flammable materials. Many waste materials, such as the dangerously toxic metallic residue left over after metal plating and steel fabrication, cannot now be incinerated effectively."
I've read that you can perhaps incinerate up to almost 99 percent if you have a sufficiently high temperature. But if we are talking about 70,000 tonnes per year and about 1 percent of that that cannot be destroyed, we are talking about a fair chunk of highly toxic material each year.
Certainly to build the kind of landfill that's a subterranean vault sufficiently safe to hold those wastes is beyond what we can expect Genstar to do. From what I've seen of what they're doing and what I have been able to glean as to what's going on in the Ashcroft area, it would appear that there are some real problems. In the first place, they are probably into groundwater, which means that you would be right into the strata of water that supplies the wells, particularly on the Indian reserve in that area.
I am not convinced that it is a good place to put that kind of a toxic-waste disposal site at the confluence of two rivers — not that far away. I'm not at all convinced that technology has been sufficiently developed that we can safely proceed, and certainly to get rid of one hazard, which is hazardous waste around this province that we all agree is a hazard, by creating two or three other hazards, one of which could well be the disposal site, one of which could be the treatment plant, because we're going to have all kinds of material brought in there for treatment.... A couple of "spills" happened not too long ago, one of PCP and one of cyanide, which have had some serious effects. Any operation is only as efficient as that plant is being handled, and when you're trying to work quickly and recoup the material that's going to be of value to you, there's always a danger you're going to get a bit careless. I don't think that's the way to go, Mr. Minister.
[4:30]
The third one is transportation. I know there's a small percentage of it.... Someone left on my desk just today the ministry's assessment of where these things are, and only a small percentage of the wastes are outside of Vancouver. But I see that 4 percent of the wastes are on Vancouver Island; how are you going to get those safely over to any treatment facility in the lower mainland? We're going to be posing some real hazards in transporting those, although probably not as great a hazard as transporting the I percent from Fort St. John, the 2 percent from Nelson, the 3 percent from Kitimat, the 3 percent from Prince George, down the Fraser Canyon and into the lower mainland. I think that transportation is going to pose some very severe problems. I don't know if we're talking about 70,000 tonnes or 25,000 tonnes that they're going to transport annually. Genstar is talking about 25,000 that they're going to treat; is it a percentage of that or a percentage of the 70,000?
I know there has been some talk about evaporation or filtration, and I see you've got some things in here about this. When you evaporate, how do you know you're not getting dioxins in the atmosphere? When you filtrate, how do you know you're not getting particles or something in solution?
What sort of checks and balances are you going to have? If you're in fact going to evaporate the liquid off this material before you transport it in order to get it to a smaller amount — that's what I understood you to say, and that's why the 70,000 versus the 25,000 — what happens to the material you filter off? How well is that tested? How do we know that's pure? What becomes of that? And what happens to any emissions that can be airborne if you're evaporating? I don't think we've reviewed those things. I don't think we really know what's going to happen in those areas.
One of the real problems that has developed with this thing is that what is going to happen was all laid out. There was no public consultation beforehand. Public hearings seem to have a new meaning now in this province; instead of having a public hearing....
Interjection.
MRS. WALLACE: Too bad you apologized, or withdrew, or whatever you did.
The method of doing it...the public hearing is gone. A ministry decides what's going to happen, and then we go out and tell people what we're going to do to them and try to convince them that it's okay. In his opening remarks the minister mentioned the Alberta situation, and certainly that company is as vulnerable as IT if you start looking into its history.
I want to talk about the Manitoba situation. They're taking an entirely different approach there. They have said to people: "We've got this much hazardous waste. It's a problem, a concern. These are the things we can do, the possibilities, the directions we can go. Let's talk about it, learn about it and understand what we're going to do, and then let the people decide." The people in Manitoba will decide what kind of treatment they want, where they want the treatment plant, where they want a waste disposal and what kind, if any, of waste disposal they want — a silo, above-ground, below-ground. In the meantime, the government is simply collecting this material and shipping it out to a disposal place in the States — which is what we are still doing here — until they come up with a decision. But there it's being treated as a very broad and basic public hearing long before the fact.
Now, the minister had a task force. It was interesting to know that the only group that you might even consider to be an environmental group that sat on that task force about the hazardous waste was SPEC. The others were all from corporations or governments and so on. But even that task force recommended that this very important, critical and somewhat experimental job be left in the hands of a Crown corporation and not given to private enterprise. It certainly concerns me, and a great many people in this province, that we have an organization with such a shaky track record involved as a co-partner in dealing with hazardous waste here in B.C. It certainly concerns me that the minister is simply telling people: "This is the way it's going to be. This is where it's going to be. This is what we're going to do, and you really don't have anything to say about it." I'm sure I must have almost taken up my half hour on this subject, but it is a very critical subject. I know the minister is as concerned about it in his way as I am in mine. He spent some time on it in his opening remarks. Perhaps he would like to make some comment on what I have said.
[ Page 3836 ]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is really so much territory here that it's difficult to know how to condense it. Any comment can be taken out of context, I suppose, and used, and that's what's going on. For instance, that member insists on referring to this as a "toxic dump."
MRS. WALLACE: I didn't say "dump."
HON. MR. BRUMMET. And the reason we're trying to get into a secure.... Yes, you did refer to it as a "toxic dump."
MRS. WALLACE: I said "waste."
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Toxic waste, we agree. What we are trying to do is deal with a secure landfill, but let me get back to that.
I wish that member would spend as much time studying and analyzing what this waste management plan is trying to accomplish throughout as she does'trying to research all the bad examples that exist. In putting together this waste management plan, the ministry, the Reid-Crowther report, a number of studies and the task force have looked at all of the mistakes that have been made in the past in order to try to avoid making them in the future. I could tell the member that I've talked to a well-known authority who has toured European sites and sites in many places, and he informs me that the measure that we're taking technically provide for two or three extra security measures than the best sites that he has seen. The technology, the proposal and the management plan is the ministry's; it is not Genstar's. Genstar, in effect, would be the operator. The Ministry of Environment would be the regulator. Whenever we check with people and say, "How does our proposed technology compare?" we're told it's good and far and above. Yes, it's new, and the member says it's so new that perhaps we shouldn't do anything. You implied basically that until we come up with the perfect answer, we should put it on hold. In effect what we're trying to do is prevent the very sort of problems that that member has referred to. The wastes that are being produced are there.
The member said: "What about the groundwater there?" Surely that's what all the testing on the site is about. The critics are objecting to analyzing the site. They say: "Don't look at the site. Just don't put it anywhere." If we followed that to its logical conclusion, where would the member, or anybody, suggest that we put it, because somewhere it has to be somebody's back yard. The member mentions all of the public hearings we've had to determine what is there, what should be done, and so on. The Reid-Crowther report, a provincial-federal study, determined that there are wastes being generated, that they are dangerous toxic wastes, that they are going into our environment now and something should be done about it. That report indicated that whatever treatment program you do, you have to have control and regulation over the collection; you have to have inventory — I'm not quoting you the whole report — of what's being produced; you have to have a collection. You have to have a temporary storage system; you have to have treatment; and you have to have a final, secure disposal site.
The member mentions that in incineration no matter what you do there may be some products left over — a small portion. Granted, and these are toxic materials. That is the type of thing that something has to be done with. It's there. It's now in our environment. So the proposal that we have, in the simplest terms, is the best technology available to take that material and solidify it into a block which makes it the closest thing to inert that is possible. In other words, arsenic, cyanide and some of these things occur in nature in rocks, but they don't leach out except under special acid conditions. These will be put back into the equivalent of rocks in nature. That is what would be stored in the secure landfill. Then the extra precautions have been taken that this landfill, to be in the safest possible location, should be in a dry climate where there are heavy, impervious clay soils. In other words, these are extra, additional securities. You could take that solid and store it in the lower mainland. You could store it in places where it rains more and more water collects, and that presents an additional problem. So a dry climate, a high-evaporation climate where the soils are, where the groundwater isn't, where you don't have flood conditions.... These were all of the criteria that were built into the site selection, and that was done.
You may recall that the Reid-Crowther report selected this general area. Our people looked at that and then with a series of overlays said: "Okay, what are the other problems?" Groundwater was one. Everything that was known about groundwater was screened out — where that was a potential problem. Anywhere where there were faults — all of this was screened out through those overlays, and then it ended up with some white spots on this map. These were, according to all the available criteria, the most logical and best possibilities.
So yes, we have made some decisions. We made the decision that something should be done instead of nothing, and the sooner the better. We don't want to wait until we get into a lot of the problems that have happened in the past, and then, when we have a crisis, have to deal with it. We are yet in the position in British Columbia that we have a very grave problem, but we do not have it in crisis proportions, and so we want to do it.
The member mentions that some spills have happened from temporary storage. That's what we want to do something about. You cannot prevent temporary storage if you can't tell someone: "Here's what you can do with it." All of the treatment and evaporation, if you like, all of these factors.... If we don't collect them centrally somewhere and do something under the best possible conditions, under the best possible means, then you are saying, in effect, that it's better for everybody to do it in a haphazard way, any place, all over the province. I cannot accept that. I think it is much better to do it with proper controls — under a controlled situation. I can't emphasize enough that it is our waste management program — the Environment ministry's. Technically the approaches that we're taking are sound, from all the information we can get. Since it's our program, we regulate it, we control it, we attach the conditions. Monitoring committees, facilities monitoring committees to be structured, representing the public, are going to be in place.
I guess where the member and I part company is that somehow she feels that it's got to cost the taxpayers a bunch of money for it to be any good. We're saying that if all of these control conditions, regulations and safeguards can be met and it can be done on a self-sustaining basis and even if somebody makes a buck at it, so be it. We think that is better. It does not have to cost the taxpayers a fortune in order to be good. If we just turned this over to any company for the sake of profit alone, and absolved ourselves of any regulatory
[ Page 3837 ]
control, then I could agree with the member. But we're not doing that. We're controlling the program.
[4:45]
The member has mentioned the public hearings. I guess we could have done that. There will be public opportunity. We really thought that having studied the Reid-Crowther report, having learned about the other studies that had been done and all of the other public hearings, eventually, in some form or another they came back to.... I would venture to say that's exactly what Manitoba is going to do when they complete their study a few years from now. They're going to find that you've got to find ways to make sure of what you have in inventory, you're going to have to find ways to collect it and transport it safely, and you're going to have to find ways to treat as much of it and recycle as much of it as you can, and you're going to have to end up with something left over that you've got to put somewhere. That's what they're going to find. That's what all of the studies have eventually resulted in, in whatever form.
So we thought it might be more productive to put together a proposal taking these necessary factors into consideration, putting them into place and saying: "Here is the proposal. Now do you have any questions about it? We'll answer any and all questions. We'll even hire consultants, if necessary, if you're not satisfied with us." I don't know why the ministry and myself, who are interested in protecting the environment, are immediately suspect, as though we are trying to destroy the environment. That stuff is going into this environment now. It is going into streams, it's being dumped all over this province, because there is nothing else to do with it. Before the thing gets bad, we'd like to do something about it.
I guess I'm getting a bit emotional, because I do feel that if everybody takes the attitude that yes, we agree, something should be done, but not until it's absolutely foolproof and guaranteed for six centuries, not until everybody agrees on it; and whatever, never in my back yard.... It's got to be in somebody's back yard. Some people say: "Well, why don't you just take it and put it back into the mountains?" I asked the same question: why not just put it out there? It would be out of sight. But it would be a worse problem, because when you put it up in those mountains you have rock fissures, groundwater, all kinds of problems. Somehow or other all the water in British Columbia sooner or later runs downhill, so however far back you put it.... It might be out of sight, but by golly it creates a greater problem than if you keep it in sight and do something with it, and treat it — for instance, the solid waste disposal that we're talking about in the secure landfill and then the dry climate; all of this. Then we turn around and say: "There will be a protective layer underneath but we don't count on that holding. So there's a pickup system that anything goes into that does happen to leach out." Despite everything that we think isn't going to happen, we've still got the safety and the safeguards built in; we pick it up and recycle it, and a constant monitoring system is built into it.
I don't know how much more you can do with the technology. Below that we are insisting that there has to be so many feet of impermeable clay that it won't go through. Yet we are told that somehow or other we've picked the site, we are interested.... I guess this is what makes me emotional, when people seem to imply that we don't care about the environment, that we haven't considered the fisheries, the groundwater effects, the leaching effects and so on. All of that has been considered. I wish I could in all conscience say that whatever we do can be guaranteed forever, but I don't think anybody in this world can say that. I can assure the member and anyone else that whatever we do is going to be the best and safest possible way to do something.
MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I would like to change the direction of debate a bit at this point.
I'm going to deal with a number of concerns and questions, most of which are in the area of wildlife management, but before I do I would like to take a few moments to commend this minister for his actions....
Interjection.
MR. KEMPF: You haven't heard why yet, Mr. Member. It's in regard to the predator control program that he has entered into in the northwest comer of this province. It's a control program that has been needed for 10, 15 or more years in British Columbia. Finally we have a minister who has taken the bull by the horns, so to speak. He has had the intestinal fortitude to do what has to be done, regardless of the bleeding hearts who live in the west end of Vancouver and other such places in this province, and who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to a predator control program. The program embarked upon by the minister on the advice of his people certainly is a landmark in British Columbia. I look for it to continue for years to come. It's necessary. I have stood in this House — this is going into the ninth year — and spoken on the need for a predator program in this province. In those nearly nine years I've seen our ungulate populations deplete to almost nil, to a situation where we almost did not have moose, cariboo, deer and sheep, and the other ungulate species which abound in our north country. We almost did not have any left. I can't say too many words in support of that minister and that program.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
Mr. Chairman, the only concern I have is for the cost of helicopter hunting. Certainly I understand why the minister has entered into that kind of a program. I have a concern because it is the taxpayer who pays for everything in this province, including the helicopter hunting predator program. As the minister knows and as many in this province should know, there is a more economic and just as safe way of carrying on that predator program, and that's with the use of 1080, which is a canine poison. It is called 1080 because it was the 1,080th try to perfect a canine poison, and it was successful. It attacks only those species of the canine family and can be used very successfully when in the hands of people who know what they're doing with that poison.
Now that we have accepted the fact that a predator control program is necessary in the province of British Columbia, I would ask that the minister consider allowing fixed-wing hunting of the wolf, and also the bagging of that predator from snow machines. That, in itself, would help the program and save the taxpayers of this province many thousands of dollars.
As I said before, I have a number of concerns that I want to approach in this minister's estimates. One of those concerns — and I know it's a bad time to once again bring up this particular subject during a period of restraint, but I think it's false economy not to approach this problem at any time — is the imperative need, particularly in the northern two-thirds of
[ Page 3838 ]
this province, for more conservation officers in the field. There is an absolute, definite need to have more people in that category out in the wilds of our province looking after our wildlife and making sure that it is properly managed. By properly managed I mean hunted and fished at the proper time, and done within the regulation and the law prescribed by the province. Countless hundreds of animals are taken through poaching every year in this province, simply because our conservation officers are spread too thin to ever possibly do the job that they are hired to do. We have a vast area out there in the rural areas of this province and we need more conservation officers to ensure the protection of our wildlife. I said it was false economy, and it is. A moose is estimated to be worth $2,500 to $3,000 to the people of this province. For every one taken out of season or under the guise of a sustenance permit it is costing this province $2,500 to $3,000. It doesn't take many additional conservation officers to ensure that that doesn't happen out of season — or in season, except for the prescribed bag limits. It is a false economy and I think we have to take a long look at putting more conservation officers in the field.
In that regard I would also like to say that we could do with a lot less of the experts who sit in Fish and Wildlife offices shuffling paper, writing reports and doing those things which have nothing whatsoever to do with the protection of our wildlife, the so-called experts such as biologists and others.
Interjection.
MR. KEMPF: No, I don't think I'm consistent, Mr. Member for Victoria. If you knew something about this subject, you could talk on it. I'll be interested to see you when you stand. That's the trouble. That's why we haven't had a proper wildlife management program in this province. That's why we haven't had a predator control program until this time. It's because of people like you'who speak out and don't know what they're talking about. That's why we've lost our valuable herds to predators over the years. It's because of people like that, who speak out and don't know, and because of people like Paul Watson, who are out there not for the protection of our wildlife but to make themselves a damn good living, and for that reason only. Mr. Member, I'll be interested to hear what you say in regard to wildlife management, which I would suggest you know absolutely nothing about, when you stand on your feet in these estimates.
[5:00]
I'd like to read a paragraph from a letter which I just received, dated February 28, from a chamber of commerce in my area. I would remind the minister that there are wolf problems in many other areas of this province besides the northwest corner. It's from the Vanderhoof and District Chamber of Commerce, on the subject of wolf control. "Please note that your government has the full support of our chamber of commerce to continue with whatever means are required to keep the wolf population down. We would welcome such a project in our area." Mr. Minister, I hope that you note that.
Mr. Chairman, for just a moment I want to talk about the actions of some of the so-called experts in the Ministry of Environment. I'd like to talk for a moment about a headline in the Interior News of February 22 that I took a lot of exception to. It said: "Government Branch Wants Alpine Land-use Control." I think this is a prime example of a so-called expert sitting behind a desk — in this case, in a Fish and Wildlife office — and thinking that he knows everything about wildlife management, when in fact just the opposite is true. The article reads:
"The fish and wildlife branch is seeking to administer and control the use of land in the Telkwa Mountains above the 1,350 metre level, said wildlife technician Rick Marshall. Marshall said the branch wants to limit disturbances to the habitat of the rebuilding mountain goat and caribou populations."
Mr. Chairman, I'll show you how much that so-called expert doesn't know about the environment that he's supposedly there to protect. First, he doesn't know that there is no way a snowmobile can traverse the area in which a mountain goat spends the winter. That would be a strange snow vehicle indeed. The article goes on about upsetting the browsing of the caribou, upsetting the feeding habits of the caribou — again, an indication that that individual knows nothing about the habits of those animals which he's being paid to protect. A snowmobile, for anyone who has ever been on one, when utilizing a range such as the Telkwa Range doesn't traverse the area that is wooded. If there are trees growing, they traverse the area above the timberline. Well, that's not where you find the caribou feeding in the wintertime. They don't eat grass. They don't eat off the windblown areas above timberline. They're in the timber, because they eat the moss and lichens in that timber to sustain themselves over the winter. It's just an indication, Mr. Minister, that I'm going to fight this all the way.
As far as I'm concerned, they'll never put land-use control on that particular range. I have a real concern. I know such a reserve has just been put on the Babine Range. I have a real concern in the setting aside of an area for one particular concern, particularly when the people talking about it and writing the reports that come to Victoria on which decisions are made don't know what they're talking about. I think we'd be far better off to get those "experts" out of the offices and put conservation officers in the field.
Mr. Chairman, the last subject I wish to approach this afternoon is that of the North Wind Ranch proposal. For those of you in the chamber who don't know what the North Wind Ranch proposal is, it's a proposal by a private individual to set up a game ranch. It's unlike any other game ranch we have in the province, admittedly, but it is a game ranch in which he intends to raise, breed and rear ungulate species such as caribou, sheep and deer to release into the wilds — specifically into those areas that have been depleted by predators, hunting or whatever, and alternately to areas where populations are dangerously low.
Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I know it's something new in British Columbia, but I ask you, what in this province hasn't at one time been new or different? The only way we're going to find out whether it works is to try it. This individual has spent thousands of dollars and has worked hundreds and hundreds of hours on his ranch in the Kispiox valley in preparation for trying the idea he has. It will not cost the taxpayer anything. He's not looking for a handout. He's only looking to give an idea a try — to raise wildlife and to release that wildlife into the wilds of this province for the satisfaction and use of our citizens and of others.
Again, I say it's new and different. We don't have such a thing. And every time we think about game ranches, we think about slaughtering animals for meat or the like. Not at all true. Mr. Chairman, I've invited the minister, and I invite him
[ Page 3839 ]
again today, to accompany me to North Wind Ranch to see what it is that has been done there and to listen to Dr. Kuntz and his idea, because I think it's a good one. Not only do I think it's a good one but many people in the northern part of this province that have heard it think it's a good idea. Just because it doesn't adhere to the book-learning of the so-called "experts" that I was talking about earlier, there is no reason why we shouldn't try this new idea. I'd like to hear from the minister today in regard to why it is we don't. Why haven't we given a permit to Dr. Kuntz and the North Wind Ranch to carry on, or at least to try this project? Why is it that every effort that this individual has made in regard to this game ranch has been thwarted in some way by the fish and wildlife branch? I'd like to know why.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I will respond as best I can to some of the points raised by the member for Omineca.
The predator control program is ongoing. The research and evidence pointed out where the concentrations were and where the damage was most severe. That is where the efforts are being concentrated at this time. I know there are other areas suggested now, and I'm sure that these will be evaluated by staff and dealt with according to proper game management. I would like to make clear that in no way are the ministry or myself interested in extermination of the wolves. They are also a wildlife species for viewing, hunting and trapping, so we are not interested in extermination. We're simply interested in restoring better balances where a situation has got out of balance.
As far as the cost of these programs is concerned, there have been some ridiculous figures bandied about. For instance, between the Kechika and Muskwa project, with the helicopter approach, the cost is averaging between $200 and $400 per wolf, depending on what the conditions are, and not the $3,000 that was discussed. There have been supporting activities in inventory and burns and that sort of thing, and yet some people are saying nobody should support this. I maintain that there's not a problem in getting financial support, physical support, moral support or whatever so long as we are managing the program according to the decisions that we make. If we don't, then we lose control completely.
As far as the 1080 placing, there has been some work done in the past on that. It is for target animals, which means that you zero in specifically on wolves, if that's the program, or coyotes, and so those baits have to be put out there for a short time and then recaptured. As long as that is the case it would be more expensive to put them out, monitor them, follow around and not know exactly, since other canines that are not target animals may pick them up. It presents some problems that haven't been solved. Right now 1080 is used for target animals with the ranching community. If we just indiscriminately put it out in the wild, it could do as much harm as good. That's why we're sort of restricted to target animals now. Certainly I'm not advocating widespread use of that.
Just a brief comment on allowing fixed-wing hunting. I'm afraid that if they were concentrating on the wolves they might crash into the ground, and then we'd have to spend a lot of money on our emergency program. Secondly, I don't think that shooting from airplanes will ever be accepted as a sporting approach for hunting. We do it as a control measure out of helicopters, but we can't very well open that up to others. We do encourage the taking of wolves by trappers and hunters and do the best we can.
With respect to the conservation officer service, a great deal has been done to improve the service. I can assure the member for Omineca that this area has been given priority. In other words, we have made some minor cuts there. We are trying to take some cost-effective measures there. One of these programs is the zonal offices concept. We've had conservation officers in one- or two-man offices, and when they were out in the field there was nobody to cover the office.
When they were in the office for people to contact them, then there was nobody out in the field. We think that by putting them into zonal offices or having them report to zonal offices in groups of three or four, then we can provide secretarial assistance, so that somebody can do the paperwork for them and let them do more work out in the field.
[5:15]
We also have listened to our conservation officers and said: "With things that we're going to try and give better service with the same number or even fewer people, what do you recommend?" We've got some very good suggestions as to how this could be done. A person shouldn't have to work from the office each day. So in as many places as possible they will be reporting from a zonal office. The office in a community may be closed, but the conservation officer, as much as possible, will live there and report in. We're looking at technology whereby that person can phone the office, pick up the messages as to what reports came in and send in reports and that sort of thing. We think it's going to work better. I would imagine it will take about a year to do that. In most places we have said: "We're closing the office, but for a year the conservation officer will live there and report into the office." I can give you some examples of that nature. So we're doing that and we think that that zonal officer concept will do a better job.
As much as the member for Omineca, I'm well aware of just how much country there is for one conservation officer to service, or two or five or ten. Even adding conservation officers, we still couldn't cover the whole area adequately. So we're hoping to try to get education programs and the support of conservation-minded people to assist us in that. As I think I stated in my opening remarks, we will never be able to put enough people out there to police it adequately, so we have to get people to recognize the reasons for that and to be supportive. There are some people who think regulations are strictly a nuisance factor and there to be violated as long as they can get away with it. Fortunately they are a minority and a decreasing minority. I'm sure there is poaching going on. We're hoping to cut that down. We have to get out the message that if enough poaching goes on, sooner or later the whole area will be closed because there is nothing left. I think people have to recognize that they have a vested interest in protecting that for themselves and for others.
As far as alpine land use is concerned, since the invention of the three-wheeled motorized bike, we are no longer strictly into a winter situation. So we do have that as a major developing problem. Snowmobiles may be one. Certainly I'm well aware, and I'm sure that Mr. Marshall is also well aware, that snowmobiles don't follow goats up the cliffs, Nevertheless, the goats come down onto grazing areas to eat and that sort of thing, and that is where they can be affected. I guess each situation has to be looked at, particularly where it seems that motorized access of any type is in effect a detriment to proper game management. We will have to look at it
[ Page 3840 ]
seriously — even if it's in your area, Mr. Member. I think if you can show or convince us that there is no possible effect, then certainly I'm willing to go along with that. But if we're into wildlife management, then we have to consider all aspects of it, or be convinced that it's not a factor.
As far as the North Wind Ranch is concerned, I guess the problem there is that there is no convincing evidence, not only from our own studies but from elsewhere, that to domestically raise wildlife and then release it into the wild is a viable operation. Now the member may know of one example somewhere, but I notice that other jurisdictions have looked at this and have not been satisfied. The other thing is that we are still facing public opinion in that respect. As Alberta found out just recently, trying to introduce legislation to allow for game ranches where wildlife could be raised and then hunted right on the ranch may have been acceptable in Europe, but in this part of the world we're still considering it as wildlife, so we don't tame it, fence it in and shoot it inside fences. There are enough people who say it shouldn't be shot at all. So there is public opinion against that. We're willing to take a look at it. If I can find the time, I would certainly like to go out and take a look at what is being proposed there. I suppose part of the problem, too, has developed because the proponent there at the North Wind Ranch has not waited for permits, has not been willing to accept that, and has tried to work on the principle that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. So it makes it a little bit more difficult for our people when they're involved in enforcement — and even for me.
[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]
I don't know if that will satisfy the member, but I've tried to answer all his questions.
MR. KEMPF: No, it doesn't satisfy me, but I'm sure that comes as no surprise to the minister.
On a few of the points that you have made, Mr. Minister, I certainly agree with you up to a point in regard to the predator program and helicopter hunting. But I'd just like to throw this in at this point: if it's costing us $200 to $400 per wolf to control them by helicopter hunting, I would then propose to you that as early as tomorrow you place a bounty of $100 on wolves in the province of British Columbia. At the very least that would save us $100 for every wolf we take. I'd like to propose that very seriously, Mr. Minister.
As to the use of 1080, again I disagree. I have a very good friend who has over many years become a real expert in the use of poison for predator control. His name's Bill Richmond; he was in the employ of the fish and wildlife branch in this province for many years. He carried on a predator control program in the lakes district in my constituency that worked. It worked for many years; in fact, we didn't have a predator control problem until that man left the branch and the program ceased. It is possible, in the hands of those who know how to use it, to use it well and very economically.
I touched on the question of sustenance permits, and I guess I just want to put the minister on record as to where he stands in regard to sustenance permits. We had quite a controversy in our province the winter before this one we've just gone through, in regard to the indiscriminate use of those sustenance permits. I won't be happy, and neither will many of the citizens of this province, particularly those living in the north, until we do away completely with the sustenance permit program. It, too, is a false economy: it is a very false economy to give someone a sustenance permit to go out and shoot a $2,500 moose, in the process wasting three-quarters of the meat of that animal, when for one-quarter of that price you could feed him on beef. That's a false economy, and I'd like to see sustenance permits in the province of British Columbia eliminated completely.
North Wind Ranch. The minister has arguments as to why the North Wind Ranch hasn't been given permits. I've got a pile a mile thick, and I won't bore this chamber with all the information that I have. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the North Wind Ranch Society, so I am very familiar with what's going on there, with what's being tried there. It's new. You're darn right it's new, and it's about time we started something new in the area of wildlife management in the province of British Columbia, especially that which is going to be paid for not by taxpayers' money but by an individual, out of his own pocket. I think it's a fabulous thing, and I know about indexing. I know about human indexing when it comes to animals, and so does Dr. Kuntz. Although he may not show up as an expert in the guidebooks of the fish and wildlife branch, I consider him an expert, as do many people. Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, you mentioned public opinion. If you can show me one letter from one person who has been in touch with your office and is not in favour of the North Wind Ranch proposal, I'll sit down and shut up. I won't say another thing about it, because I don't think you can.
When we talk about public opinion, I'm sure that's what we talk about. The people of this province would be only too happy to have a situation like North Wind Ranch where animals were being raised, but not at their cost. Those animals, through proper handling and corralling on a ranch that now covers 1,100 acres, so that indexing would be at a very minimum.... I'm sure they'd be happy to have those kinds of raised and reared animals let loose in the wilds of this province for their use.
I'm sure the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is aware of that of which I speak, and I'm sure that he's going to get up — at least I would hope he's going to get up — and support what I am saying about the North Wind Ranch proposal. It is in his constituency; it will benefit all British Columbians, particularly those very interested in wildlife management. So again I ask.... And I'm happy to hear that you're willing to travel to the Kispiox and to see for yourself what is being done and what could be done on the North Wind Ranch as far as wildlife management is concerned,
HON. MR. BRUMMET: A brief reply. We have taken steps to limit the sustenance permits to no more than 5 percent of the total game taken in any one year. To get a sustenance permit, people have to get a certificate from the Ministry of Human Resources that they are in fact in need of that. I know it's not a foolproof system. We also have to consider the native rights in that regard. To wipe out all sustenance hunting would get us into a federal situation of whether the natives have the right to hunt, ignore or observe our regulations. We would rather work out a cooperative scheme.
As far as the bounty on wolves is concerned, they would not now be hunting them the way they are from helicopters if there were a cheaper, effective way. This has proven to be the most effective. The only way that the bounty hunters could compete, even if we gave them $400 a wolf, would be to
[ Page 3841 ]
allow game-hunting from a helicopter, and we're not prepared to do that. So we do have a problem with that one.
I don't remember every letter that I get, because there are hundreds of them. I do know that one of the reasons for some hesitation about the game-ranching concept is that surveys were done and something like 75 percent were against. A more recent one was 50-50, so there's still no clear-cut decision that people in this province are prepared to accept it. I don't care how many letters you get, and I don't care how long you want to argue that. Those are the questions you asked; those are the facts.
[5:30]
MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I just can't let that go by. Somehow in this province we're really hung up on the phrase "game ranch." That's not what we're asking for. We're not asking for a permit to raise animals to slaughter; we're asking for a permit to raise animals to release into the wilds to replenish stocks which have been wiped out or depleted. It is not in the sense of the words "game ranch." I can't emphasize that more. That's the problem we've had with the fish and wildlife branch in Smithers. That's why I spent my whole Easter weekend two years ago looking for a bloody moose that didn't exist. They wouldn't realize or accept the fact that there was another meaning for "game ranch." We've got to do those kinds of things in this province. That's how the province was built. My God! If it weren't for people having ideas, new ideas, in this and other areas we wouldn't have had a province in the first place. I don't accept the fact that some bureaucrat is hung up on the phrase "game ranch." We have a fabulous idea, and if you want public opinion, Mr. Minister, I'll get it for you. I'll get a petition signed by every northerner in this province in favour of what the North Wind Ranch wants to do.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that was a marvellous travelogue we got from the member for Omineca. He was describing his last trip to his riding, two years ago. I know that this is a very serious matter and should be considered, but I'm not going to be dealing with game ranches or the raising of game, or anything of that nature.
I would like to deal with pollutants. Even the minister, who probably recognizes the subject better than most....
I would like to talk about garbage. Garbage in and garbage out, they say. Our problem is that we're going to be buried in our garbage in this province, in this country and in this world. I don't think that a day goes by that people don't go by the landfills, the other means of disposing of our garbage. We just had a recent display of wanton stupidity in the herring fishing grounds, where the fishermen, rather than bring their garbage to dry land, just dumped it in the water and littered a whole string of beaches on our coast. But it goes beyond that.
I think somehow or another we're going to have to bring up the next generation to be a little bit more considerate of our environment. You know, when you see a town, a city or the countryside littered with garbage, with the things that people don't want to have any longer and so cast aside, not worrying about their brothers and sisters who come after them, just worried about disposing of it, I really think that we have to first, do an education job, and second, decide on better means of getting rid of our garbage.
I want to give you an example of just how stupid we can get. Most of the people on the other side know that our family has a place in the Okanagan that we visit from time to time, on Skaha Lake. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) knows it well. We leave that place nine or ten months of the year without ever going near it. But when we do go up there, and when our children were smaller, I can remember picking up a washtub full of broken beer bottles out of the foreshore on the lake, right out of the water, in order to make that safe for our children. That's the kind of education that we're giving the irresponsible group who will act that way.
I think if most people spent a lot more time thinking about it, they would become irate at what we're doing to our human environment. Beyond that, we are having continual fights in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and in virtually every other area in this province, and in this country, for that matter, about where we're going to dispose of our wastes. If there was ever a time when waste management should be practised, it's today. We have people who are unemployed, and we have an awfully good opportunity to try new ways of getting our waste under control. I hear them say: "Oh, well, let's take it and bury it on Texada Island." Then they say: "Let's take it and bury it in the area of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), up in rich Pitt Polder." That's just absolute stupidity, no matter how you slice it. A lot of that waste could be used for fertilizing, a lot could he recycled, but we're not taking the time. We say: "Oh, well, let's dig another hole and fill it up with our garbage." I read an article a few years ago that said the human race will be up to its neck in garbage by the next century, and that's not necessary. That is absolutely not necessary if in fact we decide that it's to be a priority.
I'm not a rigid centralist — most people in this room know that I'm anything but — but I believe that leadership must be given by the provincial government in this matter. I don't think we can leave it to the municipalities, cities, districts or whatever to provide that kind of leadership; they have shown very little leadership, as far as I'm concerned. This is one area where I believe this government should move in as quickly as it possibly can and decide on ways to dispose of waste. I know there is all that talk about getting rid of toxic waste up around Ashcroft, and so on and so forth. I'm not sufficiently erudite in this matter to discuss some of these areas; all I know is that to detoxify as much as one possible can, whether chemically or in any other way, seems to be the first step in those terms, so that we don't worry the community that we're invading with these wastes.
Ordinary wastes worry me equally, and when we think in terms of what we can do with them.... I listened to a person on the radio the other day talking about what they're doing in some parts of England, in terms of setting up plants to dispose of these wastes through fermentation. That's one step and it strikes me as a good idea, providing that out of that you get fertilizer and so on and so forth. I can remember years ago when Chicago, which was noted for its sewer system, decided they were going to retrieve some of those wastes from their sewer system. Was it Chicago or Milwaukee? I guess it was Milwaukee — sorry — because we got Milorganite out of it, a fertilizer which sells all over North America. It's cost-beneficial, as I understand it. I thought we were going to be doing something more with what came out of that Iona plant. I don't think it's sufficiently significant. I believe we should be getting everything we possibly can, in a good. rich and positive way, to enhance our environment, rather than fouling it up as we're presently doing.
[ Page 3842 ]
Not far from New Westminster is the Crown Zellerbach land that became the Terra Nova landfill site — whatever. A number of municipalities take their garbage trucks out there, one after another, and dump their garbage, some of it metallic, some of it glass, some of it plastic, and a lot of it organic. There they dump it, to the great pleasure of the seagulls, but to the great displeasure of anybody who drives within a country mile — or many miles — of that particular area. They cover it up with sawdust and say: "Okay, that way it's landfill. Someday people can build houses on it, " and all the rest of those marvellous things. One or two of those houses will likely explode as a result of the gas generated about 30 or 40 feet under them. Other than that, nothing is lost, except for the fact that it is not what we should be doing with good old Mother Earth.
I really think it's time we woke up to the fact that there have to be better ways. Not that I'm any kind of an expert, but I believe we should be bringing in experts who can tell us how best to serve the environment in this whole waste-management situation. If we don't do that, then we're saying to our children and their children: "You're not going to have the beautiful world that we have to live in." It's as clear and simple as that, and it's time we put a priority here. I'll bet you that if we did that we would find ways of making it cost beneficial. There's an old adage that everything that comes from the earth should go back in a way that it can come back again. I believe there are some societies on the face of the earth who have harnessed ways and means of disposing of their waste in such a way as to enhance their society and in such a way as not to spoil their environment.
I just wish that there would be a lot more time taken on this subject. I wish, if it's necessary, that we would spend a little money in finding the way to go. This guy on the radio was talking about composting and indicated it was very, very cost-beneficial and quite inexpensive — apparently much less expensive than incineration. I always worry about incineration, because I imagine you create air pollution. I can't see how you could get around it. In any event, that worries me. It's certainly something we should be looking into. We can compost the organic matter and certainly we can recycle the inorganic matter — or should be able to. We just don't seem to want to do the thing that's necessary. I wish that we wouldn't leave it to private societies to do the recycling and that kind of thing. I believe it should be up to government to provide that kind of leadership. I think the time is here and now in this whole question. I would like to hear what the minister has to say, in any event, about this whole question of the handling of the waste matter in our environment and his thoughts about the future.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'll briefly respond to the member's question. Just to touch on the special wastes, one of the reasons for that is there are now toxic wastes going into the standard garbage disposal units in quantities, and we'd like to give them a reason to keep that out of there, so I'll just leave it at that.
[5:45]
I'm sure the member must be aware that I became minister the end of last May. By July 1 had met with all of the mayors of the lower mainland in a political advisory committee to deal with this whole problem of solid waste disposal. We recognize that there is a problem. I couldn't agree more with the member that we have got to try to reduce the amount of garbage produced. Part of that comes from individual conscience, and we are trying to put together films on the Knowledge Network. For instance, a program called "Garbage is Resourceful" is being produced, and I touch on that as an education program. There are pamphlets, and everything else that we're trying to do to acquaint people with what they can recycle, and so on.
Getting into the broader picture, New Westminster is probably as good an example as any, because there is no more land there, so they are basically dependent on other municipalities for their garbage that accumulates and must be disposed of. The member mentioned incineration. We immediately run into two problems: people don't want the air polluted by burning things or the smell from burning things; and even at that, studies indicate that if you incinerate you still have 30 percent left over. In the lower mainland there are about one million tonnes of solid waste in a year, so you've still got 300,000 tonnes in the form of ash that you've got to do something with. So it's not a simple problem. Burying it has been one of our answers. There are some other methods — incineration and others included — but from other jurisdictions we find out that the costs might range from $40 to $50 per tonne, whereas the landfill approach is $8 to $10 per tonne. I wouldn't mind going to the people concerned and saying: "If you really want to do this, all you have to do from your taxes.... It has to be at the municipal level, I think, or the level of the users, because if it isn't, it just takes it out of their pockets and brings it back another way. Would you be willing to pay $50 to $100 per tonne to dispose of municipal garbage when there are other ways to do it? I think we have to recognize that that is a problem, and that we can't just look at it in terms of money.
That meeting that I held with the mayors resulted in a technical study committee being formed, which was then instructed to find the best possible way to come up in one year with a plan for the whole lower mainland area. They said that was fairly difficult, and they said they were really running out of time. As you mentioned, they knew the site was full, and one of the proposals was to build it up another 40 feet, which seemed to be even more ridiculous than some of the things you mentioned. So we disposed of that. But the people there had to be involved in that decision, and they agreed to close that site. No more dumping there meant that something had to go somewhere else. So there was pretty good coordination. We've had several meetings since. We're expecting a final report, a plan, and that's being looked at. How can you cut it down? A lot of it can be cut down right at the source.
The member mentioned that we have to be more considerate of our environment. This is what I've been trying to say throughout in some other answers here, that we are concerned about that. We are looking at and studying experiences elsewhere. We have to convince people that they do some harm when they just throw away their garbage carelessly. If I had lots of time, I could give you examples of people in my own area: the river boaters, for example, who among themselves have developed a code that nobody leaves a dirty campsite. It works fairly well. There are campsites there that have been used for 10 or 15 years, and they are clean when you go there at any time. So maybe we can get more people feeling the interest to look after this, because, again, you can't police it.
I'm sure that the member must know, when he mentioned the broken glass, that a great deal has been done in this province, and by this ministry, to retrieve the glass so that it doesn't go out, and to encourage people not to throw it out. There again I think we have to have individuals be each other's consciences. I think that would help.
I think we have to look at every possibility. I can assure the member that we are looking at every possibility. We have to work on public acceptance, public education, as well as collection of garbage.
[ Page 3843 ]
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister said. I feel that the discussions that are going on in Vancouver, at least what I have understood of them, are still a bit weak. The minister said that some methods of handling garbage, vis-à-vis landfill, were much more expensive. What about composting? What about the cost-benefit of the selling of the organic material — that is, the fertilizer that comes from that — and somehow or another melting down or doing something with the inorganic matter?
Probably our biggest problem is plastic, in the future. It's going to be very difficult to dispose of in any way, other than burning, and that creates a terrible air pollution problem. That's one thing I don't know how they're going to handle. But I wish we would do something with our organic matter that could be cost-beneficial.
MRS. WALLACE: To return to the subject that I was dealing with earlier, I don't have many more comments to make, but I do have a couple of specific things to do with the hazardous-waste disposal.
One of the concerns that I have is the charge. Because of the relatively limited amount for an industrial operation, I know that Genstar-IT has some concerns that there may not be enough coming in. What they're saying is that the government is really going to have to ensure that all the waste that's out there does get in, in order to keep the plant operating. There has been some talk about whether or not there would be any material taken in from outside the province. My concern is that if it is that iffy to get enough, the cost per generator of waste may be so high as to induce small operators to still do their moonlight dumping.
I know that the ministry staff has been cut back. I understand that there are 100 people leaving at the end of this month. I don't know where you are going to get the staff to do the kind of policing that is necessary. I notice that you have some tremendously big increases in professional services. I don't know just what those are going to include, but you've more than compensated for any layoffs of personnel in the addition of professional services within your total budget, and specifically within the waste management section of that budget.
I do have concerns about the cost. You're talking about a charge per tonne generated. I wonder if the minister has ever thought of the concept of treating waste generators in the same way that the Workers' Compensation Board deals with people who have injuries. They are assessed on the hazardous nature of their occupation and the number of accidents they have, and so on. I wonder if the minister has ever thought of assessing the generator on a basis of what hazardous waste he actually generates and possibly on whether or not there have been any accidents or spills. Perhaps that would be easier to police. Then he would be paying that fee whether or not he transported that hazardous product to a treatment plant. I am really concerned that there is going to be a real tendency to slip a bit of the stuff out in the normal way of disposing of things, if, in fact, that price is fairly high, as I'm convinced it's going to have to be to keep that company operating and make it a viable business.
That's one concern. The other concern is relative to the very great likelihood of material coming in from outside the province. We've been sending stuff out of this province for a long time because we haven't had a facility, but I know there is a lot of concern that we not become a dumping ground for other people's wastes. I think there's a general feeling out there that we're prepared to do something about our own waste but we really are not too happy about the idea of having to set up facilities to treat waste that's generated outside this province.
That's just a couple of questions.... I think the minister wants to reply to those.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Regarding the costs, certainly there are concerns; however, I would like to say to the member that I think we have to be much more concerned about the cost of doing nothing, because it's happening out there anyway, Therein is why enforcement has to come into it, and an incentive. The cost of having to dispose of waste is in effect an incentive to reduce and recycle the waste, and there will be an education program built into that. We have left the borders open simply because we have been dependent on exporting our waste; that's the only disposal we've had so far. So to turn around and say, "Okay, now that we're on the way, and before we ever get there...." And some people are trying to prevent us from getting there — close the border and say: "We're going to have a closed border." If the United States then says: "Thank you, if you're going to be that way in two years when you get into place, shut her down right now," what have we got?
In other words, we do have a concern there. I can assure the member — I can assure everyone — that we don't intend to become a dumping ground, but I think it would be foolish to say that we'll never let anything come into British Columbia. There might be a sensible exchange of some material. I can assure you that it would have to be a net zero exchange before we'd accept it, and certainly we are not building this for dumping anywhere else. Even Alberta, in announcing their dump, has sort of said there might be some sense in having the products from the northeast area go into Alberta and be dealt with there. So there you have it, as best I can. I certainly can assure the member that enforcement and incentives are being considered and, yes, there is a cost. But that cost should be much lower than it would be to ask those people to put in their own treatment and disposal facility, which they can't do.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised a matter pursuant to standing order 35; namely, remarks alleged to have been made by the Premier outside the House. The Premier advised the House that the allegations were untrue. Obviously there exists a dispute or disagreement as to facts. The matter involved — namely, dispute as to an alleged statement — is manifestly not of sufficient weight to merit the disruption of the important public business of the House under standing order 35. Reference sixteenth edition, May, page 373.
Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.