[ Page 1975 ]

CONTENTS

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 27). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 1993

Mrs. Boone –– 1994

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 1994

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 29: minister's office –– 1994

Mr. Lovick

Hon. B.R. Smith

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Guno

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Vant

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Dirks

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a couple of introductions. First, in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a group of golden-agers from Prince George. The leader is Anne Orton. The group also includes my mother, Callie Strachan. Would the House please welcome these seniors.

As well, I'd like the House to welcome Tony and Trudy Kos, who are also visiting from Prince George. They're in the Hansard gallery,

MS. EDWARDS: It's certainly my pleasure today to welcome back to the House another golden-ager. Leo Nimsick toiled in this metaphorical coal-mine for more than a quarter of a century and was the Mines minister in the '72-75 government. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Leo Nimsick. I would also like to introduce Mrs. Nimsick, who is in the Hansard gallery. We welcome her. too.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House my niece Dina McConnell from Langley and her friend Judy Martens. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf. Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce Dr. and Mrs. Peter Rodenkirchen and their daughter Bettina. The Rodenkirchens celebrated their fortieth wedding anniversary just yesterday, and I would like the House to welcome them and wish them all the best.

MR. HUBERTS: I'd like to introduce my cousin Marie Huttema from Surrey, and her friend Geraldine Hamoen from Alberta. Would the House give them a welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker. In your gallery this afternoon are two very hard-working community ladies. I would ask the House to please make welcome Morag Bennett and Lucille Courchene from Surrey.

MR. REE: In the gallery today, we have a couple that have driven 6,500 miles to be with us today, from Havertown. Pennsylvania. They are going back to Vancouver and then traveling across Canada on their way home. I would ask the, House to welcome Aaron and Clara Manove.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring the Legislature up to date on the latest triumph of the members. We extracted an ounce of revenge on behalf of all 69 of us here, when today at noon we thrashed the "scrum of the earth" in a game of hard-fought basketball. We whipped them 21-10.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE
OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' LANGUAGES
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish an Institute of Indigenous Peoples' Languages for British Columbia.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in making a few remarks on this bill, this is the sixth occasion that I have introduced it in this House. The first time was 1980. I am very sorry to report that in the interval since 1980 somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of the speakership — the elders who are fluent in the language — have passed away.

I talked to an eminent linguist just yesterday. He indicated to me that when he started to work with the Skidegate Haida in 1972, there were between 40 and 50 individuals. Now he is working with only a couple left.

The members of the House know that British Columbia is one of the most linguistically diverse areas on earth, with 28 Indian languages that still exist, but all that is keeping them from extinction or what linguists call a "language death" is just a very few remaining elders. Some of the languages are in better shape than others, but the coastal ones such as Skidegate Haida, Sechelt, Kwakwala and some of the others are really facing a decline.

I was pleased to see a reference in the throne speech that something could be done. I think it is time that an institute be established and that full recognition be given. Members on both sides of the House who come from European or other ancestry know that their first language at some time is alive and well somewhere on this planet. This is not the case here, because these languages exist only within our province. Something has got to be done, and I ask that the House consider that the time has come.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SMALL FORESTRY COMPANIES

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier: yesterday the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) indicated as a result of his experience — much of it with Westar, one of the most wasteful corporations in the province — that the smaller firms were less efficient and more wasteful. Could the Premier advise the House whether he concurs with his minister, and whether he's asking his minister to make that presentation when you meet with the truck loggers tomorrow night?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker. I certainly have received a copy of the newspaper article. I've not had an opportunity to discuss it, so I have no comment on that at this time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the Premier: will your next meeting with the Minister of Forests be in the woodshed, Mr. Premier'?

FUNDING FOR DAWSON CREEK ETHANOL PLANT

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier: I have here a May newsletter from the federal parliamentary Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, which states that the B.C. government will be providing $50 million in funding for the Dawson Creek ethanol plant. Can the Premier confirm that participation?

[ Page 1976 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. I don't believe that's the figure at all. I don't know just exactly what the sharing or the participation will be, but any assistance provided would be to the farmers supplying the product, and I will be able to.... I'll take the question on notice, and provide the details at a later time.

MR. CLARK: A new question. The Agrifuels proposal was rejected seven times by the B.C. Development Corporation and once by the Partners in Enterprise program. It has been rejected eight times in all. Can the Premier confirm reports that it was his office which directed that funding for the project be reconsidered by the Ministry of Agriculture after those rejections?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we definitely took some initiatives to assure that discussions were continuing. We are looking for a way to assure that the grain that is grown in the Peace River country is used to the greatest potential in order to ensure that the largest number of jobs are made available in the Peace River country. We certainly have attempted to provide various initiatives in the Peace River area in order to provide job opportunities and diversification. This Agrifuels plant will certainly provide that diversification. and will provide a use for wheat which otherwise would perhaps go to waste.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. I take that as assurance that it's the Ministry of Agriculture that's looking at it. The budget speech states, on page 14, "No new initiatives will be funded under the Farm Product Industry Act," yet this loan is ten to twenty times as large as the average loan guarantee made under that program in the history of British Columbia. Would the Premier confirm that that statement in the budget is no longer operative in light of the Agrifuels proposal and the loan guarantee that's being negotiated by the Ministry of Agriculture?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I said a little earlier, I'll provide the details with respect to the funding of the program or the assistance to the farmers in order to make sure that this program gets off the ground. Let me say that we certainly are also committed to the agricultural community, and we'll do whatever we can to assist that community to provide diversification in the selling or the use of its products.

MR. CLARK: Will the Premier confirm. then, that any funding from the government or any loan guarantee will be to the farmers and not to Agrifuels, the company involved?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I mentioned when I took the question earlier. I will provide the details at another time. but the assistance in total is to the farm community.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary to the same question. Is the Premier aware that the EEC subsidy to wheat is over $3 a bushel, the American is $2.65 and our own is 85 cents? Does the minister really think the farmers can survive on this kind of a fuel system, no matter how much we want to have greater markets? Farm foreclosures are at an all-time high in that area.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I agree that grain growers in Canada are having a difficult time competing with the United States and the European common market countries, in that the subsidy programs in those places are such that we can't match these. This is why a project like Agrifuels' can be a tremendous help in a relatively small area, when compared to the whole of the wheat-growing area in Canada, such as the Peace River. So we see Agrifuels certainly as a tremendous opportunity to at least provide assistance to a good number of farmers, because the project when fully operational will use a very large portion of all of the grain produced in the Peace River country.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the Premier could enlighten us on the kind of prices that he's prepared to pay these farmers, so that they don't go under. Certainly the market price in Canada or our export price will never do that. I wouldn't want these people to be fooled into thinking that some sort of progress was going to come out of something that may not. Somebody said one time: you know, there's no fuel like an oil fuel.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the price proposed in the Agrifuels' project is as good as, or better than, the price set by the Canadian Wheat Board.

CANASPEN CHOPSTICKS FACTORY LOAN

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Premier. The Canaspen chopsticks factory in Prince George has been put into receivership by BCDC. What steps has the government taken to recover the $500,000 interest-free loan that was given to this company?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer the question to the Minister of Economic Development.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I can get the details as to the amount of the loan. I think it was around $300,000, and I believe it was on the commercial or the prime-plus-2 rate of BCDC. It has gone into receivership. BCDC is negotiating to make sure that that company will be restarted under different management. They're negotiating, if that isn't possible, to get their money back. They have very high security on that loan, inasmuch as the equipment in that factory or that plant, even on a disposal price, far exceeds the amount of the loan.

MRS. BOONE: It was our understanding that the machinery could be sold for about $50,000. There's $97,000 owing to the federal government, $330,000 owing to Royal Trust. and considerable money owing to various other people in the community. My question to the minister in this case is: before investing any money in this company, what investigation did the government do on the background of the proponents and on the market for the products"

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the first part of your question, your understanding is incorrect. However. I will be able to get you the details of that.

Secondly, in all loans that are made through the B.C. Development Corporation and that have been made in the past under the new structure of the B.C. Development Corporation, a very extensive investigation is done. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker. that if it hadn't been for B.C. Development Corporation being in the field during the recession, there would have been many businesses that would have had to

[ Page 1977 ]

close down, and their employees would have been out of work. So the instrument that was in place during the recession when this particular loan was put forward was, along with other decisions, good. There are going to be some failures, and when those failures occur, there are instruments to recover the dollars, as I've said before.

I'd be very pleased to get the proper figures for you and report them to you.

MEAT-PROCESSING PLANT

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. On the weekend on BCTV. the Premier was again only able to cite the mysterious northern meat-packing plant when he was asked what economic development projects this government is working on. Can the Premier today provide us — and your member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — any information on the status of this project?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker. the Ministry of Economic Development is working on diversification, We're looking at opportunities in all areas, and especially in places like Prince George, where economic diversification is so important. Yes, we are continuing: and yes, there are still talks going on. It certainly is the type of undertaking that would require a lot of preliminary discussion, because we are competing with Alberta. Again, as was mentioned a little earlier, there are subsidies in place in Alberta that in many instances are difficult to match. But we would like to see a meat industry established we would like to see meat-processing in the Prince George area.

Yes, I will continue to pursue that. If it takes another year or two, or however long it takes, I will continue to fight for that. It's important.

GREENHILLS MINE WASTE DUMP

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment. The Environment and Land Use Committee has approved the plan of Westar's Greenhills mine to dump waste within sight and sound of the village of Elkford, despite the continuing opposition of the Elkford protection group, the Elkford district council, and the Regional District of East Kootenay. What information not available to the other levels of government led the provincial government to allow dumping opposed by so many locally elected officials'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, there was extensive evidence obtained from the Ministry of Energy. Mines and Petroleum Resources that indicated to our committee that this dumping.... And I must admit the original application was modified and lessened to a considerable degree. With the subsequent application, we agreed as a committee of cabinet that that process should go ahead otherwise there would be severe economic risk.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary. As I said. even after the modifications, the other elected officials objected to the application. My question is: what additional information did the provincial government have that made it go against the decision of the other elected officials'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to take that question on notice for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis).

MS. EDWARDS: Another question. How has the government decided to deal with such problems as the black water flowing into the Elk River. which was clearly shown in the photographs that were presented to the Environment and Land Use Committee'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Proper procedures for that type of discharge will be put in place, to monitor and to mitigate that type of discharge.

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Three times yesterday I asked the Premier three pretty basic questions about the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and he took them on notice. He didn't know if the company was registered, if it was doing business or if there were director disclosures. We're wondering on this side who's really in charge here. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. What kind of free rein does the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) have for hundreds of millions of dollars, when every other minister is reporting through your office for contracts over $500, Mr. Premier? There's an issue here. Who's in charge'!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker. obviously the cabinet is in charge. fortunately, and we deal with these issues on a daily basis.

With respect to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. It is presently being dealt with through BCDC and B.C. Place, and they're making great progress. I'm happy with all the progress being made through these corporations. These people are doing a wonderful job on behalf of British Columbians, and the future looks extremely bright for our province.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to answer questions that were taken on notice yesterday.

Leave granted.

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier took as notice some questions yesterday dealing with some responsibilities under the Ministry of Economic Development.

The first question from the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was: "Is the company called B.C. Enterprise Corporation incorporated?" To answer the member, there will not be a new company incorporated called the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. The corporation exists at the present time, but it comes under the British Columbia Place Act. The British Columbia Place Act will be renamed by legislation the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act.

[ Page 1978 ]

Technically, therefore, the company is incorporated and it would be wrong to say no, the company is not yet incorporated. It is incorporated, and the change under the act in which it is incorporated will change the name of the act.

The next question, Mr. Speaker, was: "Is the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation actively doing business at this point in time?" Both B.C. Development Corporation and British Columbia Place Ltd. are continuing to carry on business pursuant to their existing corporate structures under a common board of directors until legislation is passed concerning British Columbia Enterprise Corporation.

The next question, Mr. Speaker. was: "Have the directors of the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation made disclosures thus far. The answer is: the directors have made the disclosures required by the Company Act.

The next question: who is doing business on lands; who is conducting the business at this moment? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is: further to my earlier answer, British Columbia Place Ltd. and British Columbia Development Corporation are continuing to carry on business, and all of the responsibilities that they had before under the two separate organizations continue. They will continue under that board of directors as two separate entities until legislation makes them one, under the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 24, in the charge of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services.

PENSION (TEACHERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. VEITCH: In moving second reading, I'm pleased to introduce this bill, which will establish the early retirement program for teachers in British Columbia, announced earlier by my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

This program is being established after extensive consultation with representatives of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, the British Columbia School Trustees' Association, the Association of British Columbia School Superintendents and the association of secretary-treasurers. They are to be complimented for the very valuable assistance they have provided in helping the government formulate the details of this early retirement plan.

The plan proposed in this bill contains two distinct phases. The first phase, which is temporary and available only to teachers who retire prior to June 30, 1989, is called the 55-and-out option, while the second phase is the permanent addition of a phased early retirement program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal first with the temporary phase of the program, the phase which we call the 55-and-out option. The Pension (Teachers) Act presently provides for a reduction in the pension benefit formula of 5 percent for each year under age 60, if a teacher has more than ten years of contributions in the plan but less than 35. This reduction tends to discourage retirements between the ages of 55 and 60, since the reduction can be as much as 25 percent of the formula pension benefit.

Mr. Speaker. In order to provide an immediate opportunity to revitalize the education system through the hiring of young, unemployed teachers and new graduates from our universities, teachers with at least ten years' experience must be encouraged to retire. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the early retirement provisions of the Pension (Teachers) Act as follows:

One, during the period from April 1, 1987, to June 30, 1989, an eligible teacher may retire between ages 55 and 60 with less than 35 years of contributory service without reduction in the formula pension benefit. Two, any payments for annual cost-of-living adjustments will be delayed until age 60, when there will be a catch-up of the percentages missed from date of retirement. Three, the funding of this program will be from special contributions provided from school district salary savings.

Because of the unique structure of the incremental pay scale for teachers. the funding for this program can be accomplished through the savings that will occur as a result of replacement of experienced teachers at the maximum salary level by younger teachers at the minimum base salary. As a result of this initiative, those teachers who wish to retire may do so on substantially improved pension benefits, thus enabling the creation of job opportunities for enthusiastic young people who are ready and able to commence a teaching career. I want also to emphasize that this program is entirely optional and will be provided only to those teachers who wish to take advantage of it. Teachers who wish to remain in the profession will be encouraged to do so.

The second phase of the program proposes the establishment of a phased early retirement plan. While this plan will not be available to teachers until the school year commencing 1988, it will at that time provide teachers with an alternative opportunity to ease into retirement. In this new program. an eligible teacher may arrange with the school board to work on a reduced teaching assignment at something less than full time. During the phased early retirement period, the teacher would receive a salary for the part of time worked and the pension for the time not at work — that is, the portion representing retirement. At the end of the phased early retirement period — that is, when the teacher is fully retired — the pension would be recalculated, taking into consideration actual pensionable service and salaries, and would be adjusted downward in respect of the amount of pension already received. Accordingly, there are no additional costs for this program. This program is also optional and will require the mutual agreement of the teacher and the school board as to a satisfactory phasing schedule.

It is therefore my pleasure to introduce this bill to establish this program, which will be very important in revitalizing the teaching profession and thereby will become a positive encouragement to those young, enthusiastic, eager and qualified teachers who wish to enter the teaching force. I take great pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

MR. JONES: It's in my nature to look on the positive side of things and to look for good in people and in governments. It's tremendous that this is one of the rare occasions when I get an opportunity to compliment the government on what I consider an excellent piece of legislation that resulted from a very positive process.

If I could just outline a little of the history of that process, it began in Manitoba with legislation that was borrowed by New Democrats as part of their platform in the last election. The government has wisely seen fit to bring forward this kind of proposal. In true New Democrat style, the process was a model of consultation that involved all of the parties and the constituent members of the education community affected by

[ Page 1979 ]

this legislation. The Provincial Secretary mentioned the BCTE the BCSTA, the superintendents and the secretary treasurer. There was also the Superannuation Commission and ministry people who held a series of meetings. I think there was a good deal of give and take. Proposals were worked and reworked, and cooperation was. I think, an integral part of this process. The product arrived at certainly wasn't exactly what everybody wanted, and that's to be expected in dealings with parties. But the product is one that I think people are happy with and satisfied with, and it's a good example of negotiation. It is a product that is fiscally sound. educationally sound and administratively sound.

I think the major feature of this legislation is the element of the renewal of the teaching profession. It is so important in British Columbia at this time, because of the severe cutbacks by the previous Socred administration, which did two very destructive things. In my view. It hurt the profession, and it hurt a large number of people who were aspiring to enter the teaching profession. It hurt the profession by robbing them of those vital, dynamic, young, energetic, fresh teachers who are out of universities and who bring to the teaching profession new ideas that benefit the entire profession.

As well, I think those cutbacks created a tremendous loss of resource to this province. Several thousand teachers ended up in the unemployment ranks as a result of those cutbacks, and it is estimated that there are still something like 8,000 unemployed teachers at this time. The replacement that took my position when I left teaching after the provincial election had been on the substitute list for eight years and was an excellent teacher one who had been knocking on the door all that time, who was working with a very low income, who was very dedicated to teaching and who finally. as a result of my leaving the profession, got a teaching position.

So I am very pleased to see this, because there is such a shortage of young people within our teaching ranks right now. I believe that there were 21,196 in 1980 who were 25 or under. That has decreased 83 percent, to the point where in 1985 there were only 377 teachers in the province who were 25 or under. As a result, we probably have the oldest teaching profession in this country. Fortunately, they are also one of the best educated.

So by allowing the legislation that the Provincial Secretary has introduced at this time, we are allowing people between 50 and 59 to retire early without the kind of penalty that was formerly there. It is going to allow the infusion of new blood into the teaching profession, and I am very pleased about that.

As the Provincial Secretary mentioned, it is also fiscally responsible. For example, if one of the retiring teachers was earning $40,000 per year and was replaced by a $25,000-per-year teacher, then the school board would have $15,000 available that they could contribute to the Superannuation Commission. I believe this has been accommodated within the fiscal framework, so it is administratively and fiscally going to work very well.

I think it is a symbol of the kind of thing that can be achieved, and it is very different than what we saw in the last few months in this Legislature, It is very different than what we saw in the Vancouver Sun on May 4, where the Premier indicated that teachers are perennially a problem. He mentioned that — "W.A.C. Bennett had a problem with them and Dave Barrett had a problem with them. Bill Bennett's biggest problem with them was trying to fight off the BCTF every time there was a suggestion with respect to change with teachers." The Premier went on to say that he has problems with the BCTF leadership. and issued a warning: "They have to make up their minds, Either get out of teaching and into politics, or out of politics and into teaching. You can't have it both ways."

[2:45]

I think this legislation proves that cooperation and negotiations and consultation can take place, and that a good product and good legislation can be arrived at by this process. I am very pleased to offer my support to the government for this piece of legislation today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I too, would like to support the legislation and say that it is very easy to achieve full cooperation from consultation when everyone agrees that it is to the benefit of all concerned. It is not always easy to get that agreement.

But I just want to add my support and thank the people who worked for my ministry and the other groups involved. They spent a lot of time in thrashing out the details and that sort of thing.

One thing that I did want to put on the record is that there may be some credit due to some of the rest of us and to the people on this side of government. I got somewhat the impression from the member that this was an NDP initiative that resulted because of the wrongs of the Social Credit government, so I would like to suggest that we also took some initiative on this. We didn't borrow it from the Manitoba legislation, nor did I do it because of something that W.A.C. Bennett may have done years ago. It was right at this time. So I simply want to say that we'd like to take a little bit of the credit for this, rather than the blame that seemed to be implicit in the member's statement. I know he's supportive of the results, and wouldn't it be nice if, whenever the results are good, we can support it without worrying about the politics.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I've been called a lot of things — to the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) — but never a true New Democrat. That's a first, I can assure you. So maybe we've done something wrong here.

MR. ROSE: Get up on a question of privilege.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't know whose privilege is being offended here.

MR. ROSE: Keep up the fair work.

HON. MR. VEITCH: So I'm a fair New Democrat — not even that!

Mr. Speaker, I see this as a very positive mood, and as pointed out by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Education, and by the hon. member for Burnaby North, the process throughout the structuring of this bill has been one of consultation. It hasn't been an easy process, but it has been one that has worked very well, and when you work together, realizing that there is a common good at stake, it's amazing how much can be accomplished by both sides of this House and indeed by all of the people of British Columbia.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to congratulate the staff from the Ministry of Education and the staff from the pension administration branch. under Mr. Cook in my department, who worked so very hard in putting this legislation together.

[ Page 1980 ]

Renewal is important, as the hon. member for Burnaby North pointed out, in any situation. Renewal is important. as we've noticed, even in this place over the last few years. and it has brought about a change of tone and certainly a change of atmosphere in this place. But if education is the bulwark of society, then renewal is doubly important in that area. That's what this legislation brings about. We're in a new economy. We're in a whole new economic world, not only in British Columbia but in Canada, and indeed throughout the whole world. If we are in that new economy, then it goes without saying that we must bring into that process new blood, to educate those people who will be the leaders of future generations: our children and of course those who follow after them.

We have a tremendous legacy to pass on in this province, but the legacy that is given to us has always been that of taking whatever we have and value-adding to that and passing it on. and that's doubly true of education. This provides for a mix in the education field — in the teaching field — of that experience that's gained from those teachers who are somewhat long in the tooth, like maybe the hon. member for Burnaby North and some of the other educators we have here in our midst, and also those new people, the bright new brains who are entering the fray.

Mr. Speaker, I say this is a very positive move. It's a win-win situation for all concerned. That's the way things should be in British Columbia. I am very pleased to move second reading of this very important piece of legislation.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1987

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have great pleasure in rising to speak on second reading of this bill, which has a common theme, which is no theme. The House Leader suggested to me that it was a bill without principle, but the truth is that it has too many principles. It is a bill that does a number of needed reforms. It accomplishes a broad range of improvements in the administration of justice in the field of commercial law, family law, health care and some of the professions. The amendments are too numerous to address individually at this time, and of course will be highlighted in committee.

A number of amendments to the Financial Administration Act also improve liability management and the government's investment management and expenditure control. The bill contains amendments to several statutes dealing with adoption, marriage, divorce and guardianship, and amendments to the Mental Health Act alter the length of time that a person may be involuntarily detained. Amendments to the Securities Act update the statute to reflect current industry practices.

A number of amendments are designed to improve the efficiency of the operation of the courts. Amendments, for example, provide for the appointment of a Chief Judge of the county court, a position which is now held de facto but which is given authority. They limit vexatious appeals in the court of appeal, a court which is probably one of the most efficient in Canada. They improve record storage and enable charging fees for bulk searches of public court records.

Several significant areas of law reform are also addressed. These are reforms recommended by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia; we are trying each year to bring in some of those reforms and enact them. One of those reforms will provide a standard short-form power of attorney, created through these amendments — something that is long overdue — as well as a significant amendment to the Law and Equity Act which will enable a contractor to complete a project under protest without jeopardizing future claims for compensation. That will erase a decision of the courts which impeded that kind of sensible performance under protest: that was the case of Peter Kiewit Sons as decided in the 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, this gives only the briefest introduction of some of these amendments, but I would be very pleased to explain them in detail during the review by committee. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its speedy passage.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for some direction from the Chair before I say anything at all? How does one deal with the general principle of miscellaneous statutes, given that there is this incredible list of material here? I'm not sure what the procedure might properly be.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Member, you've got 30 minutes to speak. I've never known you to have trouble before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, let me rise on a point of order so I don't take away from the member's time. He will be allowed, I am sure, to continue second reading debate if he wishes to.

A miscellaneous statutes amendment bill is considered a bill without principle. You can take that any way you want to perceive it. Therefore the majority of the debate, the real debate, is carried on in the committee stage, and principle is allowed to be discussed in the committee stage.

But you've still got 30 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: For the member, in committee on this type of bill the Chair has always allowed great latitude on every section.

MR. LOVICK: Certainly I don't propose to speak for half an hour. What I would like to do, however, is ask a question to the Attorney-General if I could. One of the things that perplex my colleagues and me is the fact that we have in the first part of the miscellaneous statutes provision an amendment to the Adoption Act, yet on the order paper we also have Bill 26, I believe, which is the Adoption Act. I'm wondering why there is that overlap. Is there some reason I'm missing'?

MR. SPEAKER: We're not in committee stage, hon. member. If you want to close out your second reading speech, the minister may want to answer that question in closing of debate.

MR. LOVICK: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, my error. I had forgotten that this is indeed second-reading stage.

[ Page 1981 ]

Let me simply make the statement that we are concerned that we are apparently going to be taking two hits at the Adoption Act, for reasons that are not clear to us, and we're a little chagrined by the fact that we have this rather complex omnibus bill before us that we're trying to make sense of right now, yet at the same time we're also supposed to be preparing for another bill called the Adoption Act. I'm not sure what the explanation for that is; I hope there is a good and rational one,

The only other point I would make regarding Bill 31. the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987, is that it seems to me there are a number of items here that are perhaps contentious, or at least worthy of some questioning. and certainly my colleagues and I shall look forward to doing just that kind of thing in committee stage.

MR. CASHORE: Following up on the point that my colleague the second member for Nanaimo has just made — and perhaps this again reflects my inexperience — I think it would be very helpful, in particular with regard to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act and the Adoption Act amendment, if those two matters could be dealt with close together, and if we could be given very adequate forewarning as to when these two items would be dealt with so that we could be well prepared.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders. I advise the House that the Attorney-General closes debate,

HON. B.R. SMITH: In closing debate, I would just note that the sections dealing with the Adoption Act here are ones that really reform the working of the act as it now is: first, to bring the administration of the act into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arising out of a court challenge; and also some other amendments which deal with and clarify the role of the superintendent. None of those affected by the adoption registry concept, which came forward in a separate bill and will be dealt with in the separate bill.... While I agree that to have them dealt with in some proximity of time would be very convenient, and we probably will do that, I don't think that there's a great problem with this, because you're talking on adoption registry on a point of principle, I guess, and the Adoption Act amendments, I think, are quite straightforward. But it would be much better if you had the time in the scheme of things to have them all in one act, there's no question about that.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 35.

[3:00]

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm the minister introducing this, although I'm just one minor player in the board. I advise the House that sitting on the board is my hon. colleague the opposition House Leader; the chairman of the opposition caucus, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams); the chairman of the government caucus, the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat); the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch); and yours truly. Also you, Your Honour, are mentioned in this act as being an essential ingredient of the board.

This legislation is similar to legislation in many other jurisdictions whereby it states that members of the Legislative Assembly shall have a board to which they can turn to resolve matters which affect them, such as operation of the precincts, services and facilities, and formulating policies with respect to the administration, appoint and fix the terms of appointment of staff to carry out the mandate of the board, and generally to supervise and manage its staff. The board may determine its own procedures. The board shall speak by minute duly adopted by the board. and has the power to appoint, as I believe. subcommittees of itself.

This is truly a landmark bill in terms of British Columbia history. Members will recall the Members' Services Committee of 1985, of which my good friend the opposition House Leader and I were fortunate to be members, We spent some time deliberating. We had a massive change of the rules, I think all to the benefit of the Legislative Assembly and to members. From that committee of 1984-85. we agreed that there would be a Board of Internal Economy.

It was further mentioned in the throne speech by the Premier, and I'm very happy today to see this come to fruition, I think it will help us resolve many issues that face all Members of the Legislative Assembly. It's truly an all-party board that will deal with any of the problems that face us. It's a good bill. I commend it to all members, and accordingly I move second reading.

MR. ROSE: Speaking on behalf of the opposition, I join in the congratulations to you, sir, and to others, and pay tribute to the work done to produce this legislation, noting as well that it flows from the parliamentary reform committee of 1984. Some of the rules, I think, have improved our procedures; some I regret, especially today. I'd like to name rule 16(4). I find it a bit nettlesome today; it permits us to meet tonight and not vote, which was a rather interesting use of the rule I hadn't anticipated, so we'll leave that out.

Seriously, I really would like to pay tribute not only to you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members that formed the subcommittee but also to the Premier. What the Premier did was show us that he had enough personal security to give up certain powers. For the king or the Crown to give up powers voluntarily to the Legislature is a landmark decision. I don't say the word "king" in any sense of punning; I mean from the Crown in the sense of the state. It's a maturation process that has gone through this Legislature in this last year, and I must pay tribute to the Premier for this.

This allows the Legislature, and members thereof, under you, sir, to took after their own business without interference from the Crown. It is really an act of independence, and it didn't require a revolution. It required someone to give up certain powers. I think it will help us a great deal to prevent, for instance, the overlap between the authority of the Provincial Secretary and you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we've had some problems around here recently that some people might remember, such as the near violence and the tents on the lawn. Whose jurisdiction was it? Who could make rules? There have been problems within

[ Page 1982 ]

constituency offices. What is appropriate spending? What is appropriate behaviour for MLAs? You, sir, along with your board can be the guardians of parliamentary privileges, our rights and privileges, because as MLAs, in terms of our privileges, you are our sole protector when it comes to the sanctity of our offices, the freedom from harassment by any authority, including the police. Under certain circumstances, I think this matter has been clarified. I'm very pleased that we've been able to be part of this whole thing. It increases the arm's-length relationship between the Crown and the Legislature.

I'd like to thank both the opposition and the government represented on the board. The government, of course, has the majority, and that's fair enough. I know when this party becomes government we'll appreciate having that majority on the board. I think that will be very helpful to us. But at the same time, as a check, no business can be carried on unless both parties are represented there, and I think that's a good thing as well.

I guess my good friend for Vancouver East, who is also a member of the board and who suggested this and brought it to the Premier initially to give him some information about our thinking on the subject, would probably say that there is a Board of Internal Economy but there's a smaller board of administrators, and there are far too many bureaucrats on it and not enough legislators. I'm sure the Clerk-Assistant would want that in the minutes as well, because the member from Vancouver East expressed himself volubly on that very subject, so I know he would want me to put that in.

In closing, I'd like to say that we're one of the last legislatures to have such a board. I don't know of any board, though, that has as much autonomy as this one does, and I think that's a good thing. Just in case anyone is worried that the inmates are in charge of the institution, accountable to no one, that is not so. We are accountable to the auditor-general and to the ombudsman, but we are not accountable to the government. That, I think, is first-rate.

I think this is an excellent model. I'm sure that other jurisdictions, if this works out well, will be pleased to copy this model. I thank the bureaucrats and the Clerks for their assistance in helping us draft the legislation. I'm really anxious that it get working for the benefit of all MLAs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think there's much more to say at this point, except to acknowledge the remarks made by the hon. member opposite with respect to the Premier. On behalf of the Premier, thank you, sir, for the comments you made. I also acknowledge the good works done by the officers at the table, who were most helpful in assisting us to coalesce our thoughts and draw this bill together.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 35, Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're a little short of people here. On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) I'm going to call second reading of Bill 15 and make a few comments with respect to that bill, and advise the House that speaking on behalf of the government will be the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier).

ACCOUNTANTS (CHARI'ERED)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bill 15 expands the object of the Institute of Chartered Accountants to encompass students as well as members and to provide for the establishment and enforcement of standards. It removes the ceiling on the number of members of the council, and provides for an executive director to be appointed by the council and for the appointment and election of officers to be dealt with by bylaw. It expands the council's bylaw-making powers and adds the designation "CA" to titles. It deletes references to incorporated accountants and repeals offence provisions consequential to the new section of the act. It does a variety of good things, Mr. Speaker.

With that said, I commend this act to all members of the House and accordingly move second reading.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 15, Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987.

The purpose of these amendments is to update existing legislation in order to ensure that the Institute of Chartered Accountants has the necessary authority to regulate the activities of its members and students. The institute is a corporation responsible for regulating the practice of chartered accountancy in British Columbia.

I would like to take a few minutes to summarize the main features of this bill. These relate to internal bylaws and administrative matters and to new authority to do all of the following: investigate complaints, ensure high standards of practice, and discipline members.

Internal bylaw and administrative matters that are referred to.... A number of the proposed amendments are specifically intended to improve the efficiency and flexibility of the institute's internal operations. The institute is given the powers of a natural person to provide greater independence in executing its own business affairs. Clear statutory authority is granted for the institute to make bylaws. Administrative aspects of annual meetings and composition of the executive are also improved. Students are more clearly shown to be responsibilities of the institute.

Under the amendments within this bill, complaints against members or former members may be cause for the initiation of an investigation by the institute. A court order for the production of documents is possible, and confidentiality of information must be maintained.

With respect to ensuring high standards of practice, the amendments provide the institute with clear statutory authority to set appropriate standards for members. By means of periodic practice reviews, the institute will be able to ensure that these standards are met and maintained. Practice review is currently undertaken by bylaw, with the consent and support of members, but with these amendments it would provide explicit statutory authority.

With respect to discipline matters, authority for discipline of members is improved and clarified through these amendments. As well as suspension or reprimand, there is authority to impose practice conditions upon a member or a

[ Page 1983 ]

student. Council and its committees have the authority to summon witnesses and to compel witnesses to give evidence and produce records. Where a witness refuses, he is liable, on application to the Supreme Court, for committal for contempt.

In exceptional circumstances, it is necessary for the institute to act quickly to prevent further harm arising from the conduct of a member. Authority is provided for an extraordinary power of suspension without notice, pending an inquiry. The member must be advised in writing, and he has recourse to apply to the Supreme Court for removal of the suspension or any other order the court considers appropriate. Appeal from disciplinary decisions of council may be made to the Supreme Court.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, these amendments provide significantly improved authority for the Institute of Chartered Accountants to conduct its business affairs and to ensure that the public is protected and well served by highly qualified practising chartered accountants.

I declare that I am a chartered accountant and have an interest in the bill, and I would commend these provisions to the House and move second reading.

[3:15]

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support this bill. Very briefly, it is something that the Institute of Chartered Accountants have been trying to get through for some period of time. To them, it's been the highest priority in the whole province, but to the Legislature it has had a rather low priority, in that they have tried year after year to get it brought forward and have never succeeded. However, they have finally done it.

I won't add anything to the explanation given by the hon. member preceding me, other than to say that what it is really doing is making legal the bylaws under which the chartered accountants have been governing themselves in the province of British Columbia for some years.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Everything that was said was quite remarkable and I totally agree with it. How are your comments, Mr. Member for Nanaimo? I'm sure they were superb. Were they?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They were superb: let me put that on the record. I really enjoyed the comments from the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and also the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier); and again I say this is a remarkable piece of legislation for the association, and for the members, and for students entering into that noble profession,

I now call second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 15. Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 33. Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SUPPORT (INDEPENDENT)
AMENDMENT ACT. 1987

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The bill is in the hands of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). who is arriving soon.

Like the Leader of the Opposition during the basketball game, I would say that the Minister of Education is traveling; that's a basketball term.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's on his way.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has arrived!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps the House could welcome the member for North Peace River and the hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to be able to proceed with this bill, the School Support (Independent) Amendment Act. I think the bill is quite straightforward. What we're really doing in the bill is making a few of the changes legal — the policy directions that were announced in the throne speech debate.

The bill does change the qualifications of pupils somewhat to include for the first time that pupils can qualify at an independent school that gets provincial funding if they are members of the diplomatic corps. Also it reduces the timeframe that independent schools are required to operate before they receive funding. We did quite a bit of looking at that in other provinces as well and we found that if schools were operating appropriately, that could be established in one year and it could be monitored in future years.

What has happened is that for three years these independent schools had to pick up the cost entirely without any assistance; now the waiting-period will simply be one year and that will, I think, allow those parents who also pay provincial taxes to benefit somewhat by the 35 percent assistance that is provided to the group 2 funded schools, rather than have to pay the entire cost for the three years.

The indications are that in other provinces the shorter qualifying period has not resulted in a proliferation of independent schools. There seems to be a percentage of students and parents who like to exercise that choice, and that percentage remains fairly constant.

One of the changes that has been made is accreditation for non-funded schools. We have had started in British Columbia, as in other provinces. some schools known as the visa schools. And we've been very concerned in that a visa school could simply advertise and attract people from out of the province, and then when these students came here. they were in a very tenuous position: they could hardly protest the curriculum that was offered; they could hardly have any recourse, should the school not continue; there was no way that they could be assured their fees would be returned if the school went into bankruptcy — those sorts of things.

So there appeared to be quite an interest from offshore, particular in the Pacific Rim countries, to send students here to British Columbia — not at the expense of our taxpayers; they were quite willing to pay the entire cost, but they wanted some assurance of what was being offered. Similarly, some of the unfunded schools wanted to be able to say: "What we are

[ Page 1984 ]

advertising is in fact correct. We are committed to delivering what our advertisements say." These schools were not trying to take advantage of immigrants; they were simply wanting to say: "We want some way that we can have assurance."

The answer was that we felt that we didn't want to get into controlling these schools and ipso facto into some funding which would flow from that. We wanted them to operate as such, but we felt that our British Columbia reputation depended on the reliability of these schools. So what we've done in this legislation is provide for voluntary accreditation. The request must come from the school. The school must be prepared to pay the entire cost of that accreditation process, and they must be willing to go through that process of accreditation. What we would do is provide either qualified people from the ministry or, more likely, retired superintendents or secretary-treasurers. There are two things really involved: the educational curriculum and the funding aspects. So that's why we thought we could have people hired. For a fee, they would go in and accredit these schools, under the direction of our inspector of independent schools, who would oversee this operation.

From that, of course, flows what is required, and, basically, the requirements would be bonding, so that people could be assured of their money back if the school went into receivership or bankruptcy or was unable to continue for financial reasons. The other side of it would be the curriculum. They would have to indicate what they were offering and how they were going to evaluate that. For instance, if they were going to say that when the students leave the school they would be qualified to enter, say, a post-secondary institution — in other words. have the grade 12 equivalency — they would have to show us how that would be determined; and that could well be by accepting the provincial examinations. In other words, they would have to look at the provincial assessment program before they could say that they can give a grade 12 or grade 11 or grade 10 equivalent. So I think that is going to give some assurance to the people who send their students here.

To implement that, of course, you have to have a penalty. It's against the law for anyone to say,"We are an accredited school," unless they have in fact gone through this process.

Some of the actual accreditation process and the terms and conditions that they have to meet would be established in regulations: a policy statement wherein they would have to agree that these are the steps that the superintendents, or the qualifiers. If you like — the accreditation team — would go through. In other words, there would be a check-list of requirements that they must meet before they can be accredited. I've given you some of them. Some of them need to be more clearly defined. But we have worked those out in a statement so there would be some guidelines for those doing the accreditation.

So with that, those are the major changes that this act makes. There are some consequential amendments, references to the certification or qualification that no longer apply. Some of them are consequential because of the Teaching Profession Act. But those are consequential amendments.

I might point out also at this time the new percentage rate for independent schools. Group 1 schools moving from 9 percent to 10 percent, and group 2 schools moving from 30 percent to 35 percent, are not in this legislation because they are, by the legislation, set by order-in-council. and that has been done.

So with that, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 33.

[3:30]

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill because I think it is an important one. I think it is important to look at our history and the kind of changes that are taking place with respect to the independent schools in this province,

This province moved from a very long-standing policy in 1977, the policy of the former Premier W.A.C. Bennett, who very adamantly said that public money was for public schools and private money was for private schools, and that any change in that would really amount to double taxation. In 1977 that was changed, and at that time regulations were implemented that suggested it required five years to set up a new independent school. It has been a policy that has been in existence ten years now. Those schools have had that funding. That is the status quo, and that is accepted by a fair percentage of the population of this province.

However, I think what we see in this bill is going much further than that. In this bill I see a much more active role played by the government, much more active than just saying: "We have these independent schools here. They are short of funds; we should help them out a little bit." Tie that to the public school system and hence they would get increases if the public school system got increases.

What I see in this bill is that we are moving much more aggressively and much more strongly to promote, advertise and encourage the privatization of our school system. We like to avoid the idea that the independent schools and the public schools are in competition, and I think it's important that that be played down. Nevertheless, I think that is the fact.

So whenever we see government make changes in legislation affecting independent schools, we have to ask ourselves what direction we are moving in. I think the move from saying that the schools are here and that we move from the policy of non-funding to some funding is much different from the kind of thing that we see in this legislation.

We had a five-year waiting-period to set up an independent school in this province that was changed to a three-year period. In that time we've seen a fairly rapid increase in the number of independent schools being set up, even with a three-year waiting-period. This legislation suggests that that waiting-period should now be one year. The minister quotes two other jurisdictions in Canada. I would assume that if the minister had really canvassed the entire country — I am not suggesting he hadn't, but if there had been arguments from other provinces to support his position — then he would have quoted more than two provinces. He would have said eight out of ten provinces have no more than a one-year waiting period, or something to that effect. Instead, he suggests that Quebec has a zero waiting-period and Alberta has a one-year waiting-period. Perhaps the minister does have other figures and he would like to enlighten us, but my guess would be that there are longer waiting-periods for these kinds of things in other provinces.

I see, too, a tie-in with the encouragement with the Bill 19 situation, where we have independent schools in this province that could be categorized as non-union schools. Although some schools in the independent sector are seeking to form unions, these schools operate at salary levels that I think everybody agrees are much lower than those in the

[ Page 1985 ]

public school because of the organization of teachers in the public school system.

What we're doing by what we saw in the budget and by what we see in this legislation is going far beyond just supporting existing funding to schools and trying to make a growth industry out of this. If we look at the number of students in the independent school system in 1977 compared to those in 1984, we see a 300 percent increase. That was with a five-year and a three-year waiting-period. and now we're moving to a one-year waiting-period. That kind of growth is a natural growth, and going to a one-year system is unnecessary at this time.

I have to speculate about the reasons for this. I'm not sure whether it's sort of a doctrinaire position; I know the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) characterized the independent schools as free enterprise schools in the Bill 20 discussions. Maybe that's part of it.

But my guess is it's more likely the bottom-line mentality that I think so often permeates the government, and that is.... It's appended to this legislation that there is an $81 million saving in 1987-88 by having these students in the independent school system. I think the government is very interested over the years in increasing the size of that saving to well beyond that $81 million.

Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to get into comparisons between the public system and the private system. I think the government forces this kind of comparison when they encourage one sector of our school system and do very little to see the other system flourish. It's divisive, but I think the government forces this kind of division.

One of the mistakes that I think we all make when we're viewing independent schools is to view them as a broad mass. Certainly that's not true. There's a wide range of schools within the independent school movement. There's a school in my community of Burnaby that deals only with dyslexic students; it does an excellent job with them, an admirable job. It's a job that can only be done when there are a lot of adults working with each individual student. It's the kind of program that I expect that the minister doesn't want to fund, won't provide the appropriate kind of funding for those dyslexic students. They're encouraged to go outside the public school system.

The area I have the greatest concern about in the independent school system relates to funding. One dozen or so schools receive approximately 10 percent of the entire budget for the independent school system. These are schools that charge exorbitant fees. In the range of $5,000., and get a government grant on top of that. These schools I think are excellent. They're excellent because they have small classes and they're able to select their students, and they do a very good job of selecting those students. What we see in these schools, because of the cost factors involved, are bastions of the privileged. I have to ask myself why, and I have to ask the minister why, when these schools are so well funded by the parents of these families, the minister sees the necessity of giving extra money to these schools.

I have an application form for one of these schools, and I find it quite amazing. There are a number of steps that the parents have to go through in order to apply to these kinds of schools. There's a $15 wait-list fee just for the application. That's step one. That application asks whether the student comes from a stable home, whether the student is living with both parents. Following step one we get into the testing area, and there's a $40 fee to write those tests. Then we get into interviews, and we're down to step five. After the interview it says: "If that doesn't change the candidate's mind about entering...." Again: "if space allows, a place may be offered." At that point the parent contributes a non-refundable deposit of $300. Standards for admission to this particular independent school indicate that the candidate ought to rank at least eightieth or preferably, eighty-fifth percentile across the board. It suggests that 37 percent of the students that entered played one or more musical instruments, 37 percent sang in a choir and 34 percent were above-average athletes.

I'm not particularly suggesting anything derogatory about these schools, except that I think they're doing very well, thank you. I really have to ask the minister why he sees the necessity of funding those particular kinds of schools. Decisions that parents make with respect to choice of school.... I think choices are important. Unfortunately, I think parents are often making decisions in a vacuum about the kinds of schools they're sending their children to. There's very little data available that can assist parents in making these kinds of decisions.

These dozen or so independent schools that I have particular concern about have meetings that decide, I guess, where these public funds are to be spent — meetings that are not open to the public. There's very little accountability in terms of how these public funds are spent. I understand that they must file an audited report under the Society Act. I doubt that those are open to public scrutiny. I have some concerns about where these funds are being spent. I've seen television advertising for these schools, and I suppose a portion of those ads were paid for by public money. They can advertise small classes.

A recent ad for an independent school which was mentioned in the newspaper was trying to attract students and did so publicly by portraying public schools as rife with overcrowding, drugs, alcohol, dropouts and disciplinary problems. That independent school is using public money, I expect, to help pay for that advertisement. That ad is talking about the school system that was built up by Social Credit governments virtually all of my adult life, except for three short years. I wonder how the minister feels about public money being spent for advertisements that clearly attack the public school system in an unfair and unjust way. I expect that a part of these public funds is also being used to send delegates to conferences in which there are workshops on neo-Marxist influence in North American education. I have concerns about these kinds of schools that are charging exorbitant fees, that are receiving public money and are using those public moneys in, I think, an unfair and unreasonable way.

[3:45]

I think we do want to support alternatives, and I would urge the minister to encourage alternative schools, alternative programs within the public school system. The district that I'm most knowledgeable about is the Burnaby School District, where I served on the school board for some nine years. What happened over that period in the secondary schools was an increase of 80 percent in compulsory courses. During that same period we saw a concomitant decrease in staff of 40 percent. So what we see in the public school system is a narrowing and a narrowing and a narrowing, with much less flexibility to meet the variety of needs that our students have in the school system today, which again encourages this proliferation of independent schools. I have serious concerns about the direction of this government in so doing, and I suggest again that their reason for doing that is that for every

[ Page 1986 ]

student who leaves the public school system and enters the independent school system, there is a considerable savings in dollars to the government.

I'd like to raise the question of visa schools as well. I wish I'd done this a long time ago, because I don't know if we're that far apart on this particular aspect. It seems to me that there are a number of independent schools in this province that are meeting the needs of foreign students, who are our partners in the Pacific Rim and whom we want to encourage to become aware of our culture and our education system, so that we're building future markets in that Pacific Rim. These schools advertise abroad and charge very high fees for students to come to British Columbia to be taught by people who have been trained in our school system at great public expense, and these large profits are going to people who are able to set up these kinds of schools. So there's a big market there and, I think, a large source of revenue.

Had I had the opportunity, I would have suggested to the minister that this large source of revenue could be used by the public school system, which is in desperate need of funds, and has been since the early eighties. It would have been a natural mix of providing opportunities for these foreign students, solving our unemployment problem. and enhancing our relationship with Pacific Rim countries.

The beauty of this system, as I see it, is that the major motivations for these students to come to Canada is to appreciate Canadians. to appreciate our culture and to enhance their skills in the English language, and they're not doing that in those visa schools. Japanese students go to school with Japanese students in those schools, and Hong Kong students go to school with Hong Kong students. There are very few Canadian students in any of those schools. I think there is an important need there, an important market there — a market that could have been tapped by an imaginative government — to bring resources to the public school system, which is in such desperate need of those resources.

I'm sad to see that the government is not going in this direction. I support the minister's suggestion of accreditation for these schools. I think it's good that every student being served in whatever school in this province have some safeguards, to ensure that the kind of instruction that we want to be proud of in this province is being carried out. But I think the motive of creating profit for the individuals who run these schools is wrong, and that's what I see in this. There was an alternative that the government should have looked at.

I think. too. If we go back in history, we see that there were very strong reasons for the setting up of a public school system. There wasn't always a public school system. Ryerson, who was one of the leaders of the development of the public school system, pointed out in 1841 that historically public schools had one strong mission: to make graduates who were good members of a universal society. He wanted to encourage schools that were free, and were also compulsory. The reason that he wanted to do that was the tremendous fear of the forces of division — division in terms of wealth, class and race.

In order to be good members of a universal society, and as a Legislature that wants to encourage that, we should be doing everything we can to encourage the public school system — the publicly accountable school system, the school system that's accountable at the local level to people who are elected for one purpose, to govern education at the local district. and to the Legislature. a tremendous system of accountability.

I see every move that we make away from this as a tremendous loss to our society, a loss of the kind of social cohesion that I think we need. We have to be aware that we shouldn't be encouraging fracturing of society on any kinds of grounds — philosophical, religious or ethnic. We want a cohesive society; we want people to work together. We talked in an earlier bill about the importance of working together and cooperation. I think the more we're divided, the less we do that.

I suggested that the choice be within the public school system, and people can make choices, and that's good, too. But I think to move — as I see in this legislation — strongly in a direction of division, of encouraging separation rather than cohesion, is one that I have very strong concerns about. I would like to leave it there. I have raised some questions, and I see the minister making notes. I think some of my colleagues also want to comment on this bill. I have serious reservations about the directions of this legislation: moving away from cohesion and toward separation.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that there would be some other voices raised in this debate, that those who obviously advocate and endorse the concept of private schools or independent schools would elucidate their case. We on this side have some difficulty. As ardent egalitarians and democrats, we wonder how you deal with the whole concept of private schools and independent schools. I say that because I have struggled for years with precisely that problem. On the one hand we believe in a free society, and we accept, of course, that individuals who, for their own reasons, want to have their own separate system of education. have indeed every right to do so on the other hand, we recognize that if we encourage that alternate system, we are challenging the pressures to produce an excellent public. universal. generally accessible school system.

If I might. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to try to explain why that's the case. I think anybody who has much sense of a history of education — especially what's called mass education or popular education — recognizes that what we in North America did, and part of the new world, part of the democratic revolution, was an effort to make all the people privileged, to make everybody literate, to make everybody a full-time participant in the society and in the economy.

What we argued as the primary justification for a public education system — a universally accessible system of education — was that it would provide the absolute necessary thing to justify an equality in the society, namely equality of opportunity. That was the defence of a popular mass public education system from the beginning. It provided children from whatever lifestyle and whatever family environment an opportunity to improve their lives and condition. That was the great hope of democratic North American society, and it is thus no accident that we had universally accessible, free education for students in this world long before European society even dreamed of it. We were the pioneers.

I'm suggesting that we look upon private facilities, alternative systems, independent schools, as a threat, as a challenge. to that system and to the ends achieved by that system. The reason is that historically what has happened is that private schools have been the bastion of privilege. That is simply a demonstrable fact that we can show all the way from ancient Greece through to nineteenth century England, through to twentieth century United States of America. It has always been the case that private entities, those individuals

[ Page 1987 ]

fortunate enough to have the wherewithal and the financial means to set up their own school system. have been able to produce something better, simply for the kinds of reasons that my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) introduced. If in fact you have smaller classes, if in fact you have an opportunity to preselect, if in fact you have an opportunity to choose students who tend to be already well socialized and well adjusted, without second-language difficulties, without behavioural problems, without any learning disorders, inevitably you can do something that is more intellectually rigorous. It's thus been the case. as I say, that private schools have traditionally been able to do very well, but have done so because they are, in effect. bastions of privilege. That's the predicament.

We recognize, to be sure. that there is also a very long history within our country, certainly more so than in the United States, of denominational schools, or parochial schools as understood in Ontario and Quebec — largely done for reasons of religion, language and culture. I think it is precisely because of the reality of Canadian society having produced that kind of system that we are therefore not about to make any kind of unqualified, all-inclusive statements that all private education is bad, or some such thing.

I'm suggesting, however. that we're concerned that the encouragement by government of private education, of private schools, is in effect taking away the pressure on the public system to perform well. If indeed it is the case that the articulate middle class within society, and those even more comfortable than the middle class, have the wherewithal to send their children to private school, who then speaks for the not so articulate? Who then protects the interests of those individuals who are literally left to maintain and support the public school system?

[4:00]

I know there is a delicate and difficult balance to be found here, which I think democratic governments throughout North American society have had to struggle to find — and I'm sure the minister is trying to find that balance. Our concern. however, as pointed out by my colleague for Burnaby North. Is that this change to the independent schools act seems to us to be encouraging an expansion of the — may I use the term — private sector with regard to education. I guess I can say fairly safely and with some confidence that we are convinced that this is the wrong time to be given that kind of encouragement. The status quo was perhaps in itself not entirely satisfactory, because again, as has been pointed out, private schools have been proliferating — they've been growing. One of the reasons they've been growing Mr. Speaker, is that we are going through some social turmoil, tension and dislocation. the pressure of which is manifested in the public school system. We have problems in the public school system that we don't have easy solutions to. Therefore those in a comfortable middle-class position are quite prepared and eager to take young Jane and Johnny out of that system and put them into the other one — that's happening already.

I 'm suggesting to the minister that what happens almost inevitably and necessarily as a result of this is that the pressure to improve the public school system is thereby decreased. and that's a problem. We therefore. as I say, have difficulty in general terms, in terms of, literally, the principle of public education. We have trouble dealing with private or independent schools, albeit that they have functioned for a very long time in our society, and certainly will continue to, and albeit that individuals obviously in a free society have the right to those kinds of schools.

Our concern, however — let me close with this observation — is that the state, the government, appears on the face of it to be giving encouragement to those schools and thereby undermining, we think. the integrity of the public school system.

MR. DE JONG: I would just like to make a few brief comments on what has been said earlier today about this matter. I think that the independent schools do serve a useful purpose, and for more than one reason. As has been mentioned, there is a financial benefit to the province by having a number of independent schools in the province, because there is indeed a saving to the province as such, and the saving is substantial.

But aside from the financial aspect — and of course this bill deals with further assistance to the independent schools — there are other reasons why independent schools were started. The members of the opposition may well know there are certain religious reasons. I believe that as Canadians we are living in a free country. We are living in a Christian country built on Christian principles, and I think we should have the opportunity as individuals, as parents, also to further those beliefs on to our children through the education system.

I know that not every independent school is perhaps based because of a Christian principle as such. However, I believe many of them are. As was said, in some independent schools the rates are as high as $5,000 per student. Now I'm not aware of any independent school where the cost of tuition is $5,000, but I do know that in many of the schools in the lower mainland the average cost runs between $2,000 and $2,500, and the teachers are certainly not underpaid. They may not be paid as much as in the public school system, but they're certainly not being underpaid. They're well paid for the services they render, and they are a committed type of people, committed to teaching.

I would also like to commend the Minister of Education not only for bringing this bill forward, but also for the wide variety he's providing through the public school system to the public schools in terms of educational needs and privileges. I think we're doing a great job in education — nothing to be ashamed of. I commend the minister for this bill as well as for the other initiatives that he has taken, and is still undertaking. In making our education system better.

MR. ROSE: Well, I wasn't going to speak on this, but the member from Fraser Valley always provokes me. I don't know why that is; he's a very mild-mannered man but he tends to provoke me all the time. I think that what we need to make really clear here is that we on this side of the House have never questioned the dependent schools — I was going to call them independent schools, but they're dependent schools. We should call them what they are. They are dependent upon the public purse; that's what they are. And they're private schools. Don't call them independent schools.

I have no quarrel with their right to exist — none at all. What we are concerned about is the increasing amount of the public treasury which they consume, and we think at the expense of the public schools. But as an individual I feel, as many individuals do, that I have a right to pass on my values to my children; and that's why many of these schools are in existence, whether they’re Christian Reformed,

[ Page 1988 ]

Catholic schools, Jewish schools, or whatever. I have no quarrel with that either. I think I as a parent have a greater right than the state to determine the values of my children. I have no difficulty with that one either.

Where we have the difficulty is that we have the minister really now serving two systems: a union system and a nonunion system. If he were a contractor, it would be called double-breasting. That's what's happening. Frequently the problem is that those people who are affluent enough squeal like stuck pigs if they have $400 or $500 added to their taxes, but quite easily and acceptably would spend $4,000 or $5,000 to send their child to some snob school, paid for by the public purse.

That is the argument. It is not about whether or not the schools have a right to exist or whether they do good work. Nobody quarrels with that. But they are schools on the cheap, because the government not only pleases its constituents, many of whom go to these schools, but they get teachers on the cheap, many of them not qualified, while at the same time our teachers are looking for jobs in California, and some of them are working there.

This afternoon we had the interesting spectacle of a very progressive bill retiring teachers voluntarily, if they wish, at age 55. Why do they need to retire teachers at age 55? Quite frankly, because there are too many of them, because the number of jobs and places available in the public schools has been dropping. That's what our concern is. Certainly it's not whether the member from the Fraser Valley has the right to send his children to a Christian Reformed school or to the Mennonite Educational Institute or to any other particular private school. That's not the problem.

What we are concerned about is that as the proliferation of these schools increases, with their selective registration, whether it's on religious grounds or on some other grounds, our public schools become dumping grounds for those who either cannot afford to go or are incompetent to go to some sort of private school. That is our main concern on this whole matter.

First of all, we did not always have public education. It was kind of an American invention; it came to Canada relatively later. We had a class-ridden society. The views of the Americans were that if you had a public school system, people would learn to read — maybe even the Bible. But they would all at least have an equal chance. They did not believe in a class society. They believed thoroughly in a classless society in the Jeffersonian democracy, and the way to achieve that, thought the Americans, was the public school system, because it unified people and it made Americans out of people who came from all over the world. They didn't have educational ghettos; they had the public system.

Again let me say — for the fifteenth or the umpteenth time — that I'm not opposed to having the private system. But I am opposed to having it eat more and more into the public purse, while our public system is allowed to decline; to having teachers retire early because there aren't places for them in our system; to having teachers forced to go to California to get jobs because there aren't....

Do we need more teachers in our schools for dyslexic children or children who have certain kinds of learning difficulties or children who need language training? We need thousands of them. But what are we doing? We aren't spending the money there; we're cutting back, and we have been since '83 — nearly 500 million bucks out of the public system. What are we doing with the private system? We're increasing the spending.

It has two obvious advantages: it serves the corporate elite and that kind of network who don't want their kids in the public school anyway, and it also serves those people who for religious or cultural reasons would like their values passed on. Good and sufficient reasons — no quarrel with that at all. But, Mr. Speaker, what bothers me is that somehow in our society, or in that sort of business ethic that I see across there, by definition all private spending is good, even if it's spent on underarm deodorants, and public spending is bad. By definition, the extension of that is somehow that private education is good and public education is bad. And I don't want....

The first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) is about to rise, I see — to levitate.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He's the defrocked Education minister, a former Education minister. I'll let him have his turn.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has made the point that we have had a balance with regard to independent schools and public schools that has been maintained in a way, over a number of years, that was consistent. There was a kind of consistency that we were able to live with. We were able to honour the feelings of those people who, often from a particular religious persuasion, felt that it was necessary for them to be able to have their children in their own schools. It seems to me that that system has worked.

But I do have a bit of difficulty with the comment of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) when he says that we live in a Christian society. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if we can really say that any more about the national fabric of the country called Canada and of the province called British Columbia. It may be that there are ways, given some very broad definitions, that one might be able to make that statement. It seems to me that it's also possible to just as strongly make the point that we are a multicultural society, a mosaic and a gathering place of people of many nations, many traditions and many faith perspectives.

Indeed, within the one entity, the Christian faith, the number of faith perspectives are very great. It seems to me that if the point is going to be made that we need to facilitate independent schools because we are after all a Christian country, then — in fairness and since we would believe that there are principles of justice that are part and parcel of the Christian tradition that point could also be made in relation to people of all ethnic backgrounds and all religious perspectives, including all of the non-Christian religions.

[4:15]

We must ask ourselves what we would be getting our country into if we were to go that route. I do recognize and appreciate the importance that we not look upon ourselves as strictly a melting-pot. I think it is very important that we do those things within our society that make it possible for people from different backgrounds to continue to maintain and appreciate and celebrate their traditions and to bring those traditions into the total Canadian-British Columbian experience. On the other hand, if we go the route of saying,"Well, after all, we are a Christian country; therefore we need Christian schools for the different types of Christian entities we find," and then we have to go the step further, in

[ Page 1989 ]

fairness, and say there should also be made available public support for other kinds of schools for people from other backgrounds, we lose the opportunity for the classroom and the school to be a microcosm of the backgrounds and faiths and ethnic identities of who we are as a people.

I have to ask the question: how do we become a people if we insist on living our lives in ways that separate us from one another? How do we go about becoming a people where we can share our rich traditions and the values of the various kinds of heritage that we bring together in this life if we seek to find ways to separate us and set us apart when we are going through that time of education?

The concern that is being expressed on this side of the House is not that there should not be independent schools. I do not think that point is being made. But I think the concern is very definitely that we must be vigilant if we see a drift taking place within our society that could be leading us to a point whereby, because of bottom-line considerations — and the second member for Central Fraser Valley mentioned that this is saving money — and because of considerations of economies of scale, we deprive our youth, our hope for tomorrow, of the education they so much need in order to be able to fulfil their responsibility within this land.

If we are basing that type of decision on that type of value, I suggest we must be very vigilant and very wary so that we know just what it is that we might lose or what the cost might be to the kind of Canadian identity, the kind of social fabric, that celebrates and appreciates the many facets of our background.

I just want to go on with one other aspect of this. Given the cutbacks that have been experienced by the public school system, I have recently observed the painful process within School District 43 of having to decide whether or not to close schools. In some cases. the possibility would be to mothball the school; in other cases, it would be to sell the school. Neighbourhoods would become very concerned when they saw the school in their neighbourhood possibly being lost because of the cutbacks and because the local trustees could not find a way to make ends meet. This would result in the recommendation to close a school. People would then gather at community meetings, and they would point out that when they bought their property in that neighbourhood they bought it there because they believed the school would be there. They would point out that the school was a focal point that brought the community together. They would point out many things of importance for maintaining that school.

In communities all over British Columbia, when the decision does come that the school must be sold, another process then often falls into place; there is a domino effect. And what often happens is that an independent school that is coming into being finds that there are school trustees who are desperate to raise funds and that there is, therefore, an opportunity for the independent school to purchase what was formerly a public school. This then happens, and then those parents in that community that are concerned about their children having to go down the street and into another neighbourhood, through dangerous intersections, are faced with the decision of whether to pay the costs of enrolling their children in the independent school so they can continue in their neighbourhood.

Mr. Speaker, poor parents don't have that option. Poor parents are left only with the option of their children having to experience, day by day, the new danger in their lives of having to go through that intersection into another neighbourhood and to another school: a separation resulting from this type of drift, which again means there's one set of circumstances for the poor and one for those who can afford to go to the independent school in the area if they choose.

It is a very significant point. If we are involved in a process as a result of this legislation, and other legislation that might be anticipated, a process of drift where we lose our public school system, where we lose the system in which children with special needs have access to that type of teaching that they very much need, where we a lose a system where children with behaviour problems have access to the benefit of the public system that they so much need, we must be very cautious and vigilant and ask ourselves if it is worth the price.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that I support this legislation. I have looked forward to this for years. I think it brings about a degree of equity that a lot of people in this province will support.

It's been said that public funding should go to public schools and private funding to private schools. There is no such thing as public funds. There's only one taxpayer, and the same taxpayer, the same parents and the same community.... The same dollar supports education, period. We have to recognize that the parents who choose private schools are also taxpayers and have dollars going into the public purse. What we're doing under this legislation, by making it perhaps a little easier for these schools to exist, is allowing parents who so choose to have some of their own private dollars diverted to the school of their choice.

The charge was made that somehow private schools have drawn dollars away from the public schools in a certain district. I don't believe that it is the case at all. I've never seen evidence of private schools drawing dollars away from the public schools in any particular district. I don't see how that follows at all.

Underlying the entire bill is a philosophy: a philosophy of freedom, a philosophy of choice, of saying we should allow diversity to exist in our communities, allow people to make their own unique contributions to society, and allow parents with different points of view to exercise that right. Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that that strengthens our community. In many instances, competition brings out the best in all of us. Rather than having one monolithic, oppressive, state-run system, we should welcome the diversity that is possible when different sectors of the community are allowed to have their input. I know from experience that it's simply not true that somehow this favours the rich at the expense of the poor. Many of the parochial schools draw children from all income levels and cross boundaries that might be surprising to the member opposite. It also allows people — parents and concerned citizens — a great deal of input into the education of their children, and we ought to welcome that. We see throughout society a great diversity and a greater do-it-yourself approach. This is simply one indication in that direction.

I look forward to the day, when teachers can be truly professional, in the sense that they might band together around a certain philosophy, a certain approach to education, such as the Montessori approach, and hang out their shingle and say,"This is the type of methodology that we favour," whether it is traditional or perhaps a more open, less traditional approach to education: whether it puts emphasis on discipline or the opposite. Perhaps we will see the day when

[ Page 1990 ]

teachers, as professionals. can band together, hang out their shingle, proclaim what it is they have to offer, and then be funded to the extent that they draw students to them. I think that would be a great thing for the teaching profession, because they would indeed become professionals and there would be a diversity. We all know that within the educational community there are diverse approaches to the whole question of education, and we should not hesitate to promote that. We should welcome that, because it is through freely allowing competing ideas to exist and express themselves that we can mould and shape the finest kind of society that all of us wish for.

In brief, I support it for philosophical reasons; I support it for practical reasons. It's a good piece of legislation which a lot of people will welcome, and I hope that in future years we can build on the foundations being laid here.

MR. MILLER: I'll attempt to be very brief and express just a few reservations or concerns about this bill. We really have strayed into a fairly philosophical area in terms of some of the debate that I've heard. In fact, that is what hastened me to this chamber.

I don't want to cover a lot of ground that has been covered already in terms of the responsibility that we have in this province to provide an excellent public school system. That's a well-accepted principle that goes back a long time. Certainly I would hope that most members would agree that one of our prime responsibilities as a government in this province is to provide that school system and to ensure, as much as we can, that it's the best system we can possibly devise.

As government, we have taken various positions over the years with respect to our public school system. For example, the previous speaker mentioned discipline. There has been no move to go back to the previous system with respect to corporal punishment in British Columbia, yet on the weekend I was told a story that quite shocked me. I'm going to relay it, because it does relate to this whole debate about funding of independent schools. It's the approach taken by a particular school. I'm not going to name the community the school is in, or its denomination or anything else: I'll simply relate that the system of discipline put in place was particularly abhorrent. The mother who relayed the information to me has decided to remove her child from that school upon the completion of this school year.

[4:30]

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

This child — I'm talking about a grade 5 student — received a form of corporal punishment 27 times and at various times came home with the marks of that discipline on his body. The final outrage for this mother was learning that they had developed a unique form of discipline in that the children were on a demerit system, and if they accumulated a sufficient number of demerits, then they were liable for some type of discipline. That took the form of the children who had not received demerits being issued ping-pong paddles, and the children who had demerits being forced to run a gauntlet and be struck by these other students with ping-pong paddles. I see that the members opposite are laughing uproariously at this situation that I'm describing.

MR. SERWA: What's the point of the example? Is there any point you're making?

MR. MILLER: Yes, I think there is a point to this example. It might be the only example, but if it is the only example, it's worth bringing to this chamber, because we're talking about the province of British Columbia using taxpayers' money to fund independent schools. My question relates to the kind of system that some of those schools might have. Do we feel a responsibility to monitor that as well? It's a very serious matter, Mr. Member, and if you want to get to your feet after I've finished speaking, you're quite welcome to. Madam Speaker, you can inform that member just as well as I can. If the example I'm using causes some reaction, I'm glad it does.

In any event, very briefly, without wanting to prolong the debate, that's one of my concerns, along with the general concern that by having less of a commitment to the public school system, we might indeed be doing a disservice to the vast majority of children in this province who will continue to go to public schools. I think that commitment to excellence must be maintained. We always have to try to improve those schools and the teaching quality, the quality of the education that those children are getting. It's not an easy job. Nobody is suggesting that it is an easy job. But there are some downsides to the simple ideological approach that somehow it's important to fund independent schools.

MR. HEWITT: I'm pleased to rise on debate of Bill 33. I just want to add my view as a person who supports the public school system, but who also over the years has come to understand the rationale that some people have to send their children to independent schools — or private schools, if you want to call them that. I think it's nice that parents in this province have that freedom of choice. I certainly respect their freedom of choice. I think parents, in determining how their children shall be brought up and educated....

As the member on the other side of the House said, they have their values, and they want their values passed on to their children. I think that's important. Christian religious schools.... I don't say this in a derogatory sense, or complaining about our public school system, but I have a great deal of difficulty as to why we have all this debate from time to time over the fact that the Lord's Prayer is taught in our public schools — people say it shouldn't be taught. I think it's important that it's there. I think it's important that we can have the pledging of allegiance to the flag in our public schools. I think that's important. But our mosaic, as we call it, in our population.... Being very "liberal," we've basically set aside a lot of those things in our public school system. I think the freedom that parents have to make that choice and to send their children to a private school, to an independent school, is important in our society. You people haven't really disagreed with that.

The other thing is discipline. The member brought it up about the private school that he mentioned, and the paddles. I think that's an extreme example. But there are parents out there who have become concerned about the lack of discipline in the public school system. I don't say that because the teachers are not giving discipline. But in many cases they are restricted from doing so because of our laws, or because of society and the way we treat people today.

I can tell you that my wife was a former schoolteacher. When the Minister of Education under the NDP in 1973 or so brought in the regulations whereby you just wouldn't put a hand on a student, then there wasn't as much discipline in the classroom. With private schools and independent schools —

[ Page 1991 ]

I'm using both words here — the parent has the choice of determining that they want to send their child to a private school because they may feel they get better discipline or they possibly get taught values or religion not available to them in the public school system.

Let's talk about the parents that we're so concerned about receiving the advantage of their private school being funded by the state. We all know that those parents are paying their school taxes into the coffers of the government, yet only a percentage of the cost of operating those private schools goes from the province to the school.

Even though they're paying tuition fees and they're getting, under the present regulation, 30 percent going to the cost of operating a private school, the parents of that child going to the private school are still contributing to the public school system through their taxes. With regard to the curriculam in those private schools, the private school doesn't get any funding from the province — as all members I am sure are aware — unless the private school provides the core curriculum of education.

We aren't denying young people their education. The main thrust of this legislation basically is that the private school, instead of having to wait three years after going into operation, only has to wait one year. I think that's fair. When you stop and think about it, they go into operation and the only way they can get the funding is to meet the core curriculum of the province of British Columbia.

The student there gets the same education as the student in the public school system, but the student there gets two or three other things. One is the values that the parent wants that child to have, and that's freedom of choice; also, religious aspects if it's a religious private school; and, third, discipline in the classroom, where many parents feel that our public school system has failed.

We have an independent school department under the Ministry of Education, an independent school inspector and staff to make sure that those schools are up to standard as required by the Ministry of Education for the province. I feel that it's a win-win situation. It allows freedom of choice for the people; it allows contributions from the province to help fund part of the operating costs, not the capital costs. Those parents who send their children to private schools still contribute towards our public school system.

I support the bill, and if the members opposite didn't take that philosophical stance to say that private school is for the privileged and the state shouldn't contribute to it and looked beyond that, they'd find that it is a good alternate system, and one that we should have in British Columbia. They should be pleased to contribute something towards them. at the same time recognizing that the parents pay a major share of the cost of operation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the Minister of Education closes debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to summarize a few points and respond to a few points that were made. First, I suggest that in British Columbia we have a range of choices in education, and I am thankful for that. We have what is commonly referred to as the public school system, and that is free; it is available to those who wish to avail themselves of that system.

It does not preclude anyone on the basis of income levels, religious philosophies or any other criteria. It does not preclude people from attending the public school system without a fee. For that we. as taxpayers in this province, collect taxes either provincially or through the local boards and pay for that system. We have another system in this province, which I'll classify as the private schools. The private schools get no funding from the tax purse. They have to exist strictly on their fees or whatever funds that they raise. Then we have the independent schools, which I classify as those that get some level of funding.

There is often confusion between the private schools and independent schools. Some of the criticisms that are levelled at the independent schools are really borrowed from the private schools. There may be a private school that gets no provincial funding, that charges very high fees and offers a very specialized program to a specialized group which could pay those fees, get no provincial funding, but are in the general category of independent schools. So there is that confusion. So someone will take that high fee structure and impose it on the other system.

In the independent schools we have the group 1 and group 2 schools. The group 1 schools get 10 percent of the average cost of the public school system per pupil for their pupils. Their pupils have to qualify: they have to be Canadian citizens, or their parents have to be citizens; or, as in this new legislation, we put it that they can be members of the diplomatic corps. But they do have to be qualifying persons. There is much confusion between the independent schools and the private schools.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), I think — I'd just like to touch on this briefly — is a very bad example of the way the debate can be distorted by taking one abuse example from a particular situation and injecting it into a debate of the issue: independent schools or public schools. While there are abuse examples in the public school system, there are abuse examples in any private school system or any independent school system, and I would not want the whole barrel, in any one of these cases, to be judged by one rotten apple. There are some bad teachers in British Columbia and they have abused students, but they are very rare and they are very few. But I would never say that, ipso facto, teachers are bad. I'll just mention that and discard it, because I think it was a bad example of how debate can get distorted.

[4:45]

I might say that the independent schools that get provincial funding are required to meet provincial requirements, particularly those in the 35 percent bracket. The group 2 schools that get 35 percent of the average cost of a public school system have to meet the basic provincial curriculum. If they have a religious or another emphasis that they wish to place, it has to be minimal. because they cannot cover the whole provincial curriculum and spend all their time on religious studies, for instance, just to use that analogy. They must accept the provincial assessment program to determine pupil progress. They must accept the grade 12 provincial examinations in order for their graduates to qualify as well. So they have to meet all of those requirements.

These schools are meeting, in effect, the basic objective of an education program in this country, in North America. and that is to provide a basic level of education to all young

[ Page 1992 ]

people according to a standardized curriculum or standardized requirement. They do provide that, and it is for that reason that we provide funding to them. That funding, contrary to some of the arguments. does not take money from the public school system. When those students are in the independent school system, they get 35 cents per dollar of the cost. When they are in the public school system, they are getting 100 percent of the cost. So you can't say that if you take a dollar from here and turn it into a 35 percent cost, it is taking money from over here. I have a hard time accepting that. What we're really doing is, because they are providing and meeting the objectives that are there for every student in British Columbia, every young person. to get a basic education.... And since these people are providing some of that in a slightly different manner by choice of the people involved, we call that fairness and I think people are entitled to that choice.

I know the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) mentioned that until 1977 there was objection to public funding. I could also point out that his party during the 1979 and 1983 elections were very careful to say that they would not be against funding for independent schools. When political aspects come into it, then of course I think there is some concern.

I suppose the biggest concern is the philosophical position best expressed by the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). He talks about a universal society. Universal can mean with choices. or all our way, or no way. Sometimes I think he is expressing the extreme socialist position that equality or egalitarianism is what we say it is, without people choosing it for themselves. If you say that when people have the choice to take the B.C. curriculum in this situation or that one, that is, as he refers to it, a fracturing of society. then the only thing I can draw from that is that he feels you've got to bring that in so that it is not their choice but "our will be done" — our collective will.

I believe the member is expressing it very well. He says we have to have cohesion. Does that mean one mould? Or can there be others? He says it is fracturing society. I think there is a danger when any government decides there is only one way to achieve an objective. Yet that member said, I think, that the only way it should be achieved is through a public school system and that everyone, a universal free education.... A universal free education is available to everyone in this province, but it does not preclude their choice if they wish to do something else or go in another direction.

Equality of opportunity is provided. I know it's translated. and I think he's talking about the private schools rather than the funded schools, as the bastions of privilege, and objecting.... Not objecting to the religious emphasis, but some schools have a religious emphasis.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member for Nanaimo, if you'll let me finish, was saying that these schools have a religious emphasis. But I maintain that if they get public funding, they have to offer the full B.C. curriculum, so their religious emphasis can only be minimal. Is there something wrong with that?

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) said the same sort of thing: a big issue about the religious aspects of it. But really, if the group puts a religious emphasis on the school, they do not get any public funding unless they put the major and virtually the full emphasis on the B.C. curriculum. which is offered in every other school in the province.

MR. ROSE: You give public education a bad name. Didn't you go to a public school?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes. And I am not calling the public schools a bad name. I am simply saying that people are getting some choice and paying a higher price for that choice. Some of the members are saying that just because they have some more money, they should not have that choice.

MR. ROSE: No. we didn't.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, it is implicit in some of the things that are said.

The opposition House Leader did say — I rather scratched my head at this one — that the teachers in the independent schools are not qualified, at the same time making the argument that they seem to be able to provide a better education and that's why they attract kids from the public school system. And you did say, Mr. Member — I wrote it down — that the public schools then become the dumping grounds for those who cannot qualify for independent schools. How you can say that these teachers are not qualified but somehow or other they attract the elite students so that the public school has to take the rest.... Start thinking about what you say, Mr. Member, because I make notes on some of it.

The one example that the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) came up with: I need to correct that on the record, because I share his concern. An ad was placed from an "independent" school. It turns out that it was a non-funded independent school. They did not get any public money. Despite the fact that it was a non-funded independent school, our inspector of independent schools immediately contacted them and suggested that that was not appropriate. The president of the Federation of Independent Schools also contacted us immediately and said it was not anything to do with the philosophy of independent schools and that they can advertise their own wares but it is not the philosophy, and it is objectionable, to have them putting down the public school system.

I can assure the House that I don't try to praise one system over the other. I stand for choice. I will defend the public school system forever and ever. It can compete against any system in this province as far as education is concerned. Now it may not be able to compete against expensive uniforms, if a select group of parents in a private school want to do that. But educationally, I maintain that the public school system in this province can compete against any other system and does not need to feel threatened by it, because there are only a certain number of people who will pay more money to get something in a specialized way. I might add that the headmaster of that school has also said that he is going to write a letter of apology to the local school board and to the media. I don't know whether the media publish apologies — they usually prefer the issue....

MR. LOVICK: Paranoia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I think the point is that none of us, even though this was a non-funded independent

[ Page 1993 ]

school — it was not getting any public money — supports that approach from any independent or private school sys- tem, to try to get their pupils by knocking somebody else. None of us supports that — my inspector of schools, me. members of this House. I did want to make that clear — that it was a non-funded school. Despite that, we immediately responded and said that's no way to go.

I wanted to make just one more point, really, on the visa schools. The member for Burnaby North made a good point — that some of these pupils could well go into the public school system. They are eligible to do that now. Some school districts in this province are actually having some of these pupils in and charging the full cost. If their cost per pupil in that district is $4,000, they can charge $4,000 or more and put that person into the school, There are some of these people in the schools. Where the problem comes in is in immigration: in other words. they can't qualify. We would encourage that. and it is done in a few others that I know of.

We'd certainly say to these schools: "If you have the space, please do so. If you don't have the space" — that's not such a problem these days — "then of course our pupils take precedence." So it is possible for them to do that now. and I would encourage any of them to do that for a fee. That also means that if these visa schools charge an exorbitantly high fee, and these people can qualify to come into the province. they can get into our school system for actual costs, if the board so chooses. In fairness to their own taxpayers and to our taxpayers, we don't encourage them to do it without a fee, because these people don't pay taxes.

I am very optimistic that since some of these schools are operating anyway, the students and their parents and our reputation.... We're entitled to make sure that they qualify, and if they can't say they qualify, then that will be made known to every consulate and everything else, so that people.... I guess you can never stop people from putting their money into a gold-mine that turns out to be mica, but I guess you always have to leave that choice to people.

Certainly we're entitled to give them the protection, and for our credibility in this province.... We have a good education system, and we don't want that destroyed by a reputation that we don't deserve, but that would come our way anyway.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of discussion that can go on on the independent school argument. If you like, or on the different philosophies, but I would like to just summarize it again: we do have quality educational opportunity available at no fee for every student in this province, to the best of our ability. I know that you can find an example where somebody is living out in the wilderness, but even then we try correspondence courses and that sort of thing. We try to make it possible. We do feel that people are entitled to the choice, and where those schools are basically meeting the objectives of what an education system is — to provide them with a standardized curriculum to qualify them for further education or to educate them for the society that we live in according to some standard means — then these people, I feel. are entitled to some of the money.

They used to get, since 1977, 30 percent of what it costs in a public school. You have to remember that for every dollar increase to the public school system, these people have been getting a 30 cent increase. By moving it up, for every dollar increase in the public school system, they will now be getting 35 cents, and they will have to pay the other 65 cents themselves. We do not exonerate them from paying the school tax, which goes into the total system as well. So in monetary terms, in a sense the provincial taxpayers get a bargain.

In educational terms, the independent school system has moved far away from being the elite system that some people still see it as, because they have been doing special education programs; regular programs; they have been doing enrichment programs; they have been doing, in effect, all of the things — in some of them, not all of them — that have been occurring in the public school system. We can be proud of our educational system and proud of the choices we're offering to those people who wish to make that choice.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to move second reading of Bill 33.

[5:00]

Motion approved on division.

Bill 33, School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 27, in charge of the Minister of Health.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT. 1987

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker. this bill would make a number of amendments to the Vital Statistics Act. While several of the changes are of an administrative, housekeeping nature, there is one amendment that has been sought by a growing number of people. I am referring to the choice of a child's surname.

The bill before us. Mr. Speaker, would repeal sections 3, 4 and 5 of the act and replace them with new provisions, which adopt the Uniform Law Conference of Canada's approach to the reporting and registering of a birth. This approach allows parents to choose any surname, including a hyphenated or combined surname, for their child and removes all distinctions based upon marital status.

Section 4 of the act establishes the rules for choosing a child's surname. Parents may choose any surname for their child, provided both parents complete the statement of birth and agree on the surname. If only one parent completes the statement of birth, that parent may choose any surname for the child. Where the parents don't agree. or a person other than the child's parent completes the statement. the child's surname shall be the same as the parents' surname, if the parents have the same surname; or a surname with both parents' surnames hyphenated or combined in alphabetical order, if the parents' surnames are different.

Mr. Speaker, under section 20 of the bill, the provisions respecting choice of a child's surname have been made retroactive to April 17, 1982, which marks the passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This will allow applicants to change the name of a child born on or after April 17, 1982, in conformity with the new choice-of-name provisions, rather than applying under the Name Act.

Another amendment will change section 9 of the act. It involves birth registrations of adopted persons. With this change, a new birth registration would be substituted in the vital statistics files when adoption takes place. rather than having the original registration changed by annotation. Instead, the original registration would he sealed, and there

[ Page 1994 ]

would be no possibility that a clerical error would reveal a person's natural parentage, nor could a person obtain that information unlawfully, as the original registration would be accessible only by court order.

I feel I should add here, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment does not prevent the establishment of a passive adoption registry.

At the other end of the life-and-death continuum, Mr. Speaker, there are amendments to section 13, which would create a two-part process for providing the information necessary to register a death. The first part would involve providing personal particulars regarding the deceased and the initial findings concerning the cause of death. This would enable a burial permit to be issued.

The second part would involve the physician or coroner, as the case may be, providing a certificate stating the actual cause of death. That would complete the death registration process. Currently, a medical certificate setting out the actual cause of death must be completed before the burial permit is issued. This creates difficulties when a coroner investigation is needed to determine the actual cause, and a cumbersome administrative process is involved in correcting a death registration after the coroner's findings have been made. The amendment would simplify this process.

Another change is a simple one that repeals the definition of notation use in the act. The vital statistics service is now very much into the computer age, and changes or corrections to the official records no longer involve the original registrations on paper. The existing provisions concerning notations are therefore irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. BOONE: The government House Leader will be happy to know that the opposition has no objection to this bill. In fact, I understand that this is something that we've been calling for for some time. I understand Rosemary Brown was a strong supporter of this, trying to get the various things changed, so that children could have hyphenated names, or make the choices there.

We see this as being a very pro-woman bill, something that is going to give women the choice as to how they name their children, and something that we support fully. They're going to change their minds, Mr. Speaker, now that I've said it's pro-woman.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: Pro-choice, yes. A very pro-choice bill, this one is.

We are very happy to see the changes that come forth in this bill. As the minister has indicated, most of it is just housekeeping, aside from the fact that it deals with the naming of children. We're happy to see it here, and we intend to vote in favour of this.

HON. MR DUECK: I feel very gratified that I don't have to argue as we did on Bills 19 and 20. Maybe some of my bills will be more contentious. In this case, of course, I'm very happy that I can close the debate by saying thank you very much, and I hope it's what we needed and what you wanted also. I hope the people out there who have asked for this for some time will be happy that it is finally going to be completed and this legislation will be going forward.

Motion approved.

Bill 27, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I advise the committee, Mr. Chairman, that I met with the critic earlier, and as I understand it we are going to discuss parks and wilderness a little more this afternoon, and then get into more of the meatier subjects, like sewage treatment and that type of thing.

I think we've really spun out Moresby, unless the members of the committee wish to discuss it further. I would like to say, though, that we do have a remarkable parks system in the province of British Columbia. It's known as one of the better parks systems in any jurisdiction in North America. I want to advise the committee that, in spite of some concerns that they might have, in the past year we have added almost a million hectares to our park and wilderness system. Together, we have a preserved land base in parks that's close to the size of the province of Nova Scotia — truly remarkable.

While much has been done to add to our provincial parks system, I want to make it clear that we have not yet completed the important task of defining the long-term requirements for a system of protected land. We are very much aware that even within this immense province the land base is finite, and there are many competing users for its bountiful resources. Within these constraints, it will be our intent to enhance our parks and wilderness system in a way that will be unparalleled in Canada and in a way that will better meet the needs of our present residents and those of generations to come.

Within this ministry the parks program will continue with its commitment to making the parks system more available through promotion of special features and recreational opportunities. A multi-year camping campaign will be launched to promote the joy of camping in British Columbia. This initiative is important, not only for its encouragement to our residents to participate in a healthy and enjoyable form of family recreation, but also for the encouragement it provides for spending leisure dollars within the province. The Go Camping campaign will be developed through working very closely on joint promotions with the private sector and the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

In a similar vein, the major thrust of our recreation mandate this year will be to identify recreation opportunities that will contribute to the success of the B.C. tourist industry and enhance the enjoyment of local residents.

Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for our parks system as it exists. I give credit to you, sir, and to former ministers of the parks system for creating a really remarkable system. I have been part of it as an MLA in my own riding — West

[ Page 1995 ]

Lake Provincial Park some years ago — and I have seen many other good initiatives come on-strearn in my eight years as an elected member. It truly is a magnificent system. It's available to all British Columbians. It is greatly enjoyed by tourists who visit our province, and it is a resource that is going to continue to be expanded.

With that said, I will take my place and allow the members opposite to carry on.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to start my comments on the minister's estimates by introducing a little levity, I am worried when I hear my old friend from Prince George say that he hopes we will be turning to a meatier subject, and then says "like sewage." I am worried about his taste in diet; however, I'll let that pass.

I disagree with the minister that we have indeed spun out Moresby.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This shall pass.

MR. LOVICK: This too shall pass, indeed. Certainly we have spent a number of hours discussing that subject, and I don't think we will serve the people of the province too well by discussing it more at this stage.

But I think that we have left out one important dimension of our discussion, and that's what I want to touch on briefly. I want to talk about the missed opportunity for a new beginning in terms of federalism. I want to chastise the minister and his government for what I think has been their position vis-à-vis British Columbia's place in the federation. Instead of cooperative federalism or consultative federalism, in the last few weeks we have witnessed rather combative and confrontational federalism. That bothers me, it concerns me, indeed it angers me. because I don't think it was necessary.

The minister may well choose to say that this is not the case and I am overstating the issue when I say that. Indeed, there has been no evidence of fed-bashing or any such thing. But I would suggest that as long as the Premier of the province can make the kinds of statements he has, such as,"The Prime Minister of the country ought to phone me if he still wants a deal," and as long as the Minister of Environment and Parks can stand in the House, as he did yesterday, and say to us: "There's nothing really unique about South Moresby...." I am quoting, as a matter of fact, a secondhand source, and if I misquote, I certainly will be the first to acknowledge so.

My suggestion to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, is that those kinds of behaviours are precisely what we call combative and confrontational federalism. It is a long and well-ingrained tradition in this country that every provincial government knows well to bash Ottawa. There is nothing unique or novel or different in that strategy. Instead, it is pretty obvious to any provincial politician that there are moments when one can in fact do that and get away with it.

[5:15]

If my memory serves at all, I think it was Machiavelli who said some 400 years ago that it is a good idea when the heat becomes too intense here.... I am obviously putting this in my words. rather than Machiavelli's 15th century Italian. What he talked about was the fact that whenever a particular government finds itself in difficulty, the easiest way to solve the problem is to find a common enemy outside your borders. That's a lesson that obviously has not been lost on any provincial jurisdiction. Dare I say, even CCF and New Democratic Party governments have fallen into that trap on occasion.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it's probably entirely defensible, because the nature of federalism is what we can call a creative tension. The country prospers from the interaction and competition between those jurisdictions. Where the equation goes sour, however, and where the system doesn't work very well is when, as a matter of course, we decide to take on Ottawa and set the people of this jurisdiction against that other jurisdiction. That, I fear, is what has happened in this issue of South Moresby. Twenty-eight Members of Parliament from British Columbia are representing a couple of political parties that ideologically are supposedly diametrically opposed. Those are people who have done their homework, who have certainly examined the issues and come to the conclusion — unanimously, as I understand it — that the federal package, the federal proposal as presented to B.C., was indeed generous and fair. I have not heard anybody gainsaying that. No British Columbia Member of Parliament, to our knowledge — or to my knowledge, certainly — has said that.

I think it's a fair conclusion to draw, then, given that you have people from both sides of the House in Ottawa.... Both sides, despite their normal predictable opposition on most matters, are saying that this is a good deal for the province of B.C., which we represent, and that it's also a good deal for Canada, which we also represent. I think that means a great deal; if nothing else, it's unique. We don't have many occasions in our history of Parliament in this country where both sides of the House joined together to support a particular initiative introduced by a partisan government — that is, a government representing one political party — and we saw that here.

I think what has happened — at least it is widely perceived to be what has happened — is that B.C., which was known for a very long time, as we all well know, as the spoiled child of Confederation.... I see the minister shaking his head. I'm not surprised to discover that look of incredulity pass, given that I don't think the minister, with all due deference, has much sense of B.C.'s place in Confederation and thus is perhaps prepared to engage in a little Ottawa-bashing — with no malice aforethought. but simply because of ignorance on his part.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A point of order. Mr. Chairman. I'll respond to the member's remarks, but the term "ignorance" in reflection on another member is clearly unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I would agree with the government House Leader.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I missed what the hon. minister said. It was in relation to the word "ignorant," was it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the government House Leader like to repeat what he said?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I heard the term — ignorant" or "ignorance" to refer to another member of this House — me — and I find it unparliamentary. If it's me or anyone else, I don't think I would accept that. I think a withdrawal is simple enough.

[ Page 1996 ]

MR. ROSE: I don't think it was meant to defame the minister in any way. If he finds it offensive, certainly I don't think there would be any problem with that. I didn't make the remark, but I'm certain it was not intended to be an insulting word. It means "without certain kinds of knowledge." It's not that the minister, by definition, is ignorant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bearing that in mind, and knowing the second member for Nanaimo as I do, I'm sure he would withdraw.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, could I clarify? I have no wish, believe me, to be insulting or offensive to members opposite. That is not my intention. The point I was making is that I think we are in this predicament in B.C. because we have always had the perception of being the aggrieved party. If one looks closely at the history of federalism, especially told from the perspective of central Canada or some such place, then you discover a very different sensibility and sense. We are perceived, certainly by central Canadians and central Canadian historians, as — and I quote the line again — "the spoiled child of Confederation." That is a specific reference, Mr. Chairman, to the railroad — that B.C. didn't join until it got the deal it had held out for. And it was certainly widely recognized at the time that B.C. got better terms of entry into Confederation than most of her counterpart provinces. We may want to argue for all kinds of reasons, the Crow rate and everything else, that we haven't had our fair share. Indeed, there are all kinds of people in B.C. who want to argue precisely that case. My suggestion was that historically, however, there is another side to the story.

My concern is that because of the perception that we have not had our fair share, we are, I think, predisposed and prone to rather quickly turn our attention on Ottawa and say: "The problem is with those people." My fear is that what we are doing is perhaps falling into that predictable, traditional pattern of pointing the accusing finger at Ottawa, in this instance with regard to South Moresby. I'm dismayed by that, because it seems to me that one of the things that a fresh start and a new beginning ought to mean is perhaps an end to that kind of unhealthy, combative federalism. If I am misstating in any way the provincial government's case, I would be more than happy to be corrected and proven wrong. My fear is that I am not wrong, that we are engaging in a time-tested approach to our problems whenever the heat is too intense in this kitchen — namely, to point the finger at Ottawa and engage in some fed-bashing. I'm suggesting, in short and in conclusion, that that is not what federalism ought to be. It is not healthy either for us in this province or for the people of the larger community called Canada.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As presented, a persuasive argument, but regrettably most of the facts are wrong, although the argument was appealing and quite eloquent.

We in this government encourage cooperative federalism to its greatest degree. We are not combative. We had never intended to be on this issue, and I'll repeat it again that in good faith and well before we had to, we withdrew cutting permits on Lyell Island on March 17, recognizing that the government of Canada truly wanted to establish a very, very large park on south Moresby.

Let's back up a bit further. We went to the federal government in January and stated: "Here are the Wilderness Advisory Committee's recommendations for a federal park. We totally endorse them. Will you please accept them." They were the people who walked away. They could not accept our offer, which was the offer from our own committee for a federal park. We offered it in good faith and the government of Canada walked away from the offer. So they were the first ones, if you want to use that word "combative," to begin to become combative.

We said: "All right. We will accept that you would like more and we will withdraw our cutting permit and put a moratorium on cutting permits to allow you to continue to negotiate."

One more thing. The member mentioned that I said that South Moresby is not unique. I would refer the member to page 33 of the Blues. I referred to the east coast of Lyell: "...rather ordinary islands such as Lyell — I mean outside of Windy Bay.... There is nothing unique about them " — The reference was not to South Moresby. South Moresby is clearly unique. We all recognize that and that's why we have set aside 105,000 hectares in our provincial proposal, which we recognize as unique. Regrettably Lyell, outside of Windy Bay and the passage, which we will protect, Is not unique on the west coast, except that it's very productive in terms of wood.

With respect to the motion in the House of Commons, let me also correct the member on that. The motion was for a federal park. You're correct, it was unanimous. But you've neglected the second element — and there were three — of that motion: that compensation be paid. That was part of the motion. Further, I'll advise you that the last offer from the federal government came well after that motion was passed in the House of Commons. So in spite of the fact that the House of Commons said compensation should be in place, speaking as one voice, the transmittal which later came to us did not, in our opinion, address fair compensation. Obviously they themselves weren't listening to the House. I just want to set the record straight on that.

We do not want to be combative. The Premier is negotiating with the Prime Minister now, as you know. There was a phone call Monday evening from the Prime Minister to the Premier. We have responded. Discussions have been going on today, and we may be achieving something. I can't comment further, because that's business from cabinet, but I want it clearly on the record that we are not fed-bashing. We do believe in cooperative federalism. We don't consider ourselves a spoiled child just because we got a railroad in 1886. We do consider ourselves, though, an integral part of Canada, and in this set of negotiations we simply want to achieve the best deal we can for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm going to gingerly wade into this debate to put a few remarks on the record in committee about the importance of the negotiations that are going on between Ottawa and the province for the park on South Moresby. To say that the Minister of Environment and the Premier had made every effort to preserve the major unique portion of the South Moresby archipelago — as did the Chairman of this committee when he was Minister of Environment — would be an understatement. It has always been the desire to preserve that. There has been a difference of opinion in this country as to whether logging should continue, and if logging is not to continue, I think everybody agrees that there have got to be compensation and replacement jobs found.

[5:30]

[ Page 1997 ]

I would say to the members opposite: we could flog this issue every day in this chamber, and it may not help those delicate negotiations. I would urge them, as supporters of this, to talk to their federal members in Ottawa and have them urge the Prime Minister to put more in the pot.

MR. CLARK: Aw, come on!

HON. B.R. SMITH: Now listen, I'm really tired of this tin pot British Columbianism around here: I really am. We don't have to apologize for believing that there should be more than $106 million put in there. You look around the capital when you next go down there and just look around at the money that goes into federal enterprises. Look at the money that's going into the new National Gallery building in Ottawa — $1.7 million. That didn't come out of any envelope for Ontario. I can tell you. Or the $167 million that's going into the museum of exploration in Hull, Quebec, or....

MR. BLENCOE: Fed-bashing.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm not fed-bashing at all: I'm saying that we should get our fair share in this province.

Interjections.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Bashing. bashing, bashing. Listen to the bleats of the member for Victoria. My goodness. Bleat, bleat, bleat.

What about the park in Newfoundland, the Gros Morne Park? It was$100 million that went to Newfoundland for that, and $65 million was used by the province for a highway. So I'm saying that federal money goes into things that aren't in envelopes in these provinces that are considered of national importance. It's not fed-bashing to try to get that kind of money into British Columbia to protect a worldwide resource like South Moresby.

I happen to believe that the Prime Minister and the Premier, both men of good will and large vision, are going to get a settlement on this park, and we're going to have a park. But you help. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to suggest to the Attorney-General that if he's asking for us to limit this debate on South Moresby, there are other ways to go about it. For instance, he could have been present in the House for the last two sittings, when we debated South Moresby and raised many of the different concerns that we had. He would have understood our position a little better, and he wouldn't have to incite the opposition into further debate at this time. had he been there.

I very sincerely do want to move on to other issues; there are other very important issues that we need to deal with in this debate. But I want to make a comment about how ironic I felt the last session was, in that we in the opposition were pointing out the values of tourism — the values of wilderness in this province. In a way I likened it to the debate around Expo, and the convincing that the government tried to do about the benefit of spinoffs to tourism in this province.

Although they are old numbers, I'd like to read into the record numbers from 1981 about the benefits that wilderness and the preservation of wilderness and parks bring to our province. These are numbers that have not been part of the debate about Moresby. We've been talking about compensation for the forest interests on Moresby, but the government hasn't talked equally about the benefits that a national park would bring to the province. Again, these are 1981 figures about indirect benefits to the economy — "participant expenditures" — and these are on accommodation, transportation, food, equipment, etc. The number given in 1981 was $801 million in that category alone. "Economic impacts." Again I remind the minister that what I'm talking about here is recreational economic significance in B.C. — important assets to the province that are not recognized when we talk about wildlife and wilderness. Economic impacts: gross business production, $849 million; gross domestic product, $520 million; government revenue from taxes, $95 million; personal income, $318 million; number of jobs, 18,948. This is for the whole province in 1981, due to tourism spinoffs dealing with wilderness and wildlife.

So while the government has spent a lot of time in negotiations talking about compensation for forest interests on the Queen Charlottes, they haven't spent as much time talking about the benefits — their own argument on the tourist industry and the impact on tourism that the preservation of wilderness and wildlife brings to this province.

I think that the minister introduced the whole issue of parks and made some comments about the wonderful assets that we have in this province because of the park system. He talked about the acreage that we have in parks and/or reserves in the province and compared it to New Brunswick in land mass. The point is — and this was from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment and Parks — that if all of the parks and all of the land dealt with in the Wilderness Advisory Committee's report were adopted, then we would be talking about less than 6 percent of the land mass of this province. That puts it into some perspective.

Yes, we have a grand. grand province. You'd have to really work at it not to have splendid parks, and I think that we can continue to build on that. While the minister has comments about the splendid parks that we have, it has something to do with the splendid province that we live in.

I'd like to move the debate on to the issue of the government's record on provincial parks, and I'd ask my colleague from the islands to lead that debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. no. I'll respond very, very briefly. I recognize you have 1981 figures, and I don't have any more current numbers available; I guess I could.

We do recognize the value of wilderness tourism. We recently had, at cabinet and our caucus, a visit from the Guide-Outfitters' Association. who are now amalgamated with the Wilderness Tourism Council. And you're right, the economic benefit is quite remarkable to the province of British Columbia, the guide outfitting being essentially a form of wilderness tourism.

I would commend to you, Madam Member, that you might want to meet with the B.C. Guide-Outfitters' Association, and they will provide you with those numbers. I'm very much encouraged by what I hear from the guide-outfitters and Wilderness Tourism. It is a growing resource in our province. It's for that reason that we're trying to maintain as much wilderness as we can in our every effort, including, of course. South Moresby. With that, I'll defer to the member for North Island.

[ Page 1998 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a few comments or actually involve myself in a dialogue with the minister on Strathcona Park. The minister knows that I have strong feelings about what's happened to Strathcona over the last number of years — many years, decades in fact — and that I have particularly strong feelings about the decision made earlier this year to proceed with boundary changes and mining and other decisions in the way that those decisions were made. I have real problems with the fact that a full public process didn't precede that decision-making.

I'm not going to make a speech now. The minister knows full well. There has been plenty of correspondence, particularly with previous ministers. I think what might be more useful at this stage is to just pursue a few issues.

First of all, the question of mining in Strathcona Park. The minister and the ministry and the government have asserted that the Tener decision in Wells Gray Park forms the basis for the necessary decision in Strathcona to allow existing claims to proceed: to either be quitted — if that's the proper word — or to go to development under the more stringent requirements that the parks branch would require. I just want to pick up on that essential point. I'm not at all certain that the Tener decision in fact does apply in all of the mining claims in Strathcona. The claim in the Tener decision, if I'm correct, was pre-existing to the park. The claims in Strathcona, with the possible exception of what I think is called the Sherwood claim, all were staked during the time that the area was a park. I have had a legal opinion which suggests that, with the exception of perhaps the Sherwood claim, the other claims, if they were proceeded with through the court system, would not necessarily end up the same way as Tenet, and that, in fact, those claims would not have the same basis, the same standing, as the Tener claim in Wells Gray.

I wonder, first of all, if the minister wants to give me his view on that whole question.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member. It's an interesting observation, and one which could be tested in court. I think, though, we would fail, because at the time the claims were staked, Strathcona was a class B park, which allowed for claim-staking. Therefore, when we impose a class A park over those claims, we are in the same position as in Wells Gray. So although it was a park — you're right, it was a park — it was a class B park under the old definition, which permitted that staking activity.

We have tried our best to mitigate any damage, as the member knows, and I thank him for his observations, because as you know, the parks branch is very sensitive about some of the criticism that has been levelled at them because of this.

On the question about the legalities of it all, it is my understanding that because a class B park did allow claimstaking, we would have to abide by that claim and would have the potential of being taken to court.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand that.

Because I don't want to extend my remarks longer than necessary, I just want to do it once, clearly.

The history of Strathcona Park is that it has had several legal definitions and classifications over the years. Firstly, it was established by its own act of this Legislature. Parts of the park were in nature conservancy areas. When I say the park, I'm talking about what we generally conceive of as the park, historically. There were parts that were nature conservancy areas; there were parts that were class A; and there were parts that over the years became class B. Is the minister suggesting that all the existing allowable claims — claims which will be allowed to be proceeded with one way or another — were established during a time when that particular area was class B?

[5:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The park boundary was established between 1911 and 1913, with very little study, which is why it has straight lines and really doesn't follow any natural boundaries, heights of land or natural features. At all times, according to my notes, it was class B, until a recent order-in-council of 1987; therefore mining and logging were allowed. Over time some forested areas were traded to acquire other parklands, such as Cape Scott and Pacific Rim. In total the park area currently includes 242 mineral claims and 21 forest tenures. So it was class B — unless I'm advised otherwise — until such time as our OIC of this year.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, let me then quote from the Wilderness Advisory Committee report on page 99:

"Over the years various portions of the park have been given special status and new areas have been added. At present, while it is widely considered to be a class B park, half its area has nature conservancy status, and the Gold Lake area in the northwest and part of the central corridor have class A status."

That's the second paragraph of the background notes on study area 17, page 99 of the WAC report.

In fact, the history of Strathcona has been checkered in many senses of that word. The concern of those of us who weren't happy with the government decision is that there is an apparent view of the government that the mining claims have status because they are class B, which is what the minister repeated to me a few minutes ago. But in fact — I've tried to get the information but I don't have it all — I'm not convinced at all that each of those mining claims was established at a time when that area where the claim was established was class B. Clearly parts of it have been class A; clearly parts of it have been nature conservancy. And I don't know what the legal standing would be of a nature conservancy area and a claim. At worst or at best, whichever way you come at this, there is confusion — yet another good illustration of why there needed to be a full and proper public study of this whole area so that a determination could be made.

While we have problems in principle with the whole question of mining in parks, many of us would say that if it's going to cost the treasury x number of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to buy out the particular claim, then you've got to look at that question. That serious claim-by claim study doesn't ever appear to have been done. I just wonder whether....

Obviously we're not going to get through all this by 6 o'clock. It might be more useful to pick up on this discussion at 7 o'clock with more information, and then I'll move on to some other issues.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can give you some now, Mr. Member. First, with respect to the Wilderness Advisory

[ Page 1999 ]

Committee report, although they do say that there is class A status, it is obvious — I'll have this checked and I'll have the answer later this evening for you — that the claims were staked when the park was class B status.

Further, in reference to the WAC report, it does recommend recreation areas where mining would be permitted. This is in the Westmin mine and Cream Lake area. So WAC does advise the province that we designate recreation areas where mining would be permitted now.

With respect to the claim-by-claim study, your advice is wise, and we have put that process in place. I guess I'm not anticipating legislation, because it's not here yet — I've seen it in another movie — but you'll be pleased to learn that there is going to be a process put in place by another ministry in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment and Parks, whereby we will be encouraging quitclaims where they can occur in recreation areas, and we will have very stringent regulations in place for exploration. These regulations, put in place by the parks branch, would include, in the case of exploration — which we can't stop in a recreation area — helicopters going in instead of a road, backpacking in, and that type of thing, so there's very very little damage. Test holes must be acceptable to the ministry. And if the geology proves to be excellent and we are convinced by the geology that the mine should go ahead and that if we held them back we could be taken to court, then we'll have to let that activity occur. We think, in most cases in Strathcona in the recreation areas, that we're going to be able to quitclaim, or maybe people will just in fact withdraw their claims as they look at our stringent regulations for this type of exploration. So we're confident that in time we will have as much area as possible, if not all of it. within Strathcona in class A park status.

Don't lose sight of the fact that it's our position, and it always will be in this ministry, that a recreation area is a park candidate. It can't go backwards. It's going into park status, ratchetting along — only going one way. to park status — and not going backwards. I think that has to be made clear to the committee: we see direction in only one way in a recreation area, and that is to a full class A park status.

With respect to the legal questions you've asked and the further process we'll put in place, we'll have more information for you later this evening.

At this point. Madam Chairman, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker. I move that, pursuant to standing order 16(4), all divisions called during consideration of the estimates in Committee of Supply during evening sittings be deferred, and dealt with at the next sitting of the House as the first order of business under orders of the day, unless otherwise ordered.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I know this is not debatable. but I understood that there was going to be another motion. setting up evening sittings. that would have preceded this motion.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 16

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that this House stand recessed until 7 o'clock this evening and do adjourn not later than 10 this evening.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, we're not violently opposed to night sittings under all circumstances, but we're afraid if we do not raise our objections, it might be taken as a signal that perhaps we are prepared to return to the dark old days where we debated 24 hours of the day in order to get unpopular legislation through.

I think that there is a good reason now to press on and have some extra hours to get through the sittings for reasons with which all of us are quite familiar. But the legislation-by-exhaustion principle and the dark old days of night sittings, we thought, were put away once and for all and forever under the parliamentary reform.

[6:00]

When we considered motion 16(4), we didn't think for one moment that it would be used to excuse hon. members from being here to take part in the debates. Now I'm perfectly willing to admit that the knife cuts both ways, that if your members on your side of the House, sir — through you, Mr. Speaker — are not here, that opportunity also exists for us. But the deferring of the vote simply means that your members, beyond 22 of them, are not required to be here for any reason. So we object to that. We don't think it's a firm principle of extended hours. I think there are times when deferred motions are quite appropriate; we don't think this is one of them.

We're not afraid of the extra work. But we don't like to be put in this kind of position and pressured and squeezed by the tyranny of the majority. That's really what is happening, because 16(4) is not debatable. What we need.... We've made a lot of progress — and I notice that the Premier is keeping his eye contact on me — on improved relationships around here with the new government. We want that to continue, and we want to make certain that maybe for future sessions — realizing of course that we started not until March 9, and we had two huge bills that consumed a lot of time —

[ Page 2000 ]

we might have a parliamentary calendar developed which would indicate when we're coming, when we're leaving, what months we are supposed to be here, and the time when we expect we can make other plans. This is not an unusual thing in a democracy, even a parliamentary democracy. It has worked quite well in Ottawa for the last three years. The government would still maintain the right to change that, but the fact is that Ottawa governments, in three or four years, have not done that. It's a civilized way to behave, and it's time the calendar came to this Legislature. Other legislatures do it as well.

We oppose night sittings. We oppose the fact that these votes are deferred under 16(4), because that was not the intention. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we put forward our position so that it is not assumed lightly that we do not object to night sittings or that we're prepared to go back to the dark old days that we really welcomed getting away from.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just in response and before asking for the question, I want to assure the members of the assembly that I have no joy or no desire to go back to the dark old days of 1983, or even those dark old days of '79-80-81, when we'd have evening sessions. I think that's evidenced quite clearly by the position we took when we were debating Bill 19, both in committee stage and in second reading, which was long and exhaustive. We did not impose the tyranny of the majority, as you call it, and also as Sir Erskine May calls it, but we in fact let full, unfettered debate proceed at some length. As a matter of fact, it was a debate that in terms of recorded time — since we've had Hansard recording these events — took the longest any debate has ever taken.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, since Don Phillips has been gone.

It was fully unfettered because we realized the opposition had a point that they wanted to make; they were making it very well, and there was no reason why we should stand in the way of allowing full and competent debate to proceed. So that record stands.

In terms of the next few weeks, all members are aware that summer is rapidly approaching. Many of us want to get as much work done as we can, work that includes the estimates of the Legislative Assembly and some pieces of legislation, and I believe by extending the day we can allow the opportunity of full debate to all members. We allow, by motion, standing order 16(4), the right for members to be absent in the evening if they wish to be for other business. But we still give them the right to state their position on a division. I don't think anything could be more democratic. Section 16(4), as I've moved it this evening, really in no way stands in the way of democracy. As a matter of fact it encourages it, because it allows the members returning on the next day to stand up and state, on the record, their opposition to or support for motions made during the preceding evening. So I would commend to all members that in fact it is democracy.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we look for a moment at the kind of inheritance we have in terms of doing the public's business. We've had a tradition over the last number of years which I would call a negative tradition: that is, when we stand in this House and debate ministry estimates, oftentimes those moneys that we're debating are already allocated. I think we have to rethink. Like the House Leader on our side, I'm pleased that the Premier is here today, because I think we have an opportunity to change all that.

It was noted that we came to this House late in the spring — March 9. Our House Leader is saying that we want a fall session and a spring session, one for bills and one for estimates, where the interim supply measure is not abused. We never object to interim supply, but we are saying that the government over time — in the last regime. certainly — would come in for protracted pieces of interim supply and not convene the House until the last possible minute, undermining the job of the members of this House.

We come to this House to debate the legislation that is put before us. We want to do that in an orderly and thoughtful way. We want to oppose bad laws and support good laws. That is what we want to come here for. We also want to debate the $9 billion of spending estimates that comes before this House, and we don't want to do it after the fact. We find that degrading we find that embarrassing; and we find that unnecessary. I think the time has come.

This session, because the House was convened late and because we had two pieces of major legislation that preoccupied this House, we asked that bills be set aside for an orderly fall session where a short legislative program could be discussed. A certain number of bills could also be discussed with some thoroughness, some care, so that we could effectively and fairly represent 2.9 million people. But we're not going to have that. We have no commitment to a fall session, and there's a strong likelihood that we will not see this House reconvened until February or March of next year. That is not the way this House is intended to function. We take our job seriously on both sides of this House. but to do it properly we have to have a calendar where we can come and put our thoughts towards good legislation and also towards the programmed spending of the government. That's why people elect us to come here. It is not, as some members have said, a five-year dictatorship — a democracy, but a five-year dictatorship — once the statement of votes has been produced. That is not our job.

On behalf of our side of the House, as our House Leader has indicated, we would like consideration for a fall session because we have the vast majority of spending estimates to do. We want to do the best job possible. Now we are being forced into night sittings to do them. We would like to sit in an orderly way in day sittings, with a fall session and a spring session, to do our job properly on behalf of the 2.9 million people we represent.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I couldn't agree more with the member with respect to a calendar. I have a family too.

I call the question on the recess.

Motion approved on division.

The House recessed at 6: 10 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the recess, which we are currently in, continue until 7:30 p.m. this evening.

[ Page 2001 ]

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 7:07 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:31 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply Mrs. Gran in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hate to pry into attendance, but I have a response here for the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). Do you want me to give it now, or do you want me to wait until he comes in? Or is he not going to come in at all?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's with the Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll wait until he returns, because it is specific to Strathcona. unless you would rather hear it now.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to know if I can have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know why I am doing this, but all of the members in the House will be pleased to know that seated in the members' gallery are the parents of the second member, or the first member.... I knew I shouldn't be doing this; the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) should be doing it. Her parents are residents of my riding in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. They are active and well-respected members of the community, and they are involved with the mobile home owners' association — which I am sure, if the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) was here, we could talk a little bit more about — and are undoubtedly very proud of the accomplishments of their daughter. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. GUNO: Madam Chairman. I want to make some very general comments first, and then I have some very specific questions to direct to the minister.

I just want to say first that I am often intrigued to hear the minister speak about his role as the Minister of Environment, which I take to mean that he is an advocate for the protection of our environment who, I suppose, should take front and centre in fighting to preserve our wilderness area. I am often reminded of the Indian agents in the bad old days, who were charged with the responsibility of looking after the interests of the Indian people but often worked hand in hand with developers, at the expense of the interests of the native people. I wonder sometimes, just listening to the minister, whether or not he fully appreciates the responsibility that he is charged with, in terms of being Minister of Environment. I think the more appropriate term would be minister of industrial parks. Often he is put in the role of apologist for a government that puts a priority on short-term interests at the expense of retaining a lot of our legacy, in terms of preserving a fast-diminishing wilderness area in British Columbia.

I say this because I am very concerned about the direction that this government is heading in, in terms of completely abandoning any idea of looking after our wilderness area. I'm not satisfied with the minister's easy assurances that under the provincial parks system everything will be okay. The track record of this government is very clear. You only have to look at Strathcona Park. Certainly. where I come from in the Nass Valley.... I remember growing up there as a kid and the tremendous beauty that we had. After 20 years of logging, we have what I think the president of the Nishga Tribal Council appropriately named "a valley of rotten stumps." I think that's the kind of track record we're looking at here.

I want to direct my concern to some of the things that are happening in Atlin. There's been great concern expressed about the inability of the minister to protect the habitat of furbearing animals as well as other wildlife. I refer to the concerns of the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine, who over the years have been trying to meet with the Minister of Environment and his predecessors — without any success. They are concerned about the fact that, in light of the renewal of industrial activity in that area, there is a growing conflict relating to the trapping potential and forest harvesting, particularly in the Iskut area.

I have a letter here from Mr. E. Warnock, who is the regional director of the northern region, and it's in response, I guess, to a letter that the administration of the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine had sent earlier. He talks about the fact, having discussed it with their habitat protection biologist in Smithers, that they were concerned about protecting habitat for fur-bearers as well as other wildlife, and about how they very much appreciate the economic importance of trapping in that area. He says: "Unfortunately. as you may know, we only have two staff to respond to all of the forestry, mining and land development issues from Fraser Lake to Cedarvale and north to the Yukon." They attached a map that shows the area they're talking about. It represents about a fourth of British Columbia, and we only have two staff members to respond to that. In Stewart alone we now have the Mount Klappan project — the Gulf Oil project. There is the Westmin development just outside Stewart, plus other mining developments. Yet we have no corresponding increase in staff to ensure that the mandate of this particular ministry is fulfilled,

My question, Madam Chairman, directed to the Minister of Environment, is: what plans, if any, do you have to provide more funds so that there is adequate staff to monitor what is happening in that particular area?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I really don't appreciate being called the minister of industrial parks, particularly when the record shows that we have added considerably this year to the wilderness park system. The record stands on that, and I make no apology for the 100,000 hectares added to the park system. To insinuate in any way that this is an industrial park ministry. I find quite unflattering and quite unacceptable.

With respect to staff, there's no question I'd like to have more — I guess every ministry would. However. there is

[ Page 2002 ]

restraint put on us every day, and we do the best we can to manage. Did your question essentially deal with the Iskut and their trapping concern? Was it staff for that? I didn't quite get the application — what the staff would be needed for.

MR. GUNO: I was going to get to that in more particular terms. But when you say you're proud of the fact that you're adding another park to the system, my point is that in spite of that, we don't have any corresponding increase in staff — or there doesn't seem to be any contemplated. Right now in the whole northern region we have only two staff members to monitor all the different industrial activities that are going on or are being planned. So first of all, I want to know if there are any plans to increase the staff in that area.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're correct on the regional staff, and Mr. Warnock is correct. But I will advise the committee that with respect to Mount Klappan and Westmin mine proposals, and any other proposals, we have a planning assessment team of 30 special staff, who report to the deputy directly and are Victoria-based. They're itinerant, and they evaluate all major developments; they are made available as required. That would be the team, or part of the team, that would evaluate the Mount Klappan and Westmin mine proposals.

MR. GUNO: I want to have a bit of a breakdown as to where these people are being placed. Someone told me — I hope you can correct this — that there are more wildlife officers in some of the urban centres than in the rural areas. Can you tell us the rationale for having all these wildlife officers in places like Vancouver and Victoria, more than, say, in the northern region?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll quickly give you a breakdown.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hope you didn't say what I thought you said. I think that's uncomplimentary.

I'll get a breakdown on where the COs are placed. But I can assure you, the conservation officers are placed in areas where they're needed, and they have large areas of wilderness to cover. They don't spend their time in downtown Victoria — or not, as the member for Victoria suggests, at the Forge. They're out working.

MR. GUNO: You will be able to provide us with that fairly soon?

In terms of these conservation officers, would you be able to provide us with a general job description? What are their duties and responsibilities?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that will be coming shortly, Mr. Member. And I'll provide that full job description for you this evening, and shortly.

MS. EDWARDS: I recently asked a question of your ministry, Mr. Minister. I understand the conservation officer service consists of 86 field officers, 13 senior conservation officers, five regional conservation officers, and five Victoria headquarters staff, which of course does look like there are far more in the centre. I would like to follow up on this too, because that is one of the major issues in my riding and the ridings surrounding it.

I say that with some background. Our area, the area of the East Kootenay, is second in the world with the most number of game in a single small area. It is second only to southeast Africa, with the number of game that are important on the world range. We have lost a number of conservation officers. We don't have nearly enough conservation officers to serve.

I don't know if the numbers are going to give you any ability to respond to the question that the member for Atlin asked. If so, perhaps you'd like to respond now; otherwise, I can go ahead with some of the other questions that I have.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Go ahead.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.

In my opportunity to talk, Mr. Minister, I'd like to say, first of all, that I am going to leave the South Moresby issue, which is a very important issue to the tourism industry, partly because I'm going to trust what you said, that you do want a national park. And if you want it, I'm sure you will get it.

I notice that a number of the members of your side of the House have mentioned, when they've talked about the Moresby issue, something about a museum in Hull. I'm hoping, then, that part of whatever money you get from the federal government will go to the Provincial Museum, because I understand that it is in need of some money for development. I'm hoping that it will happen, Mr. Minister.

I have a few questions. Perhaps the best place to start is in relation to some of the parks in my area. One of the most recent things that have happened in my area vis-à-vis parks is that the Height of the Rockies was proclaimed to be a backpack recreation area. That area was not very clearly defined, as far as I can make out. The area has extremely rare and attractive qualities, it has been fought for for a long time by the people who are interested in wilderness recreation. However, the ministry saw fit not to make it into a park of any particular area but to use a brand-new designation. What happened was that in a major part of the area that had been asked for.... I say that in the sense that the amount asked for had been reduced. Where somehow or other the ministry and the people who were asking for the park came to terms, at that point I think only three-quarters of the area was designated a backpacking recreation area.

First of all, I would ask you to define that if you can. I would also ask you to please make some comment on the process. Evidently there is a planning process going on whereby a number of the people in the area who are interested have been asked to do meetings and to consider what should happen to the central part of the White watershed. I would like to know how the people in those meetings were selected. I would like to know how the process is going, where it is, when we are going to know what is happening. What criteria have that group been asked to consider? That particular crucial core part is only 1 percent of the timber, and timber is the issue, as I understand it. It makes up only 1 percent of that particular timber reserve.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a wonderful question. It's well thought out. I won't be facetious. I was going to be, but I won't. It's a designation by the Ministry of Forests. It's not under the Park Act; it's under a part of the Forest Act that is going to be introduced. That question should be better put to

[ Page 2003 ]

the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) because our ministry did not deal with it.

With respect to what a backpacking area means, again without being facetious I would advise you that it's an area where you backpack.

[7:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I recognize that your ministry certainly did not make that designation. However, the Ministry of Parks decided that it would not be involved. May I then continue with the question of why not I will leave the designation of the backpacking area to the Ministry of Forests, but I will extend the question because there are a number of areas within my region — and it's not just my constituency, because the region I'm talking about is larger — and the Ministry of Environment and Parks has made a number of decisions. For example, they have decided there will be a recreation area in the comer of the province in the Flathead. That has not become more than a recreational area, as I understand it, under parks designation. There is an area down at Koocanusa in my riding, and that deals with the reservoir that was created when the water was backed up behind the Libby Dam. In that area there is a crucial need for more parks facilities.

Interestingly enough. the reservoir managed to habitate fish that nobody expected ever to be there. Because there are fish there that nobody expected, there is a huge tourist response. People want to run their boats on the reservoir; people want to camp on the side of the reservoir. There are not enough camping spots. There's nobody there to clean up the logs that are floating in the reservoir, and applications to have those logs cleaned up meet with the answer that B.C. Hydro is responsible. B.C. Hydro has a small weir up the Elk River and is not totally responsible for all the logs that are there.

So I'm asking you a number of questions again. Why did the Ministry of Environment and Parks not respond to the request for the Height of the Rockies to be a park? What is the reason that the Flathead area was made into a recreational area? I may even know the answer to that one, but I would like you to tell me. I would like you to tell me how, in a park area — which is the Koocanusa reservoir area — the ministry is going to respond to the needs there for clean-up to make that into a park that will be used by the people who want to use it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Back to Height of the Rockies: it was a Ministry of Forests initiative, something they wanted to enter into. I understand they are still negotiating — and the negotiations are going on in good faith — on deciding what area will be within the Height of the Rockies boundaries and what area will continue to be logged. My understanding, just from conversations that I've heard with the Minister of Forests, is that those negotiations are going along reasonably well. You could perhaps gather a lot more information from the Minister of Forests — or I will if you wish — but it's clearly within his mandate. In terms of Flathead, it's what we call a candidate park area. The intent is to preserve it for recreation purposes, and it may become a park in the future as funds and initiative are available.

The member has stated some philosophical questions as well, and maybe at this point I can get into a better description of what we term a park. There is a methodology to establishing a park, and the methodology is that we look for significant natural historic or recreational values. We manage, protect and provide these for the enjoyment of the people. We look at a significant feature, whether it's a waterfall or some other aspect of the British Columbia environment that is unique or is the best demonstration or best example of that feature, and that's normally how we target what a park area will be. If it's a waterfall that is not the best waterfall or if it's a tidal pool that's not the best tidal pool. then we select the areas that really are the best example of what we think we should preserve for British Columbians and for people who visit our province to look at and to appreciate. So the best example of any topographical, natural or scenic feature is what we look for in identifying a park area.

The recreation area, as I explained before the supper recess, is a candidate park, where we are wanting to bring it into a park. The movement has to go into a park; it can't go backwards into some other area. It's defined as being "land where the highest and best use is management for public recreation, in association with interim or continuous nonrecreational use of resources." That's the problem we have in Strathcona and in some other places — South Moresby as well. The federal government will also have that problem in South Moresby if it becomes a national park. That's where you have to leave that recreation area as recreation area, until you can absolve all the other proprietary interests that are there. That's why we have the distinction and designation.

I think that's it for the questions at this point, but I'm more than happy to receive more from the member for Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS: I was pleased to hear you say, when you were talking about recreational areas, that you had decided there would be very stringent requirements for mining exploration in recreation areas. Is that correct — not in parks but in recreation areas?

I perhaps would be able to speculate that that's the reason that the Flathead area has been left as a recreation area, because in fact there's been a great deal of gas exploration there. I assume also, from what you've said, that the highest use always is park, and perhaps I could also hope that that means none of the area that's currently designated under the Purcell wilderness area — the park in there — would go backwards, as you say, which is one of the things that concerns the people in my riding.

Since we're talking about Flathead, I would not like to go further without commenting on the resources in that area, and on one that is known to be special because of some research that has been done in that area. It has been suggested that the most dense population of grizzly bear on the continent exists in the Flathead area, and that's been supported by very specific research.

I know that the minister is also aware that there is a request in hand right now for the Khutzeymateen area. They declare that to be a very special grizzly area, and I think that's also probably true — a very different grizzly area. They do all sorts of different things, and it's fascinating to hear what the researchers can tell you about what they do.

My question to the minister is: is the minister considering any of these kinds of conservancies? If that is the case, what would be the criteria for that, and how and when would the minister expect that those kind of things might come to fruition?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Khutzeymateen, of course, was highlighted in the Wilderness Advisory Committee report, and it's our intention. as the report recommends,

[ Page 2004 ]

to further study the grizzly bear activities in that area, because it's definitely needed.

Just for the benefit of the committee, Madam Chairman, I'll describe the Khutzeymateen watershed as being very, very high in salmon. Also, it's a great berry-growing area — in some cases, second growth. Subsequently, it is a pretty popular spot for grizzly bears. They have salmon and they have berries. It is recognized throughout the world as being an area that should be established as a grizzly bear habitat, and I would encourage that myself. Again, it is a Wilderness Advisory Committee submission, and we would follow their recommendations.

With respect to the study, I think it is incumbent upon the ministry to begin looking at the denning habits of the grizzly bear to see if they are just in the area that the Wilderness Advisory Committee recommends be protected or if they are denning further out. We know they are eating there because there is an abundance of food, but where is the denning occurring? We suspect it is further afield. If I am not mistaken, a count showed only 30 grizzly bears in the area that we can identify, and we suspect that the many more that come in come from outside. But that is a study the ministry is going to undertake.

[8:00]

If it is going to be logged at all, it would be at least a couple of years down the road, following a study by ministry biologists to look at the denning patterns. This is a decision that would have to be made two years down the road, but we think probably marginal logging activity can occur without major disturbance. Logging being transitional, it is a type of activity that grizzly bears can put up with for a while. If you know anything about a grizzly bear, he goes anywhere and does anything he wants. He can't take permanent society. He will move away from that, but logging activity that is transitional can allow for grizzly bears to stay in the area.

The size of Khutzeymateen, for the benefit of the committee, is 6,000 hectares. we have established that it is nonhunting for grizzly bears around that area, so we are putting in a form of protection now. But I want to do further studies; they should take a couple of years, and we'll try to find out the pattern and the habitat of the grizzly bear. At that point, we'll make a decision about what we do with the wood resource.

I should also tell the committee that the company that was concerned with logging in the area did a study; but on inspection, we found the study was not all that complete and wasn't all that biologically sound. The consultant doing the study had not visited the area and had used data from Norway, which really wasn't acceptable to our biologists. So there is a lot more work to be done before we consider any activity in the Khutzeymateen.

It is an international issue; I receive more non-Canadian mail on Khutzeymateen than any other issue — more than South Moresby, as a matter of fact — so it is a concern around the world. The Americans, of course, have a big concern, because the whole west coast used to be inhabited by grizzly bears, but society drove them out. So it is seen as a vanishing resource, and I respect that.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The second member for Richmond would like leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted'?

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: It gives me a great deal of pleasure and honour to welcome two people in the members' gallery, one of whom means a lot to the second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). Ann Mowat is here with her friend Kay Thomson. Please bid them welcome.

MR. VANT: Madam Chairman, I'll try not to put the hon. minister in a sub judice position this evening, but I don't want the socialist comer of the House to dominate the Environment and Parks estimates.

We on this side of the House certainly have some concerns. First of all, our conservation officers are few and far between. I would like to thank the minister, because at Alexis Creek they hired a half-time secretary to assist the two conservation officers. They cover a vast area, and it allows them to be out in the field more rather than being bogged down in the office with their paperwork. So there is an alternative to hiring more conservation officers. We can enable them to be out in the field more.

I would like to say that I am certainly concerned about the permits issued in the interior, particularly the one at Koster siding. I notice under section 34 of the Waste Management Act that it is the permitee that is ultimately responsible if anything goes wrong with one of these waste disposal sites. It is a little disturbing to see that the maximum penalty, if things go wrong, is a measly $50,000. Has the minister given any thought to increasing that penalty? Because the rainfall here in Victoria is about the same as at Koster siding, and there's this Hartland Avenue dump that has been going on for decades and is therefore a mega dump. There's a lot of leachate coming out of that dump, and it's going to cost over a million dollars to clean it up, because there are great problems. So in that light it seems to me that the penalty seems rather paltry, in terms of some of the environmental damage that could come about as a result of one of these mega garbage dumps.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the member is not offending the rule of sub judice — I thought he might be talking about a tribunal that is currently meeting — but he is offending the rule of anticipation, because this is a proposed bill, and your question would be more appropriate when we get to debating that bill. The bill is on the order paper now, Mr. Member, so I can't discuss it further; there is a better forum for it.

You mentioned conservation officers, which reminded me that I had forgotten to answer some questions about conservation officers, and I have the information here.

First of all, the conservation officer service has as its objective to promote compliance with environmental legislation through public education, public awareness and public involvement; to enforce environmental legislation through investigation of possible violations and prosecutions where warranted under the direction of the regional director, who will be guided in setting regional priorities by overall ministry enforcement policy and individual program objectives; to respond appropriately to public requests for assistance regarding problems or nuisance wildlife in order to protect private property and to ensure public safety; to attend environmental emergencies in accordance with rational emergency response plans; and to provide other support to ministry programs as prescribed by the regional director.

One comment about the staff in Victoria. There's a comment that there are five staff in Victoria. Yes, of course, this is the head office of the branch, so you need your director here:

[ Page 2005 ]

there's a training officer and I presume some other people involved.

I have a breakdown of the conservation officer service; it's quite extensive. There are probably 20 one-man offices, about 15 two-man offices, and it looks like a dozen more than woman offices situated throughout the province, and as the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) said, even into the area west of Williams Lake.

I've said this publicly to other groups, and I'll say it publicly in the House: I don't think we have enough conservation officers. I guess we could put one behind every tree, and that would totally blanket the province, but of course the costs would be prohibitive, But we are continually pursuing ways of getting more officers in the field and getting more and better enforcement, because we realize that we do have a poaching problem in some areas, and the more officers we can have in the field the better we'll be able to protect the wildlife and the citizens of British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would just like to have the minister elaborate a little bit. If I understood him correctly. he said that the job descriptions of these conservation officers were as far-ranging as enforcement, education, and responsibility for assisting in public safety and environmental emergencies. I think the minister belittles the position of conservation officers if he makes the point that he needs more conservation officers and he'd like one behind every tree. Clearly, with this kind of job description, their job is much more far-reaching than simply the important task of catching poachers, What the minister is telling us is that these officers are the people responsible for enforcing environmental law in this province. Is that correct'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The comment "one behind every tree" was meant tongue in cheek and as reasonably facetious. I'll try to avoid a sense of humour, if the member wishes.

I gave you the objectives of the conservation officer service. They're wide-ranging; it's a very responsible position. There is some substantial training that goes on, and I think it's a service that we in British Columbia can all be very proud of. I know I am. I've met the director: I've seen correspondence; I'm aware of their policy and the very responsible job they have. So I hope that my comments did not belittle the service in any way. I hope the member isn't either.

MS. EDWARDS: To get back to bear — grizzly. Mr. Minister, I am very pleased to hear that you are going to continue and that you are on the road to getting a conservancy in the Khutzeymateen. What I'm also hoping that says is that the very detailed and extensive research that has been done by a grizzly researcher in the East Kootenay in the Flathead area, who has in fact counted and radioed and monitored a number of grizzly there, which is one of the major international.... Grizzly, as you say. range very far. They've discovered that they range over an extremely large range.

Again, I'm back to suggesting that one of the things that disturbed the grizzly range in the Flathead was the exploration for a gas well. It was very clearly shown that the more explosive blasts you put off in that area, the further the grizzly range and they did not come back to their basic feeding grounds. So I think — and I have every hope — that if in fact you are going to go ahead and do some more research in the Khutzeymateen, perhaps the research that has been done in the Flathead area will lead to some sort of protection for the grizzly that exist there. As the researcher there says to me, it's not that the grizzly can't stand people; when people move in, they can't stand the grizzly. So the grizzly disappears, and that's what's happening.

If we're going to talk about international concerns — the concerns about conservation that the international community has addressed — it is time for me to ask a question about the Columbia marshes. In fact, those marshes are internationally recognized. They're on the Rocky Mountain Trench flyway, and they're internationally recognized as a very important flyway for water-fowl. There have been a number of requests that the area of the Columbia marshes, which is north, in the same flyway as the Creston conservancy, I know.... that some conservancy be recognized and in fact designated. Has there been any move that way? Has the minister recognized that area for the worth that it has? Will there be any conservancy recognized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Regrettably. Madam Member, I'm not aware of that. It's a major flyway for ducks?

MS. EDWARDS: Geese.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay. I would expect that if it were seen as a major project, Ducks Unlimited, who are an incredibly good organization, would have made representation to the ministry. I'm not aware of any. But if I'm advised of any in the next little while, I'll let you know. I have a Ducks Unlimited project in my riding, and I've watched it for the last eight years. They do very good work. and I commend them for their good works, I would think that if they had a concern with that area, they would have brought it to my attention. If there is anything, we'll find out for you shortly. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[8:15]

MS. EDWARDS: They have, Mr. Minister. Ducks Unlimited brought it to my attention, and said that it would be considered by the Ramsar convention this summer. They were very disappointed that that conservancy was not being brought forward, because the British Columbia government was not willing to support it. So I'm anxious to hear what information you have on that.

The other issue that I want to talk about in a bit of detail is the game-farming issue, Mr. Minister, which I talked about in a member's statement not very long ago. But I'm anxious to probe it. I know that you've made an announcement, and you've said very clearly that the regulations under which you have allowed some kind of game-farming are very limited, and they won't go any further. But I want to ask you now to relate that to some of the comments coming through in relation to the conservation officers. I, as well as you, recognize the very broad description of the job that the conservation officers are supposed to perform.

Again, because of my area being particularly valuable as far as game is concerned, we have conservation officers who are probably among the best in the province. I'm sure they're good all over the province; I don't mean to say that. What it amounts to is that they have recognized that there is a significant increase in the amount of poaching that is going on, not only in our region, which in fact has very good game, but throughout that whole area, throughout the whole province — in the national parks as well as the provincial parks.

[ Page 2006 ]

Poaching is becoming a far more major problem than it was before. As the poaching numbers go up, the number of conservation officers has gone down. I think you'll be willing to recognize that. But it is a major resource — our wildlife. What are we going to do about the conservation officers? If we can't control poaching under the regulations that are currently here, do you not see a threat in the possibility of game-ranching, game-farming, being expanded, and pressures coming to bear on government, and that expanding and the whole poaching issue becoming far more critical than it is even at the moment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, no, I don't. The game farming initiative was taken with very stringent regulations, both in terms of the actual animal husbandry itself and the species. Game-farming by permit has always been allowed for bison.

We had in British Columbia another little critter not indigenous to our province. As a matter of fact, it is indigenous to the Mediterranean, and it's been farmed since the days of the Pharaohs: the fallow deer. There are carvings on tombs and things like that, so we know that this little devil has been around for a long time and is very popular for domestic use. In any event, this animal is not indigenous to British Columbia and will only survive in a climate that is close to the Mediterranean type climate of the lower mainland and the southern regions of Vancouver Island; it wouldn't even take the stress of the Kootenays or the southern Okanagan. I've been advised that the stress even in the Osoyoos area, which does get sub-zero for some days, would be too stressful for fallow deer. So we know where those animals will be raised, and we know it will be quite tightly controlled. So on the basis of that, bison, which are pretty well considered a domestic animal in Canada, and fallow deer, which are not indigenous, will not cross-breed and we know we can control.... We have put those approvals in place.

The member is aware of the regulations from the conversation we had a couple of Fridays ago. It must be private land, it must be well fenced, it must be a minimum 12-acre size. We would expect that there probably won't even be any market stock in place for a couple of years, so it's going to be some time before we see this type of game-farming, particularly fallow deer, come to fruition.

I cannot commit a future government, but it would never be my policy nor, I think, the policy of this government to consider a native species such as elk or a non-native European species such as reindeer. There are just too many health problems, and there are too many control problems, since they are a far bigger animal. I just can't see that coming to be in the province of British Columbia. They've tried it in Alberta, in Saskatchewan I believe, and in Manitoba, and the results have not been very good. So we draw on their experience, and when we look at elk we agree that this is just not the proper thing to happen in our province.

We did agree that with fallow deer and bison we would have control. It's something we could manage well. They are not indigenous; they won't cross-breed. Genetically we can test the meat, and if there is poaching we can track that. Even if you find a roast somewhere and you suspect it might have been from a native animal, that can be tested. So we can test for fallow deer, and we can test for other species.

We think the controls are there and we think we can follow it very closely. We're sure we can, or we wouldn't have entered into the initiative in the first place.

MS. EDWARDS: Before any of the members on either side of the House get any more questions about what the word "fallow" means, I would report that I looked at the dictionary and it does not mean fallow in the sense that that piece of land that you see that's black in the middle of green doesn't bear any fruit. It is a fallow deer related to the colour, fallow is in relation to the yellowy-brown colour that the deer is.

Now, having brought a little bit of information to this debate, I will proceed by being very pleased that the minister sees those difficulties. I also would like to hear your response to what I think is a very persuasive argument. We do not have a lot of officers who are going to be able to manage poaching, and we do have a lot of areas in the province which market meat that is not necessarily subject to any inspection.

I think there is a major difficulty there, and I'd like to hear the minister's response to what is likely to happen. There are going to be some very major pressures on the government once the market is created for wild game, for venison.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: One could make the argument that allowing the sale of venison in the province of British Columbia is going to increase poaching. But we already do allow the sale of venison in British Columbia. It's from New Zealand, and it's for sale now.

In terms of poaching, I admitted earlier that it's a considerable problem in British Columbia. We do need more conservation officers, and it's something that I assure you — I've assured my own caucus and I'll assure yours, Madam Member — I'll take to Treasury Board, because there is a remarkable loss to the province. At this point we are thinking of higher fines. I have approached the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) with pleading evidence, so that when his Crown prosecutors go to court on a poaching charge, they will advise the judge....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pleading evidence for your Crown prosecutors when they're doing a poaching charge. These guys are getting away with $300 fines, and it's totally unacceptable. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I'm really upset with that.

See, I told you I'd tell him.

In any event, we have sent the Attorney-General's ministry information on how the pleading should go, so that when the fines are put in place, they are far higher. They're not high enough yet. The courts are not impressed with our conservation officers and the loss to the B.C. economy on a poaching charge. But we're hoping to address that, and we're hoping to get those fines up — the fines that the courts impose — and we're going to be raising our own fines as well, so that people in British Columbia will understand that poaching is a very serious crime.

I can tell you that we have adopted a method of a little bit more mobility on the part of conservation officers. If we suspect that in a certain area the poaching is becoming excessive, we will move in a fellow from another area and reinforce that crew. Mind you, that's to the detriment of the area he's leaving — you can appreciate that. But what we do is look at the areas where the incidence of poaching is high and move people around.

In terms of the vote for conservation officers, I agree that it's not high enough, and I would like to have a lot more. The

[ Page 2007 ]

other thing we've done in some cases is deputize other employees. We also have the Neighbourhood Watch program put in place by the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and that's helping to some degree. I admit we need more COs and we need them in more places, but we're doing the best we can.

MR. GUNO: Madam Chairman, as a new member from Atlin, I'm going to stay away from the subject of grizzly bears, and I don't know anything about wildlife farming. But I want to get back to the matter of trapping and forest harvest conflict in the Iskut area, which was a big problem last year, as you know, Mr. Minister.

With the large amount of forest and mining activity in that area, the local regional district has indicated that they're absolutely inundated with all kinds of issues. They cannot give full attention, as they save, to the matter of this conflict. What precisely is the mandate of the Minister of Environment in terms of protecting fur-bearing animals so that the livelihood of trappers is considered? What exactly is the referral process in dealing with these conflicts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Any industry plans, particularly in your area, Mr. Member, that would deal with logging must be approved by the ministry and amended by the ministry if we suspect there's going to be an impact on wildlife.

MR. GUNO: I want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that because of the inadequacy of staffing in the northern region, the referral system is a sham. In actual fact, the process is really just an automatic endorsement of the plans for logging activity there. There was no real consideration given to the concerns of the trappers. I'm wondering if that sort of inattention to the concerns of the trappers is going to be continuing. What plans do you have to improve that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now I remember why I didn't like night sittings. We are discussing Iskut, is that correct?

MR. GUNO: Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I understand that representatives of the B.C. Forest Service and the logging industry met recently to discuss the situation. The Dease Lake conservation officer attended on behalf of the ministry. As the Forest Service did not appear sympathetic to the native concern, the natives indicate that they want to fight the logging every way that they can. We have taken the position that we will review the logging plans before making recommendations to the Ministry of Forests and Lands regarding the expected impact of logging on the fur-bearer habitat. I presume that no logging will occur until we have done that. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate your bringing that to my attention.

MR. GUNO: I am glad to hear the minister make that kind of announcement. Forestry is one thing, but there is also in the area the matter of Gulf Oil's Mount Klappan project, which poses some serious environmental concerns relating to the wildlife in that area, and the Westmin project in Stewart. It still leaves us with the problem of the inadequacy of staff in terms of dealing with all of these industrial conflicts.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've just had a fast briefing. Mr. Member, from my colleague the Minister of. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), who indicates that Mount Klappan is some way down the road in terms of approval within his ministry. So I can't offer you much more comfort on that now. except to indicate that it's got a few more hoops, including ours, to go through before we see anything there.

[8:30]

MR. GUNO: So will the minister give the House the assurance that he will contact his officials to look into these conflicts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have to await receipt of the stage 2 report — which is not complete and is, I think, at its earlier stage — to determine the extent to which ministry concerns expressed after stage I review have been answered.

The concerns that we will address centre around impacts of the proposed power plant on vegetation and wildlife; impacts of the mine on wildlife populations, water quality and fisheries; impacts of the existing and proposed access roads on wildlife and fish habitat; populations and poaching; and impacts of a port on hydrology and water quality at Stewart. So our concerns are comprehensive. I believe they address all the factors that you would be concerned with, Mr. Member, and I can assure you that we have some clout as a ministry when it comes to this type of economic development, in terms of mitigating impact if the project is going to proceed.

MR. GUNO: Relating to the Mount Klappan project: as you say, it is at stage 2. Will the minister indicate whether or not a public hearing is being planned relating to this stage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A decision on a public hearing will be made by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. but we do inject ourselves into addressing all the concerns that I listed earlier. We are not part of the hearing process, in terms of the public hearing. but we are part of the submission process, in terms of what we ask the development ministry to consider.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Minister, before I address the subject that we're discussing, which is primarily conservation officers, I would like to say in recognition of your particular position that I would like all of the ministers and Treasury Board as well to be aware of my particular position in this matter. I come as a representative who has a lifelong affinity with the outdoors. I recognize that your ministry, with a budget that is ninth or tenth in the province of British Columbia, falls far short in the amount of money that we should deservedly put forward to Environment and Parks. Certainly it's the highest profile issue that we have today. As a matter of fact, I believe it ranks ahead of unemployment. I don't think full appreciation is given to your ministry's position.

On the matter of seals, I recognize that the problem is to a degree one of finances, but not totally. The present situation in the Kamloops region is the result of a move to make conservation officers more cost-effective during the period of restraint. The system is simply not working. It's well acknowledged in the field by the sportsmen. hunters and fishermen, who are the true stewards and the greatest conservationists of this province. The concept of centralizing

[ Page 2008 ]

conservation officers has completely removed them from the communities in which they used to reside. The communities are simply out of touch with those conservation officers, other than picking up the phone on the record- and-report concept. They get an automatic telephone, and the response time is simply not good enough.

When I grew up in Kelowna we had local conservation officers. It was very seldom that you went out either hunting or fishing and didn't run across a conservation officer. There was only one in the area, and he covered a large area. At the present time, the focus of conservation officers has actually changed. I believe it started to change when we changed the name to conservation officers from game wardens.

I'd like to read a short paragraph from the annual report of 1981-82, with respect to the wildlife program: "The primary goal of the wildlife program is to maintain the wildlife species of the province in sufficient abundance to meet the social, recreational, ecological and economic needs of society. Wildlife management activities include inventory and management of wildlife populations, maintenance and enhancement of habitat, and regulation of hunting and trapping harvests."

That was the traditional approach of the game warden. What has happened today is that there has been a complete and absolute focus.... Rather than preservation of the wildlife legacy of this province, the emphasis has been on statistics, where we are demoting the best and most qualified conservation officers in the system simply because of they are adherents to and proponents of the old concept, which is preservation of the wildlife resources. We are rewarding individuals and pulling more individuals into the system whose total focus is simply on statistics, which means fines and tickets. We get all sorts of petty offences, and we pick up all of these offences on main-road traffic blocks. We're not interested, really, in the fish resource or in the wildlife resource. We tend to concentrate our people on the well traveled highways in en masse types of checks. We get the people for very petty offences, and the emphasis on the preservation of the wildlife resource simply isn't there.

I have talked to two former Ministers of Environment for the last six months, as well as officials in your ministry, and I have been unable to get a conservation officer located in Kelowna, even though one lives in Kelowna and commutes daily to Vernon. I have made every effort to accommodate, at virtually no charge to the ministry, through the government agent in Kelowna, support staff so that the conservation officer could actually get out and do his job in the field. The figure on that was $2,500 per year, which would be a small figure against traveling charges.

In my community we have one of the highest-density populations of hunters and fishermen. The response time is simply not there, and we're putting undue pressure on our game. Poaching is a serious problem, not only in my constituency but in all of British Columbia. Fifty percent of the annual game harvest is poached. That's a severe problem that's out of control. We have to have either more conservation officers or perhaps an alternative. I can see an auxiliary conservation officer force of trained volunteers, to participate in checks; to be on call, in the event of pit-lamping or poaching activities; or in the case of a night call, to go with a lone conservation officer, as I believe workers' compensation requires. I too think that we have diverted conservation officers from the traditional concept. We are asking conservation officers to focus their attention on too many diverse areas. Water management and waste management simply take away their time from the work that they were initially required to do, which is preservation of the wildlife legacy of the province of British Columbia.

What we are faced with too is the situation that occurs with our regulations. A number of hunters are finding that the complexity of the regulations makes it exceedingly difficult not to be in an infraction of the law at one point or another. That's certainly a valid complaint. We have had a significant downturn in the hunting and fishing population in the province of British Columbia. It was commensurate with the doubling of the fee, from $7 to $14; and then there was a further $3 surcharge put on the licence, for environmental or habitat enhancement. None of the sportsmen I've spoken to are upset with the enhancement charge. They feel that that's necessary, and it's their responsibility as stewards of the environment, as consumptive users of the wildlife resource. It is my position that the non-consumptive users of the resource also have a valid place in the scheme of things. I would like to encourage the minister to accept some of the options, and to encourage those in his ministry to accommodate the wish of the sportsmen, to have conservation officers decentralized and returned to the communities; and also to look aggressively at the starting of a volunteer auxiliary force.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I got your answer, by the way, Mr. Chairman. I'll wait until you get in your chair, so we can fight again, or argue, or debate, or whatever.

In any event, with respect to the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa), as I said before you came, I do have a serious concern with conservation officers. We will endeavour to have that service increased, bearing in mind it does take some considerable training, and it's something that we have to.... It's an expensive program, although the worth is there.

You're correct, As I stated earlier before you arrived, the objectives of the conservation officer service now are to provide compliance with environmental legislation, which includes a variety of things, as opposed to just fish and wildlife, which is what you might have experienced, when you were speaking of the game wardens and your experience as a youth.

I'll tell you, though, with respect to the work that they do, I have the figures here on charges laid in the province under various acts: 53 under the Waste Management Act, 77 under the Litter Act. However, when we get into the wildlife program — and this includes the Wildlife Act, Firearm Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Game Export Act — 19,000 charges laid. Fisheries program, 1,927 charges laid; fisheries program, 1,288; under the water program, none; and under the pesticide control program, 12. I would submit that on the basis of those numbers a good percentage — 99 percent — of the work that conservation officers are doing is enforcement of the various game acts and the fisheries program.

I guess they are becoming a bit statistical. We do like to have them on highways, counting game as it's going out: sex, species, whatever. This is very valuable for the ministry, to determine the hunt for the next year, and I'm sure you're aware of that. Maybe we might be overdoing it a bit with statistics, but I think it's important that the ministry, if it's going to establish proper game management, has in place the

[ Page 2009 ]

knowledge, the information-gathering system, that allows it to make a good evaluation of what the hunting will be like in the management unit for next year, in terms of numbers, sex, species, and all of the things that we have look for to properly manage the game.

[8:45]

With respect to your own area, I know you have some concern, and I'll advise the committee that you brought this to my attention before: that in the Okanagan we have an office of two or more COs in Vernon. and also two or more in Penticton. I don't know why the gentleman who works in Vernon still lives in Kelowna, but I guess he can live wherever he wants. I guess he's thinking that we may establish an office in Kelowna — I don't know. If the need is there in Kelowna, we would certainly consider it; however, there might be a greater need in another area of the Okanagan. That's a determination I'll let the ministry make, because they're the experts.

In terms of auxiliary, I do have a few questions there. When we're dealing with a hunter, in many cases he's armed. If we're dealing with a pit-lamper, he's pretty serious about what he's doing, and he could be considered dangerous. Having auxiliary troops out there, untrained and unarmed, is maybe not the best situation, so I'm not totally convinced that auxiliaries are the right way to go. We've had tremendous success with our watch-and-report program, and I think I would like to leave it at that. We do deputize some people from the ministry for officer purposes. but there is quite a training cost. As I said earlier. we're looking at armed people who are breaking the law, who know they are breaking the law and might go to great lengths to evade being caught. So it's maybe not the most pleasant situation for an auxiliary person to be in, and it's better, in our opinion, that we remain with well-trained conservation officers.

MR. SERWA: I would like to point out to the minister that stats do not themselves tell a story. They are only an indication of enforcement actions. What I've tried to say is that the focus now is simply on developing statistics. The rating of conservation officers is made on the development of those statistics, on the accumulating of the prosecutions. Rather than directing their efforts to the maintenance of the wildlife resource, they're endeavouring to get prosecutions so that they're not demoted. I think it's a false assumption to rely on stats as an indication of a job well done. As a matter of fact, it's quite the contrary, in my view. If you take an area of the province that has very little in the way of prosecutions, I would say that the conservation officer is doing his job very well indeed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll accept that. Also, as was indicated earlier. I would invite you to meet with officials of the ministry. I'm sure they can listen to and assess your problems, and maybe we can resolve some of the differences that we have.

MR. SIHOTA: I think all of us appreciate the comments raised by the first member for Okanagan South. I must confess that I could entertain this House with a couple of stories of charges laid by conservation officers that I ended up defending — not the conservation officers, the charges — for my clients, which I thought were really quite petty. I'm surprised that that kind of thing is going on. Maybe that was the exception and not the norm. But I'm not going to ask any questions on conservation officers.

I think my first question is no surprise to the minister. Perhaps the minister could give us an update — at least for my benefit, because I've been out of town most of the day — with respect to developments on the Botanical Beach issue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Botanical Beach. For the benefit of the committee, we own the shore in this area, but there are private lands with extensive merchantable timber behind which really precludes most access. The Nature Trust has agreed to be in place with some backup land, and in terms of the logger there, we are looking very closely to see if we can find a swap. So essentially nothing much has changed at this point from what I told you the other day when we talked about it, except the agreement with the Nature Trust.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not too sure what the minister means by the agreement with the Nature Trust. You referred to backup land. Maybe I didn't quite understand. If the minister doesn't mind, could he please elaborate on the agreement with the Nature Trust?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. It is ten acres, and it is a 99-year lease. I have just been advised that it was done some time ago. Now it doesn't allow for complete access; that is regrettable. So that's where we are going to have to try to enter into agreements with the private landholder. All the land behind that is private, and if we can find a swap, we will. But at this point this evening, at 8:50, we haven't found it.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to make sure that I understand this properly. I think all of us appreciate that the province owns the foreshore. We also understand that the lands immediately after the foreshore, working their way up, are privately owned. We also know that there is logging going on, on the upper extremities closer to the road. So when the minister talks about the Nature Trust, he is not talking about dealing with the property on which the logging is going on. You're simply talking all-out property in between the logging and the foreshore. Am I correct on that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have just had a rough map drawn, Mr. Member. I advise the committee that the Nature Trust area is right behind the Botanical Beach area. It is surrounded by the private land. We are trying to negotiate access, and that is the stage we are at right now. But it does require swapping or somehow acquiring other timber for the person who has the private land. The ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests and Lands, is attempting to arrive at that corridor, so the public can have access to the area.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to the Nature Trust — maybe I don't understand the term — is that land that has now been acquired by a private group to be held in trust as it is, to give the public some form of easement across it? Am I correct in that assumption, first of all?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that is correct. It is a 99-year lease, but the problem is access to that Nature Trust land, because there is private land behind that.

[ Page 2010 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Am I correct in this — that the land upon which the access problem is current is the land that is being logged? I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same land, before I go any further.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Correct.

MR. SIHOTA: Getting back to the current problem.... I want to talk a little bit later about access, because I am certainly pleased to see that something is being done about access to Botanical Beach. But I'll put that aside for a moment and come back to it.

On the matter of the logging, am I correct in saying that there has been no land swap as of today? I am correct on that, I take it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As of 5 o'clock this afternoon, there has been no land swap, no agreement reached; not that we are aware of.

MR. SIHOTA: Secondly, with respect to that area, do we still have a freeze on logging activity? I think it should be said for the record that the employer has been very good to date with respect to freezing logging activity there. He wasn't there yesterday, and I don't think he was there on Monday. But do we still have that freeze?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is not our freeze; it's his voluntary freeze. It is his private land and his wood. We can't ask him to do anything or tell him to stop doing anything. But he has voluntarily frozen it in good faith to allow the Ministry of Forests and Lands to continue to look for a swap or for some way of mitigating the problem, or at least providing access.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to that good faith, am I correct in assuming that there was no logging there today? Or does the minister know?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I couldn't tell you. There was none yesterday, but we don't know about today.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your riding.

MR. SIHOTA: Look, I said right at the outset that I was out of town for most of the day, so I haven't been able to get in touch. I know that negotiations have been going on with the ministry and also with the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker). So I am just trying to ascertain that there has not been any further movement. I am not trying to get into any frivolous, cheap shots here.

Let's go a little further. I don't know if I can ask the minister this question because I take it the matter of the land swap and appropriate lands is really a matter for the Forests and Lands department as opposed to the minister's.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but I can advise you that senior officials of the parks branch are working with the Ministry of Forests and Lands on this because we have a concern from our point of view. Both ministries are working together, but what development they had today I can't tell you.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm aware of the negotiations. I guess the next question to the minister is a little more pointed. Has the minister directed his staff, as a part of those negotiations, to maintain as the ministry's position on this matter that there ought to be a land swap or land acquisition? Is that the directive you've given to your officials?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not the directive I've given. It's common policy within the parks branch to entertain that type of swap, so it's not mine. It's been a policy for some time.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps I would have been better off to word it as the policy when I first started off, instead of a directive. Fine, I guess I can leave it at that. It's too bad I can't go to the Ministry of Forests and Lands, but I am sure privately we can deal with it again tomorrow. I will be here all day tomorrow, so we can touch on it.

I want then to deal with the larger problem of Botanical Beach. There is this agreement with Nature Trust of B.C. which I understand was in place some while ago — and I can see the minister nodding — to buffer the area behind the beach, I'm also under the understanding that part of the logged area can go right down to the beach, that the configuration of the property that the logger has will allow for some logging activity right down to the end of the beach. Am I correct in that? I see the minister frowning, so I could be wrong in that assumption.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have seen photos of the area and I have a rough drawing here of the area, but I don't know how far logs go towards the foreshore. Obviously they don't go on the beach area, because we've all seen pictures of the beach and there are no logs on it. That's what makes it so remarkable, the pools and that type of thing.

I couldn't advise you of how far the treed area goes to the foreshore. However, as I think it through, the fact that we have to have access right through the back to the beach itself would indicate to me that there is a periphery of private land all the way around it. Otherwise we could gain access. I'm just winging this one, but it seems to me if we can't get access except through the middle, then obviously the private land horseshoes the bay.

I don't know if I'm right on that one, but it's the only way I could think that we wouldn't have access because of that private land.

MR. SIHOTA: That's my understanding as well, that it is as you described it — a horseshoe — and, as I said, there is a configuration such as allows access. I guess that's the fundamental problem at Botanical Beach, that historically we've had.... I was entertaining myself a little bit before dinner by reading the speeches of my predecessor, Mr. Mitchell, who seems to make the point over and over again that the problem lies in the fact that there are private....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Remember him? There are private lands all around the beach area. It's a destination point, I think, fairly put, from the government's point of view, and we've seen all sorts of literature all the time pointing out Botanical Beach as a place to go. Undoubtedly we all agree that it's world-renowned, and it's an environmentally unique area.

[ Page 2011 ]

I appreciate what the Nature Trust of B.C. has done, but there are two problems in recognizing that environmentally unique area. One, of course, is access. I've been down there, not recently but during the fall, and you really have to go by four-wheel vehicle to get down there, and even then it's a trip and you're going across private lands.

[9:00]

MR. MILLER: Get the Minister of Highways.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know if I sound like the deputy or my colleague from Prince Rupert sounds like the deputy.

But the point is that we've got all this blasted private land around there and access problems. My question to the minister is this: what steps, if any — and if not, why not...? Has the minister recognized the environmental uniqueness of the area and moved towards the establishment of a provincial park at Botanical Beach?

[Ms. Edwards in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The comment about the deputy, in reference to your deskmate from Prince Rupert.... I think we're both chuckling over it. If we wanted a road, I've got the perfect deputy for it. You see, my current deputy is the former Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways. He also advised me that this question used to come up during the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates as well, from Frank Mitchell, who, as you indicated, was pretty dedicated to this cause and would say: "I want a road through there." So it's one of long standing.

In terms of the ministry's work, we have preserved the beach. We have secured some backup land through the Nature Trust, and we have preserved some features. We need some expenditures to provide roads, and we will just have to wait, out of necessity for the availability of funds.

I guess the larger question you can ask.... I'll ask it for you: why didn't we get to work on this in 1901 when it was first discovered by the University of Michigan, as I'm led to understand? It's truly a remarkable place. I agree with you. Maybe we should have listened to Frank Mitchell in years past and maybe we should have listened to an awful lot of other people. In any event, we didn't. It was probably not assumed that the land would be purchased and used for logging purposes; who knows?

Nevertheless, we are making our best efforts now. We have a sincere agenda in place, both in my ministry and in the Ministry of Forests and Lands, in securing access to this, because we do recognize the value of the resource and we are, operating in good faith for the benefit of the area. It's our intent to work as diligently as possible to achieve access to Botanical Beach for the people of British Columbia, and not to have the access cut off in any way.

MR. SIHOTA: You're right. I think people should have been listening to Mr. Mitchell, because if you go back and read what he had to say, he warned that exactly what's happening now was going to occur. But that's water under the bridge, in some ways. In other ways, I must say that the slogan of our election campaign was that I would continue the tradition, and I guess in many ways I am.

But the point still remains that there ought to be some type of designation, I would submit, along provincial park lines. The tourist potential is enormous. People want to go down there. They come from around the world, and you have to ask yourself what kind of impression we are leaving on people when they come there from Germany, Japan and Europe.... We don't even promote it that well. It just gets promoted in National Geographic and those kinds of magazines. There's no place to camp. There are no facilities down there, and of course there's no staff. That aside, it seems to me that we need to create the infrastructure to make sure that that area is accessible. It should be part of an overall tourism plan for that area. But that's another ministry: I'll hit it when it comes up.

I don't know what criteria the ministry uses for the establishment of a provincial park, but whatever they are, I'm sure this situation would meet it. There are others in my riding that I could make that argument for, but none with the same force of conviction that would apply to Botanical Beach. I don't really care why it hasn't been done in the past. I want to know what steps have been taken now within the ministry to bring about that type of designation — if any.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We did secure the beach land. We were aware of the resource, and we did enter into the agreement with the Nature Trust. I don't know what more I can say about that. The land was private. There would have been some considerable expense in expropriating and upgrading the road, and maybe we should have considered it at an earlier date. As you said, hindsight is wonderful. We're trying as best we can now to mitigate the problem. I'll admit that governments in the past should have recognized it — including your government, I guess — it depends on how far back we want to go.

MR. SIHOTA: I think I made the point, without getting rhetorical about it, that I really don't care what happened in the past. We've got a problem now, and it speaks in favour of a particular designation. If the money's not there, that's one thing. But the argument is there — and it ought to be done. I'd like a commitment from the minister that it will be done. I'm told that you really laid out earlier the criteria for the establishment of a provincial park — I'll read that tomorrow morning, instead of going through it now. But I would like some commitment from the minister that he's moving in that direction. The trust is great. I have every confidence in the minister and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) on this issue — that the two of you will be able to come up with some kind of appropriate land swap that will evaporate the problem before us. But that doesn't deal with the overall problem. I would like some commitment from the minister that this year the ministry will at least look towards the designation of this area as a provincial park. Can I get even that much of a commitment from him? I'm only asking you to look at it; I'm not asking that a park be set up. But maybe some kind of report, or something that we've got our hands on, that shows some movement, so that Frank Mitchell or I or whoever replaces me — 20 years from now — won't have to stand up and make the same kind of speech.... Will the minister give us at least that much of a commitment? And will he direct his staff to take some steps towards some studies, or alternatively, some progress in any way whatsoever towards the establishment of a provincial park at Botanical Beach? Do we have that commitment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you certainly do, Mr. Member. I agree with everything you've said, and you do

[ Page 2012 ]

have that commitment. Just so you don't have to look up the rationale or the policy on establishing a park, in one phrase it's "unique or best example" — whichever qualifies. You're absolutely right. I've answered your question. That's really the criterion we use when we look for park values: unique or best example — or both.

I see the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is back in his seat. On behalf of the committee, I thank him for taking his turn in the chair. It's a lot of fun there, isn't it? I enjoyed it for years.

The member for North Island — and this is going back to Strathcona, Madam Chairman — was concerned about a claim-by-claim study. I'll get to the answer to that. First, we checked the range of claims, the times they were claimed and the status of the claims. Our legal counsel says that the Tenet principle applies. As part of negotiating for quitclaims, we are going to be looking at every one claim by claim. From that process we may find out that the people just aren't interested any more; they may find our restrictions on exploration far too onerous, and back away. Or we may find that in fact their claim doesn't exist under law — we just may. But every one will be investigated, claim by claim. That process is being put in place, because we do want to return the area to class A park as quickly as possible. I think the review we do within the ministry may aid in establishing volunteer quitclaims, and maybe in some cases no claim at all. I think your question was about a claim-by-claim study. That will happen.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm pleased with that answer I wish there had been a court challenge on this issue, because I think there are some differences from Wells Gray. We've been through that discussion before; I have, with ministry staff, with previous ministers, and won't recanvass that issue at this point. It's now history. I would love to rewrite the history, but we can't.

The minister said at ten minutes to six — if I heard him correctly — that there's no backsliding on a recreation area, that the next status after recreation area is park, that that's class A park...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. GABELMANN:...and that it's not going to go back to some status lower than recreation area. He said "we're ratcheting ahead" on that process. I wish he would use a power wrench rather than this Model-A tire wrench that's being used. I won't say more about it than that.

I don't think there's any doubt at all about the feelings of people on Vancouver Island about Strathcona Park. One can say fairly that it's the most loved park in this province. It's the park that generates more emotional response than any other, and for good reason.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the oldest.

MR. GABELMANN: It's the oldest, but it's also accessible. I live an hour from it on a good road that leads to Mount Washington. You park there, and you're off into Forbidden Plateau, and from there into the centre. Or you drive down the highway through the middle of the park to the south end of Buttle Lake, and within hours — in some cases days — you're there, from a totally different kind of hiking and camping experience. There's no question about why that park is as loved as it is, and the violence that will be done to it by mining, if it's allowed to proceed, is just unthinkable.

I guess there are a couple of concerns in terms of the mining in particular. One is Cream Lake, obviously. That's the one that's had the most attention, the most publicity, and for good reason. I'm not a geologist or whatever the word is to qualify one for understanding about mineralization, but when I hike around Cream Lake I see obvious mineralization in that area. It's no doubt a prospector's dream. The concern about the damage to that area if Cream Silver were allowed to proceed is well founded; that is a jewel. I'm sure the minister hasn't had the chance that I've had — as have a number of other people from all over the place, but particularly from the Campbell River-Courtenay area — to hike in there in the summer and spend a week camping around the shores of that lake. The debris and remnants of the prospecting are still there. It's like taiga terrain, in the sense that it's vulnerable; it's high alpine. The damage that is done is almost of a permanent nature. The vegetation doesn't take over and hide the damage. It's really a pretty vulnerable area, pretty fragile, and anything that does happen is there for many years; the remnants are there for many years.

I'd be interested in knowing some detail — as much as is possible to know at this stage. I recognize that a lot of this is still to come. But if as a result of testing there is a decision that Cream Silver has a property, and if they do proceed and meet all of the guidelines that the ministry establishes in respect to how that mining is done, what thoughts has the ministry about access and how they're going to get in there? We're talking about an area 5,000 feet straight up a mountainside that it takes four hours to climb. A road into there would be impossible; a tunnel into it from the Westrain area would desecrate that whole Price Creek area. How can the ministry conceive of a mine going into the heart of the park in that respect without doing damage that's so long-lasting that it would destroy any value there would be from returning it later to class A?

[9:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to comment on ratcheting: as I understand it, a ratchet is a mechanical device that can only go one way unless you mechanically disengage it. It can only move one way if it's engaged; it can't move back.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, no, it can move quite quickly, but it's a one-way mechanism. Is that right, Mr. Engineer? Yes. We've got an agreement there. That's why you use the verb, to ratchet.

First of all, a recreation area allows for very controlled exploration: backpacking, helicopter, no major roads, no nothing. It's under our control in a recreation area, and they have to be very cautious — minimum disturbance, both in access and in the type of exploration they do.

Secondly, let's say that at Cream Lake it does prove to be geologically sound. We look at this thing and get advice from the other ministry that their geology is sound, and we know that after exploration they're going to go ahead with mining. You talk about the road. There is still a final approval that must come to ELUC. I can't comment on how a cabinet committee is going to view the evidence when the evidence comes — if it does come — but there is that final political body to review what may or may not happen with respect to

[ Page 2013 ]

that type of road activity. If it's just totally impossible to have it happen — and I can't second-guess the committee — presumably if the evidence was correct the ELUC could stop it. That's a long way down the road. That's quite hypothetical and, of course, I can't speak for a committee that hasn't met yet or for evidence that hasn't yet been presented.

MR. GABELMANN: Fair enough. Who knows how long that would be in the future, if ever, in any event; so I accept that. I will just say one sentence about it, and that is that I hope, if the minister is going to be Environment and Parks minister for the next few years — which one would assume he would be — he will take advantage of a nice week in August or September and get into that area. I might say to the minister: please don't do what your predecessor did and fly over it when there is 20 feet of snow. You don't really get a good idea of what it's like, and that's what happened earlier this year.

I won't say any more about Cream Silver and Cream Lake and that whole recreation area other than that I would just like to serve notice to the minister that over the coming months and year — or years, but hopefully not so long — I'd like to be quite involved in discussions that go on. I am sure the minister would agree to give some advice to his senior people to allow me to be involved in the process so that we can achieve the real dream of getting a class A park in that whole area as quickly as is possible.

Can I just move on to Westmin, and then I'll come back to both Cream Silver and Westmin. Westmin has what I always thought was a power generator in there, but I am told it is an air exhaust system that makes just a horrendous racket which, when you are hiking in the middle of Strathcona Park, you can hear for miles and miles. In fact, when you are hiking into Cream Lake you can hike from Buttle Lake for five or six hours and still be dominated by the noise of this what I understand to be an air exhaust system outside of Westmin itself. There is a similar facility at Flin Flon, for their mining operation. You can't hear the noise of this exhaust fan a hundred yards away. I think it is quite appropriate for Parks to say to Westmin: "You've got to baffle that sound. You've got to put an end to the noise pollution that goes on in that area." I will just leave that and go on to a couple of other issues. Perhaps the minister could respond to that.

The next issue is the whole question of the compensation paid by the mining company. I wonder if the minister would correct me if I am wrong. Is it $100,000 a year that the parks branch receives from Westrain as a contribution toward maintenance and development of the park? If it is $100,000 — or whatever the number is — what are the terms of that agreement? Is it possible to renegotiate that upwards? It seems to many of us that that is a small price to pay, particularly at a time like now when the prices being paid for the minerals produced there are so high that they are just an incredibly profitable mine. Given the profitability of mines elsewhere in this country, this one is quite well off. If it is in fact $100,000, it's not enough. Is there a policy in respect of future mining activity, in terms of prices that will be paid by these companies as a direct contribution toward the maintenance and upgrading of the park facilities?

The noise pollution is one that I.... There are two questions there. Maybe I will just do the rest of it for Strathcona, and then get it all out of the way.

There are two more issues I want to raise now. One is Elk Mountain, the B.C. Forest Products land at the entrance to the park. When you come in from Campbell River and drive down Upper Campbell Lake past the Bouldings' resort, and you get to the entrance to the park, when you look across the water in a southerly direction. you look at Elk Mountain, which is really the visual entrance to the park. The crazy decision that seems to be being made now — even though B.C. Forest Products doesn't want it to happen — is to log the mountain and then put it in the park. I am not up to date; I've been busy the last couple of months, so I haven't really spent enough time making myself up to date on what status that's at the present time. If it's still a question of being able to negotiate a trade with B.C. Forest Products, they're willing; they're desirous, in fact. Everybody would be well served if some attention could be paid to that.

The final issue is the whole question of Rogers Ridge. That's an area that the Wilderness Advisory Committee suggested go into the park boundaries. It's not been in to date. It's an area that a ski area has been proposed for. It's to the southeast of Strathcona Lodge, and the Wilderness Advisory Committee has suggested that it go into the park. If it goes into the park, presumably then the commercial development wouldn't be available. It might be that it would be worthwhile to listen to those park enthusiasts who argue that there should be an opportunity for a commercial development around the park, on the borders of the park; so that we can generate activity that's connected to the park, related to the park, but not in the park. A ski area in that particular location might well be possible at some day in the future. I think it's not yet ready, but it might be soon. The same principle applies to a number of other access areas to the park. I wonder what the thinking is about Rogers Ridge.

So those are the questions: the noise pollution, the compensation for mineral activity, the Elk Mountain BCFP area, and Rogers Ridge, and the issues that flow from areas that are adjacent to the park that could be developed commercially.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I wish at this time I could be more forthcoming for the member, but regrettably I can't answer all his questions. However. they're on their way.

Number one, with respect to the air exhaust, I hear what you're saying. I hear your concern. You and I, being old-time politicians, know that probably by tomorrow morning the company will have heard of your concern, and they'll be aware that I'm aware of it and will no doubt have some more information response on that. The Westmin number is coming up shortly, Mr. Member.

In terms of other plans. I'll have to defer getting that information for you but I assure you it will come either this evening or some time tomorrow, as my estimates continue. If the vote is called, I give my undertaking that I will provide you full and complete answers to the questions you posed from the ministry staff.

MR. DIRKS: I guess there's never enough money to go around and do all the things that you want to do, but I have a couple of concerns in my area. We do have a lot of natural beauty. We have a lot of area in my constituency that has been set aside for parks and park development: Valhalla wilderness park, Kokanee Glacier Park. Then we have the beautiful Kootenay Lake. The problem we've had is that (1) they're not developed. and (2) some of them that are developed have not been as well maintained as they might have been in recent years. This isn't due to the personnel — I think, the personnel

[ Page 2014 ]

in that area have done a remarkable job — but to a lack of funding.

One of the bright spots I've seen in recent years in the enhancement of parks in our area, their development, and lately even cleaning up and starting on a new park, was a program that was a combined effort of your ministry and the Attorney-General ministry. I refer to the Kokanee Creek Camp. I believe it not only performed a very useful function for the corrections branch but also performed a very valuable task for the Parks department, in that the inmates were used, just recently in fact, to start work on the Kaslo Bay park. They've done some work on Lost Ledge. There's another park that seriously needs them, and that's the McDonald Creek Park. They've built a cabin at Stagleap, at the summit of the Salmo-Creston skyway. They've done a number of things like this to enhance the parks we've got, and certainly to develop them. This program, I understand, is being threatened by lack of funding, and I would certainly urge the minister, if at all possible, to ensure that that program is carried out. I think it's very valuable to his Parks department in our area.

The other matter of concern to me is access to the parks. All the publicity that the Moresby park is now getting.... In 1982 and 1983 the Valhallas were the attention-getters. Unfortunately, as soon as it was declared a park we somehow seemed to forget it. We're still looking for some access to the edge of that park, so that some of that tourist potential promised when the park was created can come to the area. It is a very depressed area, up the Slocan Valley, and access to the park would certainly help the tourist industry considerably in that area.

I would just bring those to the attention of the minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is no question that the Kokanee Creek Camp project was extremely successful, and the inmates built cabins and did all sorts of good works in the area. But it became just a tad too expensive, and we really had all the picnic tables.... Actually picnic tables were going to be the next project. We had as much development as we really thought was appropriate, and we saw another priority for our funding. That is regrettable, because I've seen a lot of very good inmate programs in my riding — Hutda Lake work camp — and from the provincial correctional centre. I realize the value they have for the people who are incarcerated, and what a good therapy occupation, or whatever, it is for an incarcerated person. But we just flat ran out of money, and we have other spending priorities, although I don't disagree at all that this is a good venture.

[9:30]

Right now, Mr. Member, we're sort of waiting for the Attorney-General to blink first. I think maybe he might see the value of this program in the corrections branch and maybe continue on with the funding himself. But in this case, we don't have it, and we definitely have other priorities for the funding.

The Valhallas. I'd advise the committee that the member and I have spent some time discussing this, and again we're dealing with the question of acquiring access and of paying for it. Our first priority was to preserve and designate the park, which we did. Priority number two will be to provide access to it — expropriate, buy, whatever we can in terms of the access land to get in there — and then make the road improvements as they're required.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister. I would like to follow up a little more on the conservation officers, and the conservation officers issue will lead us into waste management for tomorrow.

I'd like to get clear in my own mind some of the things the minister said about, first of all, the responsibilities for the conservation officers. Could the minister add to my list? I know I didn't quite catch all he said when he was giving the responsibilities. On my list I have: education, enforcement, responsibility for assisting public safety and environmental emergencies. Are there other items that the conservation officers are responsible for?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I read it rather quickly. I'll go through it again, and I'll send you a copy of this. The objectives stated are five in number: to promote compliance with environmental legislation through public education, public awareness and public involvement; to enforce environmental legislation through investigation of possible violations and prosecution where warranted — and these are the items I talked about earlier: fish and game violations, pesticide, hunting, licences, or any infractions under any of the acts — and setting regional priorities by overall ministry enforcement policy and individual program objectives; to respond appropriately to public requests for assistance regarding problem or nuisance wildlife — which could be the bear in your backyard; I've had one, by the way, in Prince George; to protect private property and to ensure public safety; to attend environmental emergencies in accordance with regional emergency response teams; and to provide other support to ministry programs as prescribed by the regional director.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like further clarification on the numbers. The member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) gave the minister numbers, and to my recollection he didn't either agree or disagree with those numbers. Could the minister now give us the numbers of conservation officers in the province? The minister has given us the number of offices but not the number of officers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are 99 field conservation officers, five regional conservation officers and a headquarter staff of five. The total FTE is 109.

MS. SMALLWOOD: According to last year's estimates, there were 109, and at that time it was suggested that the number of conservation officers was down some 37 percent from what it used to be. I am assuming that those numbers are pre-cutback days, so that's down 37 percent. At the same time they made reference to the tasks of the officers, and while the numbers of the conservation officers themselves were down 37 percent, on top of that the number of administration support staff was also down.

The point that was being made last year in the estimates was that the time that the conservation officers had to spend doing their job was reduced because of the additional administrative work they had to do. Can the minister tell us what percentages of their time conservation officers spend on their different responsibilities and — again, back to the points that the minister made — on waste management, litter, wildlife, fisheries, water and pesticides?

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

[ Page 2015 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Member, I am advised that we have some graphs which indicate that workload and how things sort out. Regrettably, we don't have them with us, but I will endeavour to have them sent to you tomorrow, and we can discuss them further.

I might have misunderstood your last question. You were asking me about charges laid, were you, in response to an earlier statement I'd made?

MS. SMALLWOOD: No, I was referring to areas of responsibility. If all of those areas are under the responsibility of a conservation officer, how much time do they spend in each area?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's where I'll have to find the graph, but we can extrapolate, I guess, from, let's say, charges laid. Let's take those numbers, and these are provincial, so it would vary from region to region, I would presume.

Maybe we'll take the complaint numbers. Under waste management, 122; under Litter Act. 201; under all the wildlife acts, and there are five of them, including a convention act with the federal government, 2,420. Here is something. Maybe I'm using the wrong parameter, but offences found by a conservation officer, which is a good category, just as good as possible violations — this is fisheries — 1, 47. The water program, 47; pesticide, 17. If we look at litter and waste management, that's 300, and the other two are.... Let's say 400. And under specific wildlife programs you'd think, a conservation officer's main responsibility those numbers add up to 3,700, rounded off. So about 90 percent of a CO's work in the province of British Columbia would be for wildlife or fish offences. You can correct my math from the numbers you have written down, but it averages out to about 90 percent investigating or charging offences under the Wildlife Act, the Firearm Act, the migratory bird act, the Game Export Act or the fisheries program.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think for us to really look at this issue, the additional information we need is the breakdown by office. This comes back to one of the previous speaker's questions about the number of conservation officers in the field as opposed to the number in the lower mainland. That would tell us a lot about the kinds of work the conservation officers do. I would like to understand better how that breaks down, and if the minister doesn't have that information in front of him, perhaps he will provide it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do you want to know where the offices are and the level of staffing? Was that the question?

MS. SMALLWOOD: By region would be helpful.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay, in region 1, which is Campbell River, Duncan, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Port Hardy, there are 13. In region 2, the Fraser Valley essentially — Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Maple Ridge, Powell River, Sechelt, Squamish, Surrey — there are 18. In region 3, Alexis Creek — this is essentially the whole Cariboo area but going on to Bella Coola — there are 27. My math may be out a number or two. Region 4, this is Kootenay: Nelson to Castlegar, Golden, Invermere, Nakusp, Creston, Fernie.... We're at 18. Region 5, which is big — that's where I live — is Atlin, Bums Lake, Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Dease Lake, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Hazelton, Prince George, the Queen Charlottes, Smithers, Terrace, Valemount and Vanderhoof — 29. That's half the province.

Getting back to restraint. I guess we could argue the politics of that for the rest of our days. but I will tell you that the overall ministry cut in the then Ministry of Environment — because it was just Environment in those days — was 30 percent; the conservation officers were cut only 10 percent. So a recognition was made in 1983 that that was a service that had to be maintained at as high a level as possible.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to suggest that even a 10 percent cut, given the broad responsibilities in this job description, is bordering on criminal, quite frankly.

I'd like to give the other member an opportunity to ask some questions, because I don't want to be interrupted once we get into the whole enforcement and waste management issue.

MR. SERWA: Just a few brief questions. Mr. Minister, in view of the approximately $1 billion-plus of economic activity that is generated in the province of British Columbia from the fishing and hunting activities, and in view of the fact that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has expressed a great deal of concern with respect to conservation officers, is serious thought being given within your ministry to implementation of a task force to study the position on Enforcement?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know if we've thought of a task force within the ministry. At first blush, if I'd had the funding for a task force, I think I would have already spent it on established programs, such as conservation officers. That's my feeling. If a ministry is here to manage, we know what we have to do. I don't think it requires a task force to tell us what we do; I think we have a very good handle on it. If there's any funding available, I'd rather put it into the field than into further studies. I think the ministry has excellent research, excellent ideas of where it should be going. Philosophically I can't see a task force in terms of conservation officers.

We also have economists, and I can verify your figures. It's a remarkable resource for British Columbia.

[9:45]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, just to follow up, I know you've said very clearly that you're in favour of having more conservation officers. If we're going to focus on what has happened with conservation officers, it's perhaps fair to mention that what has happened with the centralization of the conservation offices, which means a number of the offices were closed and people were put into the central centres within areas, has meant that there are large parts of some regions that cannot be covered by conservation officers. Along with the cut in the number of officers came a cut in the number of hours that they worked, a cut in overtime and these kinds of things. In fact, in my riding, which is not the largest in area, as you've pointed out, a conservation officer simply cannot drive into an area within his working day and do any work at all and drive out. In fact, there are some areas you probably couldn't get into and out of on the same day. So this has created a major problem as far as the conservation officers are concerned, and I think it's fair to mention that.

When you talk about the distribution of officers, we see the large numbers of them concentrated in areas where the

[ Page 2016 ]

distance of travel is not so great. I think it accentuates this problem that we have for the conservation officers.

In the Kootenay we have 18 conservation officers. Of course, we're talking about a huge area — the major game area in the province and certainly an area where there are as many non-resident fishermen as anybody could want to have. I was just talking to the conservation officers about how they manage the workload. They have, in an attempt to really control what's going on.... It's obviously way beyond the reasonable expectations for good conservation and game and fish management.

I guess it might lead me into another issue that I didn't have a chance to talk about before, and that was the whole issue about the fishery. I know that one of the major problems is seeing that the resource is not over fished. In other words, the conservation people are trying to see that those people who are in the area taking the fish and so on are not taking too many. But I am wondering, when we go again back to the tasks given to the conservation officers, are these the people who would be in charge of doing any testing, if we are doing any testing in B.C. of the content of such things in the fish flesh as DDT, lead-mercury and those kinds of things throughout the waterways of the province.

It leads me to the question: is anybody doing that kind of testing? Is it the conservation officers? What is it showing us? What is the direction for that kind of function?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first comment was about the centralization, and I guess that was seen as a deficit to some. But we saw it as being more efficient to some degree, because it allowed where you had one officer, albeit out in the field and more in the field in the smaller towns.... He was really rather desk-bound to some degree, because he was the only person there. Were we able to centralize and combine two, then we could have a clerical person as well, allowing both COs to be in the field.

That was the rationale for that type of centralization. It was a presumption by the ministry that in fact it would be more effective and allow the officers to be in the field for a greater time and having to spend less time in their office.

I think what happens in a lot of cases is that people in town are used to seeing the CO in the office, and they feel comforted by that. His presence is there, or they see him having a cup of coffee or whatever. In fact, if he is not around they miss him; but when he is not around, that means he is in the field doing a job he should be doing. Probably just not seeing the CO may have an effect on people, but it is our impression that having the man in the field and not being seen by the townsfolk is appropriate, because that is where he is supposed to be, enforcing the regulations, whether they be hunting, fishing or other infractions that might occur under any of the legislation in this ministry.

With respect to fishing violations, we are advised by the fisheries branch that we have a better, well-informed — I was going to say more honest, but that's not it — more responsible public. Fishing infractions appear to be on the downslide, and everyone who is inspected, creel count or whatever, indicates that they are taking their catch only. If it's catch and release, they're abiding by the law. We're developing a very responsible fishery. The people who do fish are responsible. I know, because I fish. I don't hunt, but I do fish. It's just an unwritten law. Actually, I ice-fish. I really enjoy that. It's tough to get your boat in the water, but once you've got that done, it's a lot of fun.

Seriously, we sense a more responsible public. Maybe we're whistling by the graveyard on that issue, but we feel the public is being more responsible and looking after the environment to a greater degree. I was talking the other day to the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) about sophistication of the general public, and I think that sophistication and awareness is there. We see it in the fishery particularly.

MS. EDWARDS: I have to press my question on what kinds of tests are being done for our fish. Evidently, a guide that has been issued on eating Ontario sports fish, which is a great tourist and sport resource — recreational resource — found that in some areas there are fish that shouldn't be eaten at all except by males 15 and over. In other words, children shouldn't eat them, no woman of childbearing age should eat them, and so on. This is because of acid rain, the pollution from cars, and so on. Just because we consider ourselves to be pure in British Columbia does not necessarily mean that our fish is safe to eat. In fact, pollution is happening in British Columbia.

Has the ministry made any plans to do the kind of testing that will tell us whether we have fish such that anybody going on a fishing trip for longer than two weeks should take the Spam with them? That kind of thing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think I'd starve to death before I'd take Spam, but that's a personal comment. Gee, I hope I'm not.... I guess I can't be sued when I'm in here.

Seriously, we do not do testing on fish. That's done by the federal government. We can, I guess, feel proud that we have a far safer and better environment for the fish habitat than exists in Ontario; acid rain, which you mentioned, and of course less industrial pollution.

One of the things you lose sight of, and this occurred in a lake which I won't mention, because I don't want to scare anybody away.... In many areas there are naturally occurring minerals, and in a lake that I'm aware of northwest of Prince George there is naturally occurring mercury, which is a poison, and it was found as a trace element in the fish. It was close to a mercury mine, and people suspected that the mine was doing the polluting, but in fact tests showed that this element had naturally occurred in the water for many years before the mine was in place. So there are trace elements that will naturally occur and impact on the fish, and people have to be advised of this, and be careful of it. But I don't see any major problems in the province of British Columbia. We don't do the testing, the federal government does.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just a couple of tidy-up questions. Do the Fraser Valley numbers that you gave us for conservation officers include the GVRD?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess to some degree it would. Region 2 was 17 COs, located in Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Maple Ridge, Powell River, Sechelt, Squamish and Surrey.

AN HON. MEMBER: Surrey!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Surrey. Well, there's a lot of wildlife there.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Then it does not include the GVRD — Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster.

[ Page 2017 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Surrey is in the GVRD.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you for that information, Mr. Minister. My question was: then it does not include Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it's within their area. If we found a bear in Stanley Park, for example, we'd dispatch someone from one of those offices to investigate.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think this is a really good way to end an evening, and again I'm going to make the point: when these officers are given the responsibility of enforcing all of the environmental legislation, they're doing a heck of a lot more than looking for bears. If their responsibility is for the Vancouver area — and that's the point I'm trying to get at — are the 18 officers designated for the Fraser Valley...? Do they look after all of the waste management permits for that area, including Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish you had asked that question earlier, because then I could have answered it, I didn't know what you were getting at, with COs and the GVRD. That responsibility for air and waste is delegated to the GVRD itself, so the COs are not being used for that purpose. With that said. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:57 p.m.