[ Page 2091 ]
Routine Proceedings
Filing Reports –– 2091
Oral Questions
College board appointments. Mr. Clark –– 2091
Mr. Guno
Importation of animal products. Mr. Barnes –– 2091
B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Mr. Lovick –– 2092
Lionheart Resource Corp. Mr. Sihota –– 2092
Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 2092
Funding for Dawson Creek ethanol plant. Mr. Clark –– 2092
Provincial museum exhibit. Mr. G. Hanson –– 2093
Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 38). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 2093
Ms. Smallwood
Mr. Miller
Mr. Lovick
Mr. Vant
Mr. Rose
Third reading
Presenting Petitions –– 2107
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)
On vote 20: minister's office –– 2108
Hon. Mr. Brummet
Mr. Jones
Mr. D'Arcy
Filing Reports –– 2117
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)
On vote 20: minister's office –– 2117
Mr. Jones
Mr. Blencoe
Mr. Miller
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)
On vote 31: minister's office –– 2126
Hon. Mr. Couvelier
Mr. Sihota
Mr. Clark
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. PARKER: My colleague the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) and I ask the House to give a warm welcome to our friend Bill Stockman of Golden, who joins us in the members' gallery today.
MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming two people from Cranbrook in the Kootenay constitutency, Bob and Sharon Dolce, who are here in the capital, in the gallery. I would like you to make them welcome.
MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, sitting in your gallery are two longtime family friends, particularly good friends of my late father. I would like the House to please join me in giving a very warm welcome to Marjorie and John Thompson of West Vancouver.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, visiting today in the gallery are two of my constituents from Maillardville-Coquitlam, my wife Sharon and my daughter Judy. I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming them.
MR. DE JONG: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to this House today Mrs. Audrey Hoogendoorn, a sister-in-law of ours. She is here visiting with us from the Netherlands.
MS. A. HAGEN: May I introduce to the House very dear friends of mine, Merry and Ken Fowler from Coquitlam, and their friend Miss Edna Eastwood, who is retired in Victoria after many years of church work in northern Alberta. Would you please join me in bidding them all welcome.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, two of my constituents are in the gallery, Jackie Boyer and Christine Dafoe from Port Moody. I wonder if you could make them welcome, please.
Hon. Mr. Veitch filed the eighteenth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for the year ended August 31, 1986.
Hon. Mr. Dueck presented the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the year ending March 31, 1986.
Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a report of guarantees and indemnities as authorized under section 56 of the Financial Administration Act; the financial statement of the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the fiscal period ended March 31, 1987; and the financial statement of the B.C. Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority for the fiscal period ended March 31, 1987.
Oral Questions
COLLEGE BOARD APPOINTMENTS
MR. CLARK: A question to the minister of continuing education. My question concerns the 149 recent appointments to college boards. Could the minister inform the House how many ex-Socred candidates, campaign managers or constituency riding executive members have been appointed out of the 149?
HON. S. HAGEN: Actually there is no minister of continuing education; it's the Minister of Advanced Education, but I'm sure you'll update your information.
I really have no idea what the answer to your question is, hon. member. The people who were chosen were chosen because of their concern and interest in advanced education and job training.
MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Advanced Education. The answer is 19, for your information. That's my information. But I've been advised that there are over 40 of the 149 appointments who have clear Socred connections. Could the minister inform the House what groups he consulted with, other than the Social Credit Party?
HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, many community groups were consulted. I consulted with many MLAs. We had consultation with the school districts involved. So really, I think the consultative process was very broad.
MR. CLARK: A supplementary. In Prince George in January, the minister said he would consider appointing labour representatives to all boards, yet none were appointed. And the consultations, which were very few on this side of the House.... None of the recommendations from this side of the House were accepted. Since the minister is using this as some form of patronage, will he now change course and make a commitment? Has he decided to have elected boards for college appointments in the future?
HON. S. HAGEN: The answer is no.
MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the same minister in regard to the northwest area. In spite of the fact that the Nishgas constitute a very distinct majority in the Nass Valley, the person appointed was a non-native from a tiny Nass camp. This is the same in the whole northwest area. Will the minister open up the consultation process so that we have adequate native representation on these boards?
HON. S. HAGEN: I thank the hon. member for his question. I think you will find that I will be looking for native representation on that board, as I have already made appointments of natives to other college boards in the province.
IMPORTATION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS
MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations or the Minister of Agriculture a question, and I see they're not here. Perhaps I could address my question to the minister responsible for multiculturalism, the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture.
This concerns Agriculture Canada's recent decision to enforce the regulations with respect to the importation of animal products such as salted duck and century egg, which are brought into the Chinese community from the Orient. Without any study or incidence of disease, or any indication that the law would be changed, all of a sudden these two
[ Page 2092 ]
products are banned. I'm wondering if the minister responsible for multiculturalism would see this as an affront to this long-standing tradition and means of livelihood for small businesses in that community, and take some action: investigate and find out what's going on.
HON. MR. REID: Boy, am I pleased to answer that question!
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the multicultural community's concern about banning of particular foods, it seems an inappropriate time to do that in relation to the Asia Pacific Festival, which is on right now. Of course, there are all those cultural groups that are providing food on an ongoing basis there for that week, of different commodities and different styles. I'm sure that they must have had some imported commodities to make those up.
I will take the question as notice, and talk to the Ministers of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) and of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and get back to you with the proper answer.
B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION
MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. It's a succinct question deserving, I am sure, a succinct answer. I would ask the minister if she could tell us, please, whether the B.C. Enterprise Corporation has entered into a lease arrangement with the Unicorn Pub at B.C. Place, which included provisions for a 20-year G liquor licence.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the succinct answer to that is that B.C. Enterprise Corporation would not be entering into any lease until the Legislation passes the House for an amalgamation of B.C. Place and BCDC. There is no actual B.C. Enterprise Corporation entity.
Secondly, in regard to liquor licensing, the licensing would come under the aegis of the liquor control board. The B.C. Place corporation, who would have made the original lease, would ask the facility, i.e. the Unicorn, to deal directly with the licensing provisions under the Ministry of Labour and the liquor control board.
MR. LOVICK: Just a supplementary to the minister if I might, Mr. Speaker. May I take it that the same answer would obtain for a question concerning the 86th Street pub at B.C. Place? Is that also the case?
[2:15]
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes.
LIONHEART RESOURCE CORP.
MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance about Lionheart Resource, a company listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. There was a cease-trading issue applied to that company back in May 1986. There were several brokerage houses involved in Lionheart, including Canarim. Several improprieties were alleged; however, no hearing was conducted for in excess of one year. Could the minister explain why no hearing was conducted by the VSE with respect to Lionheart Resources for that unprecedented time period?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'll take the question on notice.
ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS
MS. EDWARDS: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. Will the minister confirm that we will have in British Columbia admission fees for the provincial museum and the two heritage parks by the middle of July?
HON. MR. REID: The answer is yes.
MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister so informed the volunteers who work at those facilities and the contractors that have contracts within the boundaries?
HON. MR. REID: We have been meeting as a ministry on an ongoing basis with the volunteers and the concessionaires and all the facilities in the province, bringing them up-to-date with the reasons and the decisions on applying an admission fee to all the attractions in the province.
MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. How much are the fees to be?
HON. MR. REID: Those details are not finalized as of this morning, and as soon as they are finalized, I'll make them available to the member.
FUNDING FOR DAWSON CREEK ETHANOL PLANT
MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. As I noted the other day, the Agrifuels' ethanol loan has been rejected seven times by the B.C. Development Corporation, which presumably knows something about lending money. Despite that, the department of agriculture has authorized a loan guarantee six times as large as the total loans made by the department in 1984. Could the Premier tell the House what changed in the proposal to convince the Premier that the department of agriculture can now do what BCDC said they couldn't do?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Agrifuels is still negotiating with a number of people because it does involve tax share sales and such, so I don't know just exactly what the status of it is. As I mentioned last week, the assistance to the farmer is to try to provide a project which will make better use of grain otherwise gone to waste. It is also hopefully to do away with the sort of subsidy programs which we and all governments have been involved with, where we are paying for material to be stored and perhaps be lost as opposed to being used. It's a good program. I look forward to this project going ahead. I think it's very positive. It has certainly been well received, and is receiving a lot of support in the Peace River country. I don't have all the details. I promised the member that I would bring them forth — I took the question on notice — and I will get this material to you as quickly as possible.
MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance. The minister has created a special two-cent-a-litre subsidy for gasohol once the plant is complete, even though all the output of the first phase has been presold to Alaska. Can the minister assure us that this subsidy for gasohol will
[ Page 2093 ]
not kick in until the first-phase sale to Alaska is complete, so that we will not be subsidizing ethanol produced outside British Columbia?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's pretty difficult to respond to a question that's based on a misperception of the situation. I think your basic assumption is false, and therefore the answers would be misleading. I don't happen to believe that any deal has yet been finalized with an export proposal surrounding Agrifuels's concept. I'm willing to admit that that's one of the considerations, but that issue is far from resolved at the moment, as far as I know. Certainly it would be absurd for us to be talking about some sort of tax break that we would be exporting to benefit Americans. But the details of the Agrifuels situation, as the Premier has indicated, have yet to be all finalized. Until you see the total package, it's very difficult to deal with any one aspect of it in isolation. The concept behind the Argifuels initiative was to ensure that there was a comprehensive approach taken to all the problems surrounding industrial diversification in the Peace River country. To the extent that the Agrifuels proposal will assist in that endeavour, the government will obviously support it.
PROVINCIAL MUSEUM EXHIBIT
MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism with respect to this double taxation that the people are going to have to pay to see their own heritage in this city at the Provincial Museum. Would he advise the House about this new show on the oil industry in British Columbia that the museum has been instructed to undertake?
HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, because there are so many activities going on in the museum in Victoria.... The only one that I'm currently conversant with is the "Birds of Prey" display, which we opened last week.
Interjections.
HON. MR. REID: Yes, that properly describes the NDP.
But, Mr. Speaker, what's happening with the museum in Victoria is that there are 9,000 people per day going into the museum in Victoria, creating a problem of repair and upkeep which has created a dilemma for us. Attendance this year will be over two million people. Last year, with a million and a half people going through the museum, we had a major problem with upkeep and maintenance and not having sufficient funds to do that. We have shows — as the member asked — coming onstream almost weekly. It's the best attended museum in Canada, but it also requires, on an ongoing basis, some upkeep for maintenance and operations, which is going to be assisted by.... Eighty-five percent of the people attending are tourists — visitors to British Columbia, visitors to Victoria — and they are happy to pay an admission fee,
MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Tourism then advising the House that the programs coming forward are going to be more akin to trade shows, turning the Provincial Museum into a trade show as opposed to a repository for the heritage of the people of this province?
HON. MR. REID: No, I didn't say that. I said that the displays which are there on an ongoing basis and the one we've just unveiled follow the legacy for the northwest native Indian one that was unveiled a few months ago. Each of the displays which we bring onstream to the museum in Victoria and which then become touring attractions for other museums in both Canada and the United States are as a result of having the classiest, most effective museum staff in North America offering up museum artifacts...to do with museum artifacts. I'm not conversant with the one to do with oil discovery, but I would hazard a guess, if it's like any of the others we've been able to bring forward.... They are the demand of every other museum in North America, to have them visit there.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Transportation and Municipal Affairs to meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. — while the House is sitting — in the Hemlock Room for organization regarding the Islands Trust.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Victoria has asked leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. G. HANSON: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Pauline Hemming. She is with her cousin Pat Borden, who is from Connecticut. Could we give them a good, warm welcome to the Legislature.
On section 1.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I've had a previous conversation with the minister and asked the minister for leave to talk about the regulations where they are relevant to the act. In section 1, where the act is dealing with definitions, I'm curious as to why the minister has excluded just about four pages of definitions in the regulations — and there are particular ones that I'd like to ask him about.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is an amendment act, Mr. Chairman. Nothing is excluded. All we're doing is adding, as I read the legislation. With respect to the regulations, they are at this point draft regulations, since we do not have legislation. I can advise the committee that these regulations have been arrived at after some long and serious discussion with all of the other provincial ministries and the federal government. This is not a deletion, Madam Member, but an addition.
MS. SMALLWOOD: It would seem to me that there are specific definitions in the special waste regulations that are not at present in the Waste Management Act per se, and when
[ Page 2094 ]
we're dealing with special wastes and the project that the government has underway, it would seem to me that those definitions need to be in legislation as well, and not merely in regulations. My concern about not having those definitions in legislation is that we're in a situation of not having what would be like the engineering plans of a facility before us in the House. I'd like to ask the minister about some of the definitions that are in the special waste regulations in particular.
One of the definitions is for "impervious," and in the special waste regulations, the definition of impervious is that it means having a permeability not greater than — and it gives the measurement — and the measurement is in relationship to water. When we're dealing with a landfill situation where they are storing special wastes, the prime ability should have the dictionary meaning that there is no escape at all into the environment. I think that by not having that in this legislation — by purely having it in regulations — that is a real weak spot that we should be talking about. This is one of the reasons I asked you about having the opportunity to talk about the regulations. Would the minister consider amending that definition to read zero?
[2:30]
HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I couldn't do that, and I'll advise the committee once again that there is no facility for adopting the draft regulations as regulations until such time as the legislation is passed. That's the way it works: legislation first, and then regulations.
With respect to your concern about the definition, I can only advise you that technical experts from across Canada have arrived at that definition, and as a layman in the business of discussing permeability, or whatever, I am not going to really take any issue with those definitions. There are certain engineering standards that have been arrived at. It's been done, as I said, in concert with the environment ministries across Canada and the federal government. If that's what they say they want to have in the regulations, that's what I, as the politician, have to accept.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley continues, I would like to add that although the Chair is determined that the hon. members shall have every possible latitude in making and asking their questions in committee stage, it would seem to the Chair — and you're discussing section l(b), I assume: "in the definition of 'permit' by adding 'or under the regulations'...." — that this particular section, in my opinion, does not open up the regulations to discussion. Certainly the issue of the permit can be discussed, but the actual regulations I don't think are really pertinent to the amendment coming forward in this case. When the hon. member started her previous question, I found that the questioning was dead on and there was no cause for bringing her to attention. But we do have some difficulty. I don't think all of the regulations under the Waste Management Act can come under discussion in committee stage because of this particular amendment. Perhaps we could proceed on that basis.
MS. SMALLWOOD: If I could have further clarification, clause 15, which amends section 35, talks about the ability to lay out regulations. Will that be an appropriate section under which to discuss the total special waste regulations?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The ability to lay out the regulations can certainly come under discussion, but for the regulations that currently exist, I think the ruling I've just mentioned would apply, hon. member. If you'd like to proceed, I'll certainly bring it to your attention as we go along if I feel that we're getting beyond the scope of this particular act.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I understand the member's concern, Mr. Chairman; I also understand your concern with respect to relevancy. When we get to section 15, I am prepared to discuss the draft regulations generally as they come to us. By that time I hope I will have one of my officials here so that we can get into some of the technical questions you might be concerned with, but I can advise the committee that we're putting the Chairman in a difficult position if we get too technical. I'll be quite straightforward with you when I have my officials here to discuss the concerns you might have with the draft regulations, prefacing it by saying that these are draft regulations at this point.
MS. SMALLWOOD: On section 1, I'd just like to restate my concern about any legislation that deals with the special waste program, in particular the permitting process now underway in the province. We're in a situation — ironically — where community groups trying to deal with the permits that are let for facilities do not have the engineering specifications in front of them — very much like this legislation. That's one of the reasons why I cannot support it: because in essence I don't know what I'm supporting.
The point I'm making here is that we don't have enough information before us. The definitions that are being added to the Waste Management Act.... The minister has selected only two additions to the act, and the special waste regulations, the proposals that are now with the Boyes commission traveling around this province, have four pages of changes. I will just lodge that concern, that complaint, for the record.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but in response, Mr. Chairman, the draft regulations have been public for some three months now; I remember signing the release. So they are in the public domain for people to examine. I give the committee my commitment, given the fact that 11 governments went together to draft these regulations, that there is no way we would be thinking of entertaining any change. These are Canada standards that we're looking at in draft form at this point, so what you see is the best evidence that we've gathered from across the country to put the regulations in place.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
MS. SMALLWOOD: While these particular sections don't deal specifically with the special waste regulations, my question concerns the reference to retail and food outlets. Does that in any way relate to food irradiation and those proposals that have been before the government in the past?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it doesn't. It relates to every hamburger stand on what appears to be every comer or every block in our various communities. We do not see them as needing to be contained in this for a special waste permit, bearing in mind though that our Waste Management Act and
[ Page 2095 ]
also our Environment Management Act allow us to apprehend and control any such violator if we feel it's necessary and if it's not within the public interest. This has nothing to do with the irradiation of food but simply the emissions from hamburger stands and kitchens, essentially, and we're deleting those.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Would the minister be good enough to further explain why he found this particular change necessary?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are simply too many of these operations whose emissions for the most part are of little or no consequence. This exemption only removes the requirement for permits for minor operations. Operations such as canneries, packing plants and large commercial bakeries would still require permits for their emissions. What we're doing here is exempting every small restaurant in town unless we find it offensive; and there is still legislation for us to go and ensure that the operation is not emitting or offending people in the community. There are just too many of them for us to consider a permit for every one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?
MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was having another conversation here and didn't quite get the answer to the question asked by my colleague from Surrey with respect to that.
Just a brief question, really. Should we have any concern about the removal of air contamination from the combustion of wood, as it's defined under (j), in that, first of all, in some areas of our province where there has been a return to wood as a domestic fuel we found that there have been some problems in terms of the air quality in a particular jurisdiction. For example, in some times of the year around Smithers that kind of contamination is quite visible, and I would think has some effect.
Secondly, it may open the door in terms of what could be, for example, a commercial operation. There is a proposal afoot. Whether it comes to pass or not is another question, but there have been some proposals in terms of generating electricity through wood waste burning. Now I don't want to say that I'm asking this question out of ignorance, but perhaps the minister could enlighten me on the two areas of concern that I've touched on with respect to(j) and any implications that may have.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: What we do here, Mr. Member, is exempt for the purpose of heating domestic, institutional or commercial operations. We are not exempting industry; they would still have to come under permit. So the industrial restrictions would still be very high. What we don't want here is to catch every fireplace, and that's why we have added that exemption. We see the amendments in the legislation as being far too onerous for the very, very small people who are burning wood or fossil fuels; and as you noted, it just says "heating, domestic, institutional or commercial operations." But there is nothing about industry; they still have to comply.
MR. MILLER: To deal with the first part of my question, as I said, there have been instances. Is the minister prepared to indicate whether or not any kind of studies have been done by his department with respect to air contamination through using wood as a domestic fuel? The problem may be that as this continues as an alternative form of heating a dwelling, it could in fact give rise to a serious problem in a particular locale, particularly because of weather inversions. I don't know if the minister.... He comes from Prince George and he's familiar with that word and the effect that that has in his community with respect to pulp mill emissions. Although I'm a bit more fortunate coming from Prince Rupert where the pulp mill is on the other side of the mountain, nonetheless we've seen those kinds of inversions and what can happen. At some times during the winter that could be a serious problem.
Would the inclusion of this clause preclude his ministry from really doing anything about what could be quite a serious problem? I don't want to suggest that we should overregulated in this area. I think it's probably still growing as an alternative form of domestic heating. It could be that it's something that his ministry might want to deal with in terms of the application of regulations. Certainly some burners are more efficient than others. There are ways to reduce emissions from domestic situations. Are you really just washing your hands of the whole thing by including this, or is there another section that would allow you or your ministry to take some action if the situation warranted?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, there is. There's another act, Mr. Member, the Environment Management Act — EMA — that would permit that type of study to go on, and also that type of remedy if it were required.
I know the problem you're speaking of; I notice it in Prince George around trailer courts, which are very condensed, and a lot of them do have wood-burning fireplaces. With so many wood-burning fireplaces in an enclosed area — far more than you'd find in a residential area where you have bigger homes — it's a problem on some winter evenings. You can smell it. We should probably have a look at that. That would be covered under the Environmental Management Act, and we can do that, quite clearly.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I have another question to the minister in regard to 3.1, which says: "Every person who produces, stores, transports, handles, treats, deals with, processes or owns a special waste shall keep the special waste confined in accordance with the regulations." Again the minister is asking us to approve a bill when we don't know what those regulations are.
Perhaps the minister could give us a clue as to what the regulations will be, dealing with all the handling of special wastes in this province. I'm looking at the special waste regulations, and I don't see specifics.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish I could he more helpful but, as I said, without the staff being here, I can't. I don't have the draft regulations with me, and they are extensive. Perhaps you could describe, in looking at the regulations, where you see a deficit.
[2:45]
[ Page 2096 ]
MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we can proceed through this bill without having the kind of support that's necessary.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let's just discuss this a little further, because my staff are in my office listening to me. They say they don't normally attend on second reading, and I'll advise them now through the speakerphone that we're in committee stage, which they can attend, and hopefully — as I speak to you — they will be walking out of the office now to come and join me in committee.
If it's my error that they thought this was second reading as opposed to committee stage, then I take full blame for that. However, they are going to be here. As I speak, they are walking up the stairs, I am sure. Anyway, phrase the question again.
MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister knows I need practice.
My question is about some guidance in regard to regulations that will control the confinement of special wastes when they are in the process of transportation. I'll read the section: "Every person who produces, stores, transports, handles, treats, deals with, processes or owns a special waste shall keep the special waste confined in accordance with the regulations."
Now the regulations, as I see — and perhaps I'm overlooking it — deal particularly with facilities. The only reference to off-site facilities is under a general classification that talks about the date and the time when they will fall under the regulations.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The draft regulations are not complete at this point, and there are some further ones to be approved by the Attorney-General ministry, for obvious legal reasons. If you could specifically advise me what your concern is with the intent of the regulations, then I can advise you where we are, whether or not we have draft regulations in place or whether they are not yet approved for public consumption.
Just let me know the extent and the intent of your question and the technical question you want to ask, and I'll try to get that answer for you.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, this particular section is so all-encompassing, it suggests that the intent is to have a comprehensive special waste management program in place. I'm pleased to hear that the intent is to elaborate on the special waste regulations already in place, because it's quite clear, from this particular section, that there needs to be an inventory of special wastes in the province, giving location and use, for there to be any ability of the ministry to regulate the storage or containment of that material.
It suggests, in addition to that, that there will be additional enforcement capability, with the ministry being able to monitor special waste and its movement throughout the province from the producer to the user to the end facility. Again, Mr. Minister, this is one of the reasons why I am unable to support the legislation. I am not confident that the ministry has that ability.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll advise the member that what is in place now in terms of draft regulations is the definition of toxic wastes and the treatment requirements. What is coming is storage, transportation, clean-up and testing requirements. Those will be further contained in the regulations. We do not have them in place yet, although they are being drafted, and I am advised that they are with the Attorney-General's ministry now for a legal review.
Many things nowadays, hon. members of the committee, have to be tested with a view to the Charter, believe it or not, and I don't know if any of these apply. But it's interesting to see how many good ideas we will have in terms of legislation and regulations, and then we find, for whatever reason, that they fly in the face of Charter amendments. The Attorney-General's ministry continually vets legislative initiatives from many ministries. I'm not saying that's the case here, but we do have to have regulations and legislation proceed through that ministry.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister saying that storage, transportation and clean-up regulations are coming from your ministry and are presently being vetted and will ultimately be your ministry's responsibility? Can the minister give me an indication about the time line — when we can expect to see these regulations?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: August 1. That's our guesstimate at this point, Madam Member.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Will the minister assure us that the regulations will be made public prior to any siting of facilities, so that communities will have access to all of that information?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: By all means. Without question, yes. The Boyes committee will have them, the public will have them, and they will have to be in place before we think of any siting.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Moving on to the second part of 3(l), it deals with authorization by a permit, an approval, an order, a waste management plan or the regulations. There has been a trend in the last couple of years by the ministry to go towards regional plans, which, it became clear in the estimates, are not appealable. Is there any consideration being given to a special waste facility that would be excluded from a regional plan and therefore would allow more public input into siting and permitting?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, it would be approved by permit. Given that it would have to have the cooperation of a community, or the local authority, there would be extensive public hearings put in place. That's the political process that would have to follow.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Not wanting to jump ahead to other sections, which would put some question on the minister's last comment about public process and community consent, I will ask the minister if he has given any consideration to more information being made part of the permitting process. As it exists right now, the permitting process does not in and of itself provide all the engineering statistics. It does not include an operating plan for a facility. Given the fact that we're dealing with a special waste facility in this province, it would seem incumbent upon the ministry to ensure that all of that
[ Page 2097 ]
information is there prior to any public process or permit being let on a facility.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member will note that we have included the definition of "facility" in section 1. The reason we have gone, first of all, to this special, very blue-ribbon committee headed by Dr. Boyes is to ensure that as much as possible is known by a community about a facility — its design and the way it's going to handle storage. There is no way that either this government or the local community government could hide the design or the facets and process of the design from the people in the community.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm afraid I'm not any clearer as to what the process will be to ensure that all that information, operations systems and engineering specs are made available to the community prior to a permitting process.
At this point, the Boyes commission is holding open houses dealing primarily — and this was from the commission itself — with management of special wastes in household garbage. Can the minister tell me the plan for dealing with the specifics of a facility, given the fact that many other facilities throughout North America have had problems? Indeed, we have learned a great deal from those problems. Will there be a full airing of all of this?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: There will be hearings in the fall in any community that is anticipated and any community that wishes to come forward with respect to siting a special waste facility in their community. There will be full hearings in those communities, divulging everything — the design, the appearance, everything the community wishes to know.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Will this be a legal public hearing?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not in that sense, no. It is simply a hearing for the public benefit.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I suspect very much like the open houses that the Boyes commission is doing at this point, only more site specific.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: They'd be more formal than that. They'd be far more technical, too.
MS. SMALLWOOD: When the minister says more formal, are you talking about a public process where the community has an opportunity to come and give special witness and deal with the technical aspects of it?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we are.
MR. LOVICK: During second reading debate, I posed a number of questions and made a brief statement about 3.3 of this particular legislation.
My concern, and indeed the focal point of my remarks, was what I perceived to be a concentration of power within the hands of cabinet. Before I pursue that matter further, perhaps I might begin by asking the minister if he would like to justify this new section 3.3, entitled "Powers of Lieutenant Governor in Council." Why this new section?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, it's not inconsistent with other sections of environment legislation, although this quite clearly gives the L-G-in-C remarkable control. But we took the position that there are situations where permits are sought for waste discharges where the implications for the public interest would be of more primacy than the technical interests, and for this reason the L-G-in-C would take it unto themselves to act in the public interest when it was considered necessary. I know that appears onerous, but it is a two-edged sword, Mr. Member. I think you want us to have this right to act in the public interest, as opposed to just the technical interest, and I think you would want subsequent governments to have that authority as well.
[3:00]
MR. LOVICK: I'm listening carefully, Mr. Chairman, and it strikes me there is something like a false dichotomy there. What is the difference between the technical interest — what the experts in the field are going to perceive to be their duty with regard to taking measures to make sure that we are properly disposing of these materials — and the public interest? How is it that the technical advisers would not be mindful of the public interest? I don't see the argument behind this.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Quite often the technical evidence is solid and something you can stand behind, and yet the government of the day will know that the public interest, for whatever reason — not technical, but for other, political reasons — would agree that the project should not proceed. An example I can think of is a body shop and paint-spray booth on Okanagan Lake. Technically it was sound, but it just could not proceed because of the public interest argument. So the government set that aside, although they had no real reason in law to do it. But there was some persuasion, I guess, in the case of the ministry, that the paint-booth operator should locate somewhere else. This section does give cabinet that authority to act as a director would.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that answer, and I'm going to accept, at least for the moment, the argument presented.
I would now like to ask what the rationale is for the second part of section 3.3(2), that the L-G-in-C "shall not be limited to the considerations that would be taken into account by a director, district director, officer or manager." What does that mean? What's the explanation?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Under the act the director must issue a permit if the proposal is technically correct. This would give the L-G-in-C the right to take into account the public interest and not just the technical arguments.
MR. LOVICK: Would it be fair then to conclude from this that this is a way of providing a kind of reserve power in the hands of the ministry to deal with the predicament of "not in my backyard, you don't"? Is that the case?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. It would be technically correct, Mr. Member, to do something with special wastes in downtown Nanaimo — there could be technical evidence that no one could refute — and yet neither you nor I would be pleased with that. That's essentially what we're getting at here.
MR. LOVICK: My colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam...or what is it? Mission? I forget now. Where are you from now, Mark?
[ Page 2098 ]
MR. ROSE: Everywhere.
MR. LOVICK: One of my colleagues says that there is probably a flip side to that argument, and I think that's also the case.
What I wanted to touch on briefly, if I might, Mr. Chairman, is the part that seems to me to connect directly to 3.3(2) but is a different section of the bill, namely section 11. That's the right of appeal, or the absence of. Because it deals specifically with the L-G-in-C, may I ask that question now?
Okay? Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I would just ask the minister to explain to us why it is that effectively we're saying that decisions made by cabinet, by the L-G-in-C, are beyond appeal. Is that desirable? Is that necessary? Or are we perhaps anticipating a kind of crisis where there might not be one?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Where else could you appeal to after the L-G-in-C has made a decision? That's it.
AN HON. MEMBER: The Appeal Board.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Appeal Board can be very difficult to appeal to, and it's not something that we would contemplate.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, this clause on its own is enough to reject the legislation. The reason I say that is because of the action and the history that the Ministry of Environment has demonstrated over the last few months. They have put in place a commission, as I've said before, of very well-meaning people who want to do a good job — but in essence it's putting the difficult job of siting a facility at arm's length from the government. In essence, this picks a community somewhere in the province to locate a special waste facility and says that regardless of what the community says, for the good of the province — because we need to do something about special wastes, because we have a tremendous problem and have to move forward — you're it.
That's what this clause says; and it says that the people in that community have nothing to say about it. They have no appeal and no right to be heard. This clause, along with section 11, says there is to be a massive centralizing of power that goes around all the public process currently in place, which, I might suggest, has been eroded over the last several months.
I think this section flies in the face of the work done by community groups, by the government and by industry over the last two or three years. Those groups came together — I've said this to the minister before — and decided to deal with this significant problem, and they were prepared to go through all the work necessary to outline a program to ensure that this province could deal with special wastes in a responsible way. The only way that it could take place was by an extensive, open process that ensured that all communities had the support and ability to learn and site a facility that would not meet opposition.
By the government's going around the process in place.... By minimizing that process, the government is ensuring that they will have to use the power this section gives it. Regardless of all the good intentions in the world by a commission put in place in the last short while, history throughout North America shows that unless you take into consideration the recommendations of that three-party committee that worked for two years, you're going to have a situation, in essence, of civil disobedience. If you take the power of appeal away from communities, the power to say what goes on in their own back yards, that is the option you're leaving people.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Number one, I don't want to be difficult about this, but there's nothing in this section that takes away at all from the hearing process. The hearing process is not mentioned here, and it is in place and will continue in place.
I want you to think this section through, hon. member, as I explained to the member for Nanaimo. We could delete this right now on the floor of the House, but I don't think you'd want it. I don't think you nor I nor anyone in the province wants technical decisions only. Other public-interest decisions will have to be made. So think about your position of deleting this, because it could be done right now with a stroke of the pen. I don't think you want that, if you think the whole thing through.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, the case the minister presents is logically and in concrete terms a solid one. Ha! That's an interesting line. Sorry about that.
The issue I'm wondering about is whether this is a bit of a political cop-out. We decide to vest in cabinet those powers simply so we do not have to confront publicly the concerns we as a society ought to be confronting, namely the simple fact that we continue to have processes that produce wastes that we are apparently incapable of dealing with, or that we are not prepared to pay the price of dealing with. Therefore we are going to vest in a particular body of people — who don't have to take much public heat — the authority to do things to communities. I suppose I'm suggesting to the minister that there ought to be and perhaps is a better way. Perhaps what we should be doing is having all these procedures — the L-G-in-C decision — the product of some kind of public hearing. To be sure, the cabinet still has the right to conclude, but with some public-hearing process built right in.
One of the reasons we ought to do that, if for no other purpose, is that we will thereby force people to come to terms with the problem of industrial society: namely, that we are continuing to produce these things, to pursue a lifestyle that frankly causes us some difficulties. I'm wondering if by using this kind of mechanism we're simply taking the great majority of citizens' minds off the problem.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're getting a tad philosophical here. Sure, I recognize the member's concern that we should be addressing special wastes in a better manner. There's no question about that; I totally agree with you. That's why we have this type of legislation. But special wastes are consumer driven, Mr. Member. There are many people in your community who work at sawmills that produce export lumber which must use the PCPs to protect them or there is no export sale. There's a lot of that material around.
There are many other special wastes that we have to take control of. We have to start looking after ourselves in our own province. We're currently storing and in some cases shipping. We may have some shipments to Swan Hills in Alberta when it opens up. It depends on how the transportation people deal with us. But sooner or later the other jurisdictions are going to say,"British Columbia, you've got to look after
[ Page 2099 ]
your own stuff," and we'll have to have this legislation and this facility in place to do it; otherwise, we're in big gobs of trouble. I'd much rather have a special waste facility properly done, properly in place, than the type of storage that's carrying on now, which in some cases is suspect. In some cases we don't even know where it is. That's what is causing us some alarm.
It is our intent, first of all, not to negate the public hearing process whatsoever. It is our intent to have cabinet control in terms of the public interest. Of course, there is nothing here that prohibits cabinet from having their own further public hearing so that they can arrive at their own conclusions. Smaller problems could be covered under the Environment Management Act, and that appeal board could hear them.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to take exception to a couple of the comments that the minister made. First of all, dealing with the powers of cabinet, I don't find them at all philosophical. They are there, they are entrenched, and they are used. Our concern about the use is that it is done out of the public eye; that there isn't accountability; and that for a facility such as this, in particular with the regulations as they exist, it is important that the public have access to that process. It should be a public process, and the public should be assured that they can have access to all of the information in order to make those decisions in an informed way.
[3:15]
The point is that it's not only through this section that the cabinet has the power to site a facility against the wishes of a community. The cabinet also has the power to make a decision to issue a variance order, to issue a provision in a permit where the permit is not being adhered to for one reason or another. The cabinet can meet in isolation behind closed doors and say: "Okay, good old boys, it's all right. You can continue to contaminate the environment till next year. When we've made this deal, you will then come into compliance." There is no opportunity for the community to know what's going on in that facility or to influence the permit process.
So I don't believe for a moment that it is at all philosophical or, for that matter, that we're dealing with something not of the very essence of this waste management bill. I want to restate our position in that we want special waste dealt with in this province. We want to make sure it works. We're concerned that you're heading down a path of more confrontation; indeed, that the community cannot be assured that you will be able to deal with the problems, because the mechanisms to deal with those problems are not in place.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's why the legislation has to be in place. There is every opportunity for a public hearing. As the member knows, we have already put a special waste committee in place, more than adequately funded, and they have been told to hear as many concerns as they can. They will carry on with that process — full, adequate public hearings. So I make no apologies for the hearing process.
I reiterate: in the case of this type of special waste, this type of public interest that has to be considered, I would rather have elected officials dealing with the ultimate decision than a carte blanche technical approval in the hands of the bureaucracy. It's not that I don't trust the bureaucracy, but I can see in many cases a very good technical argument totally flying in the face of what I would consider to be the public interest.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Subsection (1.2) says:
"Where a permit or approval is subject to conditions imposed pursuant to a decision made in an appeal under Part 5 to the director or to the appeal board, those conditions shall not be amended except by the director or the appeal board, as the case may be, and after the director or appeal board has given the parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether the conditions should be amended."
Can the minister explain the question of whether the conditions should be amended? What's the purpose of this particular section?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Amendments are required from time to time. What we do here is define the manner in which permits may be amended. If the permit was issued by the L-G-in-C, the amendment must be discussed with the minister; if the permit was issued by the director, the L-G-in-C must review the amendments with the director. That's the process in place. The ability to amend must be in place.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
MS. SMALLWOOD: This outlines the power of an officer to ensure compliance with the act or regulations made under the act. It talks about an officer intervening when immediate danger has been proven. Can the minister suggest to us how that can be done and why instead the officer wouldn't have the power to intervene or inspect, if indeed they suspect that there is a problem?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Here we go with the Charter again. The officer now has to have a very good reason to search. So what we're doing is.... Gosh, the Attorney-General is here, so I'll temper what I was going to say. We're going, I guess, beyond reasonable search law in saying, in this case and in compliance with this act and in compliance with hazardous goods under this act, that we're giving that constable just a bit more clout in our legislation. I'm sure the Attorney-General will agree with me that sooner or later some judge is going to say: "No, I'm sorry, you must have a warrant and a lot of other reasons to stop a truck that's openly dripping PCB down the highway." But we're got better search procedures in here, and we think they're necessary because we're dealing with some pretty nasty stuff.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like further clarification from the minister about the management trust fund. It would seem to me, from this legislation, that the minister is more or less hanging his hat on this particular section, the section that deals with liability and protection. Can the minister explain to us where the money is coming from? I understand from this section that it's coming from the operators of the facility. How do the operators get that money? What assurance do the
[ Page 2100 ]
communities have that there will be enough money there to deal with problems?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're going to set up what I have been advised will be called a tipping fee. This will be on a per-gallon or per-tonne basis, and everyone shipping to the facility has to pay that fee. That money is then given to the Crown. The owner of the facility doesn't keep it; he just collects it, as one would collect sales tax, and records it. There's an audit trail established, such as receipts, and that type of thing. Then on a monthly basis, or whatever, the operator of the facility would remit that money to the Crown, where it would be kept in this waste management trust fund for purposes of clean-up. We want it in the legislation so we have the right to charge that and have the right to have the special fund that can't be touched by other areas of government and can be used totally for clean-up, should it be required at a later date, either at abandonment of a facility or for whatever purpose. But we do want to have that money in trust, earning interest and standing on guard for the people of British Columbia with respect to waste facilities.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister indicate whether this is indeed a limited liability? Is there a cap on the fund? Can the minister suggest to us how such a fund will deal with other, older closed facilities that already exist in the province?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It won't be used for older closed facilities. Mind you, we know they shouldn't contain the hazardous wastes that are contemplated here in this legislation. In terms of liability, we're simply saying here that we want to have the fund established for the care and maintenance of closed facilities until such time as they would be closed.
MR. VANT: I, too, have a few comments about section 13. I certainly welcome this waste management trust fund. In my constituency there's still a high level of anxiety concerning a proposed megadump at Koster siding. I will not put the minister in a sub judice position today either, but it just so happens that the rainfall at Koster is between 25 and 30 inches per year, and right here in Victoria the rainfall — from a very good source — is from 27 to 29 inches per year. So it's kind of a similar situation.
We have the Hartland Avenue dump here in Victoria. It's a megadump now, because for several decades it has received household and, I presume, light industrial refuse from the greater Victoria area. Very sadly, it is now producing leachate at the rate of 900 litres per minute. Again, it's causing quite a problem and will now cost up to $2 million to control.
This is a statement by Mr. Warman of the Capital Regional District. I am concerned that under section 34 of the Waste Management Act, which I referred to the other evening, the maximum penalty for things going wrong is $50,000. This seems rather paltry. In the light of that, I welcome section 13, which we are discussing right now.
I appreciate hearing from the hon. minister the details about this tipping fee. I must emphasize that it must be collected consistently over a long period of time, because it is very costly to clean up these old landfill sites, and I don't want to see us get into leachate problems with proposed landfill sites, such as the one at Koster siding. So I certainly welcome the minister's comments on my remarks.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the case of the Capital Regional District and other municipalities, we very seldom have any problems with them in not cleaning up, and I am sure they'll address that problem; plus the fact that they have their own tipping fees. They charge people now. They have a trust fund set up within their municipalities, so they can remedy those problems when and if they occur — which is what they should do in the case of the CRD.
MR. VANT: In our constituency, it seems to me the situation is that the permitee is ultimately liable. I could see that a certain firm contracting to take garbage from, say, the Greater Vancouver Regional District may dump for several years, and then that firm could go out of business, and the provincial government, under the present legislation, takes no particular liability position. It's just the permitee who is ultimately responsible, but I can see a way out of that through this waste management trust fund, with those funds being held by the Crown to cover any problems down the road.
I can see this as being of great benefit throughout the province, if there are any problems, even after one of these landfill sites has been closed for several years.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I still don't believe we have clarification. If there is a problem with a facility, after operating for, say, a year, that fund would only have in it the tipping fees for that year. If this fund is the sole lever for liability, how can a community be assured that that facility will be checked and cleaned up, and that any damage done will be dealt with?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is specifically in place to cover closed-down operations or a place where the owner leaves. In the case of an operation that is in place, we require bonding. The owner-operator of that facility will have to have bonding in place while he is operating it to look after any potential problems that may occur during the tenure of his operation.
The special waste management trust fund is for after; that would be my impression. But we will, in our regulations, require extensive bonding. These have to be first-class operations in terms of containment.
[3:30]
MS. SMALLWOOD: According to the previous section we just passed under "waste ownership," if I can tie it into the waste management fund, my understanding here is that once the producers of special waste have transported the material to the facility, they are no longer liable for that hazardous waste.
When the facility is either in a situation of going bankrupt and walking away or closing, then the only thing in place is the waste management trust fund. Very likely the title could convert to the Crown. So there is nothing holding the facility owner liable once they take those legal actions.
As I suggested before, other special waste facilities, for instance in the United States, have held both the generator and the operator liable for the length of time that the material is hazardous. Again, that particular aspect of liability doesn't seem to be in this act.
I've raised this with the minister before. I am concerned that we are setting this facility up with minimal liability, and that the mechanisms are not in place to stop this facility from looking pretty good for the disposal of hazardous waste from other jurisdictions. We may very well be in a situation where
[ Page 2101 ]
it is more profitable in the long-term for the generators of special waste to dispose of the material here in B.C. because they no longer have that long-term liability imposed upon them. Can the minister comment on that?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, while a facility is an operation, we have the bonds. They are held by the Crown, so we have them there.
The other thing you have to remember is that the United States situation seems reasonably good when you look at it, but the result is that no one is shipping their special waste any more, because the generator or shipper of special waste, if he has this long-term liability, which could be two to 500 years, just won't do it. He's going to hide it. He's not going to send it anywhere.
MR. ROSE: Put it down the storm sewer.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right. So what you're doing is compounding the problem, and this is why we say "as soon as it goes on site" — unless the guy has misrepresented what he's shipping. But if he has represented properly the waste that he's putting in that facility, then that waste becomes the responsibility of the facility owner. Through bonding, he has to maintain it and follow our regulations with respect to storage, which could be cement vaults or a variety of things — it depends on the element and the concern that we have — and then we take that tipping fee to cover off the future generations. As I said, these things have a.... It could be two or three hundred years before we have to be concerned about a remedy, but we would have that money gaining interest in this fund to put a remedy in place,
MR. ROSE: Part of this, Your Honour might think, is more like a second reading speech, but I want to say something rather general. The minister here, in terms of his waste management trust fund, is trying to do a rather difficult tightrope act, I think. On the one hand you can have your fees so high in order to make certain that the public is looked after and the facility runs profitably and the operator makes a buck — because that's what he's in it for; he's not in it to protect future generations. The tradition in our country and in other countries, when you have problems of getting rid of waste — toxic or otherwise — is to pass the social costs on to future generations, because it's too expensive to do it while you're doing it. So that's why we pollute our rivers and air and all the rest of it.
But the tough balancing act is to make it attractive enough so that those people who are not completely irresponsible will dispose of their toxic wastes in a place where we can handle them, either through recycling, regeneration or some kind of destruction other than just burial, which is going to leach out ultimately anyway. I think everyone is familiar with the problems that we're having, say with the spent nuclear fuel rods. It's just a horrendous problem, and there are thousands of tonnes of those coming up from that high-tech turkey known as the Candu reactor. However, the other problem is that if you don't have it cheap enough to use, then the disposal will be done in a bootleg way — down the storm sewer or somewhere — and that's been the practice in the past.
So that seems to me the minister's or the government's main problem. I've heard other people say: "Well, in 'posterity' what difference does that make? What has posterity ever done for me?" I know that this will sound ideological, but if the government really is responsible for down the road, I don't know why, if they insist on a private operator, the government doesn't organize the site — not just its location — and develop very stringent standards for the site, and maintain ownership and — although I know this will be heresy in the NDP — even contract out to somebody to operate it if that's necessary, if you want one of those hardheaded business decisions and efficiency and all that good stuff that we talk about all the time.
The difficulty as I see it is that the public may not be well protected. They'll think they are, but they may not be. And who launches a complaint of leaching, or whatever? Because these things take years — maybe 50 to 100 years — to develop. So that's the problem.
Can the minister really assure us here that the fund is a virtually unlimited fund? I don't know what assurance the minister can give us on that. Secondly....
Interjection.
MR. ROSE: Yes, but there is a limit to everything. For instance, in the nuclear plants there is a limitation on the damage caused, and I think it's relatively small — something like $5 million, and that's the limit.
But if I haven't thrown out too many non sequiturs, perhaps the minister might screen my comments for some comments of his own, because it is a serious problem. We know we have to deal with these things; we know we have to have adequate and economic waste disposal, or else we'll have the problem of dumping, as I suggested, into areas where we can't control it. So we're not at odds with the ministry here at all, and we recognize the problem. Our concern, entirely, is how best to protect the public.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think you've thrown out too many non sequiturs. I didn't think you threw out any at all.
Your idea with respect to a private-public facility: there is a potential for that in this legislation. It would depend on the recommendations of Dr. Boyes and the committee and what came out of the hearing process. But philosophically I guess I'd look at that a little differently than you would, given the respective differences we have from a political perspective; nevertheless there certainly is the opportunity for the type of arrangement you've just suggested to come into place. You're right, we are balancing on a tightrope. We have to make this attractive and a commercial interest, to have someone put this very expensive facility in place, and then of course he has to charge for what he's doing, and people have to come to him or, as you say, they're going to bootleg. So we're in agreement on that. But no, I don't have any problem; if the public hearing process of Dr. Boyes and all the evidence we hear in the community indicates that maybe there is some area for government to be involved, then I don't have any problem with that at all.
There is no way I would at all change section 13 with respect to the trust fund and how it will be operated, and I can't see it being limited. There will be a tipping fee and the money will just continue to go in there and go in there until such time as it's needed, and let's hope that's never. Unless some subsequent government changes the legislation, section 13 and the waste management trust fund would be clearly and only for the purposes that it's designed for.
[ Page 2102 ]
MR. ROSE: The difficulty with any of these things is, it seems to me, that it takes so long to even realize what's happening. I can conceive of the time that, if we keep dumping waste from Vancouver — now this is not toxic waste but just general waste — into Burns Bog, for instance, ultimately we will pollute those wetlands, the wetlands where life really begins.
So these things happen over a long period. It's not the case like Chernobyl or somebody blows the roof off Three Mile Island. That happens all at once; it's easy to find out how it happened and when it happened. The difficulty with these things is they're insidious. You never really know. When did it start and when did the problem arise? That's the real problem.
It seems to me that you would have to, first of all, have stringent standards in the construction of a facility, and you would also have to have regular inspections by someone who is not directly involved. I think you would have to have an external examination on a regular basis of what's happening and what's going into these facilities. That's really what concerns us.
Our record in industrial North America has not been a very good one. We've got Love Canal; we've got all kinds of things now that were considered to be relatively safe at one time. All that Niagara Escarpment is leaching where we thought we had solid rock. Well, the solid rock is probably in the craniums of the people who planned the facility, as it turns out. We’ve got the same problem now with tests going on in the Canadian Shield just a little way outside of Winnipeg, because they're concerned about percolation of nuclear wastes even though, ultimately, the half life is millions of years
Our society says we're going to deal with these things, and yes, we use them, but we don't know how to dispose of them. This may be a sophisticated attempt to do it, but my instincts tell me it isn't. The history of regulatory bodies of various kinds has been very disappointing, whether you're talking about the CRTC or whether you're talking about the Combines Investigation Act. After these things happen and long since afterwards, where remedy is taking place, the damage has been done. That's why I'm more concerned. I'm not even very happy with the Atomic Energy Control Board, AECB. They seem to be inextricably linked with the nuclear lobby and Atomic Energy of Canada. The difficulty, as I see it, is to get an arm's-length, separate appellate or appeal and investigative branch.
That is, I think, about all we can do. There is little other protection than that. Or to make it so damned expensive that nobody will even try. If they get caught flushing PCBs into the Fraser River or something else down the toilet, even in the privacy of their own homes, they should throw the book at them. I don't see any other way out.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're absolutely right, Mr. Member. We do have some pretty heavy offences. We could change those. They are open to change and I have no problem recommending higher change if we're expecting that we've got a serious situation. Also, the arm's-length committee is what we have in the Dr. Boyes committee. That's what I'd maintain we keep before and after, because what we have here is one of British Columbia's foremost cancer researchers, and we know that.
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
The man has remarkable credentials; he is a very, very good investigator. He is vitally concerned about the problem we're facing and is attempting to use his considerable expertise to have us do it. He's totally arm's-length and he's the best we could find. As a matter of fact, I think we'd be foolish not to consider that type of ongoing committee with respect to monitoring and with respect to dealing with this situation for us.
MR. ROSE: I won't prolong this, but will just say that while it's not particularly in this ministry, we've had recent examples of a cask of very serious contaminants — I'm not quite sure of what it was; I think it was PCBs — taken from some site in North or West Vancouver over to the gravel dump on the side of the Coquitlam River. We've also heard examples.... It was reported in the paper; I hope that's not too far out of order. For instance, the mayor of Coquitlam went out at night to catch somebody who was an operator releasing his settling-ponds into the Coquitlam River.
There are all kinds of these little stunts going on all the time; they are not rare. If there is some way that we could end that, through adequate provision of alternative means, it would be very helpful.
[3:45]
MR. VANT: Madam Chairman, we in the Cariboo have a very high level of anxiety, given what has happened in the past. You mentioned that you hope this fund never has to be used, but when I check the records and refer to the Environment Canada-Reid, Crowther report on the need for a waste management strategy, in association with our government and just about every other provincial government in Canada.... It says here:
"The survey of landfill sites in British Columbia revealed that landfills are routinely used for the disposal of liquid wastes. For example, waste materials known to be entering the Hartland Road landfill in Victoria include asbestos in powder form, acetone and paints. These materials are transported in standard packer trucks. Industrial liquid wastes are also dumped at waste treatment plants in loads mixed with septic plant wastes.
"A particular concern relates to the monitoring of leachate. Only four out of 19 sites surveyed had facilities in place for leachate monitoring."
So it seems that festering out there are great problems, possibly, down the road. To keep things balanced — and that's why I'm interjecting in the debate on this section of this bill — back in Manitoba they've got problems too in that socialist Utopia. For example, this in the Canadian Environmental Control Newsletter. In 1983 a study was done in Manitoba. The Workplace Safety and Health minister, Gerard Lecuyer, said that the report recommends closing the Gimli waste disposal site due to its negative environmental impact. Again, this is another landfill site, and I can assume the rainfall in Manitoba is nowhere near what it is here in B.C.
The report on the Portage la Prairie site notes that contamination of some wells has occurred, and it recommends continued monitoring at this site. The report notes that wastes are contaminating shallow aquifers and surface waters in the Gimli area. Mr. Lecuyer noted that affected well-owners had been advised not to use their water for drinking or for food preparation.
[ Page 2103 ]
So as the MLA for Cariboo, I hope that I never, ever have to advise the constituents in the 70 Mile House-Koster area: "Gee whiz, you can no longer drink or even cook with the water from your wells." We hope that we can prevent problems in the future, and I predict that under section 13, this fund is very necessary and will be used to great advantage to help clean up some of the problems from the past.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad that the member, using out-of-order debate, has once again established his position on Koster, which I totally agree with as minister, It's regrettable — the landfill problem you've advised me of that's occurred in Victoria.
Acetone, by the way, is nail-polish remover. It's really not that injurious to people, but it sounds dangerous.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd just like further clarification. If I understood the minister right, he said that he wants the Boyes commission to be ongoing.
Interjection.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Or a commission like it. Such an ongoing commission could deal with monitoring a facility. Is the minister suggesting that that task of monitoring the facility would be taken over by a commission at arm's length from the ministry? What role would the ministry have in that?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I was answering the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), and his position was that we have to continue with an independent third body. I would have no argument with that. It could be Dr. Boyes or someone with his type of science background and investigation methods.
In terms of monitoring, I would see this independent body as being responsible for two types of monitoring: the process — is everything being handled properly as it goes in? — and monitoring the facility itself in terms of where we may or may not have problems, and what the remedies might be. So there would be monitoring for the process and monitoring of the facility itself in terms of its ability to contain what it is supposed to contain.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Because most of the actual substance is in the regulations as far as monitoring and control go, we'll leave that to section 15.
On this, and the fact that you're talking about a tipping fee for the material coming into the site, has the minister considered, instead of using that sort of collection, the actual taxing or charging of generators, which would in turn reduce the production and would ensure a larger fund for the waste management trust fund?
The point I'm making is that while I have used examples of liability in the United States, I think most of the discussion in Canada has been far more progressive in that it deals with liability as well as with source reduction. I don't believe for a moment that we can deal with special waste management in this province without dealing with source reduction and recycling. Taxing the generator would do that.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: We suspect we will have source reduction, and many of these toxic wastes can be recycled. They will be recycled at the source. That is why we have a trust fund in place: so that people ship as few toxic wastes as possible. When we put that tipping charge in place, it ensures that they are reusing as much as they can. So we do see this as encouraging recycling. I don't see why it wouldn't. But again, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody pointed out, it's a fine balancing act. You can't make it prohibitive or they simply won't ship to the waste facility, and then you won't have the problem addressed.
In terms of a tax, I don't know what you'd want to call it. We think that it would be hard to monitor at the site. That's why we see this tipping surcharge. You can call it a tax if that will make you feel better. This tipping surcharge — in other words, the actual cost per litre, per tonne, per pound or however we want to measure it — will be charged to the person shipping into that facility and remitted to government. We think that's the cleanest and most productive way of handling the money we have to recover for our own protection.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to suggest to the minister that if he is talking about a comprehensive plan for special waste management, he has got to know what the generators are producing, and if you know what they are producing, then you can tax them to discourage the production. There are alternatives and alternative uses. A charge for disposal does not deal with that. It is basically a limited-liability situation, where only the people who bring their material there are involved in the liability payment to a community.
In particular, while we all want to ensure that we can constructively deal with the problem that is in this province, we also want assurances that it's going to work. So far we've had wonderful speeches about how pleased we are that we have a waste management trust fund, but I would like numbers. Can the minister tell us how much waste a facility would be dealing with per year? And can the minister indicate to us how much he sees being raised annually by such a trust fund? Without that, I'm unsure how we can have confidence in it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: To get back to the first part of the member's question, we're going to charge at the facility, and that's the only place. Some generators of special wastes may, first of all, ship to the United States, for whatever reason — maybe they can keep their contracts alive in other areas — so they wouldn't be shipping to our facilities. Some may recycle. That would be quite common, and we would encourage it. So they're not shipping at all. Under this act, others may store their special wastes at their own facility.
All we want to do by collecting the fund is to look after the operation of the facility that's in place.
Where were we? I've forgotten the second part of the question. I'm sorry; what was the second part of the question, Madam Member?
MS. SMALLWOOD: My question was dealing with bottom-line figures — dollars and cents.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: In his preliminary investigations, Dr. Boyes reckons that there are 70,000 tonnes per year of special waste. But he thinks — as we think about this further down the road — that maybe that's year one; that's everybody coming out of the closet with their special wastes. We have the tendency to think that the figure will be down in subsequent years.
[ Page 2104 ]
It's not proved, because there's a lot of this stuff that's being hidden away. As I indicated in my estimates, it could be half a barrel of last year's pesticide on a farm, and there are many instances of this type of storage around. Once we have the facility in place, then we expect to see a lot of it come out. The input may be less in subsequent years, but 70,000 tonnes for the first year is the best estimate we can come up with.
In terms of what the cost is going to be, we have no idea. That is going to depend on the Boyes commission to further establish the answer to the second part of your question.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Sorry, Mr. Minister, I don't do "trust me" very well, especially when we are dealing with serious issues like this and, in particular, with the sort of resources that the Boyes commission has. There are three commissioners, there are two staff people, and the only actual support they have is a management consultant firm that was responsible for the siting of Swan Hills.
The figure of 70,000 tonnes per year was produced and talked about a couple of years prior to the Boyes commission, so it hasn't been the in depth study of the Boyes commission that has produced these kinds of numbers. I think the minister's earlier comments about lack of information in this area are more to the point.
So while I think there is a great wealth of information and study out there about systems and liability programs, again, without those kinds of specifics, it is hard for me — and I suspect for the people in the community you are prepared to site this facility in — to have confidence in the facility when you can't assure us of dollars and cents. When you are talking about the potential of contaminating a community's water supply and all that entails as far as long-term health effects go, in order to ask for the support of the opposition, I think it is incumbent upon the ministry to have those bottom-line figures available to the community and to this House.
Surely any corporation in this province would not go to an interested second person and tell them: "Trust me. We don't have the bottom-line figures, but we're sure this is going to work." Well, that's not the way it works in the business world, and it's not the way it's going to fly in communities or in this House.
[4:00]
HON. MR. STRACHAN: What the member said has nothing to do with the bill, really. We're asking you and the committee to approve this bill so that the Boyes commission can continue to operate with the authority of legislation. You may not trust me, and that's fine, but we're simply asking you to trust Dr. Boyes, and I am sure you do.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I am a very trusting person, but I also want basic information. That isn't a matter of trusting either the ministry, the government or you personally, Mr. Minister; nor is it a matter of trusting a commission that is out touring the province without enough support. It's a matter of saying that if you are wanting to put legislation in place — and in particular, we're talking about the waste management trust fund, which is the vehicle for liability and the vehicle to assure communities that, should anything devastating happen in their community, they can be assured in black and white and in numbers that their interests have been taken care of. Without the ministry being able to give us that kind of specific information, it's like coming to the House with a piece of legislation and not the information with which to be able to judge it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: That information is simply not available until the Boyes committee continues on its investigations, establishes a site, establishes what the site is going to do, what type of special waste it's going to handle and what the volume is. Until such time as this legislation has passed and further research is done, there's just no answer that can be given. I appreciate that you want to know something now that won't be available till next fall, but what you're going to have to do is wait till next fall.
MS. SMALLWOOD: If that is the case, then this legislation is premature. There is no way that this legislation should be before the House without you being able to substantiate it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: How on earth do you put the committee in place, with its regulations and its right to operate, without the legislation? Speak to your House Leader; he'll tell you how it works.
MS. SMALLWOOD: We are not dealing with the committee. The committee has been mandated by the ministry itself. What we are dealing with here is a waste management trust fund, the ownership of waste — the perimeters within which the siting will take place — and the legislation that will govern the decisions that Dr. Boyes undertakes in the fall. So any manipulation of those numbers, or the intent of the committee, flies in the face of the act that we're undertaking right here.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
MS. SMALLWOOD: This particular section deals with penalties, and the minister was fond of reminding us that he needed legislation that upped the penalties for violation. Dealing with subsection (4.1),"a penalty not exceeding $5,000," can the minister tell us why he would put a $5,000 limit on the obstruction of justice when, for instance, the Real Estate Act has penalties of $100,000 for not filing a prospectus? There seems to be a problem in priorities here.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is just for obstructing a police constable in the course of his duty. There are heavier fines that come in later.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
MS. SMALLWOOD: This is a section that empowers the Waste Management Act to deal with regulations on special waste. I would like to go through and make a couple of comments about the special waste regulations that the minister and I have talked about. I'll run down a couple of the categories, and then the minister can comment. I will not try to deal with all of the definitions. As I have said, there are four pages that are not part of the Waste Management Act, nor are they part of the amendment that is before us.
The first one I would like to take exception to is the definition of "impervious." The point that I made earlier was
[ Page 2105 ]
that the dictionary definition is zero migration. The definition according to the special waste regulations actually allows leakage. When the ministry identifies any entrance of contaminants into the environment as actually contaminating the environment, why would the minister, particularly in a special waste regulation, by definition actually allow a slow leak? In addition, water is the substance that the measurement is taken with, and the comment made by the expert discussing this with me was that solvents and oils and such leach much more quickly than that.
I'll just make a couple of comments about definitions, and then we can move on. On the issue of the liner — this is to deal with the landfill as well — the way I read this definition, what could happen is that the facility could dig down to bedrock and use the material that was taken out of that hole as the liner. It talks about the liner being intended to restrict the downward lateral escape of special waste. It does not stop the flow.
Another one that I wanted to talk about is the secure landfill. Again, this is a situation where they're talking about the facility being designed or constructed and operated to prevent. When we're talking about a secure landfill, it's beyond me why it doesn't just clearly say "prevent."
The final one is in special waste. Under the special waste section, there's a schedule 4 that lists 31 substances.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you looking at the regulations?
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm looking at the special waste regulations.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Which portion of section 15 does that pertain to?
MS. SMALLWOOD: Section 15 deals with the ability to form regulations. The minister, in our previous conversation, suggested to me that the appropriate place to deal with special waste regulations and all of the concerns is under this section. That was clarified in addition to the conversation which took place at the end of last week.
The thing that's so difficult about this.... I realize that the minister, as well as the Chair, is allowing this debate to deal with regulations, which do not as a rule come before the House. The reason I've asked for this special opportunity under this section to deal with these regulations is for that very reason. I would like the minister, in addition to dealing with these — perhaps this is a cabinet decision — to consider our having the opportunity to bring regulations to a committee of the House, as is done in the federal House. It would alleviate some of these problems.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, I indicated to the member earlier, and to the committee, that when my officials arrive we would be prepared to accept questions about the regulations, because it's sensitive.
First of all, with respect to "impervious," nothing is impervious. Liquids can be forced through a chunk of steel. We then, through those regulations, established what the permeability would be; it's very, very slight. But no substance on earth is totally impervious. So within the regulations, you have to adapt some engineering requirements and make some engineering statements about what you will accept.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Just to finish up, the other definition I wanted to deal with is "special waste." I was making the point that 31 substances listed in schedule 4 are identified as substances under the classification of special waste. A facility such as this would be dealing with far more than 31 substances. By not defining those substances or giving that schedule some ability to identify and deal with those substances, we're in a situation where the ministry again is trying to control the contaminants entering the environment without having those contaminants identified, and therefore being unable to regulate them.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The idea of listing every single one, Madam Member, would cause us problems. You get people who can find loopholes: you have 400 and they'd find 401 that they can get by,
What we do in the case of these 31 is identify the family groups of the elements, and from that we can trap everything. So although the list is smaller, it's far larger in generic and family intent, in terms of capturing the elements, and that makes it far better. That was the problem they had in the United States; that's why we've gone for this standard. This, by the way, is a Canadian standard adopted by the federal government and the nine other provinces.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister can tell us if he has the ability to add to that list. In addition to that, I'd like to know why, for instance. they're not dealing with broad identifications such as carcinogens, mutagens, corrosives or the bio-accumulation of these substances.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those aren't chemical types. Table salt is a carcinogen, yet it's not a toxic waste. That deals with the impact. We have to deal with the elements themselves and their chemical family, and from that we determine whether it's a special waste. But saying that we'll ban all carcinogens will ban table salt and many other elements — tobacco, Scotch whisky, rye whisky. It would be a terrible situation.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Leaving the definitions, I see that under "special waste" there is also the inclusion of sewage. Does that suggest that the minister, at some point, will be dealing with toxics, contaminants and special waste in sewage?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. We have to have it there because sewage could contain toxic wastes that...people are throwing some stuff down the biff that they ought not to be doing, so we have that right in there.
Back to your more general question. When we have prescribed regulations, that means they can be changed by order-in-council immediately so we can add to the list as we see fit. That's why you have things in regulations that are a little looser than legislation.
MS. SMALLWOOD: There are several items in the special waste regulations dealing with plans and the permitting process. I think I've made the point that it is imperative that not only should the public have access to information and engineering, but also the ministry, when dealing with the approval of a permit, should know exactly what they're approving prior to that approval.
[4:15]
[ Page 2106 ]
Moving through the regulations dealing with waste information, subsection (4).... In essence, what it's talking about is a provision dealing with hot loads, where a substance is coming to a facility, and it isn't a substance that the facility is licensed to deal with. The point I want to make here is that there must be a public record. There must be access to information that would indeed help the ministry with enforcement. If there was a manifest of each load brought in, dealing with the actual substance and the quantity of the substance.... It should be filed with the minister, and, of uppermost importance, it should be public information, allowing the community to help control the operation of that facility, where the ministry may not have the kind of administrative capability to do that. In addition, it would allow the ministry to be able to track the rate of occurrence of hot loads in a facility.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
In addition, I believe there has to be a provision that gives a time limit for the filing of that information. I'd like to know if the minister would make comment.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's all in place. The record procedure is kept. The previous section we discussed with regard to transportation — section 2 — is in place. That's federal legislation. Everything the member is asking for is now in place.
MS. SMALLWOOD: So the minister assures us that the public has access to those records. Okay.
Dealing with the actual closure of a facility, can the minister tell us if the closure procedures are dealt with when the initial permit is let for that facility? And can the minister give us some indication about the ongoing liability? At what time does the government take over the responsibility, where the actual title of that property is transferred to the Crown?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: That would be up to negotiation with the operator of the facility and the negotiation would be known to the public.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister tell us when that would happen? Would that happen prior to the permitting process, and would the public have access to that information as part of the information necessary for them to participate in the decision of the initial permitting?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The regulations for closure would be known at the start of the facility. There could be reason for amendment if better techniques for storage came along during the life of the facility, but that's the only technical reason we could think of for amending closing procedures. But at the start of the facility the closing process would be in place.
MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister is saying "at the start of the facility." The assurance that I'm looking for is that all of this information will be available prior to the initial permitting. The facilities at this point are permitted, and then an operation's plan is submitted. The point I am making is that all of the information must be made available prior to the initial decision being made, including closure.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those closing conditions would be set at the time of permitting by the ministry.
MS. SMALLWOOD: On the issue of incinerators and thermal facilities, section 20(b) deals with air pollution and talks about measurement at ground level. It would seem that "at ground level" is dealing with the problem after the fact and that the testing should be done out of the stack and not at ground level.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're just seeing part of the regulations, hon. member. There is stack monitoring, there is ambient monitoring, and a ground level monitoring is another part. That's where you test how it's affecting people. People are on the ground, so that's why you test it there. You test ambient and also at the stack as well.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Now the section on secure landfills. This would be of particular interest to rural communities where the reliance on wells is a factor. Section 25, and this is number (4): "No person shall locate a secure landfill in a recharge area for an unconfined aquifer with one or more high capacity wells or a significant number of lower capacity wells used for domestic irrigation, industrial, municipal or livestock watering supply."
Can the minister tell the House how many are a significant number, how many actual wells are permitted to be contaminated by such a facility? Perhaps the minister could comment.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: We would simply take evidence from a groundwater specialist. We have them in the ministry and there are many in the private sector as well that could determine what would be an adequate or an inadequate amount. When you're dealing with aquifers, as the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) has pointed out, many times you're dealing with an area.... You don't want to have a site there. The evidence we would accept with respect to that regulation would be from our own groundwater experts and others that we could hire on a private basis.
MS. SMALLWOOD: With a secure landfill with a built-in capacity to leach, there is a specific number of wells that are expendable.
Further on the issue of performance standards, dealing with secure landfills and a situation of non-compliance, here again is a situation — and the ministry has some experience in dealing with polluters and permits that are in non-compliance. This particular section deals with groundwater quality and the analyzing of data and so on.
The point that I think is missing here is that there is a need for an automatic closure; that if there is a problem with a facility such as this, the community, and indeed the province, can be assured that as soon as the problem is identified, that plant, that landfill will be closed and that clean-up will take place immediately.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: We wouldn't put that in the regulations. We would just, immediately move, and we have the right under our legislation to do it — immediate closedown. The ministry can do that.
That's a problem, Madam Member, with reading amended regulations: you don't have full scope, because they are draft regulations and they're not complete yet. As I told
[ Page 2107 ]
you, it would be sometime in August, or maybe later, that they're all finished. So you're only looking at part of the picture. But I can assure you, if you'll examine our legislation, that we can move immediately at any issue, where there's a spill or whatever.
The other thing I want to take offence to is the fact that you say we're putting in sites which we know are going to leak. They are not going to leak; we're going to take every precaution. As I told you, nothing is impermeable, so don't twist engineering facts, Madam Member. You're not an engineer. I don't think you have the technical background. I think you should understand what we mean when we say we want to make those technical regulations.
MR. ROSE: I'm happy enough when the minister tells me they can move in and shut it down under the regulations. I just think that it might be more explicit. If that's your power — and this concerns people — I don't understand why you relegate it to the regulations. Why don't you put it in the bill?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not in the regulations.
MR. ROSE: Oh, I thought you said it was.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's in the Environment Management Act.
MR. ROSE: Oh, it's not in this act, but you have that power right now in the Environmental Management Act. Thank you.
MS. SMALLWOOD: The concern I have about the ability of the ministry to act in such a situation is that historically it has not. The point that I think people are trying to bring home to the minister is that in dealing with a facility such as this, a facility that we have not had in this province before, with such high-impact potential, it must be written in there so that the facility owners themselves understand that at the first sign of a problem, it's shut down and it's cleaned up, and that the owner doesn't have the opportunity to discuss the option of a variance order with the ministry and have the minister bring it to the cabinet for a decision outside the public purview and give the operator the opportunity to continue to bring in special waste and be able to make the profit necessary to deal with any problems that they may have on site. We all know that those arguments take place, and without those assurances that those are the rules — that if there's a problem, it's closed down — I don't know how people can have particular confidence.
The minister has already dealt with the issue of transfer of title. He said that those negotiations will happen on an individual basis and that they will happen prior to permitting. Again, I would suggest that any negotiations or transfer of title impact liability. That should be a public and open discussion.
The final thing, and perhaps it's timely, is a compliment. The one thing in the special wastes regulations that I think everybody in the province can be happy about is the regulation that deals with underground extraction. I hope — and I'm asking the minister if we can have assurances — that when these proposed regulations are being dealt with, we will have the assurance that there will be no underground extraction.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The basic geology of this province makes the underground situation impossible. You could do it on the prairies but not in B.C. So that's your answer. Thanks for the compliment, but the answer is geology, and the geology is such that we just can't contemplate any other remedy
Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 38, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
Presenting Petitions
MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition to the House at this time.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Take about five minutes, will you?
MS. A. HAGEN: With leave of the Speaker, thank you very much, Mr. House Leader.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am presenting to the House a petition which was first initiated by a senior in my riding of New Westminster immediately after the tabling of the 1987 budget. In that budget the government announced that it would begin imposing Pharmacare dispensing fees April 1, and that commencing July I it would impose user fees on a variety of therapeutic services. Over 7,000 seniors, their families and support groups from communities all over the province have used this petition as a means of expressing their concerns about these fees and recommending a course of action to government.
[4:30]
In a moment I will read the words of the petitioners, as they make this request to government. Just before I do, I would like to note that in addition to the petitions being presented formally by me on behalf of seniors and others in the province this afternoon, there are at least 17,000 petitions that I know have been forwarded directly to government by old age pensioners' organizations, groups of seniors, pharmacists and service-providers. I would hazard a very accurate guess that there are additional petitions of which we do not know. I have counted 5,500 names on copies of other petitions that I have received, and the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization alone had, as of its convention last week, in excess of 11,000 names on petitions that are coming forward.
"The petition of the concerned residents of the province of British Columbia humbly sheweth that the recent imposition of a Pharmacare dispensing fee, as
[ Page 2108 ]
well as a user fee for emergency and therapeutic services, brings onerous burden onto those people who suffer with long-term illness and to seniors whose incomes shrink with each attack on universal health care; and that those who cannot afford the fees will delay or avoid maintenance therapies, and will no doubt then require more costly health services. Therefore your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House cancel Pharmacare dispensary fees and service fees, and develop a long-term plan for health promotion in cooperation with seniors and community groups."
On behalf of those petitioners, Mr. Speaker, I present their requests to this House.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton, in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
On vote 20: minister's office, $225,259.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly very pleased to introduce my estimates for debate and look forward to the discussion on education.
Before I begin I would certainly like to pay tribute to the people who make the system work. That includes my senior management staff represented by my deputy minister, Sandy Peel, and all of his immediate senior management and the other people in the ministry who are very dedicated and committed and spare no effort on behalf of making the education system work as well as they possibly can in dealing with some restraints that we face, whether those be in personnel, whether those be in funding, whether those be in time constraints where you can never predict exact enrolment at any time. They do a remarkable job of dealing with that. Certainly on behalf of the people of this province, I want to recognize them publicly for that.
I'd also like to acknowledge my own direct ministry's office staff — my secretaries, my executive assistants — who just do a tremendous job and don't ever question hours and whether or not they have the time. Whatever needs to be done they tackle and do very well.
I'd also like to recognize all of the people in the education system in the field. That includes the school boards who work long hours for really very little pay to put together their budgets to try to meld the desires of the community with the needs of the schools, all in the interests of the students in their communities; and also the teachers in the system who really do a very committed, dedicated and professional job in the system.
I wish I really had more time to visit in the schools, because every time I do it's very much a positive reinforcement. You see initiative, you see dedication, you see commitment, you see an interest in students. You see all of that happening. You see good relations. You see the good things happening in education which are then documented in marks and assessments that go on. Certainly the people do a good job.
The unfortunate part is that I have to spend more hours in meetings, and that is where the complaints surface and they talk about poor morale and that sort of thing. But really, when you get into the schools, by and large people are working in the best interests of the students and society in British Columbia in general.
I am also pleased to note that there is ample evidence showing that B.C. schools continue to provide excellent value for the money spent. The B.C. taxpayers still pay less property tax for education than residents of other Canadian provinces. In fact, because of the provincial homeowner grant which is applied first to education tax, many homeowners in British Columbia pay actually no property taxes at all for education other than the minimum tax covering all municipal and school services.
B.C. has a first-rate education system. In subject areas such as mathematics and science, where there have been both national and international assessments, our students are performing better now than they used to; and even when they were compared against the others a few years ago, they certainly measured up. We have some recent evidence of this: we had students in mathematics — I think nine out of 20 on the national team were from British Columbia, all evidence of a good education system and that teachers are doing a remarkable job in the schools.
The direct education budget this year is $1.367 billion, and that's including the grants from funds for excellence. This year we have simplified the fund for excellence grants to a distribution on a per capita basis. I think that certainly pleases all of the people involved. Far too much of the energy in the past went into preparing the arguments and the case for applying for the funds for excellence rather than dealing with putting it into action.
I am very pleased that we have been able to work that out, certainly not as much as we'd like to, but we did take $20 million from this year's fund for excellence allocation for discretionary funding; and then we've added over another $16 million this year, for $36.2 million for discretionary funding to the districts. I think, as most members are aware, the salary savings from the April work stoppage or strike went into the fund for excellence, so that tops that up as well. Quite a bit of money has gone into that. I'm happy to report that despite some of the arguments that it hasn't really done much good because it's only a three-year fund and may not be continued in perpetuity, about 68 percent of that money has gone into upgrading computer facilities in the school system. So the computers are there. Even if we don't have a repeat of that kind of money, a lot has been added; a lot of upgrading has gone on. Basically, these are the programs that the fund for excellence went to: increasing access to computers; improving the quality of teacher training; upgrading or replacing instructional equipment; and making more effective use of existing educational resources.
The remainder of the $112 million in excellence funds being spent this year on the public education system will go to continuation of provincewide commitments and initiatives begun last year. These include: increased levels of textbooks and operating funding; development of provincial curriculum for Oriental languages; a program to help small secondary schools offer a broader range of programs and services; and expansion of child-abuse prevention and special-education programs. This year we've undertaken advisory procedures with the associations of school superintendents and secretary-treasurers. These have been revised so that there are regular meetings to facilitate consultation on a broad range of issues.
[ Page 2109 ]
Because of the special public health concerns surrounding the increased incidence of AIDS — that deadly disease — approximately $3 million has been distributed to put into effect the grade 7 to 12 program, which will be compulsory in all districts starting in September. Of course, members are well aware of the package on AIDS — admittedly, an abbreviated package, but certainly at least a very informative package — that was put out for the students in grade 12 who will not be there next fall. That is available as a videotape through the Ministry of Health. Other information is being made available on a wide distribution basis beyond the school system. Perhaps we can do whatever is possible to try to restrict AIDS.
Following the Sullivan report this year and the B.C. School Trustees' Association report on child abuse, we've initiated programs there. We have hired a full-time special education coordinator and provided some funding to assist schools to put that into place. As I mentioned, textbook funding has been increased, from about $12 million to over $18 million, to try to keep up to date. We've also put into effect in the ministry a five-year plan to try to keep that level of funding, and to keep a rotation going so that we can upgrade the textbooks and take whatever other steps are necessary to make sure our textbooks are more up to date and available on time. There were always some problems in the past — not just money, but the availability of textbooks from the publishers when they are required.
An interesting one that I'm very much looking forward to is a pilot project in 12 of the school districts that will focus on the outcome of the education system rather than on the process. We're hoping that next year more districts will join in that so that school districts and our ministry can then say,"This is what's happening. These are the results that we're achieving," in effect making for better public accountability and better information on how well the students in our education system are performing.
One thing that has come to light is decentralization in the correspondence branch. A pilot project was initiated by School District 60 in my own area, and they suggested it for the region. The correspondence people — the supervisors, the markers — were too far away, and there was a big time lag; so a local office was opened up in Fort St. John to serve the northeast corner of the province, and it has gotten dramatic results. Next year the ministry will be expanding to Prince George, or somewhere in that area, to serve the northwest. The students seem happier; the correspondence people are happier; and the results, particularly in terms of those people who complete the courses, has been very dramatic.
[4:45]
The early retirement program for teachers has I think been well canvassed. I'm looking forward to the results progressively showing a renewal of the teaching force, and also preventing the possible shortage of teachers in the future. In order to encourage people to go into teacher training, you do need to have positions in teaching when they come out of the system. They're eager. They're enthusiastic. They're raring to go. I think they can add a great deal to the system.
Again, as I visited some of the schools, I've seen some of the imaginative programs and initiatives that some of these people have shown. It's really remarkable what people are doing with some of the handicapped students that have come into the system. It's really quite an experience to see some of the things that are being done. There are people now learning in the school system who at one time were considered completely uneducable, so I'm certainly pleased.
The other thing, of course, is that it has a cumulative effect because as people learn to deal with some of these situations, they pass that around and more people learn and they're encouraged. It has again a positive reinforcement benefit.
We have moved on trying to provide more fairness to the independent school system and to bring the rate up from 30 to 35 percent of the funding and to provide, in recognition of what's actually happening in special education, money for those schools. They have to have a special education program before they get any of that money, and that is all worked out. And again, let me express appreciation to the ministry and to the Federation of Independent School Associations, who have given us assistance in bringing together that information as quickly as possible.
I need to say very little after all the time we spent on Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act. There are misconceptions there. People have said that this will make teachers more professional; I don't think that's the case, and I don't think we have ever said that. This will made the organization recognize the professional aspect of teaching. I think it is now law. It provides choices the teachers are asking for. It provides full collective bargaining rights and greater professional autonomy. A lot of the certification function has been turned from the minister over to the college, which will be made up of teachers. I fully expect that, as in everything else they do, they will take their job very seriously and act very responsibly.
And, of course, the royal commission under Barry Sullivan has traveled to many parts of the province and is dealing with the rest of education rather than just the teacher organization and bargaining rights. I think we can expect them pulling together many of the things that have been suggested — curriculum, programming and that sort of thing. I'm very much looking forward to the report, which hopefully will give us future direction for education in British Columbia.
There's a lot of opinion and a lot of knowledge out there, and I think Mr. Sullivan and the experts he has appointed will be able to pull that together and hopefully give us a 20-year plan. The way the world is changing now, 20 years is quite a target, but it can be adjusted as required.
As to long-term planning, there's a professional advisory committee on computers that has been doing some studying and has gone around the province trying to find out the best material and programs and ways to apply them. There's an advisory committee on teaching training that is expected to report by the end of June, which isn't too far away. We'll be taking a look at that. I'm sure that it will also feed into the Sullivan report, but I think they can complement each other rather than contradict each other.
Those are the highlights of a number of initiatives that have been undertaken. I might say that there is a continual program in the ministry working on curriculum upgrading and programs. We don't even mind if we find that there's a better program going on somewhere else. We have nothing against plagiarism — stealing the programs and implementing them. If our kids will benefit, then society will benefit. I won't even apologize for plagiarism in that regard.
There's been a lot of talk about the cutbacks in education. I keep adding up the numbers and coming up with progressively more into education each year. I guess the numbers
[ Page 2110 ]
get complicated — with or without pensions, with or without textbooks or something — but whether I take a partial amount or the total amount, I keep coming up with more money, with the exception of 1985, that has gone into education.
I see that more money has gone into education. And if we're talking about more money in education, maybe we have to talk about the other side of the picture, and that is that it requires taxes. Some people say that you could avoid taxes locally if the province put in more money. The province doesn't manufacture the money; the province goes out and gets the money. Some school districts have decided that they want to go somewhat beyond the fiscal framework, which I think is fair and provides for a basic educational program in any district. Some districts have said: "We want to go beyond that." If you fund it provincially, then you have to make that same thing available to every district. It multiplies dramatically.
I don't think anyone — now, in the past or in the future — will ever know the right amount to put into education or how much the taxpayers are willing to pay. That's a dynamic that proceeds from year to year. If we want to talk about more spending, then I think we have to be honest with the people and say that that requires more taxes. There were a couple of examples of it last year, and particularly this year. We can point the finger back and forth at each other as to where the money should come from. I can tell you that it comes from one source: the taxpayers in this province in one way or another.
With that, I welcome the discussion. Hopefully I can, with my staff, answer all the questions. Mr. Wayne Desharnais has joined us to make sure that I don't appear ignorant when my critic asks questions. I'll do my very best to get the information quickly and give you the answers. I'll sit down; your turn.
MR. JONES: The vote on the office of the Minister of Education is an important one. The minister certainly has a very large portfolio. Because it is so large, it is certainly important to the public, and there are a lot of areas to cover. I think we could be here all summer canvassing those things, and the minister indicated that he could provide answers all summer, but I don't know if there is any necessity of doing that.
We've seen the throne speech and the budget, we've seen some bills on education, and now we're facing the estimates. All that has shown, as far as I'm concerned, is that the current Social Credit administration is no different in terms of education than any previous Socred administration since 1952. The reputation of those governments is very well known. Rather than a commitment to education in this province, those administrations are primarily known for cutbacks, confrontation and confusion. It has clearly been indicated that this approach has continued this year.
The minister certainly has responsibility for overall direction of that ministry. If the past years or months have been any indication, the traditional route of reducing the minister's salary by some amount would probably be appropriate. But I recognize that it's not the minister himself. He's the spokesperson on education for his government, and it's the responsibility of government. The throne speech certainly had many promises and raised expectations for government. We heard comments such as "Education is the bedrock of the new economy" and "We are proud of our public education system." Those statements were made early in this session, but the kind of comment we've heard most recently is that the government has no money of its own. That comment has been repeated over and over ad nauseam.
Unfortunately, the minister is going to go down in history, and in this session in particular, as the minister who has done the most to destroy the volunteer, professional aspect of teaching in this province. I don't know whether the minister has any idea how serious the climate and the atmosphere are in the schools today. Teachers, for the first time in their history, are recognizing that all that work that they do on behalf of their students in the evenings, on weekends and in the summer is overtime. They are starting to look at their job in a traditional hourly-wage manner for the first time in British Columbia history. That's the kind of thinking that this government has forced on the teaching profession in this province.
I think it's tremendously serious that we are experiencing such a fundamental change in attitude. I was very thankful for the end of the school year. I hope, on reflection, that some of the ministers' predictions are going to see fruition. Maybe the climate will change; maybe things will improve; maybe things will get back on track. I can assure the House that at this point the school system and the teachers in this province have undergone a profound change in attitude, created by the government in this session.
The minister indicated that he had difficulty deciding on the level of funding appropriate for education. I would remind the minister that something like 79 percent of the people who voted for the Social Credit Party in the last election supported improved funding for education. So there's one direction the minister might take.
If we're having a vote on the minister's office, I think we should have a look at that. I had a look at the organizational chart for the Ministry of Education that is published in the annual report. I commend the minister for the report; it should be wider known. There's a lot of good information that everyone interested in education should have access to. I was very pleased to receive a copy, and I would hope the information would be widespread.
Getting back to the organizational chart for the ministry, I would like to make some comments, some of which I've made before. The first is in relation to who advises the minister and what kind of advice he is getting. Certainly the mission, as indicated in the same annual report, is that the ministry's responsibility is to ensure quality education in a cost-effective manner. If we look at the advice that the minister is getting, or the people on that chart who have closest access to the minister, we can see the cost-effective manner being indicated. But we see very few of the educators who have taken leadership roles in the ministry having direct access to that minister. I mentioned — with all due deference to the deputy minister — my concern about the loss of the former deputy, who had a strong background in education in this province and could speak with authority on the school system. He was hired not to be a deputy minister in any department but as Deputy Minister of Education. I'm sure he'll be doing an excellent job in his new ministry, but I think there is a tremendous loss to the education system by the shuffle that occurred.
There is a line in this chart that should be missing, and that's the line between the deputy minister and the Premier,
[ Page 2111 ]
because my understanding is that there is direct communication between deputy ministers in this province and the Premier.
I do err, in the sense that — as I read the organizational chart — there is one individual who I believe has a background as an educator, the inspector of independent schools, who does have direct access to the minister.
In his introductory remarks the minister praised school boards in this province. I find that interesting too. I'd like to have a look from that organizational chart out to the school system, and some of the communication that happens between the minister and the school system. It seems to me that the communication I would expect is the kind that used to happen: the ministry would communicate with the school boards, those bodies that are democratically elected to represent education in their communities. That communication would flow from the ministry to the school boards, with suggestion that that information also be transmitted to the schools.
[5:00]
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
That kind of communication is long past, and the kind we've seen since then has gone through a number of stages. There was a stage where the ministry communicated to school boards and schools at the same time. Then there was the kind where the ministry communicated directly with the schools, and boards were copied. But now the communication that I see in many instances happening is where the Minister of Education presumes, I suppose, that all people in the school system are in his employ, and now communication is directly from the ministry to the schools in a wide variety of areas, including data-gathering. The minister knows that much of the data-gathering that takes place is only done effectively if it's done on a district level, because if it's done on a school level, there are a number of things that happen on a district level and can't be reflected at the school level.
Let me give you a couple of examples. Three communications took place earlier this year that the minister engaged in, and at the time the propriety was questioned in many quarters. One was the letter from the minister directly to students indicating that their extracurricular and graduation activities and those kinds of things would not be in jeopardy. The second letter I referred to is one directly from the ministry to principals regarding work stoppages and telling those principals how to behave during a work stoppage.
AN HON. MEMBER: An illegal strike.
MR. JONES: Well, you have your titles for things.
The third one was a letter to principals advising them as to items they might include in their contractual negotiations with their school boards. So when we're appraising school boards in this province, let's think about the kind of communication that has taken place and how those boards have been insulted by being bypassed in the communication process between the ministry and the school system.
Certainly there are all kinds of other communications that have taken place between the ministry and those in the field. I would like to ask the minister about the funds required for several printings of Bill 20 and mailing those to all teachers in the province. Maybe that was a good thing or maybe it was a bad thing, but certainly it had to be a large cost item, several dollars for each copy of the bill produced. There was the original version and the amended version and the Bill 20 bulletin. I suppose I'm on the mailing list because I was actively in the teaching force in this last school year, and I received all these things at my home, as I presume other teachers did, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. I'm not saying it's not a legitimate thing for the minister to be doing, but I'm saying it's a large cost item, and perhaps it comes out of this section of the minister's estimates.
The minister earlier was again trying to decide on appropriate levels for education funding in this province. Perhaps what the minister should do is try to put things in the Canadian context. British Columbia is a province in Canada. The Premier takes part in all kinds of conferences; he came back with a big smile on his face after the original Meech Lake accord. I am sure the Minister of Education takes part in the Council of Ministers of Education. I don't know how the minister faces those other Ministers of Education, being able to hold his head high, when we see statistical information that very clearly shows that British Columbia sticks out like a sore thumb. Our Canadian neighbours and our neighbours to the immediate south certainly have a much greater commitment in terms of education than this province does or ever has under Social Credit.
If we look at those statistics from across Canada, we have to recognize that.... I hate to get into arguing about facts and figures, because it is easy to distort those kinds of things, and it is certainly not my intention to do that. In terms of comparative statistics across Canada, my guess is that British Columbia is the only province that includes teachers' pensions in calculating their contribution to education. I would suggest that that distorts educational figures by several percent. It is only in recent years that that's been done, and that would certainly distort statistics with the things that happened even within this province in the past.
Let's have a look at a couple of statistics. The minister wants to know what is an appropriate level of funding for education in this province. Let's have a look at an interprovincial comparison of operating costs per pupil. This is a chart that appears on page 42 of the minister's annual report. As I mentioned earlier, the figures are fudged because of the contribution of teachers' pensions being included in British Columbia's figures but not in the others.
In operating costs per pupil, B.C. is the only province in Canada to show a decrease. In total contribution, it is the lowest of any province west of New Brunswick. When we have a look at some other comparisons, we'll see that in terms of real contribution, the maritime provinces are making a greater contribution in terms of their ability to pay than British Columbia. This chart from page 42 covers the years 1981 to 1985-86, and it is my understanding that in 1986-87, we're still the worst province west of New Brunswick in this year as well.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you the designated speaker?
MR. JONES: Yes, I am.
So what we see is that in operating costs per pupil, British Columbia is at the bottom of the pack in terms of those provinces west of New Brunswick, indicating the kind of level of commitment this government sees in terms of education.
I mentioned the 1986-87 year. This year the expenditures in British Columbia were something like 87.8 percent of the
[ Page 2112 ]
national average of $4,838. To bring spending in British Columbia up to the national average would require an increase of course of 13.9 percent. To bring British Columbia spending up to the first place, which it should be, in my opinion, would require an increase in spending on behalf of this government of 27.8 percent. Instead of grants to public school districts for 1987-88 being increased only 3.7 percent, which is what we've seen in this last year — not even keeping up with the pace of inflation at 3.9 percent which the government had forecast, nor keeping up with the overall expenditure increase on behalf of this government of 4.8 percent....
I guess the question that would have to be asked of the government at this point is: does the minister really believe that the students in British Columbia are getting the same quality of education, based on the kind of commitment we see in those cross-Canada statistics, as students in other provinces — in Manitoba or Quebec where they spend more than 25 percent more per student?
MR. R. FRASER: It doesn't mean it's any better.
MR. JONES: It's one indicator. We're talking about indicators. I'll give you lots of indicators. If you want more indicators, there are plenty more coming.
Interjections.
MR. JONES: As a percentage of the provincial budget, British Columbia commits so little that it was eighth out of the ten provinces in 1985-86. In 1983 the commitment to education was 13.4 percent of the total budget. By this year, what we're saying is it's dropped down to 11.6 percent. Certainly in 1983-84 the government had a small commitment compared to other provinces in Canada, and what we've seen since that time is a decrease in that commitment in terms of the overall budget.
Let's have a look at the ability to finance education. This government is very interested in the phrase "ability to pay." On the basis of ability to finance, government is measured by the percentage of personal income devoted to education. Guess where British Columbia ranks? Last, dead last.
MR. WILLIAMS: Worse than Newfoundland.
MR. JONES: Newfoundland, in fact, is at the top because of their small ability to pay. The percentage of personal income devoted to education in Canada averaged 8.4 percent. B.C. is only at 85.7 percent of the national average. Newfoundland was first, New Brunswick second, Nova Scotia third, Quebec fourth, PEI fifth, Saskatchewan sixth, Alberta seventh, Manitoba eighth, Ontario ninth, and British Columbia dead last.
MR. R. FRASER: It means we have higher personal income; that's what that means.
MR. JONES: Certainly the minister must acknowledge that these figures indicate a low commitment on the part of Social Credit governments in British Columbia to public education.
MR. R. FRASER: You should be embarrassed.
MR. JONES: You should be embarrassed with the kind of commitment your government makes to education.
MR. R. FRASER: You should be embarrassed because you don't know what the numbers mean.
MR. JONES: I understand what the numbers mean, and I understand the wide variety of statistics that I'm going to point out to you. If you criticize one, fine, but there's such an array of them.
AN HON. MEMBER: Address the Chair.
MR. JONES: Have the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) address the chair.
I think we also have to consider the trends that we've seen in education spending over the last few years. Certainly if we look at the amount of money actually expended by the provincial government, the minister seemed to indicate that this was increasing. My figures don't indicate that. If we have a look at the amount actually expended by the provincial government in grants to school districts, for public schools between 1982 and 1987-88, I don't see how any conclusion can be arrived at other than the fact that there is a diminishing contribution on the part of this government.
In terms of those dollars that the government gave in grants to school districts, we saw in '82-83 something like $1.48 billion, and in this last school year $1.179 billion. So we've seen a tremendous decrease in the contribution to school districts — a decrease of something like $302 million, or 20.4 percent.
[5:15]
During that same period — from May '82 to May '87 — the consumer price index for Vancouver increased 20.2 percent. What all that means is that in terms of real dollars, school districts are receiving only 60 percent of the resources that they received from the provincial government before the '82 period. So there's been a shortfall in terms of the contribution of the province in grants to school districts, and certainly these things have been accommodated. How? They've been accommodated by cutbacks, higher property taxes and user fees.
Let's have a look at another statistic that even the member for Vancouver South may understand.
MR. R. FRASER: I understand them all. You don't.
MR. JONES: Let's have a look at the pupil-teacher ratio across Canada. That one you understand.
Page 36 of the minister's annual report demonstrates clearly the situation that classes in British Columbia face as compared with others in Canada. We are the only province during the '81-85 period covered on that page in the annual report in which we see an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio, except for Quebec, which is at a much lower level — in fact, in the Canadian context they're in a most enviable position. So B.C. is the only one that's increasing, other than Quebec, in terms of the pupil-teacher ratio between '81 and '85; and again, the pupil-teacher ratio in British Columbia is the highest of any province west of New Brunswick.
MR. R. FRASER: So what? What's that supposed to mean?
[ Page 2113 ]
MR. JONES: I think it's very clear that pupil-teacher ratios are indicative of class sizes. Class sizes, in my view, are indicative of quality education. It's one of the many indicators of quality, and probably one of the most significant ones.
I'm amazed; in the minister's report on page 28, it points out that in 1980 British Columbia was ranked second-highest in operating costs per pupil. On this same page where we see the class sizes, the minister points out that by holding increases down, we now rank sixth. The other provinces are spending more per pupil than British Columbia. It seems that the province, the minister and the government are bragging about how little they're spending per pupil in this province, as compared with other provinces in Canada.
So what we've got in British Columbia as a result of that kind of commitment and effort is 41 percent of the kindergarten classes having over 20 children, half of all the grade 3 classes having more than 25 students, a quarter of the secondary social studies classes with more than 25 pupils, 20 percent of the English classes with over 30, and over 100 classes in this province with over 40 students.
Let's look at what's happening next door, to the south. What's our neighbour in Washington state doing? Well, beginning on Wednesday they have a plan that covers the whole educational gamut from kindergarten to grad school. About $330 million will go to the public school system, including $67 million to reduce class sizes. I guess they know that class size doesn't have any impact on the quality of education. They're going to hire 900 additional teachers in that state, And there is an item in that budget for $25.8 million for early childhood intervention — which I'd like to comment on later to the minister — $14 million for staff training, and $82 million for five extra paid staff days for planning, professional development and parent-teacher conferences.
There are some other concerns in that state that I think are of importance for British Columbia. We don't mind borrowing good ideas from other provinces. The state would pay for child care and provide other incentives to encourage illiterate and semi-literate parents to return to school for basic skills. The state would divide $5.5 million among the schools with the highest dropout rate to enable them to develop their own retention plan.
The minister has difficulty deciding on an appropriate level for funding of education; I think it's very clear that all he has to do is look across Canada, make a commitment and get his government to make a commitment. We're tired of being last in this province in terms of commitment to education, in terms of dollars, in terms of pupil-teacher ratio, in terms of class size and in terms of special programs.
It's a big step, and it's one that certainly can't be taken all at once, but let's begin to move up that ladder in terms of commitment. Let's try to move in the next couple of years into the midway position in terms of the provinces west of New Brunswick, instead of being dead last. Let's quit sticking out like a sore thumb; let's quit penny-pinching and starving our education system. Let's provide an adequate level of funding that our children in this province deserve.
The minister commented on taxation, and I'd like to do the same. I'd like to quote from a little notice that's put out in my district of Burnaby. I think we probably all rushed home on the weekend to pay our taxes. They are due tomorrow or Thursday. This tax information sheet that goes out with the municipal tax notice has a graph, and it indicates very clearly what has happened to budgets and taxes in Burnaby since 1982. It points out that while the Burnaby School Board operating budget for 1987 stands at 96.5 percent of the 1982 budget, school taxes on the average Burnaby home for 1987 are at 110 percent of the 1982 level. This is a result of the government changing the rules for sharing the cost of public education. The cost per student has increased 5.7 percent since 1982, while inflation has risen 21 percent during that period.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.
MR. D'ARCY: I am delighted to listen to the eloquent remarks of the member for Burnaby North on behalf of the children of this great province of B.C., and I will see him have the opportunity to continue.
MR. JONES: In terms of property taxes, I guess what we've seen between the years 1983 and 1986-87 is an increase in the residential property tax — the tax that you and I pay on our homes — of something a little under 30 percent, while, during that same period, what we've seen in terms of non-residential taxation is a decrease of something of the order of 30 percent. So we've seen a tremendous shift in terms of property taxes from the non-residential onto the residential. The average increase in the lower mainland in this last year is something like $76. Unfortunately what we see at the local level, and I think it's of concern to the school boards around this province that the minister complimented a few minutes ago, is that they are the ones that are blamed for this increase in property tax, when clearly the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the government.
They're having to add an additional $16 million from the homeowners this year in order to meet the commitments that they were elected at the local level to bring into fruition and are not able to because of the kinds of statistics that I quoted a little earlier.
In terms of where the money comes from in my own district of Burnaby, we see that the pie is divided into five categories. Some 40.8 percent came from non-residential taxes, and 27.6 percent from residential taxes. So property in Burnaby is paying approximately 70 percent of the total costs for education in that district. The homeowner grant accounts for 21.9 percent of the expenditure. I don't know whether you consider it the contribution of the homeowner or the contribution of the province; I think that's arguable. The provincial grant accounts for 9.7 percent. So the contribution that's clear and indisputable on the part of the province is less than 10 percent. We're getting a very large percentage of the educational costs in my district coming from property, non-residential and residential.
The minister at some point gave me a graph, or one of his staff did, that clearly showed there's no correlation between income — and again, in my view income is the ability to pay education costs — and property value. This graph would be a clear line were that correlation existing between property tax and income. This graph is all over the place. In fact, if you looked at this graph for very long, you'd require some aspirin or something. There's no correlation between ability to pay and property, yet in my district 70 percent of the costs of education are being borne by property tax. Local school boards have to tell that to seniors on fixed income who have little ability to pay but do have some property and are faced with property tax hikes, because in order to restore 1 percent
[ Page 2114 ]
of improvement to the education system that's been eroded in recent years due to Social Credit administrations, property taxes have to be hiked 12 percent.
I don't know the view of the minister on taxes. I know the view of the previous minister: a very strong admonition of school boards that wanted to raise property taxes — a very heavy message from that Minister of Education that school boards should not be raising the much-needed moneys for education from property tax. But I think, Madam Chairperson, that there is going to be a point.... Maybe the government is hoping for this point; I don't know. But there is going to be a point in terms of property tax when we do have a saturation, when we do have a backlash, and our education system in this province, which so desperately needs those funds which are being raised from property today.... Those funds are going to be very difficult to achieve.
[5:30]
We see a new wrinkle this year. The government increased the minimum property tax by $25 each year, from $125 in 1982 to $200 in 1986. But this year the minimum has been increased from $150 to $350, and for seniors the minimum tax went from $1 to $100. Now it seems to me that those people who are paying minimum property tax, and the seniors in this province, are the ones least able — again, ability to pay — to afford these increases in property tax. What reason can the government have for hitting these seniors and these low-income earners with this extra tax burden? It's beyond me.
So those are some comments on school taxes. I would also like to make some comments on....
Interjection.
MR. JONES: Yes, perhaps I could sit down here, because I know the minister has some responses that I'd be very interested in hearing.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: That was quite an interesting dissertation to listen to, particularly when it was all over the map. One thing that member has established, I guess, on behalf of himself and his party, is that everything in terms of quality is judged by how much money you can possibly spend. That is the sole criterion he has been using. If you can spend more per pupil; if you can spend more dollars; if you can increase, increase, increase costs — that is the only criterion by which quality can be judged.
He completely neglects the fact that our students are getting a quality education by any criteria that you want to compare across this country. When they are in competition, they stand out with the quality education and the special education that they're getting. His sole criterion is: how much can you increase the cost? How much more can you spend?
He doesn't even recognize that when you are talking about increases in pupil-teacher ratios, ours went up slightly. As he knows very well, you can spread that onto a graph or into percentages. But what is the base that they started from? So some other provinces have come down to where we were; some other provinces are below where we are. There has been a dramatic drop in pupil enrolment in this province in the years that he is covering, but he neglects to mention that.
I don't know how that member gets some of his figures. He says that the provincial contribution towards education has gone down, and that the amount that we spent on education has gone down. I don't care what portion you want to take, the total expenditure on pupils in 1981, between boards and the province, $1.6 billion.... This year, in 1987, it is $2.084 billion. This is an audited statement by the auditor general and everybody else that does the bookkeeping.
I don't know who does your bookkeeping or where you get your figures, Mr. Member, because to me that is not a decline; that is not a reduction in spending. You talk about it and then you justify it by saying "but in relative terms," and that sort of thing. We're talking about actual dollars. When I subtract that difference, I get an increase of $478 million additional spent on pupil education in the public school system in this province in the last six years. When you take that over a base of $1.6 million, what do you get as a percentage increase?
He talks about a decrease in percentages, so somehow or other he translates all of this into.... I don't know where you get your figures. We've got books and we've given you everything we possibly can in terms of information, and somehow you manage to distort it. You've even managed to distort my statement where I said in my opening comments that I don't know whether, historically or today or in the future, anybody will ever know what is exactly the right amount to spend on education. That's what I said, and that member very nicely translated that back and said: "The minister has no idea what is appropriate for education." Now that's a distortion; that's the kind of political, partisan distortion you seem to relish.
I resent that kind of distortion. Why don't you at least take a look at the remarks that I make? Then he turns around and says that the figures are adjusted. He even made the statement that the figures are fudged. They are not. We put out a total with teachers' pensions; we put out a total without teachers' pensions; we put out a total with provincial government contributions; we put out totals including district contributions. We put out those totals and in every one of them you will find that the provincial contribution has gone up, whether you include the pensions or not.
On behalf of my ministry and this government and myself, I very much resent the statement that the figures have been fudged. I don't know what the other provinces include, whether they include what human resources contributes to our education system or what the Health ministry contributes in our Chance program. You can go from province to province and you can include different things or you can subtract different things, and you can come up with almost any statistical picture that suits your purposes. But I am suggesting that perhaps what you should do is look at the audited statements in our annual report, the information that is available to anybody and everybody in this province about how much has been spent on a year-by-year basis. Perhaps then, at least, we can all be talking the same language to the taxpayers who support this.
Somehow or other that member is trying to give the impression that the taxpayers don't play a role in this, that it is strictly what the government spends on education or doesn't. He mentions, in the one instance, and I don't know how.... You seem to argue, Mr. Member, anything and everything that suits you in sections. Somehow or other, you can never juxtapose this into one total picture. Somehow you seem to ignore that.
You said that a survey showed that 75 percent of the people wanted more money spent on education. Then you
[ Page 2115 ]
turn around later and you say people are resentful of having to spend more money on education because....
Interjection.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: You did so, Mr. Member. You said that they're resentful of higher taxes.
There are so many things that have been so distorted by that member that, yes, I am somewhat exercised by that kind of thing. For instance, he mentions that with school boards the communication has been lost, and he talks about the letter that we sent directly to schools talking about students and saying that their graduation and other activities would be preserved. I think you will agree that you did say that we sent that directly to the schools and directly to the students. Had you taken a little bit of time to look at where that letter was directed.... It went to every school board chairman, it went to every superintendent and it said: "Would you bring this to the attention of your students?" Some of the school boards said: "That comes from the Social Credit government and so we're not going to tell our students that graduation is preserved; we're not going to tell our students that their tests will be done and marked." They wouldn't even do it, and it went to the school boards. Yet you stand up in this House and try to tell the public that we sent those letters directly to the schools. We did not.
There was one letter that went to the principals. It went out and it got to the principals before the letter got to the superintendents, and that's the only one that I'll acknowledge that we have not sent to the school district.
The data gathering. The schools send in their timetables, and we get some of that information directly from the school, funnelled through the district office, through the superintendent. We don't bypass the boards; we don't do any of that. All the data gathering is done with the knowledge and the full cooperation and collaboration, or whatever, with the school boards and the district superintendent who is the representative of the boards. How dare that member stand up and say that we are bypassing school boards and that I'm standing up here saying nice things about school boards and then completely bypassing them in the communication system! No, I will not accept that.
He talks about the organizational chart in the ministry. Who advises the minister? Well, I can tell you who advises. It's a team effort, and it comes all the way up and down the line in my ministry. We have the assistant deputy minister of independent schools, of schools, assistant deputy ministers, directors, curriculum directors — all of these people I keep in touch with and I hear — and he said: "What communication is there?" I can tell you that before I was tied to this Legislature, I went out and visited most of the districts in this province. Most of the school boards I met with directly; those I didn't, I met with in the zones. I went and talked to these people — several-hour meetings — and I asked them what they thought and what they felt about the budget, and all that sort of thing. I picked up some valuable information. If the member is interested, I could show him a map that one of my assistants did, to show which districts I talked to; it covers virtually all of British Columbia. So don't stand up in this House and tell me I have not communicated with school boards. I've made every effort, and I would certainly like to get out more into the schools, where you get a lot of positive reinforcement, as I said in my opening remarks, not the distortion of morale and how bad everything is that I get from you and your friends. I get a little sick and tired.
Cutbacks. They talk about $500 million in cutbacks. The figures show almost $500 million in increases. Are you questioning the auditor-general's auditing of our reports? If you can't understand the financial reports or the numbers reports, would you please ask us?
We talk about pupil-teacher ratios. In 1975, when your group was in government, 19.14 was the PTR. It is now at a horrendous 17.71. The highest point it reached was 18.05. It certainly went down for a while in this province. The pupil enrolment went way down. It went down dramatically, and the teacher enrolment went up. When the levelling-off process came, yes, it turned around. It was down to 16.65; now it's up to 17.71 — one more. Tell the taxpayers, Mr. Member, that one pupil-teacher ratio in this province adds up to about $30 million. You say that those people want to spend more money on education. Tell your taxpayers in Burnaby that I've been very generous. I've given them the opportunity, and now they resent it. All I get is letters from them: "Please, I don't want to spend any more." We say: "The basic education fiscal framework will do the basic job, as it does in other districts in this province." They say: "No, that's not good enough."
The member even said that a previous Minister of Education had said the school boards weren't allowed to raise taxes. And didn't you all say how awful that was? And didn't all the boards say: "If we want to spend more money on our students, why don't we have the right to do that?" We've given them that right. We've said: "Fine, that's what the basic formula allows — spending — and it provides a basic education. If you want to spend more than that, convince your taxpayers." Now they raise the taxes and then turn around and send out notices to the taxpayers: "We've raised your taxes, but the other guys are to blame. They've gone beyond the fiscal framework."
MR. WILLIAMS: Twist, twist, twist.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Go out there and tell your people. If you really believe in spending more money on education, then do it. Let's not try to tackle both things.
MR. WILLIAMS: These are supposed to be the dull days of summer here.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: It started out by that member standing up and saying that I've done the most to destroy the volunteer effort of teachers in the province.
MR. CLARK: You've got it.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Then will that member tell me why they were on work-to-rule two years ago, before I was the minister? Why were they on work-to-rule a year ago, before I was the minister? Why was this pattern being established? In March they wouldn't invite me, even if I asked, to go to their annual general meeting and talk to them. They say: "No, sir, we've got a certain story to tell the representatives in this province. We will not have the Minister of Education come under any circumstances to tell them the other side of the story, because we've got it all set up." They wouldn't even have the Minister of Education of this province speak to the B.C. Teachers' Federation, which is the organization that
[ Page 2116 ]
presumably represents the teachers of this province. "No, we will not let the minister speak, because we have the propaganda campaign all worked out."
[5:45]
And what was the result of that meeting? They came out and said publicly — and by motion — that they were going to have an escalating job action campaign in order to bring about professional autonomy and full bargaining rights for the teachers in British Columbia, all of the things that we have now given them. And you say that's all that this bill has done? I spent six months meeting with those people, saying: "Let's get together. Let's work on it. I think you're partly right: the public is willing to spend more money on education. So is the government. We've shown it here by a total 11 percent increase in the budget. If you take out the funds for excellence, it's 5.08 percent, which is still nothing to be ashamed of. That's the provincial contribution to education. And if we need more, we've got a basically good system. Let's go to the public and tell them together that it's a good investment, which I believe education is. All we need is some more money and your support, and we can get more."
They wouldn't work with me. Why not? Then you turn around and blame us for sending out some information to the teachers of this province. We sent a letter to the board saying graduations will go on, and immediately one of the vice-presidents of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.... I must thank him for that, because we wondered where we would get enough publicity on it, but I sent that out on Friday, and by Saturday morning he'd blazoned it all over the papers so that the kids all knew that graduation would go on. But he attacked immediately and said the Ministry of Education in this province has no right to say to the kids that they're entitled to their graduation and should get it. They're entitled to their exams, and they will be given and they will be marked and they will be provided. Are those the things you wouldn't grant me the right to speak to the students of this province on, to assure them that our mandate is to provide them with an education and they are entitled to that?
Seniors — they can defer their taxes.
You want to stop me, don't you, Madam Chairman? When I'm in full flight?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if someone else would stand up, it would allow you more time.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Madam Chairman, I will sit down. I'm sure that I will get another opportunity to deal with some of these convoluted arguments that I've been hearing from that side.
MR. JONES: Some of my unkind colleagues commented on your earlier remarks as being boring, and certainly we've changed that in this debate.
I can only say that I would be upset, too, if I had been the Minister of Education and I had to preside over the situation that this minister does, when he's seen the climate in education destroyed so seriously as a result of government actions, and when he's been confronted by statistics from every province in Canada that point to this province as being outstanding in terms of lack of commitment and lack of contribution to education. It's not just money; it's money and climate — that combination of things — that make it work, and particularly those voluntary services that I talked about earlier. It's going to be years before the damage created by this government in this session is remediated. I would be upset too. I would be defensive. I would get angry. But the anger is directed in the wrong direction. The anger isn't to be pointed over at this side of the House. The anger isn't to be pointed at the teachers in this province. I would take that energy and I would take that anger, and I would go after the cabinet and get a commitment on the part of the cabinet to make education a priority in this province, as it is more in other provinces in this country.
The minister talked about the auditor-general. I think I've just got time to comment on something the auditor-general said about the Ministry of Education. This is about approving expenditures in, I guess, the last estimates. The Legislative Assembly approved textbook expenditures for public and independent schools in vote 18, management operations. Without the required authority, the minister transferred the cost of textbooks for independent schools — $936,101 — to vote 21, independent schools. The cost of textbook purchases for the public schools remained in vote 18.
Had this transfer not been made, vote 18 would have been over expended, thus necessitating further approval by the Legislative Assembly. How convenient! Conversely, vote 21, independent schools, would have had additional unexpended funds for the year-end. The ministry, by charging vote 21, independent schools, with expenditures which the Legislature had not approved for that vote, and by spending more for a particular purpose than was approved by the Legislature, breached a fundamental control of this assembly.
I think the auditor-general isn't too happy with the Ministry of Education, so I don't know if the Minister of Education should be quoting that ministry.... Should be quoting the auditor-general; excuse me, a slip.
MR. RABBITT: We're supposed to be on this year's estimates, not last year's.
MR. JONES: Let's try one on for size. Maybe we can argue statistics with the minister. When the budget came out, I saw all kinds of figures. We had the minister saying we had an overall increase of 11. 4 percent; that textbooks were up 9 percent; that contributions to schools were up 13.5 percent. There were all kinds of different figures reported in the press: 6.6 percent.... I have real difficulties with these figures. The minister must have it really clear, but I see a couple ways of looking at it. We can have a look at grants to school districts and non-residential school taxes, add those two and get a total. That total, I think, went from $1.137 billion in 1986-87 to $1.179 billion, an increase of $42.3 million or 3.7 percent. If we look at it in terms of school board budgets, we see that total school board operating budgets for '86-87 were $1.694 billion, and we had additional government funds of $42.3 million, for a percentage increase of 2.5 percent.
I think all this is very complicated. I think it's further complicated by the way the ministry presents it. It seems to me that the only reasonable way to look at percentage increases in terms of education in this province is to have a look at how much school boards are spending, how much the government is contributing in addition to that in a particular year, and to create a percentage out of that. If we do that, we don't get 11.4 percent; we don't get 9 percent; we don't get 13.5 percent; we don't get 6.6 percent. We get 2.5 percent. It seems to me that's the honest way of approaching it.
[ Page 2117 ]
Interjection.
MR. JONES: Let's just get our figures straight. The minister has the same concern I do. We're talking at cross-purposes, because we're talking about different figures.
MR. RABBITT: Are you saying the minister is dishonest?
MR. JONES: I'm saying we need clarity of communication in terms of budget figures. I suppose the budget is a public relations document, and so we get those kinds of tactics. But to me, no matter how you slice it, you end up with something less than the inflation rate.
During my budget remarks, the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts) wanted to know how I broke down the cost per pupil in terms of the independent schools and the public schools. I didn't give it to him at the time.
What happened in the public schools was an increase of $42.3 million, and a little less than half a million students. The increase there worked out to $462 per pupil.
Interjections.
MR. JONES: I'd be happy to talk class size as an indicator of quality, in terms of statistics in this province or any other province in Canada. Perhaps we can go over that part and canvass it again.
My other comment was on the school letter. I didn't dream up those concerns. I talked to school trustees in this province, and they raised those concerns with me. They are being bypassed in terms of communication. They are elected by the public, and their sole responsibility is to look after education in this district. They resent it when, rather than having an opportunity themselves to make suggestions to the students or to their principals, messages come from the Ministry of Education in Victoria.
It's difficult to have perfect communication, and I think it's always expedient to go directly to the source you want to communicate with. I would advise the minister to think seriously about improving communication with school boards in this province and not bypassing them; at least include them in those kinds of messages. In some they were, and in some they weren't. I think school boards have an important role to play in education in this province, and the minister is aware of that. I would encourage him to include those people in more of his communications in the future.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House stand recessed until 7:30 this evening and do adjourn not later than 10 o'clock this evening.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.
The House resumed at 7:31 p.m.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the recess motion, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 20: minister's office, $225,259.
Interjection.
MR. JONES: All the member for Vancouver South knows about education is that people should postpone it. You're famous for that.
Madam Chairman, I made the point earlier on that I didn't think we needed to canvass the whole area of education, that it's quite easy to demonstrate that the attitude of the current Social Credit government is really no different from those of the past. I spent some time trying to outline the reasons for that particular point of view, and I think the minister either didn't hear or didn't want to hear those kinds of comments, because they were critical. I'm not critical of the minister in particular. I think he cares about education, but he's part of a government that has a history, and that history is not one of caring. I think that is demonstrated relative to the other provinces in Canada very clearly.
The minister responded and said: "All you talk about is money." That isn't what I talked about. I think the most damning point and the point that probably upset the minister most is the changes in values and attitudes that have occurred in this last year. The minister is not happy about it, I'm not happy about it, and I don't think anybody in this province is happy about it. I indicated that I'm hopeful that during the summer recess attitudes will revert back to the dedication and commitment that the minister commented on.
I mean, if I wanted to get the minister upset, I would have mentioned Fort St. John and how pleased I am that he's established part of the ministry in his riding of Fort St. John. I'm not interested in those kinds of cheap political points. I'm trying to make points about the education system that I think we all care very deeply about.
MR. HEWITT: Do you want to run that by us one more time?
MR. JONES: Open your ears.
I think the evidence from the kinds of cross-Canada statistics on commitment to education, no matter whether we look at dollars per student, class size, pupil-teacher ratio, percentage of provincial budget, percentage of income.... No matter what kind of indicator we look at, British Columbia is at the bottom of that list, and makes the least financial
[ Page 2118 ]
contribution to education. When we have a confrontational government, they make the least contribution to the positive climate that's essential for our schools to operate in.
I pointed out that part of that lack of commitment shows itself by continuing to increase the burden on the residential homeowner and reducing the commitment from the non-residential homeowner. I've indicated before that I just do not understand the rationale for that. I know that part of the government's view of the world is to somehow make British Columbia a tax haven. If you want to do that, then let's demand some results for those tax concessions. Let's not just give $600 million to business and industry; let's demand something in return. Let's demand some jobs. Let's demand some commitment, so that business and industry can contribute to education. They're the ones, by and large, that are benefiting from the talents and skills that our young people bring to those industries. Let's not just continually increase taxes on individual homeowners and decrease taxes on business and industry, without at least tying strings to that, so that we can assess the policies of the government. What are we trying to achieve with those policies?
I did accuse the minister of fudging the figures. I didn't mean that in a personal pejorative way; I meant it in a political way. The minister didn't respond to my point. My point was that we compare data with data; we compare statistics with statistics; we compare our contribution to education to the contributions in other provinces.
I guess my question, if I turn it into a question, is: when we submit our data to other provinces in Canada, which do not include pension contributions in their figures, do we include pensions? Is the data relative? Again, if we have year by-year statistics, there were the vast majority of years when contributions to teachers' pensions plans were not included in those statistics. In later years the Social Credit government of the day thought that this would be a good way to inflate on paper the contributions to education, so they stared including pension contributions in that data. So now, when we compare year by year, is it a fair comparison? Or are we taking out those pension contributions and making it a fair comparison?
MR. SERWA: Or is it a cost?
MR. JONES: Is it a cost in other provinces? "Is it a fair comparison?" was the question, if you'd listen to the question.
MR. S.D. SMITH: Is it included in other provinces?
MR. JONES: That was the question. The minister had a chance to respond and didn't.
MR. S.D. SMITH: You said he was fudging.
MR. JONES: Do you want to get up and enter the debate? Come on.
Interjections.
MR. JONES: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) had a brilliant idea. She suggested on February 20 that bonds should be floated to make a decent contribution to education in the province. Underlying her comments was the fact that there wasn't the commitment. She suggested that she's going to push the government to change its attitude toward education: bite the bullet, give more aid to students, see education as a social service, the same as health care and Human Resources. But it's not. She wanted to see education viewed as an investment, and I support that. I haven't seen any evidence of the product of those efforts.
I'd like to touch briefly on the fund for excellence in education, because the minister did refer to that in his opening remarks. The member who was minister for six months is, I know, very supportive of this program, because he was president when it was introduced. And when it was introduced, it was big news; we had this tremendous public relations that this three-year fund for excellence was being established to enhance the quality of education. Considerable funds were designated for that program. The fund consists of $600 million dedicated to excellence in education. Wow! We saw $110 million designated in 1985-86, available in 1985. So the funds for the first year in a three-year program were going to be about one-sixth of the total.
As I understand it, $52.8 million of those funds was designated for the public school system — a little less than half. Fair enough. I guess the remainder was for post-secondary. By the end of the year something like 34 boards had received a total of $11.7 million — $15.5 million went to inflation, $6.2 million went to textbooks and $19 million went to teachers' salary increases. Inflation, textbooks and teachers' salary increases are hardly more than the normal expenses in education; they hardly qualify for the term "excellence."
In that first year we saw $52 million. This year we saw $112 million — roughly double what was committed last year. However, only $16.2 million of that was really in the ballpark of new money, and here's where I get confused, because $20 million of that $112 million was apparently either designated or allocated from last year. So we have $20 million from last year and $16.2 million for this year, for a total of $36.2 million of the $112 million that was indicated would be spent in public schooling this year. If we subtract the $36.2 million from the $112 million, that leaves $76 million. I assume that $76 million is for — and the minister can correct me — textbooks, operating funding, a provincial curriculum in Oriental languages, small secondary schools, child abuse prevention programs and special education programs.
Last year we had $52.8 million; this year we have twice as much, $112 million. But when it gets translated down to the individual school districts.... I certainly haven't canvassed all of them, but a couple that I'm familiar with — my own district and Vancouver — are only getting half as much as they received last year. Last year Burnaby got something in the order of $1 million; this year they have something like $545,000. So I'm really quite confused. We seem to be putting twice the money we did last year into the fund for excellence, and yet school districts are only getting half as much.
In the first year we only put in one-sixth of the total, and we're putting in twice as much this year. If we say that of that original $600 million that was promised by the first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) — I hope I've got that correct — when he was Minister of Education.... We would assume that $300 million was for education, if it's roughly half. If we spent $53 million in the first year and $36 million in the second year, that would be $89 million in total. I'd like to ask the minister if that would leave something like
[ Page 2119 ]
$200 million to be spent on funds for excellence in the public school system next year.
[7:45]
The school districts — particularly Vancouver, I think — expressed extreme concern about the program. The superintendent in Vancouver, Dr. Lupini, indicated that the whole program and its allocation are a betrayal of what the fund was supposed to be about. He said: "I'm very disappointed at how little money was made available for the original goal of excellence in schools. Compared with all the hype created over the fund for excellence when it was first announced, what we're getting is nothing. This is a very poor way of financing public school education." I don't think there is a lot of disagreement with that.
People are very appreciative of any funding, no matter what label's put on it. But it seems to me that a Social Credit government program that raised the expectations of the school districts in this province and then delivered the vast majority to the normal operating grants of school districts, and then in the second year when one would expect, if only one-sixth was given in the first year, that there would be more — and more again in the third — is being continually cut back.... I think the words of the superintendent in Vancouver are perhaps unparliamentary but accurate in describing what this fund does and how poor it is in terms of financing public education in this province. It's a shell game, it's hype on the part of government, it's political huckstering, and it is not the appropriate way to finance education in this province.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.
MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I'm fascinated with the discussion on excellence and funding and good political patronage. I'd like to hear more from the member, please. It's embarrassment for the government.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I wonder if that member could withdraw the "political patronage." It's an insult to all of us, and it wasn't necessary in trying to get time for my critic to get back on stream.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria, would you....?
MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I wasn't referring to any particular person, but to a theme which has been used in this House many times. It was no reflection on the minister.
MR. JONES: I can appreciate the minister taking exception to language like that, but at the same time, when we have those kinds of figures and that kind of program, I think it invites that kind of remark. It's unfortunate when we have this kind of thing going on, and yet with the real emphasis, the real impetus and the real concerns, down to the nitty-gritty of curriculum and kids, what do we see on behalf of the ministry?
Let me tell you about the area that I have a little bit of knowledge about, chemistry education. In 1978, which was the last time the curriculum was revised, there was $6,000 per school provided for the establishment of new equipment that was necessary for that course to be conducted in the manner prescribed by the province. That was 11 years ago, and in that time quite wisely the ministry recognized that that curriculum was not meeting the needs of the students in this province and decided that it again needed revision. This revision was one of a number that was planned; I think there were something like ten areas under revision.
The ministry again quite wisely sets up curriculum committees that advise the ministry on the best way to proceed, through an incredible amount of volunteer work on behalf of the ministry — certainly those, in particular, are the people who deserve the thanks of the minister, the kind that he indicated earlier. They recommended that next year, the first year for the new chemistry revision, something like $4,500 be given for that course. There were a number of areas in that course that were designated by the curriculum revision to bring that up to date. My understanding was that those, along with nine of the ten others that were designated for curriculum revision funding, got the same kind of note that appeared on ministry circular number 233. It said: "The capital funds available for equipment this year have been assigned to support the implementation of the mathematics curriculum. The question of capital funds for the science curriculum will be raised again as we prepare next year's capital request to government."
There were ten priorities. Nine of those, to my information, were deep-sixed by the ministry, and yet we still have these funds for excellence. Those funds should be available to those other nine curriculum revision areas so that the students could do the kind of job that they need to do.
A big part of those funds that were just cut by the ministry for chemistry education were for safety in the laboratory — such things as aprons, goggles and safety shields to protect the students of this province from accidents that could occur in the chemistry lab. After these things have been cut out, I'm wondering how the minister is going to feel when there is an accident in a laboratory that could have been prevented by goggles, aprons or protective shields. I think this is indicative of the kind of commitment we see from the government, particularly in education.
When it's big and flashy, when it's funds for excellence, there appears to be $600 million there; when it's $2,000 for a school to update the chemistry curriculum, particularly in the area of safety, there's no money.
I'd like to move to another area. I have a sincere desire to communicate to the minister and impress upon him the urgency of a particular area of our school system that I think has been neglected for many years. I know the minister had a public debate in the press earlier this year, and I don't particularly want this to be a political debate; I want it to be a communication of a serious concern, and that is in the area of school dropouts. I guess right off the top we're going to have difficulty discussing this issue because of the statistics on the thing. To my understanding, and quite surprisingly, there are no accurate statistical data available on dropouts in our public school system. We have a thing called the withdrawal rate, which doesn't get at that.
So my first request to the minister is a small one, but not an unimportant one: that is, that we begin gathering data on dropouts from our public school system and that the minister make available the district summary sheets that each school board collects, to look at the grade 12 enrolment, the pass-fail rates and the post-school plans of these young people. It is a very serious concern.
My understanding is that in grade 12 in the province of British Columbia, something like 697 out of 1,000 actually
[ Page 2120 ]
graduate at the end of the school year. I haven't had an opportunity to look, but I understand that there is a document from which this information was obtained, called "Success Rates for Public Schools in British Columbia," an August 1985 document. That document indicates that "as many as 35 to 40 percent of all public school secondary students in British Columbia slip through the system." In that document, 14 school districts are identified as having a higher than average student dropout rate, a lower graduation rate and higher levels of undereducated individuals than the provincial average.
I have mentioned before that the economic consequences of this problem, as far as dropouts, youth unemployment and street kids are concerned, are staggering. One study, albeit American, indicated that the cost for each individual who does slip through the system — as was indicated, 35 to 40 percent do — is in the order of $200,000 in lost taxes and additional demands on our social service system. It is a staggering quantity of money, if we consider that 35 to 40 percent.... I don't know how accurate that figure is. My request to the minister is that as a first step we begin on data gathering, so that the large number of students, or however many students are slipping through the system, each of whom may cost us as much as $200,000 in lost taxes and increased social service costs.... We should first of all begin to identify those young people and begin to identify remedies.
First among those, I think, has to be early identification of these problem children. It is my understanding that something like 88 percent of the juvenile delinquents in this province are learning-disabled and that 80 percent of the teenage suicides in this province are learning-disabled. If identification and remedy occur before grade 3, the success rate is something like 86 percent; whereas if it happens between grades 4 and 7, it's something like 45 percent. If it happens as late as grades 8 to 12, then the success rate is down to a very low 10 percent. So the early identification and attempt at remedy are a real investment in the future economy of this province and are the kinds of things that obviously need looking at.
[8:00]
Our support systems for those young people, such as more individual attention.... And I'm sorry, but the only way that can happen is with reduced class sizes. It requires an atmosphere in the school system much different than what we see now, whereby there's a feeling that there is a real support network, both financially and in terms of climate, to get at the problems of our young people. I'm hoping the minister's commission on education can have a look at the curriculum so that it's more meaningful for our young people and gets them more committed to carrying on with their schooling, avoiding some of these horrendous costs down the road for these young people.
I had occasion recently in Prince George to visit a modest attempt to address this problem, and it seemed like an excellent program in that city. The kind of climate that I described to the minister wasn't there in this situation. It was a very positive climate, despite what they had suffered. This program formerly had three staff; it was cut back to two. In 1981 this alternative program to get these street kids back into the system had a budget of $2,600 for supplies. I don't know what that would work out to — maybe something like $30 per student per year. Not bad. It's my understanding that their budget for supplies is now $316 — something like ten cents per student per year. They had a budget of $2,600 per year for transportation. Again not bad, but critically important because those programs have to get kids out in the community doing all kinds of things to maintain their interest so that they continue wanting to be part of the system. That transportation budget was cut to $360.
Probably the most critical part of that program in terms of its success was the work-study part, where those kids could get out in the community and get jobs that would make them see how the workforce operates and how they fit into it; they could make some mistakes and learn how to be good citizens. Because of the cutback in funding they had to cancel that part of the program — the most critical part. And despite the lack of support for the district on behalf of the province, there was a positive attitude, a real esprit de corps. They were certainly doing yeoman service for those young people, dealing with 10 to 15 students at a time — maybe 50 in a year. But 50 in a year is nothing compared to the something like 300 street kids who live in Prince George. It's a drop in the bucket, the tip of the iceberg, and it's not doing the job for those kids on the streets who need our help.
The teacher in that situation did tell me that he had concerns about Bill 20.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Chairman, I assume that the member for Burnaby North wants me to respond to some of the statements and accusations he has been making. To deal with the last item that he talked about, the total funding from the province and from their local taxation for that district has gone up, so they have more money. The specific program that the member describes is a local priority, and I guess they chose to put some of the money elsewhere. Now if the member is suggesting, as he has done earlier, that the only initiative that can be shown in education is to keep adding money, not rearranging it or doing any of that, well then, if he works from that base I can see how he develops his argument. Anything that's going to happen in education.... The total is more, but you take out the small portion of it, set it aside, and say that by prioritizing there isn't enough money, and therefore you blame the provincial government.
He talks about the climate he is running into when he goes out. I can understand why we must be getting different perceptions. Nobody is ever satisfied that he gets more money than he needs. I've run into that so very rarely. But there's always an excuse. Of course, that member and his party are constantly promoting it: "Go for more money!" I can see why the climate he would run into would be quite different. I'm sure he goes out there and says: "Look, I have to be partisan when I go back to Victoria. I have to blast the government. I can't give them any credit. So please come up with some complaints for me."
I go out there and say: "What are the good things that are happening?" and I get that kind of response. I think he finally did make one positive comment. He said, "Despite all this, people are carrying on and doing their jobs," which is what I have said all along. There is a good, positive climate, and teachers are working with students. They're doing that. I guess that's as far as that member is ever going to go, to say something positive in this debate.
[ Page 2121 ]
So these are local priorities; the funding has increased; the local taxation has increased; the local share has increased. If there's a priority, where is that money going? Is it always an add-on? Is there nothing that can be done? Is there no counselling that can take place in the schools, unless you add a counsellor? I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I was in the school system far too long, and I found many people who could do different things. For instance, he mentions that the only way to accomplish this is to reduce class size. Does that mean.... ?
Interjection.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, that's what that member said: the only thing you can do is to reduce.... The only answer is to reduce class size. I think that member was also in the system long enough to know that one class of 30 or 32 students might be an easier assignment than a class of 20. So class size in itself is not the sole criterion.
You seem to have in the arguments that member is putting forth that more money, more funding, is the sole determinant for quality education, then using the example of: how would the minister feel if there was an accident in a science lab? About as rotten as the parents or you or anybody else would feel. We have not tried to go short on any science equipment. We also have some faith in the professionalism of the science or chemistry teachers, that they are not going to go ahead and put their pupils at risk.
Interjection.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, there is not enough money. Last year we put it into math programs; this year into science. People just say: "You've got to do it all at once. You've got to add everything on all at once." Is that what the member is suggesting?
As I've indicated, there is never enough money. Where would the member stop adding on? Where would he stop adding on to the budget? At the same time, we get this indication that we should raise the taxes.... I think he said that here we are in British Columbia trying to create a tax haven, that people are paying low taxes. We make that argument when you say that people are overtaxed, because you make the argument that people are having to pay too much taxes. You seem to avoid that comparison. In Manitoba and the other provinces, they pay more property tax towards education than the people in British Columbia do. But you seem to avoid that argument.
So are you saying then that we should, in effect, tax the taxpayers more? If you are, Mr. Member, then I think it would be incumbent on that member to go out and justify that to the public. Don't come to me with both arguments, saying,"You've got to spend more money; there's more tax money out there," and then come to me and say: "My people are incensed because they have to pay higher taxes for education." You have to decide which hat you're wearing and try to get a common hat that takes in everything, not just the different hats for different occasions, which the member seems to choose to wear.
He talked about the funds for excellence. Yes, it's split between public and post-secondary, so that in effect half would be $300 million over three years. People set the priorities. The first year we were even accused by that members from Victoria that it was patronage funding, political patronage. Obviously he hasn't done any homework; he just listens to his own garbage — or rhetoric, sorry. In other words, he says he heard somewhere that this money was distributed on a political basis, and then makes no investigation to see whether it is fact. No matter how many arguments you make, then he attacks us for distributing the money in a political fashion, because he made it up.
In other words, you create your own tiger, then you want us to slay it, or you slay us because of something mythical that you created. You have the funds for excellence in education last year which were on the basis of applications that were put in. They were gone through by the ministry staff to see what was in effect eligible under the guidelines. Those numbers came in and those numbers were approved. Cabinet approved the total. They were distributed according to the submissions that were made.
However, when I became minister, I realized that people were putting a lot of time into very heavy paperwork in order to put the submissions together. So we went on into the effort of making sure that there was an easier way to distribute it, and what we did then was work on a per capita distribution. That per capita distribution is there. All the districts got theirs, according to their enrolments, and we did a scaled amount because there are some computer costs just as high for a 1,000-pupil district as for a 10,000-pupil district or a 40,000-pupil district. Some of these services that are available — a workshop for teachers, the lecturer, the resource person.... It costs just as much for him to talk to ten people as to 100 people. So we felt that was only fair; the distribution from the smallest district to the largest district went from about $30 to about $46, depending on the deal. We worked it all out by formula and that was distributed.
Yes, there was only $16 million in discretionary funding available this year, and we distributed that. That was not distributed in any partisan or political way. I guess if you say it often enough, you can get out there and say to the people that this was partisan funding. It wasn't in year one; it wasn't in year two; and I don't know how much of it will be left in year three, because, as the member should know, when it was put out there and described as to how it would be, his board and other boards all came and said: "This is not the way it should be. It should be in the operating budget." I found it rather strange that the member said we put it into things like teachers' salaries, which has nothing to do with excellence. I'm wondering, then, why I've got the argument that you've got to increase teachers' salaries in order to create excellence n education. Again I wish you would make up your mind which side of the fence you're on. We had this big lobby: as much as possible, it should be put into education; textbooks make for excellence in education, so money was allotted to textbooks last year and again this year; salary increases make for excellence, so some of the money was put into that.
[8:15]
Certainly I can give the member the breakdown of the fund for excellence this year: additional textbooks — $7 million; partial funding for the development and implementation of the provincial family life program — $0.83 million; contributions to school districts' operating budgets — $61.66 million, and part of that went to his district — evenly distributed according to that formula; special projects, which we have here as $40 million, and which went into computer programs and that sort of thing; other initiatives, like the small secondary school project — $1.25 million. The total
[ Page 2122 ]
for public schools education was $103 million. We put in $2 million for independent school special education. So with that — with the $7.83 million, the $103 million and the $2 million — it worked out to $112.99 million. We called it $113 million.
Last year it was $42.69 million that went into the public school system, and a certain amount of it, the rest of it — the $110 million — went into the post-secondary, and then we did bring forward the $20 million so that other districts could complete the numbers. We did that, despite the fact that the money for the first year had been allotted. So we did that; now we're being criticized for it. I find that strange. In order to make sure that all districts got an equal chance, we got that $20 million and said: "Okay, you can start spending it this year. We'll have to borrow it out of next year's fund for excellence, but we're willing to do that so that all of you get fair treatment." Now we're being blamed for that. You say: "But you can borrow it from next year, but then you're not allowed to take it off the total next year." I don't know how you do your bookkeeping, but we have to balance at some point.
So he said that most of the districts this year.... Because from $31 million or $32 million last year, although the distribution wasn't by formula.... But this year it was by formula, and there was half the money available, so it's fairly logical that they got half as much this year for discretionary funding. Then we did compensate a bit for that with the salary savings from the April 28 work stoppage. We said: "You can put that into the fund for excellence and add that to it."
MR. JONES: Is that part of the 600 or above it?
HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's above. That had nothing to do with the 600.
The shareable amount for the school districts is theirs to decide, anyway. What we said was the percentage formula that we would refund to the district would be the part that we were entitled to either take off or leave with them. We said: "Okay, you can leave that amount in." Then when June 1 hit, some of the districts had said: "Gee whiz, you're encouraging those districts who have a lot of teachers out to put more money into their excellence fund. This isn't fair." We hadn't planned, as ongoing operation, that the more money they saved in salaries the more we would leave them, so what we did was say: "Okay, we'll take our portion of the grant. You can do what you like with your portion" — which they're entitled to anyway.
Those are the sorts of things that, again, we talk about. I can give the member a lot of details, but the information doesn't seem to impress him at all. He says he sincerely wants to communicate to the minister, and starts out the estimates debate with, "This is the worst minister the province has ever had; done more damage than anybody has ever done...."
MR. CLARK: Vander Zalm was worse.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let's read the Blues tomorrow and find out. ...and then wonders why I was angered. Then he turns around and says I was angered at the teachers. I was not angered at the teachers; I was angered at this climate that that member is trying to create in the name of partisan politics, at the same time saying that he's sincerely interested in what the kids get in the school system. Yet the attack is that.... Attitude: "The minister does not care about the children in our school system." You're wrong, Mr. Member. I don't know whether I can ever convince you. "This government and the minister don't care." The values and attitudes that I've created, that this government has created....
Who has been doing in the school what I would never dream of doing: selling to the public that education, in its broadest terms, consists only of classroom instruction hours? I would never accept that as a teacher, as a principal; nor would I ever accept that philosophically as the minister. I may not be able to do it. A lot of teachers in this province don't accept that education ends at 3:05, and that any kid who needs help beyond that doesn't get it. I know that teachers do a lot of preparation. I know they do a lot of other stuff. But don't tell me that you want me ever to be part of saying that education consists only of instruction time in the classroom. Education is the total child, and I think most professional teachers recognize that when they're not forced into doing something else by an organization. That's what I object to — not against the teachers.
The other thing is, he said: "And I wouldn't deal with the minister putting correspondence programs in his riding, because that would be a cheap shot." That was a cheap shot. That program went into Fort St. John two years ago, before I became minister. Then you turn around and tell me that it's a cheap shot, and you want the clock to stop me from denying that.
MR. JONES: This minister seems to need some positive strokes, so here goes.
I'm very pleased that the minister hired a coordinator to oversee a program aimed at preventing the sex abuse of children in our schools. We would be interested in monitoring that and seeing if there's an important follow-up that needs to be in place. We're also pleased that on February 4 the minister introduced the pilot program on human rights education. I'm hoping that's going well. On February 6 he introduced joint ministry development of speech and pathology services. I'm sure that's an excellent program. On March 17 he introduced a provincewide program to make sex education mandatory in grades 7 to 12 beginning in September.
AN HON. MEMBER: Okay, that's enough.
MR. JONES: Oh no. April 2, the early retirement program. Certainly we praise the minister on that. On May 14 he gave $3 million for sex education. All laudatory programs.
I'm not here to criticize the minister, the ministry or the government where they don't need criticizing. When I go into a school district, I don't take any partisan role. I'm there as a listener. The kind of statistic I was quoting — $2,600 down to $300 — was not elicited by me, was not a partisan position by me. That was somebody who has been hurting in the school system and is still carrying on in a way that the minister would applaud — but hurting, and wanting to tell somebody. In fact, he confided in me that he was.... Because that individual is an advocate for children in his community and often has to appear in court on their behalf, he was concerned about that kind of activity after Bill 20. Maybe that's realistic. Maybe it's not. Maybe this whole thing will blow over. Maybe the community won't mind
[ Page 2123 ]
teachers standing up and defending children when they can be fired much more easily than they were in the past.
Those are real concerns. When I said to the minister that I wanted a communication and I'm sorry I didn't get it, it was on that particular issue of dropouts in education. I hope the minister reads the Blues tomorrow, because when I speak into this microphone and it's recorded in Hansard, something comes out differently in the minister's ear. Maybe he can have a good debate with the Blues tomorrow on what I really said.
He commented on that program in Prince George being a local priority, and he's right. That can be an argument. I don't dispute that. It's something the school board cut back on. I guess they saw that as a program that didn't have the priority that other programs had. But the minister also knows that it's very difficult to raise local taxes in Prince George because of the high number of homes that have students in them. It's one of the concerns the Prince George district raised that I don't think has been addressed by the minister.
I suppose that when the minister goes into a school district.... The minister comes in — a very important official in this province — and I suppose what he hears is what he wants to hear. That's not because people are saying differently.... I suppose it's very difficult to have a heart to-heart talk with the minister when he's touring a school district. But I'm sure he gets all kinds of letters from people around this province that indicate a lot of the serious concerns that I'm raising here today.
I'm doing it because it's my job, not because I particularly enjoy criticizing the minister. But when I talk about school dropouts, I want a decent answer from the minister. I raised the same question in the estimates of the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond), and I got a more decent answer then.
MR. R. FRASER: More decent?
MR. JONES: A decenter answer?
The answer I got from the Minister of Social Services was much more responsive and humane in terms of the needs of those young people. I don't think the minister is heartless about the school system; I just think he has a difficult job being a Minister of Education in a Socred government. The Minister of Social Services and Housing indicated to me, when I raised the question of school dropouts and street kids, that he was addressing it, that the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, of which the Minister of Education is a member.... He was going to take a lead in that regard because he was chairman of that committee of cabinet. He was going to ask all the ministries, including the Ministry of Education, to come up with a strategy so that the problem could be addressed — that very serious problem that I wanted communication on with the minister. The Minister of Social Services and Housing, therefore, indicated that he was addressing those problems. I asked him when I could get an answer, and he said: "As soon as possible. We have realized the need and the urgency of it. So as quickly as we can make the wheels of government turn, we will be back with a proposal."
Well, I assumed the Minister of Social Services and Housing asked the Minister of Education what his thoughts on that matter were, just as I asked him tonight and made some suggestions. All I heard back on that very serious concern was that I misinterpreted something I said about class size. Obviously the minister isn't listening, and we're not going to have a dialogue here.
[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]
The minister thinks that the lower the class, the easier it is for the teacher — A equals B; it's simple. What's easier about it? The preparation for that class is exactly the same. The number of minutes spent in that class is exactly the same. The kinds of emotional energy and concern that go into that teaching-learning process are exactly the same. The only thing that's slightly different is that the marking load would be a little easier and report card writing would be a little easier. But there's very little benefit in terms of the kinds of things that go into teaching a smaller class compared to a larger class. In fact, it's easier to teach a larger class. All you have to do is what I'm doing here: broadcast to the entire group. I don't have to pick out the member for Vancouver South or....
MR. R. FRASER: Are you picking on me again?
MR. JONES: You're a vicious heckler.
I don't have to deal with individuals in this room, just as, if I have a large class, I don't have to deal with individuals there. There's the challenge in teaching. That's what makes a small class work and that's what makes education work. It's no easier to have a smaller class. In fact, it's more demanding, because you're dealing with individuals in that case, and I shouldn't have to tell the Minister of Education that.
After I indicated to the minister that he look at some of the cross-Canada statistics, he still asked where we would stop adding on money for education. Well, I'd be happy with a two-year program to take us to the median of Canadian provinces west of New Brunswick. I'd be very happy with that.
"Where is the money going to come from?" the minister says. Well, let's take back the $6 million that the government gave away to banks, for example. Let's take back the $10 million that used to be the surtax for high-income earners. That would give us $16 million right there. Let's take back the $600 million given to corporations in order to reduce their corporation tax from 15 percent to 14 percent. And let's maybe start asking stumpage rates similar to Washington state; it would give us an extra billion dollars. Where is the money going to come from, Mr. Minister? That's where the money can come from. And how much? Not even anywhere near that much. Let's just start moving up the scale to be able to hold our heads high with the other provinces in Canada.
[8:30]
Perhaps this forum isn't the place to raise the serious question of the young people who are slipping through the cracks in our educational system and costing this province millions and millions of dollars down the road. We know it costs $40,000 per year to incarcerate somebody, but only $4,000 per year to educate him. I know the minister is concerned about those kinds of things, and maybe in another forum we can have a decent communication about those.
I have a couple of other small points that I'd like to make to the minister, and my colleague from Prince Rupert would like to make a tiny point.
Future teacher shortages. I'm sure the minister is aware that since 1981 this province has been in the midst of a baby boom. Births have surpassed the previous record total of
[ Page 2124 ]
4,772 in 1960 in each of the last six years. And although I find it hard to believe, I understand immigration from other provinces has begun again. For example, in the first three months of this year something like 1,544 pupils arrived here from Alberta. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the United States estimates that they'll be short something like one million teachers within the next three years, and we've already seen recruiting teams come to this province to attract our young beginning teachers, and our established teachers, to southern climes. One of the saddest things that I saw was a recent television report of education graduates from the University of British Columbia. The only ones who had jobs were going to jobs in California. I know the minister is concerned about this and is interested in planning, so one of the questions I would like to ask the minister is to divulge something of his plans to address this serious problem.
The minister mentioned in the context of the funds for excellence in education that most of those funds went to computers in the classroom, and I applaud that as well — a vast move from a couple of years ago, when a ministry official was quoted in the Financial Post as saying: "The reason British Columbia has not jumped into computers as much as other provinces is that we're really doubtful about the gains from this technology." I'm pleased to see the change from that view. In 1985 we had 5,000 microcomputers in the classroom, and at the same time Alberta, with a significantly smaller school population, had over three times as many. I'd like to ask the minister how we stand now in terms of microcomputers in the classroom, as compared with other provinces. I'd also like to ask the goals for continuing this program, the philosophy and the extent to which — in the eyes of the minister — microcomputers are going to be incorporated into the classroom in the future.
I'd like to make a plea to the minister in terms of.... While he saw the kind of concern I had with respect to street kids and dropouts in Prince George as a local priority, it always seems to me that the minister has a vital role to play in encouraging positive things in education in this province, and dealing with those dropouts would be one of them.
I'd like to suggest another one to the minister, and that is in terms of encouraging school boards to seriously consider increasing the hiring of ethnic minorities in this province. As the minister has gone around this province and seen classrooms and graduating classes, I know he has seen the diverse multicultural makeup of the classroom situation. I'm sure that is not accurately reflected in the teaching force in this province either.
It seems to me that the minister has a role and a responsibility, as we see the school population increase and hiring take place in school districts in the future, to encourage school boards to hire ethnic minorities. Certainly we have seen that in other areas of the public service.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to just respond to what the member refers to as the dropout concern. Certainly we share that concern, and we have instigated better data collection to see just what they are. The comparison we've made is the number enrolled in grade 12 on September 30, which is our official count; then we count the grade 12 graduates against that.
What we're now trying to determine is whether some of these people enroll again the next September to complete a couple of courses. So they are not dropouts in this sense; they are just delaying their education, doing it some other way. We are trying to do that, and we are working with the other ministries, as was indicated. One can't remember to talk about everything we do, but with the Ministries of Health and Social Services, we are trying to get a handle on the street kids and what can be done about that. Data collection is going on, and we don't know now whether the "don't graduate" are dropouts or whether they are "other." I can assure the member that we are working on that.
I can also assure the member that we've had a teacher training committee, which is reporting at the end of June, I hope. Sometimes it takes them a little longer to write the report. They will be giving us some advice on that.
I can tell the member that we've had a provincial advisory committee on computers, which has been working to see just how much more use, and what use, can be made of computers. At the same time, I'm also very intrigued when I see what teachers and kids are actually working out on the computers, which I think will turn into excellent programs. That's what the computer committee is asking: how are they being used? Kids are very inventive; teachers in the school system are very inventive. So we don't have to invent all the programs here. What we have to do is collect that information, spread it around and see how computers can be best used. There are massive gains — some even at the primary level — in word processing that the students are doing, correcting stories and writing. Certainly we'll deal with that.
I know that as far as the multicultural or ethnic hiring goes, yes, we certainly will encourage that. We have to have these people available to be hired; they have to be qualified. We are working with the BCSTA and the BCTF in trying to determine our teacher supply, and we've made some moves on that. We think there is not going to be a major concern on that. There would have been, but I think we can encourage people to go on.
One of the things I would encourage the member and some of the people who have just been saying how bad the system is and how awful it is to teach in British Columbia and that sort of thing, that they don't get enough money and they're underpaid and overworked.... Yet from my experience and from that of many of the people I know, they went into teaching because they wanted to work with kids, and that wasn't their primary concern.
So I would like some positive help from some of the critics who are spending so much time trying to convince the world out there, for whatever reason, that our education system is awful and that it's bad. I have an awful fight, if you like, trying to say that empirically our system is good. If some people could say that there are good things in our education system, and with more money, more input and more discussion, we can improve on it.... We can get that, but as long as you even have counsellors in some situations.... Students have come to me and said: "Should I go into teaching? My counsellor said 'Don't be crazy. It's not worth it."' I said to him: "Kid, if you want to teach, if you want to work with kids, go into it; it's a very rewarding profession. If you hate kids and you think you are going into it for the money, you are going to live one miserable life; but if you want to work with kids, it's one of the most rewarding experiences." I speak from 28 years of experience myself, plus other years that I've done coaching even before I got to be a teacher.
So I'm encouraging students. If they want to go and teach, then go at it, be good at it and take an interest in kids; the other things will look after themselves. I think they will,
[ Page 2125 ]
because I have even been getting some letters where people have said they are very committed to teaching, that that is why they went into it and they wished some of this other stuff would drop off the map or at least off the staff-room bulletin board so they can get on with what they want to do, which is working with kids. And many of them are.
So I will leave it at that and just say to the member that it seems that in his last statement he said he doesn't want to see any tax reductions, that that is wrong, that we should keep gathering that tax and that he wants to see taxes increased. Well, let's convince the public that it's a good investment, not just pouring more money away. I certainly thank the member.
He did also say "maybe in another forum." If at any time you want some specific information — correct information — I'd be delighted to provide it.
MR. JONES: I am very pleased to hear the response on improved data collection in terms of dropouts and that the minister is actively participating in the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy. Maybe we can look forward to some solutions to that problem down the road.
The minister keeps referring to "teacher's salary." I can assure the minister that I have never used the term "teacher's salary" in this House, and I don't particularly intend to. That is the minister hearing things that I'm not saying.
I am sure it is frustrating to the minister, and it's frustrating to me. I once sponsored a future teachers' club, because I don't think there's any more worthy profession. I want young, bright, dynamic, intelligent people going into that profession; but the climate that has existed in this province, particularly in the last six, seven or eight years, creates a situation that the minister has inherited. He was only partly responsible before, because he was part of cabinet, particularly during the restraint years.
You can't blame it on that counsellor if that's the intense feeling of people in the system — that it's a system where the government of the day does not respect the kind of thing that's going on, does not provide support and is continually attacking, attacking, attacking.
I particularly appreciate and share the concern about hiring ethnic minorities in the teaching profession in this province, and I look forward to the kinds of initiatives taken jointly with the BCSTA.
Perhaps I could just raise one other small point, and then my colleague from Prince Rupert would like to make a couple of points as well. Firstly, it is my understanding that Mr. Sullivan of royal commission fame is on record as saying that his report is a report to the Legislature, and that it will be a public report. I would certainly encourage that, and I hope the minister supports that view as well. The royal commission is a commission of this Legislature and should be reporting to that body.
Another point I would like to raise, which I am sure is shared by many who have ethnic backgrounds and different languages, is that heritage languages become part and parcel of our public school system. Certainly the ministry has made some moves in this regard with Mandarin Chinese and Japanese, in addition to Spanish, German and French. I think my colleague has mentioned in the past the importance of the Russian language in parts of this province, and other ethnic minorities that would like to see the kind of program in British Columbia that I understand is present in Ontario, so that becoming facile in a second language is an important part of the education of our young people and they receive credit for that, whether it is Russian or French or Chinese or Japanese. I would encourage the minister to consider the expansion of the school system in this regard. I know it's not always that easy; there may not be the qualified teachers, but with encouragement from the minister, I'm sure it could be accommodated.
[8:45]
I'd like to leave it there. My colleague from Prince Rupert has a comment. I'd just like to close by saying, as I mentioned at the outset, that it was not necessary to canvass all the areas that I would like to canvass. There are a number of them, and I would like to take the minister's invitation to do some of those privately. Very clearly, the kind of road we've seen in the last few months is not the fresh start that was promised; it's a continuation of the administration of previous years. It's my job to continue monitoring and watching and making sure that the member for Vancouver South learns something from these debates. This side will be watching the minister. We're still hopeful that it is possible to turn the road, and to turn education in this province into something more positive than we've seen in the last few months.
MR. MILLER: Just very briefly, the minister is well aware of the need for a new junior secondary school in Prince Rupert. I hope the he will forgive me for talking about money, but sometimes we have to spend money — it's also one of our duties — as well as trying to save it.
First of all, under vote 22, "contributions for schools debt service...." My question is very straightforward, very simple. I understand that it is at the top of the list in terms of priority. First of all, would the minister advise what the likelihood is of that being approved? Secondly, if it's not going to be approved in the very near future, what does the situation look like in terms of those kinds of capital expenditures? Some of the plant, if you want to call it that, is becoming outdated. The particular school that has to be replaced in Rupert is a very old one, it's been added to; it's a Mickey Mouse school; the third floor is on the bottom, and the first floor is on the top. It's hard to describe, but it's part of the geography.
Interjection.
MR. MILLER: I never attended the school, Madam Member, but my children did. Despite the physical condition of the school, they did learn a few things from the excellent teachers they had. But I'll try to restrict my comments to the school and not pay attention to that member for Vancouver-Point Grey, who probably went to a private school.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd just like to respond to the member for Burnaby North about the royal commission report. It is a royal commission; it is going to be a public report; that's a given. You certainly have my assurance. I'm kind of hoping I may get it the night before it's made public so I would know what it says. But at least it will be a public report, and we'll have to deal with it. Hopefully we can use some positive reinforcement.
I really think that we are making a fresh start in education — just to wind up on that. We are trying to involve people. We're trying to decentralize. We're trying to get school boards more involved. We've done a lot in that direction, and I think a lot more can happen. But I also need cooperation the other way. In other words, when you extend a hand, you need
[ Page 2126 ]
somebody to extend it back, rather than turn his back on you, or say, "It's awful; you're bad; your record is bad," and that sort of thing. I think we've done a lot in the year. I'm certainly proud of many of the things that some of my staff have accomplished in short order.
To get to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), as far as the school in Prince Rupert is concerned, it is on our high-priority list. What we've had in the last couple of years is growth in some of the districts, and then when not enough money for the whole priority list came up, we've had to prioritize it in terms of where there is a roof over their heads: "That one can be made do for another year." And we have to re-prioritize. We know that the Prince Rupert school is inadequate. As I say, it is on our high-priority list, and we're hoping that very quickly it can move into the category of.... We'll have a roof over the heads of kids who are going to show up in September, in some of the districts that are growing, and then we can replace that one. So, yes, it's there. Send more taxes from Prince Rupert to the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). Just keep sending those taxes in, and we'll get you your school as quickly as we can.
Vote 20 approved.
On vote 21: ministry operations, $25,468,385.
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I was glad to see that we've now moved on to the Finance estimates, so we don't have to deal with matters of schooling for those who would like to know....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, we're still on vote 21, Ministry of Education.
MR. SIHOTA: Oh, sorry.
Vote 21 approved.
Vote 22: public schools education, $1,189,387,212 — approved.
Vote 23: independent schools, $39,037,153 — approved.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
On vote 31: minister's office, $283,435.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, if you'd permit me, I'd like to make a few introductory remarks.
There have been a number of organizational changes which have impacted the ministry's estimates in comparison to past years. As part of the overall government reorganization last November, the ministry took on responsibility for the corporate relations and liquor distribution functions of the former Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At the same time, the ministry transferred responsibility for the government agents' branch to the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. These changes are reflected in the estimates before you, with the comparable figures for last year.
You will also note that there no longer is an appropriation for the Critical Industries Commission, as it was successfully concluded on March 31, 1987. The estimates do not reflect the recent transfer of the Purchasing Commission to the Ministry of Economic Development. With the concurrence of the members of the committee, I am prepared to speak to the relevant estimates, even though official responsibility for the program is no longer mine. With respect to the compensation stabilization program, the estimates include a full year's funding for the CSP office. While the program will be phasing out starting on October 1, moneys are required beyond this date to gradually wind down the office. As a separate vote, any unexpended moneys will lapse and will not be used for any other purposes.
The '87-88 estimates for the ministry are summarized in three votes. Vote 31 provides for the operation of my office as the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. Vote 32 provides for the operations of the seven ministry divisions, including the Securities and Purchasing Commissions. It further provides funding for the B.C. Assessment Authority, courts of revision and assessment appeal boards. Vote 33 provides for the operation of the office of the commissioner, compensation stabilization program.
Total spending for the three votes is estimated at $68.6 million, up $4.5 million, or 7.1 percent, from the comparable estimates for last year. More than half of this increase is attributable to new initiatives. A further $1.8 million of the increase relates to the impact of negotiated salary adjustments for ministry employees. The ministry continues to hold the line on those costs that are within its control. This is reflected in the allocation of FTEs, in that the majority relate to new initiatives rather than existing programming.
The major increase in the budget, aside from salaries, is the strengthening of the B.C. Securities Commission. The new Securities Act came into effect on February 2 and heralded a new, expanded mandate for the commission. Companies seeking financing and potential investors need to be assured that B.C. is an attractive place to do business. Part of this assurance involves a proper level of funding for the commission and the superintendent of brokers' office.
It should be noted that while government expenditures are increasing, so are projected recoveries. The new Securities Act fee schedule is expected to raise an additional $100 million in revenue. Once the Securities Commission has fully proven itself to the B.C. financial community, it is intended to move toward full-cost recovery.
Consistent with what is planned for the Securities Commission, the budget also includes $500,000 in funding for developing Vancouver as an international financial centre. This is comprised of $300,000 for the operations of the IFC Vancouver committee started last year, as well as $200,000 in research consulting contracts to further develop the financial centre concept. I am confident that Vancouver, with the government's assistance, will develop as a major financial centre focusing on the Pacific Rim,
Funding of $150,000 has also been allocated for the continuing work of the Committee on Industrial Assessment. This committee is developing a more equitable industrial property assessment system and should reduce appeal costs in the future.
On an administrative note, the budget includes $165,000 for revenue system upgrade within the central registries. It is important that the ministry keep pace with technology to improve service and to protect revenue collections.
In the balance of the ministry, we have done our best to control spending growth while maintaining services. In this
[ Page 2127 ]
regard, the revenue division remains a priority in terms of preserving the integrity and equity of the tax system. The 1987-88 budget includes a modest amount of funds to establish a tax appeal group, so that taxpayers may have a fair and impartial hearing on any tax issues. Members will note that the Purchasing Commission's working-capital account is again shown with the ministry. This account, however, does not affect the bottom line of the ministry, as all expenditures are ultimately recovered from other ministries, Crown corporations and public bodies. A major initiative within the WCA is the further development of the SupplyNet program, which will link B.C. suppliers and consumers to promote economic development within the province.
Because of the success of the Purchasing Commission in furthering the development of home-grown products, it was decided to transfer it to the Ministry of Economic Development.
The working capital account will also be used for a new vehicle charge-out enterprise, where ministries, instead of buying vehicles outright every five to seven years, will now be renting them through vehicle management services. The new approach is intended to remove the peaks and valleys of ministry acquisitions and make ministries more aware of the ongoing costs of maintaining a vehicle. There will be greater flexibility in reallocating vehicles and turning them in as needs change.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my overview of the ministry's estimates. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from the committee on these votes. As Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, I should note that I am also responsible for vote 66, "management of the public debt," and vote 67, "contingencies (all ministries)." I would be happy to respond to any questions concerning these votes as well.
[9:00]
MR. SIHOTA: Now that I got my foot out of my mouth, Mr. Chairman, I guess I can get started. I wasn't listening when we dealt with the final portion of the Education budget, and I apologize for that.
I want to start off in debate on these estimates by talking — I think it comes as no surprise — about the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, the superintendent of brokers, the investigations arm within the VSE. I want to put the minister on notice right from the outset that I intend to ask some very pointed questions with respect to activities within the VSE and in the case of the superintendent of brokers.
Before I do that, I want to outline very quickly the position that we take as a political party with respect to the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, the superintendent of brokers, and so on. That position, fairly put, is basically as follows. We believe that it is absolutely essential that there be a clean stock exchange operating in British Columbia; that it be free of unsavoury elements, manipulation and fraud; and that it be one in which the investment community has full confidence.
MR. LOENEN: That's what we've got.
MR. SIHOTA: The second member for Richmond has just woken up. I'm sure he'll listen to the rest of the comment that I've got to make.
It's also clear that that is not the case here in British Columbia.
It's interesting to read some of the comments that the minister has been making, because I think the minister knows, and I know, that some time ago I raised the question of International Tillex, and discussed it in the House. Again, I think I can openly say, it was a conscience decision not to pursue the matter any further until we were able to see some progress from the ministry. As I think the minister knows, in the last week or so I have been raising the matter again, and I will continue to do so until we on this side of the House begin to see what I would determine to be appropriate progress, which I'll define a little later.
But it is time now for us to put aside, hopefully in the course of debate here, some of the political rhetoric and begin to deal with the real questions and problems on the VSE. By political rhetoric.... I was interested in the comments the minister made during an interview with the Canadian Press a couple of days ago, and I was interested in reading off the wire the following. This is after I had raised questions with respect to Technigen. The minister said: "I know I'm going to be embarrassed in the future like I am embarrassed now, but all I can say is that we are doing our best and we remain committed to the principle that the usefulness of the VSE is beyond question and it is truly acquiring an international reputation." He said that we now have London players raising money on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and that we had an interest from Hong Kong players to move into Vancouver and do the same thing, because this is their only North American opportunity to do that.
I found particular interest in that comment, because that's precisely what the government would like to say: that it is setting out an investment climate to invite people from London and Hong Kong, for example, to come here and invest on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The minister knows, and I know, that at the same time in Toronto the TSE has set up a junior exchange. The minister and I have talked about that. There's some competition. Unless and until the VSE is clean and that image is clean, the investment is going to go to Ontario and won't stop here in British Columbia.
Let's talk a little about the perception in Hong Kong and London, not on the basis of how the minister sees them, but on the basis of how those who operate on those markets see them, and what kind of impression they have about the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It is my submission that their impression and understanding of the chemistry and the makeup, and the backroom dealings that go on in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, is no different than mine.
Some time ago, Mr. Chairman, there was a visit here by people from Hong Kong. The minister knows that, and I know that. They were in this House and were introduced in the members' gallery, and they saw the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. They learned about how it operates in terms of the public relations argument that, I think, the minister puts aside and forward, and the comments made by the investment community.
They were told that the market here, the VSE, is a highly speculative one: that there are all sorts of activities going on in the VSE. And they did their own type of inquiry. In an interview with the Vancouver Sun they pointed out that because of the regulations that govern the VSE, there are a lot of companies that could not be listed in Hong Kong, but might be listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The minister knows, and I know, the type of questionable transactions that go on there. But here's what the people from Hong Kong had to say, from the Vancouver Sun: "He said some applicants
[ Page 2128 ]
which would be rejected by his exchange" he's talking about the Hong Kong exchange — "will be told: 'Look here, we don't handle this kind of thing. However, just across the ocean we have someone who is quite capable and willing to help you."' He was talking about some of the unsavoury elements that operate in Hong Kong.
Approximately six months ago, individuals from the London Society of Chartered Accountants came here and looked at the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Here's what they had to say:
"A major financial centre has got to have proper regulation of its stock exchange, and the one thing that I think Vancouver does not have at the moment is proper regulation of its stock exchange and market activities. The Vancouver exchange has still got an international reputation as a cowboy outfit. There's a place in the world for cowboys, but it isn't at the heart of a major international exchange."
That's London, and that's Hong Kong. That's the reputation out there. The question I want to pose during the portion of debate that I'm responsible for is: to what extent has that image changed in the last six months? What efforts and initiatives does the minister have in place to change that?
I don't want to talk a lot about some of the altruistic things that all of us would like to see in stock exchanges. In fact, I want to talk instead about some of the things that are happening in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. There was, as the minister and I know, because we have discussed it in the House before, the case of International Tillex. Who was one of the parties behind International Tillex? It was an individual by the name of Sam Ford, who, back in November 1978, was found guilty of three counts of wire fraud and one count of perjury in connection with the promotion of penny stocks in the United States between '75 and '77. You have to ask yourself: who at the VSE approved the participation of Mr. Ford in International Tillex? Where was the investigations arm in the superintendent of brokers to check out this individual? What communication was passed on from the VSE to the superintendent of brokers? Did the VSE find that this type of individual — unsavoury; and I'll say that in the House — ought to have been involved in stock market dealings at the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Is that consistent with the perception the minister would like to put out with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Of course not. That's one example.
Let's start running through others, because a pattern emerges, Mr. Chairman. There are people involved in the investment community who could not have access to a stock exchange anywhere else in North America, but they'll come here to Vancouver because they are welcomed. Banco Resources is another company. I don't know if the minister is familiar with the operations of Banco Resources; I would hope that he would be.
MR. REE: Would you make your statements outside this chamber?
MR. SIHOTA: I am quite prepared to make any statement that I make in here outside the chamber, if the member is worried about that.
MR. REE: The same ones you made last week?
MR. SIHOTA: I heard that. I'm prepared to stand behind that too.
We had a promoter involved in Banco Resources, a principal operating behind that company, who had in the United States on at least three, possibly four, occasions been investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States for various types of impropriety. The VSE had to determine whether or not this person would be appropriate as a director for a company operating on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The VSE concluded that it was not content to have this particular individual operating with respect to Banco Resources.
It sent that information over, Mr. Minister, to the superintendent of brokers — because after all, as the VSE quite properly said in that case, it was ultimately a decision of the superintendent of brokers as to whether or not that person was acceptable. I won't get into the dialogue that took place with the superintendent of brokers, except to say to the minister that it will be the subject of a discussion that he and I will have at some other time.
Well, this was in the early eighties and he was approved by the superintendent of brokers after a very interesting meeting that, as I say, we'll talk about a little later. Banco went from a penny stock to $11, based on oil reserves, revenues and pipeline contracts, and similar types of promotion. We'll talk a little more, when I get towards the end of my comments on the VSE, about promotion.
It was discovered subsequently, when the statement of material facts was filed very recently, that there were a number of falsehoods with respect to that company. And the VSE pointed out to the superintendent of brokers that they suspected this all along. It took somewhere between three and four years for the superintendent of brokers to begin to take a look at Banco Resources, but when they started to take a look, the individual went over to Alberta, and it took only a few months for the Alberta Securities Commission to point out that this person was not welcome in Alberta. But he was welcome in British Columbia despite those types of investigations into Banco and this principal in the United States.
International Turbine: another somewhat infamous stock that was listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. One of the principals of that company had been charged with fraud in Los Angeles; he couldn't operate down there so he came up here to Vancouver and operated on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I won't go into the details of what happened with International. Suffice it to say that you begin to question: where was the VSE? Where was the superintendent of brokers? Why weren't they doing their job? Why are we allowing people with these types of backgrounds to operate on the Vancouver Stock Exchange?
I say that — and we'll go through some more — keeping in mind the minister's comments last week:
"We have the moral obligation to investigate as thoroughly as we can and to require disclaimers on public offerings so that the buying public knows that we are not endorsing them. But the way the law works in a free society is that you have to commit an offence first. It's not enough for us to suspect an offence will occur. I don't mean to suggest that we would treat someone with a criminal record in the same way that we would treat someone without a criminal record. Obviously when alarm bells go off, we use every device we can to prevent what we fear might be a scam."
[ Page 2129 ]
That's what the minister said, just two days ago. Yet I've given to you now, I think, three or four examples of people with a particular type of background, where indeed the alarm bells ought to have gone off, where indeed in a couple of the examples the VSE rang those alarm bells in the superintendent of brokers office, and the SOB's office took no action at all.
Let's continue. There is a stock, a number of them actually — Altar Gold, Axiom, Vault Explorations; once again, infamous stocks on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, for those that involve themselves with those types of situations.... One of the promoters behind those companies was charged with embezzlement for trading in the VSE, yet the company has traded on the VSE since the early eighties. Once again, he went to Alberta, and a few months later the Alberta Securities Commission nailed this person.
Why in British Columbia? Where was the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Where was the superintendent of brokers? Where is the type of scrutiny that the minister says he wants? Where is that moral obligation to check? Where is the obligation to protect the investing public? What steps did they take in that case?
[9:15]
There was an individual who served for some time as president of Vault Explorations, who had been involved just two years before with another notorious operation, Tye Explorations. Tye got involved with two promoters. Tye was determined later on to be a scam. Yet this person surfaces again in Vault. How did that happen? Who was at the switch at the VSE?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.
MR. CLARK: I'm enjoying the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's comments on SOBs and the like, so I'd like to hear some more.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the second member for Vancouver East. I'm glad to see he's interested, and I trust the minister is as well.
Some time ago, as the minister ought to know, there was a former vice-president of listings on the VSE who — back in 1977, I believe — was involved in a series of transactions — which resulted in 148 counts of bribery, and charges being laid against several individuals. Eight promoters were co-accused in that case; four of them are still operating today on the VSE. Who's checking it out? Where is the VSE? Where is the superintendent of brokers? Where are the various self-regulatory bodies that are supposed to be watching the activities of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, so that we don't have the cowboy image that people from London refer to, and the type of image that the people from Hong Kong are talking about when they say: "We won't accept this kind of stuff, but we'll tell them there's a place across the ocean that's quite acceptable to them"? Four of the eight are still operating.
There's another individual who had his licence lifted in 1975 and lost his appeal in 1977. He's no longer a broker on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, but with the help of a VSE governor, Mr. Minister, he continues to be involved in trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. He simply picks up the phone, phones up one of the governors of the VSE and indicates that he wants him to initiate and complete certain trades and transactions. Where is the scrutiny? Who's checking all this out in the VSE — the superintendent of brokers? It doesn't seem like it. It doesn't seem like it at all, Mr. Minister, because in each one of those cases, it seems like the superintendent of brokers is asleep at the switch. They're not doing their job; they're just not doing their job.
The other day in the House I raised Lionheart Resources. We know now what happened with Lionheart, because I raised it in the House this afternoon — a year to investigate. There will be more questions on Lionheart later on. But the point again was that for one year it was evident that there were improprieties with respect to certain individuals connected with Lionheart. Some of those improprieties involved insider trading. It's been a year, and yet these individuals continue to trade on the VSE. Does that help clean up the image of the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Is that a departure?
I want to know from the minister what steps he's taking right now to clean up the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange — the superintendent of brokers. So I have a question to the minister, if he wants to return to his seat.
MR. BLENCOE: He's getting some advice.
MR. SIHOTA: Oh, I see. He's got to go to the former Minister of Consumer Affairs, and say: "Help me out." How was it, former minister, that some of these people got involved in the VSE? Why was it that the superintendent of brokers never made a check?
I've dealt with individuals, but there are several companies involved on the VSE in which there have been improprieties. I'll go back to those companies. I want to lay it all out. I want to lay out how they operate. There's a very simple modus operandi, and anyone who understands it — and the superintendent of brokers ought to — will be able to pick out any one of these at any time. I don't know what the problem is, but I have some ideas.
I want the minister to explain what steps he's taking to upgrade and improve the office of the superintendent of brokers. What steps is he taking? Mr. Dilworth, as early as....
MR. RABBITT: Do you want an answer?
MR. SIHOTA: Well, we'll get an answer as soon as the minister finishes consulting with his advisers there.
Mr. Dilworth, who is in charge of the superintendent of brokers office, has indicated that he's 11 people short in the enforcement end. He said that in May. What's the minister doing to improve the operation of the superintendent of brokers? That's the first question.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will be able to go on ad nauseam, given the size of his files over there.
There are some points that must be made here. I gather that he's prepared to go on at length on specific cases. He knows, being a member of the legal profession, that I'm severely constrained from responding on specifics, if only because many of the issues he raises are the subject of ongoing investigations. I cannot abuse the privileged information that I'm party to. Furthermore, I cannot be making public comments that would jeopardize the system. I gather he would be the first person to leap to take the case of somebody whose rights were offended by virtue of a minister of the
[ Page 2130 ]
Crown getting up and trying to explain why government does or doesn't do things.
So I can't deal with specifics to the extent that the hon. member would like me to. In terms of what we're doing and what we hope to do, I should make some general comments.
First of all, as you would note in my opening comments, we considerably expanded the budget for the Securities Commission this year over last year because we're serious about our desire to elevate the profile of Vancouver as an international financial centre, and we're serious about ensuring that everything that can be done by us will be done. Failure to reach our objectives will not result or arise because of our failure to provide funds; in other words, we will provide enough dollars to ensure that the functions of the Securities Commission are met in their entirety. As a consequence of that, we budgeted for 11 new staff. The budget is up 50 percent over last year. Surely even the profligate spenders from across the road couldn't do more than spend a 50 percent increase in one year.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, they could.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Maybe they could, but certainly it is not this government's style to throw money at problems merely to provide lip-service to the critics that we recognize the problem. Whatever this government does in terms of remedial action will be done on the basis of calm, rational judgments based on facts, not fiction, recognizing at all times the sensitivity and delicacy of discussing some of these matters in public, particularly if they're under investigation by either the RCMP or our own investigative officers. We did provide for new staff, and we did provide a 50 percent increase in the budget.
Let's talk about the difficulties we face in trying to fill those positions, because I think that's the critical aspect here. I know, from my private conversations with the member, that even he does not believe that we are wilfully abandoning our responsibilities. Rather, he is interested in focusing our attention and satisfying himself that we appreciate the difficulties — and we do.
In terms of staffing, we have been actively seeking replacements for a number of months. We've had some difficulty identifying people who have the background we need. As a consequence of our almost chronic inability to recruit properly trained people to the task, we've taken some slightly new approaches, which I suspect the members of the opposition would take some heart from. We have gone to the private sector and initiated some staff secondment proposals with them, on the basis that their youngest and their brightest might be interested in coming in and joining government service for a period of time.
I'm pleased to say that the new superintendent of brokers is exactly one of those. Mr. de Gelder is a man who has acquired an outstanding reputation in the Vancouver legal fraternity, as one who specializes in securities issues and whose credentials are impeccable and beyond question. I invite the member to contradict me on that. If you ever had any doubts about our seriousness about putting in place the best possible brains we could and making sure the job is going to be done properly, you merely have to look at the new appointment for superintendent of brokers.
In a similar sense, I think you should be aware — and you are aware — of the fact that we have a new commissioner of the Securities Commission. If you checked on the background and qualifications of that individual, I believe you would have the same opinion as of Mr. de Gelder: a man whose integrity is beyond question, a man whose interest and desire to serve the public is a matter of record, a man who has given a number of years to the government of the province in senior positions and performed in every one of those positions in an exemplary fashion, a man who took the challenge of going to the commission and making sure that we were doing everything within our power to make sure that that operated effectively.
We are looking, then, in terms of the other positions and vacancies that we need to fill.... And there are more than the 11 you talked about, if you didn't know that. In terms of filling those vacancies, we are looking at staff secondments from the private sector for periods of time, and we're also discussing the matter with the universities, with the purpose of bringing in students who might be looking for part-time and summer employment, and who in the course of finishing their studies would have the experience over a four- to six year program to perform very yeoman-like work at the levels of expertise we need for those junior positions. So we're looking at a number of options. It is a discipline that requires young, alert minds, and it's one that will likely have a constant turnover rate. The history of the VSE and the commission has been that people don't stay long, because generally speaking they can make a lot more money outside in the private sector than we can pay them in the public service. So we're particularly indebted to those who do come to the public service, because we recognize that in so doing, they suffer some personal denial of opportunities in the greater public interest.
As to comments from foreigners, I can tell you that I, during my Asian trip, visited Hong Kong and Tokyo and Singapore and met with individuals from the stock exchanges from those three world trading cities, and my information is somewhat at variance with your interpretation of views. I don't doubt that you might be able to find some socialist individual in each of those communities who might like to feed you information, but I tell you that in my exposure to the spokespeople and the officials in charge of those commissions in those cities, I certainly did not get that kind of information.
[9:30]
[Mrs. Gran in the chair]
As a matter of fact, from speaking to those three cities' leaders, I can tell you that there is a great interest in having Vancouver assume a higher profile in the venture capital market as it affects the Pacific Rim. They would benefit from this by virtue of the North American location of Vancouver, because the foreign people I speak of see it as their entry into North America. They understand now that because more and more professional players are coming on the market, it will be possible for them to finance their own new ventures in their own countries from the Vancouver Exchange. I think any of that which we can promote or assist is going to help to build the cadre of infrastructure that we need in the Vancouver financial community.
All of the efforts, all of the responses that I've given to the hon. member during question periods, all of our efforts here, have focused upon the need to build in Vancouver a network of expertise and knowledge surrounding all facets of financial interrelationships. Every single thing that we've done, every
[ Page 2131 ]
decision that we've made, has been with the objective of reaching that goal. It will take time to realize it, but it is the steady course that we're charting. Our motives, by virtue of the changes that we've made in terms of staffing and budgeting, I think should be beyond question. Many of the illustrations that the hon. member cites arose before we made these changes. The new superintendent of brokers just came on board early last month. The new commissioner came on board early this year. The senior positions have only recently been changed and staffed up to the level that I've just described with these quality individuals.
So I'm pleased to tell you that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is alive and well, and it is this government's intention to ensure that it continues to grow and fulfil its destiny in international trading relationships.
MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, that kind of comment from the minister — or filibustering, as someone else called it — may well be fine in front of an audience that doesn't particularly understand the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Let's deal with the real problems. It's not enough to say: "We've got new staff in charge." There are two problems with that. First, historically those staff are walking through a revolving door; they keep changing every two or three months because they know the enormity of the problem that they're facing. Secondly, we're talking about the office of the superintendent of brokers. And don't tell me that that staff has changed, Mr. Minister. You know and I know that during the full course of your tenure, Mr. Dilworth and all the others have been there. They haven't changed. They're the ones — the office of the superintendent of brokers, at least — that ought to have been looking after some of these....
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Are you impugning the integrity of Mr. Dilworth?
MR. SIHOTA: No, I'm not impugning his integrity. I'm saying that the staff....
HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, I don't know what the rules of the House are, but it does seem to me abundantly unfair that individual staff members, who are not here to protect themselves and not able to comment publicly, can be impugned like this by being named in the House as if they were party to some sort of subterfuge surrounding securities business. It is most inappropriate, most unfair and most ungentlemanly.
MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, if the member for Saanich is not aware of the rules of the House, he should stay in his chair until he is prepared to be recognized to speak in this debate.
Interjections.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. I wonder if the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.... The member for Rossland-Trail.
MR. D'ARCY: Madam Chairman, the rules quite clearly state that a member must not use specious points of order in order to interrupt other members and obtain the floor. When another member is finished speaking, he has every right to take his place in debate.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Would all the members just stay in their chairs for a moment, please.
On points of order, the Chair will decide whether to recognize those points of order. I believe the minister was pointing out, or felt, that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was impugning the character of someone not here, and unable to defend himself. I accept that as a point of order, and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew can address that if he likes.
MR. SIHOTA: When the minister raised it, I clarified my comment with respect to the impunity of that individual. The minister heard that. He didn't need to get to his feet.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would the member like to continue?
MR. SIHOTA: I'll continue. The point is, Mr. Minister, that the office of the superintendent of brokers — the SOB's office — hasn't changed in character. We haven't had.... Sure, we've had a new hierarchy. Like I said, it's a little bit like that revolving door over there; but we've haven't had any significant staff changes in the superintendent's office, and I've just given you examples of situations where in some cases the VSE has failed to give the green light and the superintendent's office has. Now....
HON. MR. COUVELIER: You can't have it both ways. We've had two superintendents of brokers in three months and....
AN HON. MEMBER: He's confirming.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members!
MR. SIHOTA: So you're confirming.
Interjection.
MR. SIHOTA: You're just confirming; I want to thank the minister....
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew please continue with his debate.
MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, I'm glad to see that the minister just confirmed some of my comments.
The point is that even under the old system not enough or nothing was being done, and it's not enough for the minister to say: "Well, we're going to go out and hire some students to come out and tackle this very complex problem." It's a little bit like having pussycats going after alligators. It just doesn't work. It's not going to happen. You have to have some people who are experienced, who know what they're doing.
The minister says he doesn't want to deal with specifics, but perhaps the minister should write these stocks down and ask the superintendent of brokers' office where their investigations are, because I would submit that those investigations either were tardy and didn't happen, over an extended period of time when the VSE and the superintendent's office knew or ought to have known about these instances, or that they never took place at all.
Banco Resources, Mr. Minister — write it down; International Turbine; Vault Explorations; Altar Gold; Axiom. Why don't you have a discussion with some of the governors?
[ Page 2132 ]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you please direct your remarks through the Chair. I think it will ease the situation a little bit.
MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, to the minister: Lionheart Resource; Golden Tech; some of the others. Perhaps by the end of this debate we might have some answers back from the minister saying why there was no movement. There was a share discussed in the Vancouver Sun just recently, by the name of Marco, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure I could get the actual spelling for the minister. Files were before the superintendent of brokers office for three or four years, and it appears now that the investigation only started to move after the Vancouver Sun story about a month ago on Technigen. On April 14, we have documentation that information was going to that office about questionable activities with respect to Technigen, and not until there was an article in the Vancouver Province does it appear that there was some type of movement on investigations. Once again, the superintendent of brokers office wasn't moving.
Tillex: we've discussed that one on a couple of occasions. It's my information that the superintendent's office — and I know the minister has investigated Tillex — had the information that I put before this House when the shares were at $3 to $4. Remember, they were somewhere around $70 when the whole thing collapsed. But once again it wasn't moved upon in any significant way until I raised the matter in the House in May. The minister knows that. What about the operations of Image West? A report went into the superintendent of brokers' office with respect to statements of material facts which did not seem to be accurate. That was in April 1987, and we're not seeing any movement.
I'll tell you why there's a revolving door, Mr. Minister. It's very simple. I've said it before and I'm not afraid to say it again: friends of government are involved in the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange; people with power, influence and money who have an impact on the operations and the activities of government. That's my theory of what's happening there. We know that some of those individuals have been quite prominent in their approaches to and lobbying of members of cabinet. There are brokerage houses that have a particular affinity to the government. The minister knows and I know that only a short time ago a major brokerage house made a representation, as I understand it, to the minister and said: "Hey, look. Unless this thing is cleaned up, we're just not going to participate on the VSE." So it's not just London; it's not just Hong Kong. It's our own major brokerage houses in Vancouver.
The minister says I'm quoting socialists from Hong Kong and London who came and looked over the operation of the VSE." I'll give you the names: Ronald Li Fook Shiu from Hong Kong. Perhaps Mr. Shiu would like to know that the minister has suggested that he is a socialist. Perhaps the minister would like to write Mr. Brian Worth from the London Society of Chartered Accountants and point out to him that he thinks that that individual is a socialist.
These aren't quotes that I went hunting all over the place for, Madam Chairman. These are stories that appeared in the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province in the last few months. It isn't easy to simply dismiss the issues that I'm raising by saying: "Well, we're trying" or "Well, things have changed" or "Well, we'll hire students" or "Oh, well, those people are socialists." Let's cut the rhetoric.
Let me ask the minister one or two very basic questions. If the system is as good and effective as the minister suggested in his comments earlier on, can he tell me and this House how many VSE directors and promoters have been found to be unsuitable by any of the watchdog agencies of the Vancouver Stock Exchange over the last four years? How many, Mr. Minister? We know how many there have been in Alberta and Saskatchewan. But how many in British Columbia? That is the type of statistic that gives the investment community a little bit of comfort and lets them know that there is indeed a watchdog agency doing its job. It is one monitor of appropriate watchdog activities. How many of those directors....? We've already talked about criminal records, so we won't get into specifics — just a general, basic question. How many? Madam Chairman, the answer is zero — not one. Is that the kind of signal the government wants to send out to the investment community, to say that not one of them has been found unsuitable?
[9:45]
Let's ask another question — not a skill-testing one, just a basic question; again, not specific. Another question to the minister, if he wishes to answer it. How often in the last four years have the trading privileges of various directors been lifted because of activities on the Vancouver Stock Exchange? If the minister wants to leave his seat and doesn't want to deal with the issue, we'll be here. We're quite prepared to stay here and ask the minister.
The minister does not want to know that the system is not working. He does not want to hear the truth. That's the problem. I laid it out at the very beginning, Madam Chairman, that we on this side want to see a clean, effective, functioning Vancouver Stock Exchange. We want to see some signals from the minister that they're moving. So the question, very simply put, is: how often have the trading privileges in the last few years been lifted from directors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange? I've already given you an indication of some directors of some of the companies that were clearly, in my view, involved in unsavoury activity. But how effective has the office of the superintendent of brokers been in lifting their trading privileges? How often has it happened in the last few years, Mr. Minister?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Some of the comments we've heard here are just so outrageous that I didn't want to dignify them with a response.
The suggestion that securities firms, by virtue of having some connection with the government, are getting some concessions, I find offensive in the extreme. The member knows full well that there is nothing that is provable or supportable, or else it would be the subject of a court case in the public arena. While it's all well and good and easy to make these shots in this House, I really think it doesn't do any service to the reputation.... It might enhance the reputation of the hon. member, but it sure as blazes doesn't do anything for the reputation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.
HON. MR. REID: He needs all the help he can get.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, I suppose he does. He's certainly reaching.
I don't want to make light of the difficulties in monitoring the operation of a venture capital exchange. They are grave,
[ Page 2133 ]
and it's a heavy responsibility. It's not one that can ever, in the fullness of time, be 100 percent successful.
If the New York Stock Exchange is going to have its embarrassments, and it does; if the London Stock Exchange is going to have its embarrassments, and it does; and if the Toronto Stock Exchange is going to have its embarrassments, and it does, then it seems to me perfectly logical, and something not worthy of the kind of comments we've heard from across the floor, that the Vancouver Stock Exchange should similarly have those situations arise from time to time. Particularly so when the Vancouver Stock Exchange is a venture capital exchange. It is designed to deal with firms without a track record, who need to raise additional equity money to get their operation off the ground. That's the very purpose of a venture capital exchange. The senior exchanges in the world, whether it be Tokyo or London or Toronto, or wherever, all deal with mature stocks, stocks that have a track record, stocks whose performance can be judged and rated by the observers, stocks that are easy to monitor. Obviously when we have a unique situation like we have in Vancouver, with a venture capital exchange, you would not expect — and certainly I don't expect — that we will be able to avoid embarrassments from time to time.
The member suggested that he and he alone was responsible for the Tillex investigation. Of all the absurdities! I know that some members across the floor have some egos, but I never dreamt in my wildest dreams that you'd want to take credit for such a statement, which is so easily proven wrong.
The investigations of the affairs of the Vancouver Stock Exchange are monitored daily by a very dedicated group of professionals who know the business. In that process they are making judgments and passing down rulings which obviously, in those instances, you wouldn't comment on, because they don't help you to make your point that they're not doing the job. The fact of the matter is: they are doing the job, and they're doing it very well.
As to the Tillex matter, the member knows full well that it is a matter under active investigation, not only by the RCMP but also by our own enforcement officers in the VSE and in the Securities Commission. So I can't comment on that issue; I just can't. As to some of the other instances that he's described, I know that they're also under active investigation, so I'm similarly constrained; I can't deal with them. But I freely admit that these situations arise, and I can only tell the member — and I say it very emphatically and categorically — that we are taking steps to ensure that the level of monitoring is increased, and that the protection of the consumer is given heavy weight.
You've got to recognize that the purpose of the exchange is to raise money for firms that have no operating track record. In that process it is a high-risk investment. Certainly all the major players on the Vancouver Stock Exchange know that full well. The people from offshore who come into the Vancouver Stock Exchange to list their new companies or to make investments in presently listed companies do so with full knowledge that there are high risks associated. They are what you might call "sophisticated investors." Certainly if they are moving around the world with their investments, as these firms and individuals are, you can only characterize them as sophisticated.
When you have these kinds of sophisticated investors playing on the market — gambling against each other, if you like, in terms of how one particular stock may do over another — you must expect that there will be some winners and some losers on that exchange. I wouldn't imagine that the opposition party is saying that it's our obligation as government to ensure that there shall never be any losers on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Surely that would be absurd. It's a free market, and one that finds its own level. People who play it know and understand that.
I think that the truth of my comments in terms of the merits of our staff changes and the truth of the wisdom of the new regulations that we put in place.... As the member knows, we introduced regulations effective February 1, a fairly recent event. They are a little bit tighter than they were. And the member probably also knows that Friday — it might have been this morning: I'm not sure of the timing — we issued a discussion paper with new regulations for foreign ownership of securities firms and dealings on the Vancouver exchange.
So we are monitoring closely and rewriting, where appropriate, our regulatory mechanism. There is absolutely no reason for any investor in the Vancouver Stock Exchange to be concerned about this government's strong desire to ensure that it fulfils its destiny and plays a very significant role in world stock exchanges as a seed or venture capital location.
As I said, I cannot deal with specifics, primarily because most of them are matters currently under active investigation. Madam Speaker, I have dealt with some of the issues that were raised in terms of specifics. I think there was one question about how many directors and promoters have been stopped or slapped or cut down. I suppose you have to define the words "slapped" or "cut down." We do, as a matter of daily practice, monitor those kinds of individuals, and where we have sufficient evidence to justify it, we are making sure that their activity on the exchange is limited. So I'm proud of the job that's being done, and I say confidently that we will be doing a continually better job as time passes.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:55 p.m.