[ Page 8079 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Parole Act (Bill 53). Hon. Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 8079

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act, 1989 (Bill M219). Mr. Serwa

Introduction and first reading –– 8079

Offence Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 63). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8079

Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 64). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8080

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 65). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 8080

Science Council Act (Bill 72). Hon. S. Hagen

Introduction and first reading –– 8080

Presenting Reports –– 8080

Oral Questions

AIDS prevention video. Mr. Perry –– 8080

Sale of New Westminster property. Mr. Williams –– 8081

National milk marketing plan. Mr. Barlee –– 8082

American fruit imports. Mr. Barlee –– 8082

Vancouver property taxes. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8082

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates, (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8083

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Barlee

Land Title Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 61). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8109

School Act (Bill 67). Second reading

Mr. Sihota –– 8109

Mr. Perry –– 8111

Mr. Rose –– 8113

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8115

Independent School Act (Bill 68). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8119

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8120

Mr. Jones –– 8123

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8125

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office $127

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Serwa

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Williams

Ministerial Statement

Supreme Court decision in ICG case. Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8137

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Visiting us today from Seattle are some very special guests: a longtime school buddy and certainly a good friend for many years, Mr. Gerald Hughes, his wife Gay, their daughter Ardis and a friend, Miss Pamela Peeler. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Just outside Manchester, England, is a community known as Southport, and visiting our Legislature today is Miss Doreen Shaw from Southport. She is accompanied by her sister, a constituent of mine, Elizabeth Davies. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PAROLE ACT

Hon. Mr. Ree presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. a bill intituled Parole Act.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, this act will provide a legislative basis for the existence, organization and mandate of the B.C. Board of Parole. Currently the board operates under the federal Parole Act and under sections of the provincial Correction Act. The introduction of a provincial parole act is part of the ministry's response to public concerns about the justice system. In the last session, government introduced legislation and programs to help victims of crime.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, if the members will be quiet, they will have adequate opportunity during second reading and in committee to ask questions and review the bill and the method of appointment of members of the Parole Board.

Other concerns were addressed in the report of the justice Reform Committee, and the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) is undertaking a number of initiatives in this regard. The release of the Green Paper "Parole: Earning the Privilege" in April 1988 created a greater public awareness of parole, how it works and how it might be improved.

While the province is constrained by federal jurisdiction in this area, it can now nevertheless achieve several tangible benefits through a provincial parole act. In addition to providing a clear legal basis for the existence of a provincial parole board, the act will enable persons sentenced under provincial statute to be eligible for parole.

It will also establish a stronger identity for B.C.'s Parole Board. The board will be able to establish and retain its own administrative practices rather than having such practices imposed by the National Parole Board.

Finally, the act provides an opportunity to affirm the independence of the Parole Board in statute, as recommended by the ombudsman.

A provincial parole act is overdue in this province, and I am sure it will have the support of all members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of Bill 53.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MOTOR VEHICLE

(ALL TERRAIN) ACT, 1989

Mr. Serwa presented a bill intituled Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act, 1989.

MR. SERWA: The Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act, 1989, is designed to regulate the broad range of all-terrain vehicles that have appeared on the market. All-terrain vehicles have become very popular throughout the province. Regrettably, the increased utilization has also resulted in a corresponding increase in private and public property damage, injuries and fatalities. Many of the accidents involve children. It is imperative that steps be taken to implement measures to mitigate the potential for head, neck and back injuries. In 1987, reports indicated that 116 British Columbians suffered serious injuries and four persons died while riding all-terrain vehicles.

This act is comprised of ten parts and addresses basic rules of safety and operation, operator licensing, financial responsibility and other issues, such as registration and identification.

The objectives of this act are to reduce the potential for accidents, to provide a means of reducing ecological damage on public land, to control such factors as required to protect private land and crops and to provide for financial responsibility of the registered owner.

Bill M219, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Offence Amendment Act, 1989.

[2:15]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides two principal amendments to the Offence Act. The first one parallels amendments that have been made to the Criminal Code and provides for a telewarrant system of search warrants under certain circumstances. It provides as well for safeguards that, again,

[ Page 8080 ]

parallel the provisions of the Criminal Code. This will be most frequently used in circumstances where people enforcing the Wildlife Act have difficulty physically getting to the location to get a search warrant because they are many miles out in the toolies. This provision will provide for that circumstance and ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent abuses.

The second amendment is very important to the effective enforcement of our environmental laws in particular. It will allow the Crown to recover the costs associated with the investigation of offences under certain provincial statutes; those costs being able to be collected by the Crown after a conviction has taken place. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall prescribe those enactments by regulation. The first such act to be so prescribed will be the Waste Management Act.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation and the legislation it contemplates, particularly in the second amendment, will give a new power, a power unique to the province of British Columbia, a power that, in my view, will be the toughest in the free world for enforcing this kind of legislation.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 64, which amends the Attorney General Act, will allow the Attorney-General, in consultation with the Solicitor General, to use the proceeds of crime for the purpose of fighting crime. Recent amendments to the Criminal Code allow the courts to order that assets which are the direct or indirect result of certain enterprise crimes be forfeited to the province or that a fine equal to the value of such proceeds be paid.

This bill will enable the province to allocate these funds for the purpose of criminal law enforcement. The funds will be held in a special account, the forfeited crime proceeds fund, established for this purpose. A protocol has been developed by the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree), the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and myself regarding guidelines for the disposition of that fund.

This bill is a most appropriate addition to the administration of criminal justice in British Columbia and will see the ill-gotten gains of criminals used by the police to go out and catch even more criminals.

Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 65 contains measures designed to allow the electrical industry to assume a greater share of responsibility for meeting safety standards. This bill will provide for regulations to proceed that are necessary for continued safety assurance and public confidence in the new system of shared responsibility.

Bill 65 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SCIENCE COUNCIL ACT

Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Science Council Act.

HON. S. HAGEN: This bill will strengthen the organizational structure of the Science Council and recognize its expanded mandate in the field of science and technology. The government has made a commitment to support the growth of science and technology in British Columbia, and the proposed revisions will reinforce our support.

Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Hagen presented a report commissioned by the women's secretariat, entitled "Free Trade and Women in British Columbia — Potential Impact and Policy Directions for the Future."

Oral Questions

AIDS PREVENTION VIDEO

MR. PERRY: A question for the Premier. I must say I sometimes wonder whether we have a different understanding than the Premier on what the meaning of the free world is. Over a week ago the Premier blocked the release of a video financed by his own government advocating the use of condoms as protection against the fatal AIDS virus. He stated that he found the video personally objectionable because the promotion of condoms encouraged teenagers to engage in sexual activity. In light of the subsequent flood of criticism from educators, doctors, health experts, parents and teenagers themselves, is the Premier now prepared to reverse his decision and allow the distribution of this important educational and healthful video?

[ Page 8081 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey must be speaking about someone else, because he's attributing words to me that I've not spoken.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reiterate the question. The Premier has personally in effect censored and banned the distribution of a video prepared with $70,000 of public funds out of the Ministry of Health budget. It's the Premier's decision and his responsibility. Is he prepared to live up to his responsibility as the first minister to protect the children of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, the member is making statements that are erroneous. I don't know where he gets the figures and the so-called facts. As a matter of fact, it rather troubles me, because I was looking at a community report put out by the members for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams and Mr. Clark) which says in part: "The rules of the Legislature require members to back up any statements they make in the House, so you can be sure when we claim government mismanagement or wrongdoing, it's based on facts." Given that statement by the two members for Vancouver East, I'm wondering if they would consult with the member for Vancouver-Point Grey and give him the facts so that he can get his question correct.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'll rephrase the question in very simple English. Will the Premier now agree to support the release of the AIDS video into theatres, as was the original intention of the Ministry of Health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to answer that question.

The Minister of Health made a decision with respect to the appropriateness of the video, but since it could be matter of public debate, the minister informed me of his decision, and I concurred with his decision. We obviously have been successful in our efforts to date, since in B.C. there is a greater awareness than we find anywhere in the country. B.C. is ranked number one in a national survey as to awareness of AIDS.

There is more that can and must be done, not only by government but by other public and private bodies and by parents. A further video or videos may be one such effort. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken on this particular subject, and I regret that, as so often, he is not in the House today. The Leader of the Opposition objects to societal moral considerations when programs are assessed, and I would ask the members of the opposition and in particular the Leader of the Opposition why he does not think that society's standards or morality should form some part of social and health policy In British Columbia.

Once again the NDP displays their situational standards or ethics. You wrap yourselves around the issue of the day, and that's what your standards are

Whatever the situation of the day, those are your standards. The purpose of the video was to warn young people about the dangers of AIDS, but while the video does an excellent job of displaying and selling product, the mere mention of AIDS is almost an afterthought. This, in the opinion of many who viewed it, is not sufficient to caution the viewer about the dangers or how to prevent contracting AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases.

I discussed the video with the western Premiers, all of whom believe such videos must be done in good taste, with a balance and with discretion. Both Manitoba and Alberta have videos, but each gives consideration and recognition to the various views as to the appropriate presentation. I have asked my Minister of Health to take the video to various community leaders and groups to receive further opinion on its effectiveness and appropriateness.

MR. PERRY: A new question then. Will the Minister of Health please explain why, if the Premier is willing to release the controversial video to the public, the minister would not release it for viewing when I phoned his office last week and asked for a copy of it to display to members of the Legislature in this building?

HON. MR. DUECK: Until this video is for public viewing, we are keeping it to ourselves and will do so until we are ready to release it, if at all.

MR. PERRY: I'll return to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier then direct his minister to release the video for members of the Legislature to see? If he is prepared to have the rest of the public see it, why do we not have the right in this House to see a video, paid for out of public funds, that has already been broadcast on three television networks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think it's fair to ask that members of the Legislature be given an opportunity to view the video. I think when the minister is ready to show it to community groups and community leaders, as he intends to do, he will arrange for the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey to perhaps have a personal viewing of it. Someone in the profession that he is in will, I'm sure, be objective in his comments and not political — and objective and constructive comments would be much appreciated.

[2:30]

SALE OF NEW WESTMINSTER PROPERTY

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Government Management Services, would the minister confirm the sale of the public market on the New Westminster waterfront along with two other sites for $1.5 million?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I don't know to what the member refers. Perhaps if he gave some

[ Page 8082 ]

further information, some more data, I would know what the member is talking about.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's 1.75 acres at the foot of 8th; 330 feet of water frontage. It's something the Development Corporation applied for building permits for which totalled $2.6 million — $210,000 and $650,000 in 1985 and 1986, prior to the sale of the site.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I know of the parcel; I don't know of the details. I will have to take the question as notice. The only thing I've had time to research is that when the property was sold, there were no old age pensioners or disabled kicked out of the property as there were on Hemlock Street.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas in question was actually transferred in 1988, when this minister was the minister responsible: the parking area adjacent to the public market. Does the minister not recall approving the transfer?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I will immediately have my staff — as we have on other occasions — do a full research. We will get back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that there will be a very reasoned story told by the staff, as there has been on all the other famous stories that the member opposite seems to bring forward, including the stories on the Foursquare tabernacle, the Songhees lands, Westminster Quay, the so-called giveaway of the Expo lands — and the list goes on. The most recent one, which was inflammatory, was brought up by the member last week regarding the so-called giveaways at Whistler. There will be full explanations to all those who choose to listen, and I'm sure there will be one for this as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister does not recall the transfer of the parking site, which was a lease until the year 2045, at a nominal amount with no rent for ten years. The minister does not recall that one. Is that what he's saying, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: the question has been taken as notice. We will certainly research it and get the full story, rather than trying to get shotgun approaches to very serious questions. If the allegations on this particular subject are no more serious than the other flamboyant, irresponsible, exaggerated assertions put forward by that member, I'm sure it will not take that long to investigate.

NATIONAL MILK MARKETING PLAN

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. Several days ago, under a carefully conducted vote supervised by a company called Thorne Ernst and Whinney, the British Columbia dairymen voted against opting out of the national milk marketing system. The vote was 671 to 38. That's almost 95 percent, an overwhelming rejection. Can the minister assure this house that British Columbia will now not pull out of the National Milk Marketing Plan?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, Mr. Speaker.

AMERICAN FRUIT IMPORTS

MR. BARLEE: Again to the Minister of Agriculture. The Okanagan cherry growers have had one of the finest crops in probably ten years. Unfortunately their market has been flooded by the Americans. They pay something like 19 to 20 cents to have cherries picked, and they get about 22 cents a pound, so they are losing money. Can the minister tell this House what specific steps he has taken to protect this industry from low-cost American imports as the tariff protecting B.C. growers is being phased out under free trade? Secondly, has the minister any staff delegated to study the impact of the free trade agreement on British Columbia tree-fruit growers?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We are well aware of the cherry problem. We have had staff working on it. We have been in discussions with the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association. Certainly it is well recognized that the price is devastating to their producers. But we have also informed them that there is action that can be taken with Ottawa to seek countervailing action, and we have encouraged them to do so. I have had almost weekly discussions with the president of the fruit growers and his advisers on that issue.

VANCOUVER PROPERTY TAXES

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Minister of Finance. I know the minister has met with the small businessmen in Vancouver in the past week and has firsthand knowledge of exorbitant tax increases there. Can the minister now give some hope to these small business people as well as to homeowners in British Columbia that our government will undertake a complete study to find a better alternative to the present tax regime so as to ensure that next year will not see more of the same inequities in the tax system that we have endured this year and that the small business men you met with last week will have to endure?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Owing in no small measure to the hon. member's raising the issue and bringing it to our attention last week, I am pleased to advise that the provincial government was in a position to respond quickly and sensitively to the request of aggrieved businessmen in Vancouver. The issue there was that, to a large extent by virtue of actual values rising on industrial property basically because of potential development rights, tenants who were commercial-retail business people found themselves the victims of a much higher tax than they had historically experienced.

Insofar as this was primarily a matter of local government collecting taxes from local constituents

[ Page 8083 ]

and that government's decision about which group of constituents would pay which part of the costs, we were able to provide satisfaction to Vancouver city council, and my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and I were pleased to provide that accommodation.

To the larger question — that is to say, the whole study of assessment principles as they apply in British Columbia — I am happy to advise the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and the House that the Union of B.C. Municipalities has created four different task forces to look at four different aspects of this question and that those task forces are coming to some conclusions and some recommendations. The intention would be that they would bring their recommendations to the annual UBCM convention in September.

I haven't yet had the privilege of seeing the material produced by the task force, but I can assure the member that we will be made aware of the contents and the recommendations in time for us to be able to respond at the convention itself. In the expectation that that is the event and that matters will unfold in that way, we will be able, I think, to provide the level of comfort the member desires in terms of government's willingness to study the matter more seriously.

Not having the task force material at hand at the moment — and it will probably be another couple of weeks before that is obtained — I rather doubt that I can be more specific today for the hon. member. I certainly would be pleased to bring the matter forward to the House, and we can have another useful question and another useful answer.

MR. B.R. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Will the House welcome Tom and Sandy MacMillan. Tom is the executive vice-president of the Financial Post. He is here with his three children from Toronto: Jolie, Kelly and Heather. Would the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR

CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, for my 15 minutes now, or whatever it is going to be, I'd like to carry on from where I was when I adjourned on Thursday and discuss a bit more about the Cariboo development region and the quality of life we enjoy there, and how much that's seen as a very desirable thing.

As I pointed out on Thursday, the per capita income of Prince George is the highest in the province. You can find that generally in the Cariboo area, because it's heavily industrialized, with sawmilling and pulp-milling. People there generally have a tendency to be younger and quite productive; It is a high-income area, without question. If you talk to people and assess what they really want, it's clearly a higher-quality lifestyle. As I said before, and I'll say again now, probably our number one priority in terms of economic and social development is a full-fledged university, without question. I don't think there's any argument about that, the reason being that we know that from the establishment of a university will come all of the economic development we need. That is really the cornerstone of any serious development in our area.

In January the mayor of Prince George and I, along with the regional development officer of the Prince George Region Development Corporation, went to Sudbury, Ontario, and then later I went on to Thunder Bay, to look at what northern Ontario communities have done in terms of economic development and how they've tried to lift themselves up. Sudbury, of course, is one of the better examples of rural economic development, because there is a community that was struck with disastrous unemployment and had to really pick itself up by the bootstraps. That was the basis of our trip to Sudbury. They quite clearly told us in Sudbury that if any community were to achieve sound economic development and sound growth, it had to improve its social amenities. They were quite clear on that, and they pointed out what they had done. Of course, the establishment of a university was one of the cornerstones of development in that community.

With that said, I want to stress that we as an economic development group — that includes the seven mayors who sit with me on my economic development commission and the two chairman of the regional districts — do see the establishment of a sound social base, sound social amenities and a sound quality of life as the most important thing we can do with respect to economic development in our area. That gets a far higher priority than any specific industry, which we know is going to come anyway.

We've seen, particularly in Prince George, because of environmental standards — which I put in, coincidentally — the establishment of major chemical industries catering to newer, cleaner pulp mills: the FMC hydrogen peroxide plant and a major investment by B.C. Chemicals with respect to the production of chlorine dioxide, or ClO₂, as it's called in the pulping industry. So we are seeing that development come. But just let me emphasize again that social development is by far our highest priority; from that we know that the economic development will come.

Just to get back to recapping the points of view from the Ministry of Environment, as I said earlier, and as I said in the budget debate, we have had a remarkable increase in our budget: 30 percent this year. Waste management, of course, is a major concern; that's been increased considerably. We recog-

[ Page 8084 ]

nize that we have to put our money where our mouth is if we're going to be seen as being proper stewards of the environment.

[2:45]

I'd also like to point out to the committee members that in spite of all of the debate that we're probably going to hear today and maybe tomorrow about the pure NDP position on the environment, I think it's difficult for any thinking person to accept that a political party that has policy dominated by trade unions is going to have any enlightened environmental initiatives in place. I think the recent problem the opposition has with establishing a position on the Carmanah is one good example of that.

I'd like to close these comments. I welcome the criticism from my critic and other members of the committee by saying that I do believe that we have really turned the comer in terms of environmental management. I don't say that everything is perfect. It's going to take some time, but we do have the money in our budget now and the resources and the management skills to lead Canada in environmental legislation, environmental management and showing proper government concern. That said, I'll take my place, Mr. Chairman, and listen to my critic.

MR. CASHORE: It's wonderful to hear thunderous applause from both sides of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to rise and respond to the Minister of Environment during the canvassing of his estimates as Environment minister and as a minister of state. I think the Minister of Environment of this province at this time has an extremely difficult task. It's not an enviable job trying to live down a legacy of political interference in environmental protection. It's a legacy that he cannot take total personal responsibility for creating; after all, he can't be accused of presiding over the destruction of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. He can't be given all the blame for having eroded the agricultural land reserve, and he can't even take the blame for all the past failures of his government in failing to enforce environmental protection laws.

My comments are directed to him insofar as he is a member of the cabinet and is responsible for the kinds of policies that have been followed by this government and by its predecessors. What we have as a result of that is an accumulation of a situation that has made this very marvellous province of British Columbia with its incredible beauty vulnerable to a wide variety of impacts that have been brought to bear on that environment. This is indeed tragic, given that the environment is such an important part of the amenity of this province, such an important part of what it is that enables us to have an economy, and given that the environment is something that is increasingly precious to the people of this province.

Just in connection with that, it would be the role of a government that is bent on moving in tune with the kind of reference that we heard the minister make to the Brundtland report.... I would think it would behoove such a government to start adhering to policies that truly indicate that that government is not only verbally wanting to say and do some of the right things but really feels deep down that it espouses a philosophy that supports the environment. Yet there almost seem to be these uncontrollable urges on the part of members of this government to say things and do things that constantly indicate that they really aren't in tune.

The minister made comments at the conclusion of his speech when he decided to take a swing at trade unions and questioned how we as an opposition could have an appropriate environmental policy given that among so many of our citizens we also recognize the value of working people and the history of working people. I'm sure that one of the things that has been a nemesis to this minister, especially during the last 18 months, has been the outstanding environmental work that has been done by members of trade unions. Working people in this province certainly do have every right to seek to be known as environmentalists as they go about fulfilling their role as British Columbians in the workplace.

I think the minister is aware that there have been some outstanding environmental briefs presented to him and copies sent to me from none other than the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada and the IWA and, indeed, others of the trade union movement. It certainly is true that the working people are as familiar as the minister is and as familiar as I am with the Brundtland report, and with the procedures that have led up to the development of that whole new opportunity for us to develop a new perspective and a new vision with regard to the environment. I think it's just unfortunate that the minister would conclude his remarks with a statement that is more to set people on edge and create conflict than to deal with the situations that we need to be working together to resolve.

The fact is that an accumulation of Social Credit government policies over the years has resulted in a failure to enforce effective waste management and a failure to keep a promise with regard to setting anti-sapstain standards in a situation where we find that the rivers of the province are being impacted by that, knowing that a deadline was allowed to pass when it was promised that these standards would be coming forward. There has been a failure to respond appropriately to the Grays Harbor oil spill. The best that can be said about it for the minister and for his government was that it was hopefully a learning experience, but one that would seem had more learning in public relations than actual effective work on behalf of responding and taking a leadership role on such an important issue and on such an important disaster.

There has been a failure to resolve the issue of transportation and destruction of hazardous wastes. There's been a failure to even recognize that they are hazardous wastes. In the Waste Management Act that was brought before the House recently there was no attempt to call a spade a spade and call dangerous toxic waste what it is; instead it persisted in calling it "special waste" and therefore creating a false sense of security on the part of the public.

[ Page 8085 ]

There has been a failure to bring in changes to the Litter Act that reflect the recommendations of "Taking Action," which is the report of the task force on municipal waste. There has been a failure to release information on plans of mills to reduce dioxin levels, and there has been a failure to ensure that freedom of information be as readily available to the people of British Columbia as it is in other jurisdictions in Canada, and as has been decided and enacted by the Parliament of Canada.

There has been a failure to ensure meaningful public participation in environment and land use decisions. There has been a failure to ensure that independent staff of the Ministry of Environment are involved in monitoring emissions, rather than the industry self-monitoring, which often uses equipment that we cannot even be sure is telling the true story with regard to the kinds of emissions taking place.

There has been a failure to ensure that the training and experience of the Environmental Lab employees were not lost, and we'll be going into this in some detail later. Many of those employees — not having been absorbed into areas within the ministry or lab where they would be able to make use of their experience and expertise — have been dealt with in a shabby way. In some instances many years of training and expertise have been lost, as some of these people are now being retrained to work in liquor stores. Not that there should be anything wrong with that, but it's a very sad thing that the expertise, training and ability to be in the front line of protecting our environment has been lost.

There has been a failure to ensure that there would be a lab functioning effectively within the province, and we have a situation now where the federal government has found it necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the result of that privatization.

There has been a failure to fulfil the ombudsman's recommendations with regard to pesticides in British Columbia. There has been a failure to protect watersheds.

That's a partial list of some of the failures that are the legacy this government has to deal with. Yet we hear a great deal of optimism and talk about a government that has decided to change its ways. We heard the minister say — during his initial words to his estimates on Friday — that millions of dollars are being added to his ministry. We've heard him say that enforcement is going to be improved. We've heard a lot of things said. In quite a well-canvassed debate in the House a few nights ago, we heard the minister's comments and comments from this side of the House with regard to plans to increase maximum penalties. On the one hand we had this statement of all these wonderful things that were going to happen to improve environmental protection, and on the other hand we had very devastating evidence that there is not any indication that this government has the political will or the ability to do what it says it's going to do. As a matter of fact, that feeling is so entrenched among the members of the public of British Columbia that when such statements are made, they are received with a great deal of skepticism — and so they should be received with a great deal of skepticism.

The minister frequently refers to his consultative relationship with Professor Rankin, who, along with Professor Brown of the University of Victoria, produced a report using ministry data that they had to agree not to release. I think it was last November during a CBC interview when the devastating information in the Rankin report came out, and the minister said: "Yes, but that report deals with the time prior to me becoming minister. Since becoming the minister, things have changed." Then he said: "Just watch me. I'm an enforcer."

Mr. Chairman, not at this point but later on in the debate I will be sending over to the minister some information that comes from the Ministry of Environment indicating the amount of fines levied under the Waste Management Act since he became minister and up until the end of the fiscal year 1988-89. Apart from one cumulative set of three fines in Prince George, totalling $65,000, the fact is that in the previous year — '87-88, the first year he was minister — the amount of fines under the Waste Management Act was just over $18,000 for the entire province. During the following year, the most recent fiscal year, is the dramatic leap that the minister likes to point to, where the total goes to something like $73,400 for fines under the Waste Management Act.

[3:00]

Yet any review of records of fines under the Waste Management Act going back five years would indicate that those three cumulative fines totalling $65,000 in Prince George are an aberration. If you remove that aberration, it would mean that the fines under the Waste Management Act actually went down during the second year that this minister was Minister of Environment.

So we have some need for accountability for this declaration that this minister is an enforcer. This underlines the point I think we need to make, which is that as long as this government sets about saying, "Look at these new regulations we are bringing in; look at these new maximum fines we are putting on the books," the public also has to know that since the minister said he had become involved and was an enforcer — apart from that set of fines in Prince George, which is an aberration — the fact is that the total fines under the Waste Management Act declined.

Even if that $65,000 cumulative fine was not an aberration, less than $100,000 in fines under the Waste Management Act in one year is a pitiful condemnation of waste management in this province. You could increase the total amount of fines paid by several hundred percent and it would still be too low to send out a message to polluters that they are not to be polluting British Columbia. I recognize that it is not the only approach available to us to deal with polluters, but it certainly is an important aspect of it.

If we were to take a look at, for instance, other aspects of enforcement dealt with under the Offence Act — say a traffic offence as a matter of comparison

[ Page 8086 ]

— we would find that there is a level of fines being levied against traffic violators that does have an impact and gets a message out there.

I don't want to get into too much personal detail, but I can tell you that a member of my family having to pay for a couple of traffic offences really had to take a look at driving habits. I notice that the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) is nodding his head; he is pleased to hear about that. Certainly if enforcement resulting in fines is going to be a factor in protecting the environment, then we are going to have to make leaps and bounds in order to improve it. If we are going to make those leaps and bounds, again we are going to have to canvass during these estimates the efficacy of the stated intent with regard to conservation officers and just what exactly is going to be delivered to enable a vital part of the process of bringing about effective enforcement. I submit, Mr. Chairman — and I will be interested in the minister's remarks on this — that when we examine it carefully, we will find that what has been touted is really not going to be adding significantly to the capacity to do the necessary investigative work for waste management enforcement.

I would like to turn now to something the minister referred to during his remarks on Friday: the Brundtland commission. As I said earlier, a number of sectors in our society have recognized that the work of the Brundtland commission has been marvellous in terms of its role of awakening people the world over with regard to environmental issues in the context of development decisions. The minister, I think, gave a lot of the background to the Brundtland commission report during his comments, so I won't reiterate that history, but I did want to point out that we really need to take a careful look at some aspects of what we see happening there.

I wrote a letter to the minister on May 24 concerning the process for setting up the round tables. I pointed out in that letter that I did not think the round-table process of itself was going to effectively resolve our environmental problems in Canada but that it was an important part of the process, and we needed to be diligent in the way we went about it. I also pointed out to him that the report made to the CCREM ministers had recommended the provincial round table be appointed at a much earlier date to ensure that the British Columbia round table was represented on the federal round table when it was appointed so that there was a continuity between the federal and provincial round-table processes. I pointed out to the minister that waiting until after the recommended deadline to appoint the task force meant there was going to be an incredible delay in getting down to the task of getting that round table into place.

Now things have happened backwards: the federal round table was appointed before the provincial round table. The recommendations have been made by the task force to appoint the provincial round table, and it's my understanding from that report that it is going to take at least two years to get the process up and running to the point where the developmental decisions in the province have the appropriate kind of environmental input. I don't think our province can put up with that kind of foot-dragging. I don't think our province can really tolerate a situation where process is used to delay taking action while enabling the use of noble words. You can actually use process skillfully as a means of doing nothing, a means of foot-dragging and delay, a means of increasing the rhetoric but decreasing the action. I think there's an excellent example of that in the way the round-table process has been handled. This province, except perhaps for Alberta, has been one of the last to act on that process. We're still awaiting the appointment of the round table to make sure there is an appropriate representation of people from all aspects of the community so that it's not tilted unfairly in one direction or the other.

Having said all that, we now have to recognize that while there is one person from British Columbia on that federal round table, it is not someone from the British Columbia round table; therefore one of the principles of Brundtland is lost: that is, the principle of continuity.

One thing that interested me a great deal during the throne speech was that the throne speech stated as follows — and this is in Hansard on page 5589: "The mandate for our environmental programs must be strengthened." Agreed. The throne speech then goes on to say: "Accordingly, a ministry of environment will be re-established, focusing solely on those critically important programs." Something I would like to ask the minister is whether he could tell us when the Ministry of Environment was demoted. I don't think this House and the public of British Columbia were ever formally told that this government had demoted the Environment ministry. I think I heard the term "line ministry" used, so I guess there are different hierarchies of ministries.

Just to recognize that the minister himself understood the point, he said in his part of the throne speech debate on March 20, 1989, page 5610 of Hansard: "...I was pleased to see the ministry get, as we characterize it, a full ministry recognition again." This is a good point at which to stop and reflect on the issue of political will with regard to this government. I don't think this minister could be faulted for this, but the fact is that not so many months ago a decision was made to demote the Environment ministry. I would assume it had something to do with the setting up of the regional fiefdoms, as they are sometimes called, and that those ministries that were tied in with the ministers of state were somehow moved into a different category of importance. I don't believe it was ever acknowledged to this House — not overtly; maybe implicitly, but not explicitly — and I don't think it was ever pointed out by way of news release to the media. I would certainly be pleased to stand corrected on that. It might be that the minister won't be able to clarify and we will have to canvass it during the Premier's estimates.

What does that say about the political will of this government when we realize that only a few short months ago it was decided that the environment

[ Page 8087 ]

wasn't that important and could be demoted? What changed the Premier's mind and decided him to announce in the throne speech that he was going to elevate the Ministry of Environment once again? To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet; the Ministry of Environment is still where it was at the time of the throne speech.

We have heard all this rhetoric, talk and enthusiasm about the environment, all these things that are going to happen. Yet if we go back to Brundtland, he points out that if the ministries of the environment worldwide are not given the highest possible recognition within the hierarchy of the decision-making procedures of whatever government, then the ministries of the environment are relegated to a role of having to do the cleanup after the developmental decisions have been made. Where the environmental input has not been sufficient, the environmental ministries are left with the situation of having to deal with the damage that some other ministries have had a role in creating. That's not fair to a minister of the environment; it's not fair to the people who work for the ministry.

The Premier admitted in the throne speech that he had demoted this ministry. One has to assume that he still hasn't got the point, because he hasn't followed through on that promise. I suspect the reason is that he is wanting to manage it for his own beneficial public relations needs, not for the needs of the environment. This is what it says about political will: that the focus is not on how to improve the environment but on how to improve this government's fortunes. The focus is on anything but the environmental improvement that is necessary in order for this ministry to fulfil its mandate appropriately.

[3:15]

I think it's a really sad situation. What it has resulted in is.... Maybe my way into making this comment is to reflect on something that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) said the other night. He said something that was somewhat complimentary to the minister: that this minister has an incredible ability to dance among the cow pies. I think it's true. This minister, given what appears to be the perspective and the needs of this government to try to save itself, fulfils that role rather well. He is quite effective in dealing with questions as they come along, in defusing issues and in avoiding coming to terms with the actual issue before him. But one thing he said in the throne speech debate that I found rather interesting was that one of the factors in the oil spill was the hysteria of the media. I would suggest that this is an attitude that indicates that the perspective just isn't there.

Surely when we have an issue with regard to an oil spill, there needs to be an effective respect on the part of the media and on the part of those who have to act on behalf of the environment so that each can fulfil its role in the most creative way possible. The minister went on to say during the throne speech, on page 5611 in Hansard: "The site is clean now, and again, I think the media hysteria was the most outstanding feature of that spill.. . ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time has expired.

MS. EDWARDS: I was absolutely engaged in what my colleague was saying, and I would like to have him continue.

MR. CASHORE: As I said, the minister usually dances quite well among the cow pies, but on that statement he stepped right in it. As time has gone by, some lessons have been learned about the necessity of responding to such situations, but again the legacy of the oil spill indicates that this government really doesn't have the political will required to produce the environmental protection needed for this province.

With those opening remarks, I will sit down and listen to what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's a lot to cover there; I'll deal with it as best I can.

In terms of the ALR, Mr. Member, if you look at the balance — I'm chairman of ELUC, so I know what goes in and what goes out — I think you'll find that we're staying about even on exclusions and the denial of exclusions, and land is continually being added to the ALR as fine-tuning proceeds. We would have to examine the maps in detail to arrive at any conclusion, but there's no wholesale sell-off or exclusion of agricultural land, and there hasn't been for some time, while we've been government. It's a fine-tuning process; it goes through rigorous scrutiny before any land is excluded. In many cases exclusions are denied by ELUC if they get that far.

I'd like to speak a little about the comment on trade unionists. The member will recall that I said it's difficult for a party that has policy established by trade unionists to be seen as enlightened environmentalists. I mentioned the Carmanah situation, which I understand is personally regrettable at this point, but I think that generally sets out a concern that when you have economic forces that are concerned about land use as opposed to environmental forces, you are bound to have a conflict. The conflict does exist; it exists for us and it would exist for you if you were government. If you talk to your colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and ask him about the Rayonier decision at Port Alice, you'll understand that they had those serious problems when they were government as well. In that case they had to back down on environmental policy at Port Alice; they had to lower their standards. I'm not questioning why they did it, but the record is that the NDP, when they were government, did back down on environmental standards. The example I give is Rayonier at Port Alice. You can look that up when you get home.

On the oil spill, the hysteria of the media was not only a statement that I made; it was also made by the mayor of Tofino, Penny Barr. Just to give you a scenario, the Grays Harbor oil spill hit Carmanah Lightstation on New Year's Eve at about 6:30. The provincial emergency program, PEP, was alerted at

[ Page 8088 ]

7:30 by the lighthouse keeper after he saw the magnitude. They get oil there all the time from bilge dumps, but it took them about an hour to ascertain that this was very serious and probably was the Grays Harbor spill.

I have a Canadian Press story here dated January 6. Cleanup measures by a variety of agencies were in place and everything was going very well. That medium was quite responsible: the Canadian Press story reported what we and the federal government were doing, and what other people were doing to clean up the area. It's a well-balanced story. It wasn't until the weekend when the Province newspaper realized that they had nothing to write about and blasted me for not going there in a helicopter. The fact is that the reaction to the spill was well underway before the Province woke up.

That's the hysteria of the media that I was referring to. As I said earlier, my comments were corroborated by the mayor of Tofino, Penny Barr, who recognized it as a media hype thing more than anything else — not that the spill was not disastrous, because there's no question that it was, but in terms of the response. The facts that the member is trying to bring to this committee are just not correct. The response was first-class, and it was done by a variety of agencies. If you read the proper media — look at this Canadian Press article of January 6 — you'll see that to be the case.

Carrying on, there's a rambling of issues here. Let's get back to environmental land use and the Brundtland report and that type of thing. First I'll advise the committee that there are no provincial members, from any of the provinces that do or do not have round tables, on the federal round table. They've all been selected by the federal government. The representative from British Columbia is a researcher at Forintek. I don't think we're at all out of sync. Plus we did what we wanted to do. We didn't see it as appropriate just to set up a round table under our direction. We thought it would be best to give this task to a task force which we would select, which would be well balanced in composition and which would bring a recommendation back to us as to how British Columbia should establish a round table. They did that. I'm pleased with the results, and I make no apology for the format; it has worked out very well.

The other thing I want to point out regarding Brundtland, in terms of our response — you alluded to it, Mr. Member, where you said that governments have to give environment a high profile — is that we have been doing so for many years. For example, we are the first government to have a Ministry of Environment. When you were government, there was no Ministry of Environment.

Secondly, Brundtland points out that the Ministry of Environment should have membership on the important cabinet committees, and that has been the case since we had a Ministry of Environment. For example, the Minister of Environment has been a member of the economic committee of cabinet.

MR. SIHOTA: Look at that; he got demoted. He used to be House Leader. He used to have a ministry on the front line.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, no. We're just as important as ever — more so.

Getting back to what I was saying, since 1977 it's been administrative policy in British Columbia that the Minister of Environment sit on the economic development committees of cabinet and that there always be an environmental land use committee. As a matter of fact, that's old W.A.C. Bennett legislation — the ELUC legislation — which came into place in 1970 or '71, and that's one of the things Brundtland comments on. As a matter of fact, it's only since the appointment of Lucien Bouchard to the federal cabinet that the feds have had a Minister of the Environment in their economic development inner circle; before, that position did not exist and the federal Minister of the Environment sat with the social services policy committee of cabinet — or whatever that's called in the federal government. Also, most provincial governments have the same administrative organization for their ministries of environment.

So we have for some time been doing what Brundtland says should be done as a government. Some of the areas I mentioned — for example, the Minister of Environment sitting on the economic development committee of cabinet — were ideas put in place well before Brundtland had published.

To get to Professor Rankin, the member seems to take great glee in talking about the Rankin report, losing sight of the fact that Rankin came to the Ministry of Environment in 1986 and asked if he could do this report, and the ministry gladly agreed to do it and supplied him with the numbers. I don't know if the member has thought it through, but Rankin would not have had that material unless it had been voluntarily given to him by the Ministry of Environment. In that case, the ministry staff realized.... I have a letter from the former deputy. As a matter of fact, our current chairman of committee was probably the minister in July 1986, which would have agreed to the Rankin study, because we realized that we had some compliance problems. We realized that we didn't have the research capacity to look at it, so when Rankin came to us to do this study, it was agreed to; it was welcomed, and Rankin has done us a great service.

You seem to think that there's some disservice and that we were trying to hide something. In fact, we wanted Rankin to provide that information and he did. It's helped us immeasurably in terms of budget allocation and knowing how to be better prosecutors, and the Rankin work has resulted in what we see now, where we have a markedly increased budget, a special prosecutor in place and legislation that's good and tough.

I won't mention legislation much further, because we are going to be discussing that in another form, but Rankin did a great service to the ministry and to the people in British Columbia with his research, which was first-class and desperately needed. The

[ Page 8089 ]

notion that somehow Rankin peeked in and found us trying to hide something is total nonsense. We volunteered that information, and Murray Rankin did a superb job and was able to point out to us where we were coming from and where we had some serious errors in the administration of waste management, and for that I'm thankful.

In terms of the ministry reorganization, it was felt in July 1988, when the cabinet mini-shuffle came, that if we're going to look at the environment and the economy, it should be rolled into ministers of regional development — of which I'm one — and then the portfolio would come into that as well. As it happened, it didn't really have the administrative capacity that it was supposed to have, and staff have felt a bit curtailed in the way they would like to operate. In terms of actual performance, though, it really hasn't had much bearing.

I would admit that the morale could have been higher, and after the July 6, 1988, shuffle, morale did slide a bit, but I see it coming back now. We made the change back in the throne speech of 1989, and gradually we're putting the administrative capacity back in place. It was something that was tried. With the environment and the economy and the whole concept of Brundtland, it was designed to work in that area, and I think to some degree that it could, but it did somewhat stifle our administrative capacity as a ministry, and that's the reason we made the change back.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) takes great glee in saying that I've been demoted, but you've also got to remember that with that change came a remarkable increase in the ability to do regional development work in the portfolios shared by me and my four colleagues in that area. We essentially become regional ministers of economic development in our own region and have considerable resources available to us from that aspect. So it's not a demotion in any sense of the word.

[3:30]

In terms of not being House Leader anymore, I can tell you that job is a penalty box if there ever was one. There wasn't a happier guy in the province when my good buddy from Kamloops got that job. That job really is taxing, particularly if you have two full portfolios such as I do, and if you don't live on the lower mainland and have to commute a lot. I found that a real load off my shoulders, I can assure you.

I have one more comment. The member points at one record that he's not too happy about in his mind — the fine level. You could say we should be fining more. But if you take our job to its logical conclusion, zero fines.... If we're doing a fine job, and if no one is polluting, zero fines would be the ultimate. It's like the dentist who wants to have zero cavities, because he's assured that everybody has carried out the best practices they can. I don't think that's ever achievable, in terms of pollution control or speeding tickets, as the member pointed out. But the dollar amount of fines should not be the sole criterion one looks at. There are many other measurements that we should put in place before we start drawing conclusions about how effective the ministry is.

I know you're going to see a considerable increase in the amount of convictions we have, and that's the important thing. We have close to 30 people coming onstream now; postings are in place in waste management enforcement. As I said earlier, we have Peter Ewert coming on as a special prosecutor dedicated to the Ministry of Environment. Peter was the one who led the case in Prince George, and as a matter of fact, he is from Prince George. He'll be training our people in gathering the appropriate evidence. The Attorney-General introduced a bill today, which I won't get into. But if you examine it, you'll see that it has impact as well. I think that in terms of examining our laws and our ability to enforce proper waste management, you'll see that we are leading in every area we can.

With that said, I see the green light is on, Mr. Chairman. So I'll take my place and listen to further response.

MS. EDWARDS: In our region we have a great deal of interest in the storage of PCB-contaminated waste. I want to ask the minister quite a few questions about that, but I'm going to start with the positive part: that is, the attempts that the regional district has made to answer what they think the problem is, because we as yet do not have a method of getting rid of PCB-contaminated waste. But we do have a lot of PCB waste. We now have legislation that requires they be registered. They must be stored in permitted sites by the first of next year. All of these problems are coming together to sit on top of the major problem that we had in Cranbrook about PCB-contaminated waste being brought in from outside the community.

The regional district has done a lot of work this year to find a way of setting up a single storage site for PCB-contaminated waste, They have been working very carefully with their member municipalities, with industry in the area and with waste management branch personnel. It is the one region in the province, as I understand it, where waste management personnel have been extremely supportive. In fact, they would probably be described as being proactive, as far as working towards the consolidation of storage of PCB waste in a single spot.

Mr. Minister, at the last meeting I was at last week there was a proposal as to how we could accommodate the waste of the industry in the region, plus the waste from several utilities and other waste, at a site which would be administered by the regional district if — and the big "if" was — the regional district could be assured that they had control of waste within the regional district. But they have a very great fear — and quite a justified fear — about the possibility that even if they set up a site, which could be a fairly costly operation, and everybody who is currently there decided that they would store the waste from the area within the site, the regional district is doing this partly because it prefers not to take PCB-contaminated waste into the region from

[ Page 8090 ]

outside the region. There is no way under current legislation the regional district can manage that.

They could set up a site to be a central storage facility and then find that there were other storage facilities within the regional district. They cannot keep anyone else from establishing a storage site within the regional district, and that has been proven by the fact that the city of Cranbrook tried to do exactly that thing. When the city of Cranbrook set up its bylaw, which said that they would not accept PCB-contaminated waste that was generated outside its boundaries, the ministry went ahead and allowed a permit to go ahead. So there are a number of questions around this.

First of all, if a regional district were willing to set up the central storage site for PCB-contaminated waste, would the minister arrange the legislation and/or regulation required to allow that regional district to exclude PCB-contaminated waste from outside the region?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer that on a couple of technical grounds. First of all, we can't discuss legislation or regulations in committee. Nevertheless, I'm going to give you an answer as best I can. I also have another constraint which is that in all likelihood, no matter what happens, it would be subject to an appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board, so I'm constrained from answering on those grounds as well.

Let me tell you what's happening generally here. Since the abandonment of the Cache Creek proposal, we have sought consulting advice. We have, of course, increased our own budget funds for capital facilities for special waste storage, and we are doing everything we can and moving as quickly as we can without causing more political upheaval, such as we experienced in Cache Creek. Generally, let me state that it is my policy — and I think it's the policy of anyone who looks at the problem — that central, safe, secure storage is by far the best way to go in storing special waste until we have a treatment destruction facility. We cannot face the prospect of a St.-Basile-le-Grand, a site that was obviously not secure, because the fire was a result of criminal action. That is unacceptable to me and to the people of British Columbia; we have to have secure, safe storage.

Whether or not that involves me bringing in legislation or regulation is another question, but generally I support the notion that in every area of the province — whether it be a regional district or however you want to draw boundaries — there be facilities in place. I have the budget for some capital expenditure, and I will certainly support any other governments making similar funds available for capital expenditure.

I know that doesn't totally answer your question, but it answers it to the extent that I can. I can't comment about legislation. I find it very difficult in this case when I know full well that no matter what happens there's going to be an appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board, and it would be inappropriate and offending the rule of anticipation for me to comment further on your particular questions.

MS. EDWARDS: It seems to me the issue can be fairly well analyzed — taken apart, looked at and responded to — on its own basis. Suppose a regional district, for example — and I use that as an example because I think there are other divisions that could happen — were to get the entities within its own boundaries together and decide on a central storage site. Why would they have any incentive or initiative to go ahead with establishing that site if they could see that perhaps a commercial group were going to establish? Let us even suppose they already have a permit to store PCB-contaminated waste, they have all sorts of room and a permit is for a place that is not in a preferred location within the region, which has happened, of course, in our regional district. If that regional district cannot, by establishing a site, say to some other entity within that regional district, "You can't store over there because we have established a central storage site here," then that regional district hasn't got enough power to encourage it to spend the money necessary for this, or even to attempt under circumstances where there has been a precedent set that their legislation would be overruled by provincial legislation.... Again, we are back to a legislation situation, but the issue seems to be one of whether the minister is willing to allow the regional districts to have that kind of excluding control as well as the control it now has.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, Madam Member. It's an interesting suggestion you make. I can tell you I'll think about it, but at this point the answer would be no. A permit has been issued to the private sector facility. It is still open for appeal, and the appeal period is not yet extinguished. So until that happens one way or the other and an appeal is launched, there is very little I can say about it. Your idea has merit — there is no question about that — and I can see where it might be beneficial to us. As of this date, July 4, given the circumstances that exist in Cranbrook, I cannot comment further.

MS. EDWARDS: Another issue that goes with this is the whole business of who controls the storage of the PCB material, because we are not talking about destroying it right now; we are only talking about storing it. There is a question about various locations across Canada, just to limit it to our country, and about where that particular responsibility should remain. There is some suggestion that regional and/or municipal government should have some say in what goes on with the storage of PCB waste.

If a municipality were to pass a bylaw, would that be what the minister would call a technical issue? Is it a technical issue, or is it something else? If it is, would he call a bylaw in a city a legal technicality?

[ Page 8091 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you are fishing for a response with respect to the city of Cranbrook's bylaw, the answer is simple. The bylaw passed by Cranbrook was in conflict with the Waste Management Act, would not be enforceable in court, and therefore was not a bylaw. The provincial government does take precedence.

Let's get to the more general question: would we give jurisdiction to regional districts or other governments to do this type of management or to control it? That's a good question, and probably one that bears investigation. If you look at, say, the very expensive high-temperature destruction units, similar to what you have in Swan Hills, you only need one in the province, so you wouldn't want to have one for every regional district or community. There is an economy of scale there that would argue against everybody sort of doing their own thing.

If you look at other forms of special waste treatment, which could include some chemical stabilization.... We do have one company doing it now. If we look at, say, what the dry cleaners are doing with respect to their sludges, that could be something that could be entertained on a local or regional basis; I wouldn't have any problem with that. But if we are into high-temperature multimillion-dollar destruction units, of which we only need one, then I can't see having them spread around like that.

[3:45]

I hope that answers your questions, but if you want to get into more detail, I will be more than happy to provide it.

MS. EDWARDS: The problem, as the minister may or may not see it, is that we have a situation here where we are told that the needs and desires of the local citizens of the city of Cranbrook were overridden by the requirements of the Waste Management Act.

It may well be something that the minister decides can't be taken into account now. But the problem, as you may be able to see, for people who live in Cranbrook and see how powerless they become in the face of a situation where the waste management branch tells the people who appeal the decision to give the permit: "We're sorry, we can't do anything but give the permit because it meets all the requirements of our legislation...." "Why can't you?" "Well, of course, we are only a technical board. We can't do anything but agree technically." Where do we come in with the reality of the situation that this region told the ministry they didn't want that site permitted? They said it by an appeal by the regional district, by the municipal government, by the MLA and by a local group. Now we're told: "We're just technical."

All right. I'm willing to say we're going to get to the political part, but it seems to me that there is a crazy, great gap here where the reality of the situation is being missed, Mr. Minister. In fact, we are talking about the technicality, I suppose, of whether they have certain-sized barrels and a certain thickness of steel in the container. If that's all you have to meet in order to store I don't know how many hundreds of gallons — it won't be in gallons, but dead weight — of PCB-contaminated wastes in a spot that is considered inappropriate by the people who live there.... I want to ask the minister whether he has considered some other way of dealing with the technicality.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have considered lots of ways of dealing with special waste. Probably no one in this room, outside of my colleague the Chairman, has been more concerned about special wastes, I can assure you.

However, to get back to your situation: if we have technical compliance — which obviously we have, because we've issued a permit — there is an appeal process available to those people who feel aggrieved, who have standing. That appeal process is their avenue at this point. It is my responsibility as minister to ensure that these wastes are properly contained, properly cared for in a secure, safe facility. That has been done. Those questions have been answered; otherwise, the permit would not have been issued. I have met that responsibility. The appeal avenue is open if there is technical flaw. If there is another flaw in terms of the permit issuance, but outside that, there is not much more I can say. It is ultimately my responsibility in the end that these materials be safely, securely stored.

MS. EDWARDS: In allowing this permit to go ahead, or in not being able to prevent the permit from being granted, what the ministry has done is override the goodwill of the city of Cranbrook, the people in it and the people in the whole region, who in fact were quite willing to say: "We're not going to shrug off all responsibility. We recognize that you can't simply get rid of PCB-contaminated waste right now, and we are quite aware of the resentment of people who are being put upon with somebody else's contaminated waste. So we will take care of our own contaminated waste." Then they see the problems that occur now.

The regional desires of the people are not being recognized, because the legislation says that if you meet what you're calling the technical requirements, which are the thickness of the steel, the number of locks on the doors, the number of people around, the height of the fence, the fact that it's sealed, etc.... I have some questions in a minute about that, too.

Nevertheless, even if you do that, anybody can get a site to store PCBs. Everybody would say: why would anybody want to do that if a regional district does it? I'm not sure why they would, but there is a company that now has a site which will be under permit very soon and which is so much too big for the waste that it itself has to accommodate that there seems to be some major question as to why they wouldn't want to use that permitted site for more storage.

Now, if all that's required to get a permit is to have it meet all the technical requirements of the Waste Management Act, then that site has already met the technical requirements, and any amount of PCB-contaminated waste can go in there just by

[ Page 8092 ]

definition. So where is it and when is it that the people of Cranbrook and the people of the East Kootenay have a say in this?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When they attend the Environmental Appeal Board, if they appeal.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the Environmental Appeal Board go beyond the technicalities and into the actual political reality?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The last thing you want is an appeal board going into politics. I do politics; they do technical comment.

MS. EDWARDS: What you're saying then, Mr. Minister, is that we're going ahead to another appeal process which is going to be very costly and very time-consuming, and then we're going to get to the basic political question. I want the minister to understand the frustration of what is going on here. He may have a very good defence — and if he has, he can put it up — but the people in Cranbrook are extremely frustrated over this issue.

It's very frustrating to make your point, and to make it under due process, and then be told we can't do anything but give them the permit because in fact they have the right-sized steel can. Then to have the whole process go ahead and the regional district try to do something about it, and be told that the regional district can go ahead and set up a central site if it likes.... We have no idea whether everybody will want to be in it, and they can't exclude anybody else from still storing their waste all around the regional district. That may well be enough to prevent this action, which the regional district had hoped to put forward as a pilot project and to lead the way in the province for how we will deal with the storage of these special contaminated wastes until such time as we have some way to destroy them.

I also want to ask the minister a question about PCB-contaminated wastes. Has there been any consideration of liability for seepage or any kind of event that might occur in the case of central storage of these wastes? What happens, and who is responsible? I'll leave it fairly general right now, although I have a few specifics to ask if that will be helpful as to who is going to be liable when something happens at a central storage site where a lot of people have hazardous wastes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The operator-owner of the site has the responsibility.

MS. EDWARDS: That's not quite the way we thought it would be when we discussed it the other day. It seemed there was some suggestion that it might depend on who owned the particular waste that was there. If the regional district sets up a central storage site, you are telling me the regional district will be liable for anything that happens at that site or as a result of something that occurs because of the storage being central.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The permit-holder has a responsibility. If the regional district went ahead — and, by the way, there is nothing stopping them from going ahead and doing what they want to do and setting up a model facility, a storage facility for PCBs — I think they could provide a very useful service. I don't think it would conflict with the other permittee, because that permittee is, as I understand it, addressing their company — the wastes that they have accumulated as a distributor, and the accumulation of the contaminated electrical equipment that they have in their various warehouses. There is nothing stopping the regional district from going ahead and building a facility and operating it, and I would encourage them to do so. It would certainly be of benefit to me, and it would certainly be of benefit to the environment.

Back to your original question. The permit-holder is the one who is liable if there is a spill.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, the greatest encouragement you could give to the regional district to go ahead is to assure them that they could also exclude the building of any other storage sites within the regional district. As for the liability, if there is seepage inside, if a barrel ages after a couple of decades — maybe it was a faulty barrel or whatever — the regional district itself, if they had a storage site, would be liable for any damage that came out of that and any cleanup that would have to be done as a result, and there is no charging it back to the people who owned the waste and who generated the waste in the first place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I just had some advice. My first answer will stand — the permit-holder. However, I understand that because of the complexity of this, because of the question of what sort of law you put into place when you are tracing back — who built the barrel, who had the stuff in the first place.... There is a considerable investigation going into that now. I am unable to provide an answer at this point. It's in an area of law that we want to canvass and that we are going to have to adopt policy on, but right now the only policy is that the permit holder is the one who is liable.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister would give me some idea as to the precedents you are looking at. Who has this kind of law, and what examples are you looking at? Where and what kind?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In terms of precedents, I guess the Expo lands is as good as any. As I said, it is very complicated. I attended a seminar last year in Los Angeles hosted by the American Society of Municipal Engineers, and there were excellent lectures from one of the senior California law firms on the whole aspect of liability. It's a very complicated process in law, I can assure you, and it is being tested every day.

There was one interesting example given to us of a company which had bought what they thought was

[ Page 8093 ]

an old dairy. Really it was an old paint factory that the owners had torn down; they built a brand-new building that was designed to look like an old dairy and sold it. The new owners thought it was an old dairy and it couldn't be contaminated. When they got into the soils work, they found out that in fact there had been a paint factory there. They then looked at aerial photographs and understood that they really had been duped badly to the extent of millions of dollars of soil reclamation that they had to do.

It's a very interesting area, but in terms of policy I can't give you anything solid at this point, other than to tell you that we are looking at it with the advice of the Attorney-General's ministry. It's an area of law that is very confusing and very preliminary at this point. I don't think you would find an answer anywhere. Some of the California laws I saw were extremely onerous. I don't know if that is the right way to go. People who are concerned about environmental law in this type of situation are racking their brains. As I said, we are trying to develop policy that will be appropriate and will protect the environment.

[4:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Perhaps we've found something you could do that would be even more important than giving the legal power to the regional districts: to assure them that the people of the regional district are not going to be stuck with the liability for the waste from what is probably going to be at least 80 percent of the waste that they would store. It may well be that they could find a way of charging that back. But it seems to me that there's a major question of whether the liability for all this waste is going to be at the public's expense or put back to the generator of the waste. As I understood you to say when we were dealing with hazardous waste, the responsibilities and the costs would revert to the generator of the waste; the polluter pays. That isn't happening if in fact a regional district were to set up a central storage site and you were all of sudden to let the permittee — i.e. the regional district — take the liability for all the wastes at the site.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the first place, no one has polluted. Kelly Douglas has picked up electrical equipment containing PCBs, but there's no pollution. They're just required to store it, and they are doing that. If the regional district obtained a permit and took in that type of material for storage, again there is no pollution. Their permit would make them liable if the shipper, or generator, had fulfilled all his obligations, whatever they might be — safe storage, proper disclosure of what the material is — as long as that paper trail was correct, then there wouldn't be any problem. Of course, the regional district, in managing the site, would be charging and taking responsibility for the material that they're permitted to handle. So they would have the responsibility, but there would be a revenue to them for doing that.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not too worried about the possibility of Kelly Douglas and their liability, because I am expecting that in the long term, Mr. Minister, we will not have that storage site there. We are determined in our area and will do our best to assure that it doesn't happen. We do want to see that there is some public control of the central storage site. If that's the case, we expect, with all probability, that there will be no pollution. But if there is some pollution, the question is: who is liable for it? It seems to me that if you are going to follow up on the principle of "the polluter pays," you do not then all of a sudden lay the liability onto the people of the region. Because if you do that, then you are giving a fairly substantial risk — let's call it a risk — and you're giving it to the public purse instead of leaving it with the generator of the PCBs, who is a potential polluter. That's my point. Again I encourage you with every bit of my persuasive power — if I have any — to look at that when you're making policy and find some way to keep the liability with the generator of the waste, because it will militate against a public body doing this kind of thing, if they have to take on that liability, which they don't have to take on if they leave people to establish their own waste storage sites. It will work against having central, secure, safe storage for PCB-contaminated waste.

I have one other question. What happens when the municipal government — in the case of the city of Cranbrook right now — is going to the Environmental Appeal Board? They are put in the position of having to go through these many steps, whether or not they recognize or agree — let me put it that way — that their argument is political and not technical. One step in the appeal process has been eliminated, I know. But now you tell me that we'll again go to the appeal board on the basis of a technical appeal. Now the city must make a stronger technical case, I assume, than they did at the original technical appeal. They have a number of expenses to go through to make their case. Will there be some assistance from another level of government for them to take this step — and lead the way in the province, by the way, Mr. Minister, because they are the first to be clarifying what's happening with the storage of PCB-contaminated waste?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a couple of comments here. First of all, back to "the polluter pays" I'll have to reiterate: Kelly Douglas is the owner of this special waste and will have to look after it under permitted, approved conditions. If the regional district wished to build such a facility, it would have a permit. As it went to them under current law — and it could be changed, as we do our policy review — they would be responsible for the safe containment of the material. If there was a spill or an accident, then they are the polluter, and they would be responsible for cleaning it up. But as I said, it would be appropriate that if they accept the special waste, they charge a fee for it, and that would give them the comfort and also a resource to use to clean up a spill if it occurred.

With respect to what the city of Cranbrook is doing and whether I'm going to assist them finan-

[ Page 8094 ]

cially, the answer is no. I'd be the last person to assist them financially, because I'm, in essence, the court. They might go to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for that type of assistance, but I can't see myself assisting someone at an Environmental Appeal Board hearing; that would really be in conflict with what we do. We have an Environmental Appeal Board. It has legislation, staff, resources and remarkable expertise in just about all fields that we administer under our various pieces of legislation, and it has the ability to make good, sound judgments on the evidence that it hears. That's why it is in place. Certainly, though, I would not entertain funding it, because that would be considered by some to be a serious conflict. I think the member can understand that.

MS. EDWARDS: What I would call it, Mr. Minister, is intervener funding. I was afraid to call it that in the first place because I knew you would say "no" right off, but that didn't get me very far, did it?

Anyway, the point is that it seems to me that there are some issues to be made, that this is a brand-new case and that it is important that the appellant come in with as many resources as possible at their disposal. In this case it's the municipal government, which represents a large number of people, and I think it's important that they have the resources to make a very good case at the appeal, when it comes.

I certainly don't think that if there were some provision for intervener funding at the various hearings that happen in this province it would necessarily be a conflict of interest if it were managed correctly.

I do have another question. Again, it has to do with the idea of central, secure, safe storage sites. There are none in the province right now, as I understand it. I know that there have been some other areas where some persuasion has been put forward and regional government has not been as receptive as it has been in East Kootenay. I am putting forward a question to the minister: what is the ministry doing in other areas of the province to encourage this kind of activity? Would he not like to have a model?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, it is not correct that there are no sites. There are 487 waste PCB storage sites in British Columbia.

Would I be prepared to undertake a study of a model? Of course. Anything the regional district wants to send me I will be more than happy to review, whether it be in Cranbrook, the Kootenays, the Cariboo or whatever. My job is to ensure that we have safe, secure storage and, hopefully, at some time destruction and treatment. If anybody has an idea for a better mousetrap, whether legislatively or technically, I will be more than happy to entertain that idea.

MS. EDWARDS: Just one more question. The minister mentions fairly frequently the idea of a central disposal operation. Is he looking at other possibilities such as portable disposal facilities or, I presume, biological... ? I understand that there are bacteria now that are eating things that probably aren't good for their health. Are those sorts of options being looked at by the ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know if I said it earlier, but if I didn't, I regret it; I should have. We have engaged a consultant. We are looking at other provincial models; for example, the notion of a Crown corporation. We are looking at a variety of remedies and methodologies.

I think, as I said earlier, that when it comes to the very expensive process of a high-temperature incinerator, probably one would suffice and enable us to handle all our needs. In terms of other remedies, such as phys-chem stabilization and bio-leaching, which is what you referred to, those could be site-specific. We could also consider a portable burner. The federal government, as you know, ever since St.-Basile-le-Grand, has considered a portable burner. We are looking at many remedies.

The bottom line is that we will look at any suggestion that will help us out of this situation, because it is serious. We do want to be in control. We realize that we can't continue to rely on the United States, which we do in some cases for some of our special wastes. I would not entertain the notion of using Alberta, even if Alberta would take, say, PCBs, because I think it is very important that governments have the ability to manage their own problems within their own borders and not be dependent upon other governments. Those governments can change their mind, and then you are left without a process for looking after your own problem.

I will look at any remedies and suggestions, because it is a serious concern, this issue of special wastes, and they are growing every day. It is not something that's going away, but in fact it is a problem that is with us. As long as we have high-tech industries and the consumer demands of the 1980s, we are going to have special wastes. Every time you get your suit dry-cleaned, you create a special waste. Every time you have film processed, you create a special waste. Every time you change the crankcase oil in your car or discard a battery, you create a special waste. Our lifestyle ensures that there is going to be an accumulation of special wastes for the rest of our days. When you talk about the polluter paying, don't lose sight of the fact that you and I are the polluters, and we are going to have to pay to sort this problem out.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought there was a bit of a shift change going on here. I see some of the ministers going, some of the ministers coming, and the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) is here. I see the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) is here. Usually the second member for Richmond comes in, pompoms waving, and I thought he was going to give us a break and extol the virtues of the government, but even he can't find words for the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind the member that we are on vote 55, the Minister of State for Cariboo and the Minister Responsible for Envi-

[ Page 8095 ]

ronment. If the member cares to proceed on a relevant matter, please do so.

MR. SIHOTA: I will. I was just saying that it is certainly a pleasure for me to see the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) back in the House today. We were wondering where he was, and it's great to see him here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Let's proceed, please.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't realize it was out of order to welcome members back to the House.

HON. MR. REID: You're the only one who goes home for lunch, cuts the grass and comes back to work.

MR. SIHOTA: Who, me?

HON. MR. REID: You're the only one in the House who can do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I was just trying to put a question to the Minister of Environment, dealing with his estimates, but the minister can come and cut my grass any time he wants to.

The other day it came to my attention that in my riding in Port Renfrew there was a matter involving the finding of material which had been plowed into the ground and buried approximately five and a half years ago. I understand B.C. Forest Products had up to 31 containers containing various pesticides and herbicides at their site at Port Renfrew. Subsequently they decided that something had to be done with those, and they were buried at a site in Port Renfrew. Needless to say, after five and a half years the stuff started to leak. There was some concern by the community and someone thought that there was something buried in that area, and indeed it turns out that that was the case. The conservation people with the ministry undertook to take a look at the site and did, and lo and behold discovered these containers filled with various types of contaminants, including some which were of an arsenic compound.

[4:15]

I listened with interest when my colleague our critic for the environment was speaking about prosecutions, fines and all that kind of stuff, and the minister was going out of his way to talk about prosecutions and the government's intent in terms of proceeding with prosecutions in the next little while on these types of matters. Could the minister tell me whether or not the government or his ministry intends to prosecute the culprits in this case with respect to those contaminants that were found in the soil in Port Renfrew?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset I'll advise the member that I'm getting details on that incident now, and I don't have them at hand.

However, the process would be.... And obviously it's in place now if conservation officers have been out there, because they are the peace-officer arm of the ministry, if you will. Conservation officers will be investigating, as any other peace officer would in this case, and they will be presenting the material to the ministry. We will make a decision at that point as to whether we should proceed with prosecution. That's the standard process of investigation and analysis and then making a decision as to whether or not you will prosecute.

That's about all I can say at this point, but I will try to provide more details to you. It should be on its way now.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll wait for some of those details if time permits. But I want to ask the minister some other questions in general terms.

First, about the provisions of the Pesticide Control Act. I take it that this type of prosecution would come out under that act. Could the minister tell the House how many prosecutions took place under that act last year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If we have herbicides or pesticides and if there is prosecution to be done, it would be under the Waste Management Act, not the Pesticide Control Act. That does different things.

In terms of the numbers, I'll get a number for you.

MR. LOENEN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew asked me just a few minutes ago to sing the virtues and praises of this government. I'm delighted to comply with his request; I have no trouble in doing that at all.

In fact, speaking to the Minister of Environment, I think environment is of primary concern to this government, as we've demonstrated and continued to demonstrate time and again. We've made mention of the very substantial increase in the budget for the Minister of Environment, and obviously we applaud that. That shows that our commitment lies with the environment.

But I have to go back to earlier this spring when the Premier of the province spent part of his Easter weekend personally investigating. Where was the Leader of the Opposition? Perhaps you could tell us. Was he sitting in his living-room? We had the Premier of this province spending part of his long weekend up in Alaska to personally investigate and take note, and he followed that through with some very striking initiatives with neighbouring states. Our Premier and this government took a leading role in that. He appointed David Anderson, eminently qualified to address the concerns related to oil spills.

That was this government's response to the needs we see for the environment. Indeed, it is a record that we can be proud of. As I said, I am just delighted to accept the invitation of the member to speak about what our government is doing concerning the environment.

Just a few other items. The gas pipeline to Vancouver Island is first and foremost an environmental

[ Page 8096 ]

initiative. Too few people realize that it will allow us to convert these industries and the homes up and down the Sunshine Coast, as well as Vancouver Island, away from oil to that purest of all fuels, natural gas. In addition, it will allow us to do away with some 300-plus oil tanker movements right here in the Strait of Georgia. We know how dangerous it is to have oil tankers up and down the Strait of Georgia. When we talk about the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline, we are talking about an initiative that first and foremost is an environmental initiative.

We have a lot of things to be proud of, and I want to commend the minister for initiating so many things. One of the things that I am proudest of, and of which I think this government can be truly proud, is that we have created 1,000 summer jobs for students and young people to be out there guarding the purity of air, water and land throughout this great province. That's an achievement that we can be proud of, and it's great to see that we are gaining experience and those young people will gain experience this summer in terms of being good stewards of the natural resources that we have been entrusted with.

In addition, we of course have legislation. I won't get into the legislation; we will have time to get into that later. All told — and I have just hit some of the highlights — we indeed have reason to sing the praises of this government when it comes to concern for environmental issues, and we are responding to them.

One of the things that I particularly wanted to ask the minister about relates to the water quality of the lower Fraser River. As the minister well knows, I represent a community surrounded by water, surrounded by the Fraser River. We are right there in the delta. We have some concerns related to that.

When I was a youngster I used to swim in the Fraser River. We used to swim across the middle arm from Lulu Island to the airport. Today, unfortunately, most people would keep their children away from the Fraser River water. They wouldn't even allow their children to put their feet into the water, and with good reason. That's a sad state of affairs, and we have to address it. I know the minister is concerned about it, but I'd like to get a response from him.

I know that the GVRD is concerned about what is happening to the liquid waste and the control of that, and what it does to our waters in the Strait of Georgia and particularly in the lower Fraser River. When we talk about liquid waste, we are talking about waste water that is discharged to sewers from households, businesses and industry. In addition, we also talk about the rainfall runoff from the rural and urban areas.

The GVRD put out a liquid waste management plan, stage 1, in February this year, and it shows, based on very limited data, that some 14 out of 21 major water bodies in the Vancouver region are rated either fair or poor. What that means is that water quality is not high enough some of the time to support designated uses such as bathing, crop irrigation and habitat for fish. The district's sewage treatment plants discharge about 300 billion litres of primary-treated waste water each year. To put it in other terms, that is enough to fill B.C. Place Stadium 160 times.

MR. SIHOTA: You're on the wrong estimates. We left that.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Chairman, I take it that we are dealing with Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, member.

MR. LOENEN: I would be pleased to continue to speak about environmental concerns as they relate to my community.

The combined sewers in Vancouver, New Westminster and Burnaby overflow about 62 billion litres of mixed sewage and rainfall runoff each year. I want to get these numbers into the record, because it is important for us to get a handle on how big the problem is. The urban runoff was once believed to be clean, but is now known to carry significant amounts of contaminants from the street surface to the receiving waters. About 365 billion litres of rainfall runoff from urban areas discharge into local waters each year.

We need to tackle this problem on many fronts, and one of the ways is through education. Certainly, homeowners are responsible for ensuring that harmful household contaminants are not dumped or flushed down the drains. The GVRD estimates show that as much of 60 percent of some contaminants in sewage originates from homes. I was pleased to note that the Sunshine Coast Regional District, for instance, regularly puts out information to all its residents on how we can better guard against these kinds of harmful household contaminants. They tell their residents that non-biodegradable materials such as disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, rubber goods, cigarette filters or butts, hair, etc. should be dumped in the garbage and not flushed down the toilet. In addition, there are acids, caustic cleaners, gasoline, oil, turpentine and those chemicals used for developing photographs that should never be dumped into the sewers. I believe we need to address this through a vigorous campaign of education directed to the people who do the polluting.

In view of those concerns in the GVRD about liquid waste, I would like the minister to respond to a few questions. First of all, what is his role in terms of monitoring the levels of pollution in the water there and in terms of enforcing the standards that his ministry sets? I would also like to ask a question related to the fact that the GVRD has asked for provincial funding to address this problem; I would be pleased to know whether or not the minister can supply a response at this time.

I noticed that in his opening statement the minister talked about the fact that water management in his budget this year is up some $2 million. What is the total dollar budget item for water management, what is it used for, and how does that relate to the

[ Page 8097 ]

particular needs in the Greater Vancouver Regional District?

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A lot of questions there, and I'll try to deal with them as quickly and as relevantly as I can. It was interesting to watch the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) squirm a bit. They probably find this debate a little embarrassing inasmuch as their leader, as a former mayor of Vancouver, has probably contributed more than anyone else to water pollution in the Fraser by not doing anything. It is only Mayor Gordon Campbell who has finally taken the bull by the horns and done something in terms of putting a waste management plan in place. Then what really bugs me is that as a taxpayer in the city of Prince George I have been paying for proper waste management treatment since 1971, and I am advised that I'm going to be paying for our waste management treatment facility until the year 2003; yet we have Victoria, Vancouver and other areas continually polluting with absolutely no leadership, until now, at the local level in terms of developing some sort of waste management plan.

The study they've proposed is at $1.5 billion. That's for liquid waste management. It's very expensive; it just boggles everybody's mind. I can assure you, Mr. Member, that I don't have that in my budget, and Lord knows where it's going to come from. But inasmuch as I, as a Prince George taxpayer, pay for my sewage treatment and planning, I don't see why the good people of the GVRD shouldn't pay for theirs as well.

By and large, the Fraser River, believe it or not, is slowly but surely being cleaned up, I think in large part because many of the communities such as Prince George on the Fraser River have developed proper sewage treatment, and that's in place all up and down the river. We are monitoring industry more and more every day. There is a federal-provincial task force which deals with Fraser River management, and all members get an annual report from me on what they're doing. So we do have considerable input into how the Fraser should be managed. It's a remarkable resource for our province, and there's no way that we want to see it any more polluted than it is. But it is cleaning up to some degree, and if we can wrestle with the ratepayers in the GVRD area and with other people who are contributing to the problem and get them to address the problem, because they are the problem, then we'll see some improvement in the Fraser River.

The member mentioned rainwater runoff. Needless to say, it is quite dangerous. It does contain contaminants. Automobile lead, for example, from cars that use leaded gasoline will deposit on the roadway, and then if you have a heavy rain, such as quite often happens in the lower mainland, that lead will be deposited into the water and not carried away. One of the problems we see with respect to the fish tumours in Burrard Inlet is runoff lead from roadways that has contaminated that soil. So you will have those problems the member has identified.

Saying that it's going to be done quickly or taking any sort of a Pollyanna or cheery approach to it is not the way to go, of course. It's going to take an awful lot of money. It's going to take dedicated taxpayers in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to recognize that they are responsible for cleaning up those waters and for cleaning up the discharges at Iona Island and Annacis Island. Until the taxpayers of the GVRD realize that, we're going to continue with this pollution problem. To date the bill is $1.5 billion. I certainly don't have it in my ministry. My budget is only $120 million or thereabouts. It is going to take a concerted effort by GVRD taxpayers to clean up that problem.

MR. LOENEN: I appreciate the response from the minister. I had also asked a question about his budget, and perhaps he could refer to that. I acknowledge — and I think we all do — that the taxpayer, the polluter, is the one who ought to foot the bill. I am a little concerned that the magnitude of the problem is such that the local taxpayer will simply not be able, with the best will in the world, to foot the bill for those initial projects that need to be done. It also seems to me — and I don't know the particulars about the Prince George case — that many of our communities throughout the province do benefit from the revenue-sharing program through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and it would seem to me that Prince George has also benefited, and I'm not entirely sure that they've paid the whole way themselves.

In view of the great need, I would ask the minister whether the province might be prepared under his ministry to help the GVRD approach the federal government to see whether we could get funding from them; I'm told they did participate in the case of the city of Halifax. If that is the case, I think we as a province owe it to the GVRD and the taxpayers there to go along with them and make our case before the feds. Could the minister respond to that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Firstly, in answer to the question of what my budget is for water management, it is $23 million. So if the GVRD has a waste management plan calling for the expenditure of a $1.5 billion, you can see that we are a little short.

In answer to your question about federal assistance, we have approached on a regular basis the federal Department of the Environment at our CCREM meetings for this type of assistance. To date the answer has been no. In terms of federal assistance for this ministry and for some of our environmental problems, I think we could see some remedy with respect to dealing with special wastes and contaminated soils. Currently we're at the point of negotiating a $275 million deal nationally, if Lucien Bouchard can get that in his budget, and they would come in for 40 percent in terms of helping us with our contaminated soil problems. That's very much in the discussion stage, and Mr. Bouchard was not able to substantiate at our last meeting that he could enter into those types of agreements. That is the position

[ Page 8098 ]

we're taking right now. We'd like to see him come across with $275 million and that money be allocated 40 percent to the provinces that have soil contamination problems. We, of course, would use this at our most immediate concern, which is the Expo 86 soils and other industrial properties — orphan properties — as they are discovered.

MR. ROSE: I have a particular riding case I wish to discuss with the minister. I touched on it here the other night. It has to do with the real or imagined emissions from one chemical plant in Port Moody called Reichhold.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Before I get started on that, the minister just received a letter on that subject. I would think he has the letter, anyway; I have it here before me. I don't know whether he has had an opportunity to read the letter or not. Also, I have to tell you that while I have contacted the air standards officer, Mr. Smith, at the GVRD on this subject, and I understand they have the responsibility delegated to them — devolved to them is, I think, the current buzzword — by the ministry, what has been done so far has not really met with a great deal of comfort and satisfaction by the concerned residents.

The other thing I wanted to tell you is that while I have been to the GVRD, I have not given the waste management people any opportunity to comment on this one way or the other. But I want to be fair, and to be fair, I'm not an expert. I don't live in the area; they're not my relatives who are in danger, but I can understand the concerns of the people. I visited with a representative group of them on Saturday last and also went around the plant. But the chemical plant to me looks like a can of spaghetti — I can make neither head nor tail of it. My viewing the plant or going through it would have little effect on whether it was operating properly or not.

Reichhold, though, does not have a very savoury record across the world. According to Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, one example was in 1977, when their chemical plant in Mississippi exploded and burned, destroying most of its buildings. Reichhold abandoned the site and the town years later, and the EPA listed it as one of the national priorities for super-cleanup. There's another story out of the Washington Post describing the same incident.

Another story has to do with Reichhold in Tacoma, and I'll read you a couple of excerpts. I think this is a Greenpeace publication — but I don't have the source, so I'm not certain. It says, "Why Reichhold?" and concerns the tidal flats around Tacoma where Reichhold has a plant.

"A major contributor to this ongoing crisis is Reichhold Chemicals Inc. While Reichhold is not the sole polluter of Commencement Bay, its history of extremely dangerous product and waste generation, poor waste disposal practices and a singular lack of cooperation with the community leads to the conclusion that Reichhold is probably the most imminent toxic threat in the Tacoma tide flats."

Let's not paint them indelibly as villains with these two isolated opinions. I hope I'm not doing that, because above all else, I try to be reasonably responsible. But here's a clipping from a publication of the Dow Chemical Co. — they're in a similar business: "'And what about our products?' asks the president." Frank Popoff is his name, I believe; yes, president of Dow in the U.S.A. "'We must design products for the future that meet the needs of our customers and are judged by the public to be environmentally neutral or positive. Public involvement in the process will be crucial.'"

There's an attempt by the public — the residents who live upstream or above this plant — to have some little effect on the air they breathe. Regardless of whether Reichhold predated the residents on the hillside, certainly the municipality passed the zoning bylaws necessary for residential development, and the municipality has a responsibility to see that those people are not in the middle of an air quality which is really very much like a sewer.

I hate to say this, but over the years Port Moody has been known as the fly ash capital of the world, the sulphur-in the-seawater capital of the world, the ozone capital of the world, and now the concern is with formaldehyde, a well-known carcinogen that plays a large part in the production of that plant. The GVRD, under Mr. Smith, has been down and made comments about it. It has made some efforts; Reichhold has made some efforts. I can give you a schedule of the things they've attempted to do. But there are an increasingly large number of complaints, and I don't think this is just the result of a few cranks living on the hillside.

My colleague from Vancouver Centre lives very close to that place, too, and he confirmed to me that he has been living with it for years. He perhaps is not as concerned, since he has no small children at home — at least he didn't the last time I looked — therefore he hasn't been involved to such an extent.

In this letter to you, Mr. Minister, their group says, in an admission or emission partway through the letter: "Although stack emissions will prove to be well within the ministry's guidelines" — in other words, if the GVRD under Mr. Smith comes down and measures with those guidelines — "there's no proof that other sources of emissions are within the guidelines." They're essentially saying that, sure, they might have put in a scrubber that works most of the time — an old scrubber, not a new one, not state of the art — and they also have an incinerator that works some of the time, they claim.

All these things I'm saying today are really only allegations and requests for confirmation or denial in order to reassure the people or else get Reichhold to do something about their operation.

Going on with their quote: "We feel the investigating staff of Pollution Control are exhausted trying to understand the complexity of this type of industry, and we are trying not to fault that governing body." In other words, they're not laying blame, but they're saying we don't have the expertise.

[ Page 8099 ]

This morning I phoned a chemical engineer. He is, of course, a scientist and is naturally reluctant, without a full study, to go down and make any charges whatsoever.

I am also told that the present monitoring technique and equipment do not even register some of these emissions. In other words, it isn't a full and comprehensive all-chemical sampling, really. These things change. When you capture the air at one particular moment — moment A — it has a different content or quality, or lack of it, than at moment B. It seems to me that we need a more comprehensive and ongoing monitoring of this plant so it can be condemned or repaired; or else they should be given a cleaner bill of health for the efforts they have made. They have made some efforts; no one is saying otherwise. They say stack emissions are measured, but other leaks aren't. If you fill one of those tanks with formaldehyde, as the formaldehyde goes in, there are constant exchanges through the maze of tunnels, valves, pipes and tanks. While you're filling one up, air can be leaking out of the top. The air is saturated with formaldehyde and/or other chemicals, resins, glues and all of the complicated things they produce there.

[4:45]

As I mentioned earlier, breakdowns of the scrubber are very common — and I am just reading from my own notes here. The plant is 30 to 40 years old. The scrubber was installed in 1986. I'm told it works sometimes, but sometimes it is down. On March 5 the incinerator was installed, but it is an old one and far from state of the art. It probably goes along with the quality and age of the plant. I've got the file of the GVRD and the Reichhold correspondence, if the minister doesn't; but I am sure he has access to it.

Amendments are requested to what is happening, and they want public access. I said to them: "Well, that's fine. I understand your concern. I personally am not an expert in these matters, but I am there to represent you and speak to the minister, who is always very interested in hearing submissions that have to do with the environment. What do you want? When it really comes down to it, what do you want? Do you want the plant closed down and out of there?" They said: "Far be it from us to suggest that 80 jobs go out of Port Moody." But at the same time, the plants that are being built now.... One in Lethbridge is being built 20 miles out in the toolies, as the A-G or someone said today — meaning out from the urban area. I pointed out to them that the plant was there earlier than they were, but they felt they had the right to clean air and a clean environment regardless of when they situated in their particular residential subdivision or when Reichhold was established.

They say they want to cover the ponds. The ponds are there to clean, and gasses are bubbled through those ponds to clean them. Apparently there is a schedule, and testing is done there. But they claim that there are emissions — gaseous effluent, if you like — escaping from the surface of the ponds. Consequently they want that captured or the ponds covered, and then to have the stuff vented through the incinerator and/or the scrubber. Again, I am at a disadvantage because I really don't know the technical jargon as well as I might.

The second thing they want is an on-site tester at any given time, both on the site of the plant and also above the plant, where the air usually goes, since that kind of air usually rises unless there is an inversion, as there often is there. There is the problem of the thermal generating plant inversion, the ozone and all of those air quality concerns that have been expressed about Port Moody for as long as I've been around — about 25 years.

They claim that the holding tanks in which they mix chemicals push out vapours all the time when they are being filled; I mentioned that earlier. They have no measure of that, because that stuff doesn't come out of the stack. So that's a concern to them. They think that the tired old archaic incinerator, which was installed as a result of public pressure, should be replaced with one that has more to do with the state of the art.

Finally, in talking to the chemical engineer today.... They're very cautious. He said you really would have to have permission to be on the site and to take measurements all over the place in order to determine whether or not there was a possible toxic or even lethal effect from these emissions.

So, in short, they want an independent study. Maybe Waste Management is independent; it should have no axes to grind.

The minister mentioned the Fraser River. When the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) was Minister of the Environment in Ottawa in 1970, his department was monitoring the effluent of pulp mills all along the Fraser River. I asked for those results and was refused time and time again. In other words, the government has known what kind of filth and chemical guck has been going into the Fraser River for years and years, but the public hasn't. So while we have every trust in the civil servants who serve us well and those who lead us in government, the fact is we don't always know, we don't have it completely open. While the scientists may be objective, the power to control the results of these studies rests in the hands of the political people. And any political person is naturally anxious to avoid any kind of embarrassment in his department; I don't blame him at all.

So if we can have an on-site.... If it takes one, two or three months to either reassure these people on the hillside that there is nothing wrong, that it's all in their imagination, all in their wildest dreams, that things there are up to snuff and working properly — because it is an important industry in that community — or on the other hand, force Reichhold to do what it wasn't prepared to do in Tacoma or In Mississippi, then I think they'd be happy about that. I'd be interested to hear the minister on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The term you are looking for, Mr. Member, is "fugitive emissions" — not to be

[ Page 8100 ]

glib — and it's a serious problem. You're absolutely right: you can test stacks, but if there are fugitive emissions from other sources then you are not resolving anything.

We have B.C. Research doing some major air work for us now. I don't know if they have done this particular plant, but I give you my undertaking that I will provide to you, either during the time of these estimates or as soon as I can, all the information I can find out about that particular operation, what the GVRD has done, how they are proceeding and what the status is in terms of an air quality study. That might be, as you have suggested, the appropriate way to go, because I can understand the concern you have, particularly if we are dealing with formaldehyde and other dangerous chemicals. We will provide you and your constituents with all the information we can as quickly as I find it out, and I give you that undertaking.

Getting back to your comment about the Fraser River, you mentioned your discussions with my colleague....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You can bring this up as new matter. I was going to stop the member from speaking about it because what proceeded in the Committee of the Whole in Ottawa is really not relevant to this committee. So please bring it up as new material.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It does deal with pulp mills, which, as far as I know, I still monitor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's appropriate, but it's not appropriate for him to discuss the fact that this was discussed in another committee. As green material, it's in order — and you would know that as the former Deputy Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I see. That's interesting. I'm glad you told me that.

The information presented with respect to that concern, Mr. Member, was valid in 1970. However, there has been considerable change in pulp mill technology since then, and now all pulp mills on fresh water have settling ponds and are into quite sophisticated discharge treatment.

Also, as you are probably well aware, federal information is now public. One need only look at the dioxin papers that have been released in December, and later reports, to know that that is the case. There is no need for one to be concerned about not having the appropriate knowledge. It's there. The federal government does present it whenever they feel obliged to do so, and they have really led the way in identifying for us what the problems are, both in effluent air discharge and, of course, currently the most serious issue, trace dioxins in edible fish tissues.

I hope I have been able to focus on your problem for you. As I say, I will indicate to you now that as soon as I can provide you with an appropriate answer with respect to this firm, I will do so.

The other thing is that one should not be trapped by looking at old United States material, because the United States Environmental Protection Agency has done remarkable work in the eighties. They have now, by and large, the toughest standards in the world for plant operation. They have got some old plants which they had to grandfather that are still pretty dirty. The Ohio Valley would be the best example in terms of acid rain; they are really out of compliance and they are going to have to work on that. But in terms of standards and new plant construction standards, those in the U.S. are as high as you will find anywhere. A lot of people think they can point to U.S. standards and say they are not sufficient, but in many cases they are. The rest of the world — Canadian governments and European governments — actually looks to the EPA for testing standards, for performance standards and for regulation standards. I just wanted to advise you of that, because it's kind of trendy to knock U.S. programs, when in fact they are the best.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to thank the minister for his assurances of what he intends to do. I'm not quite sure what he intends to do, but I'll get back to that later.

I didn't give the full sources for the quotes. The first one had to do with the Mississippi one. Yes, the blowup did occur in 1977, but it was reported in the Washington Post — and it dealt with the Tacoma situation — Sunday, December 27, 1987. I quoted Mr. Frank Popoff, who was writing in February 1989 in the Canadian Chemical News. So those are not too archaic or out of date. The other one about the Tacoma situation and Reichhold — I thought it was a Greenpeace document; the date on it is "Received March 12, 1984." 1 have no idea how old it is.

I just want to be clear, though, about precisely what the minister has committed himself to. He talked about the B.C. Research Council, about air studies and about a commitment to look up the data to see what had been done through the GVRD and bring me up to date. I was hoping that he would be prepared, as a result of what he learns on this subject, to do a study through B.C. Research Council or some other competent body, to study the ambient air — fugitive or otherwise — which occurs near and around that plant.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member has characterized what I said. B.C. Research are doing air work for us now. I don't know if they've done that plant, but I can quickly find out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I believe we can. That would be on the list. Sure, there's no problem there.

Secondly, I will provide you with all the information that I can, as quickly as I can, on this subject.

Thirdly, with respect to doing a study, I am not opposed to it. I won't give you a definite yes now, but I will say that the suggestion you make appears

[ Page 8101 ]

acceptable to me generally. Unless I find out information seriously to the contrary why I shouldn't do a study, I'd be interested in exploring that further. In principle, I'm giving you a general yes. I accept what you're saying. I accept the concern of you and your constituents, and I will address that matter hopefully to your satisfaction.

[5:00]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to continue asking the minister about the situation in Port Renfrew. I don't know if the minister has his file. He has his file now.

Just to go back where I started from, in terms of the Pesticide Control Act, is the minister now able to confirm whether or not they're looking at charges, or if there exist any impediments to charges; and if they're looking at charges, under which enactment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I have the information on Gordon River. That's what we're talking about, is that correct? The employees contacted the regional office with information on this pesticide burial site, and we did an investigation with staff. We did an initial probe on March 22, and further investigation with respect to groundwater. We did an excavation on June 29 and removed the buried pesticide containers. The liquid recovered in the containers was 200 litres, and this was transported by the contractor, A&A Anderson, to their storage facility in Richmond for identification.

The allegations of misuse or mishandling or anything improper by Fletcher Challenge are currently being investigated, with the assistance of personnel. No charges have been laid yet. But the bottom line is that the company has cleaned up the contaminated site, as directed by our office — and that's in reference to the statement I made about the contractor earlier. They have done what we have asked them to do. The site is now clean, which of course is of primary interest to us. Whether or not there will be charges is something I would not be prepared to comment on at this point.

MR. SIHOTA: Given the minister's general comments earlier about enforcement and the government's desire to make sure that people who pollute are prosecuted when they are caught in the process of polluting; given the fact that on the first excavation there were five containers found, and following that, on the second excavation, 31 cans were discovered; and given the fact that there was leakage of that material, some of it into the water supply for Port Renfrew, would the minister confirm that this is the type of situation on which the government would like to see prosecution?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'd be getting into that funny trace-back law that the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) and I discussed earlier, because these pesticide containers — if they were improperly disposed of — were disposed of more than five years ago. As we know, Fletcher Challenge has not been active in the province for that long. So how you trace back and lay blame or try to involve the current company is a question of law, and I suspect it would be very complicated law. I'm sure the member can appreciate that.

As I said, Fletcher Challenge — no matter who the company is — has a responsibility. When they buy the company, they take on all liabilities — that being one of them. So they have done what we have asked them to do. In that case, unless I'm missing some information here, generally I can't see why we would prosecute someone who has discovered an improper site that was unknown to them at the time of their purchase of a former company, and who has done what we have asked them to do. They have complied and have been good citizens, and I don't know if they've done anything improper. That would generally be the way I'd look at this information.

For example, let's take other instances where we have told a polluter that they are polluting, and they deliberately go out and do something. Then we bring charges. In that case, there's no accident; they have done something improper, and they deserve to be charged.

The evidence I see in front of me doesn't indicate that Fletcher Challenge did something wrong deliberately or with any intent. They discovered some leaking containers which were brought to their attention by employees. The ministry investigated, tested and then told Fletcher Challenge to clean it up at their expense, and they did so. The end result is that the soil is no longer contaminated, and that's the result we want.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not too sure that the end result is that the soil is no longer contaminated, but I'll get to the minister on that in a minute.

I want to deal with each of the elements he raises in his comments, both in terms of trace-back and of deliberate intent.

I want to tell the minister this. His ministry officials know who specifically placed the materials on that site. Given that knowledge, and given also — I would assume — that when Fletcher buys B.C. Forest Products, they buy all the liabilities that BCFP would have.... Just a corporate change is not a defence, nor is it a defence that the company wasn't operating in British Columbia at the time. They assumed all liabilities, obligations and responsibilities of BCFP. That's why they cleaned it up, and that's why you can charge them. In this case, you also happen to know who the individual is who actually put the stuff in the ground.

With that knowledge in mind, is the minister now prepared to say that this is the kind of case they would like to prosecute?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the evidence is that we've got a traceable culprit of five years ago, the answer would be yes, we would charge. But as I said, investigation is going on at this point, and I'm not prepared at this moment to indicate how we're going to follow this through. Given the hypothetical example you presented, if there is a deliberate improper

[ Page 8102 ]

disposal of pesticides, and if we can trace the individuals who did it — whether it be BCFP or someone else — they will be charged, because they have in fact broken a law.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the law says it has to be deliberate. If that's what the law says, then I would suggest to the minister that he's got a problem in the sense that those are the types of legislative enactments he should be changing. If I may say so, all you should be required to show is intent that this was undertaken.

I have some concern about the minister's attitude about the matter, because in some way it has elements of laxity to it, when he says the site was unknown to the company, as if somehow that excuses the company from responsibility. I don't think trace-back is a problem, and I don't think the fact that they didn't know is a problem in this case, when one company inherits the obligations of another. Nor do I think — and I would like the minister's view on this — that his ministry has to show that it's deliberate. We know that this stuff was put in there, and it was put in there improperly.

On the matter of the Pesticide Control Act, would the minister not agree with me that the appropriate place to begin, in terms of prosecution of this matter, would be the Pesticide Control Act? Or am I wrong in that regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you're wrong. But you're clever. First of all, I didn't say deliberate; I said improper. That's the language given here: improper disposal. Deliberate is another example where we would prosecute. The trace-back is being investigated now, and if there was improper disposal and a law was broken, then those who did it will be prosecuted to the full extent of our law. We are investigating that now. That's standard. I don't think there is any mystery there. That's the way things happen.

MR. SIHOTA: It is known by the ministry that in this case the improper — if you want to use that word now — disposal of the material was done by individuals who held a pesticide licence. That licence, of course, was general and allowed them to proceed with application of this material, which ranged in its variety — stuff used to spray arbutus trees, spruce, whatever — and which, as I said, had compounds that were arsenic in ingredient. Given the fact that the individuals involved held a pesticide licence, could the minister explain to me why the matter would not come under the purview of the Pesticide Control Act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because the Waste Management Act is a better instrument. It is also the appropriate instrument. The Pesticide Control Act has to do with application on the trees at the time and how that's done. In this case, it doesn't matter what the person improperly did; they have done something improper. It could have been pesticide, it could have been diesel fuel, it could have been PCBs.

They have improperly disposed of them, and they will be prosecuted under the Waste Management Act, not the Pesticide Control Act.

MR. SIHOTA: I haven't been able to find it in the act, but I take it there are no limitations in the Waste Management Act as to when you can commence an action other than that an information must be laid within the first six months. Am I correct on that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am advised there are no limitations under the Waste Management Act.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to raise the matter of the Pesticide Control Act. I would agree with the minister that if limitations don't pose themselves as a problem, then clearly the Waste Management Act is the way to go. However, your officials tell me that in this case they are looking at the Pesticide Control Act.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, this is what they're telling me. I have no reason to doubt what they as well as others are telling me.

I want to ask the minister this question: in 1987, when the minister was already the Minister of Environment, the government introduced amendments to the Pesticide Control Act. I went back to Hansard to see whether or not there was any debate on the section in question here, and there wasn't, so I can't say what it was the minister said at the time. Under the Pesticide Control Act you've got a limitation period of one year from when the subject matter arises. Quite frankly, I think that's your difficulty if you want to commence prosecution under the Pesticide Control Act. I am also told by your officials that it's the problem in this instance if a prosecution were to commence by the Pesticide Control Act.

I may be wandering very close to the parameters of what it is that we can or cannot discuss during the course of estimates, but if the government is serious about the matter of enforcement and prosecution, as the minister said earlier with respect to environmental problems in the province, then it would have to deal with this general question of limitation periods. You've got a problem, in my submission, in the Pesticide Control Act, because I think you have unduly and unnecessarily handicapped the operations of your ministry by putting in that one-year limitation period. It is very unusual to have that short a limitation period, particularly in cases like this where it may take four or five years to discover something, and then once it is discovered, some time to determine who was involved.

In light of that, I would suggest that it's something you ought to look at as part of your ministry's review this year. In my view, that recommendation becomes far more acute if you find that you don't have the jurisdiction in the Waste Management Act and you have to come to the Pesticide Control Act. If that's the case, then you're out of luck in terms of prosecution.

[ Page 8103 ]

I don't want to get into the matter of legislation. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence in allowing me to go as far as I've done, but I want to say that this is something you should be looking at. I hope your ministry is going to be reviewing those provisions. If they are open-ended, as I read the Waste Management Act, that's fine; but I don't think that's okay under the Pesticide Control Act.

This matter, of course, will be revisited by me as I monitor the prosecution by the ministry. Pending that, I have no further comments. It will be interesting to hear what the minister has to say about the comments I made about the Pesticide Control Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister, the Chair must comment on its delight that someone is actually beginning to recognize the terms of reference for discussion during committee.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's one offence the member picked out, Mr. Chairman. The member also sought legal opinion and future policy.

As I said earlier, we are looking at this whole issue of trace-back liability. It's an issue that has been looked at not just in this jurisdiction but in every jurisdiction as we get into more environmental protection enforcement: who's guilty; who's the polluter; how far back you go; and what's an orphan and what's not an orphan. It's a very intriguing study, to say the least.

[5:15]

Again, without trying to bring legal opinion into the committee stage, it would appear to me that the Waste Management Act is still the appropriate method, inasmuch as it doesn't matter what the fellow improperly disposed of, he has disposed of it improperly and that is covered by the Waste Management Act. It could have been pesticide, diesel fuel, hair spray or perfume. If it's a waste and it has been improperly disposed of, that constitutes an offence.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few brief questions and comments. Before that, I can't help saying to the minister in passing, to the Chair and to members of the House that the rules of question period have somehow crept into estimates discussion, and I think that is inappropriate. There is no rule whatsoever against asking questions concerning future policy in estimates. It is certainly true in question period, but it's been a defence that I have noticed employed frequently by ministers over the last few weeks. For some reason the defence has been allowed, and that's not within the rules. The rules do allow us to talk about your budget for the coming year, and a lot of the expenditure of that budget might well include future policy. We should get that clarified so that this continuing transgression stops.

The main issue I want to raise with the minister relates to a discussion I had with him privately a few months ago concerning voluntary arrangements between community groups and companies, in this case, that wished to use some pesticide application. The process that goes on is that a company — a forest company usually, in the cases that I am mostly concerned about — makes application for a particular spray, hack-and-squirt operation or whatever. If the community group is not satisfied with the application under the process, It has an opportunity to launch an appeal through the PAB.

In North Island one community group in particular has chosen to sit down and negotiate with the forest companies at the community level to work out a satisfactory arrangement. When they do this, quite often the standards and the agreements reached are perfectly satisfactory to both parties and produce good public policy as a result. The company and the community group are told by both the branch and the board that there is no legal standing to this agreement between the group and the company, even when the agreement doesn't transgress any rules or is within the policy. There is no request that these agreements be outside the policy, outside the law, or outside what's ordinarily allowable. But when these agreements are within provincial public policy guidelines or within the law — whichever applies — they are told that these agreements have no standing.

I quote, for example, from a letter that Mr. Hillier wrote, dated October 18, 1988: "This agreement is strictly between your organization and Canadian Forest Products Ltd. and has absolutely nothing to do with the appeal board." I just find this whole response.... I have letters from Mr. Kobylnyk of the branch making the same kind of argument: that these are outside the law and therefore have no standing. I want to argue that this process, where it's possible to take place, is better because it involves the parties who are concerned. They are usually — often in this case; almost always — able to work out an agreement. The agreement is one, then, that the community and the company can live with, and we have saved the cost and the trouble of the pesticide appeal board meeting and going through that crazy exercise they go through.

But once this agreement is reached, it doesn't have any standing. If it is appropriate, legal and within the rules, why can't it have some standing? In another field, if you have a pending court case, and you and your opponents decide to settle out of court.... This happens quite often in matrimonial law, where an agreement is made outside the court but registered with the court; then it has full standing as if it were a decision of the court. For the life of me, I don't understand why the same principle can't apply in these instances.

I will leave it at that and see if the minister can help me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the matter brought up earlier, relevancy in Committee of Supply, May's seventeenth edition, page 766, one line handles the whole thing: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." Copies will be made available to anyone. It does not deal with the matter of future action. The member is correct on that

[ Page 8104 ]

issue, but I wanted to fine-tune this other little matter, because we slip off occasionally.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I appreciate the member's concern. I've got a problem because I will have to discuss legislation, but it was something that happened last year, so it's just a recap. It was in Bill 50, which we pulled last year because of the legislative timetable. I am advised we will try and do it again. But it is a very good suggestion, and I have no problem with it at all.

MR. GABELMANN: I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that this could be done without a legislative amendment. I realize it would have happened if Bill 50 had taken place. I didn't think there was a prohibition under current law. However, if we can get on with that, I appreciate it. The minister's response is very much welcomed.

That was the major issue I wanted to raise. I have a couple of other ones, just briefly.

I think in Quesnel there is an agreement between the pulp mill and the community to have a joint secondary treatment facility. There is discussion now going on in Campbell River about the possibility of the Elk Falls pulp and paper mill and the municipality of Campbell River joining for combined secondary treatment. I wonder if the minister can make any comment about how the ministry feels about that, and what progress we are making.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, that was an agreement reached by Daishowa and the municipality of Quesnel with respect to sewage treatment, because the two effluents or discharges complement each other. Pulp mills are normally nutrient-poor, and sewage is nutrient-rich, and we'll leave it at that. Suppertime is coming up, so I won't discuss that any further; but it does work out well.

In speaking to officials from both Diashowa and the municipality, the technical process was very brief. It was the management process of how they were going to join in bringing together the two waste streams. Managing that was very difficult, but it did work. If Campbell River or any other community can enter into such an agreement with an industrial sector in their community, I would certainly endorse it. It's a very good remedy from the point of view of treating the discharge, and it shows that you've got a good corporate citizen in your community when they'll enter into this type of agreement.

My answer to you would be yes, I would encourage it. If there's anything I can do to assist either party or both parties, I'll be more than happy to do so.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate that, and I'm sure the minister will be hearing from the parties involved before long, if the ministry hasn't already.

Finally, I have a letter from the minister dated March 1 which deals with the issue of fish-farm feed bags. There's a real problem where there are a lot of fish-farms with the farmers dumping the fish feed into their system and then throwing the bags into the water. Of course, they're not biodegradable, and they end up all over the beaches and in people's props. I had written requesting a policy that these fish-feed bags be biodegradable, and the minister replied that essentially that wasn't ready yet, and that there was a task force. Have I missed the conclusion to this issue?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Given that answer, I hope we can find a way to quickly move to biodegradable fish-feed bags, because it is a serious problem in the waters at the north end of the Island.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, you haven't missed anything, Mr. Member. We hired a contractor, as you've indicated, and we're looking at this very carefully because it is a concern. That report will be ready, I'm advised, in October, and as soon as it is, you'll be the first to know.

MR. CASHORE: I want to come back to the matter of PCBs, with reference to the storage of PCBs by Mohawk Oil in Kamloops on the banks of the Thompson River. I want to say at the outset that I think both sides of the House acknowledge that Mohawk Oil is a good corporate citizen and has been involved in some very worthwhile activities with regard to the recycling of used automobile oil. Therefore we canvass this issue on the basis of the merits of the situation itself.

I thank Mr. David McGregor of Kamloops for having made this issue known and having done quite a bit of research on it. My understanding of the situation is that apparently there is a fairly large volume stored in Kamloops. They are painted a camouflage green, but they're fairly readily seen from the adjacent areas. The site is located at 505 Sarcee Road, and it has been there for more than ten years for the purpose of containing oil that's collected from service stations, trains, pulp mills, etc. One part of the process is to re-refine this oil and eventually resell it.

In 1981, unknown to Mohawk, one 42-gallon drum of highly concentrated PCB-waste oil was dumped into the tank, and the whole 77,000 gallons of oil were then contaminated. The concentration of PCBs, according to Mr. McGregor, is now 700 milligrams per litre. They've been there ever since.

One of the things that drew this to Mr. McGregor's attention was the company applying for a permit to transport toxic waste. He mentions some concerns. One is that there is no permanent person on site making sure that the site is not endangered. He states that the site was never designed to serve as a permanent PCB dump, and he claims that under current standards it really would not be allowed to be brought into use. The site is below the 200-year floodplain, and the oil tanks are not designed to withstand the external lateral pressures of a flooding

[ Page 8105 ]

incident. He says that given it is below the level of the 200-year floodplain, it really becomes a question not of whether there is a flood but of when there is a flood. As I said before, the permit that Mohawk has applied for would be to allow Mohawk to transport PCB-waste products to and from the site.

[5:30]

There are a number of obvious concerns that come out of this situation. One is that the tanks are located just 300 metres from a proposed multiplex site. Another concern is that the berm around the two containers is only sufficient to contain 110 percent of the contents of one container, and so there's a question about the adequacy of the situation there.

Mr. McGregor also has received allegations that in about 1978 these tanks were purchased by Mohawk as secondhand salvage tanks from Tranquille Farm. Apparently the tanks were over 30 years old at that time and were damaged during the process of rolling them onto and off of the river barge that was used to transport the tanks upstream to their permanent site. He also states an allegation that the tanks were pitted in the inside and bottom and were not properly waterproofed or rust-proofed at that time. He also mentions that condensation on the underside of a tank of this type can cause it to rust through and usually limits the life expectancy of new tanks in this type of installation to ten or 20 years.

There are a number of obvious questions about this. I would like to ask the minister to comment on the permitting process. I understand that the minister was in Kamloops recently and said that in his opinion the site is safe. But if the allegations are true, I wonder if it really can be stated that it's a safe site, given that the berm was insufficient to contain the contents of the two tanks, and given the allegations about the questionable adequacy of the tanks.

One of the questions is: does the minister really feel that the situation is safe, given its proximity to the water supply of Kamloops and the serious danger that could be brought to bear to the people of Kamloops, with the prevailing winds, if there were an accident on site and a subsequent fire?

Also I wonder if he would comment on the federal regulations which require that there be inspection on all sides — at least that tanks be so situated that there can be inspection on all sides — and on the fact that this configuration does not allow for inspection of the bottom of the tanks.

Also I would like his comments on the size of the berm.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to bring the committee up to date on some of the details, that oil has been there for some time, and Mohawk was actually caught in our regulations and had to apply for a permit for storage. I'm of the view — I didn't say this in Kamloops, but I spoke to them on the telephone — that Mohawk is by far the best facility for storage at those sites. They have trained personnel. They have the ability to inspect their tanks, monitor the tanks and provide security to the site.

Most of what the member has related to us are allegations which may or may not be true, but I will provide the answer to the member on all those questions. I'm not prepared to do it now, because, as the member himself admitted, much of it is by way of allegation. For example, we talk about tanks. I understand that there's only one tank; it's not in the plural but in the singular. I stand to be corrected on that, but the information I have is that there is only one tank. So if the berm will accept 110 percent capacity of that one tank, then obviously the berm is safe.

In any event, the long and the short of it is that I should seek the appropriate information with respect to the allegations the member has raised and respond properly, with all the details.

MR. CASHORE: I don't know why the minister says there is only one tank. I have a photocopy of the permit application which I'd be glad to make available to him. This "Application for a Permit Under the Provisions of the Waste Management Act (Special Wastes)" has the data about when it was filed. It lists two tanks.

I am going to have to put my glasses on, Mr. Chairman, because it's awfully difficult to read this photocopy. Tank No. 1: waste oil contaminated with PCB. Tank No. 2: waste oil contaminated with lead. Then it has two columns, one listing it in milligrams and the other in gallons. I don't think there is any question, Mr. Minister, but that there are two tanks there and that probably the data with regard to the berm is correct.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't want to mince details here, because both tanks are serious, but there is in fact one tank with PCBs in it. That's the information I have; that's what the member has admitted. The information is correct. There is one tank with PCB-contaminated oil; the other contaminant is lead.

With respect to the member's questions and allegations about the reliability and structural integrity of the tanks, I will wait for further details to provide to the committee.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to try to get back to us with further information on that. I hope that can be done during these estimates. I would point out, of course, that we are concerned about the tank containing PCBs, but we are also concerned about the total toxic cocktail that could result if there were a flood or some other kind of activity that caused damage to the two tanks and resulted in the berm not being able to contain it. I hope the minister will address those situations during these estimates.

I'd like now to turn to a topic that has been referred to in some of the discussions this afternoon. It has to do with the announcement that was made on June 7 with regard to 29 new positions that will be added for the enforcement of environmental issues. I want to ask the minister if he can clarify for us what these positions will actually be. Will these people be

[ Page 8106 ]

conservation officers as such, or will they form a contingent of personnel performing a variety of duties in the process of carrying out enforcement activities? For instance, will some of these positions be clerical? Will some of these positions involve people who are not conservation officers? Just what will this component be?

I see the news release states that there will be 29 new positions and that ten will be reassigned from elsewhere in the ministry. I would be interested in the breakdown of those ten reassigned positions. Where are they coming from? What offices will they be leaving to come and form part of that contingent? I would like to know what precisely the 29 new positions are. Are there job descriptions for those positions? What are the definitions of the positions? The news release points out that five will be allocated to Vancouver Island, seven to the lower mainland, four to the southern interior, three to Kootenay, six to northern and four to Skeena.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hope I got all of that. I was discussing something else at the time.

I will get you a further breakdown. The postings have gone up, but we just don't have them available to us. There are 29. They are not secretarial. Some are COs, and some are dedicated to going into the conservation officers' service, but they are waste management officers, and in some cases they will have dedicated positions — waste being one, as the press release indicates. Others will be dedicated for pesticide violations and that type of thing.

I can make that breakdown available to the member. I can assure him that the postings have gone out, and it is very much a sincere thrust on the part of the ministry to ensure that we have waste management officers with experience and the ability to gather evidence in the appropriate manner and to ensure that we have a clean province in which to live. I'll get the breakdown of the postings to the member as quickly as I can.

MR. CASHORE: I have been talking to people who work in waste management, and they have told me that at least one of the positions will be a secretarial position. I would appreciate it if the minister would check that out. Very specifically, the question is: is the minister categorically stating that none of these 29 people will be in secretarial positions? I believe for the record we need to know that.

I have one other point on this issue, and then my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen has some questions. I am referring to the most recent annual report of the ministry on pages 69 and 70. 1 can see why the minister has seen the need to do something about the contingent of people involved in the work of enforcing waste management regulations. When we look at the section on page 70, "Waste Management Program" — this is in the section of the report dealing with conservation officers — it points out a very revealing statistic that helps us to understand why only $21,275 in fines was levied in the entire year under the Waste Management Act, the Litter Act and the Environment Management Act. It states here that the reason is that conservation officers spend a total of 1 percent of their time on the enforcement of waste management legislation. As a matter of interest, it also says: under the water management program, 1 percent, and under the pesticide program, 1 percent. Mr. Chairman, it really is shocking to realize that only that amount of the time of people who work within the ministry is available for the enforcement of that legislation.

We're dealing with a situation now where enforcement is going to be even more demanding, if the words that we are hearing are to be believed. One has to wonder, given the fact that — perhaps I can be corrected here — there are 104 conservation officers in the province now. The wording of this announcement is confusing. Will it mean that there are actually going to be 104 plus 29 conservation officers, for a total of 133 conservation officers in the province? Can that be stated categorically?

[5:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said earlier, it's probably best that I review with the member the postings as they've gone out. I'm also advised that one may be administrative or secretarial, as the member categorizes, and we do have different job descriptions for the 29, over and above a regular field officer, or CO as I guess you would call it.

If the member will allow me to bring the posting list — and the postings have been out for a week now — that would be the best way to deal with this question: just to give him a list of what the postings are, and then we can discuss it from that point.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. CASHORE: I had some questions I wanted to pursue on this. I will wait until I receive that information before pursing my other questions.

MR. BARLEE: As the minister and I are both aware, I guess, there are a number of lakes in the interior which have a longstanding problem with Eurasian milfoil: Okanagan Lake, Vaseux Lake, Osoyoos Lake and Shuswap and Christina, and all the rest of them. But one of these lakes you can literally walk across, and this is Vaseux Lake. The Okanagan Basin Water Board seems to be hard pressed in that they don't seem to have enough harvesting machines or enough money at their disposal. I think the minister will agree that it impacts negatively upon the tourism business, in the Okanagan especially, and they depend on the tourism dollar; it's their leading industry.

Is it the intention of the minister to provide additional harvesting machines or additional moneys to the Okanagan Basin Water Board so they can at least control this problem which has been ongoing for a number of years?

[ Page 8107 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As you know, we negotiate with them every year on a budget. They should have done Vaseux by now. Haven't they?

MR. BARLEE: Not as of two days ago.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They haven't? It's strange, because normally by the first of July they have been in there. I am sorry to hear it's in that shape. This is one of the few years, interestingly enough, that I haven't met with the board and they haven't had some concerns. So I guess I probably presumed, and maybe incorrectly, that no news was good news in terms of the milfoil management problem.

I can assure you that we deal with them every year. They present their budget to us. We have tried to be tight with them in years past and they have complained bitterly. The representation by you and your colleagues from the Okanagan has caused us to be as agreeable as we can with respect to the milfoil program.

It's a terrible problem. No one knows the best way to deal with it. We continually get criticism of what we are doing there — rotorraking and all that type of stuff is probably the worst thing we could do; but it does get rid of it for the time being. It's certainly a chronic annual problem.

To be more specific in terms of your question, Mr. Member, if there is a specific budget concern you have, I would appreciate hearing it from you and then I will respond accordingly, if you want to provide me with some details.

MR. BARLEE: Perhaps I should clarify that. About 15 percent of the southern end of the lake, I think, has been cured, but certainly not around Hatfield Island, not around the provincial park, and not on the north end of the lake or the central part of the lake. About 85 percent hasn't been done, and 15 percent may have been done.

There is one other question I was rather concerned about — I wrote to your ministry about it last year. The Okanagan Basin Water Board has been very keen on obtaining an additional harvesting machine. They think it's very necessary. I think it is too, because the problem is growing year by year, and I think they do require an additional harvesting machine. I believe they were willing to put up, if I remember correctly, $50,000; they required an extra $50,000 from the government. This machine could make it easier to harvest Eurasian milfoil in Shuswap Lake, Okanagan Lake, Osoyoos Lake, Vaseux Lake — you name it. It would make the problem much easier for them to handle. I want to know your decision on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're just discussing that now. You make a good point. We have some information on that, and I'll provide it to you. I am aware of your concern; I'm aware of that overture. It's just that for the life of us, we can't remember how we resolved it. But I will provide that information to you as soon as I can, Mr. Member.

MR. CASHORE: Well, as I said before, I hope possibly tomorrow we can come back to the issue of the new conservation officers or whatever they're called. I look forward to receiving that information.

I'd like to canvass the area of access to information now, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister is well aware that environmental groups have been requesting access to information of the minister for a long time. I suppose I could be ruled out of order for discussing this in the context of asking for freedom of information laws, but I can stick to it on a more generic basis by putting the question to the minister: why is it the government is so shy about making available information to the people of British Columbia that deals with urgent and pressing matters for the protection of our environment?

I know that in his answer the minister will allude to the fact that there are trade secrets and that sort of thing. But surely the minister is aware that we as a Canadian people, through our Canadian parliament, have access-to-information legislation, and surely he's aware that some very worthwhile and knowledgeable citizens and groups, involving those groups that are part of the support process for the West Coast Environmental Law Association — including groups like Greenpeace and others — are constantly calling for this kind of information.

In responding to my initial comments, the minister referred to his understanding of what I had said about the Rankin report. Yes, I do acknowledge that it was ministry information that was made available that enabled that study to be done. I acknowledge that, and I appreciate it. However, that is not sufficient. The public has a right to know who those polluters are who are not being dealt with. The public has a right to know the information that Professors Rankin and Brown were dealing with. The public is being denied the right to know, and this seems to be very inconsistent with the statements that this government likes to make about the environment and its concern for it.

Surely we should be encouraging these volunteer groups, these organizations which, through their own funding and the labours of often very effective and very skilled people, are able to bring pressure by raising issues that come before us. Were it not for the efforts of these groups, we would not have the retrofit of pulp mills that the minister likes to talk about. It's not through the goodness of this government's heart that we have initiatives taking place, albeit begrudging initiatives, to start to deal with some of the longstanding pollution problems that have existed, where various pulp mills and other polluters had to take a look at the situation and clean up their act. But why does the minister and this government choose to deny access to information in the same manner that it is available through the federal government and indeed in other jurisdictions?

HON. MR- STRACHAN: Generally, you could say — because I'm kind of slow on this type of thing — that we probably will be releasing more and more information as we feel it appropriate. I had a long

[ Page 8108 ]

meeting — I don't know if you're aware of it — with Bill Andrews of the West Coast Environmental Law Association last Friday, and we discussed that issue. I told him that probably by the time summer is over, I would be prepared to release what I thought was appropriate to him on the requests that he's made to me. Glen Bohn from the Vancouver Sun has made similar requests, and I've also told him that I will be producing information that I'm advised by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) I can release.

There are some areas of law to consider, and I'm not going to embark on what they may be, because it's not appropriate for me to do so. But I'm sure I do have some restrictions under laws on what I can release from what's been provided to the ministry. Let's not lose sight of the fact that at this point all information provided to us is provided in confidential terms. Proprietary reasons, which you alluded to earlier, are one; another reason is that a company has undergone some variances and now has the correction in place. There could be a variety of reasons why an applicant for a permit does not want to have all of the information released. I think we are going to see that change. I'll tell you and the committee that probably by the end of the summer I will have released what I feel is important. I will have released most of what has been requested of me.

It's interesting, though, in terms of this whole public disclosure business, to look at what has happened. As I told you earlier, I have spent some time dealing with counterparts in the United States in engineering societies and groups that deal with environmental law. Of course, in the United States there is far more disclosure than in Canada. What they tell me is that when you have this law that says everything must be made public — all meetings, all documents — what you have is people simply subverting the law and arrangements being made over the telephone or details being sent by fax and then the faxes being destroyed. Therefore any formal record which is totally public is in fact not a complete record. I don't think that is productive.

The whole public scrutiny — this voyeurism, if you will, and looking at everything — sometimes is counterproductive and doesn't serve the environment or the public as well as it should. There are some pitfalls in what you suggest. Generally I am in favour of loosening up and being more open with respect to this. Later on this summer I think you will see some results of what I am saying now.

MR. CASHORE: We seem to move along and have a worthwhile exchange, and then the minister comes out with a term like "voyeurism" in reference to groups that are asking for information. I think it colours the other comments the minister has made leading up to that point. Voyeurism? Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with citizens' organizations. We are dealing here with the people of the community who have had an enormous impact in drawing not only the government's but the general public's attention to these issues. It has generally been in response to the general public that this government has grudgingly decided to take some initial steps towards at least appearing to care about what happens to the environment. But voyeurism.... The environmental groups that seek this kind of information are not here to defend themselves. I think it would be appropriate for the minister to withdraw that characterization. I don't think it helps the debate at all.

[6:00]

Let's get down to some examples here. When we talk about information that should not be revealed because of some sort of secret that a company might wish to hold on to, if we're talking about measures to improve the control of pulp pollution, why on earth would it be considered the revealing of company secrets and inappropriate to make that information available? When it comes to cleaning up the environment, surely all good corporate citizens and all good governments would work together to say: "Yes, we want that information out there as quickly as it can possibly be put out there, because we want to clean up the environment." This minister is saying that because of his coziness to the polluters he would rather enable them to hold on to information that could be very valuable information in the pollution cleanup goal. How can the minister justify that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, with reference to voyeurism, I've used that word not only in this committee today but in times past to the face of those people who have asked for it, so I see no need to withdraw. I wasn't calling them voyeurs; I was speaking to the whole process of this total public scrutiny and assessment and the glare that some people want to see.

With respect to dioxin control, for example, in the pulp mills, there's no need to cover up that issue. As a matter of fact, the companies themselves have been putting out press releases in terms of what they're doing and issuing all sorts of information. As a matter of fact, that was one of your major pitfalls as critic. When you saw a test being done, you thought we were doing it, and here it was the industry that was doing it — like that Western Pulp thing that you stumbled over. Here you have companies coming clean, talking about their testing process, talking about all the things they're going to do, what they're testing for and how they're testing it, and you thought they were doing something wrong, when in fact they were telling you, by press release, what they were doing. So there's no tendency to cover up any of that. I can assure you, the pulp and paper companies are stumbling over themselves to get their press releases out about how they are improving the environment and the various processes they're using. They certainly are not covering up.

Mr. Chairman, by agreement we're going to be going into other business, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 8109 ]

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is another in a series of measures which taken together amount to the most encompassing reform of the legal system ever undertaken in the province of British Columbia at any one time. This bill contains measures that will make the B.C. Torrens system the most efficient conveyancing system in North America. It proposes reforms that are necessary for the application of expert computer systems to the title registration process, the reduction of paper volumes processed in land titles offices, and the adoption of plain English in conveyancing documents.

Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes the compulsory use of one-page conveyancing documents and gives special focus to land transfer and mortgage documents. By standardizing these frequently used documents, they will be shorter, more understandable and as effective as those that now bristle with legalese. These measures will make the B.C. Torrens system more accessible to those who use and rely upon it, and they are consistent with the recommendations of the JRC. The standardization of conveyancing forms will also enable the ministry to apply new technologies to the registration process and the delivery of land title program services. The bill also proposes a reconciliation of the common-law doctrine of lis pendens with the B.C. Torrens system, which will eliminate a source of considerable risk and hardship for bona fide purchasers.

Also included in the bill are housekeeping measures and changes to the survey requirements for plans relative to the dedication of highways and Forest Service roads.

This highly progressive reform will assist commerce, will lower costs for homeowners, will help the environment by reducing the wasteful use of paper and will improve speed, access and service levels for all users of our land title system.

Bill 61 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL ACT

(continued)

MR. SIHOTA: In continuing debate on the School Act, I want to deal with a couple of broad issues that cause me to raise them with the minister. They are, broadly speaking, matters of professional standards and also what I see as incorporated in the legislation: restrictions on the collective bargaining process, privatization and contracting-out.

With the general tenor of this government, it's not a surprise to see language incorporated in a piece of legislation that deals with privatization and contracting out, although I must confess that I have some concerns about the provisions that deal with restrictions on collective bargaining and the erosion of professional standards.

I want to explain my concerns to the minister, with a view to determining whether the government would be prepared to introduce some amendments to remedy these concerns which I know have been expressed by individuals right across the board who have contacted me, particularly those within the education system — trustees and teacher representatives in my riding who have asked me to raise these issues during this debate.

In terms of professional standards, there exist in this act a number of provisions that, by themselves, seem to allow for erosion of professional standards. I know that later on we'll be dealing with section-by-section debate, so I don't want to go specifically through every section; that will be done later. But as an example, I want to bring to the minister's attention the type of situation that exists with the sections of the act which allow the board to employ teachers' assistants to help teachers out. Certainly one can't argue against the need to assist teachers in classroom activities, where certain basic conditions are met. However, if that is utilized as a method to deal with the teacher shortage in this province and as a way of dealing with class size ratios, then clearly we've got some problems in terms of professional standards, and I've got some concerns in that regard.

The act allows, through a general provision, namely section 15, the engagement of all sorts of employees for the general administration of schools. That is tempered by the provisions of section 18, which address the matter of teachers' aides and raise a number of very interesting issues, about which I'd be most interested in the minister's response. Of course, the issues that arise are issues such as: who will these people, the aides, be accountable to? Who will they be under the control of? Can teachers direct them, or will it be somebody else who will be directing the activities of teachers' aides? Are they accountable directly to the board, to the principal or to the teacher in the classroom?

Will these people be engaged in functions that are reserved for teachers and have traditionally been the purview of teachers? It's really in that regard that I have my greatest measure of concern, because if these individuals are engaged to do those professional responsibilities that have traditionally fallen on the shoulders of teachers, then the answer lies not in the engagement of teachers' aides but in the engagement of teachers to perform those functions. Therefore, of course, in that fashion there is a reduction in professional standards.

As another issue, to what extent and which way will these people be responsible for the outcome at

[ Page 8110 ]

the end of the day in terms of students? To what extent will teachers be bearing those responsibilities and to what extent can the outcome be allocated to teachers' aides? Once again, in that process, to whom are they accountable?

I guess the bottom line is that those types of provisions raise questions about professional standards. They ought to be addressed by the minister, in terms of assuring us that professional standards will not be eroded and that it was not the intent or the principle embodied in the type of section that I referred to — nor was it the intent in any way — to deal with the shortage of teachers.

I also mentioned during the course of my opening comments in this regard, Mr. Speaker, that there are some concerns with respect to contracting out, infringement and restriction on the collective bargaining process. Again, I don't want to go through section-by-section debate. Highlighting what I am talking about here, there are sections in the act — particularly, I think, section 104, if I'm not mistaken — which deal with the matter of allowing or authorizing boards to enter into agreements to purchase managerial or other services with respect to the operation of schools in the district, or to purchase educational services under the general supervision of an employee of the board who is a member of the college.

That section, of course, raises a number of issues. It raises issues in the sense that the legislation is open-ended. These people may not be qualified to provide educational services, and I wonder what type of safeguards are anticipated by government against that. In addition to that, there might not be any employment accountability to the board. If these people are contracted out, they aren't in the traditional sense — as we have seen in the system we have established, which has served us reasonably well over the years — seeing any level of employment accountability in these services that are contracted out.

I look to hearing from the minister his thoughts with respect to this open-ended subcontracting power, whether he feels it appropriate to apply any restrictions to that power, and whether the intent of the drafters of the legislation was to deal with those issues I dealt with or whether it was some other purpose. If it was for some other purpose, I look forward to the minister's explanation in that regard.

There are a number of restrictions in the collective bargaining process. I want to spend a little bit of time on that because it is the area in which, within my purview as labour critic for this party, there are some obvious bases for concern. Restrictions on collective bargaining show up in various provisions of the legislation, and they show up after we've had a round of negotiations where teachers and boards in this province have freely negotiated with one another to deal with matters that are of import to themselves and have drafted collective agreements tailored to the individual concerns of the school districts in their area. That has happened in my riding with respect to both the Greater Victoria School District, which covers part of my riding, and the Sooke School District.

There are certain restrictions, and various sections of the act, particularly sections 26, 27 and 28, place some restrictions on conditions of employment. In fact, they have gone so far as to interfere with freedom of contract and freedom of the collective bargaining process by including, under the purposes of a collective agreement, what may not be included in a collective agreement. Interestingly, those sections continue to refer to associations. I find that curious language, because we now have unionized situations right across the province, and not associations. I put that as an aside.

[6:15]

The legislation, when you take a look at those sections, impinges upon collective bargaining and defines areas which may not be included. It says that a collective agreement shall not be inconsistent with the School Act. It prohibits certain subjects from being negotiated, including the appointment of teachers, methods and techniques of instruction and the regulation of teaching. It has expressed provisions and regulations which override the collective agreement where a conflict exists, and provisions whereby the School Act overrides the Industrial Relations Act when there's a conflict. All of these provisions have been used by school boards in recent negotiations to argue that legitimate and normal clauses in collective agreements aren't available to teachers. To take only two matters that school boards have claimed to be precluded from the collective bargaining under this provision, affirmative action programs in favour of women and visible minorities and provisions regarding reasonable conditions for the implementation of a new curriculum have been resisted by school boards.

When you look at those sections and you see some of these problems, there seems to be an intrusion on the ability to engage in collective bargaining, and highlights it by the provision which limits a board's power to employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in the carrying out of their responsibilities under this act. It seems to deal with a number of matters which intrude upon the collective bargaining process. I think one of the best examples is this whole matter of prep time. I know that the teachers in many of the bargaining units across the province have negotiated preparation time, so that they can be away from the classroom in order to prepare for classroom activity and be able to do a better job once they are inside the classroom.

One can contemplate that type of provision being in conflict with the act and regulations, if indeed the regulations ultimately say that teachers must be available at all reasonable times. To give the minister an example, does that mean, then, that a teacher can be pulled off of prep time and told to supervise kids on a ski hill or go outside and deal with them in the schoolyard or supervise a floor hockey game in the gymnasium?

If there is an inconsistency of that nature between what's negotiated in terms of preparation time and what's happening in the school, and if the purpose of

[ Page 8111 ]

the act and regulations is to make teachers available during certain hours, do the provisions of the act prevail over the collective agreement and allow for a teacher to be pulled off of a particular situation, in terms of preparatory work, and asked to do something which is forbidden by the collective agreement but mandated by the act and its regulations? That type of intrusion on the collective bargaining process is one which causes us some concern.

Those are the matters that I would like to hear the minister respond to, so that he can provide comfort to those people from my riding who have come to see me with concerns about the legislation.

To conclude, there are other matters which are of import to those people who have come and seen me about this legislation, and they deal with the centralized nature of the provisions of the act, the power of the minister to make orders. But I know that some of my other colleagues have raised those matters and will be dealing with them in more detail during committee stage. Therefore I will listen with care to what the minister has got to say at that time. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence, and I look forward to what the minister has to say with respect to these issues.

MR. PERRY: After that fascinating speech by my colleague, I hesitate to go on at length. I'll try to be as brief as I can. I am also looking forward to hearing again from the minister. I'm really looking forward to hearing from the opposition House Leader, who was my brother's music teacher. The minister will know that even the best teacher cannot teach a student who has no musical ability to make music, but he did his best. Most of what he says is music to my ears, so I'm looking forward to hearing him, and I'll try to be brief.

I want to deal with some issues raised in the Sullivan report in the chapter beginning on page 210 on accessible programs for special needs children. I'll pose my remarks in terms of questions to the minister, which I hope he'll respond to in closing the debate on second reading.

If I can quote very briefly from section 8.C.6 of the report, entitled "Accessible Programs for Special Needs Children...." It's a very interesting section, bringing out a number of concerns that were heard by the commission from various parties: parents of profoundly handicapped and less handicapped children, parents of gifted children, teachers and associations. There are some interesting remarks that I'd like to extract from page 211:

"...there has been a trend throughout North America over the past two decades to ensure by statute that special needs students, irrespective of conditions, enjoy educational opportunity and access equal to that enjoyed by other schoolchildren. In contrast to provinces such as Saskatchewan and Ontario, which have enacted mandatory legislation to provide for the educational needs of such children, provincial policy in British Columbia has been more 'conditional' or 'permissive, ' to the extent that school districts 'may' provide special needs programs, as opposed to 'shall provide' policy attendant with mandatory legislation."

The report then goes on to point out:

"Parents of special needs children are generally not in favour of a system which simply serves educational, custodial and socialization functions; they seek a system which meets the complete developmental needs of their children, as they perceive them."

On page 212, at the bottom, the commission comes to some conclusions and says:

"Moreover, we believe that, despite the positive nature of the present policies, programs and services initiated and operationalized by the Ministry of Education — as well as other provincial ministries, school boards and local interministerial groups — such initiatives are perceived by many individuals and groups as falling short of guaranteeing special needs children's basic legal rights to an education."

They go on and say:

"We argue with many briefs which claim that legislative changes are necessary to protect the chartered rights of youngsters. Instead we favour clarification of the school's responsibility for such learners in the School Act and urge the establishment of appropriate third-party arbitration in instances where parents and school authorities find themselves in dispute."

The commission recognized that this is an exceedingly complex issue, one where what seems fair to one party may not seem fair to another and where an objective decision may be exceedingly difficult. Part of the document I did not read aloud refers to the difficulty even in knowing what services will provide the optimum outcome for a student, and I am sure the minister is more aware of that than I.

The principle remains that parents and associations of handicapped and disabled children are concerned about the guarantee of access and perceive a weakness in the present School Act in that in section 2 at page 8 of Bill 67, under "Access to Educational Program, " the effective definition of a student as a person "entitled to enrol in an educational program provided by the board of that school district" does not make any specific reference to special needs children or handicapped children.

Maybe I can leave that as a question to the minister for closing of second reading debate. Can he clarify why the act does not specifically refer to special needs children, and just as a statement of philosophy, perhaps, in closing the debate in second reading, can he clarify where he stands on that issue? Let me then turn, if I may, to recommendation 32 of the Sullivan commission report. Again, at page 213 of the report: "...that rights of special needs learners and their parents be clarified in the School Act, together with provisions by which any disputes between parents and school authorities would be referred to and settled through appropriate third-party action." This recommendation for a dispute-settlement mechanism appears in my reading of the act to have been left out of the School Act, and again I could ask the minister in closing second reading debate to explain or clarify why that specific recommendation of the Sullivan report has not been adhered to.

[ Page 8112 ]

I think that the background to that recommendation was well expressed in the preceding pages of the Sullivan report: namely, some of the uncertainties in deciding what is fair or what is in the child's best interests. Given that well-motivated authorities — parents, teachers — will disagree on what is the best solution for the child's interest, it is not surprising that parents and school boards will come into conflict. It is unlikely that a school board can be viewed as a totally independent objective party; hence the need for an independent third-party appeal mechanism of some kind. I think this is potentially a relatively simple amendment which could strengthen the act tremendously, particularly in the public eye.

I just emphasize for the record — and I don't think I'm telling the minister anything he's not aware of — that organizations such as British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People feel quite strongly about this particular provision, and I think this would reassure parents without opening up a Pandora's box of problems. In fact, it would potentially help to solve them in the future.

I raise, for the record, another issue which organizations such as British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People are concerned about, which is the discrepancy with the guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15(1), "Equality Rights":

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability."

Parents of children with physical disabilities clearly are concerned that inclusion of a similar provision or guarantee of equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability would protect them, particularly in areas where the parent cannot so easily rely on an organized lobbying group or organization to represent a child, such as in more remote areas of the province.

I would like the minister to respond to why that concern can't be reflected in the new School Act. I recognize that the Sullivan commission, in the part of its report that I quoted a few minutes ago, favoured clarification of the schools' responsibility for such learners in the School Act as opposed to legislative changes specifically invoking the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perhaps the minister could explain how the School Act deals with this need.

[6:30]

Let me just turn to one other example of the problems of handicapped or disabled children and students, which was made for a particular group — the Association for Visually Impaired Students of B.C., or AVIS — in a brief presented to the government and to members of this side of the Legislature in March 1989. The brief was entitled "Services for Children with Visual Impairments: A Need for Coordination, Comprehensiveness and Compassion."

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I refer simply to the executive summary at page 1 of that brief: a number of examples of problems faced by children with visual impairments, which concretize my observations about the School Act and my concerns about the lack of formal guarantees. I quote from that brief:

"2. There is a profound shortage of child and family counsellors in B.C. The estimated shortfall is at least ten FTEs." — full-time equivalents; this is referring to blind children. — "Historically, funding for these services has relied on the CNIB through charitable donations. It is clear that the CNIB cannot rectify this shortfall, and funding through the provincial government is immediately required.

"3. The Ministry of Education should fund education for the blind and visually impaired child starting at age 3. All preschool teachers should have passed a required course in special education.

"4. Every visually impaired child is entitled to an education. It should be enshrined in law that every visually impaired student should have an individual education plan.

"5. Teachers who will be schoolroom teachers for blind students should be given an initiation course on some of the unique aspects of dealing with blind students prior to the school year. This course must be provided by the Ministry of Education and have as a goal making the teacher more aware of how to deal with blind and visually impaired students."

There are many more good recommendations on the second page, but I think they all serve as concrete examples of the same overall problem: that in our present school system, the objective reality is that we're not able to provide necessary and clearly beneficial services to all students who require them. I know that the minister's desire is, after years of research into this bill, to optimize the performance of the school system, and perhaps in closing the debate, he can address the issue of how we can guarantee those equal rights for children with disabilities.

Let me just change the subject slightly for one or two more minutes and talk about another concern that I haven't seen dealt with specifically in the School Act and which I view — perhaps because of my own background — as one of the most crucial functions of the school system: health education.

Recently I received in the mail a draft curriculum plan — I can't recall the exact title at the moment — from the Ministry of Education for life skills education, which includes guidance on health education. In my view this document was remarkably vague. It provided an outline evidently familiar to curriculum planners, but to someone looking for concrete achievements or standards for learning in a school, there was virtually nothing in it to go by.

I think the Sullivan commission received input in this area from a number of groups, and there is widespread recognition that in order not only to provide the healthiest possible life for British Columbians but to control costs in the health care system, comprehensive and mandatory education in health is crucial for all British Columbia in the school system. In my view, if it's to be meaningful, it requires the definition of some very specific objectives. Only one example, but a highly topical one, is the objective of

[ Page 8113 ]

comprehensive knowledge in the field of sexually transmitted disease, including AIDS but not limited to it. Another is reproductive knowledge, birth control, breast-feeding knowledge, understanding of major preventable causes of morbidity and mortality in the population, such as high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, preventable cancers and sun exposure as a cause of skin cancer. There are so many concrete areas where one could hope that we could improve our standards of education, and I would just like the minister to elaborate in closing the debate on where he sees our system headed, as a statement of guidance to the whole system.

I think this also reflects a final point made by the Association for Visually Impaired Students of B.C. and by British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People: we need to see more coordination between various ministries with interests in this area, such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. I realize full well that not all things may be fixed by legislation, but again, perhaps the minister can tell us how he sees the new School Act helping in this area.

MR. ROSE: It's my honour to conclude the debate on second reading of this very interesting piece of business. Taking the high ground, I'd like to say that I and my party have been calling for some years for a royal commission on education. One of the things I learned from our former leader, Robert Strachan, is never to give a guy hell for doing what you asked him to do in the first place.

We've been promised a royal commission on education and a new School Act under a number of Ministers of Education: Pat McGeer; Smith, now the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head; and Johnny Heinrich, who is now the member from the expropriation commission. We've been promised one for a number of years, and this is the first minister who actually delivered on it. So on the high ground, we congratulate him for that. He's an old colleague of mine from suburban Kelowna, which is known as Rutland. It's always a joy to visit Rutland from time to time.

We called for a new act for a great number of years, and the minister asked sotto voce whether or not this means that we want to take credit for that. I think that as people who express the views of the public, we're entitled to take credit for requesting something that the government has done, and I commend the government for doing it. Again, I quote the former leader of this party, Robert Strachan, in terms of getting somebody to do what you wanted them to do in the first place.

Everything in politics is far from perfect. Politics is, in many cases, the art of compromise, and we on this side of the House can't say that we like everything that's in this act; nor does the profession. But they didn't like everything in other acts either, including Bills 19 and 20. However, they seem to have adapted to it. It's not as if they wouldn't like to change some of it — they would. But I think in general that teachers, after they register their concerns, hope the minister will be responsive to amendments — far more responsive than he was the other day with the reasoned amendment — and that he will consider amendments expressing the concerns of the profession and the other people involved in this act; stakeholders if you like.

The whole business of democracy could be changed in certain sections. We tried that through a reasoned amendment, of which we gave the minister, I thought, notice. I'm not sure that the government, in opposing our reasoned amendment, really understood what it was. It was called a hoist; it was called a guillotine; it was called all those things. If they had taken the trouble merely to read a little bit of the rules of the game.... Now I know what they did. There was a method of attack against an opposition proposal. I understand the politics of that, but I think it's important that everybody.... As a matter of fact, it says in Beauchesne on page 227: "According to modern practice, after a reasoned amendment has been carried on second or third reading of a bill, no attempt at further progress is made. It must be borne in mind, however, that the amendment, if agreed to, does not necessarily arrest the progress of the bill...."

We didn't attempt to kill the bill. We attempted to use the only device we could at that stage of the bill to bring in a concern for a goal in education, which essentially, boiled down to its essence, is to help our students and ultimately our citizens to live in, work in, participate in and better our democratic society. We still think that's a worthy objective, and we still feel sorry it was left out.

Just to put a final cap on it: "The House refuses on that particular day to read the bill a second time, and gives its reasons for such refusal" — here's another important point — "...but the bill is not otherwise disposed of." So surely it was fraudulent for the government to claim that we were out to kill the bill; that this was a hoist of six months or something in disguise.

I warn the minister not to be apoplectic about this; it's really not good for his health. And the member for Kamloops is the same; it's not good for his health, because basically you're getting upset over nothing. But we do hope and we say quite respectfully that we think some efforts to include a goal of democracy and its furtherance in the legislation would be most welcome and appreciated by all concerned.

I don't think it would take anything away from the power of the ministry or his officials who are sitting up in the gallery tonight looking for all the world like six or seven vestal virgins. That means that they really have nothing to do with anything, but they're just there as a kind of a power force. We'll deal with some of them later, and the reason we can do that is because they can't defend themselves. I always like dealing with people who can't defend themselves, even though I do have a great regard for them sometimes.

I'd like to mention to the minister that we are a bit concerned, in contrast to Sullivan, that there really isn't much attention paid to the education of aboriginal people. I wish he would write that down as

[ Page 8114 ]

something he should consider. Maybe my reading of it is an oversight on that subject, but it seems to me that there are serious cultural and educational gaps in the education of aboriginal people. I know there is mention of it. But if you look over the districts that have the highest number of native aboriginal people, you'll find that you have the highest number of dropouts. I revealed two or three years ago, coming to me in a brown paper envelope, the nature of the dropouts in the various school districts. Many of them were small districts and the pupils were largely of native ancestry. So I hope the minister would be interested in looking at that one.

The cultural and educational aspirations of the dominant society are not always congruent with those of the aboriginal people. They find it difficult in schools, and I think more attention has to be given to see that there is an educational fare, an educational offering suitable to both their cultural traditions and their aspirations. So I would hope the minister would look at that one.

[6:45]

A number of criticisms have been raised over ministerial orders of various kinds having to do with curriculum. There is a whole list of them; I don't need to remind you of them — provision of educational programs, student records and the like. It hasn't happened all at once, and it has not happened with this minister. But I've been here since 1983, and at that time I was the education critic or spokesperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: And a good one, too.

MR. ROSE: And a very good one, I might add.

What happened during those painful periods is that the teachers were given to understand, as we lost maybe 20 to 25 percent of them, that their work was really not valued. We had a Minister of Education who told a teacher here who came in on a by-election for Vernon to quit teaching and get a real job. Now if you take people who have been given a responsibility, who have, if you like, a mission, and you take their work as valueless, you put a lot of restrictions on how they operate, you demean them, you cut their numbers in terms of employment, freeze their salaries and impose all kinds of fiscal frameworks upon them, take away the board's right to democracy and say we're going to have an interim kind of arrangement with a limited time in which we'll determine what is going to be spent on education, and then you continue that same kind of heavy-handed approach to the board, naturally people are going to be suspicious of your orders.

Are you really giving more, as Sullivan suggested? Are you giving more attention to the needs and aspirations at the grass roots? Are you really centralizing more in the hands of the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education? I'm sure the minister is too strong to have his head turned, certainly 180 degrees, by some of the bureaucrats. But I think this is what the concern is. According to this bill, in terms of its philosophy, you want to consult, discuss and negotiate at the highest level. There's no question about that from the bill. I think at the implementation level you want to consult, trust and negotiate. But what's missing is where the power is, and that is at the management level. There's a huge level of power resting within the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education. So we're not prepared, nor is your department, to give this up.

Now Sullivan, for instance, suggested a curriculum advisory committee that has to do with a lot of things: professional development, evaluation. Who's got that power remains at the department level. Then there's this whole business of contracting out. You contract out to some local person — the local highway contractor, perhaps good relationships with the local Socred member if he is a minister, body shops — for any kind of training you might want to do in a school. Who's in charge of the evaluation of that project? There are no standards that I know of. Sure, the minister has the power, but If you contract out some of the services, who is responsible on an ongoing basis to see that you don't have some sort of a labour-intensive, diploma-mill type of operation? I argued here for three years that we don't give kids enough choice at 11 and 12, so I agree with this; but if you limit their choices, or if you don't monitor their choices very well, then I think they could be shortchanged. Who's to say, for instance, that this particular person is competent to give a course that's worth credit or its equivalent? You don't have that, and I think you need it. You need standards. For instance, the police don't determine the speed limit. Law determines the speed limit; police enforce it only.

So don't let those contractors determine the content totally. If you intend to contract out, make sure they're evaluated on the basis of what they're able to deliver and see that they come up with reasonable standards. The whole thing goes back to the matter of trust. The suspicion has been endemic for the last five or six years — ever since 1983 — and the minister, through no fault of his own, has to overcome a residue of suspicion that was not particularly of his making. I know he sat in the cabinet when these decisions were made, so he can't get off scot-free, but in terms of increasing the funding and changing the funding formula in a number of very important ways, I think he has done a good job. I don't deny that, and I applaud him for it. I think we have to make certain, though, that every effort is made to make sure that what we've got here is not decentralization but in fact, at the crucial levels, centralization of a very intense kind. I'm not going to call it a worse kind or a best kind, or any kind. I'm not going to give it an adjective, but I certainly think it's something we should look like.

The ministerial orders are very worrisome to many people, and again it's a trust issue. Ministerial orders, which are on page 3, permit the minister to do a great number of things, many of which he can do now, but to make them so explicit sends shock waves of fear through some of the more timorous, who are concerned about what kind of grab, in terms of local autonomy, the ministry is likely to make next.

[ Page 8115 ]

Can it override a collective agreement in crucial areas? Can it define a teacher's role and responsibilities as virtually limitless? I've looked at some of the notes that I have here on the material under "Duties of Teachers." It seems to me they could be at it for 24 hours a day if the minister or the board decided, or somebody decided. I can read some of them, but the minister knows what they are.

In addition to teaching in the classroom and having supervisory responsibilities, can he be required to work on Saturday, for instance, to take a team? I didn't have a lunch for something like eight years because I rehearsed a band every noon, and I was pleased to do it. I never felt exploited by all the work that I did when I was in Kelowna and elsewhere in extracurricular time, because it was my freedom to do it or not to do it. Are you going to say that a teacher must supervise at a school dance or on Saturday with a team, that he must attend all meetings even if it's in the evening? I think teachers have been quite willing over the years — and the minister was a teacher — to do a great number of things. We wanted to and enjoyed doing it. To me, the chance to do what I could in the schools was a joy; it was never considered exploitation. But at least I was giving of me. I wasn't required to do it beyond my classroom duties. Perhaps there's enough said about that.

I would be remiss if I didn't talk, before I close, about another worrisome aspect, and that's this business of teacher assistants. Again, a matter of trust. What are those teacher assistants there for? Are they there to take the place of teachers and professionals? The act says, in section 18, that the teacher assistants are there to be under the supervision of an administrator or a teacher. In the past we have had teacher aides, and teachers have been responsible for their supervision. Supposing we had a work stoppage or a withdrawal. Would it then be possible for the administrator — the superintendent; the principal — to supervise teacher aides who were non-professionals in the school and taking the place of the recognized trained professional? That is a concern.

Does it anticipate a teacher shortage down the road? My guess is that we cut the number of teachers in this province well over 20 percent. Some of our teachers went to teach in other jurisdictions. My own daughter spent three years in California because she couldn't get a job here. But now, according to every projection I see, read or hear about, there is a teacher shortage. Is the supervision of the non-professional something to take care of a possible teacher shortage down the road or a withdrawal of service so the schools can remain open and be run by non-professionals supervised by administrators, without regard to the classroom teacher? That is worrisome. I think we need to be reassured on that.

I want to close by saying that we have a shortage of teachers because we did everything we could to chase them out of the schools between 1983 and 1986. If the minister doesn't know it — and I am sure he does — in June of this year the Coquitlam district lost 40 teachers. There is a 55-and-out opportunity. Because of the way the schools have been operating for the last five years, those who are 55 want to get out. That is a poor morale factor upon which to build a sturdy, vigorous and exciting education system. In June of 1989, 55-and-out, we lost 40. Is there going to be a teacher shortage? If that is replicated in other districts, we can anticipate one. Are we going to fill them with non-professionals? Because where are we going to get them?

Proposition 13, the California proposition 13 which destroyed teacher morale in that state and caused them to recruit in other jurisdictions, is alive and well in British Columbia. We are going to have to start stealing from other jurisdictions, because our own proposition 13, which was called the restraint program, decimated the ranks of teachers, and we are going to pay for that.

We want to make certain that teachers are welcome here, that teachers are valued here, and that we take their work and contributions seriously and look upon them as autonomous professionals who know what they are doing, not just shills or peasants to be supervised because they might try to get away with something.

The minister has a profound responsibility. I think he is beginning to have the confidence of the profession and I think his activities flowing from this act in the next few months will determine whether he has been a success or whether he has just tried to be a success. I wish him the best.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is interesting that the debate now is on the act, which was my hope all along, despite all of the discussions and the referrals back of, "Please excuse us, we didn't mean what we did; don't get upset about it; it is a reasoned amendment," and all that sort of thing. It may have been a reasoned amendment and it may have fit all of that protocol that you are talking about — or Sir Erskine May talks about — but it still boils down to the fact that had we accepted your amendment without limit as to how long, we would not have been in a position to debate this unless we put in the wording that you put in.

MR. JONES: You could have brought it back in two days.

MR. ROSE: You could have brought it back the next day.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We could not have brought it back, because there was no specification to that effect. I know that you will maintain that you did not mean what your leader put in front of this House: that this House not proceed with this bill. But that is the way it seemed to be. And then I am admonished, "Don't get apoplectic, " and, "Don't get upset, " and all these cute phrases. I'll tell you, I wasn't apoplectic, but I was quite upset when after all of the consultation process and everything that had gone

[ Page 8116 ]

Into this, the first thing I ran into.... I came out of a cabinet meeting, looked at the orders of the day and found out that the opposition had said: "Don't proceed with this bill unless you word it exactly the way we want it worded." I think I would have reason to be upset, not just for my own sake but for the sake of all the people dependent on the changes that this act enables, in order for us to get on with the recommendations of the Sullivan report.

[7:00]

There have been a number of comments on various sections. I guess, in fairness, it is a little much to expect the opposition to read the act, one section against another section, and what it all means, when their basic objective is to criticize.

I find it strange that they cannot see or cannot understand the first clause in the act. They say: "But you didn't mention..." — somebody. We have mentioned everybody of school age resident in a district. You say that we should have mentioned this one and that one— when we're trying to do legislation that is all-inclusive. As I say, it's related to the educational program, if you like. What is an educational program? Just read the definition: "an organized set of learning activities." Then in the first section it says every student in this province. It doesn't say "with exceptions"; it says every student who is of school age and resident in a district is entitled to an educational program.

Later on, in another section — I believe it's 94 — it says the school board shall provide an educational program to every student in the district. I don't know how that does not include someone. It even says that the school board may offer an educational program to students beyond school age. So I don't know who isn't covered in this legislation.

There's a lot made of contracting out and getting non-professionals to teach in the classrooms. Again you read the one section that happens to suit the particular bent or message that you're trying to get out there — that this government is trying to contract out — and ignore everything else, and of course it suits your purposes, doesn't it? Mentality.

You look at one section that says school boards may employ people to assist teachers. You look at another section that says anybody so employed must be supervised by a member of the college, which includes administrative officers, vice-principals, principals, and so on. But it also says — if you took the trouble to read — in section 19: "A board shall not employ a person as a teacher, administrative officer, superintendent of schools or assistant superintendent of schools unless that person is a member of the college and holds a certificate of qualification." So they can't employ unqualified teachers, but they can employ people to assist teachers in providing an educational program.

I think the Sullivan royal commission report focused very strongly on the opportunity for students to learn, not to protect the right of a teacher to keep anybody else out of the classroom. Any professional teacher I've ever known has never been reluctant to bring in somebody to help. If a professional teacher brings in someone to talk about a particular topic, is that person teaching or not? Isn't it convenient when a public health nurse is invited in? That doesn't make the public health nurse a teacher. But if that public health nurse comes in to talk about health, AIDS or birth control, is that person teaching or not? According to the strict ruling that you want now, nobody is allowed to teach. Well, if somebody is telling students about something, is he teaching? Is he providing those students the opportunity to learn? If a businessman comes in and explains how a business works, under the supervision of a teacher, to assist teachers, is he not teaching? But you say: "Oh, what we're trying to do is alleviate somehow or other the shortage of teachers." The opposition House Leader says 40 teachers under the 55-and-out program. Wasn't it interesting how much you supported that program? You must remember what it was all about. There were a whole bunch of students graduating and there were no jobs for them, and you continually lay it on a government policy. It was because the enrolment had dropped by 50,000 students in this province, and it was supposed to not affect the number of teachers.

So there were a number of people, and to encourage them we took the initiative to say: "You cannot tell people to enter teacher training when those who have come out aren't getting jobs." One of the first ways is to assure them that there will be positions there.

So yes, we said for three years — because that was the estimated time that it might be needed — people who are 55 and over won't get punished on their pensions if they choose to retire. It made room for some of the young people who had graduated from teacher training to get jobs. It has served its purpose. It ends this June. It was not intended as an ongoing measure; it was a temporary measure to get some of the young people into the schools. After they supported it so strongly when we brought it forth, I am being castigated for it.

In Coquitlam there are some 1, 200-plus students that graduate from teacher-training from the three institutions, all of them in the lower mainland at this point in time in this province. Only about 800 of them take jobs, because they will not leave the lower mainland. There are jobs in this province for those people. So there is no teacher shortage in this province; it's a teacher shortage where they won't go.

Many of them will stay on unemployment insurance or other jobs when they could have teaching jobs. You say that somehow or other this act is designed to solve the teacher shortage problem. You obviously selectively choose to follow whatever suits your purpose. You must be aware, if you are so astute in what is going on in this world, that just this spring we announced almost $5 million to bring the number of graduating students from the institutions to 1,800 from the 1,200 that graduate now.

The universities are already working on this, and other areas are working on it. Up the Alaska Highway, there is a program in my own territory. We put money there to assure the continuation of the Alaska

[ Page 8117 ]

Highway teacher-training program, and enough money so that another 46 people can enroll in September in the hope — because other people have supported that — that those people will likely remain in the areas where they get their training, and that we can get people to take their training there when they couldn't afford to come down to Victoria or Vancouver.

So get out of your big-city mentality. Maybe there is something else to the rest of the province here. We are dealing with the teacher shortage in a positive way. We are anticipating and we are being proactive in that sense.

I don't know how much of this a person can generalize into this debate, because many of the questions refer to particular clauses.

Then you have things like, "This government did everything to discourage people from teaching and to discredit teachers," and that is absolutely not true.

MR. ROSE: Sure it is.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Far more was done to discourage people from going into teaching by the negative, carping criticisms of people like yourselves in the opposition, where you went out and said: "Teaching is a horrible occupation; teaching is impossible."

MR. BLENCOE: What absolute hogwash!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The BCTF executive went out and said: "Why would anybody teach?" Sooke teachers put an ad in the paper: "Why would anybody teach in our district?" Nice tactic for negotiation. Those groups, in their attempt to negotiate better conditions, instead of saying, "We would like to improve on our conditions, " said: "The conditions are deplorable; they are horrible. Everything is wrong. The system is bad. It's awful. Please go into teaching."

Of all the stupidity. I couldn't believe it when the very people who said they were trying to support the education system were maligning it and saying: "It's awful, it's horrible; the working conditions are terrible. Please go into teaching." That's what you people were saying, and I've been saying all the time that we've got a pretty good system. Teaching is a noble profession. Teaching is important, rewarding, great, and you people have been going out and telling the world it's horrible. Then you blame us for that sort of thing, for heaven's sake.

You say they're autonomous professionals. Autonomous professionals don't object to assistance in the classroom from other people; they invite it. As I pointed out to you, if you ever read three sections consecutively instead of just the one that suits your purpose, you would find out that it is covered in here.

The all-knowing member from Vancouver-Point Grey — the self-proclaimed expert on everything — points out that there's no provision in here for the handicapped. Do you want us to name each group? I guess that would suit your purpose. There's much stronger provision in here for the handicapped than there has ever been in any legislation, because it says that anyone of school age and anyone resident in the district "shall" be provided with an education program as defined. Sometime maybe that new member for Vancouver-Point Grey could take the trouble to read not just what has been pointed out to him by someone so that he can criticize and attack it. Maybe he could take time to read what the act actually provides for.

Sometimes I feel sorry for you people. It must be awful to get up in the morning and say: "What faults and flaws can I find today?" That's about the process. Couldn't you ever get up in the morning and say: "I wonder if there's anything good in this act," instead of saying: "Let's see now. It's a Social Credit government; it's a Social Credit act, so there's got to be something wrong here." Then you make the mistake of interpreting it in that way.

MR. BLENCOE: Your track record speaks for itself.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll tell you our track record is a lot better than your track record. I'm always astounded by the proclamations from that side, while we represent the people. For 34 years out of 37 the people have democratically elected this party to be the government, and those people say: "We represent the people; the people they elected don't represent us." Of all the nonsense.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can snipe away at everything you like, but I think what has happened here is that all the people have worked on putting this together, have put in positive suggestions and have tried to put together the legislation in the spirit of what was recommended by the royal commission report. As soon as all that was put together and printed, immediately you jump on it. I get so tired of that nonsense.

[7:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Have you lost your notes?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I have. Let me tell you what's typical of your party. Remember old Jubilation T. Cornpone the other day — your astute leader — who came in here, hit and ran and was gone again. He came in here, created a great furor, took off and let you people try to defend the stupidity of the motion.

Let me draw a couple of things to your attention, since you want to get political. Isn't it interesting that in the debate, your leader, Jubilation T. Cornpone, came into the House and said: "I would also like to congratulate those who participated in the Sullivan commission, and in particular the late Barry Sullivan...." A great deal of credit has been given to Barry Sullivan, and I think justifiably so. But the

[ Page 8118 ]

Leader of the Opposition couldn't leave it at that. He had to try to pick up some of the glory, because he said: "...whom I knew as a very fine, able member of the legal profession and a fine human being." That was on June 28, 1989.

Let me read you a quotation when we appointed Barry Sullivan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's even hard to think with that yipping.

Let me tell you what the Leader of the Opposition, that same noble gentleman.... Remember, on June 28 he knew him very personally as a fine, upstanding good mind, good citizen and all of that. But when we appointed Barry Sullivan, here's the Leader of the Opposition: "This royal commission, a prosecutor.... You send out a prosecutor to prosecute the education system. It's bad enough that it's a lawyer, but to send a prosecutor is really atrocious." This is the fine gentlemen — the chameleon. He jumps on any bandwagon, doesn't he?

I notice the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) sitting there smiling. He commended Barry Sullivan as well. Things sure change on your side. Your principles are dependent on where you stand geographically, and where you stand in time chronologically. There's the member for North Burnaby: "We don't see consultation; we don't see any of the reasonable sort of approaches expected. What we see is a one-man show with qualifications of a Crown prosecutor whose major claim to fame in education was prosecuting a teacher. I think there is an unfortunate linkage there. I don't think we are going to see the public acceptance, and the media have indicated that" — which, I guess, points out where he got his research.

Isn't it amazing how they change? If you can change that quickly because something has worked out, then I would hope that maybe you can change that quickly when something works out according to the opportunities provided in this legislation. Maybe some day you will look for something possible that the act provides. And it does. It provides a lot of opportunities for the students in the province.

I know you are now reading the media. CUPE has got a statement; the BCTF executive has got a statement; other unions have a statement; you have a statement. And that's what you're working on. But what about the learners in this province? What about the best interests of the students?

MR. BLENCOE: You’ve ruined the system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That member for Victoria says if we catered to the best interests of the students it would ruin the system, and I think that indicates where he stands. Where he stands tomorrow, of course, could be quite different.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Both feet on the ground and his head planted firmly in the clouds.

There's a reference by the opposition House Leader that the act does not deal with the aboriginal people. It certainly provides for equal rights for all, and in the policy statements that have been issued it provides for special consideration to try to solve the problem of the native student dropout.

I know it suits the NDP purposes much better to belabour that problem and to say how awful it is again — isn't the system awful! Well, I don't know what that has ever cured, when I was teaching, when I was in the system, or even now. I think the only thing that helps is if we do something about it. We may not be able to do everything, but at least we are doing something. We have gotten together.

MR. BLENCOE: Can I quote you on that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, you can quote me on that, because I know that the member for Victoria feels that if he makes an utterance, then all of a sudden the world is going to change.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, it does change. It gets more disgusted every day whenever he yaps away at it.

I think it's important that we make progress and that we build on that progress. The opportunity is in this legislation to do that. We can make progress. I will always admit that if I can't do everything, I'd rather do something that just spend all my time pointing out what can't be done. As the saying goes, I'm not going to let the things that I can't do stop me from doing the things that I can. And I'm not going to let the negative criticism from that side stop things from happening in this province, because while I hear from them about what's wrong with the system, I'll tell you, when I visit the system I see the things that are good about it.

I see professional teachers exercising that autonomy. They object to a clause that says no union contract can tell a teacher how to act in a classroom. Do you want, in a union contract, to tell a teacher what professional methods and techniques the teacher shall use in the classroom? We're saying you can't put that into the contract, because the professional, autonomous teacher has to decide the techniques that the person uses in the classroom — not the union contract, not anybody else. I think teachers are autonomous professionals and we'll stop — if I can help it — even the NDP from telling them how they must perform in the classroom.

There are provisions and there are programs and there are curriculums. The opposition House Leader and several other members have said: "The Sullivan report said there shall be a curriculum committee, and you haven't put into effect a curriculum committee." Well, we have put into effect, in a mandatory way, that there shall be appointed a provincial advisory committee. We have put that in. We have not

[ Page 8119 ]

precluded any subcommittees of that, and if you had been paying any attention to what has been going on in the consultation process, the present Education Policy Advisory Committee has had several subcommittees working now.

The proposed primary curriculum was developed, printed and sent out from the ministry. But I'll tell you who developed it: primary teachers. We seconded eight professional, expert primary teachers who worked with some people In the ministry, and they put out a proposed program, and that program is going to go out to every primary teacher in this province, and they have been asked to react to the proposal that was prepared by primary teachers. When they get their reactions in, that committee will get together again to put together what the primary program should look at, including the evaluation processes, because they go together. These people have done that, and I think that's indicative of what happens.

What about the intermediate curriculum? What about the total K-to-12 curriculum? What about all that? Educators, teachers from the school system, have been brought together and have said: "Let's work out an outline plan and bring that together." It has been regular for the ministry to involve teachers in any curriculum committee, and it will continue to be so, because it doesn't make any sense to do otherwise. You say that because we haven't mentioned all of the subcommittees, we have precluded them, and that is absolutely not true.

All of that is provided. We provided for input by parents. A parents' advisory council "shall" be set up in each school where parents request it. That means they now have that right; they are an advisory committee. Students have been given rights. "Oh, yes," some people say, "these are standard rights, and only common sense." But students have been given rights they haven't had before.

I was quite interested in their great bleatings about democracy: "They don't trust school boards, do they?" Repeatedly I hear that school boards cannot be considered to be objective. But they're elected by the people in the district. Surely, then, those school boards can be held more accountable to the people and to the parents than some appointed person out there making an arbitrary decision There's always the process of law, because any decision by the board can be taken to the courts. Now there are people who are not accountable for the decisions they make, because they are lifetime-tenured, but elected school trustees, who are surely accountable to the people, can hear appeals on behalf of students. Therefore we have made that provision instead of setting up some sort of machinery...

MR. PERRY: What do you think about a school board that sends an AIDS child away? Do you think there should be any appeal of that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I can't hear your utterings, intelligent as they must be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I regret to inform the minister that under standing orders, his time has elapsed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In conclusion, and with considerable pride, I move that this bill be read a second time now.

[7:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 67, School Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ACT

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Much has been said about education, and I'm not going to repeat all that. I think that what we looked at from the Sullivan report was the recommendation that all schools be under one school act. In further consultation with the Education Policy Advisory Committee, we found no consensus on that — the standard disagreements that Sullivan found as he went around the province. It seemed people were committed to their views and not prepared to change.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

That carried on, and it would seem that what would happen is that the principals were.... The royal commission report did say that independent schools should be recognized because, while there was difference of opinion, it was the right of the people in this province to have a democratic choice. That democratic choice was provided, to some extent, by the independent school system.

From all of that — and if people want more detail, I can certainly go into it — the decision was finally made from EPAC, by the ministry and by government that the Independent School Act remain a separate act, but would incorporate many of the principles expressed in the royal commission report: that is, they meet more stringent requirements relative to the public school act, so that if students had a choice, they also had equal opportunity to get an education that would prepare them for a healthy society.

This act is separate in that sense. It sets stronger requirements; it continues the requirements that were in the Independent School Act from before. With those requirements it also provides stronger inspection, so that we can assure that the requirements are met. Although the act does not specify that, contrary to some of the heavy research that has been done, the act does not specify the 50 percent funding.

The act requires that all independent schools, funded or otherwise, now be registered. In the past

[ Page 8120 ]

there was no such requirement, but all of those schools shall be subject to inspection. It provides for five groups, rather than the three groups there were — group one, group two and the one that had no obligation to register with us. Now all schools will register, and they will be divided into five groups — three of them funded, two of them under the same as was in the past: the 10 percent and the 35 percent formula.

The exact percentages are to be spelled out, of course, by orders-in-council, regulation and government policy. But at this point in time we have announced — so there is nothing hidden about this — that we are going with the recommendations of the royal commission report: 50 percent funding to schools which meet all of the requirements or parallel requirements of the public school system in terms of educational programs; 35 percent for schools which meet all the requirements, but which charge a fee that is greater than the average fee in the district.

They will remain at 35 percent, because they are providing that program and their students also qualify under the B.C. curriculum. We are not lowering their funding; neither are we increasing it. Those are the schools which have often been named as the elite schools and the example against which people argue about the independent school system. These are the schools which charge higher fees. Their situation will not be improved.

The third category is what we call the 10 percent funded schools, and those are the ones with the minimum requirements. They don't have to follow the curriculum, nor do their students get the provincial certificates. That does not mean their standards are lower; it simply means that we don't require them to follow the British Columbia curriculum. They are still required to provide an educational program, as students are in the public schools.

The other two — non-funded — now have to register, and the one category can actually be classified as a certified school, because they meet all the requirements. Their pupils can qualify; they meet all the provincial testing programs, but they ask for and get no funding. The fifth group, which doesn't require any funding, have very minimal requirements, but can't classify themselves as certified. They can't say: "Our students are certified to meet the requirements of post-secondary as required."

I've tried to summarize as briefly as I can. I think it goes a long way towards saying all students in this province are entitled — and they have a choice — to an educational program. They're entitled to be educated for the benefit of themselves and society, but there are optional ways of doing that, and that is acknowledged. And it does continue the principle that those people who pay full taxes to the public school system and then pay additional fees to register their students in order to exercise their choice should be entitled to that. I know there are others in the province who will at least espouse the line, until the crunch comes, that these student people should not get any money from tax revenues, even though they provide the equivalent education to students, and even though they pay taxes fully to the public school system, and even more than that, to exercise their choice. I guess I've always had difficulty with the people who are so hung up on putting the term "democratic" into the School Act, but only to be applied as they see fit. So if you're going to be democratic, then perhaps you should live by that principle, not espouse it and then bend it to suit your purposes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you believe in democratic choice in this province? I think you better make that decision, because during election campaigns you certainly do; the rest of the time, you speak against it,

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to introduce this legislation, and I'll be waiting to close debate on it as soon as possible, and then discuss it further, either now or during committee.

MS. A. HAGEN: We now have an opportunity, in the spirit of open debate and democracy, to discuss this second, companion act.

I can't help but comment that I find the minister's comments about any discussion in this House being something he finds offensive and overly critical very disturbing. And I would note, speaking for the people on this side of the House, that there has been a spirit of cooperation and reasonableness in the debate on which we're entered. I would hope that for the rest of the debate the minister would accept that we are a party to the consultation on this act, and we have every right in this House, on the previous act and on this act, to raise questions and concerns, which the minister, as the minister responsible, has an obligation to discuss and to respond to. Because the minister has not provided any opportunity prior to this time for members of this caucus to participate in that debate, I look forward to a reasoned debate on this act and also to committee stage on both acts. That's a matter of principle with us about which I feel very strongly, and I think it's one that graces the whole education system that we're talking about and the democracy we're talking about.

[7:45]

The act we're debating now in second reading does, as the minister notes, provide a framework for those schools that operate outside our public school system, outside the system of ministry, school districts and local schools that are directly funded by a combination of general revenue and local taxpayers' dollars. I noted the comments by the minister about why this act continues to exist as a separate act. But I also noted his comments in which he stated that the act is intended to be a companion piece to the School Act, and I would like to examine it in that regard and, perhaps taking a page from the minister's much more extensive discussion of the School Act, talk about some of the expectations we have of the independent schools. I would also note in my consideration of this bill that, contrary to the minister's comments, I've read the bills a number of times,

[ Page 8121 ]

sequentially and also in respect to a number of connected parts, and have read the regulations to prepare myself for this debate, and I think that that's true of all members of this House.

I want to look at some of the concerns that were raised by those who did some studies on this particular issue on behalf of the royal commission. I also want to do some exploration of the conditions under which public schools are funded.

Let me first say that we agree with the government that choice and alternatives should be the hallmark of an educational system. I've certainly made no secret of the fact that I would like that kind of choice and diversity to exist within the public school system as broadly as possible. I feel very strongly that the public school system allows students the opportunity to develop in a society that parallels the society in which they're going to live and work. So I am passionately committed to the public school system, but I recognize too — and certainly we have recognized and acknowledged — that parents are seeking choices related to the educational needs of their children and also to the values that they feel are important.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Funding for independent schools was first established in 1977, and it is now being dealt with — for the first time, I think, in a major way — in the legislation we're dealing with tonight. The fact that all schools in the province will now be required to be registered and will have standards that are consistent, I understand, with the preamble we discussed in second reading of the School Act, is a good umbrella start for this act. I note, contrary to the minister's perspective on the issue, that I would still like this preamble to also have some reference to educating students to participate in a democratic society. That's something that we feel would be an asset to that particular statement of goals, and we make no apology about that; we simply believe that it would enhance it. The minister and we have a difference of opinion, and I presume the government and we have a difference of opinion about specifically identifying that as a goal of education; so be it. But there is consistency in the preamble, and I want to note that.

However, immediately following that there is a singular lack of consistency. It's quite interesting, given the opportunity that the minister had to develop a parallel act, that whereas the first parts of the School Act deal with the rights, responsibilities and entitlements of students and parents — the right to be involved in consulting with teachers and professional people on their program, the right to have access to student records, the right to have parent advisory councils, the right of appeal — none of those rights are enshrined in the Independent School Act.

I think that's an unfortunate omission. I don't know whether it's an omission that was simply not thought about or an omission that has some other characteristics. But it does seem to me that if we're setting up a system that is, as the minister noted, going to have much in common with the standards, expectations and structures that exist within the public school system, in an enabling way those kinds of clauses should and could well have been included in the Independent School Act. I think they are important rights, and I certainly have agreed with the minister that their position as the very first items in the School Act, an otherwise quite complicated act, but one that, in its early pages, is at least accessible to parents and students for rights and entitlements.... That should also have been included in this act.

Included in it, I think, should also be some statement about the conduct of schools. Clearly the independent schools are not conducted in a secular manner, because many of them do come from a religious orientation; many of them are schools of some of the religions of our province. But the clause in the School Act that speaks about discipline and establishes a standard of discipline — that of a kind, firm and judicious parent, one that shall not include corporal punishment — is a standard that the province has come to accept as reasonable for the discipline of children. That too, I think, could well have been included among those basic standards that involve parents, students and their rights. I won't belabour that further, but I think the point is one that I have made with respect to those clauses.

Now let's turn to the conditions under which these various categories of schools operate. As the minister has noted, there is significant funding available to these schools. The government is proposing that certain schools — those whose fees do not exceed the average per-pupil cost in the district in which they are located — will be funded to 50 percent. Other schools, which in most instances we think of as having limited enrolments and relatively stringent standards for admission, will continue to be funded at a 35 percent level.

I think what we're looking for when we look at funding that goes to any body that provides education is that it is based on certain kinds of standards and processes that ensure accountability. Much has been made of the issue of the kind of curriculum that learners, to use Mr. Sullivan's language and the language of the new act, need to have available. I think we would expect that those schools that receive public funding should have a basic curriculum that is compatible with the public school system.

We would assume, too, that the assessment procedures available to and used in those schools are founded on assessment procedures that are basically there for the learner — not for the minister's records or reports, not for the school district's records or reports, but for the learners, so that they may, through that assessment process, constantly improve their progress, and teachers and the professional people who work with them can help and guide that; that there would be appropriate standards of certification for teachers — and those standards are ones that I understand many teachers in the independent schools have achieved, standards that are the provin-

[ Page 8122 ]

cial standards. That kind of movement has occurred, and we would like to see it a universal standard.

We note that all of these schools have limits on what they must not do. It is interesting that we have to state that in the act, because we don't have to state it in the School Act. It's noted that these schools must not in theory or practice promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority, religious intolerance, social change through violent action, and sedition. I presume that those clauses are there as a caveat. I would add to that that those schools should also have strictures that they must not tolerate sexual intolerance, either, in a society where we are working for gender equity.

We want to see that the curriculum of these schools is indeed a curriculum that demonstrably follows the public school system and adheres to that particular set of strictures that are noted as the first requirement for the classification of independent schools.

I want to note in respect to this a concern that was raised by some of the people who wrote volume 6 of the royal commission papers — page 40. 1 found this a significant statement and one that is a caveat around the whole issue of independent schools and their adherence to fundamental values of society. "If the elected and appointed servants of the public are to achieve the range of freedom of education sought by minority groups and yet maintain a strong, integrated social fabric, certain steps must be taken. The first is to ensure that the public school system can include all learners...." I note that that, of course, is something the minister emphasized in his closing of second reading debate on the School Act. "The second is to ensure that provision is made for alternatives within the public school system." That's something that I have stressed. But thirdly — and most importantly for this debate — "the provincial authority must monitor or provide for the monitoring of all teaching-learning situations to ensure that divisive elements which can contribute to a segregated society or weaken Canadian democracy do not develop."

We want the independent schools, then, to be part of the system, part of the integration of children into our society, not something that separates them from our society.

The standards for the education that children should receive should be very close and parallel to the standards that we expect in the School Act. I think that was why Mr. Sullivan wanted to see this act encompassed in the School Act, so that there would be those umbrella standards. It's unfortunate that they are not spelled out entirely, but I recognize that there are moves in that direction. I recognize too that many of the independent schools recognize the importance of those kinds of standards and that kind of accountability.

Let me turn to the matter of access. We had some discussion earlier this year in question period about access to independent schools. The minister stated quite emphatically — and there is nothing in the new act to suggest that this has changed at all — that the independent schools establish their own enrolment criteria. Those enrolment criteria may be based on a whole range of requirements. It may be that students of a particular religious community are given priority for enrolment. It may be that there are stringent academic standards that are set. It may be that schools cater to a particular national or ethnic group. These are characteristics that do, to a very considerable extent, define the school.

[8:00]

Our belief is that if these schools are to be in fact publicly funded, then access is an issue that we need to discuss. In a general way, I think that what we would propose is that access should be available to any parent or student in the province who believes that this school offers to him or her and to that family the choice they are looking for. I believe too that we would want those schools to be open to special needs students who might feel that those particular schools met their needs and aspirations. Enrolment procedures should be ones that do not preclude the attendance of people who themselves choose such schools, rather than having standards of enrolment that may preclude them from enrolment.

The issue of funding is very closely related to those schools that charge fees well in excess of the average per-pupil cost in the province. Those are the schools that will now be listed under category 2. 1 think it's fair to say that the majority of students who attend those schools are able to do so because their parents can afford to send them there. I know there are some who attend on scholarships, but the majority of them are able to attend because their parents have the wealth. Those schools too have very stringent qualifications regarding academic standing, and, as we discovered when we had some discussion about some of these schools, there may be other criteria that relate to the approach those students take to their academic learning where the choice is entirely in the hands of the school and where the student does not have an option to enroll when the school makes those decisions.

So in the matter of access, if we are to publicly fund schools, then those schools should be accessible to students who wish to attend them. Obviously all schools have some limits in terms of the space they have available; but with that proviso or with that recognition, access to these schools is something we feel, in principle, should be available under any kind of public funding. We really question whether public money should be available for schools that charge fees that make them available only to parents who are wealthy.

Again, to comment from the royal commission papers, a very clear statement from volume 3, page 66: "We believe it is inappropriate for public support to be given to independent schools which charge substantial fees." I think many people in the province would concur.

Finally, I want to make some comment about those schools that do not follow the provincial curriculum as closely as I know the group 1 and group 2 schools do: having their students stand for provincial exams,

[ Page 8123 ]

following through with assessment procedures that are comparable in many ways to those that students in the public school participate in. These are the schools that have very unspecified standards, the group 3 and group 5 schools. It may be that the minister has sufficient power and authority under the preamble to the Independent School Act to require these students to adhere to educational programs that fit that preamble. However, I'm not sure that we have repeated in.... Ah, we do. I'm thinking out loud, Mr. Minister. The educational program is defined in the interpretation.

The concern here is that those schools that do not follow the provincial curriculum, that really only have to promise that they're not going to teach racial intolerance or sedition and have an appropriate facility.... The concern is that we as a public concerned about the education of children can monitor and determine the standards to be satisfactory. One of the things I hope the minister will comment about is what tools he has in this act, now that he's made the good move of registering all schools with enrolments of ten or over, to ensure that those students are getting the kind of education we in this Legislature, through this legislation, will be mandating.

The responsibility of the province, as the minister has noted and we have reiterated, is to ensure that every child in the province has access to an education of high quality, an education that is accountable to public standards in terms of curriculum, assessment and access. Therefore, as we look at this act, those are the measures we must measure this act against. We would look to the public school system having the widest and broadest choice for every need of children, and we would look for legislation and actions from the Ministry of Education that achieve that goal We would look in this act for those same standards around the rights of parents and children, around the standards that are there, around access to be in place, because these schools are publicly funded.

Finally, we would insist that the legislation and the regulations be sufficient to ensure that every child, whether educated in a public school, an independent school or home schooled, has an education that we as a public have an opportunity to monitor in the interests of that child and in the interests of the societal and the individual learner goals that are a part of education.

Those are some of the issues that are a part of our consideration of this piece of legislation as we engage in second reading.

MR. JONES: I would like to add a few words to those of my colleague the member for New Westminster, the spokesperson for education from this side of the House, who I think has provided some detail in terms of the kind of constructive criticism that we would like to offer to the Minister of Education in the spirit of informed debate. There's very little that I can add to those remarks, so my comments will probably be a little broader and more general than those of the member for New Westminster.

Firstly, we should make it clear that we respect the right of parents in British Columbia to choose the kind of education that they wish for their children. Our support for independent schools is clearly there and always has been, and it's primarily in the concern about the funding of those schools where we have some disagreement with the government.

I'd like to clarify some of my biases about this situation, because I clearly favour public schools as what I would like to see as the first choice for parents in this province. That's because I was a teacher in the public school system for some 23 years and taught in four school districts in this province. I was a publicly elected school trustee in my riding of Burnaby for nine years and chaired the Burnaby school board for four of those years. So it's very natural that my focus and my bias is in favour of public schools. I believe those schools are the ones that are accountable because they're public funded. They are under community control, not just from the locally elected school trustees in that area but also from the MLAs who represent the regions in which those school districts are found.

I think it's important that the public involvement, the community control, the accountability be there, as opposed to what I consider the control by more special-interest groups, whether it be educators or ethnic, language, political or religious groups. I think it is preferable, in our democratic society, that schools be under that kind of community control. Those schools are free to overcome all kinds of divisions — divisions of wealth, language, politics, ideology, religion — and they provide the kind of equal opportunity that I think is preferable. Those schools are open to all students of the province and as a result serve as a cohesive force, a binding force, that brings children together rather than dividing them. Children learn to work and play with other children from the wide diversity of the cultural and religious mosaic that makes up this province.

The public school system acts as a countervail to what I think we all recognize as disturbing trends in modern society: the increasing tendency to divide along philosophical, religious or ethnic grounds. We see examples in the news every day of those kinds of divisions. So my bias is very clearly in favour of the public school system, which I think acts to bring our children together. I don't think we want to see our young people segregated; we want to see them unified by their similarities rather than divided by their differences. I'm in favour of a strong public school system that hopefully provides the kind of choice that would attract parents to send their children to that school system. But I recognize that the public school system does not serve the wishes of all parents in this province. There are alternatives, and parents exercise their choice, as is their right in a democratic system.

My hope, as the member from New Westminster indicated, is that we would create a public school system that is strong and attractive and could clearly provide the kind of choice that the vast majority of parents in British Columbia would want.

[ Page 8124 ]

In considering the bill, I do have a couple of concerns: (1) 1 think it's important to look at the long-term societal impact of making an independent school system increasingly more attractive; and (2) what is the spinoff effect on our public school system?

One of the things I did was attend a number of the hearings that the royal commission held around the province. There were a number of excellent presentations on independent schools in this province. One that struck me was by an individual who had spent a good deal of time in Australia, saw the Australian experience and had found in that country, as a result of the independent schools growing to the point where they occupied 25 percent of the student population in that country, that attitudes that were developed in the school years tended to remain with those students for a very long time.

He found that a very divisive force in that country, in that the first thing you did when you met somebody was check out what school they went to, and you made up your mind about that person, you stereotyped that person based upon those kinds of prejudices, be they economic, ideological, racial, religious or whatever. He found that rational discussion was very, very difficult in that country because of the biases that were developed in those early years. He found that communities were divided.

[8:15]

He also found a similar situation to what I observed in Seattle, when there was an increasing black population in a school system. It would reach a certain point and then there would be a vast dispersion to the point where it would become an all-black school. To quote this individual, he said:

"Once private schools start growing faster than public schools" — and I emphasize 'faster than,' and that's my concern — "enrolment and facilities decline in the public schools, staff become demoralized. Some parents faced with the situation switch their children to the private system, and once started, the change accelerates, leaving concerned parents with the choice of trying to change the school system or going with the tide. The public school loses the support of many of its most dedicated and hardest working supporters, as they shift allegiance to the private system."

While I recognize that that choice for parents is very important, I guess what concerns me and what has concerned me for several years — and this bill is an example of it — is the increasing trend on the part of this government not to maintain a healthy independent school system as it was a few years ago but to increasingly make that independent school system more attractive. That's the area of concern that I have.

I don't suppose there is any way of proving or disproving that the increased funding that we've seen for independent schools comes directly from the public school system, but I think that argument can be made. It can be argued that we have finite budgets. We have a finite budget for education; we have a finite budget for the school system, so that increased funding can be argued, that it does come from the public school system.

I have real concerns about not just maintaining the healthy independent school system, but making that system increasingly attractive. I think the Royal Commission on Education shared those concerns. I think because we care about all children in this province....

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, in charge of all kinds of wonderful programs as well, would like to make an introduction at this time, so I will take my seat and continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your indulgence, hon. member.

Leave granted.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's a pleasure to introduce tonight in the galleries Margaret Vickers, who is a valuable board member on the Open Learning Agency board. Would the House please join me in making her welcome.

MR. JONES: I think to some degree in this bill, and certainly on the part of the Royal Commission on Education, there was a recognition that society, through government, has the right and duty to control and monitor the education of all children. One of those areas of control is an agreement on basic standards of curriculum, teaching qualifications, student performance and facilities.

Secondly, for those schools receiving funds, I think there is an understanding that in a democracy there is a demand for public accountability from all institutions receiving public funds. So I think the Sullivan Royal Commission on Education struck a balance. I think the longstanding goal of the independent schools for 50 percent funding was recognized by the royal commission; and as a trade-off for accepting that proposal and making that recommendation, there were a number of recommendations in the Sullivan royal commission report that there be strong accountability for those independent schools in a number of areas.

First of all, in the area of teacher certification, Sullivan indicated that teachers in non-public schools should be required to have the same certification — and I presume that means, as Sullivan recommended, a minimum of five years, including a degree. And he indicated that any other credentials in that independent school system should be temporary and for a fixed term. Secondly, he indicated that there be clear regulations for the registration, establishment and operation of all non-public schools. Thirdly, he indicated that all non-public schools be required to give the government statistical and other data regarding their operations. And fourthly, in chapter 8, recommendation 16, he indicated that all non-public schools be required to meet certain basic curricular, assessment and inspection regulations.

It seems that what the government has done in this bill is take the funding aspect and implemented it fully; but it has clearly watered down the accountability section. Accountability in terms of teacher

[ Page 8125 ]

certification, regulations for registration and regulations required for curricular assessment and inspection have all been watered down. We're basically left with the government having the right or the responsibility to obtain statistical or other data from the independent schools — clearly a watering down of the accountability section.

We see some modest improvement in accountability. I think it's important that those schools be registered, as they weren't before. I think it's important that data be provided, as it wasn't before. These are improvements, and they're welcome improvements. What we don't see is the stringent balance that Sullivan recommended. I think it was a fair position that Sullivan took: in order for that increased funding to take place — the drastic increase in funding, from 35 to 50 percent — there had to be a drastic increase in accountability from what existed before. So while there are improvements in accountability that are welcome, and while it's recognized that there is no increase to schools whose per-student operating costs are higher than those of neighbouring public schools, while there are areas that are welcome, we still have serious concerns about accountability — such as the various concerns the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) had about the shortcomings relative to the public school act. And we still have concerns about the greatly increased funding, which I fear is at the expense of the public school system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, you are advised that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I can appreciate some of the comments that the members made. Just to deal with the last comment by the member for Burnaby North, he talked about the watering down of certification. Yet it says that under the group 1 classification, all teachers shall be certified, and under the group 2 classification....

MR. JONES: All non-public schools.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, I see. Even if they do not get a nickel of public money, and even if they don't want to follow the curriculum, you want them all to have to have certified teachers.

MS. A. HAGEN: We're talking about standards.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm talking about standards. I know of an independent school that has someone teaching science who has a double master's degree in science. But according to your rules and regulations, he's not qualified to teach science because he doesn't have a B.C. teacher's certificate. You talk about standards. I would think that somebody who has a double master's degree in science has some degree of credibility for teaching science to students.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose that's the difference. The socialist philosophy is that everybody has to jump through the state-controlled hoops in order to be qualified. You might have a person who is a musician par excellence, but according to your standards, that person could not possibly teach music to students. We're saying that if they parallel the public school system in groups 1 and 2, then they are required to have certified teachers. But if they do not parallel the public school system, then perhaps they should have some choice. I guess it all stems from your definition of basic standards. The socialist definition of basic standards is a common, dictated curriculum, dictated by the state.

You may also have missed the whole point of the Sullivan royal commission report, that the focus shall be on learning. Perhaps it is possible for a student to develop his learning skills, as many students did in the pioneer days, by reading the Bible. But they're not allowed to in the public schools, because there are differences.

You would try and preclude these people. They would have to follow the same curriculum as prescribed by the state and therefore must not read from a religious book, even if they happen to have a religious inclination. That seems to be the standard that you are saying: one cannot learn to read or study social studies unless it is from a state-prescribed curriculum. I have a hard time accepting that.

You talk about democracy and democratic choice, and even your education critic said in her opening statement on the other bill that choice is an important element for parents. Your idea — or the member from Alberni, I guess; his idea — of choice is that socialism and democracy walk hand in hand, as he said. Therefore no other views may be tolerated by the state.

MR. BLENCOE: Who said that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Your member said that. Whose values are we talking about? The Sullivan report talks about the focus on learning and getting away from the state-controlled prescribed curriculum in the public school system — a great deal of choice, or control on the curriculum, if you like. Surely the people willing to pay extra, including the full fees and extra fees for the right to choose for their students to learn from the material that they select, should have that right granted to them.

You talk about no strong accountability. The accountability in this act has been strengthened. We require the data that the Sullivan report has suggested. We require inspection by the inspector of independent schools. We require them to meet the requirements as established by the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: You are being negative.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, if anybody is negative, you haven't contributed anything positive in my memory in this House.

[ Page 8126 ]

I know the member for New Westminster said that we are making independent schools more attractive — no, I guess that was the member for Burnaby North. I don't think the funding is doing it; it's the choice, the right to deal with religion if they so choose, that is making them more attractive, the right to say that learning is more important than the inculcation or "teaching" of the same material to everybody.

[8:30]

Can you recognize the religious connotation in the public school system, the right for students to involve prayer in their lives? Because of the divergencies of religions in the public school system and by court order, we have accepted that it is bad for students to say a prayer in school. We have had to accept that from the court system. I don't think, then, that we should take that right away from those students who choose to do it in an independent school system by saying that they must follow the standard curriculum of the public school system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: One of your members said that we must have the public standards re curriculum, that they must be parallel to the public school system. Why do you think people exercise and pay extra for the choices? Because they want the choice. You acknowledge the choice on the one hand, and then you want to take it away on the other hand.

There was quite a bit of saying that we don't have the same controls in the independent schools act as we have in the public schools act, and I would suggest that we don't need them. There is a considerable control inherent in the right to choose and to pay the fees, and If you don't like what they are offering, you exercise quite a bit of choice by taking the student out and not paying the fees. In the public school system that is the only other system, and so they can't say: "I don't like what the school is doing, so I am going to quit paying my money, I am going to opt out." They can in theirs, so why would you have controls then to say that the students must attend and that they must have all these rights, when the parents have the ultimate right to choose whether they send the students there? Surely to goodness we don't need the same controls that are necessary in the public school, the rights of students. You can exercise your rights very easily in an independent school: stay or leave. It's a stronger force than any legislation actually. So I don't think we need those.

I'm a little concerned about the member for Burnaby North saying that we've watered down the qualifications. As a matter of fact, I think we've strengthened them. For the group one and group two schools, we must have certified teachers. In group four we must have 80 percent certified teachers. In the schools that don't ask for any money and want to have their own system, all that they're required to do....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But you did on the amendment; you wanted to hoist the bill.

They mention that the public schools could provide alternatives, but the public schools are gradually taking away those alternatives: prayers, religious rites and a number of other programs.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you attacking your system now?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We talked about basic standards, and I did want to make the point that even the royal commission report talks about the basic standards of learning skills — not a curriculum that has to be standard for everyone. I would hope that in the public schools we could keep more students towards graduation if we recognize their learning interests instead of requiring their adherence to a prepackaged, grade-stamped curriculum. I think if we give those choices — and I hope we do — we will interest more students to stay in the school system.

I have to question the repeated nonsense that is the funding for independent schools comes from the public school system, and that it's taken away from the public school system. If you think of 34,000 students in this province who are being funded at 35 percent of the cost of the public school system, what would the cost be if they were in the public schools system funded at 100 percent? Remember that those people also pay their taxes.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have a majority, but you're losing.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I can understand your willingness. I can understand your desire for me to not point out the flaws in your system and the inconsistency in your philosophy.

I think the independent school provides some alternatives that the public school system cannot provide. I think those parents have the right to exercise that choice in a healthy society, which includes a democratic society. They should have that right of choice. I think you will find that many of these schools are quite interested in making sure that their students meet the standards. But they are a bit concerned about a state-controlled curriculum where socialism and democracy walk hand in hand.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When people express points of view like that, and when they all support a letter sent to the schools on NDP letterhead that attacks another system, then I think you have reason to be concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: You can do better than that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think my criticism could improve on what you people invited when you sent that rotten, sleazy letter to the school system and

[ Page 8127 ]

approved it; every one of you applauded it in the House. How could I improve on that criticism?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can joke about it if you like. But you can imagine what would have happened — even without any Social Credit Party approval — if somebody who had any attachment to the Social Credit had sent that letter to the school system. You would have been attacking this government incessantly on that. You sent that out fully approved by your party. Then you stood in this House and confirmed or approved the right to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sleaze; dirty letter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'll tell you, it certainly surpassed anything that anybody else could do in terms of a dirty letter.

However, I think we are digressing somewhat from the Independent School Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think so.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But I guess the member for Victoria, with his incessant yipping, distracts me and gets me on to these somewhat partisan political statements. I know that all of you support the independent school system and the right of choice that people can exercise. I know that you have done it repeatedly when the crunch came, despite all your criticisms about it.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 68, Independent School Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. S. HAGEN: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR

CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to return to a few of the questions that were left unanswered before we rose at 6 o'clock for the Legislative Assembly to deal with other business.

The first question I'd like to answer was with respect to the new Environment FTEs and the press release that was referred to by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore). The numbers are this: of the 29, 15 will be enforcement — that is, conservation officers. Let me also state that we have also published the distribution and placement of those conservation officers, and I spoke to the president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation by phone the other day and he indicates that from their point of view they're very happy with the way we have further deployed the conservation officer staff. So that increases by 15. We have ten waste management enforcement officials. These are technicians who will be trained in technical monitoring and will also be trained to provide information for the courts when we do want to proceed with prosecutions. There will be 10 new officers doing that type of enforcement monitoring work and, as I said, they'll be especially trained to go into court, present evidence and present it in an orderly fashion that's going to hopefully result in a conviction. That's 25. The other four will be administration to assist the 25 staff that we have in place, understanding that we can't have conservation officers or waste management officials doing their own administration when they should be out in the field. So we have allotted four of the 29 FTEs for administration.

I think that pretty well covers everything. I spoke to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) about his concerns and the member for Coquitlam Moody (Mr. Rose) — I think we addressed those. If there are any issues unresolved, I'm sure the members opposite will bring them to my attention.

With that said, I'll take my place and await further comment from the committee.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the 15 conservation officers, ten waste management enforcement officials and four administrators, would the minister please tell us what training is involved for the conservation officers and the waste management enforcement officials?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The conservation officer training is a standard two-year diploma program taken at regional colleges. From that we compile a ready list of people who we are able to recruit into the conservation officer service. They spend another couple of years with a conservation officer in our employ — as a conservation officer, but they are not alone. At the end of two years they're deemed to be able to fly solo and can then work on their own. That's the standard training now.

With respect to the other ten waste enforcement officers, they will be technicians or degreed people, depending on what type of training they currently have, but certainly they would have to have diplomas, I would imagine, at the minimum. They could be degreed with science degrees — biology or other applied sciences. They, of course, have that training, and they will be trained in our regulations and legislation and how to monitor what they're supposed to be monitoring. They'll also be trained to be what I think is referred to as legal scientists, where they can enter court and know courtroom procedures, acting like a peace officer such as a conserva-

[ Page 8128 ]

tion officer would act and being able to provide accurate information to the court when we're dealing with a prosecution. That's the basis of that type of training, and that's the training we would insist on.

[8:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could respond to an issue I brought up about two years ago in response to a constituent who asked why conservation officers could get their training here but had no particular experience at the end of their two years. Is there any component in the two-year course that now gives them training before they spend two years with another conservation officer before they can become full-fledged conservation officers so that they have some sort of practicum, as they do in Alberta and some of the other provinces that also offer conservation officer training courses?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it's more than a loyalty oath. You don't want to repeat that, Mr. Member. You'll make a lot of enemies out there.

If I got the answer wrong, please ask me again, because I was talking to my deputy. By the way, for those of you who haven't met my deputy, he is not Bob White, in spite of his appearance. My deputy is Richard Dalon, who joined the ministry in July 1988, and I'd like to welcome him here. I know that a lot of you thought he was Bob White, right?

Most of the training for conservation officers is a diploma program. As I said, by and large it's carried out — regrettably, Mr. Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) — in the province of Alberta. They apparently have one of the better courses, and they do conservation officer service training. It's a recognized wildlife program, and it deals with biology and also the chemistry of what they have to know. I think it's in central Alberta, If I'm not mistaken.

There is a diploma program at Malaspina. We do have some graduates who come from that wildlife program in Nanaimo. They are really taught the classroom stuff of what they have to know — as most colleges do, in training someone for diploma work — and the practicum has to be done in the field. They also attend the Justice Institute and do such things as marksmanship and other justice-related studies.

Interjection.

HON. MIL STRACHAN: Marksmanship, to learn how to be a marksman. As a matter of fact, did you know that all British Columbia conservation officers have the skills of the RCMP who wear the crossed revolvers? They are of a higher marksmanship level than your standard policeman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Glad to hear it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So am I. Having been out with a couple in bear country, it's nice to know that they have that training. They are quite well qualified, and they do take a couple more years with another officer before they are on their own. But it seems to be working well, it's a good training course and it's a superb service. I think it's probably one of the better conservation officer services in the country. They're very good people.

MR. WILLIAMS: How many square miles per officer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Lots.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, that was a good question the first member for Vancouver East just asked: how many square miles or square hectares per officer?

I just want to ask the minister to confirm that prior to this program being initiated.... Am I correct that at the present time there are 104 conservation officers in the province? I see nods to the affirmative, so I'll carry on. That means that we're going from 104 to 119. Even though the press releases and everything else give the impression that this marvellous number of 30 is going to be the case, it's actually considerably less.

I can't really see how this is going to help to resolve the kinds of situations we've been hearing about from Professor Rankin and others. We're talking about 29 new positions; of these 29 new positions, ten are being reassigned. Is that right — ten are being reassigned? Or is it 29 new positions, plus ten reassigned from elsewhere in the ministry? I think that is correct. Of those ten who are being reassigned from elsewhere in the ministry, could the minister tell us what kinds of jobs they are coming into? Are they going to be administrators? Would four of those ten be administrators and the other six be appointed as waste management enforcement officials?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the administration component — the four — are not part of the ten. There are ten waste management enforcement officers who, as I said, would be trained as legal scientists to present evidence in court. There are 15 conservation officers and four administrators. I should also point out that not mentioned in that press release is that we have added one native conservation officer in the Atlin area and two conservation officers in the Deas Lake area. They are separate from the 29 the member has been referring to.

Just to recap one more time: 15 conservation officers, ten waste technicians, four administration. Let me also say that by adding those waste technicians, those people with enforcement capacity, of course we then free up conservation officers to go back into other wildlife issues as well.

MR. CASHORE: It is confusing if you relate this to the news release of June 7, because it states that there are 29 new positions and another ten reassigned from elsewhere, which adds up to 39. I'm trying to figure

[ Page 8129 ]

out the deployment of that total complement of 39. The news release doesn't really help with that. It says: Vancouver Island will have five; lower mainland, seven; southern interior, four; Kootenay, three; northern, six, and Skeena, four — which adds up to 29. So we are left in some confusion with regard to the ten being reassigned from elsewhere in the ministry. We don't know from where they are being assigned, and we don't know where they are going. I would like to know that in order to understand the situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have the 29 that you see. We have another ten — three of which I have just discussed. They are: the native CO at Atlin; the two conservation officers at Dease Lake in the Mackenzie area; and there are seven positions as yet unfilled. So the 29 plus those three and the seven would add up to 39. 1 apologize for the confusion.

MR. CASHORE: To take that information, which really is an increase of 15 conservation officers with the supplemental assistance of the ten waste management enforcement officials and the fact that ten people are being moved around within the ministry, and we have the four administrators, it seems to me.... On the question of the administrators, Mr. Chairman, so that we have this very clear, these are not people who go out into the field, but really are support staff in the sense of secretarial staff. Is that not correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

MR. CASHORE: Now we go back to the annual report where it states that under the waste management program, conservation officers spent 1 percent of their time; under the water management program, conservation officers spent 1 percent of their time; and under the pesticide control program, conservation officers spent 1 percent of their time. What is the estimate of this ministry with regard to the percentage of time that will be spent in each of these programs — waste management, water management and pesticide control — now that this change is being brought about?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's hard to say. As you know, we can't make reference to another act, but we have another act that is putting the onus on us to put more muscle into what we are doing. If we take the fact that we have 104 conservation officers now, then we reckon that we are increasing that by 39, that gives us 43 over 144, which is roughly a little over 40 percent. Let's add 40 percent to all those categories and I think that is a good guesstimate. How those officers are going to be deployed is really a management decision that will be made as they are put into place and as problems arise.

I think that just looking at the arithmetic of what we have done, we could surmise a 40 percent increase in those areas. Let's not lose sight of the fact that pesticide and water are commonly done by officials other than peace officers or enforcement officers.

MR. CASHORE: Let's point out to the minister that a 40 percent increase of 1 percent is 1.4 percent — which means the total amount of conservation officer time going into each of those three programs would be 1.4 percent, using the minister's own arithmetic. It may be that there is a 40 percent increase almost, given that total complement, but let us remember that these people are beleaguered with their responsibilities under other programs, including the wildlife program, the wildlife control program and other aspects of the conservation officer service.

I do agree with the minister that these are excellent people. Their training and dedication is indeed worthwhile. Again referring to the annual report, I notice that conservation officers attended 613 meetings and gave 390 talks to schools, service clubs, hunting and naturalist groups — which is commendable. Again, I think it's abundantly clear that even with this well-hyped announcement of supplemental help, it is absolutely inadequate in terms of the job that needs to be done. It is certainly not adequate in terms of dealing with the waste management concerns that we hear about that are going to suddenly change because of changes in the laws and regulations and because of changes in the hope for effectiveness of bringing people to court and bringing about effective prosecutions. I really do not think that in this explanation we see anything that begins to give us a glimmer of hope that this is going to substantially change what is already an abysmally inadequate record, not because of the personnel but because of the lack of support for those personnel.

Let's just put it another way. The lower mainland — seven people. Mr. Doug Mackenzie, in January, reported an acid spill in Howe Sound. He waited two weeks before he was contacted by anyone from the conservation officer service. That is not a criticism of the service; it is just that those people have so much on their plate that they weren't able to get to it. They weren't able to get to it until I went into that office and asked them to address the issue. They addressed it as best they could, but it became very apparent to me that they simply did not have the component of people that they need in order to do it properly.

[9:00]

1 also wonder, Mr. Chairman, if these employees are being merged into the existing system in a way that really dovetails with the work being done through the waste management offices and the conservation service or if this is actually another level of bureaucracy within that whole system.

Let us say very clearly as we go through these regions that five more for Vancouver Island is not going to begin to address the problem that was pointed out in the Rankin-Brown report. Five more people — presumably at least one of them an administrator, reducing it to four, and presumably of those four perhaps two will be conservation officers and two will be waste management enforcement officials.

[ Page 8130 ]

Clearly that is not going to be adequate to address the issue of persistent non-compliance and the lack of government officials dealing with that, as was pointed out. That is just the Vancouver Island region.

Seven for the entire lower mainland region, Mr. Chairman. Four conservation officers, three waste management enforcement officials and one secretary are not going to provide that office with the wherewithal to get out to Howe Sound and investigate toxic spills when they are reported. By the time they get out there, all too often the evidence is gone and It's not possible to go about It at all effectively.

Then we go to the southern Interior — four. That is not going to be adequate. My colleague sitting beside me, the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), is extremely upset that there are only going to be three of these persons going into the Kootenay area, an extremely sensitive area in terms of waste management, wildlife management, pesticide control and all those concerns that need to be dealt with.

Here we are talking about the surveillance going into waste management programs going from 1 percent of the total time of the conservation officers to 1.4 percent. Mr. Chairman, that is simply not going to do the job. It is not adequate. Yes, my arithmetic is correct, Mr. Chairman, unless the minister can point out that these people will not be assisting the already beleaguered people who are working in the other areas that the conservation officer service has to work in: the wildlife program, where at present they spend 46 percent of their time, and wildlife control, where they spend 13 percent. There are other breakdowns further in this report.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a program that bodes well for an improvement of the enforcement services, especially given the new regulations and the new fines and the new laws that we hear so much about, which are really nothing more than window-dressing if there isn't the infrastructure in place that enables it to be enforced.

I would like the minister to comment on that, and explain the new math.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it's going to be interesting for those 39 people to find out that the member thinks they are hype and window-dressing, because they are clearly not. It's a substantial increase, and your math is wrong. Where is Lorne Nicolson when we need him to explain some arithmetic to the members?

Murray Rankin, by the way — I am glad you mentioned his name — looked at the budget review. He wrote me back and said he is pleased; he thinks it is an appropriate thing to do. It's a considerable increase, as I indicated earlier. The budget itself is up $17 million, so I am making no apologies for it. The member can be critical, but I am not going to accept the criticism. It's 39 people. It's a significant increase; it's a significant budget. The administration is there, the resources are there; they are in the budget book. As I said, we went from $21 million in waste management up to $37 million — a remarkable increase.

MR. WILLIAMS: What more do we need to know?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know, but your member doesn't seem to understand what we've done. He is calling it hype and PR, but in fact they are real people; they have real jobs and real resources behind them. All the real critics, such as Professor Rankin, have indicated that they see this as a very positive step.

I should point out that Ontario went about it the same way and have added 80. If you consider the population of Ontario as opposed to that of B.C., you can see that we are considerably ahead of them on a per capita basis in terms of waste management officials. They have some more serious problems than we do, because they've had some polluting industry that has been around for a couple of hundred years. We really are leading Canada in this type of budgeting and enforcement process.

MR. CASHORE: The minister tosses off these statistics about Ontario, and he doesn't bother to say how many are presently in place. He presents the figures that he feels will be able to put him in a good light, but it doesn't really work. As a matter of fact, he just said that there are 39 new people. The fact is that there are not 39 new people; there are 29 who are new, and ten of those are being taken from other parts of the ministry where they are probably desperately needed. It's an addition of only 29 people.

The minister did not address the point I was making that at the present time in the waste management program, according to the ministry's own information, 1 percent of the conservation officer time is being used. Since there are 104 people in the conservation officer service, and you add whatever his arithmetic says is being added, then you only increase that 1 percent to 1.4 percent. There is no way of getting around that unless the minister says that those people will not be available to work in other areas covered in this percentage outline. If that is the fact, then the people in those other areas are also going to be short-staffed because they are presently overworked with what they are called upon to do.

It is a very sad situation when we have to deal with a numbers game from this government which is absolutely inadequate in the vast reaches of this province and with our need for stewardship, monitoring and enforcement. I find it tragic.

I would like to talk about another situation that is very important to the people of British Columbia: the Grays Harbor oil spill.

MR. SERWA: I have a few questions on this very important and very serious matter being discussed at the moment in the Minister of Environment's estimates, regarding conservation officers and the enhancement and protection of our wildlife legacy in British Columbia.

I am particularly pleased with our government about the additional 39 individuals who will become conservation officers. I know how difficult it was to achieve. I know the cost of it, and I appreciate it,

[ Page 8131 ]

because it took me a little over a year and a half to get a conservation officer back in Kelowna. I am most appreciative of that.

The question, though, that I have to direct to the Minister of Environment is the utilization of these people. I consider this a very serious and very important matter to the people of the province. The fish and wildlife industry and the recreation industry are approximately a $1.8 billion industry to British Columbia. It is important to a large group of sportsmen throughout the province: members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation number approximately 39,000.

The first question I have to direct to the minister is in the allotment of work to these people. It seems to me that we are addressing two specific areas. The one group should function like the old game wardens functioned; they're basically conservationists and managers of game. With the other group, you're looking at engineering technologists to monitor environmental impact, waste management, etc. Would it not be a more efficient utilization of these groups if you separated the two tasks?

The conservation officers we have at present are using entirely too much of their time away from the environment and the wildlife habitat and the monitoring of game. It seems to me we could use a smaller number of engineering technologists as conservation officers, even if they had to be centrally located and used as a flying force out in the other areas. It would allow the conservation officers to act as game managers, and this is what we must have at the present time. I'd appreciate if the minister would respond to that.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's essentially what we're getting at in our administration now. We want to set in place the distinction that there will be technically trained people with peace officer training, so they can gather technical information and can go into court and win cases. What the member is suggesting is clearly what we have in mind, and I appreciate his knowledge and his concern with the wildlife branch. We are making that distinction with respect to waste management officers as opposed to conservation officers.

You'll appreciate, though, that from time to time — this is not to do with pulp mills or the larger corporate citizens — it's necessary to have a uniformed officer at an industrial site for some difficult situations. Conservation officers are used for those purposes. I'm sure the member can understand why from time to time we would want to have uniformed people who are clearly peace officers to gather evidence, to lay charges or simply to enter property for investigation. I'm sure the member understands where those situations would occur.

What the member is saying is largely the direction we're taking. We clearly see the distinction being made between the technical enforcement officers and people who are charged with managing and enforcing fish and wildlife regulations.

MR. SERWA: Following on that, it was my thought that if there were to be designated conservation officers, they would all be conservation officers, but would be separated into two divisions with distinct responsibilities. The responsibilities are too broad and diverse to ask that of a conservation officer who is fundamentally responsible for fish and wildlife.

I have a couple of questions with respect to the concept of auxiliary conservation officers. It is obviously difficult to have the number of conservation officers we require through all areas of the province. It seems to me that if the RCMP can work with auxiliaries, surely the conservation officer would and should work with auxiliary people. The hazard isn't any greater. There are all sorts of experienced and competent individuals. They may be seniors willing to take part in monitoring the fishing lakes, for example, or road checks, or being in different parts of a game management area for a blanket check. What is the difficulty the ministry has with the establishment of an auxiliary conservation officer force?

[9:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To give the committee a thumbnail sketch of what we do now, we do deputize other provincial officials — Parks employees and federal Parks employees — to act under our authority for maintaining what we have to do under our various acts. They act with the authority a conservation officer would have.

We do not, though, have an auxiliary service similar to what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would have. I don't know why; I would imagine there's a technical answer. I'll give the member my undertaking that I will provide an answer to him later in the committee as to why we don't do that in the same sense the RCMP does. I presume that you're asking your question in that sense. You would have a civilian, so to speak, deputized to work as an auxiliary with a full-time officer and to go out and do patrols now and then. We do not have that provision, but I will undertake to find out why and return to you with that answer.

MR. SERWA: I think we all recognize that conservation is everyone's business. I have three fish and game clubs in my constituency, with one conservation officer. Recognizing that conservation is everyone's business, it seems to me that if we had an auxiliary CO force available, they would liaise better with the membership of the club than the single conservation officer is able to do, and they would propagate the concept that conservation is in fact everybody's business. At the present time, we still have to recognize that poaching accounts for 50 percent of the big game taken in British Columbia. Obviously there are such things as fish hogs who still catch more than their limit at all of our mountain lakes.

What I would really like to see is an educational program, and I think it's best carried out by large numbers of committed people dedicated to the concept of conservation who propagate that through the

[ Page 8132 ]

fish and game clubs, first of all, and who have the time and the opportunity to go through the school system and carry the conservation philosophy further and further. We simply have to understand that we don't have enough manpower reserves to do that effectively; but there are those individuals who have dedicated virtually their whole lives to the outdoors and who are familiar, knowledgeable and capable. I think we should strive to develop this concept and utilize those individuals to the best of our ability. It would not only be cost-effective, but the province would reap huge dividends from it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is absolutely right in his observation. We do have a lot of good education programs now. We have Project Wild. As my critic from Maillardville-Coquitlam pointed out, we have conservation officers doing a number of speaking engagements. Of course, we have very good works by Wildlife Federation members, such as you mentioned in your riding, and the local clubs, which are extremely good in terms of both education programs and programs of real delivery on the ground. I also think, when I think of this, of the Spruce City Wildlife Association in Prince George, which is quite remarkable. They have a hatchery. They have some good habitat enhancement programs, and I've found them to be a really remarkable resource in terms of what we're doing. So I think we need everything. There's no doubt that we could always use more staff, a larger budget and more forces for education purposes, enforcement purposes and the many jobs we want to do. Your point is well taken.

I recently spent some time with Mamie Miller of the ministry, who does our education, and she indicated to me the amount of contact she has with teachers, teaching groups and students, and how well they're spreading the word on the many areas of jurisdiction we have in the ministry, not only on wildlife appreciation and management but also on pollution, recycling and the whole gamut of what we do. I thank the member for his comments and assure him that when I next appear before the chainsaw gang at the caucus budget committee, maybe he'll be more sympathetic, or continue to be sympathetic, towards our pleadings.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, I know that you're fully aware of how British Columbia is specially endowed with fish and wildlife, but for the record, and for the other members of the Legislature who are not that aware, outside of Africa and the state of Alaska, there is no other area in the world that is so richly endowed with a diversity of big game species and the number of animals of those particular species. When we look at other jurisdictions in the world — perhaps we can look at Europe, states in the United States and many other countries— where hunting and fishing is the sport of the very wealthy, we have a precious legacy.

It's incredibly important to maintain the strength and diversity of our species; it's incredibly important from the standpoint of tourism and recreation to maintain the stocking programs in all of our lakes. As our population grows, we're going to have to recognize that the Ministry of Environment is going to have to continue to increase the production of fish to stock all of our lakes, because it's a very major and important industry as well as an incredible asset to the quality of life for British Columbians to enjoy these resources.

I think that the Ministry of Environment is doing an excellent job. I really do believe, though, that we can continue to press for additional funding for the care, management and conservation of the legacy that we have. I thank you for your commitment to that end, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you very much. Again, I appreciate what the member has said, and I do appreciate his continued support. I will just pinpoint one thing — and we could go through the wildlife budget items line by line. One of the more significant initiatives we've taken this spring is the new hatchery at Duncan, which will mean that all the lower mainland stock is dedicated to the mainland of the province, including the interior, the southern interior and the Cariboo; and Vancouver Island has a hatchery of its own. So it helps both of us out, those of us on Vancouver Island and those of us in the great interior of the province of British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, during the opportunity I had to sit down there, I found a couple of other points I wanted to raise under conservation officers. The annual report for 1986-87 points out that the conservation officers spent 2 percent of their time on waste management; when we go to the following year, it's down to 1 percent. That means that there's a decrease in the amount of time being spent by conservation officers on waste management between those two fiscal years. And what the minister has announced is only going to bring it up now to 1.4 percent.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: The minister groans when I say that, but he has not explained the situation in any way, shape or form that would give us any reason to believe that it is other than that being the case. If he wants to set the record straight, let him do so.

With regard to the point that I was making, looking at the numbers with regard to each of the regions — and the number, I believe, is seven going to the lower mainland — and considering that the lower mainland region produces 85 percent of the hazardous wastes in the province and is only getting a handful of additional people, at least one of whom would be a clerical person, that is simply not adequate, Mr. Minister, and I want to ask you what you're going to do about it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It has already been done, Mr. Chairman. We are adding those positions. The

[ Page 8133 ]

member's math is wrong. We're adding 40 percent to the force, and I'm pleased with that. The member also neglects to tell the committee that in many cases the GVRD has responsibility for waste management enforcement in its own area. Any comment about the lower mainland and numbers is really not relevant when you consider the other resources available to us.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to turn now to the oil spill. I would like to put it to the minister that the spill that started out on December 22 — and which the minister pointed out was off Carmanah Point on New Year's Eve — has occupied a tremendous amount of public attention, certainly during the months of January and February. That's something that was an embarrassment to the minister because of his lateness in addressing the situation. It's a spill that has resulted in a tremendous expression of concern on the part of the people of the province, especially the people who inhabit the west coast of Vancouver Island. Recognizing that we did canvass some of this during the Solicitor-General's (Hon. Mr. Ree's) estimates, with regard to the provincial emergency program, the minister has come to acknowledge responsibilities in this area. Recently we heard about an amendment to the Litter Act that was going to increase jurisdiction to include waters offshore. We know that the minister got involved with setting up the B.C.-Washington oil spill task force and that meetings have taken place.

I would like to ask the minister: if a spill similar to the Grays Harbour spill were to occur tomorrow, what has changed? What would the minister be doing differently now than he did then? Would he be responding more quickly?

HON. MR. REID: We'd be right there. We were there last time. Where were you last time?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I hear the question: where was I last time? We don't have the resources of the Ministry of Environment or this government to deploy, but through our member, we were there. We were in constant contact. Our member was there.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: Our member was there, and we were in constant contact with the marvellous volunteers who were there, the people on the scene who were doing an outstanding job, which was really the story of that spill. It was the volunteers. Were it not for the volunteers....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: The fact that that minister is applauding shows that they have learned something since the Solicitor-General's estimates, because at the time of the Solicitor-General's estimates they were putting down the volunteers, they were putting down Dave LeBlanc, and they were saying things that were absolutely inappropriate about those people.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: The fact of the matter is that these people are on the defensive on this issue. They're shouting so loud and heckling so much because they don't want to have to deal with this situation.

Let's start off by asking the minister to respond to that question. If the spill was to occur tomorrow, what has changed, Mr. Minister? What have you learned? What would you do differently?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the first place, what the member said is a bunch of nonsense. First of all, about the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) being there: he wasn't. I was there and I didn't see him. I held a meeting a couple weeks later to which he was invited. All of the mayors and everybody else were invited, and you weren't there. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know what you looked like until you came to the House, and I didn't see you, so don't give me that nonsense that you were there.

Earlier in the debate this afternoon I read an unbiased, well-balanced article by Canadian Press — no hype, no nothing — dated January 7, which indicated what everybody was doing. It indicated that the Canadian Coast Guard, which was in charge of the cleanup operation, had hired the Burrard cleanup crew. It indicated that the Ministry of Environment was arranging for the disposal of contaminated debris. We were also working to ensure that damage to wildlife and impacts on other sensitive resources were minimized. So the Ministry of Environment was there, and to say otherwise is nonsense.

[9:30]

As a matter of fact, it indicates to me that you didn't even read the Canadian Press story about it; you didn't even know it was happening. The first information you guys had was a week and a half later when you read the Province, which was also nonsense, total foolishness and out-and-out fibbing on the issue.

The Ministry of Environment, the provincial emergency program, the Canadian Coast Guard, the federal Department of the Environment, the DFO — all were there quite quickly. They were notified at 7:30 on New Year's Eve by the keeper at Carmanah Point lighthouse. So don't spread that nonsense, and don't have your student NDP group, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) pointed out, send these notes off to student presidents, because I'm going to send in this Canadian Press article and point out that they've been suckered by the NDP on this issue. You guys are not forthright on this, and don't give me that smiling gumph and say you know what you're talking about, because you don't — and if you read the paper you'd know you're wrong.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm just amazed. When we on this side of the House quote articles from the press, the minister likes to say: "I don't listen to the press.

[ Page 8134 ]

They're always wrong." And they beat up on the press. Now they stand there and say: "Read the press statements and you'll understand the issue."

The minister says he was in the Tofino area and I wasn't there. I was there three times putting oil into bags and picking up dead birds, but I didn't see the minister doing that. Was he simply doing it for the media? I never saw his picture in the newspaper, picking up oil. In fact, when the oil spill first happened he said: "I don't want to waste the taxpayers' money going up there." When he did go up I had to agree with him: it was a waste of the taxpayers' money, because volunteers were down on that beach long before the minister showed up, long before the Solicitor-General showed up with his so-called PEP, long before he maligned members of my constituency by calling them media darlings and alarmists, saying that they were a part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I asked the Solicitor-General to withdraw and apologize — no. But the government went up with some certificates....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, we're obviously discussing an estimate already passed. I didn't say anything like that. Obviously another member did, but that vote is long gone. Perhaps the member can relate his debate to the vote currently before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The member will speak relevantly to vote 55.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister said he went up. He did — he went up and handed out a certificate of appreciation. He did that on behalf of the government while other members of the government were maligning the volunteers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to read from Hansard those members of the government that in fact maligned volunteers, but I'm instructed by the Chairman that I can't do that, because it was another minister's estimates at the time.

However, this minister did say on page 5611 of Hansard: "The site is clean now, and again, I think the media hysteria was the most outstanding feature of that spill...." Yet he quotes from a newspaper and says: "You should read the newspaper to get the facts." Is the minister now prepared to stand by the newspaper article he has in his hands, or is he willing to withdraw his statement in Hansard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Absolutely not. I am pointing out that you didn't know it was happening — if you had read this earlier article. I pointed out the only hype was from the Vancouver Province. I said that before, I said it this afternoon and I am saying it again. The Province was four days late; they had no idea what was happening, so they had to criticize someone, and I was the target. That's fine; politicians are used to that.

The "media hype" comment, by the way, first came from locally elected officials in your riding. If you were any sort of an MLA, you'd know that. I didn't say that; other people said that. So get your facts right. Okay?

I never once criticized the volunteers. I never once criticized anybody. I said we should get our resources together. The only people I was critical of were the Vancouver Province and, later on, the editor of the Victoria Times-Colonist, who was also fabricating stories about me and about Murray Rankin, of all people, saying things that Murray didn't say. Such enormous fibbing has gone on in this, I can't believe it — just a couple of media hypes.

What I am saying is: if you want the news, read the Canadian Press stories. There are quite a few of them. They are well balanced; they point out what everybody was doing. The media hype was the Vancouver Province. The first person to say that was a mayor in your community, and I think that mayor was absolutely right in that comment.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister one question. He talked about the volunteers. When we visited this issue with the Solicitor-General, he described Mr. LeBlanc and others who were very active in this whole process as alarmists. Does the Minister of Environment agree with the Solicitor-General's assessment of the volunteers as being alarmists?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It really has no bearing. I met with Dave LeBlanc and the many volunteers. As a matter of fact, we gave them the minister's environmental award later on this spring at Government House for the work they had done.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Was the Solicitor-General there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. These are Ministry of Environment awards. Penny Barr was the nominal recipient of that award.

No, I wouldn't call them alarmists. They did a great job. There were many of them doing all types of things: the SPCA people doing the bird-cleaning, the troops picking up the patties on the beach, the people doing the radio work, the coffee and doughnuts, all that type of thing. The volunteers were really in the thousands, and we'll never know. We registered those for WCB who would register with us, so that we could provide that coverage. Many didn't apply for WCB; they just went up and did their thing.

The group that I met one day at Long Beach were just four very concerned people from West Vancouver, as a matter of fact. They had their slickers and garbage bags — they had on disposable rain slickers because the debris, as you know, is highly sulphuric. It's awfully messy and can cause a bit of a burn to your skin. They were wanting no appreciation, just their own knowledge that they were doing a good job.

I hope that satisfies everyone's appetite for: do I agree with what the Solicitor-General said or not?

[ Page 8135 ]

The volunteers were working. They were alarmed; I can't say I blame them. They were working very hard and very well.

MR. SIHOTA: That invites another question to the Minister of Environment. He says that he doesn't think those people were alarmists; however, the Solicitor-General said the opposite earlier on. The question is: in light of the Solicitor-General conveying what has been interpreted as the government's position, is the minister now prepared to apologize on behalf of the government for labelling the volunteers as such?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You should have listened to your colleague.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Premier wants to enter this debate, he has a mike. All he has to do is lift it up, stand up, and I'm sure the Chairman will recognize him.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, Mr. Premier, call an election and deal with the Leader of the Opposition, and we'll see how you fare then, too. You have your choice. If you've got some moxie, I'm sure you'll go out there. The press is up there; go and tell them you're going to call an election right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member going to speak to vote 55?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm happy to, if the Premier would cease his activities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm not asking anybody else at this time, because you have the floor. So if you wish to continue, I'd suggest you direct your remarks to vote 55.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I was simply trying to invite the Premier to so participate.

Several years ago the provincial emergency program used to fall within the purview of the Ministry of Environment, and it has since been kicked around from the Attorney-General's department to the Solicitor-General's department. In fact, over the last three years it has been vested in three different departments and is now not within the minister's mandate. Does the minister not agree, in light of what transpired with the oil spill and in light of the primary function of the provincial emergency program to preserve our environment, that it would be far more appropriate for that branch of government to be situated within his own ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the member knew anything about the rules of debate, which he obviously doesn't — of course, he's new — he would know that departments of a ministry and where they are placed are not subjects for estimates debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister were interested in having a full and liberal debate of these very important issues in this province, I'm sure he would be quite willing to put aside that type of technical shield and deal with the essence of the matter.

Nonetheless, it is true that reporting for the provincial emergency program is through an interministerial committee on which his ministry has some representation. That interministerial committee looked at the oil spill and made a series of 14 recommendations to the provincial emergency program. I'm sure we can quote those if the minister is not familiar with them. Could the minister tell the House which of those 14 recommendations, many of which fall within the mandate of his ministry, have been implemented since the oil spill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At this point we are reviewing that paper. Essentially, what we have done in terms of immediate ability to be in a better response position is put in two emergency response teams. We've had them go through some response exercises along the lines of radio communications. We've had a couple of exercises, one on Vancouver Island and one in the Charlottes, and they have worked out very well. As a matter of fact, the government of Alaska is very interested in seeing what we are doing, and they have asked us to share that program with them.

That is about all I can provide for the member at this time in terms of that response. An analysis of those recommendations is still being reviewed by staff.

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to ask the minister a couple of other questions. Since the oil spill, surely his ministry would have reviewed the actions of the ministry vis-à-vis that oil spill. Assuming that there was such a review, could the minister tell the House what the conclusions of that review were? What were the failings, internally, that you've assessed in your own ministry with respect to dealing with the oil spill? I know the minister would say none, but I am sure that's not what the Ministry of Environment would say.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think I answered that last question probably with my second-to-last answer. We should have trained staff ready who have undergone exercises to mobilize, and that's what we've done. That would probably be the major deficit we faced in January of this year: we didn't have planned exercises or a scheme of things in place.

The obvious things, such as wildlife work, are in place through the wildlife branch. We had staff there; Bill Munro of the wildlife branch was there assisting. In terms of debris disposal, we also had a regional manager on the scene immediately, because one of the things we have to look after as Ministry of Environment is waste. So those two functions of the

[ Page 8136 ]

ministry were in place immediately. Those are things we just normally do.

In terms of the response, the mobilization of volunteers and such things as radio equipment and that type of thing, we were not prepared there. But as I've said, we have put two exercises in place. They've worked out very well — so much so that other governments ask us to assist them in putting those plans in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name the governments.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure that many other governments are interested in engaging in a case study of this government's actions, so as to find out what goes wrong and how to prevent it in the future.

The minister made an interesting comment with respect to trained staff. I am wondering what specifically you now realize you need — in terms of trained staff — in the event of an oil spill. What financial resources have you committed in this year's budget to the provision of that trained staff?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will get a printed copy of the details of those response teams that we put in place, if we have it here. It was a press release.

As I said, it worked out very well. Mainly it had to do with communications to mobilize the various staff of the ministry. From all reports, it's envied. It's a good program, as one must have in these conditions. I will give you some information on that as soon as I get it.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister has indicated such great feelings about these programs, the government's abilities and these countries that are banging on our doors to try and find out what we did right. Mr. Minister, can you advise us which countries are coming to you for advice?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The state government of Alaska, which is in the country of the United States of America.

MR. WILLIAMS: You said countries, Mr. Minister. You have named Alaska. Is that the answer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't recall saying countries. If I did I was mistaken. I said Alaska earlier; I say Alaska now. I think I've said Alaska about three times in the last 20 minutes. I meant Alaska — that is a state in the country of the United States of America. If I said countries, hon. member, I really have to apologize. I was wrong and you are right. Gosh, you are clever.

I just found out that I was wrong. My deputy has just advised me of the interest shown by the country of Norway. So that does make countries: the United States and Norway. That's two. I was wrong twice.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not too sure if Norway is interested in determining whether or not British Columbia is a case example of how to do it or how not to do it. I would suspect rather the latter.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Alaska too.

MR. SIHOTA: And similarly with Alaska. Let's just diagnose the spill that occurred. We had a barge that ran into difficulty at Grays Harbor and then was towed out to sea. The oil started to make its way towards the west coast of Vancouver Island. Could the minister explain why it took his officials so long to determine what was going on? It was obvious that the barge had been towed out to sea and it was obvious from wind conditions at the time that the thing was headed towards Vancouver Island.

I believe, if memory serves me right, that that was on December 22, and I don't think it was until December 29 — I don't have my notes here, but I believe from memory — that it was December 29 — that the ministry became aware of the oil spill in terms of being able to react to it. I know that there was a day eaten up in terms of the stuff actually hitting the coast of Vancouver Island. I think it first reported sightings around December 23 or 24; it might have been as late as December 26. In any event, the ministry didn't show up until December 29, and of course by that time a fair bit of damage had been done to the west coast. Has the minister reviewed why it was that within his own ministry it took them that long — either three days on the short end or seven days on the long end — to be able to react to that oil spill? In light of that analysis, what steps have you taken to develop a more immediate response?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member clearly shows his ignorance of the events and also of the responsibilities. There was the Grays Harbor oil spill. The barge was towed out to sea on the instruction of the department of ecology official at Grays Harbor. The United States Coast Guard tracked the spill, and with atmospheric experts in place and with the Canadian Coast Guard so advised, the presumption was made that the oil spill would continue west and dissipate on the high seas. The U.S. Coast Guard and, I understand, the Canadian Coast Guard attempted to track but lost the spill. At that temperature, bunker C has the same specific gravity as water and sinks underneath the surface. So they lost it, and it wasn't until New Year's Eve that the oil did wash back on our shores, and then we reacted immediately.

But in terms of monitoring, that's a Coast Guard responsibility; I'm sure the member is aware of that. They have the helicopters; they have the ships. That's why they're called the Coast Guard. We do not have responsibility, nor do we have the resources or the authority to monitor what happens on the high seas. If you're concerned about that, I'll quote the former resources minister of the NDP government, who said, with respect to an oil spill at Oak Bay, that "this is a federal responsibility." Do you want to see the article?

So I think we've established that. We don't collect income tax, we don't do the Post Office, we don't do

[ Page 8137 ]

the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has a responsibility and they should have been monitoring it better. It takes infrared equipment, as I understand it, to monitor a spill when it sinks below the surface, which it will quickly in this environment. Obviously that equipment was not available. So in terms of those seven or eight mystery days, yes, the slick was lost to both the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards, and it was a very tragic surprise when it arrived at Carmanah Point on New Year's Eve.

MR. SIHOTA: That's a rather flippant response from the minister, because I want to tell him a few things. First of all, I think your ministry chose to hide behind a constitutional veil, just like you're trying to do with respect to that answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Nonsense.

MR. SIHOTA: Blame it on the Coast Guard. Blame it on the American government. Certainly one of the most significant failings of this provincial government in dealing with that oil spill....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you can control the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) or put a leash on him for a minute so that he can find a way to excite himself elsewhere, not in this House, and allow us to debate these very important points. While you're doing that, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you can tell him to read a little bit about history.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member should be aware of the rules of Committee of Supply debate, which say that only administrative actions of the ministry are available for debate. The member is trying to ask me questions about a federal agency. I cannot respond to those questions. The member has shown a real lack of parliamentary procedure, Mr. Chairman, and I think you should draw that to his attention. To discuss federal responsibilities is something that cannot be done in Committee of Supply in a provincial legislative assembly. I cannot respond to questions about the Canadian Coast Guard; I cannot respond to questions about income tax, about the Post Office, or about many other federal jurisdictions. The sooner the member learns that, the better off we'll all be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, the point is well taken. The Chair has been fairly lenient. We'll start putting the screws down and get the debate back in order. With that, I would.... Government House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Because of the time and another matter that has to be attended to tonight, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Ministerial Statement

SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ICG CASE

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House of a decision, important to the people of British Columbia, rendered by the B.C. Supreme Court. I'd like to do so by way of a ministerial statement.

Just prior to the Canada Day weekend, Mr. Justice Cumming of the Supreme Court of British Columbia rendered judgment on a matter that had consumed some 200 days of trial time. The judgment came, I'm pleased to report, a mere eight days after the close of the arguments. The matter in question arose from an accident several years ago near Salmon Arm, when a propane truck owned by ICG left the highway. It exploded, derailed a train and injured several people.

ICG enjoined the Crown, alleging that our highway guard rails had caused the truck to leave the road and to explode. Mr. Justice Cumming in his decision has absolved the Crown of any liability in connection with this accident, and awarded costs in favour of the Crown against ICG. Those costs are going to be substantial, and we're now in the process of taking steps to recover them. The damages in the matter were apportioned 75 percent to ICG's private insurer and 25 percent to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this decision has very important implications for the provincial Crown and the use of the concrete guardrails we employ throughout B.C. on most — if not all — of our highways. Had we not succeeded, the potential cost and liability to the Crown would have been extremely high, both in terms of insurance claims and in rebuilding our entire guardrail system.

Mr. Speaker, that decision rendered just prior to the Canada Day weekend is indeed good news for the taxpayers of this province.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to hear that the Crown has been absolved of any responsibility, negligence or omission with respect to concrete guardrails and those types of matters as they relate to highways in this province. That deals with an accident which occurred some time ago and with a number of policy issues which had arisen before privatization.

An interesting question now arises in terms of the government's privatization initiative, the nature of highways and the responsibilities for highway maintenance in the province. It would be welcome on this side of the House if the government would table in this House its agreement with firms engaged in highway maintenance in British Columbia, in order

[ Page 8138 ]

to explain who will have responsibility for highway maintenance in terms of liability matters in the future. It's an important public policy issue to determine whether or not we will remain responsible for these matters from an insurance and liability point of view, whether or not the contractor under privatization will be responsible, and whether or not any potential exists for the Crown and the taxpayers to be responsible on a third-party basis.

I welcome the Attorney-General's statement with respect to this decision. In addition, I would welcome the tabling by the government of the liability agreement between private contractors and the Crown, so that we may know what exposure there will be for the citizens of this province.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:01 p.m.