[ Page 8231 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Hospital Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 8231

Oral Questions

Logging in Stein Valley. Mr. Miller –– 8232

AIDS prevention video. Mr. Perry –– 8232

Minimum wage for farmworkers. Mr. Sihota –– 8232

Dawson Creek contractors' dispute with Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Mr. Miller –– 8232

National milk marketing plan. Mr. Rose –– 8233

Sale of Jericho land. Ms. Marzari –– 8233

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

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

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8234

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Lovick

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Perry

School Act (Bill 67). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 8260

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, if you'll bear with me for just a moment, I've been asked to introduce a number of people today. First of all we have some parliamentarians and public servants visiting us from Belgium, and I'd like to introduce them to the House. Gaston Paque is a senator and a member of the Socialist Party and represents the riding of Liege. Robert Denison is also a member of the Socialist Party, representing the riding of Namur. Octaaf Van den Broeck is also a senator and is a member of the Flemish Freedom and Progress Party, and he represents a riding called Termonde-Saint-Nicolas. Manu Desutter is a member of the Christian Social Party and represents the riding of Bruges. The civil servants who are accompanying these gentlemen are Mr. Herman Nys, Mr. Robert Godefridi, and his wife Mrs. Godefridi, Jean Cristoiovean, Frans Van Melkebeke and Jos Elsen. Would you welcome them, please.

MR. ROSE: In greeting the members from Belgium from this side of the House, I'm not going to attempt to go through the list that my hon. friend from Dewdney did. I think one session of his pronunciation should be enough for this House today. I welcome them and enjoyed meeting them at a lunch hosted by the Speaker. I noticed that when they were set out here, all the right-wingers were put behind the government and all the left-wingers were put behind the opposition.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, also in our House today we have some people from la belle province. First of all, we have Mr. and Mrs. Michel Bissonnet. Mr. Bissonnet is the MLA for Jeanne-Mance. He's the government Whip for the Liberal Party in the province of Quebec. We also have Mr. and Mrs. Réal Gauvin and Mr. and Mrs. Bill Cusano and their two children, Connie and Bill Jr. Would you welcome these people, please.

HON. MR. REID: In the members' gallery today with my ministerial assistant, Mr. Hans Schinz, are some very special guests: Ellen Sinclair, chairman of the board for the Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock, together with Colin Luxton and Jack Geddes, representing seniors' organizations in White Rock. Would the House please make these people welcome.

HON. MR. VANT: In the gallery opposite, just above the socialist NDP corner of the House, is a very important young man, a constituent of mine, who was born at 100 Mile House and currently lives just south and east of Williams Lake. He's in Victoria studying at the Royal Conservatory of Music. I'm very pleased that my son, Timothy Vant, is here. I hope the House will give him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. REE: Today, for the first time in this parliament, it's my pleasure to introduce some people in the visitors' gallery. The lovely blonde lady up there I'm very pleased to say is my wife Cheri, and with her are her aunt and uncle, Ray and Muriel Thagard, who are visiting us from Winnipeg. I would ask this House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. RABBITT: It's certainly my pleasure today to introduce a friend of many years, Ida Makaro. She has brought two guests to visit the capital city: her niece Arlene McWilliam from Regina, who is just returning from a year of touring Australia and New Zealand, and friend Kathy Brooks of Maple Ridge. I would ask the House to give these three fine ladies a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure on behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, along with colleagues in government here, to welcome to the precincts 70 students from North Delta who have been brought over here by their coordinators Miss Hoffinger and Miss Robson. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: Monsieur le président, j'aimerais aussi accueillir le membre de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec, M. Bissonnet, et sa femme, au nom de notre partie.

Introduction of Bills

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Hospital Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes a new Hospitals Foundation of British Columbia that will work with hospitals and existing hospital foundations throughout British Columbia to promote the raising of funds for all purposes related to the operations of hospitals.

This Hospitals Foundation will be an agent in right of the Crown of British Columbia. As such, a person donating money to the foundation will be entitled to claim more than 20 percent of taxable income in any one taxation year, unlike standard charitable donations or standard charitable organizations.

The provisions respecting the establishment of the Hospitals Foundation are very similar to the provisions of the University Foundations Act. That act was introduced by my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) last year.

This is an important initiative, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to recommend this bill to the Legislative Assembly. I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 69 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.

[2:15]

[ Page 8232 ]

Oral Questions

LOGGING IN STEIN VALLEY

MR. MILLER: I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs. Yesterday in the House the minister denied having written to the Mount Lytton band regarding the Stein Valley. Would the minister confirm that is not true, and that he wrote to the Lytton and Mount Currie bands on May 9, asking for additional information, so that he could — and I quote from his letter — "...determine the best course of action in renewing our government's continuing dialogue on this important subject."

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I was wrong yesterday when I indicated that I had not written Chief Dunstan. I did, in fact, write one piece of correspondence on May 9. I received a very brief response to that letter yesterday, and I intend to follow up on that.

MR. MILLER: A further question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday again the minister said — and I quote from Hansard — "The Minister of Forests will continue to negotiate on behalf of the province." The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) has stated that there was no call for an agreement with the natives on the Stein, there was no agreement necessary; that as far as operations in the Stein were concerned, it depended on Fletcher Challenge. Is this the minister's idea of negotiations or the continuing dialogue that he refers to in his letter?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: This is an issue of forests and the people who are involved in them. I expect that ongoing discussions will probably be led by the Minister of Forests. It was my intention when I wrote the chief to offer, on behalf of the province, to continue discussions, and I'm prepared to do that.

MR. MILLER: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Assuming the minister is serious — and I take him at his word — that he wants to lead negotiations, and the Minister of Forests refuses, even though he's charged with that responsibility, is the Minister of Native Affairs prepared to step into the vacuum and take over the negotiations so that the people of the Stein can get some straight answers from government, instead of these contradictory views from two separate cabinet ministers?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No, I didn't suggest that I wanted to lead the negotiations or discussions on behalf of the province. I did say that I had written on behalf of the province, indicating that we were prepared to continue discussions.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Well then, if you have questions for the Minister of Forests, I would suggest that you direct them to him.

AIDS PREVENTION VIDEO

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that he viewed his department's controversial AIDS video before it was exhibited at the international AIDS conference in Montreal and that it was shown there against his wishes?

HON. MR. DUECK: When I had my first viewing of the film, I suggested that it not be shown until I had given it clearance.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister then explain why he gave approval for the film to be exhibited internationally but refuses to let it be shown to the B.C. audience for which it is intended?

HON. MR. DUECK: The member for Point Grey again and again infers in this House. I did not say that I had approved it; I said that when I first viewed the film I rejected it, and until it was cleared by my office it was not to be shown. I don't appreciate the member constantly inferring something that might have been said and then putting it into the record as though I had said it.

MINIMUM WAGE FOR FARMWORKERS

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Labour announced today that there would be increases in the minimum wage. My question to him is: what steps is the minister taking to provide minimum wage protection for farmworkers in British Columbia?

HON. L. HANSON: I am sorry, I couldn't hear the first part of the question. If the member is referring to the minimum wage announcement made today, the same increase applies to farmworkers too.

DAWSON CREEK CONTRACTORS' DISPUTE
WITH LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP.

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests. With regard to the Louisiana-Pacific issue which I raised last week — the $25 million loan which the minister stated has been paid back — would the minister advise whether the full $25 million was received by the government, or was it less than that figure?

HON. MR. PARKER: This ministry doesn't administer loans to industry. I can take that question as notice and bring it back to the House.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps I should redirect a new question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise what the cost to the provincial treasury was of the $25 million loan arrangement?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I didn't bring any of that data with me, so the best I can do is take that question under notice.

[ Page 8233 ]

MR. MILLER: Back to the Minister of Forests. Would the minister advise whether the original agreement with Louisiana-Pacific stipulated that a certain percentage of wood must be purchased from independent contractors in the area.

HON. MR. PARKER: I can't recall the precise wording of that contract. We had several hundred such contracts in the province. The requirement under pulpwood agreements is that the licensee addresses wood supply from residual sources and from sources other than from his licence first, and the pulpwood agreement provides makeup volumes as necessary.

MR. MILLER: A final to the Minister of Forests. In view of that, would the minister be prepared to table in the House the original agreement between the government and Louisiana-Pacific that contains the provisions of the loan agreement and all of the other concessions that were made to that company?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd be happy to table it in the House if it serves any useful purpose. I will do so in the fullness of time.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposition House Leader.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Where were you last night?

NATIONAL MILK MARKETING PLAN

MR. ROSE: You don't ask me any questions, I won't ask you any questions.

I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On Tuesday of this week, by the use of a monosyllabic flat no, the minister refused to assure this House that B.C. will not opt out of the national milk marketing plan, despite overwhelming rejection of the idea by the province's dairy producers. Does the minister plan to bull ahead — no pun intended — and ignore the wishes of 95 percent of the B.C. dairy industry?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As the hon. opposition House Leader knows, there is a task force now operating, having hearings throughout the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan, the north and also on Vancouver Island. The reason my answer was no the other day is that until such time as the response comes from that task force and subsequent recommendations, we have to stay with the position. We cannot guarantee that at this particular time. That doesn't mean to say that due consideration wouldn't be given when the time comes around after the task force report is tabled. Then we will make the appropriate decision.

MR. ROSE: During the debates on the minister's estimates the minister said: "Once you opt out there is no control." What I'd like to ask the minister is whether or not there's some kind of theatre going on throughout the province and whether or not he's willing to take into account the 95 percent of the producers who don't want any change in terms of opting out of the national plan.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Obviously we take the input of the producers. That input is also being given to the task force. The task force is also seeking input not only from the dairy producers but from the consumers, the processors, the bankers — several different sectors that are involved in the dairy industry. Once that input is accumulated and simulated into a report that comes to our desk, we will then ask what recommendations.... It possibly could even be a vote; we don't know at this stage. But I'm not going to make a comment on a guarantee until such time as I see that task force recommendation.

SALE OF JERICHO LAND

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. Mr. Minister, Jericho lands represent 50 acres of undeveloped land on the west side of Vancouver, virtually the last acreage of undeveloped land. With the Defence lands next door, it's 100 acres of undeveloped land in West Point Grey. Has the minister been approached by the mayor or his colleagues and associates in the rental housing scheme, such as Mr. Jack Poole, for the development of those lands?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, that is future action.

MS. MARZARI: Past tense, Mr. Minister. Has the minister been approached by the mayor or any of his colleagues in the rental housing scheme for the development of these lands?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's well known that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has a very active program underway of which I'm sure this House will have further information as the weeks and months unfold. Indeed, we are very proud of the efforts that the minister is making in respect to social housing. I think it goes without saying that it would be natural that the minister and his committee would certainly have touched base with all the Crown corporations to see what government properties may be available. It's also fair to report that the committee and the minister have had contact with the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) to see what Crown land may be available for development.

As the minister in charge of the B.C. Building Corporation, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation and the B.C. Enterprise Corporation — all corporations that have land banks of one degree or the other — we certainly have had communication with the minister about the excellent program that is in the cards for future development. As the minister in charge of the B.C. Building Corporation, we certainly have a large number of lands that could be made available either all or in part for the program that will be unfolding,

[ Page 8234 ]

as announced by the Minister of Social Services and Housing.

There have been certain discussions, but the long and short of the answer is that no firm decisions have been made, particularly on Jericho yet. We realize that it's a very important parcel of land. We're certainly aware that at the present time, the land carries two institutions that are very important to British Columbia, and what happens with those in the future.... I repeat my very first answer: it's future action.

Orders of the Day

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

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) 

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's nice to rise to my feet once again and address the committee on the various issues concerning the environment and the Cariboo development region.

At the outset — and I've already indicated this in private conversation to the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) — I'd like to correct something I said this morning with respect to the Chevron refinery being out of compliance. I had misread my notes; Chevron is in compliance. They had been out of compliance in '85 and '86 with respect to discharges, but they have remedied that problem and are in compliance now. I want that on the record.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made some comments about the pulp and paper industry and also about pesticides, and I would like to address those concerns now.

One of the thrusts of the member for Omineca's debate dealt with the profitability of the pulp and paper industry, and of course he's absolutely right. As we look at the annual reports of those publicly trading companies, we can see that they've made very good profits in the last couple of years. The market for paper has been exceptional. That's been good, from my point of view, because at the same time as those companies have been making record profits we have also been discovering, through very sophisticated testing, some disastrous problems in terms of discharge — dioxins and AOX in general, dioxins in particular. We've advised the pulp and paper industry that they have a big job to do in cleaning up, and because of their profits they've agreed to do so. As a matter of fact, as I've said a couple of times during these estimates, I reckon, from what I can calculate from what they've told us they're going to be spending to meet our requirements, that the bill to the pulp and paper industry will be in the neighbourhood of $1 billion.

If one looks at the dioxin problem that they're solving, if one looks at the use of low-sulphur crude oil for the Vancouver Island pipeline pulp mills, and if you look at the air work that's being done in some of the pulp mills, particularly the ones in Prince George, the bill to the provincial industry will collectively be about $1 billion. As the member for Omineca points out, they are making record profits, so I guess it's good that we've been.... It's not good that we've had a problem discovering dioxins, but it's fortunate that the industry does have the profits to address that problem, and to address it well. They seem to be almost stumbling over themselves in terms of getting out press releases to tell everybody what they're going to do.

In any event, there are record profits in the industry, and they are certainly agreeing to clean up under our directions. As I say, we see press releases every day indicating what they're going to be doing.

In the matter of pesticides, I can't help but agree with the member. Both of us are MLAs from the central interior. Both of us have, over the years, faced the concerns of constituents about pesticide application: the way it's applied, the chemicals that are applied. We are both well aware of forestry practices that can use mechanical or other means of weed species control. So on principle I tend to agree with the member for Omineca on the need to address better pesticide application methods, and maybe even to consider no pesticide application at all.

Currently the regulations that we operate under are that Agriculture Canada first has to permit pesticides before they're allowed to be used in Canada. We do not question the federal decision on which pesticides should or should not be used. We accept that the government of Canada has made a determination about the safety of chemicals, and their determination is acceptable to us for allowing the chemicals to be used in the province of B.C. We do, however, through a variety of methods, control the application of those pesticides, and that is our role as a ministry of environment.

I should also point out to the committee that about 80 percent of the pesticides applied in British Columbia are done by the agriculture industry, over which the Ministry of Environment has no control, which is regrettable. I have often argued that we should have control, but the agricultural industry has indicated they want to manage their own affairs. The concern I've had is that there are nitrates in groundwater, particularly in the Fraser Valley, and obviously when you see that type of contamination, you know it's being caused by the agriculture industry. That's a continuing battle we have with that department, and I would encourage all who are listening to what I'm saying that if they're in the agriculture industry, they'd better regulate their pesticide and herbicide application because it is causing us some problems. I hope that someday a Minister of Environment — me or another one — will be able to get that program under control and ensure that pesticide and herbicide

[ Page 8235 ]

application in the agriculture industry is better controlled than it is now.

To that industry's credit, they have undergone an extensive education program with their own constituents, and farmers are being trained now in the proper use of pesticide in the proper measurements; to not accept the theory that if one litre is good, then two litres are twice as good — because that's not the way it works in pesticide application — and also to do a better job of measuring and applying.

On balance I would say that I agree with the member for Omineca on the principle of the less pesticides the better. I think there is a lot we can do in terms of studying other methods of weed control. As I pointed out, there are mechanical means; some people have suggested sheep grazing in newly seeded areas, which is not a bad idea when you think about it, because the sheep will not eat a coniferous seedling, but will eat deciduous weed species as they grow. There is some merit to that idea.

I think there are lots of good ideas out there where we could get away from the pesticide population. I don't think we've got the determination at this point to do it, but I will continue to make that argument to the Minister of Forests, and I am sure other concerned MLAs and citizens of the province will as well. I think to some degree the Ministry of Forests is listening, along with the other agencies that do spraying from time to time. I think of Highways, the CNR and the CPR with respect to their rights-of way. Agriculture is not....

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety-five percent.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Eighty percent, and it's not controlled by the Ministry of Environment, so therein lies the problem.

I will close on that note for now, but in principle I share the member's concern about pesticide application.

MR. CASHORE: I am sure that the member for Omineca will be responding at some length to what the minister has just said. I expect that he will be getting up at about 3:30.

With regard to the Doman sawmill statement that the minister made just before we broke, I would like to thank him for it. But I would like the record to show that while I appreciate the information the minister brought back, the minister didn't answer my question, which was why Doman was allowed to get away with burning contaminated sludge from 1982 to 1989.

Despite the work of citizens' groups, the effort of those who worked so hard to bring this deplorable situation to the attention of the ministry and the subsequent effort for seven years on the part of people within the ministry to get some kind of action, the fact is that they got away with it. There was never any prosecution, and it's an indication of what is happening in the area of waste management in this province. To all appearances, it is going to continue to happen, because we haven't seen the kind of political will, structure or deployment of resources that's going to address that.

Mr. Chairman, one year from now what are those criteria going to be whereby this ministry will say: "Yes, we have improved, and we've improved significantly"? It will have to be an absolutely dramatic turnaround to be seen as anything other than lip service. Meanwhile, this situation — where this one mill was allowed to get away with that for seven years — is carrying on elsewhere in the province. Mr. Chairman, that's just one example.

I would like to come to the issue of the provincial Environmental Lab that was privatized as part of the government's privatization program. Had this government been paying attention to the polls with regard to environmental issues, and if they'd had that information a year later, I don't think they ever would have privatized that lab. They would have known that it was politically disastrous for them. They would have known that to privatize the lab and destroy that perfectly functioning instrument that was so useful to the people of British Columbia in testing for the purpose of environmental protection, water quality and other issues.... Were it not for that....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against privatization?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is making a speech. He is sitting down, and he's not at his seat. He's disobeying all sorts of rules of the House, and I guess he feels that he can do it. He has always carried on that way. He hasn't had too much of an appreciation for the rules of society, of the House or of fair play. The privatization of the Environmental Lab is a very good example that this Premier is not willing to be fair to environmental quality in this province. Now he's trying to play catch-up, and it's not working, because the public sees through this Premier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where's your leader?

MR. CASHORE: Well, for all I know, he's probably in your riding getting the votes we need to win that seat, which I fully expect we're going to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Thank you. Please continue.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the lab, let's look at a little bit of background on this. Perhaps one of the best ways to get into this situation is to reference a report that was done by Environment Canada with regard to conservation and protection. There was a data-quality review done on the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and its contribution to the national monitoring program, dated March, 1989. I believe this review involved Mr. Earle Anthony, who formerly was an employee of this government. It's ironic in a way that it would be Mr. Anthony who was

[ Page 8236 ]

conducting this review. He certainly would have known the circumstances which were being dealt with.

The report is a devastating critique of B.C.'s failures with respect to its required contribution to ongoing national monitoring programs since the lab was privatized. I would want to note that the minister gave assurances at the time, since the privatization, that the lab would be fully functioning by January of this year. Also, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) stated at the time that it would create 100 new jobs, and there would be an economic benefit as a result of these new jobs. We certainly haven't seen the results of either of these promises.

[2:45]

The review was particularly critical of B.C. Research's role, which is to provide quality assurance and to audit Zenon Environmental Inc., the private lab that bought out the Environmental Lab. B.C. Research is also a private company and was apparently given audit responsibilities by the B.C. government, in return for which an order-in-council was passed in approximately May 1988 authorizing B.C. Research to bill industry 8 percent of their permit fees, as well as other fees, that would give B.C. Research about $600,000 in operating costs per year.

In addition, B.C. Research, in about October, 1988, was given a separate contract authorizing it to charge for work done developing new methods of testing. B.C. Research began billing the companies under the order-in-council on November 15, 1988. But as of March, 1989, when the federal report was done, B.C. Research didn't even know it was supposed to perform an audit function. To quote from page 8 of the report, Dr. Leach, director of industrial chemistry for B.C., said: "It was very clear in stating that B.C. Research does not see itself performing an audit role for the MOE."

The report goes on to say that proper methodology records were not kept current and didn't include sufficient quality-control data for the methods used. Only about one in five of the tests required to be done for the national air pollution survey was done, making one year's data invalid. And reference sampling was not properly done, which would make all of B.C. Research's water-quality samples questionable.

When you think of the amount of money that's involved here and when you think of the stakes with regard to the health and safety of British Columbians, this is an appalling situation.

Environment Canada had the severe mistrust of this government's ability to ensure that these services were being provided as a result of the privatization of this lab, and that mistrust was borne out in the results of their survey.

It turns out that only about 1,500 split samples were done, when about 7,500 should have been taken, and there was only one stack sample taken in B.C., compared to about 200 normally taken by the GVRD in that same time period. These deficiencies will take a long time to rectify. There are data that are missing, apparently forever.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister how the Ministry of Environment can justify having a private company provide a fundamental public service such as environment testing and even authorize it to bill industry directly for its program, when you consider that, after all, in a situation such as this, industry is certainly not going to complain if the testing is not properly done, as was the case here; it's to their benefit.

When it comes to environmental testing, what is necessary is fairness and independence. No vested interests — just that it be done efficiently and appropriately and effectively. I would like the minister to comment on the devastating report that was done, and the fact that it appears that this privatization process isn't working and is not going to work.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is not totally forthright on the Environment Canada report. The Environment Canada report audit confirmed that environmental data being collected met acceptable standards; however, the review pointed to several problems with respect to program delivery, which the member has correctly identified, but the standards in place were acceptable.

Those problems have been rectified by the Ministry of Environment. Dr. Terry Howard is the director of B.C. Research. Although it is a private company, it is a research company and it does good work and has rectified those problems. Air samples and other examples that the member has pointed to have increased considerably. I guess we probably have a philosophical difference of opinion here that we will always have in terms of this Legislative Assembly, and that is that the members opposite cannot accept the fact that private industry can do better in many cases than government can, and that's a difference that will always be fundamental, I guess, to our two political parties.

I have to advise the committee that the private sector does considerable testing in B.C., both for industry and for medical purposes. Many private medical labs do excellent work. Because someone is privatized doesn't mean they are in any way inferior to a laboratory system run by a government.

The other comment I want to make is that the member seems to think that a private testing firm, if they do incorrect sampling, is always going to err on the side of the company that they're testing. They could err either way. So it's in the company's best interests and also in the private company's best interests to audit and test correctly and have appropriate testing procedures in place. This is not something that one fools around with. This is not something that one does wrong, nor that one can accept being done wrong. Standards have to be met. Science is very precise. And if something is going wrong, then there's not only Environment Canada, but many other people are going to know about it, and whoever is making the error is going to have to correct it.

[ Page 8237 ]

I will admit that B.C. Research did let us down considerably, but I also will advise the committee that those problems have been rectified now, and we feel that we are in a much better situation. In terms of environmental testing, we have auditing being done. We have a very good company doing testing for us: Zenon. They are employing British Columbians and are growing as an industry in this province, doing work for us as well as other work. They are large in terms of people in water management and water consulting; and they are international class when it comes to that type of work. So I'm pleased to see Zenon here.

I'd also like to point out that we did, of course, offer the lab to the ministry employees. No bids were received. Of the 32 staff at the former lab, 12 joined Zenon and 20 decided to stay with government; and of the management staff, one opted to stay with government and the other joined Zenon. So all staff were looked after, which, of course, is consistent with our BCGEU contract. With that said, I'll take my place, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's candour and his admission of his disappointment in B.C. Research. But when he says that the problems are rectified, does he mean that the performance of B.C. Research and Zenon at this point is equivalent to the total output of the B.C. Environmental Lab prior to it being privatized?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. Zenon always was up to snuff; it was B.C. Research that was lagging, but they are up to speed now.

MR. LOVICK: The other key point that was made in the criticism of privatization in the summary document produced in that federal report states that the ministry does not have the capability by itself to adequately audit the performance of its laboratory contractors — which takes us to the nub of the whole privatization question: namely, are we prepared to put the resources into doing the kind of monitoring work that needs to be done? The minister gives us assurances that the problems outlined here have indeed been corrected. Can he be somewhat more specific in showing us what particular steps have been taken to correct those problems?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: One asks the old question: who watches the watchers? There's a Latin phrase; Gary Lauk used to use it all the time.

MR. LOVICK: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's the one.

How far do you go? We believe that with the audit situation that we have in place, the data standards group still with the Ministry of Environment, former lab employees and Zenon and B.C. Research, collectively, we have everybody being watched. And let's not lose sight of the fact that if testing is not done properly — it can be in error one way or the other — industry is going to blow the whistle on the testers. Industry is watching this as well, and if they suspect that something is not being handled properly, they are going to advise us immediately. Although it may be difficult to accept the fact that industry is also watching the testing, you have to accept it, because they are quite concerned about everything being done properly and that the correct results are being achieved when one does this type of testing. Of course, they have their own labs, in many cases, to do their testing. They are going to ensure that whoever is watching them is using the correct procedures and is achieving the appropriate results.

I can assure you that that would be the case. Industry is too sophisticated to let anybody pull the wool over their eyes or do improper testing.

I believe that we have the system in place to monitor that which we have to monitor. We are having regular management meetings with B.C. Research and Dr. Terry Howard of that organization, to ensure that they are performing up to our standards and up to the standards expected by the public of British Columbia.

MR. LOVICK: I have no desire here to lambaste the minister or anything, but I would just remind him that a little sense of history would not be remiss. We got precisely those assurances when we had our first debates about the privatization of the environmental testing laboratories. It was suggested in this very chamber that we on this side were being somewhat alarmist — perhaps our suspicions were entirely unfounded. Lo and behold, our concerns seem to have been vindicated and validated by the first independent investigation that followed that activity. Therefore, Mr. Minister, you can understand our being a little bit skeptical and suspicious when we hear you declaim: "I believe we now have the system in place."

A direct question, though, if I might, in terms of the final statement made in that summary of the federal report, namely the recommendation that the situation be reviewed again in six months. Can the minister advise us whether steps have been taken so that that process will indeed occur?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, let me say with complete candour that I accept what the member said in the preamble to the question. I accept it as a member of government and as Minister of Environment.

With respect to the reviewing, Mr. Member, that's being done every three months, not six months as the report suggested, because we recognize it's a critical situation and we have to stay on top of it. That's the agenda.

[3:00]

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the minister for his candour.

Regarding the data standards group, this is a group of six persons in the Ministry of Environment

[ Page 8238 ]

operation that was to oversee B.C. Research and Zenon to ensure that the standards were being carried out properly. The report on pages 11 and 12 indicates that the data standards group should be given far greater resources, including access to laboratory facilities, and it recommends it be given the capability of auditing and verifying the performance of B.C. Research and Zenon, which is essentially the audit function that B.C. Research was to do.

Has this been done? Has this recommendation of this report been followed? Has the data standards group been given access to laboratory facilities? Has it been given what it requires in order to fulfil that? To ask it another way, what role will the data standards group play in fulfilling its job that is in keeping with that recommendation of the review?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have only reviewed those recommendations with the federal ministry, but that's an option we may agree to. At this point I'm not prepared to say anything further with respect to that particular recommendation.

MR. CASHORE: Let's just take a little look at the history of Zenon Environmental Inc. It was an Ontario company with no previous experience in lab operations which was handed an absolute giveaway when it purchased the Environmental Lab for a mere $875,000, when a Price Waterhouse report valued the lab at $2.25 million — a giveaway of the money of the people of British Columbia. Plus it was given a guaranteed $2.8 million per year in government work over five years, apparently whether it does the work or not, for a total of $14 million worth of business.

The federal report details that there were long delays in testing samples — this is with regard to Zenon. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister said in this House that all this has been corrected now; it's up to speed. He has said that both B.C. Research and Zenon are now producing an output equivalent to that of the B.C. Environmental Lab prior to privatization. He's saying that we are now fully up to speed, but the report stated that there were long delays in testing samples, which would make some data invalid, and that the quality of the water sampling is not up to par, because Zenon has not participated in quality assurance programs. The report recommended that Zenon should produce an action plan as soon as possible for modifying their lab's quality assurance program so that it is acceptable to the data standards group.

The minister has said that they're still reviewing these recommendations, so I anticipate that his answer would be: "We haven't done that yet; we're still looking at that recommendation." If that is the minister's answer — that they haven't got around to it yet — will he at least give us some reassurance about what is happening to ensure that it is going to be done at the earliest possible opportunity?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess the member has got the answer that it's part of the ongoing review. I can't let the statement go by that this is a company with no previous history. As a matter of fact, out of the whole Environment Canada report, Zenon came up best. They are fulfilling all their obligations, so what the member said about their performance is not correct. They did very well. They also have a substantial record. They are an international-class company in terms of plumbing systems, water testing, water quality and that type of very sophisticated research. They also do dioxin testing in British Columbia. So they have an extremely good track record. They have been the one part of the whole privatization scheme that has not let us down; it's been the other areas where we've had the failures.

Just to answer the member's question generally, we are going through the whole report as published by Environment Canada and are doing the review. We'll answer those questions and ensure that we are operating a proper control program in British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: The minister referred earlier to the workers and what happened to them during the privatization process. He indicated that, given a government contract, these people were essentially looked after in the process of privatization. But if these people were to be consulted and asked how they felt about the way it worked out, I think we would find that they wouldn't have that positive view of it.

Certainly there is a problem in this privatization, which confirms what we'd been saying all along, and possibly this is one of the things that the minister is thinking about when he recognizes that the preamble of the comments of my friend the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is true. When we look at the human capital situation, we're looking at a number of people trained to do this kind of work, people with a great deal of experience.

As a matter of fact, will the minister confirm that up until about two weeks ago there were 11 former employees essentially doing busy-work in the waste management branch in Surrey? One or two weeks ago, five of these people — I have their names here, but I'm not going to release them — with a total of 86 years' experience among them, were sent to take training in how to work in a liquor store. Here are five people with good training, with an accumulation of 86 years of experience working in the lab, who have been sent to learn how to operate a liquor store. Will the minister confirm that?

MR. R. FRASER: I'm going to get in on this debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you? Good stuff.

MR. R. FRASER: What does he know about labs?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't comment on what's happening now, but I will tell you....

MR. LOVICK: The romantic fallacy has arrived.

[ Page 8239 ]

MR. R. FRASER: What do you guys know? Nothing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Zenon wanted that expertise, and all the employees of the Environmental Lab were offered work by Zenon in the lab doing what they had been trained to do, at generally the same salary. Twelve joined Zenon. We followed, in this privatization, what the BCGEU had in their contract with respect to positions and what we had recently signed in the agreement.

Let me say two things: first, they were offered jobs by Zenon using the training that they had; secondly, we followed the conditions of our recently signed BCGEU agreement. We undertook to uphold our end of the responsibility in the agreement.

MR. CASHORE: This is an appalling loss of human capital. I have talked personally with a great many of these people. I have met with them. In the process of the decision being made about whether or not they would go with Zenon, they weren't able to find out exactly what kind of a job they were being offered or whether it would be equivalent to the one they were doing. Very stressful procedures were being carried out at the time they were coming to the wind-down phase of their employment with the Environment Lab.

The majority of those people will say they were treated in a very shabby way. It's an appalling and tragic loss of human capital; there's no two ways about that. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) said: "Would you want them not to have work?" Of course we want them to have work, and we want them to have meaningful and fulfilling work. I think working in a liquor store is very worthwhile work, and I don't have any complaint about that. But people who have this training and this experience should have the opportunity to provide the benefit of that to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: It's kind of sad, when we're dealing with something as important as human capital in this province, something as important as people who have given their lives to working in an area where they really believe that what they are doing is worthwhile and that they are making use of their gifts and their talents, that somehow this minister would choose to ridicule this process, or ridicule the concern that's being expressed.

I dare say the minister himself has indicated that he has some concerns about the way the privatization has turned out, and I appreciate his candour on that. I don't think there is any need whatsoever to try to downgrade these people any more than what their experience has been. They have been treated in a shabby way.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: What a lot of rubbish!

MR. CASHORE: I don't think this minister would want a member of her family to be treated in this way. I don't think it's fair; I don't think it's appropriate. If we look at the Environment Canada investigation of how it has been working, that federal report indicates it hasn't worked well. A little bit of truthfulness on the part of government would certainly be very good for it. The minister has done an admirable job of recognizing that things were not handled as well as they should have been.

One of the tragic fallouts about this is the loss from British Columbia, for environmental protection, of this human capital. I think it's very sad that these people who were trained to work in this lab are now, very much because of the inappropriate process that was followed during this transition, not able to fulfil their life goal.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Don't you have anything positive to say?

MR. CASHORE: Yes, I think we have a lot that's positive.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Let's hear something.

MR. CASHORE: The positive thing is that we want a private environment lab in this province to provide the services that were being provided. I can assure this minister, it isn't that long until we form government, so it won't be that long before that lab is up and running and functioning well again.

MR. R. FRASER: What an opportunity! Did you hear that member over there say that when they're government, they're going to crank up a whole bunch of new government agencies? Now isn't that what you wanted to hear? It isn't what we want to hear over here, I can tell you that. We want some people out there earning money, paying taxes so that we can do the job that government should do.

MR. LOVICK: Civil servants don't pay taxes.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: You certainly wouldn't want to have everybody work for the government, would you, Mr. Member from Nanaimo? Yes, you probably would. You've got the funny idea that the only people who do anything are civil servants, and that's not true. That member from Omineca knows that, hard-working member that he is. Ex-logger, not a bad guy. He makes a speech in here from time to time.

But I've got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what those people over there know about running a lab you could put in a thimble, and it would be half full at best.

[3:15]

Interjections.

[ Page 8240 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the government cabinet members to restrain themselves while the member continues.

MR. R. FRASER: There's no question about the fact that people working in the private sector are legitimate; there's no question they pay taxes; there's no question about the value of the work they do, the quality of it or their integrity either. There's some funny theme coming from that side over there that if you work in the private sector there's something wrong with your integrity, that it's somehow touched and tarnished. Not so, Mr. Chairman.

What do they do over there? Everything has to be the government. It's just got to make you sick listening to that stuff coming in over there. They say: "When we're government we're sure going to put everybody back on the payroll." It's not possible, and I want to hear more, because those remarks can be seen around the province, and that's the kind of stuff that's going to blow you out of the sky — to your own surprise but not to mine.

Maybe those people who worked in the lab did go to another province; maybe they didn't. Maybe someone from another province came here. There's nothing really more useful than sharing experience across the country — indeed, across the world. We send students overseas and overseas students come here. It's not such a bad plan. A little research program here and there, mixing it up, using some good, logical thought processes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will eventually relate this to vote 55 and the administrative office.

MR. R. FRASER: We're talking about the lab.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you're getting a little off the track, and I just thought I'd try and bring you back in order, that's all.

MR. R. FRASER: I'm ever so grateful to you for your guidance, and all of us really. If we paid more attention to you we'd get on with these debates a lot faster.

I would actually like to compare some of the work of the opposition with what's been done in any lab, given it's government or private, for gosh sakes. The disgraceful waste of time by those members opposite in these debates and in almost every debate in estimates and everything else is a disgrace.

Now minister, tell us about the lab, where we're going....

MR. LOVICK: Can you spell irony?

MR. R. FRASER: I beg your pardon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The conversation must be directed through the Chair and not in direct response to the member's jibes. Having said that, I'd ask the member to continue.

MR. R. FRASER: I would never respond to that member directly, that member for Nanaimo who slid in here on the coat-tails of one of the gentlemen of the House who now is a federal MP. Can you imagine how he can look himself in the mirror when talking about your bill?

Mr. Minister, tell us more about the lab and what the people are doing there.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll tell you one thing, that's the last time I go to the bathroom during my estimates.

Thank you very much, my colleague the first member for Vancouver South, for the levity and the break in what we're doing here.

I guess to sum up, we saw the privatization of the Environmental Lab as being appropriate; we do see it as being cost-effective. Once all the systems are in place — and I have admitted to some deficits, but they have been rectified now and the review is in place — the testing will be first-class, be supportable and be able to undergo any scrutiny. I will make no apologies for its ability to do what it's supposed to be doing. I will, however, admit to some hiccups along the way.

With respect to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and the comments he made earlier about the staff, I guess those are regrettable things. Probably there are, as I said earlier, philosophical differences, and no doubt the people employed at the lab at the time did not want to leave the government service, and I completely understand that. That's presumably why they would want to work for government in the first place. There are many good advantages to working for government, and I'm not saying that in any derogatory way. A lot of people do like that type of work and do enjoy serving the public the way they did. For those people who have been displaced, I guess that's what happens when you have this type of change. However, I will repeat — and this is not a total answer — that they were all offered employment with Zenon, and all changes that we made were done in accordance with the BCGEU agreement. So we did follow our part of that agreement.

MR. LOVICK: I'm going to resist temptation and refrain from making any comment in response to the first member for Vancouver South. Instead, I will only say that never has this House been more entertained so exquisitely by the use of extended, ironic, utterance. I think we owe that member a great deal when he can say one thing and effectively give a lie to what he's saying by his actions and his comments. I think that's a clever and witty device on his part.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: It's an expression. It doesn't suggest what you were intimating, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 8241 ]

I want to change the subject a little bit from the specifics of the privatization of the laboratory.

Before turning to that I might just offer two comments to the minister and ask him for some information, not now but perhaps later. One of the things that I notice has not been canvassed at all in all the discussions about the privatization of the environmental testing lab was the cost factor. I wonder if the minister would undertake to table in this House at some point an analysis of just what that financial picture has finally proven to be. Has any net benefit been accruing to the province?

The second point I would like to make is that I think we really are turning a blind eye to a very serious problem when we underestimate the importance of the human capital argument. There is a very serious story out there, and I am going to undertake now to table some of that story and bring it to this House at some point. I am certainly aware of a good part of it. The minister probably knows some of it as well. Certainly my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam knows something of it.

Mr. Minister, there are some 126 persons who used to be government union employees who are now considered unplaceable. We have gone through all the machinations and the avenues available to us in the memorandum of agreement and the Government Employees' Union collective agreement, but we simply can't deal with those persons. That's a heck of a price to pay. There are some very sad stories embedded and embraced in that 126 figure, and I just want to give notice to the government that we on this side don't intend to let that story disappear from our consciousness. We think it's too important. At the very least what we must do is recognize the flaw within the process that allowed that to happen — those 126 casualties — to see whether we can't somehow come up with a better means of treating our people than we have found thus far. I want to establish that point, if I might.

I want to turn to a more specific issue, and this one concerns logging in watersheds, not Crown land watershed but rather watersheds that surround and impact communities, serving as the basis of the water supply of communities. I raise this now, Mr. Minister, for two reasons. Your ministry as well as the Ministry of Forests has some direct involvement simply because the rules that apparently govern logging and watersheds — certainly in Crown lands, but in private lands as well, I understand — are the product of a joint committee's deliberations. The committee was, I think, inaugurated in about 1974. It reported in 1981 and the report has been updated on various occasions since that time. It was an interministerial committee in which your ministry certainly had some involvement. One reason I wanted to raise it now is that it deals, I think directly, with your ministry, though it may indeed also concern the Ministry of Forests. The second reason is that it impacts very directly on my constituency. I am talking about the town of Ladysmith, where there is now a logging show going on that deals directly with three particular watersheds: Holland Creek, Stocking Lake, and Heart Lake.

I apologize to the minister if this disquisition is not as coherent as it ought to be. I hadn't planned on talking about this now, and therefore I came without notes, but I think I can give you enough to ask the question.

In any event, what happens is that this logging show is obviously in a sensitive area. As I say, we are talking about three watersheds, two of which are used as a water supply for at least part of the year by the community of Ladysmith. I know there has been some research done. I spent a little time in the library and got some information on the subject of logging in watersheds and also dealing with watersheds that provide a drinking-water source for communities. The information, however, seems to be rather old. It is also not clear to me whether we have anything in place to protect those communities so they can protect their water supplies when the land is private as opposed to Crown land.

I am wondering if the minister can tell me what the existing or current policy is regarding logging on private land where that land is watershed and the watershed impacts on the water supply of a local community. Can you give me any help on that one?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to go through a couple of things. I want to get back to privatization just for a minute, because I have to acknowledge that I understand what the member is saying about human capital. This is graduate paper stuff for someone doing psychology or business administration or personnel administration, if we look at the whole privatization initiative carried out in the last couple of years.

I can tell just by looking at the numbers that only 12 of 32 people joined Zenon from the ministry's services. As I said earlier, they obviously had some dedication to government service, felt that they would feel uncomfortable or whatever in the private sector and opted to stay with government for whatever reason. I think by and large that's because they enjoy the public service; they enjoy being part of government because it's industry but it's big industry, and you really do have an impact on policy when you're with government, more so than you would have with the private sector. I think that's sort of the intrigue and the glue that causes a lot of people to enjoy working for the government. It's going to be a very interesting study.

I'll get off this quickly, because I'm going to talk about another ministry. I know a lot of people who went with the privatization of highways in my area; they went with Yellowhead Road and Bridge. The reaction with them was entirely opposite to what we saw with the Environmental Lab. They saw themselves as being, in many cases, more productive, because they didn't have the very stringent union contract to deal with. They saw where they could use other methodologies that perhaps the Ministry of Highways wasn't employing at the time, and they took a totally different view, at least at Yellowhead

[ Page 8242 ]

Road and Bridge, which is an employee group, of privatization. I'll end on that, because I'm talking about another ministry and about philosophy, as opposed to administrative aspects. As I said, it's worth a graduate paper in terms of personnel and how one should do things...

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've got two students doing it now.

...and in terms of the right way to do things and the wrong way to do things. I think we could learn an awful lot from our experiences over the last couple of years in that whole exercise.

Also, with respect to the budget, at the time we acquired Zenon there was certain information made available to you. Orders-in-council have been made public, but probably in the next annual report we will indicate more in terms of that. Of course, we don't hide anything. Order-in-council payments are public, the sale agreement has been made public, and we've also made public the price that we're going to pay Zenon for the lab. So all of that information is available. If you require more, as a matter of fact, I'd be more than happy to supply what I can for you, unless Zenon has some sort of agreement with us that indicates there is information they want kept confidential. But if you want to write to me, I'd be more than happy to respond to you on that question.

[3:30]

Now back to the watershed and logging on private land. First of all, there is nothing we can do there. Practices on private land are entirely up to what the owner of that land wants to do. On Crown lands and on the west coast — the area you're interested in — we have forestry/ fishery guidelines that have proven to be quite successful. It's a guideline system that I want to have implemented in the interior. To my knowledge, it appears to be working reasonably well. I have talked to other constituent users such as the Wildlife Federation, and they indicate to me — of course, it's not the perfect system; it never is — that it is better than some of the practices employed in years past. So I'm satisfied there.

In terms of your specific question, that's a really good one, and I can understand your concern. If you have a private property owner doing whatever — I mean, he could be building a road, logging or digging a gravel pit — and if it somehow impacts on someone's water supply downstream, then those people downstream have a concern. I really don't have the answer to your question now, but I'll certainly provide it to you if there is one. If there is any remedy we can put in place, I'd be more than happy to undertake that remedy. But for the life of me, at this point I've never heard of a situation like that, and I can't think of a response.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) for allowing me just a moment to clarify this. I'm concerned, because I know that there is in fact fairly significant literature on logging on watershed Crown land. We obviously recognize the dangers of it, and we have a pretty specific set of guidelines for it. I am also familiar with the forestry/fishery guidelines, and that's good work. But what we're talking about here is a little different, insofar as we're not talking so much about fish habitat or fish-bearing streams; we're talking about a water supply. We're literally talking about the lifeblood of a community and the danger, of course, of sediment and other kinds of pollutants getting into that water supply.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I neglected to bring my notes along. But there is a document I got from the library that has a title on it: something about community watersheds and community water supply, or something like that. I am a little concerned when I hear you say there's nothing we can do if it's private land. Surely there must be some kind of permitting process that's invoked and implemented when we're dealing with something as sensitive as a water supply. If there isn't, surely there ought to be some such thing.

I wonder if the minister might be able at least to share with me his thoughts on that in terms of changing legislation or bringing in new legislation, so we can in fact get that kind of power. I don't think it's coercive power; I don't think it's trammeling the unfettered right to use one's property or something. Rather I think it's a necessary and legitimate protection that communities should have available to them. Would the minister care to respond?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't want to leave the impression that I said there's nothing we can do; it's just that there's nothing I can think of that we can do at this point. We have an inquiry — going off now to our water management branch — and hopefully they'll be supplying some information to the committee as soon as possible. As soon as that comes, Mr. Member, I will share it with you.

If there's a deficit in the legislation, if there's something we have to do, I have no problem with agreeing to looking at it, because you identify a pretty serious problem: an upstream private developer, no matter what he's doing, impacting on a community water supply. There is no doubt that government should take a position on that, because that's the role of government: to ensure that the people are protected.

MR. KEMPF: I listened very intently to the response by the minister to my questioning done before lunch, and I was very happy to hear the words he spoke with respect to the use of what he called pesticides. But what I was attempting to zero in on more than the use of pesticides — which I know is mostly a problem of the agricultural industry — was the use of herbicides.

A lot of the information I get — and this is how very little we know about these subjects — refers to both herbicides and pesticides as pesticides, which they are not. It's the herbicide issue that I'm most concerned with and that the minister should be most

[ Page 8243 ]

concerned with as far as the northern part of the province is concerned. We don't have any need for the use of herbicides. Many of our people out there use them. They use them in the Ministry of Highways, as the minister said; railways — the CN, CP, BCR — use them; municipalities, regional districts, the B.C. Forest Service and the forest industry all use herbicides. In fact, there is an increase. If you look at the applications in this year alone, there is a tremendous increase in applications for the use of herbicides in our province. And there's absolutely no need for their use whatsoever. There are alternative methods.

Yes, and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) can look with consternation. There are other methods. If the industry can't afford those other methods, methods that are safe as far as the health of our citizens in British Columbia is concerned, then just perhaps that industry had better leave this province and leave it to British Columbians to harvest that resource. There's absolutely no need for the use of herbicides, particularly in the forest industry of British Columbia. None whatsoever.

When it comes to the question of safe drinking water and of catching fish that are safe to eat, I think that's a very serious issue. Again I say that if the forest industry — those giants in the forest industry who control almost all of the annual allowable cut in this province now — can't see that, then perhaps they should leave our province and leave the harvest of that resource to British Columbians.

The minister talked about not questioning the determination of the federal people with regard to these chemicals. That is exactly my argument. Therein lies the problem. It's because of the province not being able to question what is in those chemicals, what we are spraying and pouring into our water supplies all over this province, that that is a real concern.

I want to read into the record — and I think it will say it all — something that was quoted in the Journal of Pesticide Reform in the summer of 1986 — three years ago, already: "Experts are not able to predict the impacts of a pesticide." Again, they use pesticides and herbicides as one, and they are different. They "...claim that they are informing the public about pesticides, or claim that they have studied the effects of a pesticide if they do not know which chemicals are present as 'inert' ingredients and have not tested the pesticide formulation as a whole: active and inert ingredients together. It is simply as unsettling as that."

That's the way it is. We don't know what we're using. We don't know what we're putting in our water supplies. We don't know what we are spraying on our citizens out there. Every time you attempt to do some research with respect to those poisonous chemicals, you are inevitably directed back to the manufacturers. That's not a good situation at all. It's one that's pretty darned scary, if you ask me.

I want to get off that subject and go on to two other situations that I wish to canvass in this minister's estimates. One is with respect to the Kemano 2 project and its effects on the Nechako River. I want to know from the minister what thought the ministry has given to the long-range problems faced on the Nechako which will be caused by Kemano 2 — the fact that only half of the water now flowing in the Nechako, which is not very much in the first place, will remain after the start of operations of the hydroelectric project now being constructed.

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to see the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) in his place this afternoon. I received the economic development initiatives framework from the minister, for which I thank him. It was written on January 16 of this year, and I received it a couple of days ago. It's only six months too late. However, there's absolutely nothing in this that voices any concern whatsoever about the kinds of environmental damage that will be done in my constituency by Kemano 2. Incidentally, there's no mention of construction of a pulp mill in Vanderhoof, either.

There's going to be an awfully low water table, Mr. Chairman, when the flows of that river are cut in half. There's not only going to be a problem with the water table, there's going to be a problem with water consumed by agriculturalists in their operations, there's going to be a problem with water for the communities along the river, and there's going to be a very real problem with sewage disposal along that river, with the advent of Kemano 2. I'm just wondering what the ministry has done or is doing with respect to attending to those possible problems.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

I'm going to go on to another subject. Time is short this afternoon, I'm told. It's probably one of the most crucial subjects that I want to talk about in this minister's estimates. It's probably one of the most serious problems and serious threats to the environment emanating from any mining operation in British Columbia. I want to talk for a moment about the Equity situation. It has been kept very quiet, Mr. Minister, but it's probably one of the most serious situations that exist in British Columbia with respect to the mining or perhaps any other industry. It's very serious to that community. It has been suggested, Mr. Chairman, that because of the operation in Houston of Equity Silver, there will be a problem left behind after that mine closes, in perhaps as short a time as a year and a half, that will be a problem for the people of British Columbia for in excess of 100,000 years. It is a very serious situation. It has already caused the death of a lake and at certain times of the year causes the death of a whole river system. It's a river that runs directly through my hometown of Houston. It's not something that should be taken lightly by government or industry or anyone else.

[3.45]

I really get the feeling, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is doing its best to shuffle the Ministry of Environment out of this one, and I think the minister should be very concerned about that. It's a problem that's going to exist for many years, and it's a problem that has to be addressed. It has to be addressed immedi-

[ Page 8244 ]

ately, because if we let that mining company off the hook before they close the Equity Silver operation, the taxpayers of this province are going to assume the problem and pick up the tab for many hundreds of years into the future. The problem is not going to go away. Nothing can be done about the problem. All that can be done is for the problem to be contained, and that's going to cost a lot of money every year.

I understand that the ministry is asking that $40 million be placed in bond so that the interest on that money may pay for the containment of the problem, on a yearly basis. But we don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether the problem is going to escalate. It may, because it feeds on itself. The more heat that's produced, the more acid is produced. Whether in fact 50 years down the road that problem can be contained at, say, a cost of a million and a half a year, or $2 million or $3 million or $4 million, no one knows at this point.

My questions to the minister are: what is the ministry doing in order to determine what the long-term impact of this leaching of acid is going to be on Goosly Lake and on the Buck river system? How much will it cost to simply contain the problem as we know it today? Do we know whether the problem is going to escalate? Do we know that the bond we're going to ask that company to put up is going to be sufficient ten years down the road, or is it going to be a liability on the taxpayer of the province of British Columbia?

It has to be contained — there's no doubt about that — because it will affect the water supply of virtually all those living along the Buck, and perhaps all those living in the community of Houston and maybe even beyond. So it is a very serious problem. What about the cleanup? We talk about what it's going to cost to contain the problem, and I heard the minister in discussions talk about the cleanup of soils that have been contaminated; problems that have come from the past. What about Goosly Lake? What about the cleanup of that lake?

I know it very well, because 25 years ago I used to buck logs on the ice of that lake. Twenty-five years ago we were told by the Environment ministry we couldn't do that, because it would pollute the lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must advise you that your time is up.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more to say, and I'm sure there's some intervening business.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the member for Omineca does indeed have some important things to get on the record, so I would certainly encourage him to continue for a few moments more.

MR. KEMPF: I thank the first member for Nanaimo. I want to get all of my questions on the record here before the minister gets up.

I want to know what we are really doing with respect to this very serious problem. Again I say that it has been kept very quiet. But not only is it a problem as far as containment is concerned, it's a problem as far as cleanup is concerned. I don't think the only issue is to have that company put up a bond in order to look after that problem for the many years that it's going to exist. Before that company is allowed to close its doors, we've got to address the problem of cleanup.

Goosly Lake was at one time a pretty good fishing lake. It's now dead. A number of times a year the Buck, depending on the flow of water, is killed to the point where we have people who live along that river doing their own testing because they're afraid that the water they use directly out of the river or take out of the wells is not fit for human consumption; on many occasions they have found that to be true.

What are we going to do? How much money are we going to ask Equity Silver or Placer Development to put up in order to ensure that the taxpayer of British Columbia doesn't pick up the problems caused by this operation, which, incidentally, members of this assembly might wish to know, has only been in existence for ten years. It has not been the best corporate citizen in the world; it has paid virtually nothing in taxes to the community of Houston; it has not covered the cost of the infrastructure that was necessary to accommodate it in the first place; and now it leaves a problem, a very serious problem, that's going to be with us, the estimate is, for 140,000 years.

While the minister is pondering that, I want to ask if the minister is aware that the very same situation could exist — and perhaps does and we don't know it, because testing has not been done — with respect to the Endako Mines operation at Fraser Lake. Same kind of ore, same kind of situation: effluent flowing into a creek that eventually flows into François Lake. I would call on the minister to do the same kind of testing as is being done at Equity and not be scared off by the Ministry of Mines.

I commend the minister and his ministry for what they have done at Equity. But through what they have done, they have revealed a very serious and very real problem that's going to exist for many hundreds of years. I think it's a very good lesson for us to have learned in British Columbia. Perhaps there are certain situations we should not enter into, such as mining that ore body in Houston.

We've had ten years. The community has paid through the nose because Equity did not. It wasn't Equity's fault; it was the government's fault. The government did not require Equity to pay their fair share into the tax coffers of the municipality of Houston. So maybe it's a lesson. We had ten years of employment for a few, and now we've got 140,000 years of problems for the many.

I'd like to hear what the minister has to say with respect to that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've got a variety of things to discuss here. First of all, I'd like to return to the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and his concern. We have no authority with respect to logging on private lands unless there is a deleterious

[ Page 8245 ]

effect on a stream, and our power is generally after approval is required under the act for works in and about a stream. That doesn't bode too well. However, along with the Ministry of Forests, we are examining the issue of logging on private lands. A number of initiatives, such as independent resource review committees, are being looked that. I have instructed staff to look at your particular situation, identify those watersheds, and by virtue of what I am saying now, see if we can address that problem, determine how serious it is and identify remedies that would be available to us and your constituents.

To get to the concerns of the member for Omineca, I think I said earlier that I agree with him in terms of his concern about pesticides. I would agree that it is probably appropriate that in our pesticide control branch.... By the way, I do understand the difference between the terms "herbicide" and "pesticide," and I know they are used interchangeably to say the same thing, unless you are talking about specifics. If I use one or the other, you will understand that I am using the generic term for both. I think it's probably time that we in the Ministry of Environment began looking not just at the proper application of these chemicals, but at whether or not we should apply them at all.

The culprit is not forestry, the culprit is not highways, and — you are going to love this — the culprit is not the CNR. The culprit is agriculture. That's the real problem, my friend. We have been trying to get the agriculture industry to educate itself. I believe they are making some progress now towards understanding the problem they are developing on their own property, in their own groundwater. But they are going to have to be continually reminded that we can't continue to apply these chemicals without having some reaction, because nature always reacts, nature comes back. I think of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in the mid-sixties; it first alerted all of us to these concerns. Generally, Mr. Member for Omineca, I do agree with you.

With respect to Alcan, I wouldn't accept your percentage — that 50 percent of the water is going to be depleted. But I can tell you there is going to be some loss, and we are aware of that. We have a couple of general restrictions in place that I think should give British Columbians some comfort.

First of all, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will not accept any loss in the salmon fishery. If there's any indication that this will happen, then Alcan will have to address it. DFO cannot accept that. As a matter of fact, it's in their legislation. They have to be assured before anything happens that there can be no net loss in the fishery. Likewise, our provincial Ministry of Environment has to be assured — and I have to be assured, just as the Prince George MLA — that there is going to be no loss or serious impact on the Nechako River. As the member knows, I live on the Nechako River. I value it for its recreational values and for its appearance. It makes for a nice part of town to live in, having that river go by. So I have some very personal concerns there.

We're going to manage that project to the best of our ability and ensure there's no deleterious effect on the Nechako either at Vanderhoof or at Prince George. There are a lot of issues to be resolved before we carry on with the Kemano project. We have some essential provisions to be put in place. I can assure the member that those will be discussed with him, if he wishes, and with the concerned citizens of that area west of Prince George on the Nechako.

[4:00]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

To get to the most serious problem that the member addressed, Equity Mines and acid mine drainage, acid mine drainage is a very serious problem in British Columbia because of the sulphide content of our rocks. They do produce sulphuric acid. The Tsolum River was, I guess, the worst example; it had a Ph almost approaching battery acid in terms of acidity. The fish died. They've eventually come back. Equity is a major concern. We are working with the company, as the member knows, along with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and advising them that they have to do something. We're watching that very closely.

We are doing extensive work at UBC. Probably the best research on acid mine drainage is being done in British Columbia, or that's what I'm advised. It's a serious concern to the industry and the ministry, and it's a serious concern to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources as well. We do have a lot of ore value here, but if we're going to have potential for acid mine drainage, we have to address ways of not having acid mine drainage develop. Otherwise, mining will have to be halted.

Since 1980, as the member is aware, we have put in place the mine development review process which insists that all applicants for mining development tell us how they are going to handle acid mine drainage. That's worked well. Regrettably, it's kind of closing the gate after the cow is out in the case of Equity, because that process wasn't as thorough as it should have been when Equity began production in 1980. Their planning and development approvals were given before 1980. It's a serious concern. I can assure you that both my ministry and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are on top of it. EMPR do not stand in our way, Mr. Member. They don't want to see this situation go bad or go acid either, because it's in their best interests to have mining carried out in the province properly and not have these lingering problems. They're being very cooperative and doing everything they can to ensure we can remedy this problem.

I'm not going to try to tell you — you've been around too long to take any glib or fast answers; you know the situation there — that we've got it totally under control, that the whole thing is going to work out well and we'll all live happily ever after, because that's not the case. It's a very serious problem. We know it. Equity knows it. The industry knows it. The association knows it. Academia knows it. Everybody is doing everything they can to ensure that we don't

[ Page 8246 ]

have a bad situation at Equity, that the closure is orderly and we don't have this lingering legacy of acid for the next 100 years or so. It could go that way if we're not careful and if we don't put the proper remedies in place.

I thank the member for his comment, and I do acknowledge the seriousness of his concerns.

MR. KEMPF: I don't want to belabour any of these points, and I appreciate the minister's comments. Certainly the minister is aware that the agriculturalist is not the culprit with the use of herbicides in the area that I am basically concerned with — the northern two-thirds of this province. My concern is what I see as a proliferation of applications for permits in this particular year by industry and by the B.C. Forest Service, not only to use herbicides but also to aerial-spray herbicides, and this concerns not only me, as the minister knows, but many of the citizens of the areas that we represent.

As far as the Nechako is concerned, the minister lives on the Nechako and I am sure loves its beauty, but the area that I am most concerned with is the area west of the confluence of the Stuart and Nechako Rivers. There will be a reduction, Mr. Minister — Alcan has said this publicly — of 50 percent in the flow of that river under the bridge at Vanderhoof. That is a real concern, not only to the people in the communities but to agriculturalists. Fort Fraser, for example, will have a very serious problem with their water supply. They will also have a very serious problem with sewage disposal, as will other communities and individuals.

From my experience with this thing — and it has been lengthy; as long as I've been in politics — all that Fisheries and Oceans is for is the salmon that frequent the river; that's their only interest. They seem not to have any interest in the game fish, the wildlife and everything else that uses the river. Their only concern now seems to be that the water temperature is suitable for the salmon runs. As far as the other things go that we enjoy on and in that river, they don't seem to pay a whole lot of attention.

As far as you carrying on all these investigations and assuring the people of safeguards before Kemano 2 is underway... Kemano 2 is underway, Mr. Minister, in a big way. I can assure you that as soon as that tunnel is completed and the hydroelectric operation is ready to go, it will be fired up. The flows will be reduced in the river and the problem will be there. So it's not a case of when it might be underway; it is underway.

As far as Equity is concerned, I believe that time is running out. I am happy to hear that the minister knows and is aware of the seriousness of the problem; but time is running out for the taxpayer of this province, for looking after the problem after that company leaves the site. I know that they are carrying on exploration and I hope that there is a possibility of additional ore bodies being found so that it can continue its operation, because you can't do any more harm than has already been done. My concern is for what happens afterward. My concern is for who is going to pay for the problem after they have closed their doors, and that could be as early as a year and a half from now.

The bond that the government requires Equity to put up has to be sufficient, not only to cover the problem today, or ten, 20 or 1,000 years in the future, and not only to cover the containment of the problem, but to clean it up. It's got to be sufficient to do all those things. If it's not, we have made a grave mistake in this province in allowing that operation in the first place. I understand that the safeguards weren't in place when it started. But they are still there, Mr. Minister. We know the problem exists and we should be doing what is in the best interests of the taxpayer of this province in asking for a sufficient bond.

The minister didn't answer my question on Endako Mines. The same problem, I suspect, exists at Endako. I suspect that the same effluents are flowing into François Lake as into Buck Creek, and I ask the minister now to immediately entertain a program of testing at Endako Mines as well.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to be brief, I can't say I really disagree with anything the member for Omineca has said or any suggestions he has put to me. In terms of Endako, yes. I hadn't seen that one on the list or heard about it in my briefing notes, but we will have a look at it and maybe it is being tested now. If it isn't, it will be.

MS. PULLINGER: Just listening to the member for Omineca discussing the mistake in allowing the industry into the riding, a specific industry that has become a problem, we have some concern in our riding of Nanaimo and Ladysmith that a proposed ferrochromium plant there could be a problem. Initially people felt fairly comfortable that it was all right, but since then there have been growing concerns, largely because there have been more and more questions raised and we don't seem to be able to get any answers to them. I'm hoping that perhaps today in this debate we can come up with some of those answers so that we can be reassured that the plant is indeed safe.

There's no question that we need the jobs in Nanaimo and would welcome Mr. Wooding and his jobs — if indeed his plant is safe. We're not here to crucify Mr. Wooding or necessarily negate the plant; we would just like to have some questions answered.

I'd like to start with a few questions about the information on which the minister has based his assurance that the plant is totally environmentally safe. We have heard the minister of state for the region tell us that it's safe, as well as many others. The first thing I would like to ask the minister is: have there been any studies done for the province other than the Rescan study? I'm aware of the federal studies, but is the Rescan study the only environmental study undertaken for this plant?

Interjection.

[ Page 8247 ]

MS. PULLINGER: For the ferrochromium plant proposed by Mr. Jay Wooding for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm sorry, Madam Member, I was doing some talking about Wooding, and then I thought you got onto a different subject. As long as we know we're on the same subject, I'm fine.

Just to give the committee a fast recap, the ferrochromium proposal first came to the Victoria area, and it raised some eyebrows, to say the least. One of the reasons it did was that it indicated in the preliminary drawings and preliminary description that there would be water discharge, or that Brentwood Bay salt water would be used for cooling purposes. That raised a lot of concerns in terms of what could leak out — whether we would have poached salmon; and other concerns were raised.

There was also a large zoning issue, and people were upset about that type of industry in that location. It wasn't so much a political thing. It really never got to my desk as an environmental problem. It was largely political all the time it was down here, and then Mr. Wooding made the decision that he should maybe look somewhere else. He did, and in doing so he told us verbally that he would use an air-cooling process; he would not be considering any water-cooling. There would be no intake or discharge of water. Air emissions would be the only problem we would be concerned with, and the technology described to us indicated at first blush that it could be safe, would be acceptable and would meet B.C. ambient air standards, and that we would have no problem with it.

[4:15]

On the basis of that, we have given him an approval in principle on two conditions: (1) that he file a permit; and (2) that he hold public hearings. The permit has just now been filed. I spoke to the environmental consultants working for Wooding last Thursday, and they indicated to me that they hoped to be filing the permit with the Ministry of Environment on Tuesday. I understand from my colleague here that parts of the permit have been filed in the Nanaimo office, but we don't know if it's complete. In fact, we are just now learning from Mr. Wooding, officially and on a technical basis, what he wants to do.

Now we can begin our process, but in terms of what's transpired up to now and what we know about the ferrochromium plant on an official permit application basis, the answer is that we know nothing about what Mr. Wooding wants to do outside of what he said publicly. The permit application is now coming in, and we can begin assessing it. I can't give you an answer now, because theoretically we have no information from him.

MS. PULLINGER: I have a concern that we raised the other day, and I would like to clarify what you said, because it conflicts with information I have had from the waste management branch. I perceive there is a very serious problem in the process of permitting this plant. According to the information I get from the waste management branch, Mr. Wooding, now that he has approval in principle, is free to go ahead and build the physical plant. They've confirmed that information three times now. As you're obviously aware, that contradicts the information I've had from you.

I would be greatly relieved to know that you're going to undergo this entire process before the first footings are poured for the plant. I perceive that as a very serious flaw in the process, if what the waste management branch is telling me is true. I would appreciate a response from the minister as to how that indeed does function. How does that process work? Could you explain to us what the process is, in terms of the relative time-lines for when Mr. Wooding can build and the full environmental process that must be gone through?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I just got some more information. This is getting more and more confusing all the time. I'm beginning to have some doubts, in my own mind, about the proponent, but I'll leave it at that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hansard can't put this down, but whooo!

In any event, let's get back. Approval in principle was given by the ministry when we were notified that there would be an air-cooling. Now there is further discussion that Wooding may want to go into water-cooling again. That puts a whole new set of concerns with the Ministry of Environment; now he's going to have the federal ministry involved again. But I don't know. Officially, I don't know anything, because the permit has just arrived, and we are looking at it now. But we have heard about his water-cooling and water discharge problem again, so we would have a problem there.

To get to the bottom line: can he build? Yes, he can build anything he wants. Anybody can build anything they want. Can they operate? No. That's where we stop them. But if they own the property, yes, they can build within zoning regulations. But will he be allowed to operate? That's the question. So you're technically correct: he could begin building the plant now, but he would never be allowed to operate until he satisfies our concerns from the environmental point of view and also goes through some public hearing process, which is included in our first approval in principle. But if we're back into water discharge, we're into a brand-new ball game, and I'm sure Mr. Wooding and his consultants understand that.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm very relieved to hear that has come through your people, because we have been hearing in our community that indeed Mr. Wooding has changed. One of the difficulties, as you say.... The minister states that he is beginning to have some grave concerns about Mr. Wooding. An awful lot of people in my community have expressed that same

[ Page 8248 ]

concern, because there are some gross inconsistencies in what he's saying about the greenbelt, the process and a lot of things. We have no track record for Mr. Wooding; we don't seem to be able to get any information. Some of our media folks have done some very in-depth investigation and come up with nothing. So I think that's a very valid concern, and I'm glad to hear you articulate that.

I am concerned, however, to discover that the waste management branch was correct in saying that the plant can be built, because obviously if we're going to go through the leasing process, transfer the covenanted lands from the greenbelt to the province and allow him to go ahead and build this large structure, there's a great deal of pressure to allow him to operate. Nothing short of a catastrophe is going to stop it. That's an extremely serious problem with the process. As the minister says, we know nothing about it now. We're going to allow this man to come into our community in Nanaimo on a piece of land that's very close to residential areas; it's beside Northumberland Channel, which has $100 million worth of herring go through it every year, and it backs onto the Nanaimo River estuary.

We know nothing about Mr. Wooding, according to the minister, and nothing about the process or the environmental ramifications of this plant. I think it's a very serious problem that he can build that plant with no information. I think that's very serious — I would hope that the minister will address that problem, because it's clearly a difficulty.

I'd like to just refer back. I asked a little earlier if the Rescan preliminary overview is the only piece of information, documentation or environmental study that has been done to date by the province of British Columbia and by your department. Can the minister confirm what has been done, or that there has been nothing more done?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, let me qualify a couple of things. I want the record to show that I do not have — as the member said — concerns about Mr. Wooding; I have concerns about Mr. Wooding's proposal, and I want the record to show that clearly.

Secondly, as I said, approval in principle was given on the understanding that we had air-cooling only. I'm sitting in the Legislative Assembly right now; I'm not a technician, and I am not in receipt of the permit. So all I can say is that if we have a permit that indicates we have water-cooling or a water discharge, then he does not have approval in principle. The approval in principle is given on the basis of an application for air-cooling; and things will have changed....

In terms of testing that has been done, there is the report that you mentioned. Our staff have also done some independent research on their own — or independent of that other report — to better understand the process that we think we're going to be looking at. I don't know the extent of that, but the ministry technical people are reviewing the ferrochromium process as proposed by Mr. Wooding.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you for that response. I would like to clarify as well that I'm certainly not in any way meaning to attack Mr. Wooding. He is of course welcome in the community, and we would be pleased to have him and his plant there — if it's environmentally safe. The object of the exercise is to determine that it will be safe and that the process is adequate to ensure the safety of our environment and the people of our constituency.

You say the staff has done some additional research on top of the Rescan study. I'm pleased to hear it, because the Rescan study is very superficial and incomplete. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to share that research with us so we can get some answers to our questions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have done some preliminary research. We will of course do extensive research now that we have received the permit. All the information we have will be part of the public hearing process, which I am sure you will attend; I would if I were you. It will be held in Nanaimo.

MS. PULLINGER: You are calling it a public hearing process. My understanding was that there only needed to be a public information process, which is a very different thing. Will you confirm that the process is indeed a hearing process, where the people of Nanaimo can come and raise their concerns and have their questions answered in a hearing format rather than simply an information meeting, which is a far less thorough and informal process?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're right. The term I should have used was public information process. "Hearing" has a different connotation. However, in that process you can certainly ask questions of the proponent and also of the ministry staff. That's what we mean by public information process. We will provide answers as the Ministry of Environment, and so will the proponent.

MR. LOVICK: I listened with interest and appreciation to the response from the minister to the questions posed by my colleague, and I want him to know we have accomplished a great deal in the last five minutes. We've probably got more information than we've been able to acquire in about the last three months of some pretty serious digging and hard work. We truly appreciate that.

A couple of questions, though. Am I correct in understanding the minister to say that the proponents do not have approval in principle insofar as they are now talking about a water cooling system?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If they are applying for a permit that includes water discharge, they do not have approval in principle. They only had it for the air-to-air cooling.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer. It might interest the minister to know that in all the discussions my colleague and I have had with our friends in

[ Page 8249 ]

Nanaimo city council, nobody has ever talked about an air cooling system; rather, the question has been whether it's fresh water or sea water. The minister might like to note that, in terms of adding to the confusion surrounding the project. There are even people on council who begin to wonder whether the proponent now wants to go to salt water rather than fresh simply because of the possibility that if one uses fresh water one will have to pay a certain amount of money for that, i.e. an additional cost. In all the discussions, we've never yet had any reference to an air cooling system, and that's why I'm quite surprised and why I went through that elaborate process of asking you again to repeat and clarify the point for me.

I have a question about this whole business of funding and financing. My colleague quite correctly pointed out what we perceive to be a flaw in the process: that you can build the facility before you get the permit to find if something is indeed environmentally benign. Just as that is an important question and points to a flaw in the process, so I think is another question: the matter of funding. As you recall, Mr. Minister, this project has been touted for some time as having a tremendous economic regeneration capacity, which is probably true, but within that statement has been the claim that the money's in the bag. We're talking approximately $4.5 million from the western diversification fund and a matching amount from the provincial government. I understand that those statements are also somewhat premature, given that all we're talking about is approval in principle — an approval that is clearly subject to a number of conditions being met. Is that a fair construction?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't want to duck this one, Mr. Member, but I am not going to comment on financing. I am the Minister of Environment. If I were minister of state for the area I guess I would make a comment about the financing and also about the federal side of it, but I will not in this case. I don't think it's appropriate. But I would encourage you to ask the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) about that aspect of it.

[4:30]

Getting back to where we are in terms of the company, I think I've laid out everything to you the way I understand it. If we have a change in process suggested by the proponent, then the approval in principle is cancelled.

The building thing: again, your own city officials who offer building permits may put that restriction in. Regrettably, as Minister of Environment, I can't stop someone from building a plant as long as what he's doing and building is environmentally sound. While the plant goes up and on the ground, he's not doing anything; there are no discharges. It's just another building — it could be a warehouse; it could be a shell — but until it starts discharging into the environment, then I really have nothing to operate on, so it could proceed. However, as soon as they turn a wheel or turn the key, then we become quite interested. I can assure you that we will not accept undue pressure from that proponent or any other. If they've gone to the trouble and expense of building a multimillion-dollar plant without getting our approval to operate, and we don't let them operate it, that's a gamble they've taken and lost. I stand by that statement. We just can't operate any other way, and I want to assure the members of that.

In terms of zoning and the greenbelt — I've heard a few comments about that — I think it's a question better posed to Nanaimo city council, who changed it, I think, for residential purposes. You could talk to your council about that. We had no interest in it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're doing that, are you? By the way, I want to tell you one more thing. I should tell the committee that my friend from Nanaimo and I, many years ago in another movie, were coaches of respective debate teams. We had a lot of fun, worked with some brilliant students and really enjoyed ourselves. But the member sent me a letter yesterday, and there was no object. You didn't put down the proposition you were talking about. I knew, but I just.... Did you get my return letter? You asked me: "What about this proposition?" I said: "Which proposition?" There we go.

In any event, I appreciate your concern. I hope I've been able to answer your questions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the word "object." Don't you understand what "object" means? There was no proper noun.

Anyway, I hope I've answered your concerns. If you have any more, please present them to me and I'll be more than happy to answer your questions.

MS. PULLINGER: I think it was covered fairly well, but at this point, I would just like to bring to your attention some concerns of the people of Nanaimo, so that you are perhaps better able to deal with them. One is the whole issue of chromium 3, chromium 6, etc. A group in Nanaimo has done some extensive research on this. I've had the results of its research looked at by a chemist in the field who deals with ferrochromium and the plants. I don't know whether the minister has seen that document, but there is a concern that the information about chromium compounds has changed very rapidly, and what was once thought to be a stable compound — chromium 3 to chromium 0 — is no longer held as being so.

There is a great deal of information. A five-page bibliography was given to me by some residents from this research group, which indicates just by the titles that there are an awful lot of questions out there about the stability of the various chromium compounds, I hope you will address that, because given that we have seawater on both sides and that seawa-

[ Page 8250 ]

ter seems to be the catalytic element in the change, it should be addressed fairly thoroughly.

Apart from that, another concern is that there never has been a functioning prototype of this plant. Indeed, the one that there was — a similar plant in Luxembourg — failed; it had a meltdown and has never produced ferrochromium. It's a serious concern, given that this kind of production is innovative, new and obviously will have a lot of glitches. In the problems and glitches that it has in the on-site development of the process, if we're emitting chromium 6, which is highly carcinogenic, there is room for some very serious problems for both the marine life and the people in the area.

Those are just a couple of the processes. Another is that we are dealing with possibly very hazardous substances, and there are possible difficulties, for instance, in the baghouse filters, as Mr. Wooding is proposing. I hope you will address those concerns.

The other one, my colleague reminds me, is that the studies we have right now are addressing quite directly the production of ferrochromium. However, 46 percent of what's going to be produced by the plant is slag. One of the studies indicates — I believe it's the provincial study — that the slag will then go through a process and become a mineral wool fibre for insulation. However, the Norwegian people say that there are simply no markets for it. I have a concern about that, because if there are no markets, obviously we're not going to have that mineral wool produced. We're going to end up with 20,000 tonnes a year of slag sitting on Jack Point and Duke Point.

My information is that there are two problems in crumbling the slag. One is that it's a very dirty, smelly process, and we've got residential areas just across Northumberland Channel and in Cedar. The other is that we're not really sure what the leaching will be from that. Will there be leaching of chromium compounds? I've heard it said by one of the environmental waste management people, I believe, that the suggestion is that Mr. Wooding will indeed at this point simply crumble or make pellets or whatever out of this slag and distribute it around the area. Given the sensitivity of the area, I think that's a very important concern. The process of making mineral wool out of the slag has not been addressed in any of the studies anywhere. I would hope it would be looked at, since it's half the process.

I think that covers fairly well the major concerns that we have. If we have others we'll pass them on to you so that they can be addressed. I'm very pleased with the position that we're hearing today, because the concerns in Nanaimo have been that this is just going to be ramrodded through without adequate environmental protection. Thank you for your responses.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The stability of the chromium was one of the concerns we had. We had George Poling at UBC do some work for us on that issue. His information back to us is that the chromium in this process is stable.

With respect to all the other questions you've asked, the information cannot be provided until we have analyzed the permit. The permit, as you can appreciate, presents drawings and shows us the process and tells us everything we want to know. But your questions are duly noted, of course, and are on the record now. As we review the process I will attempt to answer those questions for you by having my staff review the questions you've posed today in committee.

Of course, as I told you before, the public information session.... I'm sure it is going to be well attended, given what you've told me and given the few that I've attended, not on this issue but other events I've been to. I can understand the public is going to be very much concerned with the proponent, his design, his product and his operation. I'm sure all those questions that you've posed and more are going to be asked during the information session.

I thank you for your information, and I hope I've been able to provide you with some comfort and some basic understanding of where this ministry stands on the issue.

MR. CLARK: I'll be very brief on a completely different topic. Let me begin by saying that at this time the Environment portfolio is in many ways the most important portfolio of government, and I appreciate how difficult it is and how complex it's becoming. I know that's true for our spokesperson as well. It seems to me that one almost has to be a toxicologist to be conversant with all of the different complex compounds in existence today.

I just wanted to raise with the minister and the ministry something that's come across my desk which has to do with something commonly called TBT — toxic tributyltin, an anti-fouling paint for the bottom of boats. I might say at the outset that much of this information comes from someone who has a vested interest in a competing product, and I don't want the minister to view this as my advocating a particular product.

The background material on TBT is that it's been banned in California, France and Britain. Its sale and use is now banned to such an extent that I gather that American boaters by and large come up to British Columbia to buy TBT and paint it on their boats. It's extremely toxic. I have an article from Jacques Cousteau's magazine which clearly documents the hazards of TBT. There appear to be other products which work as well.

I think the minister in a previous discussion in this chamber said that many of these kinds of things come across his desk. As I said at the outset, one almost has to be a toxicologist to try and fathom the complexities of this field of environmental pollution. For example, I gather that B.C. Ferries uses TBT and others. It seems to me that just because it's banned elsewhere, it doesn't necessarily mean that one has to follow suit. The evidence does appear to be significant.

The California banning is only a year or two old. I appreciate that we may be ahead of other jurisdic-

[ Page 8251 ]

tions in certain areas and behind in others. This kind of thing seems to be a checkerboard in some respects. I wonder whether the ministry is reviewing any policy with respect to the sale of TBT, and how we monitor these questions that come across all members' desks from time to time. This does seem to be quite a good case against TBT. It is legal here. It's certainly not legal in California.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset — I'm not being glib; this is factual — they are banning just about everything in California. It's very restrictive there, and for a good reason, I guess. There are 28 million people there, and they've got some major pollution problems — air, water, you name it — and a long history of neglect as well.

But that aside, we've looked at that. We've thought of doing something under the Pesticide Control Act because that's what it's designed for. We do have a few problems internally with the federal government. We are well aware of that concern. Something that I'd like to see completed is to have that material banned, if in fact it is that toxic, and if there are other chemicals we can use that are less toxic and just as effective.

MR. MILLER: I want to canvass with the minister in reasonably general terms the issue of preserving old-growth forests in British Columbia. It's my view that there is a need to clearly set aside areas of this province from both a scientific and aesthetic point of view. The conflicts that we see happening all too often in British Columbia are the result of the government not being ahead of the game, in terms of identifying those particular needs. I hope that the minister would agree with the premise that it is desirable to maintain areas of old growth in British Columbia.

[4:45]

I think that there has been very little work done in identifying what we have here in British Columbia. What is worth preserving? How much is there? How much should be preserved of various types? I intend to quote fairly extensively — and I don't want to take a lot of time — from a document that I've just finished reading in relation to that. I think it illustrates my point. I would be happy to hear the minister's comments in terms of the work that is or is not being done in your ministry and perhaps your view of the kind of work that should be done.

The paper I refer to has been done by three British Columbians. It's titled "Protected Old-Growth Forests in Coastal British Columbia." It deals with coastal British Columbia. I'll start out with some quotes in terms of the percentages of the various types that are preserved. I think it illustrates that some more work needs to be done. The two most common protected old-growth forest types are the western red cedar–western hen-dock type; they group two types together in terms of classification — 25 percent; the western hemlock–amabilis fir type — 23 percent. A distant third is the Douglas fir–western hemlock type — 10 percent. The next highest ranking is Sitka spruce–western hemlock — 9.5 percent, followed by red cedar–Douglas fir — 7 percent, mountain fir–amabilis fir — 5.5 percent and western hemlock — 5 percent. The least common protected old growth types are Douglas fir — 1 percent and red cedar — 0.3 percent.

In the conclusion to the paper, which is not all that long, they make some observations. I think they are worth repeating:

"However, these old-growth forests are dwindling. Their liquidation commenced early in the development of the province, and logging and land clearing have increased ever since. Although there is still a substantial area of coastal old growth remaining, especially on the north coast, virtually all productive accessible forest has a price on its head. This was amply demonstrated in the recent battle of the proposed South Moresby National Park.

"If logging proceeds as planned, today's operable timber will all be logged probably within 15 to 25 years depending on economics. The 185,600 hectares of protected old growth will increase in ecological significance with time."

I think that's significant. We have less than 200,000 hectares of protected old growth, primarily in parks and ecological reserves in British Columbia.

Again quoting from the document: "How much is 185,600 hectares of old growth? In a single year on Crown land alone, an identical area was clearcut, and a larger area, 210,397 hectares, was harvested in total in British Columbia." So in one year in all of British Columbia we harvest an equivalent to what we currently have protected in terms of old growth.

I apologize for quoting extensively, but there are some statements here that I think are worthwhile. I didn't have time to put them in my own language, and I think the document speaks for itself. Just in terms of comparing that 185,000-odd hectares to what we have: "However, we do know that on the coast about two and a half million hectares of operable old-growth forest remain outside parks at present." That appears to be what's there that we can deal with in terms of identifying areas and types that need to be preserved. The total area of coastal productive forest land base is approximately 7,260,000 hectares. So we can see those figures demonstrate the relatively small area that is protected. The first figures demonstrated the percentages, including some very low percentages, of some types that are protected.

The study goes on to say that there are also gaps and weaknesses in the system of protected areas. There should be more Douglas fir forests protected, but unfortunately there is little of this type left in coastal British Columbia. "Productive stands dominated by western red cedar are disturbingly under represented.... Nevertheless, inventory and acquisition of parcels of productive red cedar forests should be priorities for preservation, not only because of the beauty of the trees and the intricacy of their stands, but also because of the heritage values of red cedar in the Pacific coastal culture."

"Productive yellow cedar stands should be another priority." It talks about less productive stands of yellow and red cedar being still abundant on the coast: "...truly productive yellow cedar stands are

[ Page 8252 ]

uncommon in the landscape and in protected areas. Such forests are a splendid sight for those fortunate enough to find them, and researchers still know relatively little about the biology and productivity relationship of this commercially valuable species.

It goes on to talk about Sitka spruce and the fact that forests dominated by Sitka spruce are now represented in the Queen Charlotte Islands and on Vancouver Island parks. However, valley bottom spruce stands with really big, old trees constitute a small percentage of the total protected area. Furthermore, virtually no productive fluvial Sitka spruce old growth is protected on the mainland coast. Increasingly there is less left.

Again, in addition to the evergreen types, it talks about stands of Garry oak and arbutus on the southern coast in what is described as almost a cool Mediterranean-type climate. These forests are particularly interesting — here we go with the words — "phytographically, they contain many rare disjuncts or outpost plant species and require protection However, both types are edaphically specialized and limited in extent, and both have suffered heavily from urban agricultural development."

Just to conclude in the words of the authors:

"Old growth that is both stupendous and protected is quite rare. For instance, only two restricted groves of outstanding Douglas fir trees are known to us inside conservation areas: one in Strathcona Park and one in the 136-hectare MacMillan Park. However, small and somewhat better examples of heritage-calibre forests still exist here and there outside of parks and reserves, and their existence should systematically be registered.

"In attempting this initial overview of protected old growth resources, it became alarmingly clear how little information is available on this important component of our conservation areas. Optimal protection and management can only provide for a resource that is well known. A thorough inventory and mapping of quantities, qualities and composition of old-growth resources in both coastal and interior parks is urgently needed. At the same time, an inventory of outstanding examples outside the park and reserve system is required. Important gaps in representation must be identified now or it will be too late to complement the system with what still remains. So far as is known, old growth forests are not a readily renewable resource."

Again I apologize to the House for quoting so extensively from the document, but I think it very ably illustrated the premise that I initially raised. We can probably do much to head off some of the controversies, at least in terms of the land-use conflicts, by being ahead of the game in terms of doing this kind of research work.

I would leave it at that and ask the minister to respond to my premise and the comments I made, and also to outline to the House what work the ministry is doing in this regard.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A lot of it is sort of outside of the scope of my ministry on a straight technical basis when we talk about harvesting processes. However, I do appreciate the member's concern and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to him because there are a couple of things I want to say on this issue.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Number one, for a technical answer, as a Minister of Environment from the fish and wildlife side I have a very biased interest in preservation, and any minister responsible for proper wildlife management is going to have to take that position. I would be not serving the ministry or the fish and wildlife branch well if I didn't take what can be considered as a preservationist stand.

We do have some impact now. I mentioned earlier to the member for Nanaimo that we have the forestry/fishery guidelines on the coast where we ensure there be setbacks from streams to enhance the recreational fishery and to enhance the appearance.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's pre-1970.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's do it through the Chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, they've been developed over the years and really are a recent evolution, and we are attempting to develop the same sort of processes in the interior as well.

In terms of old growth, it's an interesting philosophical question to ask. Everything is going to die sooner or later. We know that stands are going to be harvested by nature — by bug, or fire, or by man. Sooner or later anything that is living is in fact on its way to dying, including us. It's a terrible thing to think of, but you start dying at the moment of conception.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, life begins with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Come on, I just got back. Let's try and stick on vote 55. I was being quite tolerant. Would the minister please continue and relate this to the administrative responsibilities of his office, which I know he'll do, being strictly relevant, as we will always be in committee.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have been asked a question about life. Life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies; everybody knows that. That's my position and I stick by it rigidly. It's the safest one I could adopt given the current climate.

Okay, back to old-growth forests.

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll let the SPCA know.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When the dog dies — that's a natural death, Mr. Member.

Back to old growth. As the minister responsible for fish and wildlife, I take the bias that preservation

[ Page 8253 ]

is by far the best to serve that department well. But we have to balance this off with the fact that the trees are going to die and they are going to be harvested by bugs, fire or man, and can we get maximum benefit out of them.

There are going to be the pressures of not only forestry, but as you mentioned, the pressures of agriculture. There is going to be the pressure of residential development in some cases. The biggest clearcut in B.C. is Vancouver and surrounding areas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's a beetle kill, and it's 55 miles by about seven miles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's do it through the Chair, please. It would help a lot.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Philosophically I would have a tendency to agree with you, but I have pressures, as any minister would, from the other ministries who want to see certain things happen such as agricultural development, mining, roadways — forestry, of course being the biggest stress we have on the land base.

I guess if there is any remedy and any way we can sort of focus this philosophical discussion, I would see it as probably something that our round table on the environment and the economy is going to have to address. Really, proper land use is the big question in British Columbia when you look at the environment, and that would be clearly a strategy that would be developed by that round table.

To answer you in a nutshell, I agree with what you are saying. I agree with the value of that paper and I agree with what that paper says, and as a minister with that particular fish and wildlife department, I do have a bias for that type of preservation, unless in some cases, as you know, there is some value to taking trees out if you want to enhance wildlife, and we occasionally do that in enhancement programs There are some burning programs we participate in where it may seem counterproductive but in fact it benefits the wildlife if you do take some of the trees out. It's a balanced position. I agree generally with what the writer says, but governments and cabinets, for various reasons, are faced with a multitude of decisions and pressures. I think your comments were valuable to this committee.

[5:00]

MR. MILLER: I didn't really attempt to be philosophical at all. I attempted, I think, to be more technical and, dare I say, scientific or rational in terms of this.

First of all, we have over time, for good rational reasons, protected 185,000 hectares — according to this paper — of old-growth forest. Not all of it was protected because of the old-growth aspect, but nonetheless we have managed to thus far protect that. What I'm really arguing for is a more scientific and rational, or technical, approach to the issue as opposed to what I would characterize as the sometimes emotional approach that currently exists. I would think it would be in the political interests of all of us to deal with the issue in the manner that I've suggested, and that the paper suggests, as opposed to what is taking place now.

I also assume, perhaps wrongly, that this would be within the Minister of Environment's mandate. I understand that nature constantly changes; trees indeed die and fall down. I also understand that people are not like trees, that there is a difference — we're talking about plant life — and that we have trees in this province that are hundreds of years old. I don't know what the oldest might be, but it's probably 600 to 800 years old, and maybe more. We're not going to sit around and watch the forests fall down if we preserve them, Mr. Minister. We can sit and watch for a long time, and our children and grandchildren and so on down the years will still be sitting and watching, and they won't be falling over.

So is it worth preserving particular types of old growth in this province? If it is, what work has been done in identifying those from a technical point of view, being ahead of the issue instead of constantly behind it? I don't think it's got much to do with fish and wildlife.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we're just a little bit beyond the scope of the actual administration of this minister, but we'll go ahead with the minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. That's why I tried to be philosophical with the member, because if I answered him on a straight technical basis, I would have been sadly out of order.

The Ministry of Environment is not, in the majority of cases, a land use ministry such as Forests would be, or Crown Lands or Agriculture. We are a regulatory ministry in that sense.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Forests has a mandate to cut them down in response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I must ask that we alternate between members so that Hansard can record it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Minister of Forests, as a matter of fact, has policy for preservation and for wilderness preservation. It's in the act; they do it now. You can speak to him about that.

Philosophically, I agree with what you're saying. As chairman of ELUC — and all ministers of Environment are chairmen of ELUC in this province — I attempt to identify the best use and the preservation use of our land base. I do agree that in many cases old growth, such as Carmanah for example, should be maintained. When the Ministry of Forests has finally finished reviewing the Carmanah plans, for example, where we have trees of the age that you've indicated, it will come back to ELUC, and ELUC will make a decision. I will present my views then, and they will be public.

[ Page 8254 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I have an issue to raise which my colleague for Victoria and I have raised I think every year.

MR. PERRY: Dump the issue.

MR. BLENCOE: Dump the issue — that's exactly what I'm talking about.

As the minister is aware, in the capital region we continue to spoil the environment by dumping our sewage out by a long pipe. It's been an issue for many years. If you look back at the records and the newspapers you can see that 20, 30, 40 years ago people were asking when something was going to be done about it.

I think we're finally close to something being done about it. I think the minister has said himself — I know I've said it — that if there's the political will to do it, it will be done. We have raised it in this House many times, and the usual answer by the ministers responsible over the years has been that if the local government really is not particularly interested, why should the province show leadership? To some degree that's a valid position to take. However, there seems to be some movement afoot at the local level. We now have a commissioner. The Capital Regional District is actually doing some things, and there seems to be some political will.

This minister has said some good things on this issue in past estimates and has given to my constituents, my electorate, reason to be optimistic that the provincial government will be supportive, not just morally but financially, we hope, of what will be a fairly major financial undertaking for sewage treatment in the capital region. That has always been, of course, the stumbling-block and the answer by the local politicians and the Capital Regional District: we don't have the finances to support a treatment facility 100 percent. I'm talking about tertiary treatment, Mr. Chairman. The local taxpayer can't afford 100 percent of the costs of a treatment plant.

MR. MERCIER: Come on, Robin. Speed it up.

MR. BLENCOE: In the past it has taken a long time to deal with this issue. I'm going to deal with it very fast today.

I wonder if the minister can give us an update on any activities or meetings he has had with local officials, and on the involvement of his ministry in the sewage matter in Victoria; on the monitoring and the position the ministry has taken; on any expressions of concern or indications from his ministry that it hopes that local officials will move fast on this thing, and that by 1994, when the Commonwealth Games come to the city, we can at least tell our visitors and the world that Victoria no longer pumps raw sewage into the ocean just off Dallas Road and the waterfront.

Can the minister relay at this point any details of discussions with the regional district on cost-sharing? It may be a little premature, but obviously that has always been the stumbling-block. Have there been any discussions? Can we look forward to some negotiations? Is the minister or the ministry supportive of effective treatment? Is he looking ahead and preparing for a substantial provincial financial commitment to sewage treatment in the capital region, this beautiful city?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think what the member is asking about is meetings we've had — and I've had one. The whole thing is probably best summarized in the Jim Hume column of a couple of weeks ago, where Jim took me to task for the fact that I wouldn't give the CRD a planning grant, or wouldn't consider it. Let me put it this way. As you know, Susan Brice and Frank Leonard were in my office a couple of weeks ago. We talked about the project. I indicated at that time that I would have a look at it. But it's known to the CRD, to me and to everyone who looks at the situation that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is the ministry that will offer planning grants. We will, as a ministry of environment, offer advice, review the plans — which we are doing now — and offer any other help that we can.

But I have a philosophical problem as well, and it was also characterized in the Jim Hume column. My concern is this. As a Prince George taxpayer, I have been paying for sewage treatment in my community since 1971, and I'm going to be paying until the year 2003, simply to protect the environment and to protect the Fraser River. I have to ask myself: why should Victoria be rewarded for being late? That's really what it comes down to.

I will do everything I can, and I will insist that the ministry does everything it can in assisting Victoria, but let's be fair in all of this. Other communities and taxpayers — and I'm one of them — are putting a lot of money into providing proper sewage treatment in their community. As the former chairman of the finance committee of the city of Victoria council, maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror if you're wondering who the real polluter is and who didn't provide leadership in the city or in the Capital Regional District with respect to proper sewage treatment, instead of ocean-dumping the way you did. I cannot justify to my constituency in Prince George that I'm going to take the taxpayers' money and reward Victoria because it hasn't acted efficiently or shown the leadership that many other communities have.

MR. BLENCOE: I had no intention — and the minister started it — of throwing political shots across the floor.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Some shots were taken.

If the minister would like to see the record of this member when he was on local council and the CRD board, I consistently tried to convince my colleagues, including people like Susan Brice and a few others, who at that time always said: "Oh no, we don't need treatment...." Those good supporters of this govern-

[ Page 8255 ]

ment have suddenly seen the light because the environment's an issue, as your government has suddenly seen the light and believes — by having been pulled by the public, who have been ahead of your government — that environmental issues are important.

This member, on this side, has been consistent. There have been many who, I should tell you, have been of your political persuasion and who have always blocked proper treatment in this community. It's interesting, fascinating, to see those who are now espousing it, who have discovered that environmental issues are real and who are now saying that they are showing leadership. Up to just a year ago they were dragging their heels, saying we couldn't afford it, etc.

I'd also point out to the member that we used to have 75-25 cost-sharing on a lot of projects in this province. If I look back in the books at your good community of Prince George, I'm sure that my constituents in Victoria paid 75 cents for a little project there. But they didn't complain, because we all benefit in the long term by sharing; sometimes that's what it's all about. So those little shots that Victoria should be paying the whole thing.... Let's take a look at your community and see how they've benefited from various programs that all the taxpayers have had to contribute to.

[5:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Since you've both been well out of order, and since you've had a good shot at him and he's had a good shot at you, perhaps we could bring it back to what's really in order on this matter.

MR. BLENCOE: Sewage treatment is expensive and we have accepted in this province that the provincial government has a role to play in financing such major initiatives. Mr. Minister, I can recall that just prior to the resignation of the former Premier of British Columbia, an area of Rutland, near Kelowna, managed to get 75-cent dollars when the program had died a few years before. I don't know how that happened, but it happened. My constituents and your constituents paid 75 cents of every dollar for a sewer and storm-drain program which nobody else at the time was getting. So let's call a halt to that.

The point to be made, Mr. Chairman, is that in the city of Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, this attractive community which all citizens benefit by and are proud of — not only British Columbians but many of our visitors, I'm sure, who are in the audience today....

MR. DAVIDSON: Where?

MR. BLENCOE: They're here; they're outside.

MR. DAVIDSON: They're smarter than we are.

MR. BLENCOE: I think they have an interest, and they would hope that the provincial government would be interested in cost-sharing a major sewage initiative in the city of Victoria.

To put it on record, Mr. Chairman, there's no question that my constituents and the citizens of Victoria are quite prepared to pay extra for sewage treatment. But they would like to see the government of the province of British Columbia, which does do business in the capital of the province — you're all here; you all benefit by it some months of the year, longer some years....

I would hope that the minister would reflect on his comments of a few minutes ago that the citizens of Victoria should bear the entire cost. That's not the history in this province in terms of dealing with such major public works initiatives. Perhaps the minister might comment on that and let the citizens of Victoria know that he's progressive on this issue and that he, in the year or two years ahead, will be seriously negotiating with local representatives to bring tertiary treatment to the great capital of British Columbia, to clean up our oceans so Victorians and tourists alike don't have to experience the things they've experienced for far too many years.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the member got a few things wrong.

First of all, I said that all the support that we can provide would be provided in the standard form that we supported. The members should also know that the whole Okanagan received different funding because of the pristine quality and the value of that Okanagan Lake system.

The other point I have to make is that it was also largely a Social Credit city council in Prince George, because it always has been, that opted for sewage treatment in the early 1970s.

The fourth point is that when that program was available, why didn't Victoria enter into it? That's the question one has to ask. It wasn't just available in Prince George; it was available provincewide. The good city fathers here, for whatever reason — I don't think it was because of the political stripe they had — didn't do it.

The point I am making is that I will provide everything I can fairly and squarely for the good people of Victoria, but I find it difficult to accept an argument for special treatment for Victoria, because you have a good tax base here. Where I will be sympathetic to special treatment are the smaller communities, and I would give as an example Creston, which has a limited tax base and which has a significant problem. What I'll be looking at in terms of special assistance is the smaller communities. That's not a cast-in-stone policy, but it's philosophically the way I feel right now, and I have discussed that with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well as with the MLAs for the various areas. Philosophically that's where I'm coming from right now: assistance to the smaller communities.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the minister's remarks. As the Municipal Affairs critic, I travel the province, and I have every sympathy for his position

[ Page 8256 ]

on those smaller communities. I don't necessarily disagree with him. Those smaller communities do need special help and don't have the tax base or the resources or the expertise, etc., etc., to deal with these issues.

To finish this discussion off — which is a useful one and we've had it every year and until we get it I'm sure we will have it in subsequent years —Victoria in 1994 will be having the Commonwealth Games here. I know the minister has said he doesn't want to give Victoria special treatment, but I would make the point that there is a situation where we are going to be a special place in 1994. The world's attention, the sporting fraternity, whatever you want to call it....

MR. LOENEN: Don't build a stadium.

MR. BLENCOE: Considering the source, I understand that statement.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please just address the Chair and ignore the others.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is an example where Victoria is going to be in a special situation. The case I make is that this is very important to the citizens of Victoria and to the citizens of British Columbia. The world's attention is going to be on us.

I think it is an embarrassment when people learn that the capital city of Victoria still pumps its raw sewage out there into the salt chuck and it washes back. We have beaches that aren't safe; we have coliform counts in certain neighbourhoods that are way above the limits. It has to end.

In 1994 the world is coming to Victoria. I think the major project for 1994 for the city of Victoria should be a full-blown sewage treatment plant, or a series of treatment plants, so we can then say that in the capital of British Columbia we have cleaned up our sewage pollution and once and for all we have a clean environment on our beaches.

MR. PERRY: I think the minister agrees completely with what was said, as do I.

I want to say that I listened very carefully to the minister's opening speech last week, and we agreed to correct the record with regard to Dr. Bert Brink. I wanted to begin by saying how nice it was to see Dr. Brink rehabilitated. I felt as if perhaps I were in the Soviet Union or in a latter-day China, because I remember that Bert Brink was one of the first appointees to the Agricultural Land Commission in 1972. I had known him briefly as a professor then. He was, by the way, a professor of range and plant science. He had his PhD in range science. I remember how excited I was when he was appointed, and how disappointed I was when he was canned in 1975, when the Social Credit government was elected. He was fired because he was doing such a good job. It's very nice to see him politically rehabilitated now; he certainly deserves it.

I want to just begin some remarks with a quotation: "We did not realize how big it was getting until it was all completely designed." That was not God speaking in the Bible about how she made the world. That was Milan Ilich speaking in the Vancouver Sun of today on page B6 describing a 22,000 square-foot home built on agricultural land in Richmond — an agricultural land reserve which had been in use for growing potatoes.

MR. BARNES: How many thousand?

MR. PERRY: It's a 22,000 square-foot home. He went on to say: "We went overboard. We started off saying we were going to build a smaller house."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member please relate this matter to the administrative responsibilities of this minister.

MR. PERRY: Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. That's a metaphor to describe the point I want to make, which is that really what we're voting on here is the minister's salary. I want to make the case that despite the mellifluous words we've heard from the minister almost as sweet as his piano music — in the last few days, what the public really sees when it looks around this province is a lack of leadership in the environment. I think we need to measure words against deeds.

We've heard some very good and sound observations from the minister over the last few days, but when we look at the state of the British Columbia environment, what do we see? Let me read you another quotation:

"I would like to tell you what a typical harvesting day consisted of. There was a minimum of 15 to 20 tons of potatoes per day, 600 to 700 cases of cauliflower per day, 500 to 600 cases of cabbage a day, 32 bins of turnips a day, 200 to 400 cases of cucumbers a day, and when it was good weather it could be as much as 800 to 1,000 a day."

This is from a woman named Cheryl Lum, who identified herself as the wife of the second-to-last farmer on Terra Nova before they were forced off the land, in a brief submitted on May 26, 1988 to the Richmond municipal council.

Let me quote you also a document that undoubtedly the minister will have seen in his role as chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee.

MR. R. FRASER: What has that got to do with environment?

MR. PERRY: I'll explain to the member for Vancouver South imminently how this relates to the environment if it's not obvious to anyone listening or reading these remarks.

Let me quote again from a letter from Ian Paton, a noted agrologist and chairman of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission, to the Minister of

[ Page 8257 ]

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), dated March 19, 1987. At page 5, I quote:

"Despite three decades of rapid urban growth there remains in Richmond some of the finest agricultural lands in both the provincial and national context. Few areas in the country provide the opportunities and attributes for soil-bound agriculture as are found in Richmond. This situation was probably best summed up during the public hearing held to consider the application, when a highly regarded soil scientist described the lands of the Terra Nova area of Richmond as being agriculturally 'the very best we have'."

Let me read on:

"The commission fully concurs with the report on agriculture completed on behalf of Richmond when it states that 'any further significant use, impact or conversion will irreversibly impair the ability of agriculture to coexist as a healthy parallel community to the urban component.' The commission, therefore, considers the decisions made regarding this application to have far broader implications on Richmond's agricultural land base than the individual areas under consideration."

He was referring to an application to withdraw land from the agricultural land reserve.

Let me quote the summary of that letter from Mr. Ian Paton to the Minister of Agriculture:

"By way of summary, the vast majority of this input related to the Terra Nova area and largely supported the land's continued designation in the ALR. It might be added that the magnitude of public input related to this application is greater than that received on any application considered during the nearly 15-year history of the commission."

[5:30]

Finally, in an appendix to that document, at page 18 of a report regarding the Richmond block application and recommendations of the Agricultural Land Commission, the conclusion of the commission:

"Today and for the past three decades the agricultural land base of Richmond has been under intense urban pressure. This will only continue into the foreseeable future if the land management directions given by both local government and provincial authorities do not enunciate a clear political will to preserve this important agricultural landscape coupled with an approach to urban land use planning that regards agriculture as the end use of ALR lands and not as a landbank awaiting the next row of houses.

"The commission considers the decisions regarding this application to go beyond each area under application. The exclusion of land from the ALR with the quality of Terra Nova" — which, I parenthetically add, they described as among the best agricultural land in Canada — "will undoubtedly have a detrimental long-term impact on agricultural land preservation. If a firm commitment is not made now to support agriculture by decision-makers at all levels, a message will be received by the community that agricultural land in Richmond is an expendable resource."

I read into that that a message will be received at large in British Columbia that agricultural land is an expendable resource, and that's what we've seen, I submit.

I want to ask the minister: if that is not a breach of his responsibilities as the single most important spokesman for the environment in British Columbia, to have allowed that land in Terra Nova to be withdrawn from the agricultural reserve, what would be?

Let me just close with a series of questions for the minister, so that I don't excessively impinge on the time of my colleague the environment critic. My colleague is going to develop a similar theme with respect to the lands imminently under the gun in the Spetifore and adjoining lands in Delta, in which we see, for the first time in my awareness of British Columbia history and perhaps in Canadian history, a plebiscite to protect the environment organized by the citizens and in which more than 1,400 people have already voted in an advance poll yesterday. I regard this as a historic and remarkable event in Canadian history, something that the Brundtland report, Our Common Future, speaks of as the need for public leadership from the people.

Let me ask the minister a series of questions, and perhaps he will think about these over the next year rather than necessarily answer them all today. The first is: what really is the environment? Is it something external that we can continue to talk about — as Barbara Ward said years ago, "Talk about and never actually do anything to protect" — or is it really something in which we live and on which we all depend?

Second: are there any limits to growth in British Columbia? Are there any limits on population, on the consumption of energy, on resource consumption, on the generation of pollutants such as dioxins, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen which my colleague from Burnaby spoke about so eloquently earlier today? Is there any limit to the amount of carbon dioxide we can release into the earth's atmosphere or the amount of ozone we may deplete from the stratosphere? If he doesn't think there are limits to growth in these areas, I suggest he's way out of step with the body of scientific opinion that even the Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher, has lately recognized.

A third question: is it good to continue to subsidize rampant and wasteful consumption of energy — for example, in the private automobile to which virtually all of our transportation network is tuned? We now see the abandonment of Via Rail and the expansion of airports and highways, and no serious attempt in this province to control the automobile, to promote the bicycle or even to control pollution by automobiles. Is it good to subsidize energy consumption in the way that the new gas pipeline act will do? We'll subsidize an uneconomical project and force companies to buy gas which they don't want to buy, because it's not even economical for them. Is that a wise measure? Were he a federal minister, would he promote Hibernia as well?

Is it wise to continue — as one final example — the emphasis on this gross distortion of Marshall McLuhan's concept of a global village? I've heard this term abused over and over again in the last few

[ Page 8258 ]

months. The global village that Marshall McLuhan spoke of was not the world coming to live in the lower mainland of British Columbia. The global village was the concept that all people around the world are linked by modern telecommunications and therefore do not need to live in the same place to know each other. The direct implication of that concept for development is that high-tech industries and modern industries and businesses do not all need to be located in the downtown core of Vancouver, where they will generate more commuting, more pollution and more alienation from the land.

I think those are serious questions. I'm sure the minister would like to answer them. I would ask him to consider also that I've gone into my colleague's time, and I hope he will reserve a few minutes for him before 6 o'clock.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will be brief, but the member made some very thoughtful observations. I think all of the questions that you have posed to me can be answered in the affirmative, to your satisfaction. I think the record of my administration backs that up. If you look at the budget initiatives and the legislation, you will see clearly that I endorse your concern and have acted to address the concerns that you have raised.

I have one technical question. You seem to be concerned about the gas pipeline. That is an environmentally sound project, and I don't see why anyone who is concerned about the care of the environment would be opposed to that. I'm not talking about routing, because that's a different question and is under a commission hearing at this point. But I am talking about the end result. Natural gas is far cleaner — in terms of emissions into the air — than any type of crude oil, no matter how low the sulphur. Secondly, natural gas avoids tanker traffic. So I would have to discard any suggestion that a gas pipeline to Vancouver is not environmentally sound.

The member has said, "I'll give you a year to think about this," and I do appreciate that. Let me, in general response, say to him that he's raised some valid concerns. I think a careful examination of this administration will show that we have recognized those concerns, and we have recognized them for some time. Every action we have taken legislatively, by regulation or by budget submission has been to answer and address those concerns that face us as we recognize the care and protection we must afford our environment.

MR. CASHORE: I want to continue on the theme of some of the comments my colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) was making, and move into the area of Boundary Bay. Just to reaffirm the areas of jurisdiction that the Ministry of Environment has as the agent for the provincial government in these areas, it has responsibility for all migratory and non-migratory birds not covered by the federal act, including birds of prey and game birds under the provincial Wildlife Act. Under the same act, the minister can establish wildlife management areas over land under his administration: that is, Crown land assigned to him or land which he has acquired rights to. And the minister can also enter into an agreement with a person, association or other body for the protection or management of wildlife.

Under the Environment Management Act, as we discussed in question period several weeks ago, the minister's powers include planning; research and investigation; the development of policy, strategies, objectives and standards; and undertaking works respecting management, protection, enhancement and use of the environment. They also include the preparation of environmental management plans respecting a number of aspects, including wildlife management of specific areas of the province.

There are other areas where provincial powers are far-reaching as well. Where a person proposes to do anything that would have a detrimental environmental impact, under this same act the minister can require that an environmental impact assessment be done by the person; and/or after making a declaration concerning such impact, he can make an interim order restriction modifying or prohibiting the work or requiring additional action for a period of 15 days, and so forth.

As the previous speaker indicated, there's an article in the Vancouver Sun tonight that 10 percent of the eligible voters have actually cast a ballot in an advance poll expressing their opinion on this issue. Those votes haven't been counted, so I can't stand here and say that there have been 1,500 votes that have supported the citizens' groups. But I think we can assume that they would be predominantly in that direction. Certainly this has been a marvellous thing, the groups of citizens out in Delta who have gathered together to express their democratic rights and opinion.

One of the things that I said when speaking to that group a week or so ago was that if anything good can be said about this whole long series of very tense struggles between the people who want to save the Spetifore lands and those who want to develop it, it's that the citizens' group has united people across boundary lines that would traditionally separate them. They are people of no one political party, no one faith, no one standard of living. They are people who have come together around an issue and, in the best traditions of Brundtland, are representing that emerging feeling among the citizenry that it wants to have a say in what happens to its landscape, its commons, its ecology.

I am sure that the minister has received a great many submissions from people in that area, as I have too, and I have asked these people to give me some of their background information. They have sent along a copy of a proposal, which has gone to the provincial government, for a four-stage integrated resource planning process for the Boundary Bay area.

In concert with the people there, I think that the Minister of Environment has a tremendous opportunity to bring some resolution and a very worthwhile result which would recognize all the values being expressed there: the values of people who need a

[ Page 8259 ]

place to live, the values of the wildlife, the values of farming, the recreation values — golf courses, etc. — and also the values of wilderness preservation.

I have a series of very brief questions that I would like to put to the minister if time permits. The first one is: has the minister decided to move his government toward taking its approval to the federal government to have Boundary Bay declared a Ramsar site. In asking that question, it's my understanding that the federal government proposes such designation but that they would require the province's approval in order to be able to have that designation as a Ramsar site declared for the area. So my question is: has the minister decided to move his government towards this kind of designation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, the member knows — by virtue of a letter I sent to him on June 14, if I'm not mistaken — my general position on this. In my letter, and, Mr. Chairman, to the committee, I explain what Delta is doing and the environmental work they're doing. And I've spoken to their consultant with respect to Delta city council's initiatives. But Delta city council is responsible for answering those questions.

Now with respect to what we're doing, and to get to the Ramsar question, it's entirely in keeping with the Fraser River estuary management plan, in terms of proposed conservation zones, and it's entirely in keeping with this ministry's management plans that that's the Ramsar site.

[5:45]

We are in the process now of acquiring some private holdings, and we're working with the Ministry of Crown Lands on this issue. I can tell you that we have some serious concerns being expressed, as we look at the protection of wetlands, by the agricultural community, because there can be significant loss from wildlife to the agricultural community. So it's not just an easy protect-the-ducks, save-the-wetlands situation. There are a lot of other interests out there, so one has to accept that pressure. We talk about preservation of agricultural land, and we all see that as being a good thing. But if a farmer has a crop ruined because of wildlife activity, then there's not much point in saving that agricultural land. I'm not trying to use that as a cop-out; I'm trying to genuinely explain some of the concerns that come to us from the various communities. But I can assure you that Ramsar designation, that wetland designation, is my priority. As the Minister of Environment, I have to continue that tack. I am saying it publicly now. I have said the same thing in cabinet. I have said it to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Savage), and I have said it to my other colleagues. I will pursue the Ramsar designation; you have my assurance on that.

I hope I've been able to answer your question on that issue.

MR. CASHORE: I certainly don't see it as a cop-out. As a matter of fact, the problem that the minister outlines is an indication of the incredible pressure on that area for a wide variety of uses, including food production. That being the case, it intensifies the pressure on the minister to try to get this process underway so that the global planning can be done. The little sectional parts of that total planning can then be put into place, and people who need to develop housing can know exactly what they're dealing with, people in farming can know what they're dealing with, etc.

Having said that, I do know that the people who are very concerned about the wetlands and about the diminishing feeding areas for the birds that inhabit the area are really hoping the farms that those birds have had to turn to for their sustenance will somehow be included within the Ramsar designation. I don't expect the minister is able to commit himself to that at this time, but given what he has just said, I would believe he's going to be working hard on that.

I would like to ask the minister if any other Crown lands in the area around Boundary Bay are being considered for inclusion in that Ramsar designation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are some greenbelt properties in the care of the Crown Lands ministry, and we are looking at those now. That's as far as I can go on that issue. There is a wildlife viewing area in place down there on Crown land as well. I can't make any further commitments to you with respect to property acquisitions at this point, Mr. Member, not in all truthfulness.

MR. CASHORE: I believe the minister has received a copy of the proposal from the proposal from the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee. It's a proposal for a four-stage integrated resource planning process for the Boundary Bay area. As we canvassed with the minister in the House a few weeks ago.... The Delta council was in the process of approving — I believe it was — two golf courses, and I think there is a further one still under review. At least two golf courses have been approved, if I recall correctly. At that time the minister stated that if the Delta council was to ask the ministry for support in conducting a study, discussions toward that end would certainly be entered into.

I would like to ask the minister — given his powers under the Environment Management Act — if he feels that this is an opportunity for him along the lines of the proposal for a four-stage integrated resource planning process.... Would this not be an appropriate time for this minister to take the initiative and institute such a study, before there is further erosion of the components that need to be considered, so that the ecology of that area is protected with a view to all the values to be considered?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me tell you where I am officially here. I don't know if you are in receipt of a letter that the corporation of Delta sent to the ministry. They presented the following motion, which was carried at the May 1, 1989, meeting.

The motion reads: "That the federal and provincial Ministries of Environment, the Canadian Wildlife

[ Page 8260 ]

Service and the Ministry of Agriculture be contacted to request a general environmental impact assessment of the Boundary Bay foreshore and delta, including lands inside and adjacent to the sea dike from 64th Street from south to east to the Surrey border, and further that the respective government agencies be requested to contribute financially. Finally that copies of the correspondence from the Ministry of Environment be forwarded to Delta's Members of the Legislative Assembly and Member of Parliament who request a commentary."

That is the motion, and I can tell you that my position is generally in support of that request. We are beginning discussions with the Canadian Wildlife Service with respect to that motion. That is as much as I can officially say to you right now. We have responded to that motion generally in positive terms.

MR. CASHORE: I would just like to read into the record what the proposal is from the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee with regard to the kind of study they would like to see.

The reasons they have put this forward are that the area is both a farming unit and an ecological unit. The farmers have indicated that any loss of farmland in this area could affect the continued viability of farming. Also, in order to identify the relative importance of various portions of the area for migratory birds and any potential flexibility in the system, more than the core critical portion must be assessed, and to develop an adequate recreation and tourism strategy for Delta and Surrey and to properly assess the location and impact of the golf courses in the area, baseline information for the whole area is essential.

There are four phases that they recommend: (1) that there be a temporary moratorium; (2) that there would be the study, which would deal with the wildlife component, the agriculture component, the recreation and tourism components; (3) there would land use and management plans and policies developed; and (4) implementation. I think we have there a well-thought-out proposal.

I would encourage the minister, given that we haven't seen an indication from the Delta council that it's willing to place a moratorium on development, given the Spetifore lands and the other lands in the area, that it would be very worthwhile for this ministry at this time to take charge of the situation and ensure that the entire area is subject to an appropriate assessment.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks.

Vote 55 approved.

Vote 56: ministry operations, $117,830,074 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, by agreement we will hold vote 57 over until Monday. Having said that, I move the committee rise and report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 67.

SCHOOL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

On section 18.

MS. A. HAGEN: Last night we had an opportunity to discuss this clause at considerable length. It is an important clause in the bill. I want to take a brief moment at the start of our discussions tonight to make a few concluding statements.

Before I do, Mr. Chairman, I might note for the relatively few members of the House who are here at this dinnertime that we covered last night some very significant new sections of the bill, ones that dealt with rights and entitlements that have, prior to this time, not been included in the bill. We had an opportunity to discuss them at some length. I anticipate that this evening we will be able to move forward through this quite lengthy bill. There are some clauses that we want to spend considerable time in discussion with the minister on, but there will be fairly rapid progress through the bill as we concentrate on some fairly specific sections that are fundamental.

With that, let me pick up on section 18, which we were debating at adjournment last night at 12. This clause, for those who may be picking up Hansard at this time, is about teachers' assistants. It's a very short clause that singles out a particular group of employees for identification and specification, in terms of how they will work within the school system.

I want to repeat briefly the argument that we made last night. In this clause we establish the only discrete classification of employee within the school district, other than those people who are teachers, administrative officers and officials of the board. We establish that classification in spite of the fact that in the very first section there is a broad enabling clause which empowers the board to employ and be responsible for the management of any persons it believes to be essential to the provision of services and programs within the district.

[6:00]

In fact, at the end of the session last night, it was interesting that the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), whose district is quite far-flung — it includes a very large city, the city of Kamloops, and many communities — spoke about the diversity of staff presently in place in his school district. He noted programs, for instance, in forestry and logging, and

[ Page 8261 ]

the fact that people with special qualifications are involved in those programs under the current act.

In our view, we are looking at powers that exist very adequately and operationally in the schools of the province at the present time. We believe that this clause is an unnecessary addition to the act and that it may be used in ways that are not defined but would cause concern. Teaching assistants may be used as a means of alleviating teacher shortages, as a class of employee that would extend or expand the services of professional teachers in a time of teacher shortage. If that were to be a need, I think we should address it specifically when the time arises and with parameters that would deal with the situation. I think our opposition to the clause has been well defined. We will, at this stage, be prepared to see the clause receive the attention of the House through the usual processes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd just like to respond very briefly. The member says that this singles out teachers. Each of the categories — superintendents, assistant superintendents — are singled out in their own sections. The connotation is somehow that the teachers are being singled out. We said that this clause had to be specific in order to ensure a couple of things. The type of expertise to expand the learning opportunities for students as indicated in the Sullivan report requires the ability for these people to assist teachers. By making it specific, it also ensures that these people must operate only to assist teachers under the supervision of teachers. Of course, I include administrative officers as teachers, because they also have to belong to the college and have a teaching certificate. They must be professional teachers before they can assume any of those positions. I have indicated several times that section 19 ensures that these people cannot be used to replace teachers; they can only be used to assist teachers.

I know that our attempt at dealing with the teacher shortage has come up on several occasions The member must be aware, although she makes no mention of it, that we have gone out of our way to deal with the teacher shortage in another way: that is, we have provided more money to the universities. We are trying to get more programs out to where the people might be. We have assured the continuance and the increase in the Alaska Highway teacher-training program, and many people are studying how it can be done in other parts of the province. We have targeted an increase in the teacher supply of 600 teachers a year, beyond what the institutions are turning out now. So we're dealing with the teacher shortage in a proper way, not in this backhanded way, despite the allegations that we might have that in mind.

MS. MARZARI: Once again the minister has offered us assurances that section 18 really is simply an attempt to inject a few assistants into the school systems to help teachers. But the minister must be aware of the context into which he injects this clause and these assistants, a situation in which teachers for some years now — the last six years at least — have been cut back, have seen their school systems demoralized, have watched the terrible deterioration of our elementary and secondary systems in this province. You have seen this; you have lived through it. You developed and created Bill 20, which put the teaching profession through terrors, professionally and personally, for many people involved with watching their organization being ripped apart and then Put back together again.

Parents and teachers whom I have talked to about this bill and about the results of the Sullivan commission leading to this bill have wanted, as I said yesterday, to accept wholeheartedly the spirit and intent of a broader, more expansive, more caring, more competent school system for our province. They have looked to words in the Sullivan commission that gave them some hope. They have looked to the bill and to statements by the minister in the last six months that gave them some reason to think there was light at the end of the tunnel. Yet when we are faced with section 18 and some companion sections in this bill, the fears and the trepidations come back. They find themselves wondering, and I with them, about the placing and positioning and wording of this particular section.

It has been suggested that this section could be handled by section 15. The Attorney-General rose last night at 11:30 to say section 18 gave him assurances there would be good teaching assistants, but then every reason he gave as to why 18 gave him assurance could be amply covered by sections 15(l) and 19.

The fears and trepidations come from the fear of increased centralization, decision-making coming from the top, decision-making coming through order of the minister; a new category of decision-making which can now occur at the top; concern that there will be new decisions made about class sizes; concerns of the worst possible scenario — a teacher with four assistants handling 60 or 80 kids; an assumption that perhaps a school or a section of a school need have only one professional teacher, that assistants can cover the rest.

They have watched, as I have watched, this province get involved with not only centralization of decision-making but also an eroding of professional standards. We have watched that in terms of licensed practical nurses very often being replaced by activity aides now, a much lesser category of work and job. They have watched other professions being assailed on all sides by assistants, by lesser categories of training and people taking their places. So they are concerned about centralization. They are concerned about an eroding of professional standards. They are concerned about contracting-out.

I see section 18 having two companions. I see section 104 playing into this, as they do — the possibility of school boards contracting out for employees and for professional services. And they see section 26 as being a companion piece to this. Section 26(2)(c) basically says that there shouldn't be included in an agreement between a board and an association any provision that would limit a board's

[ Page 8262 ]

power to employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in the carrying out of their responsibilities. I see the companions to section 18 in 26 and in 104, and this is not lost on teachers and on parents in the community that are concerned. If he really means what he says, if he really wants to provide assurances to the community — to the community of the profession and to the community of concerned parents — then some reworking of this section might be done in order to put these assistants, who are there to help teachers, in a better context, in a better light.

Legislation always has to be read in terms of the worst-case scenario, as laws are often written that way. Perhaps the minister might want to make the rhetoric match the actuality and rephrase and reword some of these sections so that the concerns about centralization of decision-making, eroding of professional standards and contracting out and privatization of services won't occur.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly wish I could get that member's rhetoric to match the actuality that is in this legislation. She refers to section 104, and very carefully reads the first part of it, and then very carefully omits the second part. They can contract out services that must be under the supervision of a member of the college or a teacher. We built in those securities.

I cannot, I guess, in any way convince that member. Last night I made the statement that I don't think I can change your mind because your mind is made up. That was interpreted then by somebody as: "The minister says he can't answer our questions." I have answered the question repeatedly and the assurances are built in.

I have talked repeatedly about acknowledging the importance of the professional teacher in the education system, because I happen to believe in that. We've tried to make that assurance. I've also said that I don't think a professional teacher has any reservations about getting assistance from someone who has an expertise that they may not have at their fingertips. This is about providing that type of thing. Again, I would recommend to the member that if you are going to read a section, then read the whole statement, rather than reading it in order to create a dragon that does not exist.

In actuality, this act very clearly spells out that these people are to assist teachers. There are safeguards in there so that you can't take somebody and put them in to replace a teacher. The dragon or dinosaur you're trying to create is that technically you could take an administrative officer who is a professional teacher and have that administrative officer supervise a whole bunch of people. Somebody made the example that you could have an administrative officer and you could hire a bunch of non-professional teachers to teach in the classrooms under the supervision of that administrative officer. The act clearly says that these people can only operate and assist teachers under the supervision of the professional teacher in the classroom.

We're trying to help the students. We're doing this for the students, and it does not harm the teachers, despite the erroneous impression that you try to create out there. This does not harm teachers; this will assist teachers in carrying out the job that they want to do. I cannot convince you, because you say I've got a mind-set, and then you selectively take out of the wording the part that supports the mind-set you started out with.

I don't think I can ever change that. The system will acknowledge that you are wrong. I can remember when we discussed Bill 20. It was going to destroy the teaching profession, and it was going to do all of those horrible things. It hasn't happened. But when we discussed Bill 20 — wasn't it something? — time and again we were told this is the end of public school education and the end of professional teaching. It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now that you choose to interpret it in this way.

Our goal is to give professional teachers autonomy for the guidance of learning activities. It takes a professional teacher to make those judgments about individual pupils' progress. I would hardly expect that other people could do this. It takes a trained teacher to interpret the indicators of progress. That's what it takes, and therefore they will be essential, and even more essential than in the past. We are trying to make their jobs more professional and provide them with the right and the boards to hire someone to assist them — under their supervision — for the benefit of the students.

I don't know how many times I can repeat that. I think the member has made up her mind that there is something wrong. Despite what it says and the assurances built into the wording, the decision is: "It's got to be wrong, so if I leave out the odd word, then I can support the theory that I've started out with."

[6:15]

I don't know how many times I can repeat this: our interest is in the professional teacher and the protection and the support for that professional teacher to do a better job of allowing students to earn.

Section 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

[ Page 8263 ]

NAYS — 15

On section 19.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 19(2)(b) refers to a general interest course not leading to school graduation. I wonder if the minister could explain to me what he anticipates would be defined as a general interest course not leading to school graduation. I would also like to ask him to whom he would expect these courses would be taught — what age of students.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't possibly anticipate all of the types of courses that may be taught, because there will be the possibility of locally developed courses, But this is not something new. Suppose there is a hunter safety program that students want to take. A person could be employed for that. I think it provides here, as part of the educational program, that generally that's the sort of course not leading to graduation.

However, boards can, in another section of the act, allow credit for a course. Let's say a student is a competitive swimmer. It may be possible in the future that someone consider this person, or someone who is a national speed-skating champion.... That could be considered as credit for the phys-ed course to allow them to take something else. Those are the types of courses that I can think of. It's a general interest course not leading to school graduation; therefore it is not a course that boards are required to provide as part of the educational program, but it may be there in the best interests of the students.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: These would not necessarily be teachers, as they have not necessarily been qualified teachers in the past.

MS. EDWARDS: I think I am getting a somewhat contradictory answer. I thought that this said a course not leading to school graduation. My question was: who would be the students? Would they be the regular students of the K to 12, or is the minister talking here about adult education courses, the courses that happen at night school and so on, which, as I understand, the school districts are out of?

He says that they could refer to a swimming instructor for a swimming course that might be given credit. If that were a credit course, then I assume it would lead to school graduation. I might also suggest that I know some school districts who give credit for music courses in which a student who takes a particular grade in royal conservatory music exams is given credit for graduation.

Perhaps the minister could explain, because it seems to go both ways. You are talking about somebody without training giving a course that leads to graduation and also giving a course that does not lead to graduation. I don't know if the minister is clear here what he means by his legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The examples I gave were not courses necessarily leading to graduation. I said in another section of the act, about a person who takes the course, that the board is not required to provide the funding or the teaching for it — not necessarily required. Let's say that a student who is taking a fine arts program is taking piano lessons and has his or her conservatory 8 ticket on the piano. I think it's quite conceivable that a board might consider that as credit towards graduation.

I don't know whether that would qualify as a general interest course. I mentioned the CORE program, which has taught gun-handling and that sort of thing because it was a requirement, and much of that was done in schools. Driver education has been taught in schools in the past. I guess the definition of a course.... I think it would be more applicable, as that member indicated, to the type of general interest course that we now know as adult education or night school. Or let's say that a board decided that it was important, even though it was not part of the graduation program, that students should have first-aid training. If that would allow a person with first-aid qualifications to teach the course, I have every confidence that the board would not check out that person's qualifications to teach first aid. There are many first-aid instructors out there. It may not be part of the program; it could be classed as a general interest course, and it would allow the board to pay this person to teach first aid to the students, as it sees fit.

I don't know whether we can predict every possible scenario that might or might not be included, but I think that the teachers, the schools and the boards can work out whether it's a general interest course. If it is a course towards graduation, then, of course, it requires a qualified teacher.

MS. EDWARDS: I guess the question that remains is that if the board does decide to give a student credit for such things as a royal conservatory exam in music.... I use that example because it's very clear to me; it's perhaps clearer than first-aid courses. But even if a first-aid course were allowed as a credit for graduation, this clause wouldn't cover it. I am curious to know, first of all, if that kind of thing is covered somewhere else, and if this is here, is it just for the kind of thing that might be useful to a student, such as a first-aid or driver education course, which doesn't contribute to his or her credits for graduation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry. I guess I've confused the member by expanding into other examples. Here it very clearly says that people can teach a general interest course that does not lead to gradua-

[ Page 8264 ]

tion. I was using other examples. In this case it's clear, and I am sorry if I have confused the member by expanding into other areas that I know about. It says right here: "...that is not leading to school graduation."

MS. EDWARDS: My question, then, comes from not having everything together right at the moment. Is there a place for a course leading to graduation to be taught by someone without teacher qualifications?

[6:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. There is a provision for that in another section, and I don't have it memorized. I can't think of a course that would be without someone with teacher qualifications. It's in the definition of "course." If first aid is taught by someone as an extra for the benefit of students, is that a course or not? That's why I am having some difficulty as to what is and isn't a course.

It clearly spells out here that this one is not leading to school graduation. There is another section of the act where a board can recognize something that someone has learned somewhere else, and that is in full accord with the Sullivan report recommendations: that students don't have to learn everything that will benefit them, or that they know, within the walls of the school; there may be other opportunities where they learn as well, and it can be recognized. But under this section, no.

Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

MS. A. HAGEN: We are moving to a new section of the act now, one that deals with teachers' collective agreements with their boards. The clause that I want to deal with particularly is the one that introduces this section, called "Terms and conditions of teachers' employment."

I'd first of all like to ask the minister a general question about the implications of this clause. Is there anything in this clause that the minister knows will override any current collective agreements? When I talk about current collective agreements, I am of course considering those that came into place this spring. Is there anything in clause 26 that, to the minister's knowledge, will override what exists in current collective agreements between boards and their teachers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can honestly say: not to my knowledge. But then, there are some 75 agreements out there. I certainly don't know all of the details of every agreement. It depends on what's in the agreement. I'm working on the assumption that this is not a change from what was in Bill 20, the old School Act. If there was a section in the agreement that contravened the previous legislation, it's invalid anyway. I don't see anything new here that would invalidate something that was valid before.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, that's helpful. Like the minister, I wouldn't pretend to have knowledge of the 75 agreements, nor would I have knowledge of all of the specifications of the act and regulations which, as the minister has noted, would already have force in respect to those agreements that are negotiated.

Mr. Chairman, there is one new clause within this section. It's part of subsection (2), which says: "There shall not be included in an agreement between a board and an association or in a collective agreement any provision...." I'd like to go immediately to (c), which is new, because it relates to the clause that we were discussing at the start of committee stage tonight — the clause about teachers' assistants. It says that there shall not be included any provision "limiting a board's power to employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act and the regulations." I wonder if the minister could assist us, first of all, by providing the rationale for that particular clause.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Subsection (c) is new. I was looking at the whole section. We've just discussed section 18, haven't we? In section 18, boards may do that. This simply says that you can't, by a contractual agreement, nullify section 18.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, is there anything in this subsection that limits the right of teachers to have in the collective agreement any other clauses that might relate to the employment of teachers' assistants? This clause says that they may not limit the power of the board to employ such persons. Is there any other limitation that is implicit or that could be interpreted by the boards as a restriction on teachers' interests in this matter in collective bargaining?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I guess it's always a case of how it could possibly be interpreted. I rely on all of the effort that went into trying to make the wording as clear as possible. I'm trying to anticipate what sort of scenario that member might visualize when it says they can't limit a board's power to employ persons other than teachers. I guess I have to assume that, okay, in section 18 it has been established that a board may employ people "to assist teachers." You notice that the wording in this one is, again, "to assist teachers." So the terms and conditions in an agreement, even though it doesn't say you can't employ them, could be such that in effect they render section 18 completely invalid.

That's the only thing that I can anticipate it might have an effect on. If you are allowed to hire people to assist teachers, then you can't prevent that from happening in some other way. That's the intent here, and I think it's worded very carefully to ensure that that can't happen.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet, I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 8265 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to acknowledge the presence of Ken Novakowski, the newly elected president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who has joined us in the gallery this evening for this very important debate. I know their interest in this is very great. I would like the House to make Mr. Novakowski welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I join the minister in that welcome to Mr. Novakowski as a representative of the teachers of the province.

Could I ask the minister why it is necessary to have this clause?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe I just explained that: so that a contract can't nullify the effect of section 18 by specifying terms and conditions which render section 18 useless. Nice try. I think it is necessary in here. If you have the right to employ people to assist teachers, then we're just saying that it should not be possible to find some other way of preventing it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm quite puzzled about this. I guess we come back to the premises that we brought forward when we were dealing with teaching assistants, in that this was a named category of person. We are still talking about a group of employees that is treated as a very discrete group, distinct from all the other people within the system who work for children and assist teachers in that endeavour. I think the minister used terms that indicated the teachers' bargaining group couldn't bargain any terms and conditions that would prevent the employment of such persons. What kind of terms and conditions is he thinking of?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps the member might go back to what I did say when she asked whether anything was hidden in this, or something of that nature, and I said no. Then I tried to speculate on the possible way that a contract could nullify the ability of the board to hire people. Now you quote me and ask what other things I can speculate on. I guess I could speculate all night if you give me enough time to think up examples of what might or might not be.

I think it is fairly clear in the legislation that what it says and what it intends is to assist teachers. I don't know how many times I need to repeat it. The member said this is a specific class of employees. Of course it is. I have said repeatedly that it is a specific class of employees, very clearly defining what they may do and that they must operate under the supervision of the teacher. I guess you're trying to make a point that we have taken one group of people and given them specific limits and specific responsibilities. The answer is that of course we have, in order to ensure that when these people are in any way doing anything that can be construed as instructing students, it must be under the supervision of a professional teacher.

MS. A. HAGEN: In this clause that deals with limitations, if you like, on the scope of bargaining, I don't find reference to any other employees of the board where the teachers are prohibited from discussing limitations. I don't know what goes on around the bargaining table. The board has a right to manage. Teachers have a right to bargain working conditions. Those are the two fundamental principles that are there.

The minister has said over and over again: I trust the parties to do that in the best interests of the kids of the province and the districts and schools in which they work. I don't want to prolong this debate to any great length, but I will simply say that we oppose this particular clause. It again is inconsistent with the whole approach to the range of employees within the school district, and it places an artificial limit that is unjustified, in our view, in respect to the roles of the board and teachers. It is an unnecessary clause that again signals that this group of people is to be treated differently in some way, rather than to be a part of the broad support group that exists within the province.

There may be one or two other people who want to speak to it, but I would hope we would be able to move on fairly quickly. I will defer now to colleagues who may also want to speak on this issue.

MS. MARZARI: We have to rise on section 26 because it is so integral. Sections 18, 26, 104 and a few others are integral to this act.

The minister has said repeatedly that this is an enabling act; that this is going to empower teachers; that this is going to broaden the school system. But here we are on 26. You just spent half an hour convincing me, trying to change my mind on section 18. We then turn to section 26 and find your suspicion, your worst-case scenario — you're going from suspicions too — that teachers might resist these wonderful assistants that are coming into the school system. You are afraid that teachers will turn them down, turn them away at the door. You are suggesting that teachers will not want assistants, that they who have been labouring with classes upwards of 30, 35, sometimes 40 children, are going to turn away these assistants that you claim are necessary to the system, and that you claim that teachers claim are necessary to the system.

[6:45]

Now you are throwing a clause in here which makes me doubt you, Mr. Minister. It makes me doubt the spirit of your intent when you are in effect putting in a clause to prevent teachers from protesting the assistants coming into their system, when you've just told me that they will be welcoming with open arms non-threatening assistants coming into the school system. Now you're putting a clause in here that basically prevents the teachers from complaining about people who might be coming in and literally threatening professional standards.

[ Page 8266 ]

We can go on. There are other clauses in here — (a) and (b). Section 2(a) and (b) suggests certain provisions, for example, in the Vancouver School Board contract, where a hard-fought-for clause regulates class size. I read into 2(a) and (b) that such things as class size will no longer be negotiable in a school board between teachers and boards, that standards and quality of teaching techniques and class size — which the Sullivan commission recognizes is a very important element in a professional relationship between teacher and student — will not be included in future contracts. Regulating selection of appointment of teachers under this act, courses of study, program of studies, methods and techniques employed by a teacher — these are all things which will no longer be negotiable? That's what you're suggesting.

In item (c), of course, assistants will not be negotiable. Teachers won't be able to talk about not allowing assistants to come into their school systems. Do you not see the restrictions on bargaining? Do you not see how the scope is tightening rather than expanding? Do you not see that you have been saying one thing, yet the words on paper seem to be saying quite the opposite?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose it's difficult to explain this when the member refuses to read what it actually says and refuses to accept what it actually states in here.

Perhaps I'll try to help the member. Section 2(a) is the protection of the professional autonomy of the teacher in the classroom, because not even a union agreement may tell the teacher what professional methods and techniques that teacher may employ: in other words, how to teach. That's assuring professional autonomy in the classroom.

Section (b) states that a union agreement cannot stop the board from assigning a vice-principal the right to teach in the classroom. You have to remember that this was in this act. The only one that's new in here is (c). It was in there, and it was to assure that since a vice-principal or principal must be a professional teacher, but are not union members.... That's why it was put into Bill 20. A union contract could say: "Unless you are a union member, you're not allowed to teach children." Here is a professionally qualified person who is a half-time vice-principal and a half-time teacher, so we say that right must be preserved. That's what (b) says: the right of a teacher to teach, even if he happens to be a vice-principal.

Section (c) says what I have tried to explain over and over again. I don't have any concern about teachers resisting. I don't know how you interpret that a teacher would resist assistants coming into the classroom. Therefore we're saying that not even a union agreement can stop that teacher from taking that assistance in the classroom, if it's available for board employees. Someone has expertise, and the teacher says: "I want you to come into the classroom and explain this to my students." But a union agreement could say: "Oh no, he can't come in there and talk to the kids; he can only come in and look."

I'm being a bit facetious, but surely you must see the point.

MS. A. HAGEN: No, we do not see the point. At this point I would like to move an amendment to clause 26: namely, that we delete clause 2(c).

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In view of the discussion that we've just had, and having defended it, explained it and shown how it actually protects the professional autonomy of the classroom teacher, you now want me to delete the thing. I can't accept that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 26 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 36.,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by striking out ", a disciplinary" and substituting "or other disciplinary", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by striking out ", disciplinary" and substituting "or other disciplinary".]

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

On section 37.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 37.,

(a) in the proposed subsection (4)(a) by striking out ", disciplinary" and substituting "or other disciplinary", and

(b) in the proposed subsection (9)(a) by striking out "disciplinary" wherever it occurs and substituting "other disciplinary".]

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to make a very brief comment on section 57 and to welcome this clause in the act. I think the members from Nanaimo welcome this clause in the act as well. Although its title is "Disqualification," what it does is remove, by virtue of a similar clause in the earlier act, a possible limitation on many people figuring out whether they have the right to stand for election for office by their peers. There still are some limits which I think we acknowledge to be reasonable limits in a democratic society. What the minister and the drafters of the act

[ Page 8267 ]

have done is say that anyone subject to a relatively reasonable group of qualifications may stand for election by their peers. We will be discussing what happens after they are elected under a conflict-of-interest clause that has given us pause and a great deal of concern. We will have an opportunity to discuss that particular clause in a moment. I just want to acknowledge that we have particularly noted this clause as an improvement in that whole business of entitling people to run and encouraging people to stand for public office as school trustees.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It might be helpful if I just commented briefly at this point that we knew this was a contentious issue — qualification and conflict of interest. There's certainly a lot of interest in it. We've reviewed the legislation in other provinces and, of course, the Human Rights Act, the constitution — all that we could: what we had, what other jurisdictions had, what the Municipal Act has. The final outcome was that we tried to separate and parallel. We've separated the qualifications to run for office from conflict of interest. I think we've accomplished that in this section. I agree with the member that this is a considerable improvement. We've tried to simplify it and make clear the distinction between qualification to run for office and conflict of interest — which we will be discussing, I'm sure, in later sections.

MR. LOVICK: Indeed, we shall be discussing that other section. On this section, I just want to offer a couple of brief observations to the minister. When I listen to the minister and look at this particular change, I'm reminded of the peace of the Lord that passeth all understanding. It seems to me that here we have a classic manifestation of giving with the one hand and taking away with the other. That's precisely, I think, what happens as a result of redrawing the legislation — not so much in section 57, but rather in what happens later with the new conflict-of-interest legislation that's sketched out.

We commend the fact that the existing section 59(d) is taken away. That was retrograde and it had no business there. We're delighted that has happened. I'm glad the minister has got some advice from civil libertarians, Charter advocates and others, who I'm sure recognized the peril of keeping that particular clause in. It's obviously an invitation to litigation. We're pleased with that.

The problem, however — and as I say, we'll have occasion to discuss this when we look at the conflict of interest — is that we've simply gone a circuitous end-run route to achieving exactly the same thing. I fear that the conflict-of-interest legislation that we have before us in a later section of the bill, part 5, will do exactly what this does, exactly what the section we have thrown out does or did.

It seems to me that there's something tragically wrong in the legislation, insofar as we want on the one hand to take some pride in the fact that we modified the disqualification section.... And again I'm willing to commend the minister for that, but then we put it back in a way that is a little bit, dare I say, devious, because it makes it extremely difficult for anybody who happens to fall into the old category of 59(d) to stand for office, knowing full well that he or she is about to be challenged as a matter of course on every decision he or she happens to make to do with the activities of the school board.

So I guess all I'm doing is giving the minister notice that, yes, I have some concerns about the conflict-of-interest section. I don't think it is nearly as commendable as one had hoped it might have been.

[7:00]

Sections 57 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, because I'm not quite sure under which particular section of this division on qualifications of electors to ask this question, I'd like to just do it under the general section, and the minister, I hope, will be able to respond.

There is a group of people who live within our province in areas that do not fall under the municipal regional district or unorganized rural district. Those are the native people who live on reserve lands. I am not clear about the status, the qualification, of those people in respect to them being registered to vote for school trustees in their districts. I know that there are a whole range of complex arrangements around how the schools in native communities are funded. I know a number of the native communities have their own school districts, or run their own schools. I know that in other instances the schools come under the umbrella of the school district; I can think of Prince Rupert. I'm sure the minister may know...

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Terrace.

...some of these areas better than I. But what is the status of native people who live on reserve? How may they in fact exercise their right to vote for trustees? What are the limits on their right to be registered and to vote for trustees?

I don't know where to find it here, or how to dig that out, but it surely needs to be addressed in respect to this section.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Our references here to qualifications of electors are to the Municipal Act. We have checked it, Native people can register in one of three ways: they can register in a municipality and vote; they may register with a regional district and vote; or, failing that, as a rural resident they can register with the secretary-treasurer and have the right to vote.

MS. A. HAGEN: So absolutely there is no native person who lives within the province of British Columbia who doesn't have the right to vote for

[ Page 8268 ]

school trustees within the boundaries of the school district in which that native person lives?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman. The only ones would be people who might be excluded under the Municipal Act for anybody. It's no different for the native people. Aren't there somewhere...? A person who is mentally ill may not vote. So when you ask if there is any native who can't vote, the answer is only where it parallels a situation where some other citizen can't vote. Other than that, the answer is yes.

MS. A. HAGEN: If someone were responding to a native person who asks that question, it would be as an elector in a municipality, as an elector in a regional district, or as an elector not in a regional district. Those clauses are the ones, then, that in fact provide that entitlement.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But they must register.

MS. A. HAGEN: I understand that there's a need for them to register. But in any one of those three categories, then, they will find a means by which they may register, providing they meet the general qualifications of being eligible in terms of their personal capacity. Okay, thank you.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite willing to confirm what I've already described.

Sections 60 to 73 inclusive approved.

On section 74.

MS. A. HAGEN: There appears to be some possible consideration in the act and regulations around the redefining of school districts: amalgamations, creation of new districts, and so on. Perhaps this gives me an opportunity to raise a question. Could the minister give me an indication just in a general way of whether there are any new clauses in this bill that relate to the reorganization of school districts: that is, the adding of new school districts, the dividing of school districts and the amalgamation of school districts?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: This section about the creation or changing of districts is not new. I think the last sentence may be a clarification that we got after legal advice, in that it has always been the case that if a new district was created.... Say a district was split. It's always been in the act that the assumption was that trustees could be appointed temporarily or elected. But I don't think it was clear what would happen to the existing trustees. It was assumed that if you split a district and created two new boards.... It was not very clear that in effect the old board never existed. It was an assumption, and I think it's clarified in this that if in fact you do any of these things, you have to deal with what happens to the existing board. I think that is really a clarification. It's the only change I can think of.

MS. A. HAGEN: This actually encompasses a question I intended to ask on section 40, and neglected to ask, around the issue of the appointment or the election of trustees for a first board. Could the minister indicate what his preference would be in respect to how the first trustees get to be trustees — whether he would be inclined to always move to an election or, in that first board, to appoint — and any reasons he might have for either bias?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I carefully try to defend what the act says, not what I think. But in this case, since the member asked, my preference would definitely be for an election. But I don't want to preclude the fact that if an election can't take place, something could happen in the interval. Therefore the right to appoint....

MS. A. HAGEN: Implicit in that, is there consultation with the communities affected by that? Would that be part of the minister's...? I think of the Howe Sound district, for example, where there were virtually two districts. Then the minister drew back from the brink, and there was certainly consultation about the division. I understand that there are to be new trustees added for the Whistler district. Could the minister advise us what's happening in respect to that addition to the number of trustees on the board, and how those trustees will come to office?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, you might check to see whether this is relevant. As to what happens, I've never appointed a board. I'm not quite sure if it was an interim measure that needed to be done. If you had the time to go through the whole consultation process, then of course the election would be the logical thing. That looks after itself, so there's your consultation process.

With respect to the Howe Sound situation, the member may recall that we asked the board to submit an action plan for how to resolve some of the differences. One of their recommendations was that two more trustees be appointed. I acknowledged that and said: "Okay, then elect two more trustees, as per the local board's recommendation."

Section 74 approved.

On section 75.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment to section 75 put forward by the member for New Westminster.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister has a copy of that amendment. I think it is a good place for us to start, because we are dealing with the interpretation part of this section, which is about conflict of interest.

The fundamental issue here in respect to conflict is the issue of pecuniary interest, both direct and

[ Page 8269 ]

indirect. In the definition of pecuniary interest, the interpretation says that pecuniary interest "means, with respect to a trustee, an interest in a matter that could monetarily affect the trustee and includes an indirect pecuniary interest referred to" in another section. The amendment I propose is that we change the word "could" to "does."

Let me say a little bit about this whole clause to speak to that particular amendment. One of the conditions that we surely are looking for in any conflict-of-interest clause is that it allows a person to understand very clearly when that person may be in conflict. I know that may not be as simple as it sounds, but to have a fundamental definition for this particular section that leaves something so wide open that an action could monetarily affect the trustee seems to us on this side of the House to simply confound the issue rather than to define it.

The minister has stated that earlier in the drafts of this particular section he was looking for widespread consultation and points of view. The perspective that I put forward was that we deal with something defining an action rather than dealing with a relationship. This particular amendment, I think, deals with defining something that could be demonstrably recognized as fact. Otherwise we have just an infinite variety of "coulds" that we might be dealing with. We have potentially, I think, an infinite lineup of litigation that could result from that lack of clarity.

So in respect to this particular clause, the most fundamental thing that we want to try to do, it seems to us, is to define, as clearly and accurately as it's possible to do, what it is that would put a person in conflict and then define or describe the course of action that person would take to declare and dissociate himself from the activities that might be a conflict and what would occur if, indeed, a person failed to declare that conflict. What would the outcome be?

That part of the section is fairly clearly defined. It says what a person must do if a conflict of interest exists, and it also says what the consequences are over a long period — up to four years in fact — if a person doesn't follow the prescribed procedure.

[7:15]

But let me take a case that may or may not be one that the minister has looked at. I thought of my own situation as a trustee for ten years in the city of New Westminster. I read this clause, and the very first thing that popped into my mind was that I could have wondered about whether I was in a conflict-of-interest situation with respect to my husband, who was a CUPE member and who worked not for a school board, as it happened, but within the Greater Vancouver Regional District for a municipal union. I can remember sitting down at bargaining tables as a trustee with our CUPE school district employees at a time when CUPE unions across the Greater Vancouver Regional District had common goals, although every single one of them was negotiating with their distinct employers, whether it was municipal, school board or other groups for that matter.

I do not believe that I was in conflict, but that word "could" is such a vague word that I would not have been able to say of my own decision — which I must make as a person in following through with a course of action — according to this clause, whether there might have been a conflict. So by virtue of not defining — whether this word does it, however we deal with it — it is our view that we have in fact produced something that is simply going to cause a great deal of confusion among elected people, a great deal of confusion in public about what is or isn't, a great deal of difficulty in defining that conflict of interest. So the purpose of the amendment is to discuss that issue and to look for more appropriate language in dealing with the fundamental underpinnings of this clause, which is that there is a fact of pecuniary interest which would cause a person to know for certain that he or she should withdraw from participation in the discussion of and decision-making on a particular issue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I might as well say right now that I cannot accept this amendment. To give the background, the intent here of a conflict of interest is first of all to protect the public and to ensure that no person from his position as a trustee can gain a personal monetary or pecuniary interest or advantage that is not available to the general public. There is in a further section a provision that where it is insignificant or remote so it cannot be rightfully construed as having an effect.... That eliminates the trivial type of thing. As for the terms "could" or "does, " I suppose we are dealing in the subjunctive rather than the active or the past tense.

The requirement is that if a potential conflict of interest arises, the trustee must so declare. I think it is a little late to declare after it has happened. The term "could" means that if you know that this contract.... If you happen to own a trucking company and as a trustee you vote to give the contract to that trucking company, it could be a conflict of interest. I don't think we should wait until it happens and then punish the trustee. I think it should be clear.

Believe me, I wish there were some way that you could spell out in detail, without about 700 pages, what constitutes an actual conflict, how severe it must be. After studying the Ontario legislation, the Alberta version of the Ontario legislation and all the advice we could get on this from discussions with any of the groups that we could get input from, and then with the legal advice, we say this is the best interpretation we have of the basic principles: one should not gain financially in a personal way what is not available to anyone else in a general way, and should that situation come up, the conflict must be declared. We have tried to avoid trivialities; we have tried to do all that.

I can't accept the amendment, because then it would have to happen before a trustee would have to declare his conflict. The intent here is to prevent conflict, not to punish for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Agreed.

[ Page 8270 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo wishes to stand after the Premier has agreed to this amendment? I recognize the member for Nanaimo.

MR. LOVICK: I was a little confused by that. I know that the Premier does not agree with our amendment — pity, pity. We thought that he might have taken some small step on the road to enlightenment. But what the heck, we can't win them all.

I am sorry that the minister does not feel he can support this amendment. I am sorry because the amendment — to be quite blunt about it — is only a small step towards solving the problem with this entire section. It makes this section less offensive and less problematic, it seems to me. I stand here, Mr. Minister, speaking very much as an individual rather than as somebody who has consulted with my colleague the member for New Westminster, our spokesperson on education matters.

The predicament we are dealing with here is that in our efforts to protect the public — commendable efforts, admirable, desirable — we have gone too far. The enabling character of saying "could" as opposed to "does" is the basis of the problem. I struggle with this entire concept, Mr. Minister, because I believe very strongly in the need for good conflict-of-interest legislation.

Also I struggle because after a fashion I have my own conflict with this particular one, insofar as in my community, as the minister well knows, there are two trustees who have been excluded by law from being trustees. It's now under appeal and all of that, as the minister knows. Because they are deemed to be in conflict they were disqualified under the provisions of the old act. One of them is the wife of an administrator in the school system, and the other is the husband of a teacher within the school system. Those two trustees, duly elected, both of whom declared their conflict before being elected, have now effectively been challenged to be trustees, to carry out the wishes of the electorate. So I have that conflict. They are friends. They are people whose contribution to the community and to the education system I appreciate and admire.

As I say, my predicament is that on the one hand I believe very strongly in good conflict-of-interest legislation, indeed have argued for it in this chamber on more than one occasion. But when I see this means of solving the problem that we got into by removing the disqualification clause, I don't think we have solved the problem.

What we are suggesting in this relatively simple amendment is to give us an indication at least, Mr. Minister, that you don't want to be draconian, because what this clause does, as written, is give you an incredible amount of power. Remember that we are talking now about a definition, and pecuniary interest is the absolute key concept throughout section 5. Everything hinges on the definition of pecuniary interest. The problem, however, is that the definition itself is so broad just because of the verb "could" that it calls into question the entire purpose of the rest of the section.

It moreover makes it almost impossible, I would submit, for any person married to a teacher, or living with or partner of — if we can use that terminology — somebody who works even tangentially in the school system....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tangentially?

MR. LOVICK: Yes, tangentially. In other words, a city employee who happens to be doing work around the school project. It does in fact even do that. It puts all those persons in a position where they would probably say: "I ought not run for the position of school trustee, because if I do, I also have to declare on every occasion that I have this perceived conflict of interest — remote, indirect, pecuniary interest — and also, on certain things to do with money I cannot vote. Ergo, I am going to be some kind of lame-duck trustee." This sends a clear message to the electorate: "Don't vote for me."

I know that the minister doesn't have that intention — I hope — of effectively ruling out all those persons who happen to be married or otherwise related to teachers from being school trustees. I am sure that's not the intention of this section of the bill, but unfortunately, that is the impact it is going to have.

Now, Mr. Minister, we give you this wonderful opportunity, at least in spirit, at least in demonstrating your good intentions, to show us that you don't mean that; rather that you are, as you say, committed only to protecting the taxpayers, the public, and to ensuring that people do not gain any personal advantage as a result of their elected and privileged position. Show us that commitment. Show us that there is no other agenda by going along with this simple amendment, because the simple amendment certainly is not going to do anything to interfere with the due operation of this measure.

It's a definitional amendment. It doesn't say anything about the procedures to be invoked or followed — a very simple amendment. I would ask the minister to rethink his position, perhaps to consult with his officials and say: "Yes, indeed, maybe that fellow from Nanaimo makes a point; maybe this isn't as absolutely crucial as we suggested a moment ago." To agree to the amendment, Mr. Minister, you would be doing all the people of the province a significant favour, if you reconsider that position, which, it seemed to me, was perhaps rather precipitately taken rather than well thought out.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am quite willing to accept that the member for Nanaimo has very clearly made a point — and has very eloquently and tangentially defeated his own argument. You have no argument with the concept; all you are arguing is at what point the conflict kicks in — before it happens or after it happens. That is the distinction, so again I thank the member for his support for me to not accept this amendment.

[ Page 8271 ]

MR. LOVICK: I am certainly not going to try and provide the minister with a crash course in logic or something at this juncture; I won't do that. But that utterance is simply not borne out by what I said or by the words of this particular measure.

That is the definition; it's not the process. That's the term we're talking about; that's what we are asking. Is it not the case, therefore, that it has to be invoked before this has meaning? It's a definition. It's the guide to the voter, the guide to the trustees. That's what the definition is for. Surely, Mr. Minister, you will reconsider.

[7:30]

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the section as amended pass?

MS. A. HAGEN: Did I just note that the Chairman was having us pass the section as amended?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The amendment has failed, and we're now discussing this section without amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: I thought I heard you say, "the section as amended," Mr. Chairman. That would have been delightful to have in Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may have been, but the question was not put, there wasn't a vote, and therefore I didn't make a decision.

MS. A. HAGEN: Right. It would be interesting to have the Chairman able to speak on some of these occasions. Let's stay with this for a moment, and then we want to go through the other clauses. It is really important, in my view, that both the office holder and the public have a clear sense of what is a conflict. The minister himself alluded to those two agendas. They are the agendas when we're dealing with any conflict guidelines or legislation.

Perhaps it would be helpful if the minister could define for us some circumstances where a person could, since that's the word we must be stuck with, even though it doesn't define anything.... What's the grammatical term? I should know, but I don't. It's entirely subjunctive, subjective or whatever. Could the minister give us some circumstances where there clearly would be conflict? Could he perhaps speculate — I know he doesn't like to speculate — about some circumstances which I'm sure he's heard discussed on more than one occasion, where the question would not come up in respect to this particular clause?

Somebody has to do some defining, and you are responsible for this clause. Mr. Minister, I'm asking you to do some defining, so we know what we're talking about when we talk about conflict in respect to pecuniary interests either direct or indirect.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The rest of these sections do the defining.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's one of those things where the minister calls the kettle black. If we look at section 77, for example....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're on 75.

MS. A. HAGEN: I know we're on 75, Mr. Premier. If we look at 77 to inform us, since the minister simply referred us to the rest of the clauses as an enlightenment of what would be conflict, there is something now called a deemed pecuniary interest. It is something deemed; it exists. For the purposes of this section, the pecuniary interest of a spouse, parent or a child of the trustee shall — if known to the trustee — be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the trustee.

In this particular case, we are talking about something that could monetarily affect.... I cited an example when I first began to speak about something that could monetarily affect me. It's not clear to me; it's not clear to the public whether the salary increase my husband is going to get as part of a CUPE negotiation in another district is in any direct conflict with my responsibilities as a trustee. I'm certainly going to benefit, as part of a household, if he gets a raise. What relationship does that have — if any — to my role as a trustee?

We need to have some examples here. If I were a trustee looking at this clause, trying to be informed.... I can think of a couple of examples. In the case that the member from Nanaimo cited, where the trustees affected were spouses of school board employees, I think we would agree that on salary negotiation issues, they would be in conflict because those salary negotiations have to do directly with this particular spouse. There's no question about that.

[Mr. Lovick in the chair.]

In this case — and I know the member for Nanaimo has just taken the chair — one person was the spouse of an administrative officer, and the other person was the spouse of a teacher. I might speculate that in a very narrow interpretation, the person who was the spouse of the administrative officer should not be involved in any of the contract negotiations relating to those people. The person who is the spouse of a classroom teacher should not be involved in any salary negotiations with respect to the classroom teacher. We would agree with that.

We might go one step further and say: "Okay, because the negotiations of these two groups of people — both professional employees — are sufficiently closely aligned, there is a pecuniary interest that crosses over those two lines." That may or may not be a factor.

Then we look at a person who sits on a board and is a teacher in another district and a member of a board in the district in which the person has a residence. Is that person in a conflict situation in

[ Page 8272 ]

respect to bargaining for teachers in the community at large? I'd like the minister to give us some enlightenment, so that trustees who are reading this can figure out how to behave, what the appropriate course of action is and how this defines their responsibilities circumscribed by possible conflict. I'd like the minister to give us some idea of what the discussions and the parameters of this are, so we have some concept of how broad and sweeping this conflict clause is.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I always love to indulge in the interesting repartee and speculative discussion, but not with respect to the act. I'd love to have dinner or lunch with the member and speculate to our hearts' content. However, in this situation I think it is very clear when you put all of the sections together that a pecuniary interest is a gain monetarily. If somehow the relationship is remote and insignificant — in 79(d) — then it doesn't apply. Anyone who wants to know the answer to this can look at the legislation or the situation or the circumstances and say, "Does this in my case give me a financial monetary advantage that the general public cannot have or that others cannot have," as it is in the Municipal Act.

I'm resisting the urge to comment on the continual references to the Nanaimo situation, because that was a court decision based on the Municipal Act, and I believe it's under appeal. It was a section in the Municipal Act that was referred to — referenced to the School Act, but it was based on the Municipal Act — and the matter is under appeal. That is a court decision, and I would imagine that somewhere in here there will be arguments. I wish that legislation could be such that the courts would never interpret it, but you can line up six lawyers and you can get six interpretations; sometimes it happens.

What we've done here is put together quite a few lawyers to say what the most clear, concise definition of a conflict of interest is. Because of circumstances, in one situation that may be a conflict and in another one it may not. But for me to speculate that in this example it will and in that example it won't, and that sort of thing.... I think that that has to be a decision of the person, the electors and ultimately, if you like, the courts. The legislation is clear.

MR. LOVICK: I ask the minister if he would clarify for us. He made reference to the fact that the case in Nanaimo is sub judice — which, in passing, we all recognize here — and we're not going to get into that.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: No, come on, Mr. Minister, bear up. I'm not going to attack you. Ease up. Take a deep breath.

I wanted to ask you to clarify for us, please, the reference to the Municipal Act. That's all. Because some of us who have been involved in this thing are all shaking our heads and saying: "Wait a minute, what does that mean?" We understand that the predicament is essentially what was in 59 of the old act, and that's very clear, and therefore the individual who suggested those trustees had no right to sit had every right to do so. What it has to do with the Municipal Act I do not know. I am willing to confess my ignorance to the world, and give the minister an opportunity for the first time in his life to enlighten me and answer the question. This is it, Mr. Minister, so I hope you'll do that.

Let me just say that we are not trying to focus on the predicament of the Nanaimo trustees. That's not what we're asking. Rather, all we're saying is that there is an illustration of the predicament. So we're not going to ask you to do anything that would in any way get you in trouble with the court system. So rest easy. But if you would, please, I'd certainly appreciate an answer to my question about the Municipal Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I deeply regret, Mr. Chairman, my reference to the Municipal Act. I'm sorry, I do not have a total photographic memory. It struck me that somewhere in the discussion there was discussion about the Municipal Act and that court case. My term of reference: please consider it loose and please consider it erroneous, if you like, because I don't remember and I don't have the judgment or any of that with me. It was a hazy recall, and if you'll accept that apology, then perhaps we can leave it at that.

MR. JONES: I'd like to try a couple of examples on the minister just to see if he feels that these particular situations might fall under this section of the bill. These are some concrete examples that the minister might wish to comment on to enlighten us as to how he might see this particular section applying.

Let's just suppose that I am a school trustee on a particular board, and I'm also a taxpayer in that district. Virtually all of the decisions that I take can in theory cost taxpayers money. So if I choose to vote a particular way, I can increase the expenditure in that district and as a result increase my taxes. So if as a school trustee I choose not to increase spending, if in fact I choose to cut education, and I benefit monetarily as a result of those cuts to education, am I not, as a school trustee in that situation, experiencing pecuniary gain? Am I not benefiting monetarily as a result of my cutting back the education budget as a taxpayer? Do I not qualify under this section in that I could be affected monetarily as a trustee and hence be in conflict of interest?

Let me try another one on the minister. Section 90 of the act deals with remuneration and expense allowances as a school trustee. Section 90 says: "A board may (a) authorize annually the payment of remuneration to the chairperson, vice-chairperson and other trustees..." So if I as a school trustee choose to make those decisions that are clearly outlined for me under section 90, am I not guilty of

[ Page 8273 ]

enhancing my own monetary situation by voting on those indemnities? We have some difficulty with this section, because the way it is worded is really ludicrous, suggesting that a taxpayer can benefit monetarily by actions that he or she may take as a trustee. Similarly, under section 90 the minister obviously wants to authorize school trustees to enhance their own monetary well-being, and thus would be under conflict of interest. What about those two situations, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We try to cover everything we possibly can in the act. I refer the member to sections 79(a) and 79(b). And in section 90 we don't necessarily say they must enhance. The act gives you your answers.

Sections 75 and 76 approved.

On section 77.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is a clause we referred to earlier, called "deemed pecuniary interest," and it states relationships that are involved with this pecuniary interest. It deals with a spouse, a parent or a child.

[7:45]

It's quite a broad net that we're casting in stating that these relationships can determine a conflict situation. In this day and age of most of us thinking of ourselves as independent, autonomous and ethical people, the whole suggestion that a relationship determines the conflict is quite troubling. I don't have a problem with the spouse or partner of a school board employee — a spouse who is a trustee. I don't have a problem with that person having a conflict or having a deemed conflict in respect to contract negotiations. But when we begin to talk about people who live in different households, whose economic circumstances, if you like, are.... Well, what are they? Heaven only knows. There's no way of defining those economic relationships. I have a great deal of trouble with this idea that your parent or your child, who happen to be in some way involved in the school system, puts you, a trustee, in a conflict-of-interest situation.

I understand that this is not new in Canada, and that there are other jurisdictions that use these particular relationships to define what might be a deemed pecuniary interest. But again I ask the minister: can he give us any guideline here as to how a trustee is to interpret this clause and find in it a guide? How is the public to read this clause and make some judgment or decision about whether a trustee may be in conflict?

I guess the most fundamental thing about legislation is that it should be understandable to the people it affects, and I don't find this legislation understandable to the people it affects. Whether there are going to be some guidelines published with this or some further elaboration by someone, if not the minister.... I really think this is just a Pandora's box that is going to leave people uncertain about appropriate behaviour, even though they know that they are behaving ethically and in the spirit and intent of trusteeship, and it's going to leave the public no more enlightened about what is or is not a conflict.

Would the minister provide us with his enlightenment and his comments on those relationships as the drafter or the minister responsible for clause 77?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't assist the member in understanding what it says. We try to define "child" and "spouse" in very simple terms in the definition section, as it pertains to this section particularly, not as it pertains to the rest of the world and that sort of thing. In this part "child" means or "spouse" means.... We've tried to do that.

Maybe we should have said: "shall be considered to be a pecuniary interest" or "deemed to be." I'm not hung up again on what is meant by that. I think the legal people have said that "deemed to be" is "considered to be," or whatever other synonym you want to put in its place. Under 79(d) we have said that if it's remote then it shall not be.

As I said before, the member has to decide: do I, from this, gain an unfair financial advantage from this position as a trustee, as an employer, as whatever? You said that they are ethical. I'm not questioning ethics here. We're trying to define conflict of interest so it can be understood by the person running for office, by the person in the office, by the electorate, by the courts and, if you like, by the public. As the member has said, the person can be very ethical and have no conflict of interest. Well, then I assume it would be easy to convince the board, the electorate, the public and the courts that there was in fact no significant conflict.

Section 77 approved.

On section 78.

MR. JONES: It's interesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that the government brings in conflict-of -interest guidelines in a very narrow area of operation in British Columbia: very specifically, the School Act — not the Municipal Act, perhaps, to deal with land developers or real estate agents who might sit on councils. I really don't think this section is about conflict of interest at all. It's certainly not about schools; it's not about children. I think what it's really about is politics. It's about a particular brand of Social Credit anti-teacher politics, in my view.

For many years we had a system of democratic elections in this province that served the citizens of British Columbia very well. We had a very democratic situation in terms of electing people to manage the schools and the districts of this province, a system that very clearly identified the occupation of those seeking election in municipal elections. That was a safeguard for the citizens. That system did serve the situation very well, in terms of a lack of conflict of interest. I don't know of a single problem. Certainly a case was raised in Nanaimo, but over many years, with the guidelines we had for munici-

[ Page 8274 ]

pal elections and school trustees in this province, I don't know of a single serious problem where there was a conflict of interest or where somebody who was a teacher or related to a teacher and who sat on a school board was actually proven to have benefited in a monetary way from the actions they had taken in serving as a school trustee. So we have that very long history that served this province very well.

I have to ask myself why, in 1989, we brought in this particular piece of legislation that purports to cover conflict of interest. In fact, we on this side of the House support conflict-of-interest guidelines. We want to see them widespread; we want to see them apply generally and in particular to cabinet ministers and members on the government side.

So we had this longstanding beneficial situation, but there were a handful of boards — maybe half a dozen — that happened to elect teachers. It's a very small number: of 500 or so trustees in this province, we happened to elect half a dozen school trustees who worked for children in the daytime and worked for them as school trustees on evenings and weekends.

That situation, although it served the citizens well, did rankle some people — not in those districts that had those teachers, because those people seemed to get re-elected and to be well supported by the population they served. But there were a couple of other school boards in the province that did not have such teacher-trustees on their boards and that chose, through their dissatisfaction with the democratic results of elections in various school districts, to bring the matter of trustee eligibility to the BCSTA annual general meeting.

For many years that situation was brought before the annual general meeting of the school trustees of this province as a resolution, and every year it was brought before that body it was defeated. It was defeated because the school trustees of this province recognized that they were not above the electorate and that they respected the right of the electorate to choose their school trustees. As long as those people's occupations were clearly identified on the ballot, they did not wish to tamper with the democratic process that had served this province so well for so many years. Now we have before us this situation where the government is concerned that there may be a deemed, perceived, suspected or possible pecuniary gain by people who are on school boards.

I might ask the minister to remember the last time this was raised in the Legislature. It was raised by the previous Minister of Education. That minister, Mr. Hewitt, it seems to me, represented the formerly Social Credit riding of Boundary-Similkameen. He last raised this very question in the House on April 28, 1986. The motives of the government were very clear in 1986. That minister named six individuals in his speech on that day, four of them on the Vancouver School Board and one on the Burnaby School Board. He also named the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, who that minister felt had a conflict of interest because he was a college instructor. The four named on the Vancouver School Board happened to be former teachers; one of them happened to be a practising teacher in another district; the individual named on the Burnaby School Board happened to be myself. That minister — this minister's predecessor — felt it was an entirely improper situation, and that those people were in conflict of interest, some because they had been former teachers. In fact the deputy minister himself, who sits opposite now, happened to be one of those individuals in that situation who happened to be a former teacher, sat on a school board and did an excellent job without any conflict of interest at that time.

What we see, then, is a long history of anti-teacher action on the part of this government. I suppose, when it went to the drafters, there was no way of denying teachers in any democratic sense — either former teachers or people who were pro-education or had the kinds of concerns that somehow challenged government operation — an opportunity to serve as a school trustee. So what we see is what we have before us: this thinly veiled attempt to get at people who are closely associated with education, who understand education and who care deeply about education — some of whom want to serve on school boards and carry out their civic responsibilities in that manner.

I think it's very ironic that a government that would not know a conflict-of-interest situation if it hit them over the head would come in with this kind of narrow legislation. We have many instances from members opposite of a very clear perception of conflict of interest. The Premier, when he was first appointed to cabinet....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Most of your debate has been on a subject which should have been in second reading and is not specifically relevant to this particular section. I've allowed you a little tolerance, but I must remind the member that we are dealing with committee on just this particular section. So your ramblings that are off the section are really out of order. I would ask you to remain in order.

MR. JONES: We are talking about section 78, which deals with the pecuniary interest of school trustees. I'm suggesting there are many examples in society of pecuniary interest in other situations, such as the Premier, when he was first nominated to cabinet, who chose not — as did many of his cabinet colleagues — to put his assets into a blind trust. At the same time he stayed in the nursery business and in doing so at that same time also appeared regularly on radio programs. Now in terms of perception of conflict of interest, it's very clear that the perception could well be that the Premier at that time, then minister of a number of things — Municipal Affairs, Education and Human Resources.... The perception of conflict of interest at that time was very clearly that the minister was putting his name before the public as a nursery person and as a well-known minister of the Crown, and he could be very clearly

[ Page 8275 ]

accused, in terms of perception of conflict of interest, of selling bulbs.

[8:00]

[Mrs. McCarthy in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I'm very interested in the member's digressions, but I think we're a long way off this section.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member has been asked to keep his remarks to the section. It's section 78, and the member will continue. Please remember to keep it to the subject in the section.

MR. JONES: We are dealing with the section entitled "Conflict of interest," and under that section we're talking about section 78, where we're talking about conflict of interest of school trustees and their deemed pecuniary interest. I'm pointing out the narrowness of the government in bringing in this particular situation, when they seem to be blind to a variety of other areas of conflict of interest, particularly as it relates to their own cabinet dealings. It's very clear that this section of conflict of interest is concerned about spouses. The Premier very clearly, in terms of his own land dealings, thought that he could escape conflict of interest by putting Fantasy Gardens in the name of his wife.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member has cast some aspersions on an hon. member of this House, and I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. JONES: Certainly I withdraw, Madam Chairman. I'm talking about perception.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. JONES: They were not aspersions.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Please keep to the section. You have wandered again. Let's talk about the section. If you'll note, the section is regarding trustees, and if you will keep the duties of the trustees in mind when you discuss this, we would appreciate it.

MR. JONES: Well, I think the point has been made. I think the point is very clear that we have before us a section, under conflict of interest, that the government seeks to apply to the School Act and to school trustees for narrow political purposes. They do not wish to bring in the same kind of stringent conflict-of-interest guidelines that would apply to themselves. We know the scenario. Every time this situation has arisen in cabinet, allegations are made public; the minister who is involved in the perceived conflict of interest resigns pending an inquiry; a report comes forward that so-and-so either was cleared of wrongdoing or demonstrated poor judgment, and soon thereafter the individual is returned to cabinet. So it's no wonder to me that the government side does not want to deal with conflict of interest as it applies to other situations than the particular section before us.

Let me make one final comment as it relates to this School Act, which was to be the product of the Sullivan royal commission. This is a broad interpretation of a recommendation of the Sullivan royal commission, but I think it would be clear that this was part of the intention of that royal commission which said the present system of elected school boards should be retained. I think we had an excellent system that served the citizens of this province well for many years. If this government wants to be serious about conflict-of-interest guidelines, then bring them in across the board: bring them in for municipal councils, for hospital boards; bring them in and apply them stringently to your own cabinet.

MR. LOVICK: A few very brief questions about duties of trustees, section 78.

I think my colleague from Burnaby has pointed out rather effectively what a number of us suspect and regretfully have to conclude about this particular section of the bill. I will just try to say to the minister why we have these difficulties and why we want to register our concerns.

Look for a moment, Mr. Minister, if you will, at what we are asking the elected trustees to do. Look what we're asking those people who stand for election to do. We are saying to individuals who happen to be married to somebody who works within the system, or works in something that is connected in some way with the system, say as in support staff, that any time there is any reference whatsoever to financial or monetary matters, that person must stand up and disclose his or her indirect pecuniary interest, an interest that could mean the person stands to benefit monetarily. Similarly, we are saying to that person that the individual is not allowed to take part in a vote on, or even a discussion of, something as important as bargaining rights.

I won't belabour the point by going through the three first clauses, but the obvious question is, how in heaven's name could any trustee possibly stand up and say to the electorate: "I want to be your servant; I want to stand before you and do my best to serve you in my capacity as a school trustee, but I have to tell you that because my wife," or husband, "is a schoolteacher" — or a CUPE member, or whatever the case may be — "I am not going to be a very effective trustee because I am not allowed to vote on certain things. Moreover, what I have to do for everything that comes along is stand up and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I may have to absent myself from this discussion, because I think I could have a conflict.'"

What you are doing is saying to a whole bunch of people who, as my colleague from Burnaby pointed out, have a proud tradition of service to their communities: "You shouldn't run for office." That, Mr. Minister, is a retrograde step. It is a step, moreover, that leads one to the conclusion, I think fairly, that there's some pretty tacky politics in this section of the bill.

[ Page 8276 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If there's any tacky politics, I think it's in what's coming from the opposition. The member asks how a potential trustee can stand up and say: "I want to be your servant." I say quite easily, by also saying: "And I want to assure you that I will not personally and unfairly benefit financially from that position." There you are. You put your own connotation on it because it happens to suit your tacky politics.

What about a spouse who owns the trucking company? You say that the trustee....

MR. LOVICK: You had your brief moment of class, but you blew it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess when you lose the argument, you start name-calling, do you?

If I might finish the example, which would also be applicable and far more direct: if the trustee was a trustee and the spouse owned the trucking company, you are saying the trustee should, by all rights, be able to enter the discussion, try and talk the board into it and even vote on that contract going to the trucking company.

I could make up hundreds of examples along the same line. You could make up others to say: "Well, it's not there." Well then, convince the public that it is not an advantage that you gain financially or something that is not available to anyone, as is covered in section 79(a) and (b), and there you are. No problem.

How quickly you forget. You may recall considerable discussion in the last year, the last six months, the last two years, about the present legislation not clearly spelling out what constitutes a conflict of interest. We looked at everything else we could: other legislation, other situations, legal advice, input from a variety of stakeholders. We said that the legislation does not define it, and let us make as clear as it is possible to make it what constitutes a conflict of interest.

I gave you the basic principles on which it is based, and the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) chooses to interpret it as something that is not stated in the act, because it suits his crass political purposes to play that game. He digresses all over the place on it.

MR. LOVICK: Would you vote for somebody who couldn't vote?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I know that the hon. member who is now interrupting will wait until he has an opportunity to be recognized and let the minister finish his statement.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess, if the member makes that point, no, I don't think I would vote for someone to be put in a position where he says to me: "And I am going to gain personally, financially and unfairly in that position, but don't let that bother you, because I am a good guy." No, I wouldn't vote for him.

I think that the legislation here is as clear as possible in spelling out what constitutes a conflict of interest. Throughout this, from the definition to the clauses in here, it makes it very clear as to what constitutes a conflict of interest. That is what we are dealing with here, not some fantasies that the member for Burnaby North chooses to digress into.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's very rarely that I choose to participate in the debate on these bills, but this is one section that I feel very strongly about.

MR. BLENCOE: Bring it in.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I think possibly the second member for Victoria would like to speak. Could I suggest that he just give me about five minutes and then the floor will be clear.

The section that we are dealing with this evening, section 78, how anyone could find fault with it I really fail to understand. The example that was given earlier may be a farfetched example, but I think that if one truly reads the clauses in this section, they can indicate nothing but support for them.

Some time ago in Surrey — it's not the case at this particular time — we had a teacher from Delta who happened to be the chairman of the Surrey School Board. At the same time we had a teacher from Surrey who happened to be the chairman of the Delta School Board. That arrangement always bothered me, because there was little doubt in my mind that discussions would obviously be taking place and comparisons taking place when it came to wage negotiations and other benefits that were being made available to the teaching staff. Although they wouldn't have a vote that would directly affect their particular situation, the opportunity for conflict was, in my mind, always there.

If we read section 78(l): "If a trustee has any pecuniary interest in any matter and is present at a meeting of the board at which the matter is considered, the trustee (a) shall at the meeting disclose his or her pecuniary interest and the general nature of the pecuniary interest. . . ."

Why should they not disclose the interest? We hear on a regular basis, particularly from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), about the possibility and the suggestion of conflict of interest from members on this side of the House. I would like to ask the question: if there was a trustee sitting on a school board who owned property that was about to be purchased by that school board, should that trustee be allowed to continue to participate in the discussion and the vote on that particular issue? They have a direct....

MR. JONES: That's direct.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: They have an interest in the matter.

Interjections.

[8:15]

[ Page 8277 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I think what is happening, Madam Chairman, is that members opposite want to participate in my discussion at this time, and they will all have an opportunity to carry on.

Section (b) says they "shall not take part in the discussion of or vote on any question in respect of the matter, and (c) shall not attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter." I have to wonder if members opposite have taken the time to study section 78(1). I believe they're confusing the entire issue. If they want to go a little further into the exceptions under section 79, they may possibly feel a bit more at ease. In my opinion, and from the dialogue I have had with a good number of non-teaching school trustees, I would....

MR. BLENCOE: Real estate developers on city councils.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to let the minister finish her statement, and we'll have a little bit of order in the House.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The members opposite are continually suggesting that they represent this group and they represent that group. Over the years a goodly number of my constituents have expressed their concern. Many of them are school trustees on school boards in this province, and there is concern, not only from the school trustees but from members who are taxpayers at large, about the possibility of conflict when people have an interest in votes and decisions that are made by the school trustees.

I don't believe that section 78 is too onerous, and I would suggest that the people we represent — all of the people of this province — will be very happy to read the comments made by the members of the NDP and the comments made by the members sitting on this side of the House. When all is said and done, I think the support for this section will certainly be overwhelming.

Section 78 approved unanimously on division.

On section 79.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's difficult to contain some of the frustration I feel about genuine concerns around this whole section and the way in which it has been distorted. We might, in respect to conflict of interest, better use the term "breach of trust." There is no question, as the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has so eloquently stated from his own history, that trustees over the years have indeed followed procedures outlined in the clause that we just voted for. They have followed procedures around conflict of interest that they recognized.

What we are concerned about in this particular section is the lack of clarity to guide trustees and to inform electors. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) has impugned the integrity of certain trustees of the past.

She has impugned that integrity, and I find that very sad in this House when we look at the work of many people from many different occupations to serve their communities, people who have been elected in municipal elections over and over again. Let's just remember that as we debate this.

Madam Chair, I know you are allowing some latitude because we must deal with the whole clause. But I will return to 79.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have just made a statement about another hon. member of this House. I would think that you are casting some aspersions on the hon. minister, and I ask you to withdraw that remark. I'm sure the minister did not make that kind of statement.

MS. A. HAGEN: If there was language that the minister finds offensive in the tradition of the House, I do withdraw. I do express my concern about statements that she made about earlier trustees who have served in regions of the province, including her own district.

On 79, Madam Chair, I have an amendment that is not on the order paper but which is at the table and in the hands of the minister and his officials. I will just deal with that to form our debate on this section.

This section deals with exceptions. There has been considerable reference to those exceptions in the course of the debate on this clause. These are, according to my understanding of the minister's own comments, exceptions that relate to those circumstances that are so general that the trustee is not seen to be in conflict or so remote. However, there is one action that every trustee takes which is one of the most fundamental acts of trusteeship performed by members of the school board, and that is to work on and to vote on the budget that will provide the resources for the children in their school district.

It seems to us that we need to make clear that regardless of how unclear the issue of conflict may be in respect to the other sections of this particular part on conflict of interest, indeed the right of a trustee to participate in and vote on the annual school district budget is not in any way compromised by this clause.

The words that my amendment proposes to add at the end of subsection (d) are as follows — and this would be an exception to any conflict issues: "...or where the matter being considered is the annual school district budget." I think it needs to be stated, Madam Chair, that this clause does not preclude the entitlement of any trustee to vote on that budget irrespective of conflict of interest deemed or factual — since we haven't been able to pin it down more accurately in our modest attempts to improve this clause. No matter what other conflict situations may be deemed to be there, the trustees' right to vote on the annual school district budget is not abridged by this particular clause. I think the amendment is an important and principled one, one that I hope will be supported by all members of the House.

[ Page 8278 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't accept the amendment, and the member has actually given one of my best arguments, better than I could probably phrase it. If there is no established conflict of interest, then there is no problem. If there is an established conflict of interest — and that member just finished saying that on a major monetary item when the school district.... If I may quote that member correctly, she said: "irrespective of any conflict of interest, that member should be allowed to vote." I can't accept that.

[8:30]

There is provision in section 79(a) to cover some aspects of it, or it could be considered to cover it entirely. To say that on a major monetary matter, irrespective of any conflict of interest, the member should be allowed to vote certainly makes me wonder where that member is coming from.

MS. A. HAGEN: I must clarify the minister's misunderstanding of my statement. I said: "Irrespective of any specific conflict of interest."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, you didn't. I was listening carefully.

MS. A. HAGEN: If there was any misunderstanding, it is my intent with this statement to clarify. We'll check the Blues about whether there was. I want to be absolutely clear about what it is I'm speaking of when I speak about a conflict that a trustee may be identified with in respect to specific transactions of the board. I think we've noted that most of those deemed conflicts will have to do with specific contracts: whether they are employee salary contracts or contracts for services where the person or a member of the person's family may be directly involved with the operation contracting with the board. I'm talking about the overall global budget of the board, which is quintessential to the operation of the board and encompasses decisions that are made on all those individual areas where there may be actual conflict which the trustee has himself or herself acknowledged.

In dealing with the annual budget, it may be that the issue is covered under (a), but because this whole clause is so unclear on what constitutes a conflict, it seems to us that this amendment would ensure on that important issue that we recognize that conflict does not exist by virtue of the budget. It may exist by virtue of some activities that lead up to the budget and are usually resolved when a budget is developed

So, Madam Chair, this is an attempt to clarify. If indeed this amendment is rejected, as the minister notes, then I think we'll rest our case with the statement made by the member for Burnaby North that this is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent teachers, particularly, from serving their public as school trustees.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 79 to 84 inclusive approved.

On section 85.

MS. A. HAGEN: Madam Chair, forgive me. When we start to deal with a lot of sections, and we're moving into another one, it takes a minute sometimes just to connect with your notes.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Not to worry; I was hurrying you along.

MS. A. HAGEN: I appreciate that. I just want to ask a quick question with respect to section 85(b). Could the minister advise why, in this clause dealing with district advisory committees, he has been much less prescriptive — a very wise decision — in the setting up of district advisory committees than he was in the setting up of parent advisory committees? I commend him for that. I wish he had been so liberal and enabling in that earlier clause.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems so self-evident that I was having a little difficulty. I don't think there is a problem, is there? We said that we're specifying that any school may have a parents' advisory council, and here it says that a board may establish a district advisory council comprised of persons representing parents' advisory councils and other organizations in the community. It's opening up the door of consultation. If the member is commending me, I accept the praise; if she has a problem with it, I'll try and explain it.

Sections 85 to 93 inclusive approved.

On section 94.

MS. A. HAGEN: There are a number of clauses over the next few sections that we'll want to take some time to look at. Section 94 deals with the provision of educational programs. It's probably one of the most important clauses in the act, because "educational program" is that fundamental term that we see appearing again and again which describes what's happening in schools under that title.

I want to go back to an issue that I talked about briefly last night regarding exceptional children, special needs children, challenged children — we use various terminologies. I have a stack of letters over the last few days from parents and grandparents of children with special needs, describing the stories of their attempts to find appropriate educational opportunities for their children. I have had concerns expressed by the umbrella organization, British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People, about this act and whether it safeguards the rights of mentally handicapped children to an education. I have had discussions with lawyers about the definition of "educational program" in the interpretation, about access to educational programs and about this clause and the clause that deals with the jurisdiction of the minister.

There is great concern that this act weakens the protection for special needs children. That is a genu-

[ Page 8279 ]

inely and profoundly felt concern in the community of people who work with mentally handicapped people. What they are looking for is an act that ensures that their children are entitled to an educational program that will allow them to develop their potential, allow them to develop in the fullest sense of the word, in the least restrictive environment. What they are looking at is an act that safeguards them not against those who intend to do that work and who are committed to it, but those who perhaps are not yet as able or as wise or as willing or as enlightened as they might be about the emerging knowledge of how well children can be educated in our school system. This clause allows us to visit that issue again, because we are talking about, in this clause, the provision of educational programs by a school district.

In the discussion we had last night there was a very significant new section from the draft section in defining "educational program." It uses language which says that an educational program means an organized set of learning activities that in the opinion of the board, the minister, is designed to provide the educational program for intellectual, social, human and career development. It leaves the decision to the opinion of the board, and that is a very significant addition from a statement that an educational program is a set of learning activities that is designed to do this. It then goes on to say that every student is entitled to that access and to that education program.

This clause speaks about the fact that again orders may come from the minister and that the board complies with the provision of an educational program if it is provided by the board. So the questions are: what is the significance of the opinion of the board here in respect to the provision of services? What in fact ensures that there is no question that the special needs child will receive an education?

Remember that we are not talking about the many boards and the many schools that have developed those programs. We are talking about the issue where those rights are not there, where people still have to fight for those rights, where there are still questions about what the board should and must provide. Those are the reasons that people have concerns. I am reading about the stories in many districts of boards who have had to fight, who have had to brief a board again and again about the needs of the child and about what opportunities should be there so that the child can develop.

What I would like the minister to do in his comments here about the role of the school district in the provision of those services is to begin by giving us some indication.... He will have to range a little bit in this act, because there is nowhere where it's all together. There are actors — school boards, minister — enabling clauses, definition clauses, jurisdiction clauses. I would like to have the minister reassure those many people who feel that this act takes away rather than gives that that is not the case. There are people in the province who feel betrayed because of some of the changes in the act and because of the good recommendations of Mr. Sullivan and the commission around defining special needs in the act, dealing with appeal procedures and ensuring that this is enshrined so that it's not something we have to go to court to prove is in place.

These are people who have worked with the minister, who have worked with EPAC, and they have concerns. Those concerns must be expressed in this House, and we must ask the minister to provide us with the kind of information and understanding of his act that reassures — perhaps more than reassures — that defines for people that those protections, that access and those programs are there as a matter of right and availability. I'd ask the minister to give us some information in respect to that very significant need of many families and children in the province.

[8:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If anyone feels betrayed, they can only feel betrayed by the scare tactics being put out there by some people, because there is no betrayal in the act. Section 2 of this act says: "A student (a) who is of school age, and (b) who is resident in a school district is entitled to enroll in an educational program...." An educational program is defined as "an organized set of learning activities." Again, when the member was quoting, she left out that key phrase "to develop their individual potential" as well as what the rest of the statement says. You seemed to leave that out. A student is entitled to enroll in an educational program.

Here we have a section that says that the board must provide an educational program. Did you notice the introductory clause to that statement? "Subject to the...regulations...and orders of the minister." Should a board try to subvert the intent of this act.... Here is perhaps a classic example. If the minister puts out an order to all boards saying, "Thou shalt...." I think that is a perfect example of what can be done. I know a big issue has been made of it. Maybe that is the ultimate requirement here.

The provision for these students to get a program, an organized set of learning activities.... They have the right to that, and the board must provide it. It doesn't say "may"; it says "shall." I don't know how you can cover everybody in a more inclusive way to provide them with the right to an education.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to assure the minister that, as I have said often, one of the things we do on this side of the House is to reflect the constituency we serve. The representation I made a moment ago reflected concerns that have been voiced to me. I don't think it is appropriate for the minister to suggest scare tactics when we bring up issues of profound concern in respect to this legislation and ask for the minister's considered response. I'm sure he will help provide that for us.

I think the minister said that there are perhaps some concerns about what may be provided, and that he has the opportunity to override through regulations and orders. Maybe one of the vehicles he's talking about that gives the final assurance is those regulations and orders. But again, a board provides

[ Page 8280 ]

an educational program if in the opinion of the board that is appropriate. This clause says that the board complies if the educational program is provided by the board.

Is the minister saying now that at some time he will provide, or has already provided, some kind of guideline around current special needs programs and practice — a policy that would have enforcement status and that would stand up in a court if the matter was raised? There is a real concern that this be put to bed; that it be there in the act, solid, recognized and workable. That's what these people are looking for. They don't find it in the act; they find language that gives them cause for concern. What I'm asking the minister for is to provide us, as the minister responsible, with a brief statement, other than repeating that there is access. We recognize that there's access, but there are limits.

Maybe he provided the answer by saying he's going to order it, and he's going to order it through some sort of policy statement. I'm not sure what it is that he may make available that provides people with the assurance that where special kids are not mentioned...where there are some provisos in the act that their interests are protected, and they're not going to have to go to the courts as has happened in the past. We don't want that to happen; I know the minister doesn't want it to happen. It's a tough area. It's an area that needs as much definition as possible.

I'll ask the minister again if he has anything that he can add that will clarify and reassure the parents and families who are concerned.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't really clarify more than what the act says. I suspect that the act says that if a child is entitled to a program, the board shall provide it. I suggested that the final backup would be the order of the minister. Right now, the policies that exist in the schools for special education, if you like, for special needs students, are a combination of understanding, suggestions, directives, recommendations, board initiatives, school initiatives and all of that sort of thing. I expect that that will go on. The reason we have many good things happening in special education particularly is the interest of the people out there who have done it.

What we're saying under orders now is that we can clarify: this is not just a suggestion, not just a recommendation, but an order. It's a final backup. I don't think we're going to need it. Imagine a board saying, "We don't concern ourselves with individual potential; we don't concern ourselves with providing an educational program; we don't care," even when the act says thou shalt provide an educational program. The student is entitled to an education program, subject to the same conditions as anybody else. It's inclusive.

How does one clarify that? We've tried to spell it out in the legislation.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have one more brief question for the minister. It's a fascinating topic and one we could discuss, but we have a lot to cover. Could I ask the minister if there is or will be a policy on the kinds of programs that the minister sees as appropriate? I won't try to name the kinds of things that might be there. But will there be a contemporary policy document on special needs or exceptional children that will accompany the School Act?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes. There's a large red volume that spells out the policies for special education. In our policy directives and statement resulting from the royal commission report in January, we did specify in general terms the intent of integration, of providing for the needs — to improve the system in that regard. The policies that are there I'm sure will be improved, and they're there already.

MS. A. HAGEN: I didn't move an amendment yesterday with respect to clause 11. I want to again urge the minister to give consideration to that issue as a source of respite, relief or resolution of issues that may arise. It's a last resort, but I think it would be useful. I just want to refer again to that need. It is something that I think the royal commission recognized would be a useful tool.

MS. MARZARI: In section 2 we discussed access to the education program of rural students and of ESL students in the urban areas. Section 94 is perhaps more the area where we should discuss access to education programs by girls in the school system. Just as my colleague the member for New Westminster has talked about special programs for learning-disabled children and special needs programs for mentally handicapped children, I want to talk about a differentiation in our school system which is not by special needs programs or specific programs that relegate or segregate individuals; I want to talk about the ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill curriculums, education programs for people that actually in some respects — not formally but informally — seem to have the impact of segregating girls from boys.

Section 94 is the section I want to address that in, because it provides me with one of the answers to my problem and to the problem of our society, in that it separates girls from boys in the school system, in the sense that in section 94 we have the ability of the minister to make orders. Now when I mentioned the ministerial order before in this debate, I didn't like it. I wanted it firmly spelled out. I wanted a sense of how the minister was going to use ministerial orders. I wanted a sense of at what point the minister might use the order to centralize the system of education. I wanted a sense that the school boards would have a system of checks and balances that wouldn't necessarily be overridden by ministerial order. But in section 94 I want to talk to the minister in the affirmative about his ability to make orders. Here's the context in which I want to discuss it.

There are no guarantees in our secondary system or in our elementary system that girls attend school on an equal basis with boys. We know that they are doing very well in the school system. In fact, we know that girls very often do better than boys in the

[ Page 8281 ]

school system. It's more likely that they are going to receive a diploma. Nowadays it's even more likely that they are going to go to a community college and it's equally likely that they are going to end up in a university.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, absolutely. It bespeaks of some superiority, does it not? I want to talk about some obvious patterns that do emerge in traditional enrolment statistics. Girls are underrepresented in the physical sciences. They are underrepresented in mathematics in secondary schools, in computer sciences and in industrial arts.

They are, on the other hand, overrepresented in business courses, in home economics, in languages and the humanities. In making these comments, I am not devaluing those courses which young women are attracted to or enroll in. In fact, I think that concentration on the humanities in our society is ultimately going to save us all. A balanced approach in our education system is going to do us more good than harm. I want to see the humanities very much built up in our school system and in our post-secondary systems.

According to your own statistics, the enrolment patterns do not reflect a 50-50 percentage between the humanities and the sciences. In geometry, probability and statistics, trades, mathematics and physics, female enrolments were 40 percent or less. It could be possible that the lack of female role models is partially responsible for this.

In fact, in 1987-88, by your statistics only 14 percent of secondary school science educators were female. For mathematics, the percentage was only 17. This is an interesting fact that in B.C., although women form the majority of the teaching force, they continue to represent a minority of secondary school educators. It's one-third women in the secondary system; two-thirds women in the elementary system. When we get to the administrative levels, principals and vice-principals, the percentage of females is very small. Since 1976-77, it has only grown from 6 percent to 16 percent. That means basically we have 84 percent male administrators in our school system today.

[9:00]

The fact that there are very few female role models in the secondary administration, in the sciences and in maths has something to do with the fact that young women are not attracted towards these courses. So I come back to the minister and I ask him if he is willing to use his capacity to order to create an affirmative action program for the provincial school system? Is the minister prepared to do an inventory of who is doing what now, where males and females break down in the school system?

In Ontario the Minister of Education has actually put forward an employment equity program, an affirmative action program, which has actually set the goal that by early 1990s they will be looking towards 50 percent of senior administrators in the school system being female.

Are you, Mr. Minister, prepared to use your capacity to order to work with the schools and the school boards in our province to ensure that young women are not streamed — informally, albeit — into the traditional female courses in our secondary system? Are you prepared to use your capacity as minister and your newfound powers to introduce an employment equity or affirmative action program to ensure that we will be promoting and producing more female administrators?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: May I first say that we are very proud of the fact that I think this has to be about the first piece of legislation that I think is entirely gender-neutral in the terms that it uses. I know that as we went through it and reviewed it time after time, we did pick up some, despite the original intent. I can tell you this: if there is a gender-biased description in this legislation, it's because despite all our efforts, we missed it. We're very proud of that fact.

As for whether I am willing to use orders, it's always my hope to influence and to keep the orders to an absolute minimum. That's not just in this situation, but basically the orders are where it's critical that a common set of procedures or programs can be assured throughout the province, because the people expect some commonality in the system.

I know that gender equity is not just a school problem; it's a social problem. I made it very clear in the policy directions of the government and in the one that we issued on January 27, 1989, that the intent of the principle of gender equity will be reinforced throughout the curriculum in the schools. All curriculum committees are being asked to work in that direction, and that goes for role models, counsellors, classroom teachers and so on. I don't want to read the whole thing into the record, because the member has probably read it, and it's certainly available if members haven't read it. That is the thrust as we develop the curriculum and budget for the future.

To set a target that within two or three years 50 percent of the secondary school administrators shall be female, I have some difficulty with. To say "Order it, " regardless of the qualifications, experience, job requirements and regardless of whether there are applicants... . Many boards have told me that they would gladly — and are trying to — appoint more women into administrative positions, and they can't get the applications. That may be part of the background. But we'll be trying to cure that; we're encouraging it, and people are doing the best they can. Our policy directions are clear in the act. As you notice in section 94 — since we've all been way off section 94 — it says, "all persons," and that includes everybody.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to note that in section 94 is the beginning of a number of clauses that deal with students' educational programs and their evaluation — for example, clause 7 does so. There are going to

[ Page 8282 ]

be some threads of this running through the latter stages of the act under provision of education programs, student records, power and capacity of the board, responsibilities of the board and jurisdiction of the minister. Although I know we will be moving through them section by section, I just want to signal that we're going to try to encompass our discussion at one time to give some coherence to it, with some moving back and forth. I hope the Chair will be indulgent in that regard. We will be relevant, but there is that stream, if you like, of related clauses.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.)

I just wanted to note that first of all, and then I wanted to turn to a couple of specific clauses and ask a question about each one. This section speaks about a student possibly having access to an educational program or activity not provided by the board. It states that the board may include it as part of the student's educational program. It may be one of the things that the minister has mentioned when he talks about expanding the opportunity that students have and providing more flexibility within the system. I know he has talked about that particularly at the grade 11 and 12 level, and that's an approach I commend. But as we move to look at this, too, we need to be sure that we're looking at fairness for students, at equity and all those things. We need to ensure that there is some means for the educational activity to be evaluated and whether it is to be recognized presumably towards the student's graduation, perhaps for credit.

I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of how boards will deal with this whole issue of recognizing an educational activity that's not provided by the board. What might it be? What would be some of the requirements that a board would have in order for it to be recognized? How do we ensure that there are reasonable standards? How do we ensure that this doesn't bring a private opportunity into the school system that may be giving some students an unfair advantage?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the question, I expect that boards will provide such opportunities intelligently and responsibly and with the full advice of their professional staff in the district. There are checks and balances as well.

Remember that it says: "...towards a graduation program." A graduation program is also conditioned by where it will be accepted as a valid educational program. If it turns out that a student has graduated and has met all the requirements, say, for university entrance, and then has something else that makes some sense.... For me to predict what programs will be.... I guess I have full faith that there will be certain graduation requirements, perhaps minimal, partly determined by consultation and the curriculum development process, perhaps spelled out by the ministry after that. Then we hope there will be flexibility, as possible and as boards and their professional advisers recommend that something is acceptable.

I've used a few examples as we've gone through the debate. If a person takes a music program and is very adept at that and, say, gets a ticket in music, or whatever they get — a certificate at the conservatory level — I don't see.... Some schools do this now. It's not exactly new to accept that for credit towards a student's graduation requirements. That is the type of thing that will happen.

I suppose it's also possible that somebody could go way out on a limb and try and put in some other requirements. But I don't think it would fly. There's a parent advisory committee available, there are the responsible school trustees, there's the academic adviser, there's the whole system, and it's not going to allow some ludicrous possibilities to be incorporated.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the act we have prescribed so many conditions around the fundamental functioning of the schools — subject to the regulations, subject to the orders — and yet when we deal with something like this, it's entirely without any kind of accountability mechanism. I think that the intent is one that we could all applaud, but it concerns me that there's no suggestion of any kind of guideline or accountability at all in respect to this. You're telling boards all kinds of things, and at the same time you're leaving some of these ends so open. Yes, we rely on the boards, but it seems to me that as a statement of principle in the act there should be some of those kinds of parameters or conditions. If we were dealing with a curriculum advisory council, we would be looking at some of the ways in which curriculum could be broadened through clear accountability mechanisms.

If we have a student who's taking music and there are standards within the program that student is taking, then those clearly are means by which the board can deal with some measure, if you like, or some evaluation of that standard. But at the moment it is totally an open-door kind of situation.

I don't want to be the person who's always suggesting the worst-case scenario, but I do think it's important that we have some of those parameters in the act, to protect the student and protect the standards within the system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The intent of this act is to open up a greater diversity of programs for students, as was recommended. The intent of that is to have more students stay in the school system to graduation so that whatever career or further education they pursue, they will be better-educated persons in anything they do.

The member says there are no guidelines, no accountability. Well, that's when I say she goes too far, because section 7 says the board is responsible for evaluating and monitoring all educational services provided by the board. And if that doesn't work, then I go back to section 94(l), where an educational program is an organized set of learning activities designed to develop their individual potential and their ability to function in a healthy society....

[ Page 8283 ]

Therefore, subject to the other provisions of this act, the regulations and the orders of the minister... So it is not a wide open, uncontrolled situation. I guess I think positively too much. Given the opportunity to provide options, I think boards will use that opportunity responsibly, intelligently and in full consultation, and that they will serve the best needs of the students for whatever career they go on to. I don't spend much of my time wondering what dumb things somebody might be able to do out there.

MS. MARZARI: We are glad the minister is an optimist. There are a lot of optimists in British Columbia history who have actually built a public school system. They built a public school system so that no student or person would be left without literacy, and everybody would be guaranteed some kind of an education.

[9:15]

This was developed through a public school system, and taxpayers were expected therefore — as part of citizenship and their participation in the community — to support a public school system, just as we have evolved a public health system and other systems that have provided us with a social safety net.

Now the minister is choosing to look at that safety net and deciding that it should be diversified. He is talking about choice, whether it be in home schooling or private schools. Now in subsections 94(6) and (7), he is talking basically about privatization of the public school system itself.

I have to ask the minister: why do you choose this point — the social safety net — to start talking about choice for our citizens? There are other areas in which many of us on this side of the House would like you to talk about choice — like for women and their reproductive rights. But no, you choose to talk about choice in the health system, the education system and the social safety net system.

Subsections 94(6) and (7) basically talk about the ability of school boards — probably because they are going to be strapped for money — to go to the private sector to find courses, and the ability of school boards to grant credit for those courses towards students graduating. This is the culmination of what the Sullivan commission talked about, when they talked about the grade 10 leaving age. This is what the Sullivan commission talked about when they talked about curtailing public education at grade 11 and 12. This is, in effect, giving the school systems and the school boards an opportunity to opt out of publicly providing the service and turning to the public market and monitoring and evaluating the private market's ability to provide these services.

This is the natural culmination of this bill from section 18 to section 26, and now 94, and then we're moving inexorably towards 104, which will wrap all this up in a neat package, tie it with a bow and say: "Here is a curtailed public system."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't let that kind of statement pass. Nowhere in the Sullivan report was there a suggestion for school leaving after grade 10. That was an interpretation that some people chose to make. Then they get captured by their own rhetoric for their own purposes. The whole intent of the Sullivan report was to try to keep more students at school until graduation. He pointed out the problem and said: "Here are some of the ways that you can keep them in school longer." You can't keep them in there with chains. After a certain legal age, you can't keep them in there legally. You can't tie them up. You have to find a way to keep them there.

He talked to a lot of students to see why they left school, and they told him. He incorporated that in the legislation. If anything, he said that you've got to diversify that program in order to enhance the public school system. You choose to interpret that as a way of privatizing the public school system. How in heaven's name you got that in some convoluted reasoning process I cannot believe. When you are trying to enhance the opportunities for people to stay at school, how anyone can somehow for their purposes interpret that as privatization of the system.... The public school system can do some of the things — and we won't be able to do everything — and provide that diversity and provide some of these options, I suspect that we will have a need for more spaces at the secondary school because more students will stay and the public school system will be enhanced.

The choice is there, and the choice should be a legitimate choice if they want to do it some other way. We're saying: what's wrong with giving them that choice? The public school system serves the most students in this province. It serves them very well, and it will continue to serve them well. If we accept the principle of this act and the royal commission report and the policy directions, I believe that we will serve those students much better. You talk about this being a way for boards to opt out of giving students an education. Again, you fail to tie together the fact that "school age" is up to 19 years. The compulsory requirement is up to 16, but school age is defined as from entry date up to 19 years. Any student of school age is entitled to enroll in an educational program, and the board shall provide an educational program. Tell me why that gives boards an opportunity to kick kids out after grade 10, when school age is defined as 19, and that entitles them to an educational program which must be provided by the board.

Again, I guess the member chooses repeatedly to interpret some sort of rhetoric that has come out from the critics as the way the system is intended, rather than what the act says, rather than what "Policy Directions" says, rather than what the royal commission report says. If the member persists in that, then I cannot help her. I said earlier that there is no way I can convince her, because she doesn't like to be confused by the facts.

MR. WILLIAMS: I had almost promised my colleagues I wouldn't speak under this section, Mr. Chairman, but....

[ Page 8284 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Agreed!

MR. WILLIAMS: Sorry.

You know, I have to admit that.... I look at all of the encumbrances of these more than a hundred sections. It's all process and procedure and rules, and all of that stuff, and then I ask myself: what's the product? We spend 20 to 25 percent of our provincial budget in terms of whatever this product is supposed to be, out of whatever this system is supposed to be. I keep trying to find substance in this bill, and I don't find it.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're still looking, I'm sure.

There's a modest preamble....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You're looking at the wrong bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I'm expecting substance, indeed, Madam Minister, I'm looking at the wrong bill. That's the problem. That's my dilemma, and that should bother more of us in this chamber. I would like to look for substance and I don't see it here. I think it is the perfect example of the educational system itself. It doesn't deliver very much. We spend a lot of money. We have to ask ourselves: "What are the end results?"

There was polling data just recently out of Gallup or one of the companies across Canada, and they asked everybody to put on a map where Ottawa is. What were the numbers? Was it a quarter of the country that came close? It was worse than that, I think. So you have to ask yourself: "What do we get, and what is all this exercise about?" Presumably what we are delivering are programs — educational programs— and that's what this section is about. But nowhere does it say what the program, even in the broadest sense, should attempt to be.

If any citizen, any parent, was asked what we wanted to achieve out of working with our children for twelve years, they might be able to spell it out in terms...

MR. JONES: Thirteen.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thirteen.

... of what the goals would be for teaching their own children. We all have some fundamental goals and we're not that wildly pluralistic a society that we couldn't agree on some of those goals. But they're not in here in terms of programs. They're not here at all. I don't see them, and maybe the minister could help me out. This is all pretty vague stuff. You can deliver a program. Well, sure you can, and maybe you can send it away and maybe you can buy it in the marketplace. Maybe you can, and that doesn't disturb me as it does my colleague. But nowhere do we talk about the program.

I find myself thinking again about one of, I think, the great critics in modern society, Ivan Illich, and having read his earlier works, Celebration of Awareness and Deschooling Society, I went into the library last night when I couldn't stand the debate, wondering if I could get Deschooling Society. They don't have Ivan Illich's early work, but they do have his modern work on gender. I guess it's just the way the world is. Anyway, the Victoria public library had Celebration of Awareness; in that is the beginning of Illich's thoughts about the modern school. He argues today that professionalization of too many areas basically disembowels people. I think he is right. I think teachers disempowered with the professionalization of that profession, but it is not any different from the other professions in that sense. Social workers take power away, in a sense, in terms of the evolution of the full citizen in the best sense of the word.

MS. MARZARI: And the planners.

MR. WILLIAMS: And the planners too — indeed. So I think that should be a cause for concern.

I dug out Illich's earliest thoughts on this when he was actually a teacher of a kind in Puerto Rico; earlier he was a priest. He is talking to a group of graduates there, and a couple of things he said appealed greatly to me because of my own biases: "It's yours to question whether Puerto Rico really wants to transform itself irrevocably into a passive product of the teaching profession." All too often, that is what we're doing with our children. We are asking them to become passive products of this ruled system and an unwritten agenda.

I find it very disturbing. If we really want fully developed, free citizens in our society, that kind of passivity and that acceptance of the rules that the school system all too often requires as its hidden agenda robs us of the fullest development of our citizens. That for me is a genuine and real concern, and I don't see it addressed at all in this area of the bill.

A little later on, as Mr. Illich is developing his thoughts, he says this to those students in Puerto Rico:

"Youth wants educational institutions that provide them with education. They neither want nor need to be mothered, to be certified, or to be indoctrinated. It's difficult, obviously, to get an education from a school that refuses to educate without requiring that its students submit simultaneously to custodial care, sterile competition and indoctrination."

I buy what Mr. Illich says, I'm sorry to say.

When I think about it, what do they know when they come out of the system? What do they know about our real history? I didn't learn most of the real history of this province until I got outside the school system. I learned it from my grandfather. I didn't learn about the Dunsmuir coalfields on Vancouver Island and the exploitation of people on this island when it was illegal to have trade unions, when men rode from logging camp to mining camp on this coast to organize. I didn't learn any of that great labour history of this province from the school system at all. I wouldn't have known it existed were it not for my forebears who were involved in those processes. You

[ Page 8285 ]

see that pattern on this island and the voting pattern on this island, because that history has been transmitted from earlier generations. But they sure don't get it out of the school system.

In the same labour sector.... I'm not one of the great, strong people in the labour sector in this group, as you probably know. Do you ever hear about the Winnipeg general strike? Do you ever read about that, one of the great watershed moments in working-class history in western Canada, if not the most important time in western Canada? Well, you don't.

[9:30]

In terms of just being able to reason, to truly reason and be independent — is that only the prerogative of the pedagogues? I say no. In a sense, all this process disqualifies all of the people who aren't part of the system. Part of this process is disqualifying the people who don't have all of the tickets and don't have all of the robes of the new church, the educational system. We don't honestly address these questions, and certainly not in this chamber. I do so knowing that the wrath of some members of this profession will be on me. But the reality is....

A year ago in the Public Accounts Committee we were following up the auditor-general's report in terms of trying to get something about value for money out of the educational system and their attempted audit of that system. They tried to nail down just the dropout rate, and they were not able to. I think as a result of that kind of quizzing and questioning, the work is being done within the department to get that information together. Isn't the dropout rate something like 30 percent? That's a lot of people. We spend a lot of money in this system, and 30 percent of them are walking out the door.

Mr. Sullivan's concern about that, and you, Mr. Minister, saying diversification and getting other access and so on.... Well, let's hope so. But I honestly don't hold great hope. I said in this chamber in the last year or so that I don't hold a great deal of hope for the high-school system. I think it leaves far too much to be desired, and too many kids are abandoning it and walking out the door. When I see some of those high schools, at least in my immediate neighbourhood in the northeast part of the city, I can understand their leaving. We are lucky in Vancouver because we have the colleges, and some of the kids who walk out the door can go in another door a little while later, into a college, and pick up high school and get back into the university system, which I think does have something to offer.

There's a huge vacant area loaded with questionable pedagogues who are turning off our kids at a time when they should become more excited, more involved, and so on. I don't see anywhere in this bill any means or any real attempt to try to lift our spirit, in a sense, in terms of the kind of opportunity in British Columbia, this incredible place, that there may well be. In terms of the development of their minds, all too often we're closing them down and discouraging them.

I mentioned my cousin and her daughter, who has gone into home schooling in her first year just up the coast. Part of the reason was that she was a bright little kid, but she didn't like those red Xs she got on her test. Now she's able to read far better without the red X's and the pedagogical system. That tells me a lot, because the family home has a library bigger than the school in the community they live in. This little kid now says: "I can read any book we've got here in our house." She probably can. They didn't accept that narrow, pedagogical way of dealing with the question of this wonderful, wide world out there and the opening up of the mind.

I see no attempt here to lift us in terms of the spirit of man and the whole excitement of what's out there in the world, and in terms of becoming a significant people and evolving on our own in this little part of the planet. I don't see any of that in this section. I have trouble buying it all.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to thank the member. I appreciate that he seems to be one of the people on that side who recognizes what Barry Sullivan and the royal commission report said. We're trying to translate that into policy, into guidance of learning activities, if you like, to assist pupils — not to turn them off but to turn them on. That's what this is all about. What the legislation does in this section is to give school boards more options in the way that they may provide an educational program. Some of your colleagues object that the educational program isn't spelled out rigidly in advance. We're saying that the educational program should consist of the best, shall we say, incentive program for students to learn. Students want to learn.

I agree with you that we often turn them off. We say: "That's the wrong colour of hoop; come back here and do this one." We've got to move in that direction. We're providing the opportunity. There are people in the system now who are doing that, and I think that if the system legitimizes that type of thing — and this is what we're really attempting to do here — that will happen. But it will not happen because of section 94. It will happen because of the policy directions.

We have said we want an educated system. We have defined an educated system. There is a whole language program in the elementary schools where students are being turned on. There are enrichment programs where students are reaching far beyond the prescribed, controlled reader vocabulary. There is a lot going on. There are a lot of scientific experiments going on. There are field trips going on.

These students are learning, and we're trying to get away from the prescribed textbook. We're saying you have to have a base. Before you can learn and get excited about things, you've got to be able to read. You've got to understand computational skills, but you learn it from reading, not from control. That's the very thing that I think can happen, and I certainly hope it will happen.

Once I get out of the debate and at meetings, then I get to talk to teachers or visit classrooms and see

[ Page 8286 ]

what people are doing and see them get turned on over a cup of coffee when you're discussing something. That's when I see the excitement. When I go to meetings, people say: "Something is missing here." Of course there is: the enthusiasm and the excitement that happens out there when you see people that turn kids on and when kids are really learning.

Things have happened in the school system at certain grade levels that you wouldn't believe could happen until later years. I know that the system has been unstructuring, and we're saying, "Let's unstructure it more. Let's fit it to the kids, not fit the kids to the system. Let's fit it to their interest but guide them, because they do need help."

I'm certainly glad the member is supporting the directions, and I know that I could come up with quite a few quotations here about what other people have said. But I'm very impressed that the member would have taken the option — which wasn't available to me — to go and read from the library. I had to stay here and listen to that rotten debate last night.

Sections 94 and 95 approved.

On section 96.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is the section on days of school operation. I want to ask the minister if the hours proposed in the draft regulations are different from the current hours.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no. The original draft, which people have been attacking madly, was corrected quite a while back. In the present draft the number of hours coincides with what it is now for elementary and secondary.

Section 96 approved.

On section 97.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not asleep yet, Mr. Chairman, although the hours of the last couple of days have been long. Before you came into the chair, I noted that I wanted to pick up some themes on student records under one discussion. This particular section deals with student records, as did some of section 94.

However, there is one clause here that I just want to speak to briefly. Clause(2) states: "...a board shall permit a person providing health services, social services or other support services...access to information in student records required to carry out that service." Do parents and students know, other than via this act, that those records may be accessible by anyone other than teachers, parents and students themselves?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Parents and students have access to the records. If I get the question, the member is asking if these records are available, as they have been, to people in health services, social services and other support services as required to carry out the service, and if parents shouldn't know that these people have access to them. I expect that in most cases they would, that parents are involved in the educational program of their students and know what other services are provided. I hesitate a bit because it may be that some of these records might be available to, say, a social worker without asking the parents' permission. I'm trying to think of, say, a child abuse or sexual abuse case suspicion. I don't know why that record would come into it, but I'm trying not to answer absolutely no, when I can visualize some possibilities. By and large, when a student is involved with any of these other services, then the parent generally should be informed.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not sure that the minister said that the parents are advised or should be informed or have some way of knowing. I think the parents should be advised if those records are being made available to anyone else. I don't think that the records of the school are any different from the records of a doctor. Most things in the act are intended to say that these records are to be kept by teachers and the school, and that parents and children have access. Perhaps the minister can be a bit more explicit, or assure us that there might be some guidelines there. He's saying, I think, that this is not a new clause, that it's been there. But I think that there's a right to privacy and that those records not being available to people without the parents' knowledge is a fundamental right.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps we could try and answer it by referring you to subsection 97(l), which precedes 97(2), where it says: "...a board shall establish written procedures regarding the storage, retrieval and appropriate use of student records and shall ensure the confidentiality of the information and ensure privacy for students and their families." Then subsection (2) says that there will be occasions when other services, in order to provide that service to the student, also need to have access to the records.

MS. A. HAGEN: So the minister confirms that parents may not in fact be advised.

Sections 97 to 101 inclusive approved.

On section 102.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. 

[Section 102., 

in the proposed subsection (3) by striking out "Where" and substituting "Subject to the regulations, where".]

Amendment approved.

Section 102 as amended approved.

[ Page 8287 ]

On section 103.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is one of two very broad sections in the act. This one talks about the powers of boards. A later one, which I know we will be getting to tomorrow morning, deals with the jurisdiction of the minister.

[9:45]

Many of the things in this particular section provide a broad framework for the board's action, and I have a few questions at this time in respect to those. In subsection (b), do the education resource materials that are spoken of include locally developed courses, or are they related just to provincially developed courses? Does the minister in fact have some responsibilities, some rights and power in respect to the locally developed courses, which are now going to be something like 25 to 30 percent of the curriculum?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, yes, I suppose if a board chose racist material, the minister could intervene, just to use a quick example. Primarily, that includes approved resource materials for locally developed courses as well as for provincial courses and, as I think the member knows, we have already moved in our policy to only 70 percent of their allocation for textbooks and resource materials. We have expanded that: it is from the authorized lists and 30 percent now. They can select their own material and, if this act is implemented, I guess the choice should keep growing. I am not sure what the problem is.

I know the member is quite concerned about everywhere the term "orders of the ministry" showing up. There are directives now — textbooks shall be ordered, textbooks shall be approved, that sort of thing. Those are the types of orders that are envisioned here.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all getting a little testy at this hour of the night. I am trying to make things easy and just ask some questions and get some answers. I think the minister is saying that he will be reviewing local resource materials. I am simply trying to clarify.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I don't mean you. When I speak about the minister, I mean the ministry will review local resource materials. I will let the minister just clarify that with the next question.

To some extent, there is a bit of a theme running through here — and it won't be all that strongly developed at this stage of the game; we will come back to it tomorrow — about the autonomy of the board and the responsibility of the minister. I know we've talked about a co-managed system and about that working relationship and that dynamic.

I want to open up a subject that we do want to discuss in our final go-round with the act, because there are only a couple more sections that we really need to look at in some detail. It is the issue raised in this clause of the minister's role in evaluation and assessment of students and educational activities in the schools. We've had some discussion already about this whole issue of assessment and about a very strong focus by the ministry on the issue. It's an issue that really has a lot of people interested and concerned, because the ministry is paying a lot of attention to the technical side of work that is going to be done, and to the end product of this evaluation: annual reports of the minister, annual reports of the school district and so on.

The member for Vancouver East spoke about what does happen in schools and what needs to happen in schools when we come to look at the diversity of learning that occurs, the range of activities that teachers need to be involved in and the challenge that there is for them to work with their children to develop the kind of processes that let them know how those children are developing in the classroom and what's happening. It's quite easy to understand some of the concerns when we hear about a system that is not only going to supposedly help the teacher in her classroom to be more effective in knowing what the children are learning and how well they are doing, but at the same time provide the minister with some information that comes out in the statistical review in his annual report that tells us in great global numbers how many kids are in certain courses and what kinds of standards they have achieved.

I am sure the minister has had an opportunity to take a look at an article about this whole matter of assessment that was published in the May-June issue of Teacher: Newsmagazine of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I found the article a very good one to focus our attention on what assessment is all about, and the need to start afresh and to really think about what we are doing when we set up a system that is extensive and to some extent intrusive — because it starts in the classroom in the school and it ends up in the minister's office — and driven by mixed agendas, certainly in people's perceptions. The writer, Jim Bowman, notes:

"We must start afresh and redesign the assessment program, and thus the accountability process, in the light of the mission statement, the goals, and the description of the educated citizen....

"Most important should be that any proposed action must be able to demonstrate its direct value to children and a very strong relationship to the description of the educated person...and not accept procedures because they are easy to design and implement and then let matters get out of proportion again"  — because the whole system has been designed in some way other than holistic.

I want to put that in the context of an information circular which the minister was kind enough to send me. I'm not in the habit of getting things from the minister's office — we haven't got our system working all that well — so I did appreciate receiving this. I got it, actually, the day after a response by school boards was required. The circular, which deals with the information requirements of the first pillar of the new electronic system, is dated June 20, 1989. It was sent out on that date presumably, with a response

[ Page 8288 ]

required by July 3 about the first stages of this system that people are still trying to get their minds around in terms of what it is going to do for them and their kids in the classroom.

There's an appendix to this system that talks about the royal commission implementation of the issues of accountability and student evaluation. I think the intent of this appendix is clearly to deal with some of the concerns out there, but when I look at what this statement has to say about what the assessment process intends to do, and then look again at what the system purports to do, I really have a job finding that this is a learner-centred approach. I really want to say at this stage of the game that there is not only a perception but a reality that the minister and the ministry are moving so fast with this that it's almost as if the system will be in place before anyone has determined what it is going to do and how it is going to do it. It's a very centralist approach.

I want to say at this point that we should not be dealing with this issue because there are computers involved. They are tools, and they are very useful. But it's a centralist approach about how computers are going to be used. In this clause — I want to relate my comments to this clause — we are basically stating that the minister and his people in Victoria are going to design the evaluation system that recognizes the activities of an educational program undertaken by a student, and it is going to cause an assessment to be made of students or groups of students, as we know, by a system that has been devised centrally.

The experts in this area are teachers. I'm sure that teachers, like everyone else, want to have the means to demonstrate not only to themselves and to parents but also to others all the good things that are happening in their classroom. But what we have seems to be almost like a behemoth, a system that is trying to drive what's going to be happening in schools. It's — and I use this word, as I sometimes do at the late hour, when I think of my good friend, Mother — a back-assward system. I hope the Chair will perhaps accept that as a word that might not be parliamentary but that does reflect what I think the system is about. I'll think of my mother tonight as being very often, gentle woman that she is, very precise in the language that she sometimes uses.

This issue, along with the next clause on contracting-out, is one of the last we'll be talking about tomorrow when we plan to conclude our debate on the bill. With that, Mr. Chairman, as I note the hour, I think it would be appropriate that I ask 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.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:58 p.m.