[ Page 10245 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Permit the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Legislative Proceedings

(Bill M220). Mr. Sihota introduction and first reading –– 10245

Fair Elections Practices Act (Bill M221). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 10245

An Act to Prohibit the Resale of Lottery Tickets. (Bill M222). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 10246

Tabling Documents –– 10246

Oral Questions

Travel expenses. Mr. Clark –– 10246

Challenger jet and government air logs. Mr. Rose –– 10247

Air-ambulance service. Mr. Perry 10247

Business development centres. Ms. Cull –– 10248

TV program production in B.C. Mr. Mowat –– 10248

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 10248

Vancouver Charter amendments. Mr. Perry –– 10249

Royal assent to bills –– 10249

Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act (Bill 37). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Veitch)

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 10249

Mr. Gabelmann –– 10250

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 10251

Sustainable Environment Fund Act (Bill 16). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 10251

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Miller

Mr. G. Janssen

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Perry

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Everyone in the House has a little chocolate on their desk with the number 50 on it, and that is in honour of the fiftieth birthday of our Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). He's also the member for South Peace River. I'd like the House to wish him a happy fiftieth birthday.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize two Members of the Legislative Assembly today. Last Friday the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) noted the proclamation of National Access Awareness Week. Our second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and our member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) are spending a day in a wheelchair, trying to perform their legislative duties, and I commend them for that. The only word I've heard so far, mostly from staff, is that today they're not standing around on the job. I want to commend them for their efforts today.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of my colleague the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself, I would like to have the Legislature welcome approximately 60 grade 7 students from Raymer Elementary School in Kelowna. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Ann Waldo, and several parents. Would the House please make this group welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) and myself, I would like to ask the House to join me in making 50 students from Grandview Elementary welcome, along with their teachers Miss M. Beedom and Ms. M. Fanning.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, visiting your precincts today are 40 students and several parents and teachers from Hillcrest Elementary in Salmon Arm. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today from Delta are Betty Baldo, Karen Charters, Patricia Ludwinowski and Janet Snukowich. They were here earlier today. They met with the Premier; they had lunch with the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran). I believe they arrived by ferry. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two friends of mine from Cowichan-Malahat. I would ask the House to make them welcome: Mrs. John Smith and Mrs. Pat Lines.

MR. MERCIER: Visiting the parliament buildings today is a group of grades 4 and 5 students from Armstrong Elementary School and their teacher, Mrs. Carol Taylor — all from my Burnaby-Edmonds riding. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the gallery today also is George Lawson, a longtime supporter in Vancouver East. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PERMIT THE TELEVISING

AND OTHER BROADCASTING OF

LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled An Act to Permit the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Legislative Proceedings.

MR. SIHOTA: The purpose of this act is to open up the process of government by ensuring greater public access to the work of the Legislative Assembly. It enables all debates and proceedings of the assembly to be broadcast on an ongoing basis by both television and radio.

It seeks to implement the intent of the Nova Scotia decision that we learned of last week, which held that it was a constitutional right for the television industry to come into a chamber and broadcast the proceedings therein. I am sure this bill will be embraced by the government, and it will then, of course, give the Premier an opportunity to fulfil his election promise of ensuring that there be television broadcasts of the proceedings of the legislative chamber.

Bill M220 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.

FAIR ELECTIONS PRACTICES ACT

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled Fair Elections Practices Act.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, this is an act which expands the opportunity for all adult British Columbians to ensure their democratic right to vote in provincial elections, and this is done in two important ways.

Firstly, it lowers the voting age in British Columbia to 18 years of age, bringing it into line with the federal voting age. There is no reason why young people in British Columbia should have a right to vote at the federal level and be denied that same right at the provincial level. It will attend to discrimination in that regard.

Secondly, it provides the right of all qualified voters to cast ballots, in that that right was taken away. It allows their names to be restored to the voter list if they have been left off, and to swear an affidavit of eligibility on election day.

Mr. Speaker, the removal of the section 80 provisions, as they're known, will disfranchise literally thousands of British Columbians come election day,

[ Page 10246 ]

especially in light of the fact that the current voter list was drafted almost two years ago. Therefore, in order to ensure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to vote for the candidate and the party of their choice on election day, we are proposing this to address and remedy that state of affairs.

Bill M221 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have another piece of legislation?

MR. SIHOTA: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: It's normal courtesy for members of your caucus to advise the Chair in advance, just to let you know that. All other members do.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that oversight. Just to let you know, it is the final bill that I intend to put forward today.

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE

RESALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr. Sihota presented a bill Intituled An Act to Prohibit the Resale of Lottery Tickets.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, this act makes the resale of lottery tickets an offence in British Columbia and creates penalties for such illegal activities commensurate with the prospective profits of such activity. It would then allow for a state of affairs in British Columbia that would match what has happened in other provinces in Canada and allow for the implementation of the recommendations of the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation.

Just this week I was talking to authorities in British Columbia who told me that they had recently witnessed....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: To point out the remedy that this bill addresses, let me say that authorities pointed out to me this week that a group of....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to the Chair, the two minutes allocated to a member when introducing a bill are to explain the nature of the bill, not to editorialize.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point of order is valid. The explanation of what is permitted during introduction of bills is very clearly laid out in our standing orders. However, we'd like to hear from the member, and then the Chair can decide afterwards.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I apologize in advance if I'm out of order, but I was going to give an example of the situation that this bill seeks to remedy.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't tell me you're going to do it, then do it and expect me afterwards to say you can't do it. We're going to stop you at that. I have to ask you to explain the principle of the bill and not get into editorial comment or comments you've had with other people on the side.

MR. SIHOTA: The purpose of this bill, then, is to prohibit the type of activity that I referred to earlier, to create penalties for that type of activity and to bring us into conformity with recommendations elsewhere.

Bill M222 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before proceeding with the next order of business, I would like to advise you first of all that the Chair is tabling the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library.

Secondly, His Honour will be here immediately following question period. As there seems to be a rapid exodus from the chamber immediately following question period, it might be nice if today, as a courtesy, the members would stay until His Honour has assented to the various pieces of legislation.

Oral Questions

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Labour. Is there a policy with respect to officials of the Workers' Compensation Board accepting free gifts or services from suppliers to the board?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have no idea what the member is referring to, so I'll take the question on notice and ask him to provide me with the information.

MR. CLARK: A new question. In 1988 Jim Nielsen, chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, and his wife, Robert Taylor, general manager of workers' compensation, and his wife, and Dr. Rigby, medical counsel to the board, and his wife, travelled to Germany to visit Siemens Electric facilities with a view to the board purchasing a Siemens MRI machine. In light of what we know of other Siemens

[ Page 10247 ]

junkets, can the minister responsible inform or undertake to inform the House who paid for this trip?

[2:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: As with the first question, I would have to take that question on notice.

MR. CLARK: Perhaps the minister could, while he's undertaking research on the other questions, confirm that after the trip but before the dismissal of the three individuals, discussion took place between Siemens and the WCB with a view to the purchase, untendered, of a Siemens MRI machine.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There are a number of people, obviously, offering the Chair advice as to whether the question is in order or not, but the Chair will actually make that decision on behalf of members.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: In answer to the question, I cannot confirm that at all.

CHALLENGER JET AND

GOVERNMENT AIR LOGS

MR. ROSE: I have a question to the Minister of Government Management Services. The minister has stated publicly that she will release all government air traffic records as quickly as possible. Has the minister decided to follow the established procedure and table these records in the Legislature?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The logs will be made public very soon.

MR. ROSE: I really didn't ask that question, Mr. Speaker, but that's fine.

The minister is quoted in this month's B.C. Woman to Woman magazine as saying: "I have to stay open and honest.... When I can't remain open and honest, it will be time to leave." Mr. Speaker, the facts of this case show that the minister was ordered to release this information publicly only after a taxpayer blew the whistle on her misuse of the government jet. Does the minister feel that in this instance she has been open and honest, and does she now think it's time to leave?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, I have been open and honest. The trips I have taken on the government jet have been for government business.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. PERRY: A question to the Premier. I'm told that because the government refuses to authorize overtime, there are no advanced life-support paramedics available on the government air ambulance service on the morning shift today and tomorrow or on the afternoon shifts this weekend. Can the Premier explain why, in this emergency situation, essential air ambulance service is being cut back at the same time as air ambulances are being used as a political taxi service?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not familiar with the question raised by the member. However, I can say that air ambulance is always a priority and will remain and must remain at all times a priority. It's very much a priority.

I'm pleased, too, to have this opportunity of complimenting the paramedics in this province for the wonderful job they do. I am very proud of their efforts; they carry out their functions extremely well. I'm very pleased with the ambulance service and the service it provides to all parts of the province. As a matter of fact, as I speak to my colleagues, the first ministers from across the country, they are very complimentary about the service in B.C. They are aware of it, and certainly there is an envy elsewhere in the country for the excellent service offered in our province.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. I'm sure all hon. members recall who established the provincial ambulance service in this province. I find the Premier's comments passing strange in view of the fact that this government is prepared to spend thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to provide commuter services...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask for a question during question period.

MR. PERRY: ...but it refuses to spend the $300 per day to maintain the overtime service for ambulance attendants. Can the Premier explain how the government can find that money to use the air ambulance as a private political taxi but can't find the dollars to staff the emergency ambulance service?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I too use the government aircraft regularly, but certainly not if it's required for ambulance service. When I do, it's to serve the people of the province and to provide whatever is necessary to carry out the democratic process in involving people throughout the whole of the province. This is a very large province, and obviously we need to be available as much to people in Prince George, Smithers and Fort St. John as we are to people in Vancouver.

I understand the member asking the question takes Helijet home every day at government expense. That certainly isn't necessarily serving the people of the province. So I suppose we could extend this. But I'm saying that when the government's planes are made available, it's to serve the commitment we have to the people of the province.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I began my question by pointing out that my information is that the government ambulance is not staffed with an emergency paramedic this morning, tomorrow and this weekend. Will the Premier make a commitment to ensure

[ Page 10248 ]

that the public air ambulance will be staffed on a continual basis?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'll make several commitments. First of all, I'll look into the allegation or suggestion made. As far as I'm aware, the government planes are certainly available for ambulance services first and foremost.

Also, as you are aware, the minister mentioned that the logs will be made available as quickly as possible. Perhaps it's fair that we need to consider policy from time to time — and perhaps not only as it applies to members on this side but also as it applies to members on that side. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House today. I wonder If he took a flight at government expense to do politicking in some part of the province. These issues ought to be considered.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTRES

MS. CULL: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Last week I asked the minister about the decision to close the Camosun business development centre. He had difficulty justifying the decision, which was to cut off funds as of May 30. After looking into the matter, I can understand his difficulty. Has your ministry's review of the centre confirmed that for an $80,000 provincial contribution last year, the centre helped create 39 new businesses, injecting $1.5 million into the local economy and employing 90 people?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We are doing an extensive review. One of the things I've found in the review is that other community colleges are operating that excellent program without government assistance and doing very well. So there are some questions there. When the review is complete, I will make the member aware of my findings and also of the total provincial picture with respect to the enterprise centres.

TV PROGRAM PRODUCTION IN B.C.

MR. MOWAT: My question is to the Minister of International Business and Immigration. It has come to my attention that two television shows — namely, "21 Jump Street" and "Booker" — have been cancelled. Both were filmed in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and throughout British Columbia. I wonder if the minister can tell us what impact the cancellation will have on the television industry and production in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's a fact that "Booker" and "21 Jump Street" have in fact been cancelled, but that has had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of workmanship, the craftsmanship or indeed any of the production companies in British Columbia. It's simply a matter of fact that the Fox corporation did cancel those two serials.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker that, even without that, we are getting....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps at another time we would have a ministerial statement on the issue, but not at the present time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Questions designed to elicit long responses that are vague and open-ended really fly in the face...and make the job of the Speaker difficult. The question has been answered to the satisfaction of the Chair. I ask the minister to take his place. If he wishes to discuss this at another time, that would be appropriate.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister responsible for the Expo lands contract: are there unresolved obligations of the province still being negotiated with respect to the contract?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister of Environment advise the House whether he is responsible for negotiating with the McBarge people?

HON. MR REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Premier advise the House who is responsible for handling the Expo contract?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, quite rightly the Minister of Environment is responsible for matters as they affect the environment. If the member has some knowledge about an environmental problem relative to McBarge, that is certainly a matter of concern to the minister. If, on the other hand, it's a financial contract, he should properly address it to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). I thought perhaps the member was aware of these things. He certainly should have been, because he's had ample opportunity to talk about this particular issue for a good while now. He should be aware of these things. He's wasting the time of question period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair's having difficulty determining the urgency, but the Chair only follows the guidelines.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) responded to this very question some six weeks ago, and took it on notice as the minister responsible. Would the minister have any comments today?

[ Page 10249 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENTS

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, a very easy question for the Premier. The city of Vancouver has frequently requested amendments to the Vancouver Charter which would allow it to control the destruction of mature trees and to mitigate the social impacts of redevelopment. Has the government decided to support the reintroduction of the these amendments, which it refused to pass during the last session?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order. But the Premier....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As a horticulturist in past times, I'd like to talk about trees. I think trees are a very necessary part of our environment, particularly in a city environment, because obviously trees give off the oxygen required in the air. Frankly, I'm a great proponent of saving trees. As a matter of fact, much of my life has been spent encouraging the planting of trees. I am sure that the member, who has practised medicine, is similarly concerned about saving life and saving a tree.

I'm impressed with the suggestions put forth. We'll certainly be considering them, although I can't really talk about legislation.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it's agreed, we'll declare a short recess and ask members to stay in their places until His Honour is here, and then we'll deal with that.

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990

Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1990

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1990

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1990

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1990

First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act

Personal Property Security Amendment Act, 1990

Fuel Tax Validation Act

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS AND IMMIGRATION ACT

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 37, Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act. In moving second reading, I wish to describe to the House the provisions of the bill and the environment within which the ministry operates.

All provinces recognize the importance of maintaining and expanding their economic relations with the international community. British Columbia is unique in that we recognize the interrelationship between matters of trade, investment and immigration.

Most members of the House will recall that in July of 1988 the Ministry of International Business and Immigration was formed by order-in-council. Since then the ministry has been actively and aggressively carrying out its mandate and responsibilities.

The purpose of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act is to provide statutory authority for the ministry to develop government policy and to implement programs and matters relating to international business and immigration. This encompasses areas of trade, investment and immigration for British Columbia. The bill also repeals and replaces the Agent General Act.

Export promotion is a key objective of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. External trade, which accounts for over one-quarter of British Columbia's GDP is essential to our continued prosperity. One in seven jobs in British Columbia is dependent upon trade; about 27 percent of all our goods and services are traded.

Together with the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, we have developed policies and programs designed to promote and increase our exports. The result has been significant.

Our increasingly diversified value-added products and services are sold to progressively wider markets. For example, major increases have been recorded in the sales of electronics and telecommunications equipment to Japan. The Pacific Rim now rivals the United States as British Columbia's chief export destination. The growth of British Columbia's economy depends upon our capacity to maintain and to strengthen the quality and range of products and services we provide.

The Ministry of International Business and Immigration, in conjunction with the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development, is working hard to encourage investments in new industries and regions of the province. Foreign investment contributes to the strength of our economy; it generates greater

[ Page 10250 ]

economic activity, opportunities for technology transfer and market access. It thus contributes to greater employment opportunities and incomes in the province.

The Ministry of International Business and Immigration has contributed to the province's success in attracting a diversity of business enterprises to British Columbia. New high-tech electronics and software production companies, clothing designers, small building-supply manufacturers, plastic products manufacturing and aerospace technology enterprises have been set up in British Columbia. Hughes Aircraft Co.'s world headquarters for air traffic control technology is now based in Richmond, and we're talking with many more aerospace companies, both large and small.

The Ministry of International Business and Immigration is responsible for coordinating the province's role in immigration. Immigrants bring with them their skills, ideas, creativity and wealth. In British Columbia roughly 22 percent of our residents are foreign-born. The coordination of the province's involvement in immigration policy and programs is designed to ensure the achievement of provincial objectives with respect to immigration. Ten other ministries are also involved in the planning, selection and settlement aspects of immigration.

Immigration — a concurrent constitutional responsibility first established in 1867 in the British North America Act — requires considerable federal-provincial cooperation. This ministry is currently negotiating an immigration agreement with the federal government. The objective is to improve planning, selection and settlement provisions to better meet the economic and social needs of British Columbia. As negotiations are continuing, the details of this agreement cannot be provided at this time.

The ministry's trade, investment and immigration functions are supported through offices in Victoria, Vancouver and ten offices outside the province. Two of the external offices — London and Tokyo — are headed by agents-general. These external offices are essential to the effective delivery of the ministry's and British Columbia Trade Development Corporation's programs and, indeed, of international programs all across government.

The three main functions of the ministry are carried out with the cooperation of others — the federal government in particular. Federal programs and offices abroad provide important support to our own international operations. The Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act was developed in recognition of the potential need for formal arrangements or agreements with others, in particular between the province and the federal government on matters of trade, investment and immigration.

The MIBI Act, in summary, is designed to do the following: outline the purposes and functions of the ministry; state ministerial responsibilities, duties and powers; provide for the appointment of staff; replace the Agent General Act, recognizing that agents-general play a key role in achieving the ministry's mandate; and provide authority for arrangements and agreements with others, recognizing that trade, investment and immigration responsibilities require considerable coordination and joint effort.

I have summarized the major issues relating to this ministry. The proposed MIBI Act will provide the Ministry of International Business and Immigration with the statutory authority required to fulfil its mandate. I am pleased to move second reading of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN: Just a few brief comments. This is the last of the ministry bills to be dealt with by this legislation, if my information is correct. It's not a bill that will keep the Legislature preoccupied for weeks to come; it's routine. It establishes the ministry, as the minister says. A lot of the questions that the minister touched on in the first 90 percent of his speech, in fact, were estimate-related issues, I thought. I had planned to save my comments on those subjects until estimates, and I intend to keep to that plan. But I did want to make a few very brief comments about the decision the government has made to link immigration to trade — which is a fundamental decision and, I think, the essential question that comes up when we debate a bill of this kind.

The minister said right off the bat that British Columbia is unique in that it has married immigration to trade-investment policies. I don't think that's the case. Ontario, for example, just off the top, subsumes its immigration responsibilities under its trade and economic development ministry — whatever its correct title is. They don't name the immigration portfolio in the ministry title, but nonetheless the functions and obligations are subsumed under the trade and economic development ministry.

Quebec, on the other hand, has a different approach to this question. They have, as I understand it, a ministry of immigration and culture. Quebec's view of immigration is that it has more to do with the cultural integrity of the province, with the cultural direction and survival of their people as a people, with their language and culture intact. It is clearly a very direct and conscious political decision of government of every political stripe in Quebec, I suspect, that immigration relates more to culture.

We have different imperatives here, I would agree, but nonetheless, immigration policy clearly is more and more now in the provincial ambit. Following June 23 it will be made even more clear in the minds of Canadians that immigration now is, as the minister describes it, a joint responsibility of federal and provincial governments.

[2:45]

It's the only part of the Meech Lake agreement that I have any difficulty with — not a major difficulty. But it's curious to me how we can provide immigration responsibility to provinces, because once people immigrate, they are free to move to another part of this country in any event. What we will find happening increasingly over the years to come is that immigrants who choose to come to Canada will go to the province that is most able to take them and is most desirous or most anxious to

[ Page 10251 ]

have that category or class of immigrant come to their province, even though they may want to settle elsewhere in the country. Once they are here, they have the right — clearly under the Charter as well as any other traditional rights in this country — to move.

The whole question of attempting to design an immigration policy at the provincial level is fraught with that basic contradiction which will never be different. I think we need to remember that when, on the provincial level, we are embarking upon significant immigration policy-making or significant efforts to attract immigrants. We need to recognize that, in fact, there's no reason at all that they will stay here in this province. That was an aside.

To come back to the issue of the political decision of the placement of immigration, we need to include it with trade and investment questions, but we also need to give equal weight to other considerations. Those other considerations include, to a certain extent — for different reasons — the kinds of considerations that the province of Quebec employs in terms of the kind of culture they want to promote and enhance in their province.

But it also includes — and the minister mentioned it tangentially — questions of integration into the community, education and settlement planning. All of those questions that are really fundamental to sound immigration policy get lost in the shuffle when the ministry obligations are exclusive of those kinds of issues. The ministry obligations, essentially, are to promote and encourage and to get people to make the decision to come here, and then the ministry obligations end.

The minister mentioned there are ten ministries involved in settlement-related issues. But the ministry itself is not charged with that responsibility. There is no clear leadership on the question of settlement, and I use that in the broadest possible way to describe what happens to immigrants when they arrive in this country, from learning about the country right through to learning the language and then all the questions of integration into the community. We don't have that when we have such a narrow focus as we have through linking immigration strictly with trade and investment.

I'm going to make comments in the estimates debate later about what I think is more appropriate there, which is the whole question of what the trade offices do, what their daily mandate appears to be and what their obligations are in terms of fulfilling their responsibilities. Those questions are more appropriate then than now.

What we are really discussing this afternoon is simply a bill to give statutory authority to the order-in-council's establishment of this particular ministry. I have no problem with the legislation other than making the comments I made, which, in summary, are that we need to not just deal with immigration until people arrive here, but we need to think in a much more integrated and coordinated way than we do to date about what happens after people arrive here and are settling.

With those comments, I think that's all the members on this side have to say on this bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for North Island for his very cogent remarks. There are six provinces, hon. member — or seven perhaps now — that have agreements of some type or other with respect to immigration and the federal government.

As you are no doubt aware, under the British North America Act — or the constitution act, if you will — of 1867, rights were given to the provinces along with the federal government in matters of immigration. That, along with income tax and a few other things, has been frittered away over the years.

The strongest of these acts, of course — as you are quite correct — is the Cullen-Couture agreement, signed between the province of Quebec and the government of Canada, which gives rights, subject to federal veto, for Quebec to not only have settlement but to also grant landed immigrant status to immigrants. There are all sorts of other acts that go all the way from that sort of intensity down to.... Prince Edward Island, I think, more or less says, "Let's just get together and talk, " and not much more. The imperatives in British Columbia are quite different, and the negotiations we are carrying on have those in mind.

The hon. member mentioned settlement problems, and he's quite correct. While I'm not going to get into any negotiations that we're involved in with Ottawa at present, I can tell you that settlement problems are at the top of the list and that the government of British Columbia advanced an additional $20 million this year to Education to handle English as a second language. There are settlement problems all over this province and indeed this country, and I wouldn't be bringing back an agreement for the consideration of cabinet without that being addressed.

I want to thank the hon. member for his comments, With that I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 37, Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 16.

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister to give a fuller description of this committee: who is on it, what does it do, how often does it meet and what are the criteria?

[ Page 10252 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development is made up of a couple of cabinet ministers. The committee meets every week on Thursday mornings, usually at 8 o'clock and sometimes at 7 o'clock. It receives submissions and has also had input from the public. People can request attendance at cabinet committee meetings to make presentations, and we've had a number of those.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister explain the difference between the kind of work this committee would do and the kind of work that would be done in the normal course of work coming before his ministry? Obviously the Ministry of Environment is a line ministry which is set up to fulfil the mandate of the Minister of Environment. So I'm asking the minister if he would describe — perhaps in philosophical terms, but as descriptively as possible — just what the difference is between those two functions.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member knows that there is a cabinet and that there are cabinet committees. Maybe he hasn't had the opportunity to be part of a cabinet, but maybe he could talk to some of his members who have. As he well knows, what appears before cabinet is confidential. I don't discuss what comes before cabinet, and I'm not about to do it here; nor am I about to discuss what happens in a cabinet committee.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, we don't expect the minister to describe the particulars of what comes before this committee. But could he give the House and the people of British Columbia an example of how the work of this committee differs from the work of his line ministry? Why do we need this committee?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, this committee deals with all matters of economic development in the province. It has a different name than before, but there are other cabinet committees. I certainly would never discuss what happened in cabinet or a cabinet committee, but we have groups appear before a committee, whether it's cabinet or cabinet committee, and they come and make representations to the cabinet of the government as to what their project is, what their products are. Cabinet looks at those and reviews them.

But with regard to a line ministry, I don't really get what the member's after. We function with our staff and do our jobs. Like everything else in government, it goes through cabinet or through a cabinet committee.

MR. CASHORE: What we're getting at, as will be seen as we continue this section-by-section debate, is that no credible reason has been given to justify the existence of this committee to administer this fund, given that there is a line ministry that has a mandate to carry out the very functions that this fund is purported to carry out. We'll be having more on that later.

I would like to ask the minister, since there is no definition in this bill and I'm not aware of there being a definition in other legislation, and since the minister has chosen to refer in section 1 to the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development: would the minister give a definition to this House of "sustainable development"? What is the working definition of "sustainable development" that is operative for this committee?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I might suggest to the member across the floor that this is the first time in North America or anywhere else where there are dedicated funds for environmental projects. That is the reason that this is being done this way.

I hear the member for Nanaimo saying: "Why does it have to have a committee?" Well, that's the way the system works. If you're telling me that if you ever had dreams of being government you were going to eliminate cabinet committees and eliminate cabinet and just do everything on the floor of the Legislature, that's one story, but it's not the way it operates.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, that was a very interesting response. If I heard the minister correctly, he said this is the first time in North America that government has dedicated funds for environmental projects. What an incredible admission. I would think that this government, which has bragged about its Ministry of Environment, in granting budget to that ministry had been dedicating funds to the environment, but apparently the minister doesn't see it that way. Apparently, now that we have this fund, this is the first time.

Perhaps the minister can tell us: what on earth was the Ministry of Environment doing before now if the funds that were committed to it were not dedicated to the environment?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I can see we're going to be here a long time trying to explain to this member what we mean by that term. He knows full well — or if he doesn't, he should — that in any budget in any government, at the end of the year the funds are cut off and you go into a new budget. With this dedicated fund, the money does not go back to general revenue. It's staying in for the environment.

This is the first government in North America that's done that, and you should be proud to be in this Legislature as part of the system — the first one to make the environment the number one issue, the most important issue. You should understand that. You should understand how that system works. This money that's coming into this fund at the end of this year will be dedicated, and it will be there.

To talk about why we bring things to cabinet committee.... You know, you've got to be integrated and coordinated. No ministry makes decisions and goes off and spends their money without going through a process, much like, I would hope, your

[ Page 10253 ]

caucus doesn't make decisions without going through a process. You operate as a team, and that's what we're doing.

[3:00]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of that answer is consistent with the kind of rhetoric that we see in this special edition of B.C. News — which cost the taxpayer half a million dollars — to prove to the public that this minister was doing something for the environment. Strictly, Mr. Minister, it has all the markings of a public relations approach to dealing with the environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: You wouldn't know anything about that anyway.

MR. CASHORE: By saying that I wouldn't know anything about a public relations approach to the environment, the minister's bang on. I believe in a substance approach to the environment. That's why I'm not satisfied with the kind of comment that this minister has made. He has not given any substantive measure of difference that would show why there is a necessity for such a fund, as opposed to the funds that go into operating the Ministry of Environment.

The minister also evaded a question that I asked. The question was: define "sustainable development." It is a term that is in this act. The term is not defined. Actually, if this bill was drafted properly, the minister knows full well it would be defined. Would the minister define for this House what he means when he uses the term "sustainable development"?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Certainly. I would want to advise the member across there that I don't agree with some of the statements that he's making, but nevertheless he can keep going on. Sustainable development is development which ensures that the utilization of resources and the environment today — that's today — does not damage the prospects for their use by future generations.

MR. CASHORE: I thank the minister for that answer. It's an answer that is consistent with the Brundtland report. I think it would be appropriate in a bill such as this to have such an important term defined when it is used.

I know that in the House a few days ago the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) talked about the environment and the economy as though they were two very separate entities. It seemed to me that an appropriate approach to a concept of sustainable development would recognize that you can't have one without the other, that they come from the same root and that they are one and the same thing. By that definition, anything that could be done that would damage the opportunity of a future generation would be economically foolish, and therefore that which benefits the economy also benefits the environment.

I would have hoped that the minister would push the definition that much further, at least to recognize that the environment and the economy are one and the same. If we are going to have a sustainable environment, that's how we are going to do it.

I would also recommend to the minister, when he is using the term "sustainable development, " that he consider that the task, if we're really going to be diligent about this, is to develop sustainability. It does not hurt to reverse those two words from time to time and recognize the role that we have in developing sustainability. I think when we do that, we will find that we have our priorities in the right place.

The minister said in response to an earlier question that the sustainable development committee meets once a week, and he said some cabinet members are on the committee. I wonder if he would fill that answer out and say which cabinet members are on the committee.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. The hon. Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen); Minister of Environment, obviously; Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber); Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan); Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage); Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker); Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis); Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier); Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond); Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch); Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. L. Hanson); Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer); Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael); and Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Add it up. Can you add?

MR. CASHORE: Just for the record, when the minister was speaking about this committee earlier, it sounded as though it had been meeting for quite some time.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Years. Okay.

Would he tell me how long this committee has been in existence?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We've been meeting for years, but not all one meeting.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I think the government House Leader is clearly out of order. He's making a point without standing up, and for the record....

Would the minister tell us how long this Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, defined as such, has been in existence?

[ Page 10254 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can't give you the exact date, but it has changed names — roughly around budget time.

MR. LOVICK: Just a very quick question to the minister, given that he made reference to a comment I made across the floor a moment ago. When I was asking why, what I was doing was simply trying to elicit from the minister an explanation of why it is that we need a special committee of cabinet when all we're talking about doing is distributing the proceeds in a special fund, all of which have as their fundamental purpose environmental causes.

Surely the minister would see the reason for the question: namely, that it seems to undercut the integrity, function and primacy of the Ministry of Environment. This is a special fund for environmental purposes; money apparently built into the fund or coming into the fund from improved environmental practices.

You can understand our skepticism, Mr. Minister. Why this special committee for this particular function? The function seems very narrow indeed. All it does is recommend how this particular batch of money gets spent. Does one really need a special committee for that? We're talking about divvying up a pie.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It amazes me that members on the other side obviously haven't read the budget — or they wouldn't make those comments For the first time this committee — if you read the budget — has money in it from other departments; and they come before this committee, which decides what we're going to be doing on the environment. It also is going to have funds coming into it from tires, batteries and chemicals.

The committee is going to make those decisions, but it will make them in an integrated manner with all ministries working together. Read the budget and you'll understand what I'm saying.

MR. MILLER: The minister went through that list fairly quickly, and I didn't get all of the members of cabinet who.... If the minister could send a copy across, that would be helpful. I wonder if he could advise.... I believe I read somewhere that it would be co-chaired by the Ministers of Environment and Regional and Economic Development. Perhaps the minister could indicate if that is the case.

I'll just continue, Mr. Chairman. We are going to reach a point in this bill when we might want to have some latitude in terms of crossover. We're now starting to debate the committee, and it seems that's fundamental to some of the concerns we want to raise in terms of how the fund will operate or what the process will be. So hopefully there will be that latitude in the committee stage of the bill.

So we have a new committee. It's comprised of a good number of cabinet members, and their purpose is to deal with those issues as outlined in the bill and to some extent in the budget documents. But I wonder how that impacts. Or does it impact at all on the existing cabinet committee? There is an existing committee called the Environment and Land Use Committee, which deals with matters of environmental concern. At one time it dealt with some of the more significant areas of land use conflicts. Is the role of that committee denigrated at all in terms of this new committee?

I think this is probably more appropriate to a further section of the bill, but I wanted to talk about the process in terms of how the committee would be operating. Do individual cabinet members have to bring initiatives to that committee?

I want at some point to get into the issue of reforestation, because it's my view that many of those expenditures are routine expenditures in that they're required to be undertaken. They don't, in a legislative sense, fall within the jurisdiction of something that you would normally take to committee and seek approval for. I realize there are other sections where we can get into that, but that's an opener in terms of that question.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member is right. I think when you get to section 5 you can probably get into some more questions in that area, but routine expenditures of any ministry do not come under this committee. The ministers will come to that committee seeking the funds, and if they are approved by the committee, they spend the money for programs. There's no change in that area at all. It's going through a process that's been done time immemorial in parliamentary democracies. There's no change in that area.

MR. MILLER: The minister said, in response to an earlier question from my colleague, that this was a dedicated fund and that this is a first. He said that whereas government expenditures are normally subject to the vagaries of budgeting and any unexpended funds are reverted back at the year-end, this fund — once the money was dedicated — would be there. That could be interpreted as saying that not all of the money will be spent in the fiscal year and that there is no particular obligation on the ministry or whoever presents the budget for this — and I would presume it would be the Minister of Environment who will present an annual budget here on in — that those funds be expended in that fiscal year. That's clearly what you said: "not going to spend it all in the fiscal year." Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: What is meant by that, Mr. Chairman, is that you may get some of the money that's being collected on tires, batteries and chemicals, and it's there in the fund. It will stay in the fund and you may not spend it. You may, for instance, as we're doing in Nanaimo, offer to fund a facility. That money may not be spent in that one year. It would go into the next year.

MR. MILLER: In terms of us being able and the public being able to look at the figures that the

[ Page 10255 ]

government has put forward from year to year and the objectives that they've defined, will there be any way that you can calculate those multi-year expenditures?

I realize that the Minister of Finance makes a commitment to multi-year expenditures. Having been in other political forums besides this one, I realize that most often those commitments are not ones that can be kept. Legislatively, there is no particular comfort, beyond the words themselves, that the public can draw from a statement that we will have multi-year budgeting. The budget is set every year, and it's debated in this House and it's passed, and in the normal course of events it's the budget that the government with the majority wants. So you can't really make an iron-clad commitment to future expenditures.

If this fund is going to do that — if that's the purpose of this fund, as outlined by the Minister — will the figures be broken down so that the public will be able to see with some degree of clarity how those funds are going to be spent?

[3:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is yes.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The sustainable environment fund that is being established under this act again takes money from many areas: the diapers, the batteries, lotteries, and so forth. Does the minister have any indication, sort of a futuristic look, of how much money he expects to collect from the various components of this act? How much money will there be for him to carry on the various programs that he obviously has in mind to sustain the environment?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member asks a very good question and I think there is an answer. The exemption removed from disposable diapers will put about $2 million into the fund; the disposal levy on new vehicle tires we estimate at about $7.5 million; the disposal levy on new lead acid batteries at about $2.3 million; and a levy on hazardous products, which as you know was announced in the budget, and which we will announce around July, we expect at about $3.8 million; the pollution discharge fee increase, and a method of calculation based on volume and toxicity, about $2 million. The transfer of current discharge fees to the fund — previously they went into general revenue — is $3.2 million.

As you know, we only estimate environmental prosecutions. Last year we were over half a million; this year we are estimating half a million, but that's just a figure you estimate. There are charges before the courts right now that could go up to a million. It's an estimate. And of course there's the transfer from the lottery fund of $50 million; that is $71.3 million for this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the member for Alberni continues, the member for Prince Rupert mentioned when he was on his feet that there might be a requirement for some latitude in dealing with this bill, and the Chair is quite prepared to do that, providing there is no objection on the part of the minister. But I notice now that we have jumped quite a bit in the question that was just posed by the member for Alberni, and I wonder if we might clean up some of these first sections. Shall section 1 pass?

MR. MILLER: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I haven't actually sorted out in my mind a grouping of sections together, and I'm not concerned about passing section 1 particularly, because I think section 2 gives us ample scope to discuss the fund. I would presume the Chair would concur with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we can deal with 1 to 4. How would that suit members? No?

AN HON. MEMBER: One at a time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time. All right, that's fair.

MR. MILLER: I have a further question with regard to section 1, then. The fund itself is comprised in the main from moneys that were previously allocated to the Ministry of Forests. As I read it, the vast majority of that is money that is required to be spent. In other words the ministry, through their calculations, have figured out that we will be obliged to spend this amount of money in terms of meeting our requirements for reforestation. Added to that is a little bit of a carryover on the FRDA money, some $7.2 million. But the fact is that the bulk of the fund — at least 75 percent of the fund — is comprised of money that really reflects statutory obligations on behalf of the Crown through the Ministry of Forests.

This concerns me, and I am wondering — the bulk of the moneys having been drawn from the Ministry of Forests, why is that not reflected in the makeup and the operation of the committee? I realize the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is a member, but the two co-chairmen and the vice-chairman are respectively the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen), the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) and the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). It seems to me that that sends a message, and there has been concern expressed to me.

I don't know if that same concern has reached the government's ears, but there has been concern expressed to me about the appearance of a denigration of the role of the Minister of Forests in terms of the obligations of the Ministry of Forests, which are now really being routed through the fund. Perhaps the minister might want to advise us as to the government's thinking in not giving the Minister of Forests a rather prominent role in the operation of a fund which is, in the main, spending money allocated to the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest to the hon. member that the program is still the Minister of Forests' program. There is no denigration of his job

[ Page 10256 ]

whatsoever. If anything, this puts it in a higher profile. I just don't understand where you would come from in thinking that there was any denigration of the Minister of Forests in this act at all.

MR. MILLER: Well, the denigration is in the fact that you have drawn three-quarters of your funding for the fund from the Ministry of Forests. When I look at the makeup of the cabinet committee which will be making decisions about expenditures from the fund, I find that the Minister of Forests, although he is a member of the committee, is certainly not in any one of the three key roles in that committee — either one of the co-chairmen or the vice-chairman.

I respect that all members of cabinet presumably do their best. But I would think, when it came to the wisdom of particular expenditures and perhaps when it came to forestry, the Minister of Forests might actually know a little more than the Minister of Native Affairs. Why he was not given a more prominent role? Why wasn't the Minister of Forests one of the co-chairmen? It would seem logical to me. That seems to be one of the....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) advises me that logic has no bearing at all on the decisions of the government.

I don't want to get hung up on the point, but why the Minister of Forests.... That appears to be one of the significant areas of concern in British Columbia today when we are talking about environmental issues — whether those are land-use conflicts, forestry harvesting practices, the concern about setting aside natural areas of British Columbia or concerns about slash-burning. All of the topical issues that the government side is as well aware of as I am fall under the category that I would think this fund was designed — and the committee was structured — to deal with. Yet we don't see that kind of prominence given to the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I just don't agree. When you look at this committee, I think it is not only giving prominence to forestry, but also to the environment. And to think that the Minister of Native Affairs....

The native people in this province aren't environmentalists? I don't agree with that. I think the Minister of Native Affairs is here representing a bunch of people who are great environmentalists and who are a very important part of this committee.

To suggest that the people in the forestry industry, a lot of whom are probably the greatest environmentalists we have in this province.... They've done a tremendous job. You go up to communities like yours and others in the north Island, and there are forestry companies that show what good environmentalists they are.

I just don't understand your whole attack on this thing. I think the fund itself is promoting forestry, the environment and working together, and it is coordinated and integrated with all the ministries.

I think it is a positive step for this province, and we have seen encouragement for it in meetings of the round table around the province and in talking to people in your communities.

MR. MILLER: Not to belabour the point, but I did outline that the bulk of the moneys was drawn from forestry. We'll deal later on in another section with the fact that the Ministry of Forests, prior to making expenditures, has to receive the approval of the committee. I would say again that the bulk of the expenditures that would have been made — and I hope will be made — out of in excess of $200 million that has been taken from the Minister of Forests' budget and put into this fund is for statutory obligations. Under the legislation that the ministry operates under in this province, there is a requirement that Crown lands be reforested. There are other requirements that the Minister of Forests is obligated to fulfil under his mandate. This has been transferred to the fund.

The bulk of the money comes from the Minister of Forests, yet we have as the co-chairmen the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, the Minister of Environment — which I can understand; I have no quarrel with that or with any of them as individuals — and the Minister of Native Affairs. It suggests the denigration of the Minister of Forests.

It is of concern that the minister has to go to the committee to seek approval for what I think should be statutory expenditures. There is no real consideration of: "Should we do this, or should we not?" They are basic requirements; they have to be done.

When I look at the history of regional development in British Columbia, there is additional cause for concern. Certainly it's been a bit of a topsy-turvy administrative approach to that question. Ever since I've been a member of this House, I certainly recall early announcements that there would be a minister of state. That's gone through I don't how many transformations. There are many questions, and I don't want to get into an extensive debate about them. It's not part of this bill.

Just to illustrate my point that there is some suspicion in parts of British Columbia that the mandate or program of regional development is not to follow some kind of cohesive strategy in terms of what needs to be done.... Rather, there are elements of a political strategy. I could get into specific examples on that score where decisions have been made, presumably by the regional minister, that smack more of politics than of any kind of logic and rationale for the particular area.

It does present some cause for concern that the Minister of Forests is not given that kind of prominence. I hope the Minister of Environment didn't construe anything I had to say. I guess he'll read the Blues. But I wasn't suggesting that there was a lack of commitment to environmental concerns by the Minister of Native Affairs or by any member of the committee at all. We'll take our shots as we see fit on

[ Page 10257 ]

specific issues and on the record. Presumably we'll get into that reasonably quickly — hopefully before the onslaught of the winter weather on the north coast.

I think there's a reasonable point to be made in terms of that role. The Minister of Forests has given you most of the money. How come he's not getting a little more prominence in the actions of this committee?

[3:30]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, we canvassed some very significant points under section 1: what is meant by sustainable development and what the difference is between this fund and the work of the line ministry. Those are important considerations. The public has the right to know just what the line of demarcation is between these two procedures, which purportedly have similar goals.

I know this may sound like rhetoric, but in some ways it has been characterized as a sell-the-environment fund more than a sustainable environment fund. It leaves the door open for decisions to be made at a political level in cabinet with regard to how tax dollars, lottery dollars and levied dollars — which are also tax dollars — are going to be used. It gives a continuation of a process that we see too much of with this government, where members of cabinet are able to decide on the deployment of funds purportedly for the public benefit.

We're not talking about a small fund here; we're talking about quite a large fund. We're talking about decisions being made on almost a regular weekly basis when this committee meets. Presumably many of these decisions would be far better dealt with at arm's length through an appropriate instrument in the Ministries of Environment and Forests themselves.

Indeed, I'm sure that the minister has received feedback from the public, since it has been observed that.... With the transfer of about $222 million from Forests, it has certainly had the appearance of being a shell game. It certainly has the appearance to the public of money being taken out of one ministry and moved into the other. That enables the minister to say that he's increased the spending for Environment by 24 percent, using dollars that already exist elsewhere.

One of the real concerns I have — and I know the minister and I have engaged in this issue both inside and outside of the House — is about the people who work in the ministry. The minister stated on one occasion that he was glad to see me in the House and went on to accuse me of having said negative things about his staff. Mr. Chairman, that simply is not true; the minister knows it isn't true.

I believe that the people who work in the Ministry of Environment are by and large outstanding people who have a very difficult task. It's a task that's made difficult because of current and pressing issues that relate to the environmentalism that we are all so much aware of, somewhat as a result of the work that has been done by environmental organizations — as the minister points out, very much by the work that has been done by people who have been working at environmental causes for a great many years: people who work in the Ministry of Forests, people who work in the Ministry of Environment, working people.

There is no segment of society or the community that has a corner on environmentalism. Whatever the sum total of those expressions of urgency are that have come from various parts of our society and have resulted in such things as the development of the Brundtland report, and resulted in such things as politicians being pressured into positioning themselves on environmental issues, the fact is that I find it unconscionable that there be virtually no increase in the available funding for this line ministry, for the people who work so hard within the Ministry of Environment.

This kind of money made available to a cabinet committee, which clearly consists of people who therefore have the opportunity to carry on the time-honoured tradition with this Social Credit government of allocating funds on the basis of political reasons and not on the basis of the reasons that really tie in to a deep, deep definition of sustainability, sustainable development, developing sustainability, and combining economic and environmental concerns.... I feel very deeply about that.

I have talked to people in the Ministry of Environment. I know that this minister has also, and he is aware of the anxiety being experienced by people who work within that ministry: the handful of people who are employed as uniformed conservation officers, who have such a huge caseload with regard to the number of investigations they have to carry out; the people who work in the ministry offices and carry on the daily clerical work that is building up; the people who have hung in there since the early 1980s when a previous Social Credit government saw fit to decide that the environment was expendable. They cut back on ministry staff because at that time the polls weren't telling them the environment was important, so they thought they'd cut back there.

There are some things about the basic philosophy of this bill and of this approach that are frankly baffling. They tend to belie the stated position of this government and of this minister that this government is becoming environmentally appropriate and environmentally friendly.

When people see that the closest thing we get to recycling is the recycling of old money in a bill such as this, they can be forgiven for seeing this as a slush fund. As my colleague the member for Coquitlam Moody (Mr. Rose) said: "With a fund like this, you can buy a lot of pork."

The public, having seen the kind of smoke and mirrors and shellgame activity that has gone on in the past, has every right to see it in that way. Just what is this fund? Is it a pork-barrel fund? Is it a friends-and-insiders fund? Is it a sell-the-environ-

[ Page 10258 ]

ment fund so that the minister can funnel dollars to people in the corporate sector so they can set up their technological solutions to environmental problems, so that we have more of the same?

Not only do we have corporations producing the problem by producing too much packaging, for instance, or producing toxic waste when they don't have a cradle-to-grave philosophy of dealing with toxic waste, but then, having helped to create the problem, they come along and they're going to solve the problem by setting up — what will it be — a very expensive resource recovery plant that produces RDF, or an incinerator, or one of these technological solutions?

Mr. Chairman, the minister knows full well that even when we have started appropriately with appropriating funds to really make recycling work, to really reduce the waste stream so that the problem we're dealing with when we're dealing with some of those big ticket issues becomes a different problem, that's not a simple thing to have to deal with.

But the way this is set up leaves it open for that cabinet committee, which does not have the training, the expertise or the objectivity contained in the line ministry.... It is a very questionable priority to allow that kind of money to be dealt with in that way by that kind of committee. I'd be interested in the minister's comments on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate the comments that the member made about our staff, because they are great. I only have to say it once, because my staff all know what I think about them and that I don't play politics with them and their jobs.

I want to comment on what the member said. He used the terms "slush fund, " "allocation of funds for political reasons" and "purportedly for the public benefit." Those are easy things to say in this House. But I would suggest that if you've got accusations, bring them out; give us projects that I have approved in my ministry that you think are politically motivated. Don't make weak accusations that damn everyone in this House.

I ask you if the BRINI project In Nanaimo is in a New Democrat riding. Has that gone to our friends? The blue box program in the Capital Regional District that we're helping to fund — we don't have a member in Victoria, but that hasn't bothered us, whether it's the environment or the Conference Centre. We do things for the good of British Columbians, and that's our policy. The hazardous waste days — the first one was in Port Moody, the opposition House Leader's constituency; one of the first ones was done there, not in a constituency with a Socred in it.

If you want to get up and make accusations that we could do it.... I will quote the auditor-general. "The revenues and expenditures of the sustainable environment fund are disclosed in the estimates" — that's my statement. According to the March 1989 annual report of the auditor-general: "As long as the estimates include adequate information about planned expenditures from special accounts and the actual expenditure is subsequently accounted for on a timely basis, there is no reduction in legislative control." I would suggest to you and to the members on the other side that there is definitely no reduction in legislative control; in fact, there may be more.

The member also talks about some people in the environment field who have been around for a long time and who were there years ago when nobody thought about it. I consider myself one of those, because I was fighting for it in 1972 on various issues in the lower mainland. But I would also suggest to that hon. member that the Wright brothers, who discovered the airplane, don't own any companies today either. There are people who are involved at the start; other people get involved later. Progress comes along, and we have to make sure that both of those groups are working together.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the point is that if you take a look at where this government and this minister have allocated dollars, the priorities are clearly towards the techno fix, not towards the kind of process that's really going to enable this province to resolve the waste management problem through a recycling process that really works.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

A couple of weeks ago in Vancouver the minister announced some initiatives that he was taking. It's interesting that the largest of those initiatives was a million dollars for an advertising campaign under the name of Education. There were also some dollars announced for some other grass-roots things; I commend him for that. But if you take a look at where the really big money is going compared to where the crumbs from the table are going, it's pretty clear what the philosophy is that fuels the kinds of decisions that are going to be made by this cabinet committee.

[3:45]

I cite $5,000 going to each municipality and regional district for the development of their recycling plants. That's a pittance, Mr. Chairman. There's an abandonment on the part of this government and this minister of their main responsibility to those municipalities and regional districts to resolve the problem. This government is really not doing the job that's needed to develop and coordinate markets so that there are markets for these substances. So there's a real concern that people who are very much big corporate entities in the waste management field are going to be able to continue to cream the waste management system. While that's going on, there's a failure to allocate the resources that are needed to enable it to really function at the local level.

I know the minister has the ability to listen to two conversations at the same time, so I expect that he'll be able to give me a lucid response.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose the minister can read what I just said. He was carrying on quite a conversation with a minister who caused the division bells to be rung many times yesterday when government ministers weren't paying attention.

[ Page 10259 ]

Mr. Chairman, basically the point is that it's obvious from the way this fund is being set up, from the lack of controls and from the fact that there are going to be political decisions made by members of cabinet, and given the kinds of funds that have been made available to municipalities and turning them into orphans who have to fend for themselves with a measly $5,000 to develop their recycling plans, that the priorities of this government are really upside down.

The major financial resource should be going into enabling the communities of this province, in partnership with the government with an enhanced line ministry, to work on recycling programs, markets and the kind of procedure that's really going to make that work. Then, when that's done, some of those other issues, such as BRINI systems, can be addressed at that time. It's a matter of first things first. The point is that this bill indicates that this government has its strategy reversed in terms of the most appropriate initiatives to be taken first.

This minister is going around the province putting a great deal of time and energy into trying to give money to projects that will get resource recovery plants up and running. While that type of approach may sometimes fit in the hierarchy of methods used to address the question of the waste stream, it's obvious that the minister has put most of his eggs into that basket, when he should have been putting those eggs into the basket of enabling a coordinated recycling program to effectively function within this province — and not simply giving the municipalities a pittance here and there.

I did acknowledge, while the minister was talking a few moments ago to the Minister of Finance (Hon Mr. Couvelier), that this minister made some announcements a couple of weeks ago and that some of them are worthwhile. But I also pointed out that it appears that again the main thrust under the guise of education is a public relations campaign — a million dollars. The main portion of that initiative announced by this minister is public relations. All of these things, when you look at them together, tend to cast a pall on this bill and make it very clear to the public what the government is really up to here.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't that I didn't hear what the member was saying before. I didn't really think there needed to be an answer. But now that he's got up a second time, let's talk about what he talks about: the techno fix — the BRINI project.

I'm sure the first member for Nanaimo (Mr Lovick) would be rather upset that you don't like the project going ahead in his community. So would members of your party who support the project in that area. This project was not enforced upon them by the Minister of Environment or the government of British Columbia. It was put together by Ian Terry of the regional district in that area, one of the hardest-working municipal officials in this province, who coordinated other municipalities and got them all working together to decide that this was the project they wanted.

This government doesn't play Big Brother, like the NDP wants to play. We work with communities and work with their projects, just like we're working with the Capital Regional District now on a composting project they're going to forward to this government very, very shortly. We don't believe that there's one solution to the problem; we believe that different communities have different solutions and that we should work with them and their various solutions.

Certainly we believe that there is high technology available in some areas of the environment. We're not back with the Wright brothers like the opposition leader and the critic of the NDP are. We believe we have to look at all projects in this province.

He talks about the blue box system. The blue box system is thriving in this province with support from this provincial government. And you talk about pittances. I'm giving a cheque to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) and the capital region sometime this week for $160,000. That's not a pittance. That's support of a project in this community, and we're doing that all around the province.

The member talks about controls. Maybe I'll read it to him again, because it has to be read and read again so that he understands. Here's what the auditor-general said in March 1989: "As long as the estimates include adequate information about planned expenditure from special accounts and the actual expenditure is subsequently accounted for on a timely basis, there is no reduction in legislative control."

You will get a detailed explanation of all the money that's spent in this fund, and you will have ample opportunity on the floor of this House to criticize it. You'll hear of the projects as they are announced week by week, month by month, as this committee's working. And you'll have a chance to criticize them. If you don't like the project, stand up in the House and say: "I don't want the BRINI project in Nanaimo." Tell the people of British Columbia that you don't want the blue box system and that you don't want this government funding it. Come on!

The projects we're working on are working very, very well. That's what has got you so upset. You know that the UBCM are meeting with me on a regular basis, which they haven't done for a long time. They are happy with the projects we're putting forward. They're happy with the hazardous waste proposals. Instead of knocking it all the time, stand up once in a while and say: "That's a good project. That's a good program." Let's work together for the environment and stop playing these silly political games about lack of control and friends in the business. If you've got accusations, make them. But try and get above that for the environment. Rise above it.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister gives his book definition of sustainable development, but when you hear him try to describe his situation in such a simplistic way, you'd think that he would at

[ Page 10260 ]

least try to apply his definition in deciding upon a workable approach to reducing the waste stream. It's not a question of slamming this system or that system; it's a question of starting at the beginning. I pointed out to the minister that he is putting a pittance into getting recycling really functioning in the province. I think if he's talking to people in municipalities who are happy, he is certainly talking to different people from the ones I'm talking to.

Be that as it may, I have no further comments on section 2.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. CASHORE: Well, this defines the object. The object of the fund is to provide for programs to protect and enhance the environment and for forest renewal initiatives. Would the minister explain in what way this objective is different from the objectives of those two line ministries?

HON. MR REYNOLDS: This section describes the two objectives of the fund: to finance environmental programs and forest-renewal initiatives. Is that difficult?

MR. MILLER: I think the question was: how does the object differ in any substantive way from the mandate of the two ministries that currently have a similar mandate?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The fund just overlaps a number of other ministries. But the objectives of the ministries are the same.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The committee really seems to have trouble understanding the concept here — first of all, with the naming of the sustainable development committee and exactly what we do.

I can tell the committee, as a member of this sustainable development committee and as the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, that the funding is available to many ministries, including the ministry I am responsible for in terms of research that is being done, and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, with respect to acid mine drainage. There are many environmental issues that go beyond just what you consider to be forest renewal or whatever.

It was interesting to hear you talk about Forests as being the priority and to hear the critic talk about Municipal Affairs being the priority. I think maybe you should caucus together and figure out what your priorities are. You have nine, ten, 11 or 12 of them. I guess you've got principles. If you don't like those principles, you'll have other principles. But let me tell you that this is a multi-ministry committee, and it does multi-ministry work and includes work that will be done by and is of benefit to many ministries, not just Forests or Environment.

MR. MILLER: Well, that was a sterling attempt at defence there. I don't think that the minister's remarks, in terms of the object, should be left without being straightened out. Certainly the minister is completely off-base when he says that my colleague is saying that recycling is the priority, that I am saying forestry renewal is a priority and that there's some kind of conflict there.

I suppose — in a much more serious vein — there was a bit of conflict when the Minister of Finance said he couldn't spend money out of a nonexistent BS fund, and the Minister of Health said he should because we've got some problems in health. So if you want to talk about real conflicts between cabinet members, we can always refer to those.

I don't think it's one or the other. Clearly environmental initiatives need to be developed, enhanced, promoted and budgeted for in a number of areas. I think we have pointed out that the bulk of the money in this fund is essentially comprised of money that has already been committed to statutory expenditures by the Ministry of Forests. We have also registered our concern that somehow the decision of the government to proceed with this fund, this act and the process that's put in place to meet the object is politically motivated.

Hence our question: what difference is there in the two quite broadly defined objectives of the fund under section 3...? What difference is that in, for example, the Ministry of Forests? If it's to bring some kind of clarity to the expenditure of money to meet certain environmental concerns that we think are important, why then was there not an attempt to consolidate? For example — just a small point — why was not all of the silviculture money from Forests put into the fund? It seems to me a reasonable question. Why take almost $220 million and yet leave another $70 million parked in Forestry? Surely the minister would agree that that in itself might give rise to some confusion. Do people dealing with reforestation and silvicultural issues now go to the Ministry of Forests on the one hand and to the cabinet committee on the other hand? What rationale is there for leaving these funds separated? And, really, the object is so simple it becomes so broad. Why do that? Why leave another $70 million parked in Forestry and take over $200 million and put it in your fund? We're having some difficulty here.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, the difficulty is in trying to interpret what the government is doing, Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree).

So we are trying to get to the bottom of how you made these decisions and how the thing's going to work. I'll give you that question: why did you leave that $70 million parked in Forestry?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well that if he wants to ask that question, he can ask of the Minister of Forests during

[ Page 10261 ]

his estimates what he did with something that's already still in his ministry.

[4:00]

He said these are politically motivated decisions. Imagine saying that we do politics in this place. It's terrible. But I want to assure him that forest renewal was included in the fund because of the size of the resource and its special recreational, ecological and economic characteristics. That's why it was done, and I don't understand, other than maybe that you want to try and get some Forestry people thinking Forestry isn't as important.... I think just the opposite: we made it more important by including it in a committee that's going to work together for sustainable development, the thing that you people keep on talking about. The Minister of Forests plays an integral part in that process on that committee. I don't understand what your problem is.

MR. MILLER: Indeed, it is a curiosity. Here I am trying to elicit information from the minister responsible for this bill, and he tells me: "Well, don't ask me. I don't know. Ask the Minister of Forests during his estimates." Is the minister saying that he had no hand in making any of these determinations? And it's a bill that he is bringing before this House. He doesn't know why they left $70 million with the Ministry of Forests but decided to take the $220 million? You don't know the answer to those questions, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would prefer that the hon. member over there doesn't put into my words what he thinks I said. He knows full well what I said: that if he wants to talk about the money that's in this bill, he can talk about it, but under the rules of this House I cannot talk about what's in a minister's bill, and I will not talk about what happened inside cabinet. If you want to talk about what's in this bill, it's open. You can ask any question on that amount of money. When it gets to that minister's estimates, you can ask him about his ministry. That's the way the rules are. I don't write those rules, and the Chairman and the Speaker uphold the rules of this House.

If you want to talk about what's in this bill I'm more than pleased to talk about it. I am proud to talk about it. It's one of the best bills that's ever been before this Legislature.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister could explain why the decision was to take the $220 million — whatever the precise figure is....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: What's a million?

MR. MILLER: Well, I didn't say that. Let the minister go on record as saying: "What's a million?" I know it would take you a long time to count by ones.

The budget says.... Well, actually it's $212,755,315.

What considerations were given, rather than taking all of that money, to leaving some within the ministry and dividing it up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. MILLER: I'm not asking about the other part of the reforestation money, Mr. Chairman. The minister advised that he can't talk about what's within the Ministry of Forests budget. I'm asking about moneys in this bill in this budget. I asked why it was decided to take that full amount rather than, for example, split it in half and leave some with the ministry.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't quite understand the member's question. I told him that if he wanted to ask me any questions about what's in the bill and what we're going to do with that money, I'd be more than pleased to answer them. But with regard to decisions, those are cabinet decisions, and I'm not prepared to discuss those in the House.

MR. CASHORE: Surely the minister, who does have the ability to be gracious, can respond to the question without being Pharisaical about it. It shouldn't be an answer that's going to embarrass him that much. It's a worthwhile....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Environment rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, could the member explain what that one word was?

MR. CASHORE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to. On the same point of order, it's the term Pharisaical. It means legalistic, so I don't think it's unparliamentary. I don't even think it's close, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: I think it's descriptive.

So I hope the minister would think about that and would give an answer. Obviously what we're trying to find out has to do with the whole thing about a kind of fragmentation that's taking place now with regard to public funds and with regard to silviculture. I think it's a perfectly appropriate question, and it deserves a reasonable answer in the graciousness of this debate that we're having.

I wanted to mention that when the minister of defence — the Minister of Advanced Education — stood up a few moments ago, he mentioned acid mine drainage. I just wanted to ask the minister if he sees the sustainable environment fund being used to address the issue of acid mine drainage. If he does see it being used in that way, would he say in what way it would be used with regard to acid mine drainage?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, one of the things that we've done is put a chair at the University of British Columbia on acid mine drainage, which I think is a very positive thing. It's getting our universities and our scientists in this province working towards a solution to the problem that hopefully, when they discover it, we'll be able to sell all around the world.

[ Page 10262 ]

MR. CASHORE: Thank you for that answer. Would there be any more aspects to the answer besides the example the minister has given, such as helping to pay to mitigate the effects of acid mine drainage? Would any of the money be used in that way? Is that foreseen?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, if the member were to look at the fund, there's $3 million in the fund that we can use at the universities for that type of research. As the member knows and can probably canvass with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) when his estimates are up, there's work being done in those areas. Companies put up bonds in those areas, and all of those things are being looked at. They can be looked at through this fund and through this committee.

MR. CASHORE: The minister anticipated the direction in which I was going with this question. I'm trying to find out if these moneys are being seen not just in terms of research, but in terms of actually paying the cost of dealing with the damage that is created by acid mine drainage. The minister mentioned that there's a bonding process in place.

With regard to what might be considered — for want of a better term — orphaned mine sites, would the fund be seen as being applied in such circumstances?

While the minister is working on his answer to that question about the sustainable environment fund possibly being used on orphaned sites where there has been acid mine drainage, I have another question that perhaps somebody over there could make a note of.

In the context of the objective of the fund, we have to recognize that the amount of increase in the Ministry of Environment goes from $113 million to $113.7 million, which in real dollars is a decline in funding. The minister is well aware that there are morale problems in the Ministry of Environment because of overwork and very heavy expectations upon the staff there.

Why would the minister not see fit — or has he seen fit or might he see fit — to put a portion of this money toward helping the line ministry do its performance task?

HON. MR REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first question about orphaned sites, no, this fund will not be used for those. I would hope that if there is any cleanup in those areas, it would come out of our regular funding. Again I would suggest you could ask much more detailed questions in that area of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources when his estimates are before the House.

The same, I think, with your second question: if you want to talk about our staff and their morale, and where we could put money, I think that's more appropriately done during estimates than during this section of the bill.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, we will be glad to put some questions to the Minister of Energy about orphaned sites. It certainly does fall under the purview, at least with regard to questions about the money that's in this fund, since it's seen as a sustainable environment fund and since, as the minister pointed out earlier, it relates to the environmental work that's involved in several ministries. So I'll just leave it there.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to explore a few of the purposes and objects of the fund. My first question: I wonder whether any consideration has been given to using any of the fund proceeds for advertising.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I think one of things I'm happiest about is the fact that we started the environmental hotline, which I understand is working extremely well and is working with people who.... As the critic for the opposition said, sometimes we forget about those who were dealing in environmental things years and years ago. We haven't forgotten. In this instance, the Recycling Council of B.C. is operating the hotline for us and doing an excellent job. I think it is money well spent.

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Environment just attributed words to me that I did not say. I did not suggest that his ministry had forgotten people who contributed to the environment years and years ago. What I did say was actually affirming the recognition on both sides of the House that there has been that contribution. Whether the minister wants to withdraw or not is immaterial to me, but I just wanted to get my statement on the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think it's a point of order, hon. member. However, you've made your point, and it's on the record.

MR. PERRY: I can only approve of the recycling hotline. But what I was more concerned about is what assurance we have in the Legislature that funds from the sustainable environment fund will not be used for political advertising. Can the minister tell us if there are any guidelines in place or regulations proposed for the bill which will prevent the expenditure of funds under section 3 for purposes that might be construed as political advertising?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I think it's quite Interesting that a doctor would stand up and talk about political advertising right at this time. Nevertheless, I can assure the hon. member that this government and this ministry does not spend money for political advertising. I say it again, as he wasn't here earlier when we were questioned about certain things in that area: if the member ever wants to stand up and say something is political advertising, please do it. Please make the accusations.

[4:15]

[ Page 10263 ]

MR. PERRY: Maybe I can take advantage of the committee format and the informality of the occasion to ask the minister where he would see a document like this — so-called "Environment B.C.," a special edition of B.C. News, B.C. government — which features on the second page, for example, large....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The publication the member is talking about comes under the public affairs bureau of this government, not my ministry. If he wants to ask questions about it, he can ask the Provincial Secretary anytime. That publication is not paid for with money out of my ministry, and it has nothing to do with this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, and I think the member should take it into consideration.

MR. CASHORE: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, while understanding your point that it's well taken, I would point out that in this instance the hon. member was responding to the words of the minister, who had made a statement about the government not being involved in political advertising.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm not trying to stop the member from asking questions about that brochure. I'll be happy to have him ask questions about it in detail, page by page, paragraph by paragraph. But he could do that during the estimates of the Provincial Secretary or even during my estimates, if he wants to get into comments on that brochure.

We're on section 3 of the Sustainable Environment Fund Act, and that paper has nothing to do with it. I don't make the rules of this House; all members do. And the Speaker and the Chairman uphold them. We should stick to questions to do with this bill.

We'll be into my estimates tomorrow, the next day or the next day. Whenever you want to finish with my two bills, we'll go right into my estimates. We're not trying to hide anything. But you have to deal with the issue that's before the House, not one that you want to use yourself or that you have some special idea about.

MR. PERRY: I think the minister answered my question. I note that he conceded that this publication is political advertising. But he answered what I was about to ask him, which was whether any of the funding had come from his ministry. It strikes me that in a publication like this it would be difficult to distinguish the contribution of his ministry from that of the public affairs bureau. I note that the minister did concede that "Environment B.C.," a special edition of B.C. News, is political advertising but that it wasn't funded directly by his ministry.

I guess what I am asking is what assurance we in the opposition have that funds from the sustainable environment fund will not be used, for example, in the preparation of political documents like this that are circulated by the public affairs bureau. Let me clarify that. I have no objection — and I am sure the taxpayer doesn't — to a legitimate information content in advertising, or to the role of the Ministry of Environment or even the sustainable environment fund in the distribution of solid information for its own sake. My concern is purely with the possibility that a fund which admittedly now will come under the direct control of a cabinet committee — as I argued in debate on second reading — as opposed to under the control of government public servants may fall into ill-use.

I am looking for some reassurance from the minister as to what guidelines or regulations, if any, are contemplated that would prevent the potential misuse of money in the fund being applied to partisan political efforts.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I want to start off by saying that I did not say that something in that member's hands was a political document. In fact, I would tell him that it is not a political document. The public affairs bureau of this government is the government of British Columbia, elected democratically by the people of British Columbia. It puts out information to people on a regular basis, just like his party did when it was in government.

If you want to really get picky about this sort of thing — I know you don't like it that you're not in government — when I was up in the Interior and in the Kootenays a few weeks ago, I saw a brochure put out by your party under the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I'm saying that it was put out by the party; I don't know who put it out.

MR. PERRY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I listened carefully to your instruction to me a few minutes ago about the appropriateness of the debate. I am having difficulty seeing the relevance of the minister's comments to the clause.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: No, I'm enjoying his comments. I just find them of dubious relevance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the point of order. As I previously stated, we are dealing with section 3 of this bill, and I would ask all members to comply with the regulations of this House, which are fairly broad.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. As you know, it is always very difficult when you are in the chair when statements are made on the other side and sometimes you need an explanation before you can get to the answer. That's what I'm getting at now, and I know that's why it hurts the member from the other side. The brochure put out by your party under the name of the Leader of the Opposition is full of absolute lies. It's partially paid for by the taxpayers of this province, because all the donations you receive as a political party are tax-deductible. I would think you

[ Page 10264 ]

would want to look at that brochure very carefully. It's absolutely full of lies and deceit, and I ask you to read it.

You take statements that you make in this House and try and turn them into facts. I can assure the member on the other side that anything this ministry puts out in its advertising....

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you make the appropriate ruling based on the words just uttered by the minister.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: On the same point of order, I would suggest to the member that I did not accuse any of them. I said that their party put the brochure out, and I would hope that they would correct it. I know that, as honourable members, they would not want that brochure going around this province without factual information in it. I would not want any member on that side to think I said they would condone anything like that, and I am sure they wouldn't. If they think I said that, I would withdraw it.

MR. PERRY: On the same point of order, I asked a pretty simple question and I have yet to hear an answer. Were there any guidelines or proposed regulations dealing with the concerns that I raised? I really fail to understand the relevance of any of the last five minutes of debate to the question I asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on an additional point of order, perhaps we could as a committee get back to section 3 of Bill 16, keeping in mind that the attributes of parliamentary language are essential in this House and that we should try to adhere to them as much as possible.

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Environment used the term "deceit" with reference, by implication, to members of this House. It's unparliamentary language; it should not have been used. With his experience, the minister knows full well that it's not appropriate, and I would ask now that he withdraw the offensive language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think it's time that we get back to section 3 of this bill.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to funding of a chair in acid mine drainage at the University of British Columbia, if I heard him accurately.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Dr. George Poling.

MR. PERRY: I wasn't aware of that, or if I was, I'd forgotten. But I agree that it sounds like an excellent idea. I wonder whether the minister has considered the possibility, then, of providing funds from the sustainable environment fund to other university institutions, such as the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, that was the original institute to study the relationship among organisms in the environment, which began its work in the 1960s at UBC and a couple of years ago lost its world-famous director, Buzz Hollings, due to the cutback in funding. I don't think it has ever quite regained the glory it once had in the last great environmental consciousness epoch of 1969, '70 and '71.

Another area that strikes me as propitious is the faculty of forestry. As I listened to the minister a moment ago, I thought it encouraging to know that the university might have additional funds for a chair in acid mine drainage, so that the faculty of engineering would not be potentially exclusively dependent on the industry itself to fund a chair in an area like that. It's very much in the public interest to give public funding for chairs of that kind, and a substantial criticism has been made of the faculty of forestry by at least some members of the public for its dependence on industry funding. I wonder whether the minister will tell us whether he has considered the possibility of showing some of the same generosity towards the faculty of forestry or the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology or, for that matter, the integrated resource management group at Simon Fraser or Murray Rankin's law group at the University of Victoria.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed that the member didn't know about our chair on acid rain. I couldn't help but think that maybe I should take a half-page out in the Vancouver Sun tomorrow, because if you don't know, hardly anybody must know. It's a tremendous program.

I would also advise the member that yes, we are looking at other programs with the various universities. We do have programs right now — chairs at the universities — on waste water and also on forestry and pulp mills, and we're looking at others. We think it's an excellent way to go. We're also getting cooperation from industry in helping to fund these projects. I agree with you that it's the way to go, and I hope that we in this province, through the talent that we have, will discover things that can benefit not only British Columbians but people all over the world.

MR. PERRY: By extension of the same point, I think we're in a position to have learned a very important lesson that we might have learned from Rachel Carson and others in 1962, but didn't really learn, even in that great consciousness-raising of the first Earth Day in 1970 and the years about that time. But we've now got another opportunity to learn that lesson from the extremely costly experience that we're continuing to suffer and undergo with the dioxin issue.

There is an issue where I have some sympathy for the forest industry, particularly the pulp mills, who learned — through the development of a technology which could measure compounds such as dioxins and furans in very low concentrations — that it had

[ Page 10265 ]

created a substantial monster in pollution, after the fact. And so did the government and the public.

[4:30]

In careful retrospect, we might not be so surprised that this monster evolved right under our noses, so to speak, because Rachel Carson and others — Barry Commoner, working at Washington University in St. Louis; many others in Sweden with the experience with organic mercury in the pulp mill industry in the 1960s; the Manitoba research group in the early 1970s with the liberation of organic mercury from the sediments of reservoir impoundments in northern Manitoba; and a similar experience in northern Quebec with the James Bay project — all should have told us that we could expect some problem in an industry using complex chemical processes like the pulp and paper industry do. Yet, I am told, it was almost by serendipity that the discovery was made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that pulp mills were a source of dioxin emissions. It was in the attempt to reconfirm old observations and compare a river thought to be clean in northern Maine that they found high concentrations of dioxins, which they ultimately traced to the effluent of a pulp mill.

I think there is an important lesson from that experience, Mr. Chairman, which is that we must look in advance for such problems and detect them before they become mammoth and almost uncorrectable problems in some sense. The minister should be very sensitive to this because his own riding is so affected and his own brief experience as minister has been so affected by this issue. Dare I say that he sometimes feels impotent at the difficulty in cleaning up Howe Sound and other areas of the coast contaminated by these complex chemicals?

I felt for a long time that a more conservative approach to such chemicals was warranted — more similar to the approach taken in the pharmaceutical industry after the thalidomide incident. This has been that, in general, chemicals must be proven safe before they are assumed to be safe.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: I hear the government House Leader asking what the relevance of this is. Let me assure you that I am leading up to a point, which is my concern that the record of this government recently has been to denigrate and downsize governmental attempts to monitor the environment — for example, the government environmental laboratory — and I think we are now paying some of the price for that weakness that we've engendered in our ability to monitor, regulate and protect the environment.

My question to the minister now is: what proposals does he have under section 3(a), programs to protect and enhance the environment, for reinstitution of a comprehensive, scientifically credible, expert system of monitoring programs that will allow us early warning of incipient environmental problems rather than late detection when the problems already exist?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments made by the other member. Things do change. I can remember when I first watched television back in Montreal as a young child — 13 or 14 years of age — when the major ad on TV was for Camel cigarettes, and it was a doctor saying: "These will relax you." Things change.

MR. MILLER: Do you believe him?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Some of us in this House still believe him. But things do change, and I think the programs that we're operating under this fund and with the universities will see that nothing is ever perfect. But we're trying very hard to be leaders in a lot of fields.

MR. PERRY: The minister slipped out of that one remarkably easily. I wonder if he would elaborate even slightly on his intentions. The question I was attempting to phrase clearly was: does he see in the future a role under this fund for a comprehensive provincial scientific establishment to monitor environmental change? Does he recognize at all the mistake that was made in public policy in privatizing the Environmental Lab? Does he concede an advantage, for example, to provincial agencies which cannot only monitor chlorinated organic compounds other than dioxins and furans, but perhaps some of the hundreds or even thousands or conceivably tens of thousands or more compounds that are probably present in the effluents of pulp mills, factories, proposed steel mills or ferrochromium smelters or other industrial establishments in B.C. or, for that matter, in air pollutants from cars?

I'm looking for some insight into whether we can expect an improvement in environmental monitoring in B.C. from the application of this fund, or will we simply continue to have to fight day by day to get something more than the political response to these issues?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I must say I tend to agree with some of the comments made by the member on the other side. With regard to monitoring, we have the GVRD monitoring, we have the provincial government monitoring, we've got cities monitoring, and we have the federal government monitoring. One of the things I'm trying to do in the ministry — and this is coming out of our base funding right now, not the fund — is to try and coordinate these. As you know, we're coordinating with the GVRD in the emissions testing in Vancouver. But I would like to see all of this done at one level so we don't have a bunch of government departments at whatever level doing the monitoring. I think we've got some overlapping right now in various jurisdictions. Yes, we are looking at that in a serious manner.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Not to belabour the point, but to get back to Bill 16, section 3, the object of the fund. As the minister has indicated, many ministries will be involved in the operation of the fund, and the

[ Page 10266 ]

cabinet committee will meet to discuss which ministry will benefit. When the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) entered the debate, he said that many ministries will benefit, not just the Ministry of Environment, even though the bill falls under his purview and he's marshalling it through the House.

When those particular ministries come forward with their various proposals — be it Forests or be it Advanced Education or whatever ministry it might happen to be — and they attempt to access funds for their particular ministry out of the sustainable environment fund, will advertising dollars to promote those funds also come out of the sustainable environment fund, or will those advertising dollars come out of the line ministries which have contacted and come before the cabinet committee for the appropriation of those funds?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As I mentioned earlier, we are using funds to advertise the hotline in the province. That's coming out of the fund. Every minister, when he makes his presentation, states what his objectives are. They get approved or not approved.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate the answer from the minister. Will the committee consider not only the funding for the particular program that the ministry is after but also the advertising dollars to promote that particular program? Will we have to discuss that under estimates? Will it be part of the program of the ministry itself to advertise through its general advertising budget?

I don't want to get into the estimates at this point in time, but I think it's important to establish this. If a particular ministry comes forward to the fund and says they have this wonderful program and would like to access the fund, and the cabinet committee agrees, do we end up with 20 percent, 30 percent or 10 percent of that particular amount of dollars being spent on advertising that program and still have the various funding in the ministries in their advertising budget as well?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Every program that comes before us is a wonderful one. That's where the decision has to be made. Every minister is responsible for his or her budget. If you've got a question, you could relate it to their estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member, I would just like to say that I know it's not possible for every member to be in the House at all times, but this debate is getting repetitious, and I would like members to keep that in mind as they make further comments.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The debate only gets repetitious when the answers aren't forthcoming, Mr. Chairman. Not to reiterate my previous question, but simply: will advertising dollars be included in the programs when the various ministries apply to the fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As I said an hour ago, yes. And I will stress again that funds will be accounted for in a timely fashion, as required by the auditor-general — and I've said that a number of times.

If the member wants, I'll go back and read that forestry is now included in the fund because of the size of the resource and its special recreational, ecological and economic characteristics. And I can go back and quote from the auditor-general's comments again.

The Chairman makes a good point. We've been answering these questions for two hours, and people come in and sit down and ask the same questions over again.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister could advise, in terms of the object of the fund: are there any particular staff attached to the operation of the fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No.

MR. MILLER: So initiatives will come from where?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Initiatives come from the ministries.

MR. MILLER: Just to clarify what my colleague was asking, then, it's clear the minister is saying that there will be advertising to promote the fund itself — the fact that the fund exists and is being spent in a particular manner.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: That's not what I said.

MR. MILLER: So that won't be the case. It's starting to become clear what the minister is not saying. He doesn't appear to want to talk about it too much.

I want to go back and use as an example the object of subsection (b): "...for forest renewal initiatives." That's a pretty broad and, I suppose, admirable object. As I understand this process, the administration of silviculture is, within the Ministry of Forests under vote 33, some $28.5 million — a slight decline, I might add, from previous years. But the actual money to be expended for the basic work, planting the trees, is to go through the fund. It's a bit curious that that would take place, that you would have this fairly large administrative body, with an almost $30 million budget, making decisions about where money should be spent and then taking that to the fund.

[4:45]

Earlier I asked about money being clearly committed under the ministry. Although funds are budgeted for a particular expenditure — in this case we are talking about reforestation and silviculture — as the minister has pointed out, if for whatever reason those funds aren't totally expended, they go back in

[ Page 10267 ]

the pot. The minister, in responding earlier, talked about dedicated funds for the first time. If there is an underexpenditure — and let's talk about the actual amount designated — and funds are carried over, will those funds always be earmarked for silviculture or do they become part of the pot? You can clip the expenditures by a modest amount on an annual basis, and all of a sudden you find that money dedicated for silviculture is in fact going in some other direction.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I think we've answered this question before too, but silviculture goes back to the Minister of Forests in one fell swoop, and he spends it on silviculture. Those are the facts.

MR. MILLER: With the noise, I didn't quite hear what the minister had to say. I was listening but I didn't hear it.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The money for silviculture goes to the Ministry of Forests in one fell swoop and is spent on silviculture; that's the commitment. If you want details on that program, then talk to the Minister of Forests during his estimates. But I'm telling you that that's where the money goes.

MR. MILLER: The minister seems to be saying that nothing has changed; that the Minister of Forests is essentially going to do what he normally does in terms of expenditures; that there's a bit of a shell game going on here. That's really what you're saying. I'm trying to ascertain how this thing is working. I've pointed out that you've got more than one silviculture fund — in fact, there are three now. You've got an administrative body within the Ministry of Forests. I'm trying to protect these moneys that are earmarked for silviculture, and finally the Minister of Environment stands up and tells it like it really is. It's a shell game. In order to give the appearance of this huge sustainable development fund, they've simply put on paper a bit of a shell game. We'll get into it later. There is no comfort at all for those people in British Columbia who are concerned about the lack of commitment to silviculture in this particular approach. It's a shell game.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: That's right. My colleague from North Island adequately described it: you might as well call it BS II. He probably ran it through a team to make sure that the initials of this thing didn't really amount to anything that might be embarrassing. I can see some laughter on the other side that confirms that suspicion, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Grimaces.

MR. MILLER: I'll say there are grimaces!

So there is no guarantee. A while ago the minister talked about "dedicated funds" — those were his words. I think he even banged his desk like I just did. For the first time in history we're finding that they're dedicated to nothing in particular except trying to get themselves re-elected by putting on an environmental face. There is no dedication here; there are no dedicated funds to silviculture in what the minister just said — absolutely none. It is just a circular route it has to go through in terms of a little PR exercise.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, as we get into this section on funding, I'm sure that my colleagues will have a lot of questions. What I want to do at the outset is turn to subsections (1)(h) and (i) and then (2)(a) and (b).

I want to make a point. I don't expect the minister to respond to it right away, because I think perhaps one of his deputies is going to need to take a little time to examine this part of the bill in light of what I'm about to say. Then we'll come back to some further debate on the earlier part of the section.

The point I want to make is that having read (1)(h) and (i) and then (2)(a) and (b), it seems to me that that entire portion of this section is redundant. It contains its own instrument of redundancy by (a) and (b) cancelling out (h) and (i). If you look at it, (h) deals with acts within the jurisdiction of the British Columbia and (i) deals with acts within the jurisdiction of the federal government: the Fisheries Act, the Game Export Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Subsections (h) and (i) tend to say that through this instrument, funds are coming into this fund. But then (2), when you go right down to the words "does not form part of the fund, " cancels it all out, unless I'm missing something. I have to recognize that I'm not that experienced in the legalese of legislation.

 I think some thought needs to go into responding to this, and I'd like to allow some time for that. If the minister would like, I'd be willing to discuss other aspects of this section. But if indeed my interpretation is correct, then I want to ask the minister to agree to at least stand that portion of that section down. Perhaps the minister could just let me know if he'd like a little time to think. No, he'd like to respond now.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for bringing that up. It is a rather confusing section. Revenue from licences and permits under the legislation listed in subsection (1)(h) will not go into the fund. For example, wildlife licence fees will not go into the fund, but fines related to poaching will. All sections (2)(a) and (b) do is give us permission to do that. Everything else that's listed there will go into the fund. But revenue from licences and permits under the legislation listed in (1)(h) will not go into the fund. The bottom two sections — (2)(a) and (b) — are the legalese that allows us to do that.

MR. CASHORE: I see the point. It is confusing, but I appreciate the explanation.

[ Page 10268 ]

On section 4, I think some of my colleagues have some points here.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to canvass with the minister the broader question, if you like, of deriving revenue from a tax on goods that are deemed to be environmentally unfriendly versus the tax or other incentives or even disincentives to modify those unfriendly products. Very clearly we're dealing with the issues that are subject to taxation under other acts: the diapers, the tires and the batteries.

Clearly as a consumer you don't have any choice — at least in some of those areas. I don't think you could find another means to start your car other than a battery. They used to have a crank.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: God, the minister has left me dumbfounded. I don't know how to respond to that. I was going to make a little joke about cranking my father's car when I was a kid, which obviously would have dated me.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, I used to have a car that you started by rolling down a hill. That was fine if you happened to be on a hill when you had to start it.

But clearly it's the same with tires. I don't know of any alternative, except the tires you buy in the market.

The point here is that the consumer — unlike the diaper issue, and I'll reserve comment on that, because my children are all grown.... Although in fact I had a member of the forest resources commission, who shall remain nameless — not a member, but someone close to it — complaining bitterly to me about the tax on diapers. The person said that the only thing that didn't give his daughter severe diaper rash was these disposable diapers. Maybe the minister's in the same position. He felt that his baby was being unfairly treated by this government.

So there's clearly a difference here. There's a debate over whether or not diapers are environmentally damaging, and there appears to be some difference of opinion on that question.

But there is no debate, and there's no choice for the consumer, on whether to buy batteries or tires. So the tax is on the consumer. Will that necessarily lead to any significant change — let's say from a technological point of view — in those goods continuing to be manufactured? Presumably that should be part of the exercise as well.

In the case of diapers, if the tax were sufficient, I suppose there would be a powerful disincentive to use them. That would have a significant influence on the manufacture of that product. But you can't do that with tires unless you can come up with some alternative.

So there are a number of questions mixed in there, and it's fairly broad in terms of the question itself. But seeing as how you're the Minister of Environment, you might want to offer some opinions about that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping I'd get some solutions from the other side to some of the problems.

But I'm pleased to talk about some of those items. As you know, we are going out to proposal call for the recycling of tires in the province. The levy that we've placed on them will help in that project. We're doing the same thing with batteries: going out to proposal call.

I would hope that once these industries are set up in British Columbia, and if you created a good enough industry, somewhere down the line you could eliminate the deposit. But if you look at other areas — for example, deposits on pop tins — we do a tremendous job in British Columbia with deposits on beverages and beer; it's the most successful recycling system in the world — 97 percent.

Yet we don't have that same deposit on all things across the board — under the pop — and we don't get anywhere near the number back. Ontario took the position of taking off all deposits and encouraging the blue box use. I think that's a method we've looked at too and are still looking at.

I see at the same time in Ontario that metro Toronto is now saying to the government of Ontario, "If you don't put deposits back on pop, we're going to do it ourselves, " because of the litter in the downtown Toronto area. We're looking at all these things.

I think the advantage of the deposit is that you create an industry. People will want to be in that industry. I don't think we can any longer say: "Well, let's just send it somewhere." As you know, PCBs were fine for years; now, all of a sudden, nobody will take them. Somebody's going to say sooner or later they won't take this and they won't take that, so we have to create our own industries. These levies are there to try to create the industries within the province.

[5:00]

I can tell you that the de-inking facility is going along the process. The de-tinning process is going through the process. We've got two plastics recycling companies which have announced they are going to build factories in British Columbia. These are all positive steps.

Just the fact that I've brought the matter to a debate in having the various sides get together and talk about, for instance, the refreshment containers.... Dairyland has started to collect these bottles at home, and they're picking up 40,000 a week. As you know, Tetra-Pak announced that we're going to build a recycling plant in British Columbia.

Those are all positive aspects that I wanted to announce, because I thought you might get up and ask questions about those too. I think all of the levies or deposits put on these types of containers will encourage industry to recycle and encourage people to take the product in for recycling. It's all part of an education process.

[ Page 10269 ]

MR. MILLER: Before I again move on to a broad question in terms of the impact on the environment of various products, has any consideration been given to regional differences in the province?

I want to illustrate what is quite typical for, say, people north of Prince Rupert and Terrace. Their roads are gravel and in very tough condition most of the year. In fact, I could probably get in trouble by using the word "most" and not using the word "all." I have done a lot of driving up there. You probably wouldn't want to take your car up there; I don't think many private citizens would want to. In addition, it's pretty difficult to drive through a couple of feet of water at any given time during some parts of the year. Tires don't last; they get chewed up.

In fact the last time I was up in Aiyansh, I said to the person I was going to go down to Greenville with: "Well, let's take my car." She said: "Can your tires stand it?" So they pay through the nose in terms of the quality they have to buy to simply keep their vehicles on the road. They also pay through the nose because the....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Yes, I know. The Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) is advising the Minister of Environment they're going to do something with the road. That doesn't resolve the issue. In fact, when I was up there people were pretty unhappy about the timetable you've set. The fact is that whether we talk about the road up to the Nass Valley or Highway 37 north of Meziadin, tires get chewed up a heck of a lot faster than if you're driving around Victoria or Vancouver.

You want to extend that to all kinds of other areas. I think there's a double penalty that people who live in those areas have to pay. They don't have access to alternatives. They can't take the bus, on most occasions. Their costs are high; their vehicle replacement costs are high; everything is high. Yet they're being required to pay the per-tire or per-battery tax along with everybody else.

Was there any consideration given to the plight of these people, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I have, like the member opposite, travelled many gravel highways. I lost tires and windshields too, and I can understand what he's saying.

Yes, we do give regional considerations to everything we do, but we also have to look at the equity of the situation. In this situation with tires, it would be very difficult on the administration if you start picking on regions. But we are looking.

If you want to ask questions about regions with regard to recycling depots and how we're going to get material to the manufacturers, that's of prime consideration to my staff, and they are looking at that.

I was in Smithers this weekend at their hazardous waste day, and I was in Kelowna earlier in the same day at the same thing. They all have the same problems and the same concerns. How are we going to get our material.... The glass is fine because it's in Vernon — more or less a central spot in the province.

Everything else is tending to be in the lower mainland. It's very difficult to get the materials back to the lower mainland to recycle and still make money. We're looking at ways of trying to solve that — ways of putting facilities in each of the regions which will be centralized facilities to take this material before it is shipped or picked up. We have also had cooperation from some of the major food chains in saying: "Well, we've got empty trucks going back; maybe we could use those to move some of this material around."

But about your specific problem of tires in the north, no, we can't have a different policy for one area or the other. The administration would just be too much.

MR. MILLER: In choosing the particular goods — the diapers, batteries and tires — what kind of list were you choosing from? What other goods or products have those impacts that are considered to be negative? What thinking went into deciding on these particular goods versus some others? Clearly there are other products, in my view — and I am sure the minister would agree — that are more environmentally damaging or which present more of a challenge in terms of their disposal or recycling or whatever. So how did the ministry focus in on those particular goods versus a range of other goods?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member has read the budget thoroughly and all the papers that go with it. We are still to announce a number of chemicals that are hazardous, and there will be some form of levy on those. That, I think, is to be announced in July. As you know, we're having public meetings with people from all sides of the issue on the refreshment container end of things. We've had two meetings so far — very well attended with lots of debate — and we'll be deciding on that. But it has all been done through the ministry, with very dedicated people who know the people involved in all the various industries, and the decisions are being made through that process.

MR. MILLER: One of the questions that my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) alluded to was the very difficult question about making expenditures where they're most effective. I think the same is true of having programs that are most effective. In terms of dealing with all the environment, I think some of those decisions are very difficult to make. In some cases the decision really can't be made, because the book is out, in terms of which way to go.

Let's take paint as an example of a very commonly used product that is detrimental to the environment in terms of its disposal. Why would it not be paint rather than tires? Has work been done on a comparative basis to show that tires are worse than paint? I'm trying to see how some of these decisions were arrived at. Why not include paint as well? Just in

[ Page 10270 ]

terms of the effectiveness of dealing with trying to clean up the environment, what kinds of processes were used to arrive at the conclusions arrived at for this bill?

Someone with more technical knowledge than I could probably give you a pretty good argument that there are other products that in terms of their impact and the difficulty of recycling them and all those other questions — quite common in terms of consumer goods — could have been put on this list. I'd like to canvass that. I'd like to have some understanding of how these particular products were arrived at. Hopefully it's not because there was a fire in Alberta or there were some articles on diapers in a landfill; hopefully it went beyond that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, we arrived at them through the same process I just mentioned before: through staff meetings and public meetings. That's how we came to our decisions.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware of any public meetings where that kind of range was offered. Were the staff meetings within the Ministry of Environment? I know there have been meetings on some issues of recycling, but there has been no extensive work or debate, as far as I've been aware; maybe I've been preoccupied with forestry and missed some of it.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the Rabbitt report was a public hearing. It went around this province. Since I've been Minister of Environment I've had at least half a dozen meetings that were open to the public on any issue whatsoever. Chilliwack was one of the first ones. I've been up north; I've been in the Kootenays; I've been on the Island. There isn't a region of this province I haven't been to yet for a public meeting where people can give input. I don't know what else you can....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As I said, they were public meetings. They could talk about anything they wanted to talk about. I don't set up the agendas. People can come and talk to me about whatever they want to talk to. The decisions are made finally in the ministry, and I take responsibility for them.

MR. MILLER: I think there's some interest here, Mr. Chairman. The Rabbitt commission is the one that dealt with recycling and held hearings around the province. So is there a body of work there that the ministry drew on to decide that these were identified by the Rabbitt commission as the offenders? So there's some body of work I can look to that says we'd do better dealing with tires under this process than sticking a dollar levy on a can of paint. Is that the recommendation of the Rabbitt commission, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd be more than pleased at any time, if that member would send me a list of what he wants to know, to give him details and all the background information we can possibly supply him with — more material than he'll ever want to read.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm always interested to hear the minister talk about tires and the recycling of them, because we have a business that recycles tires in our community that I know the minister is very well aware of. I know that that business indicates that recycling tires is a business that can take place in many small communities. They don't have to be in the huge cities; they don't have to be in the lower mainland. So I'll be interested to see what kinds of things come out of what the minister proposes here.

The thing that I particularly want to ask the minister about this bill deals with the things that the people in the Kootenays sometimes feel a little more strongly about than tires. It has to do with wildlife habitat. I would like the minister to clarify for me how the funding comes in now. Under section 4(2)(a), it says that the revenue derived from prescribed provisions of any of those acts which include the Wildlife Act will not form part of the fund.

My question, Mr. Minister, is.... In the papers that surrounded the announcement of the sustainable environment fund, there is a very clear indication that the minister intends to spend money to acquire fish and wildlife habitat. Already there is in existence a habitat conservation fund whose function is to acquire land for fish and wildlife habitat. The habitat conservation fund operates under a number of guidelines that have been developed over a number of years and that require a very public process, according to the guidelines, of what happens with the spending of that money.

Presumably what the minister is saying is that we're not taking away the money that comes in through the Wildlife Act under hunting licences, which goes to the habitat conservation fund. We're not taking that to go through the fund. That's what subsection (2)(a) says to me. But what it also says to me is that under — I don't know whether it's only the funds under subsection (1)(h) or whether it's other funds as well that will be directed to the acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat.... My question is: will that money that goes to the acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat go through the same process as the funds that come in under the prescribed provisions of the Wildlife Act for habitat conservation and the acquisition of the land? Will the other money that the minister has promised is going to the acquisition of habitat go through the same process? Will it go through the habitat conservation fund process?

[5:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Whereas before, the money would go directly to general revenue, it will now go not into the fund but directly to our vote. So it will come directly into the ministry but not into the fund.

[ Page 10271 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Is there any connection between the source of the funding...? In other words, is there going to be some limitation on how...? I use this only as an example. If the minister uses money for the acquisition of habitat land for fish and wildlife or for habitat enhancement, if he uses some of that money that has come into the fund, is there any connection between where it comes from and where it goes? For example, if it comes from fines under the Wildlife Act, will it then be more likely to go to habitat enhancement? Or is there no connection at all?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The habitat conservation fund has a board, and they make recommendations to me. That's what we go on.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm trying to clarify the funding that the minister says is coming into this fund under this section and is going to be used for a function that is the very same function as a ministry expenditure — at least, under an account. The habitat conservation fund is now an account, and it is administered. A board makes a recommendation and advises the minister, and then the minister spends it. Will money which does go through the account and is directed to the acquisition of habitat also go through the habitat conservation process?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MS. EDWARDS: Then what you are saying to me, as far as I know, is that you are simply enlarging the habitat conservation fund by whatever amount this fund committee decides.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is basically yes, but the committee still makes the recommendations. The committee — that board — will make the recommendations as to what we spend.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay, the committee will recommend how much you spend. Will it also recommend what it is spent on — in other words, one project or another — so that the habitat conservation board really doesn't have that decision to make?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

MS. EDWARDS: I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is going to answer this. I'm attempting to clarify. There is money for habitat conservation, for the acquisition of land, in an account, and it is administered in a certain way. Presumably, from what the minister says, more money is going to go for the same function. He now says that the committee, which is the cabinet committee, will decide not only how much money is spent, but, I assume....

My question now is: does that committee also decide what projects it will be spent on, or does the money, once the amount has been determined, go through the process of being reviewed by the habitat conservation fund board?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The board has control of the money that's in the vote and the money that's in the fund. They will suggest to us how we spend it.

MR. CASHORE: We see how the consumer is being approached to contribute to this fund through levies on tires, batteries and diapers.

I refer the minister to section 4(1)(g). It refers to "revenue derived from fees from permits and approvals under the Waste Management Act." It's my understanding that a basic permit for air discharge is in the neighbourhood of $12,000, and a basic permit for effluent is in the neighbourhood of $8,000 or $9,000. Can the minister confirm whether or not that's generally correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, generally, you are correct.

MR. CASHORE: In view of the fact that some of the actions of this bill are going to hit some people — consumers — in the pocketbook, has the minister considered the inappropriateness of such low funds being collected and giving industry the privilege of polluting the environment?

I am sure the minister would agree with me that it's quite appalling to think of permits, given the dioxin problems, the problems we've heard about in the Alberni Inlet near the mill, the loss of people's livelihood in the fishing industry and the fact that native Indian people have had warnings from federal and provincial health officials to exercise caution in eating fish downstream of pulp mills. Surely the minister will recognize that the fees are not even in the ballpark when it comes to the true environmental costs. Has the minister decided to address this problem?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, these things can always be revised. I would love to hear from the member on the other side how much he thinks they should be. I'd love to find out how much he thinks we should be charging the municipalities who are polluting with some of their sewage and also violating permits.

We are doing the best job we can to try and improve things, but if.... What we've said we're doing is right here. If you don't agree with it, let's find out what you'd like to spend. Would you like to double the fees for industries? Would you like to double them for municipalities? You talk about diapers at 6 percent and ask: can the public afford to pay? Corporations and municipalities are the public too. It all comes out of your purse or my purse. How much would you like to see us charging?

MR. CASHORE: This minister has talked tough about getting tough with polluters, yet he won't take this opportunity to come forward and say that he's willing to put a true cost on these permits. The

[ Page 10272 ]

minister says that he would like members on this side of the House to say what these permits should be. I'd tell the minister that it won't be very long until members on this side of the House are in a position to make use of the infrastructure of government to be able to address this in an appropriate manner and come up with an appropriate schedule.

Unfortunately, this minister has not seen fit to increase the budget of the line ministry.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One member at a time.

MR. CASHORE: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this minister is obviously admitting that he doesn't even have his staff working on this urgent and pressing issue at this time. He knows that we don't have the infrastructure to do the work that needs to be done on that. He knows that when we're the government, we will do it in an orderly and appropriate manner — not the way in which the minister would go about doing it based on knee-jerk reactions to polling.

I ask the minister again to rise and to recognize that the amounts for these permits are woefully inadequate. It's interesting to listen to all these ministers over there who are so concerned about their friends and insiders. They want to keep the fees down for their friends and insiders who are the polluters, yet they want to increase it for the consumers. They'll have to justify that. Their position on that is on the record.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the last statements had to do with this section of the bill, but since he said it, I guess I can respond. I would suggest to him that this government more than takes its responsibility in those areas. I would love to see that member get up and make the same speech in downtown Powell River or downtown Port Alberni and go and talk to some of the union members who are coming to see me and telling me that their companies are serious about improving the environment.

I think it is interesting that the $1.5 billion that the pulp mills are spending in this province is not enough for that member over there. Yet his own friends — some of them in the labour unions — will tell him that the money the companies are spending is coming out of their purses now, because it has to come from somewhere. They know that the companies are doing a job in improving the environment They're working very hard as quickly as they can.

For this member to stand up and talk about friends.... Again I tell him to make accusations, not just loose statements.

We are working very hard, and my staff are working very hard. These fees were revised in January of this year. They are being looked at all the time. To say that our staff is not looking at them is absolute nonsense and untrue. They are looking at them all the time.

I just say to that member: go make those speeches in the areas where they have pulp mills, not just in this House where very few people ever read Hansard. Just make sure you go out and stand in downtown Powell River with the member who has been nominated and who says "close down the mill." Go and ask the leader of your party if he likes that statement. Stand up at Celgar in Castlegar and ask if the new member there wants to shut down the mill.

Mr. Chairman, we're working with the pulp mills and with the unions in those pulp mills to solve the problems, not just to make political rhetoric in this House.

MR. CASHORE: The minister says that his staff is working hard on these issues. There's no question his staff is working hard. They are working far too hard, and they have received a net loss, in terms of any budget, between last year and this year — a 0.7 percent increase, which is a net loss. This minister is asking his staff to address these issues when he won't give them the tools to do the job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May we direct our attentions to section 4 of the bill.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm responding to the minister, who was not called out of order when he made his statements.

[5:30]

The minister said that he would like us to stand up in downtown Powell River, Squamish and Port Alberni. I'll tell that minister we'll stand up with those people in those communities, because those people are as concerned as anybody about wanting to clean up the problem. They recognize that the true costs of pollution must be reflected in those kinds of permits. This minister is not addressing that issue, but the people in those communities know it should be addressed. There would be no shame whatsoever in standing up with those people, because they are standing up and calling for the same thing. This minister belittles those people in Squamish, Powell River and Port Alberni when he tries to pretend they are not concerned about that. They are very concerned about it. They want the true costs of environmental damage to be reflected, or at least to move in that direction. Eight thousand dollars for a permit to pollute, a permit that results in the loss of the livelihood of people in the fishing industry, simply is unacceptable and cannot continue.

The minister talks about the people in downtown Port Alberni. Is this minister aware that when they were finding health problems for the people in Port Alberni and there was a need for a study, this government, this ministry, refused to fund that study? The people of Port Alberni had to go to the United States to get funding for a much-needed study on the health effects of pollution in that community.

That's the attitude of this ministry, and that's a political decision; it's not the people in the ministry. Let's make it very clear that the people who work in the Ministry of Environment have not been given the

[ Page 10273 ]

tools to do the enforcement job that is needed, the job of reviewing standards that is needed.

This government has also shot itself in the environmental foot by the way in which it has privatized the lab, and it has made life very difficult for people who are working in difficult circumstances. That's why we have Doug Adolph quitting in disgust. That's why we have Doug Sandberg quitting in disgust. This government, through political decisions, has hurt the morale of that ministry and made it difficult for it to fulfil its task.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, for the moment. It appears that the debate under section 4 is getting more towards what should be discussed under section 5, which is the expenditure of the fund. Section 4 deals with the revenue of the fund.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, again I would say: if $12,000 isn't enough, tell us what it should be. Should it be $24,000, $36,000, $48,000? It's just not responsible enough to sit across on the other side and criticize what we're doing. Give us a number. Tell us what you'd do.

You keep on mentioning Sandberg, a fellow who ran against the Premier in the last election. If you want, go back to our friend from Vancouver East and quote the people who quit when he was here. We can all find silly little stories like that.

But come on, get down to some serious.... Tell us what you really want to do. Do you want it to be $24,000, $48,000, $100,000 — a million dollars? What do you want out of this place? Tell the people; don't play games in this province. Tell them what you would fine them. Tell them what you'd put in for charges.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has the temerity to make a statement like that when he refuses to address the issue, given that he has refused to enable his own ministry to have the resources to fulfil the task. He knows that in order to do it, it must be done appropriately. It must be based on effective research. This minister is unwilling to touch that because he doesn't believe in it, because he wants to protect his friends and insiders.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, my question has to do with subsection (1)(g). It leads me to ask the minister what he means by "all revenue derived from fees from permits and approvals...." I bring to the minister's attention that people who want to have any information out of the Ministry of Environment, if they have some questions for the waste management branch, have to pay $1 a sheet for photocopying. I wonder if those kinds of fees that are required by the ministry are going to come into the sustainable environment fund.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister keeps that money for some other function?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It goes into general revenue.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll see if we can bring the issue back to section 4. In subsection (c), "all proceeds from government sales of tree seeds and seedlings" will be considered here as funding. We know that the government has privatized most of those nurseries and that most of that revenue will be lost to this fund. There are, I think, two nurseries left that funding may be available from for the fund. Obviously the question of whether the private sector can operate those nurseries more efficiently and on a revenue basis will be impacted by the fact that the government is now going to take money from them and put it into this fund, making them even less profitable than they already are. I just wonder if the minister could explain whether that will be used as an avenue for privatization.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's just the government's sales of seedlings, not the private sector's.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I understand that fully. But the nurseries, which used to be government nurseries, were sold off to the private sector, so that funding is no longer available, as I said earlier. Is this another move on the part of the government to take revenue out of the last two nurseries still under government control, still run by the Ministry of Forests, and make them even less profitable than they already are, and then open an avenue to privatize them?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Hopefully we can expect those last two nurseries to remain in the Ministry of Forests so that there will be some safeguards against the type of seedlings and trees that are raised, so that we maintain a standard.

Under (f) — "disposable diapers designed for babies and young children" — I appreciate the fact that the consumer has to pay here again. This is the issue that the government has gone on, and the fact that we're going to put levies, or taxes, or whatever.... Taxes explains it here, even though the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) said that there would be no increases in taxes in his budget. I wonder if the minister or the Rabbitt commission looked at the issue of adult diapers. The Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) could attest to the fact that the hospitals have many diapers used for adults. Are they to be included in this, or are they to be disposed of in the regular manner and not taxed?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No, they will not be taxed, because they are a medical device.

[ Page 10274 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I find that remark rather amazing. Many of those are not for medical reasons. They are simply because people have trouble with their functions and....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Isn't that medical?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Well, you could stretch the issue, I guess. But the fact is that people require the use of diapers as they advance in age or if they are sick. Are we saying that babies and young children who require these diapers will have to pay the tax, and those other people will not have to pay the tax? Therefore we're not really addressing the question of whether it's environmentally sound as the reason that this tax is being imposed on these diapers, but simply the fact that we're targeting one specific group of people.

I thought the issue in sustainable development was to eliminate the need for those types of diapers or particular products that have an impact on the environment.

MR. MILLER: Let them wear cloth.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Exactly. The member for Prince Rupert says "let them wear cloth." I think some hospitals are moving toward cloth in order to stop having to dispose of those diapers in an environmentally unsound manner.

I believe that if we're going to deal with this question in a manner that is going to move towards sustainable development, we should be dealing with it on the basis that we try to eliminate those products that are harmful to the environment and not simply target babies and young children. I wonder if the minister has given any thought to including the use of those other diaper products so that we can work toward eliminating those products from waste dumps, rather than simply targeting babies. It looks to me like collecting a tax here.... He said the other products are used in a medical fashion, so they won't be taxed, and they will continue to be thrown on the waste dump. Perhaps by imposing a tax and making those products a little less desirable for hospitals or for people who are in nursing homes — or even those still at home — to buy, then perhaps we could encourage those people to move into cloth diapers.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the hon. member for this very serious issue, but I'm sure he wouldn't want to leave the impression that he would want the government to put a tax on the disabled or sick. The fact is that the volume of those materials is very minimal. I would agree with the member for Prince Rupert that if we could all encourage the hospitals and the people who must use those devices — and a number of us....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't think it's funny; I think it's serious. You guys stop. Mr. Chairman, they shouldn't be arguing while we're talking.

It's a very important issue, and I wouldn't want people to think that anybody in this House would want to tax people who are sick. I'm sure that member on the other side didn't bring it up for that reason.

The member for Prince Rupert has a good suggestion. Are the hospitals looking at using a cloth diaper in place of that disposable? If you are an adult and need to use that device, would it not be better if you were using a cloth material that you could take home and wash and use again? Those are things we all should be looking at.

The volumes we are talking about here are minimal compared to what is being used for babies. I know we've all got a conflict of interest when we talk about disposable diapers and babies — although I'm finally past that point for good. I have grandchildren now. One of them is using disposables, and the other ones are using cloth diapers.

It's an issue that I think is educational over a period of time. Hopefully, that's what these programs will do: educate people to look at other viable products and also encourage the companies that are making the disposables to come up a with solution, much like Tetra-Pak with their container. They were in a situation where teachers were telling young kids not to go to school with Tetra-Paks because they weren't recyclable. Now they are putting a factory in British Columbia and one in Toronto that will recycle the product. They were forced to do it because they've got a big market share, and they would lose it over a period of time if they didn't do it. Possibly, by what we're doing, we'll force the disposable diaper manufacturers to come up with other solutions for their products.

MR. MILLER: Who knows? The powerful disincentive of the tax on diapers might actually have an impact on the birth rate. People might decide not to have a baby because they can't afford the diapers.

I want to talk about some of the specifics under section 4. Look, I think everybody's got a desire to deal with the environmental issues. I don't know if anybody has any particular purity. Just listening to the debate earlier regarding pulp mills, I was struck by what I thought was a lack of understanding on the part of the minister of the people who work there.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, I know we had to fund a major employee health study back in the seventies, and we couldn't get a dime out of the government — not one single dime.

HON. J. JANSEN: Was that in '72 or '73?

[5:45]

MR. MILLER: No, Mr. Chairman, it was 1976, after the Socred candidate promised to keep a pulp mill

[ Page 10275 ]

open, and they shut it down and threw about 300 people out of work. That's when it was, Mr. Minister of Health, if you want to know. So much for any promises that might be made in that constituency from now until a long time to come. They've seen the false and hollow promises that you guys are prepared to make. They also know that the only substantial capital investment made in that period was to get rid of a heavily polluting pulp mill — a sulphite mill — and to make a fairly major reinvestment into a cleaner mill. So we don't need any educating, Mr. Minister of Health.

I just want to comment on the manner in which the argument is put. If you put the argument concerning pulp mills into a black-and-white question — do you want to shut them down or keep them going? — you define the parameters. You are saying, in essence, that there were only those two choices. That's what you're doing; you're defining it. And in taking that position, consciously or unconsciously, you're siding with the industry that you're supposed to be policing.

I want to ask about the funding itself. Subsection 4(l)(a), $50 million — perhaps the minister could enlighten me and the House on that money. Was it not money that was previously provided to conduct a program of grants to municipalities and worthy organizations around British Columbia? Is it unexpended money that we see in subsection 4(l)(a), Mr Minister?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the member talked about pulp mills and our different statements. It's getting late, but I could stand here and read what the Leader of the Opposition said one time on the "Rafe Mair Show" and one time on the "Bill Good Show." Once Bill Good asked him: "Would you close pulp mills down if they do not come up to standards?" "Yes, I said that before." Then he's on the "Rafe Mair Show" and says: "We'll work with them. We wouldn't close anybody down."

I again ask the question of that side: what would you like us to do better than what we're doing? It's great to stand there and criticize. I put forth the program, and it's working. They are spending $1.5 billion. Tell us what you would do to them.

MR. CASHORE: Point of order. I have heard many erudite and wise people occupy the chair in this House over the years that I have been here, and those people have made it very clear who has the role of asking questions and who has the role of answering them in this House. I think that advice has always been appropriate and well taken.

I know that members of the government are sensitive about their very bad record on the environment and that the public is actually hostile towards them. Therefore, I would ask the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. What you've said so far is not a point of order, and I just can't accept it as a point of order.

MR. MILLER: I would ask the question.... I suppose I took my opportunity to toss my two bits' worth in about pulp mills, as did the minister, the opposition critic and others around here. Now we can keep going, and I would be delighted. I could debate pulp mills with the minister — no trouble at all. If the minister didn't hear what I had to say....

If you continue to define the parameters in terms of choice, of shutting it down, it's self-defeating. You put the definition on it. When you do that, you consciously or unconsciously are telling people those are the only choices they have, and that removes your right — you or whoever occupies that ministry — to simply let it be known that you're not there to play any games or to take any nonsense, that there's a program, a timetable, and people are expected to meet it.

I did ask a question about section 4(1)(a), and the minister hasn't responded to it.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am advised by staff that the member's question was: "Where did the $50 million come from?" It came from lotteries.

I would also suggest to the member, on the comments that he made with regard to pulp mills, that we are defining where they should be going and what they should be doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't say it's a choice of shutting them down or doing nothing.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: That's not our choice; that's your choice. Your party has made the choice. You made the accusations that we should shut them down. We're not the ones. We say we're working. Our policy has always been to work with the pulp mills and the unions of this province to make sure the pulp mills employ people in those communities and that dollars churn around in communities.

We don't go to those communities and say: "Shut them down. Shut them down." Your party does; your critic does. Your members who are nominated in Powell River and Trail do it. We don't do it. We say we'll work with them. We are working with them. We're bringing in the toughest regulations in all of Canada, and they'll be imposed, and they'll do them because they have to be done for the environment.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, this minister seems to think that, given his PR approach to dealing with the environment, the more often he says it, it somehow makes it true. But the fact is that this minister is making very simplistic statements when we're dealing with a very difficult issue here. He denigrates the people who are trying to come up with workable solutions.

A moment ago the minister referred to $50 million in lottery money. Would the minister advise the House if any of this money is being recycled in the form of unspent lottery money from the previous fiscal year?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

[ Page 10276 ]

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister explain to himself — explain to the House.... Well, he can start by explaining to himself. But would he then explain to the House why that is? It's difficult to understand why that would be, why they would be calling that new money when it's old money. I don't understand that, Mr. Chairman. This isn't new money. If what the minister says is correct, it's old money. But it's being put forward as new money. Perhaps the minister can explain that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It should be rather simple. Maybe that's why it's hard for them to understand. A number of the initiatives that we brought in last year could not be started and/or completed. So there was money left there, and that's the money that's been transferred in.

MR. MILLER: The information we have is that almost $30 million of that money was earmarked for environmental spending last year, and that's difficult to understand. What constraints were put on it? Why couldn't it be spent?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If the member wants an example, he can drive up the highway and look at the fish hatchery in Duncan. It is just being built at a certain pace; it's not completed yet. There are other examples like that.

MR. CASHORE: Just to set the record straight, I would invite the minister to state openly that that $50 million is not new money, even though the money in the sustainable environment fund has been purported to be new money. Would the minister clarify that point for the record?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If the member had been listening to me for the last five minutes, he'd know that the point has been clarified.

MR. MILLER: I want to ask a few quick questions, Mr. Chairman. In (d), "any money received as contributions...." Are you expecting any? Are you advertising for any? I am familiar with the previous efforts on the part of the government to establish a reforestation fund that was intended to be funded through significant contributions, and it never got off the ground. In fact, I think it's still on the books, but it never really worked. The forest stand management fund never really amounted to anything. I'm surprised they haven't wiped it off the books. What kind of contributions are you expecting? Or does that refer to contributions from the ministries whose money you are going to be recycling or spending?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It deals with any money we can negotiate with the federal government for various programs — or with anyone else, for that matter. If the member wants his party to put a little money together to have an environmental youth project, and they want to contribute to it, that money will go through this fund. I can tell you that we already have three firms, I think, participating in the environmental youth fund and putting up cash, and we're hoping for a lot more.

MR. MILLER: Just to clarify that, then, you would clearly be referring to the FRDA program.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: You didn't say that? Well, I'll ask the question, then. Would (d) encompass money received under a renewed FRDA program?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MR. MILLER: Is the cabinet committee involved to any extent, or at all — or are you, as one of the co-chairmen — in the ongoing negotiations to get some contributions from the federal government?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would hope every member of this House is talking to their Members of Parliament in Ottawa and seeking funds for the various programs we are doing in this province. I certainly do — just as an MLA — talk to my federal member. I had dinner with Frank Oberle last week in Ottawa, and I talked to him about programs that the federal government should be funding in British Columbia. I think the very simple answer would be yes. I would hope that members on your side would be up in the House asking questions of the federal government to make sure they are going to put their fair share of money into British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: If the Minister of Environment would care to check Hansard, I could send him the questions. It has clearly been the case in Ottawa that the questions have been asked of the federal minister. We presume the questions have also been asked by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who I understand is having dinner tomorrow night with his counterpart at the federal level.

I asked whether or not you, as one of the co-chairmen, were involved in that negotiating process, not in the indirect way of talking to your Member of Parliament, but in terms of the actual negotiations. Or is it solely within the purview of the Minister of Forests to try to negotiate a new deal?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As the member well knows, no matter what department it would be, it is that minister's responsibility to do the negotiating. I think we all have a responsibility. Every little input you have as an MLA is part of the negotiation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 10277 ]

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that we sit tomorrow in the afternoon only.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.