[ Page 10279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Conflict of Interest Act (Bill M223). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 10279

Oral Questions

Alcohol and drug programs. Mrs. Boone –– 10279

Hospital purchasing policy~ Mr. Clark –– 10280

Pharmacare coverage. Mr. Perry –– 10280

Government air logs. Mr. Long –– 10280

Lottery advisory committee. Mr. Jones –– 10281

Committee on women's services. Ms. Pullinger –– 10281

Emergency flood response. Mr. Rabbitt –– 10281

Ministerial Statement

Flooding in interior. Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 10281

Mrs. Boone

Tabling Documents –– 10282

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

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 10282

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Mr. Zirnhelt

Third reading

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act (Bill 38). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 10296

Ms. Cull –– 10296

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10300

Ms. Edwards –– 10301

Mr. Perry –– 10303

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10305

Mr. Cashore –– 10306

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 10308

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: An introduction is probably not necessary, but will be made by the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sitting behind me in the House today on the floor is someone who, as Mr. Speaker said, probably doesn't need any introduction. He's a former Premier of our province, a distinguished British Columbian, a distinguished Canadian. Please welcome back to the cockpit Dave Barrett, MP.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome Dave Barrett to our House. As you know, sir, you and I both sat as Deputy Speakers when Mr. Barrett was Leader of the Opposition, and we probably learned more from that gentleman than from anybody else. We certainly learned a lot about the business, at least about the rules.

I would like to ask the House to welcome today two distinguished visitors in the precincts from Prince George. Would the House please welcome His Worship John Backhouse, the mayor of the city of Prince George, and our city manager, George Paul.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a good friend from the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, Buddy Devito. Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Devito.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a group of students and teachers from Simonds Elementary School in Langley.

Introduction of Bills

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled Conflict of Interest Act.

MR. SIHOTA: This is legislation which would allow for conflict-of-interest laws to be established in British Columbia.

The conflict-of-interest provisions we have put forward set a legally enforceable code of ethical behaviour that all cabinet ministers and MLAs must follow. With that code, there is set out a number of mandatory orientation seminars that will be required for all cabinet ministers.

The law would require a thorough public financial disclosure by all MLAs, both direct and indirect interests. It would demand public disclosure when an MLA sees a conflict and withdraws from further discussion or voting on a particular matter.

It creates a process through which the public can initiate an investigation into the conduct of a cabinet minister that could result in fines, restitution or suspension.

Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that, as a I said yesterday, ensures that British Columbians will have open, fair and honest government and that politicians who are attracted to public office will have to attend to the public good and not look after their own personal interests.

Bill M223 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. The minister had an internal report commissioned by his ministry on the hospital costs of treating alcohol- and drug-dependent patients. Can the minister explain why he has not made this report public?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'll look into that matter and bring it forward, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. BOONE: A new question to the minister. I have a copy of this report, and it identifies $72 million of potentially avoidable hospital costs resulting from the treatment of patients and identifies an urgent need for reinvestment in preventive strategies and more appropriate treatment systems. Can the minister explain why this report has not been made available to doctors and hospitals, so that they can treat alcohol-related illnesses in an effective manner?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I've already said that I would look into the matter, but I don't think that the content of the report the member is talking about prevents any treatment by doctors. As a matter of fact, as the member begins to explain more of what she is referring to, I think the report is an effort on the part of the ministry to identify those within the hospital system who may be there mainly because of addiction or alcohol-related problems. The project has been carried out on an experimental basis through some hospitals, by special teams, to make an evaluation of to what extent the problem exists and what we need to do about it.

MRS. BOONE: It's amazing. The minister seems to know a lot about a question he took on notice.

New question to the minister. Can he explain why his ministry has eliminated the position of medical adviser from his ministry's alcohol and drug service program, especially in light of the report we just heard about?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, the question is wrong in that we have not eliminated it. We do have a responsibility, though, within government to

[ Page 10280 ]

see that the money we spend on behalf of the taxpayers is spent properly and frugally, and that we put it to best value. That position Is not eliminated. It's still very much a part of the ministry's effort.

HOSPITAL PURCHASING POLICY

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Health. Will the minister confirm that the CT scanner purchased by Kelowna General Hospital was a Siemens machine, and will he confirm that the purchase of this particular model was against the hospital's own recommendation and came about only after the Ministry of Health ordered the hospital to purchase the most expensive Siemens machine?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what kind of equipment the Kelowna hospital bought, just as I don't know what all the other hospitals buy. But If the member wants me to look into determining what brand was on the CT scanner in Kelowna, I'd be pleased to take that question on notice and do that for him.

MR. CLARK: A new question. Will the minister confirm that the Siemens CT scanner installed at Royal Jubilee Hospital was in fact the fourth choice of the hospital committee, and that it was purchased only after the direction of the Ministry of Health?

HON. J. JANSEN: Again, the purchase of the Siemens MRI machine.... Is it the MRI machine he's talking about? Oh, the CT scanner. My understanding is that the CT scanner was a decision made by the board. It was not a piece of equipment that the ministry interfered with. It's a normal purchase that the board would make a recommendation for. As far as I can tell, everything was satisfactory in that regard.

PHARMACARE COVERAGE

MR. PERRY: Another question for the Minister of Health. Parents of children born with congenital dysplasia of the hip are now being forced to spend $300 to $400 for the neonatal braces required to treat that condition, but they are not eligible for full Pharmacare coverage. Given that these braces are crucial to prevent such children from growing up with serious hip problems, has the minister now decided to change the policy — as he did for the diabetics recently — and have Pharmacare pay 100 percent of the cost?

[2:15]

HON. J. JANSEN: It's unfortunate that the member is relying on editorials or newspaper coverage in terms of determining what ministry policy is. In fact, those appliances are covered by Pharmacare, and they have been covered by Pharmacare for some time. In 1989 we paid in excess of $2 million for this type of benefit for people in the province of British Columbia. We also recently announced the at-home program, which covers those patients who are unable to pay under normal Pharmacare coverage, and 100 percent of that is covered under the Social Services ministry.

MR. PERRY: A new question for the minister. Last year I raised with the ministry the situation of families with children who are suffering from thalassemia major, which is normally a fatal disease affecting young children. At that time, I pointed out that the families might incur bills as high as $5,000 per year to enable them to undergo home treatment, which is potentially life-saving for those children. Will the minister inform us whether he has reviewed that question and whether his ministry has decided that those children and their families are equally as eligible for benefits under our universal health care system as any other British Columbian?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm trying to find out, first of all, if there is a question. I'll certainly take the information on notice, and I'll report back to the member opposite if he has some genuine concern about this problem.

Everyone in British Columbia is covered under Pharmacare. Those who qualify under certain conditions come under Social Services and Housing. I'm not really sure what question the member has. I'll certainly look at the problem. If he has a specific problem that he wishes to refer to me, I'll be pleased to look at it.

MR. PERRY: A new question. I did raise that matter earlier in detail, and I'll pursue it

MR. SPEAKER: If you have a new question.... I have another member, the member for Mackenzie.

GOVERNMENT AIR LOGS

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Minister of Finance. The Ministry of Government Management Services has announced that you will release the flight logs pertaining to the government air services. In the interests of open government, will you request that the comptroller-general release the air travel expenses of the Leader of the Opposition?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This issue was peripherally commented upon in the last few days, during earlier debates in this Legislature. So I made an inquiry. I learned, to my surprise, that I am impotent to provide that information without the written approval of the Leader of the Opposition. As a consequence of your legitimate request today, and in view of the earlier, oft-repeated comments by the Leader of the Opposition that he believes in open and free government, I will ask the comptroller-general to convey the request in writing to the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 10281 ]

LOTTERY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have recently learned that the auditor-general's review of lottery grants has found irregularities in some 25 percent of grants examined last year — one out of four. Has the Provincial Secretary finally decided to establish an arm's-length lottery advisory committee, as provided for in the Lottery Act?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I see that not only does the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) not know what is going on, but the member who just asked the question also doesn't know. If he refers back to February, he'll see the very effective guidelines that were put in place for the control of lottery grants.

MR. JONES: The public wants assurance of a non-political process in terms of lottery grants. The institution of four unnamed cabinet ministers does not put it at arm's-length, as the public requires. Has the minister decided to replace that four-member cabinet committee with an arm's-length, non-political advisory committee?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I would disagree. I believe that what the public really wants is honesty in the questioning and the innuendo that comes from across the floor. They certainly would like some honesty in the questions that are asked. In that regard I believe we have honourable gentlemen sitting on that committee and honourable decisions.

COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S SERVICES

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. On June 4 the minister received the report of her committee on women's services. Can the minister tell the House when this report will be made public?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I would advise the member that I do not have the report yet myself. As soon as I do, and have shared the recommendations with my colleagues, it will be made available to the public.

EMERGENCY FLOOD RESPONSE

MR. RABBITT: To the Minister of Environment, as the minister responsible for water management. In light of the major flood conditions which are developing in the southern interior of British Columbia, what specific action is the government undertaking to monitor this flooding and to meet the immediate needs of the people affected by this emergency?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for that question and would advise him that the provincial emergency program has people on site not only in the Okanagan but up around the Prince George area in the north. They are working with people sandbagging in the Okanagan, assisting people and working with them. As you know, the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Unfortunately, this matter isn't a joke. It's a very serious matter. I would advise the House that the ministries involved are taking it very seriously — not the typical joke that comes from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

There are some serious problems in this province. There are people working with the highway maintenance crews, assisting people putting sandbags around their homes and helping people who are in deep trouble. I can also advise the House that right at this moment the Premier of this province and the minister in charge of the provincial emergency program

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We've got the flood up there and the ship of fools sitting over there.

The Premier of this province is there right now with the minister in charge of the provincial emergency program to talk to the people and advise them that there will be assistance from this government — whatever is needed to solve the problem.

Ministerial Statement

FLOODING IN INTERIOR

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I'm sure that all members of the chamber are now aware of the devastation caused by flooding throughout the interior of our province. The flooding has caused massive damage in parts of the Okanagan and Prince George region. Far more tragically, the flooding has also displaced many families and cost the lives of several people. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our government, I would like to express our deepest sympathy to those families who have suffered loss of life.

Our government, through the provincial emergency program, the Ministry of Environment, including volunteers from the Environment Youth Corps, and other agencies, is deploying every available resource to assist the residents in need.

Mr. Speaker, right now our Premier, together with the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), is flying to the flood scene in order to assess the damage firsthand and to speak directly with those affected. We are confident that by working together we will overcome this disastrous impact on our province with the greatest efficiency and care for the people.

MRS. BOONE: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to join the government in expressing sympathy to those families who are suffering as a result of the floods in both my community — in Prince George — and in the Okanagan. The extensive damage to property is of concern; however, property

[ Page 10282 ]

can be repaired or replaced. Those who have lost family members or friends will face a far greater loss. That loss cannot be replaced.

I appreciate the efforts of the government to assist those families affected in both the Okanagan and the Prince George region, and I can only hope that the worst is behind us.

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party pledges its support to work with the government to assist all those affected by the flood conditions.

MRS. McCARTHY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY: We are privileged to have as a guest in the House today Carol Lee, who is from the California State Legislature In Sacramento. I'd ask the House to give her a very warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled a statement of unclaimed money deposits held in trust accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990, in accordance with section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 16.

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FUND ACT
(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: When we adjourned yesterday we were dealing with section 4 of Bill 16, Sustainable Environment Fund Act. Shall section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I move the amendment to section 5 standing under my name on the order paper.

[Section 5, by deleting the proposed section 5 and substituting the following:

Expenditures

5.(1) On the recommendation of the committee, the Minister of Environment may pay money out of the fund for any of the following:

(a) initiatives to reduce solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes;

(b) land acquisition costs for park, fish conservation and wildlife conservation purposes;

(c) integrated resource management and environmental protection initiatives;

(d) operation of the Round Table on Environment and Economy.

(2) On the recommendation of the committee, the Minister of Forests may pay money out of the fund for any of the following:

(a) the provision of tree seeds and seedlings required for Provincial reforestation projects and basic silviculture associated with areas harvested before October 1, 1987 and areas denuded by major fire and pest outbreaks;

(b) programs delivered by the government under the cost-shared $300 million Forest Resources Development Subsidiary Agreement;

(c) programs delivered by the government under other

(i) cost-shared federal-provincial forest resource development agreements that may be entered into from time to time, or

(ii) new forest renewal programs of the government that the committee considers to be consistent with the aims and intent of the agreement mentioned in paragraph (b);

(d) operation of the Forest Resources Commission.]

On the amendment.

MR. CASHORE: It's just a small point, but assuming that when the information in this bill is consolidated into the statutes, some of the explanatory notes go with them. The explanatory note here refers only to the Minister of Environment and not to the Minister of Forests, so I'm just asking the minister to comment on how that would be dealt with, given that it's not referred to or there isn't a new explanatory note that accompanies the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might mention for the edification of the hon. member that explanatory notes will not go into the revised statute.

[2:30]

MR. CASHORE: I was under the impression that in some situations explanatory notes do show up, Mr. Chairman.

I think we're getting here into the part of the bill that deals with how these funds are going to be used. We've canvassed the serious questions that we have about the basis of this fund and the real need for it in view of the lack of additional support to the line ministries. We have expressed our concerns about the opportunity it provides for cabinet members to be making decisions on this funding without an arm's-length approach. just as in the point made a few moments ago, there should be an arm's-length approach when dealing with lottery funds. Indeed, lottery funds constitute some of the funds being dealt with here, and it would be far better if there were an arm's-length approach in dealing with any distribution of funds that come from the public purse, especially in such an important area of protecting the environment and reforestation.

Notwithstanding the comments made by the minister yesterday, we still see this fund as vulnerable to political people rewarding friends and insiders. We really question the comments that we have to trust the process and accept it in good faith when there's

[ Page 10283 ]

really no increase whatsoever for the budget of this hard-pressed line ministry.

Nowhere could that point be more appropriately identified than in 5(1)(a) — "initiatives to reduce solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes." Again, if the ministry is going to be effective in that, it's going to have to enable its own conservation officer staff to carry out the investigations and programs that are in place, which the government is fond of bragging about, in order to improve the government's record in dealing with solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes. But we know that the minister sees this as an opportunity to make funding available to some private corporations, as though that is going to solve the problem. Yet it fails to recognize that this is a far more wide-reaching problem than that.

Sub-subsection (1)(b) goes on to talk about "land acquisition costs for parks, fish conservation and wildlife conservation purposes." I would have to remind the minister that it was in 1987 that the Minister of Finance removed close to $200 million, I think, from the Crown land fund, and those funds were to acquire land for two purposes: parkland and housing. But insofar as a fund existed which had a substantial amount of money in it for acquiring parkland, I would like the minister to comment on what he sees this fiscal year in the way of funding made available for acquiring parkland.

In particular, when we think of the changes in the boundaries of Strathcona Park, does the minister see this fund as being used to compensate the companies that had mineral claims in the park prior to the OIC change to the park boundaries? Does the minister see money from the sustainable environment fund being used to pay compensation to mining companies that have lost their right to proceed in areas that have been declared as parks?

I've raised a few points there, so I'll just give the minister a chance to respond.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is right. There will be some money available in these programs for private corporations. I know we have a disagreement in those areas, and I'll just leave it at that.

I'm not exactly sure about the actual amount of money for parkland. I'm waiting for one of my officials, who can give us those figures immediately. If you want to go on with some other questions, I can get you those figures as soon as he arrives, which I hope will be momentarily.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to make note of a couple of other questions that I have and that he may have to send out for information on.

The issue of the Expo lands, of course, remains very serious in the province. The issue has been canvassed many times with regard to the impact of the cost of the cleanup on the profitability of that sale. I am sure the minister and I will agree that there's a great variety of opinion between the government and the opposition as to what that really amounts to. I would be interested in the minister's comments with regard to the potential cost of the Expo land cleanup and what portion of this fund, if any, would be targeted for that. For those who have just come in, I'm asking about the fund being used for Expo land cleanup.

Further to that question, I also wanted to raise a couple of questions about the Provincial Round Table on Environment and Economy. Before we get into too many questions, though, I would like to hear some answers.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am advised that the money available in the fund for parkland purchase will be in the area of $2 million.

We could talk and debate forever about the Expo lands. I'm sure when we get into my estimates we'll do more than that, so I won't go into great detail. I'll just say that we probably will disagree about profitability. I agree that there's a great profit for the citizens of British Columbia in the sale of that land.

It doesn't matter who it was sold to; the Expo land cleanup would have to take place. Experts gave us predictions as to what it would cost. I'm not prepared at this time to talk about what that final cost will be, because we are down to the final half-dozen or so companies that have been on the Expo land.

We're looking at new technology. I can assure the member and the citizens of British Columbia that the technology we use to clean up the Expo land in Vancouver will be the best available. It will be technology that we can use around this province.

There's a lot of publicity attached to the Expo land because of Expo and what happened, but we all must remember that no one government is to blame for it; nor is any individual or any single group of companies. There were things happening over the past hundred years in this country that everybody thought was fine years ago. Much land must be cleaned up. I hope we'll be able to use the process we find for the Expo land in other situations around British Columbia.

I can also assure the member that there is no money for the Expo cleanup in this fund. It is in a contingency fund under the Ministry of Finance.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the minister's answer with regard to the Expo land that the sustainable environment fund would not be seen in any way as a fund that would be addressed to orphan sites throughout the province when it comes to matters of contamination. We may hear of other initiatives to deal with that, but we won't be hearing about that in the context of this fund; none of these funds would be appropriated for that.

With regard to the $2 million for parkland purchase, it's my understanding that that's been a standard for many years. I believe — I don't have the ability to look it up right now — that either within the parks budget or within some kind of fund under the Minister of Finance, there's almost $2 million as a standard, going back for quite a few years, listed as

[ Page 10284 ]

money for park acquisition. Perhaps the minister can clarify whether or not this means that in fact we would have $4 million available for park acquisition this year. Or does it simply mean that the money that already existed for park acquisition has been consolidated into this fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would advise the member that the Parks ministry will have $3.7 million in total for the acquisition of private land and parks.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister advise me whether that $3.7 million includes the $2 million out of the sustainable environment fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's all in the sustainable development fund.

MR. CASHORE: The minister just said that it's all in the sustainable development fund. I believe he meant the sustainable environment fund. But in answer to a question a moment ago, I thought the minister said that there was $2 million for parks. So now I'm wanting clarification as to whether it's $2 million or $3.7 million.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We have $2 million for habitat and $3.7 million for park acquisition, for a total of $5.7 million.

MR. CASHORE: This is great; it keeps getting larger. I think if I just keep asking these short questions, the minister will oblige me by possibly increasing the amount.

The minister is saying that there's $5.7 million which has to do with various aspects of parkland acquisition, and that all of that comes out of the sustainable environment fund. Is that correct, that all $5.7 million comes out of the sustainable environment fund? Do I see by the minister nodding that he is confirming this?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Did the minister say that $5.7 million for park acquisition comes out of the sustainable environment fund?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If the member would take his blue book out he could see, under the heading of "Environmental Protection and Preservation of Natural Areas," the total of $2 million for fish and wildlife habitat and $3.7 million for park acquisition, which add up to $5.7 million.

MR. CASHORE: The minister moved beyond the scope of my question when he got into acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat, but I see what he's saying.

I don't think the minister has satisfactorily answered the question about the funds for compensation to the companies that had mineral claims in Strathcona Park prior to the boundary changes. If the minister could advise us if the sustainable environment fund is....

The minister is shaking his head and saying that does not come out of the sustainable environment fund, in the same vein, I would take it, as his answer about the contaminated lands.

We get into the area of the operation of the Round Table on Environment and Economy. I want to ask the minister to comment on the Round Table, in view of the fact that it was appointed approximately 18 months after the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers — of which our then Minister of Environment was a part — had recommended it. The federal government actually got tired of waiting for B.C. to appoint its Round Table, so it went ahead and appointed the Round Table prior to the B.C. one being appointed.

I believe that the Strangway committee was still in the process of meeting to advise the Minister of Environment at that time as to whether or not there should be a round table and on what terms. The lateness of this whole process certainly belies the government's stated concern about the environment, because it took so long to get up speed.

I noted that when the federal Round Table on the environment was appointed, there was one appointee from British Columbia — a woman who works for Forintek on the UBC campus. To the best of my knowledge, that individual is not on the B.C. Round Table, and I'm just wondering if the minister could advise the House if he has decided to take any steps to arrange for a person on the B.C. Round Table to also be a member of the federal Round Table.

[2:45]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: To answer the last question first, the best possible person in this province is on the federal Round Table, and it's me this year. To go back to the Round Table itself, I would suggest to him that there are still provinces which don't have round tables. I think the steps that we took in this province guaranteed us the quality that we have on the Round Table.

As you know, we had the Strangway task force, which made recommendations to this government. I was at a meeting not too long ago where Mr. Strangway stood up and praised this government for implementing the recommendations of his task force. I think we have been doing it. We didn't move quickly. No, we moved very slowly. But you will know that the 31 people on the Round Table are people of quality and dedication, and I am sure they will make some great recommendations to this government and to this Legislature. The chairman, Chuck Connaghan, has a reputation in the province of British Columbia for getting things done and for being a great negotiator. I understand that not this past weekend but the weekend before, they had their meeting in Penticton. They had public hearings, and I understand they were very successful.

As an opposition you always could — and I am sure we could on our own side — find some criticism that maybe one group isn't represented or there aren't enough women on the Round Table. But those things will take care of themselves over time. There will be changes every couple of years. There will be

[ Page 10285 ]

resignations, whatever. We will fit some of the recommendations in.

I know my staff did a very thorough job and talked to literally probably three or four times the number of people on this list. Also, some people just weren't prepared to give up the time that was necessary. It's a very dedicated job that anybody's taken who sits on the Round Table, because they're going to be involved in very serious issues in this province. I want to go on record as saying I congratulate all of the people who have taken time out of their very busy lives to serve on this very important body.

MR. CASHORE: I, too, congratulate the people on the Round Table. I think they are a good group of people, and I am glad the minister has put on the record his commitment that he will work toward the goal of gender parity. He didn't put it in those terms, but from what he said I understand that he is going to be working toward that as the membership on that Round Table evolves over a period of time. I think that's worthwhile.

With regard to the minister's comment about President Strangway praising the government for the Round Table, it does have a bit of a sound of a symbiotic relationship there. But I'll take that in good faith. I'm sure Dr. Strangway is pleased with the Round Table. It's unfortunate, though, that it's going to be quite some time before we really have the opportunity to see the result and to see some of the value of it. I really do think there are some very good people there.

I go back to a meeting in January when the minister spoke in the Fishermen's hall down on Victoria Drive with regard to pulp pollution and the loss of people's livelihood in the crab-fishing industry. He was being pushed by some very angry people. I give the minister credit for coming and facing those people in person at that time; I think the minister gave a very credible performance. But we all know that it was a very tense room we were in, and it was even, in some ways, volatile. There was question after question coming to the minister: "What are you going to do about this now?" People were saying: "You don't have to study this. What are you going to do about it now?" And the escape hatch was the Round Table. The minister said — and it's on the record of that meeting — several times in answer to the questions of those people that he would be referring the question of pulp pollution in Howe Sound to the Round Table.

They will understand that when the Round Table began to function — the people there being people of their own mind — that it wasn't long before they made it very clear to the minister that they did not see themselves as being in that kind of role. I understand that the Round Table is intent on addressing issues that are more appropriate for the Round Table to be addressing. Quite clearly — I am sure the minister agrees now — on the issue of addressing pulp pollution there are some things that are urgent and pressing and the minister has, in his own way and from his own political philosophy, been coming forward with measures. I just want to emphasize the point that the function of the Round Table is limited. There is only so much it can do. It's a tremendously important part of a much larger process, and as I said before, it's late and it's long overdue.

That's all I will be raising for the moment. I think some of my colleagues have some other questions.

MS. EDWARDS: I have some concerns in this section about duplication of effort, if you want to put it that way. There are some issues that could come up because of the way the funds are expended. There is a time postponement — an extension of time period in order to get some functions achieved — and certainly in the rural areas of the province and I believe in all areas there are some questions about whether there is duplication of effort, whether there is an increased bureaucratic load and this sort of thing.

I bring the minister's attention, first of all, to subsection (1)(a), where it talks about initiatives to reduce solid wastes and also liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes. More specifically, the idea is that the Minister of Environment may, after he receives a recommendation from the committee, spend some money on initiatives in reducing solid waste and that kind of thing. These issues have been a matter of some urgency in various regions of the province and certainly in the constituency I represent. My question to the minister is: what is the value of this committee now having to recommend?

Is this going to cause a time extension, when the people in the Elk Valley are trying to solve their solid-waste problem anyway? Is this now going to mean that they have an extended length of time — if they see they may have some increased funding — that they're going to want to wait to see whether they have increased funding? It could be something as simple as that which extends what is done in the Elk Valley, or it may be a matter of waiting because another program is put up, and therefore having to wait to make a different approach and a different application.

I would suggest that that same sort of thing could apply when you are talking about — and I refer to the same docket page which I believe came out of the estimates booklet, the blue book — what describes some of these expenditures. We're talking about pilot projects under innovative waste-management programs. It suggests that that may be one of the things that's happening.

Is there, in fact, going to be some money in there for sparsely populated areas? If this is the case, the people in the Elk Valley, for example, need to know promptly. Why is it we are going through another whole fund? Why is it that we move this function out of the line ministry and into a situation where a whole committee of cabinet ministers has to make recommendations on it? Is this going to delay what's happening? Is it going to, in fact, achieve what the minister would lead us to suppose he wants to achieve — an increased level of attack, if you like, at the solid-waste management problem? That is a matter of some considerable concern.

[ Page 10286 ]

I also would like to ask the minister again about land-acquisition costs. In particular, I bring to mind the example I brought up in both second reading and under section 4. It seems to me that there could be a major increase in the bureaucracy of this if the function of purchasing land for fish and wildlife habitat is now going through another ministry in order to increase the amount.

If you want to increase the amount, presumably the cabinet can do that. Then why do we have to have a fund? Why do we have to move it back and forth? To be assured — and again, the minister did assure yesterday — that it would go through the normal processes that are set up as guidelines for the habitat conservation fund? Why is that there? Is that not simply something that will take longer to do and that will make it much more difficult for things to happen?

I find it interesting that subsection (1)(c) talks about integrated resource management initiatives. Again, the management itself is to be done by the ministries. Certainly it has to be coordinated when you are doing it for integrated use. But it doesn't assure me that the initiative will help very much at all in the continuing attempt on the part of governments to deal in various ways with integrating resource management.

I have some concerns that this is not going to be particularly effective. I think I will leave that there. I have a few other questions on the same sort of line but I'll wait for the minister to answer.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can assure the member that there will be no increase in the bureaucratic system that people have to go through to help solve their problems in this area. I would also suggest to the member that if she wishes, I would be more than happy to have her sit down with somebody in my staff to explain exactly what we're doing in her region with the regional districts, the municipalities, the villages and those who have replied to our letters offering assistance.

You talk about bureaucracy. I just read in the British Columbia Report of June 11 that your party is in favour of a recycling agency to promote better recycling in the province. If you are concerned about a bureaucracy, why would your party be promoting a recycling agency separate from government?

I can assure you that we are working as quickly as we can and offering assistance wherever we can in every region of the province, and it doesn't matter if it's one of the smallest regions. In fact, I know my staff is meeting at 3 o'clock today with people who are interested in assisting us in putting depots around the province to help recycling and to help get that material back to the source where it can be recycled.

MS. EDWARDS: But my experience in talking with the municipalities in the Elk Valley is not that they have had a whole lot of help from the provincial government when they have talked about initiatives to reduce the amount of solid waste. They certainly haven't had any response except: "Wait to see what we're going to do with the Rabbitt report." It is the only answer they've had when they've said: "We don't want to make plans and spend money on a solid waste system until such time as we know we can put the recycling component into it."

The whole thing has been nothing but a stalling process. I bring it straight to the minister: we had the Rabbitt report, then we had nothing happening with it. We've had "We'll wait" and "We'll wait." And now we get $5,000 for another study that was required on top of the previous study that was required. Now we have a new fund with a new committee, which will be distributing money.

I have some major concerns about whether this is going to address a serious issue in the Elk Valley. The question is: is it simply going to be another promise that creates another bunch of time and another situation where...? We're talking about finding ways to deal with a very expensive solid-waste problem in a sparsely populated area like the Elk Valley. Instead of that we get pilot projects in Delta. They're probably very much needed, but are there going to be pilot projects to deal with the extremely difficult and typical problems we're dealing with in the Elk Valley? They're typical for places where there aren't many people. That is a continuing concern, and I don't see that this part of the legislation addresses it; I don't see that it's there.

[3:00]

I would move on to another question. It comes mainly through the description of the bill in the blue book, which mentions in several places that energy conservation will be an issue and will be addressed under funds — both under waste management and sustainable development initiatives. My question, Mr. Minister, is: how would this happen?

There's certainly a need for legislation for energy efficiency standards for appliances and for Building Code requirements if the ministry wants to work with it, but there is a huge initiative — not huge enough, but large — going on in B.C. Hydro to promote energy conservation right now. That is strictly electricity, I grant you, and the minister may tell me that the energy conservation plans and initiatives described here will go far beyond B.C. Hydro. That may be so, but are you talking about adding money to what is going on in the promotion of conservation of electrical energy? Or are you really talking about some of the serious work that has to go into getting some legislation drafted and doing the public work that should go on around that legislation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest to the member with regard to the first section she talked about that we met with the people from her constituency — the elected officials — on May 1 here in Victoria and agreed that we would assist in funding the plan itself. I understand from my staff that all that is taking place. There are no delays — certainly not on our part, and I don't think on the other side either. I think both sides are working very closely together.

[ Page 10287 ]

With regard to the amount of money for energy conservation, in the sustainable development fund there is an additional $450,000 for energy conservation programs. I understand that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) will be presenting those plans to the committee very shortly.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: I presume that's under a section described as sustainable development initiatives, for which there is a total amount of $18.6 million. I don't have my blue book with me, just one page out of it, Mr. Minister, so excuse me. But I notice that under the waste management section, which is $27.3 million, you have another mention of energy conservation. It says: "Other initiatives, including energy conservation, agricultural soil and water protection programs, etc...." I'm not sure whether that $450,000 you just mentioned.... Where is it going to be directed? Is that the money that will go to the project or which might go towards laying out for public input the suggestions you have for the adoption of energy efficient standards for appliances? Surely that wouldn't happen, so what is it?

As far as I can see, the government, as opposed to B.C. Hydro, must do a number of things if we're just talking about electrical conservation at the moment. One of the things the government must do is bring in legislation which will require certain standards for electrical appliances and industrial motors, and for building codes and so on. Is that the kind of thing the minister foresees happening, or is it something different?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can give you the figures that were allocated, but if you want to go into details as to what the Minister of Energy is going to do, you should wait until his estimates to go through them item by item.

We can tell you that in the book it says, "Energy conservation initiatives, including the adoption of energy efficiency standards for appliances and public information to raise consumer awareness in energy conservation," and we can give you the amount. But as for what the minister is going to bring to the committee.... He hasn't done that yet, but I'm sure that during his estimates you can have all the time you want to go through in detail all of the programs he's proposing and why he's proposing them.

MS. EDWARDS: Presumably that's all caught in the legislation under "environmental protection initiatives," which are not clearly defined. It leaves one with some questions about how the funds will be expended and where they will go.

My next question.... I presume the minister may answer in the same way, but I am going to lay the question out anyway: is there some indication that some of this funding might go to the area of petroleum energy conservation and measures that may be needed there such as emission standards for vehicles, testing stations and those kinds of things that have to do with petroleum resources and the conservation of those?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If the member is to go through the details of material we've put out in the past, she would notice — but under a different minister, the Solicitor-General — that we're doing emission testing standards. That's one item that's in with a specific figure on it of $2.5 million. I'm sure the Minister of Energy will be expounding on all the other areas that he will be going into when he does his own estimates.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister's answers indicate to me that the problem I'm having has not yet been answered, and that is: why in the world are we having to go through this process when, in fact, it's all being handled and being planned and put forward to the line ministries? It's an interesting question. It gives a pretty clear indication of the answer, too.

I want to ask one more question. If there is an implementation of a provincial wildlife inventory, again that's a function that would be within this minister's line ministry responsibilities. Is there considerably more money to be put to that, and how would that go in line with what has been hoped and what has been put into....? I know the minister has made promises about increased funding for wildlife inventory for this year. How did that work? Does that go right back into the Ministry of Environment to be done again?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It does go back into the fund. I can tell the member that we'll be having 21 additional staff in that area, which I think will be very positive in the area that you live in and in other areas of the province. No, that's 21 on the staff, not all in the Kootenays. I don't know if we know how many right now. We're still working with staff to outline the program.

The member asks why it is being done this way. It's because there's integration, and the other ministers now must come to this committee and go through with the Minister of the Environment's input on these environmental matters, which I think are very important to all British Columbians. That's why it's being done this way.

It's the first of its kind in North America, and I can guarantee you that it's going to be copied by other provinces and other states. I had a meeting last week with the federal government in Ottawa just on this topic of the sustainable environment fund. They think it's an excellent idea to separate it from general revenue so the public knows exactly what the government is doing on the environment. They know that if the program isn't completed at the end of the year, the money stays there. The Minister of Finance can't move it over for some other reason. I think you'll see other governments across Canada and the U.S. copying what we're doing.

[ Page 10288 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I have just one more question. Is that new money that's in here, or does that come from somewhere else?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it's $5 million in new money, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to deal with the Integrated resource management section of the amendment, and that hasn't changed. First of all, I'll give a very quick review in terms of the issue of integrated resource management. As most people are aware, it has been the mandate of the Minister of Forests for a considerable time. If you review any of the forest and range resource analysis documents over a period of time, you will see that they have always devoted a little section to integrated resource management. Sometimes it is a very simple, two paragraph section outlining the mandate, and sometimes it's a bit more revealing, as it was in the 1987-92 report, which admitted that the lack of an integrated approach to resource management is a serious deficiency.

As a result of that, I think there has been general acknowledgement that the ministry has not really fulfilled their mandate in any kind of meaningful way. That has become more and more topical as the province encounters these very divisive issues in terms of these land-use questions.

Quoting from the 1987-92 report, there is a list of issues which the ministry says is their mandate: "Forage which supports the livestock industry, recreational opportunities, water, visitors and industries, fisheries, wildlife" — all of those issues which you would expect to be covered under an integrated resource management approach. I would also note that the Ministry of Forests has $18.5 million budgeted in this fiscal year to carry out that mandate.

It became fairly obvious that there was a lack of really good work in this area. I think, too, a lot of people in British Columbia, when the government was embarking on their policy of expanding the tree-farm licence system.... That, as everyone is aware, ran up against a stone wall of opposition.

It was quite intriguing back in November of '88 when the government was preparing to have their first public hearing on an application to roll over a couple of forest licences into a tree-farm licence. In fact, it was an application from Fletcher Challenge Canada to take over the entire Mackenzie timber supply area — timber supply areas being those geographic regions which the Ministry of Forests has identified for their planning purposes. The proposal from the company was to take over this area, which is some six million hectares, and to manage it on behalf of the Crown. Prior to the public hearing — just prior, in fact about a week — the chief TFL forester put out a little statement saying: "There's going to be a little bit of delay. We're having some trouble pulling together some of our figures, our information, which we need for the hearing."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, are you being relevant with respect to the use of the funds collected under this legislation? It sounds as if it's the general forestry program you're talking about. If you'd be relevant to section 5 amendments....

MR. MILLER: I think I am, Mr. Chairman. I'll naturally take any advice you have to offer, but I am talking about integrated resource management. The section 5 that I'm referring to, specifically 5(l)(c), says "integrated resource management and environmental protection initiatives." I would think it's within the scope of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will be relevant to section 5, as amended, please.

[3:15]

MR. MILLER: So here we are a week before a public hearing, and finally the public hearing was cancelled and the admission was made by the ministry that they simply didn't have those other values quantified, those non-timber values. That was quite a revelation, in my opinion.

We move on down the road, and we come to the appeal commission, the Forest Resources Commission, which again falls under the purview of this bill. I think there should be some discussion here, unlike the discussion I tried to have yesterday on silviculture, which kept being referred back to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond). This clearly allocates some money.

The appeal commission, in their meetings in Victoria, in their interviews with senior civil servants, again dealt with this question of integrated resource management. To quote the chairman at the hearing on May 17, in discussions with senior Ministry of Forests officials: "But the commission has constantly heard that the process" — that is, integrated resource management — "isn't working. We've constantly heard that the Ministry of Forests is managing primarily for timber values and that all these other values come in second place."

In subsequent testimony before the commission, a senior official in the Ministry of Forests backed that up, confirmed that, by saying that their interpretation of managing on a multiple-use basis, or integrated resource management basis, was that timber was part of the equation and that it would be impossible to remove timber. Although they would concede that they would allow pockets of areas in a planning area to be allocated to other uses, timber was the primary use.

Clearly that was unacceptable to some within the ministry, because it was not that long afterwards that that same official, Mr. Cheston, came back to the commission and clarified the official position of the ministry in terms of integrated resource use. Again quoting the chairman from that particular hearing, in response to Mr. Cheston's statement Mr. Peel said: "You're saying that there are designations of the forest that would have integrated resource use exclusive of timber-harvesting, and that would be consis-

[ Page 10289 ]

tent with your act." Mr. Cheston's words were: "Exactly."

There was, at least, and I think there still is, some confusion in regard to just how integrated resource management is carried out in this province, just who's doing it and just what they think their mandate is.

We go back again. Some other documents saw the light of day last year, in terms of the operation of the Ministry of Environment. I specifically recall a memo that said, in effect, that you only had 14 people right around the province to vet some 4,000 logging plans — and I think my numbers are correct — and it expressed a great deal of frustration on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment in terms of the role that they should play in this process.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, there was a recent letter from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association to the Minister of Forests and to the Minister of Environment. The minister made a statement on May 23 in this House, which I responded to, announcing the establishment of a new integrated resource management division within the Ministry of the Environment. He also made some statements that apparently raised the ire of the Cattlemen's Association, specifically with regard to the conflict between wildlife management areas and areas that are used for range for livestock.

The cattlemen wrote the minister making the point that public discussion papers had been issued by the Ministry of Forests on the question. There had been a great deal of discussion on the question and people were supposed to respond to the paper that was put out, and yet the Minister of Environment was making statements in terms of his mandate, which was basically to manage for wildlife. There's some difficulty in terms of process.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we look at an interview that was conducted with Mr. Peel, the head of the Forest Resources Commission, on May 19. He confirms that there is some difficulty with the implementation of an integrated resource-use plan, whether it's from the Ministry of the Environment or from this fund or the Ministry of Forests. He is basically saying that the inventories are not there upon which to base an integrated resource-use approach, that they simply haven't quantified some of those values.

Quoting from the Sun newspaper of May 19, Mr. Peel says: "Inventories that were set up to deal with structures four or five years ago are not designed for integrated resource management. They're all over the lot." With respect to what the ministries have said, quite clearly you have to question whether they're up to the task when their inventories are to be used for integrated resource management on a relatively small land area.

So if we recommend an approach to integrated resource. management and the government accepts that as a policy direction, then clearly inventories are not up to the task and will have to be addressed. I think I've laid out a reasonable case to say that the approach to integrated resource management has been, by and large, in name only; that the fundamental work that needs to be done has not been done.

The final point is that following the establishment of the Forest Resources Commission — which was initially set up, as I understood it, to deal with the very contentious issue of the tree-farm licence expansion policy — several additional mandates were handed to the commission. One of those was to, I believe the words were, "try and quantify those other values, those non-timber values," and I don't know how the commission is proceeding with that.

Finally we come to the current day. I stated yesterday — and I don't think there's any disputing it — that the fund is essentially a shell game; it's to circulate money through.... The minister admitted yesterday that he doesn't know anything about forestry; he doesn't want to know anything about forestry; all those decisions are made with the Minister of Forests; and presumably they'll send a little memo over and somebody will say okay on it, and the Minister of Forests can get on with doing his job, which is what he should be doing.

I am wondering, in regard to this aspect of the fund, if the minister has a different view. Under the budget documents, this integrated resource management is specifically listed under the heading "Resource Management Initiatives," at $11.3 million. Under that are two points: funding to support the operations of the Forest Resources Commission and increased funding for a variety of integrated resource management initiatives.

Included in those initiatives are the monitoring and assessing of the impact of industrial and urban development on fish and wildlife — presumably that ties in with the minister's announcement of May 23 — and the implementation of a provincial wildlife inventory. So once again the government is saying that they want to do an inventory of resources that are non-timber values that exist in our forests. That, as I pointed out, was previously handed to the commission to do.

It may be no coincidence that under the heading of resource management initiatives, the fact that the two points there are the forest resources commission and integrated resource management may mean that the commission still has that mandate. We don't know, and I would hope that this debate would allow a little more open discussion than the one we had yesterday, which substantially, on the part of the government, was: "Don't ask me; go ask the Minister of Forests. I don't know."

I want to explore this a little more. I think it's an important area in the province that has not been properly managed — even by the admission of the people who wrote that 1987 forests and range resource analysis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, your time is up.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in the comments being made by my colleague, and I hope to hear some more of his discussion.

[ Page 10290 ]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I think I've painted a pattern of deficiency in the operation of the Ministry of Forests. I think I've painted a pattern of confusion in terms of these latest moves. Whose mandate is it? I worry that we still have — as I pointed out — the Minister of Forests with an $18.5 million budget to conduct integrated resource management.

We appear to have a new integrated resource management initiative — presumably the one that was announced by the minister in May — and now we have the initiative put forward under the sustainable development fund.

There are a number of questions that flow from that. What purpose is there to have these multi-layered approaches? If your ministry is going to have an integrated branch and Forests is going to have one, would it not be preferable to have a more cohesive approach involving those ministries which obviously must work together to practise integrated resource use — the Ministry of Environment, the people responsible for fish and wildlife, Parks, the Ministry of Forests — rather than to have these separate operations being conducted? Who knows what kind of integration there is among at least three integrated resource approaches?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for his short speech.

He said at the very start that the ministry has not fulfilled its mandate in any meaningful way. I would suggest to him that that's not an accurate statement. If you look at what has been done.... Nobody's perfect — not even the member for Prince Rupert. It might come as a shock to him. I would think that our people have worked extremely hard.

He says there's not enough money. There's $5 million more than ever before. Five million is a lot of money.

He asks about the mandate. Well, I would suggest to him it's everybody's mandate to get these things done. I would also suggest to him that the cabinet committee on sustainable development is a way of bringing about integrated resource management at the highest levels of government. Maybe that's why we've had some problems in the past, and I would agree with him there have been some problems. As I said, nobody's perfect. But we've now brought integrated resource management to the highest levels of government. Next year after the next election when we're back here, and he's questioning me again on the same issue, he will probably congratulate me on some of the great moves we have made.

MR. MILLER: The minister didn't really respond in any way to the issue, and I don't know why. It's pretty straightforward.

Nobody thinks anybody's perfect. But when the government in their own publication in 1987.... Maybe that was a reflection of the Minister of Forests of the day who was actually starting to do something before he was fired. But quoting from the report — and I think it's worthy of being quoted — under the heading of "integrated resource management" on page 3 of the 1987-92 five-year forest and range resource program: "Two reviews during the past year — the internal mission review and the forest management review — noted the lack of an integrated approach to resource management as a serious deficiency."

That's serious stuff. I'm not trying to cast stones at anybody, but had there been some work done.... For example, had the secretariat approach to the Environment and Land Use Committee been continued instead of being scrapped for political reasons, perhaps we might be a little more advanced in this province. Perhaps we wouldn't have the conflicts — at least at the serious level — that we see taking place in the province today. Perhaps we wouldn't have senior officials from the Ministry of Forests going to the Forest Resources Commission and saying, "Our mandate is to manage for timber and timber only, " despite the fine words in the reports put out by the Ministry of Forests.

[3:30]

My question was fairly simple. The $11.3 million allocated: is it allocated directly to the Forest Resources Commission to carry out that work? Perhaps the minister has page 83 of the budget documents.

Is the $11.3 million going to the Forest Resources Commission? What's the breakdown then, if it's not all going there? How much is going to integrated resource management? Is the integrated resource management spoken of in this bill going to be done by the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment or the Forest Resources Commission? Is It going to be done by some separate new body?

These are very fundamental — and very simple and obvious — questions that I think demand an answer.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Now that you've asked me a specific question.... In the resource management initiatives, the Ministry of Forests gets $2 million for the Forest Resources Commission; integrated resources are $5 million; the fish hatchery, the Ministry of Environment, $2.75 million; and fish hatchery education, Ministry of Environment, $1.5 million. That adds up to $11.25 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Kootenay — or Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you keep making that mistake because it's been so sunny and warm in Prince Rupert, unlike the rest of the province, that we may now be mistaken for the Kootenays.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been there a few times and I haven't seen any.

MR. MILLER: You should have been up to Prince Rupert with your colleague the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) last weekend, Mr. Chairman, because it was nice and hot and sunny.

[ Page 10291 ]

So $5 million is going to integrated resource management. Will that be under the purview of the Minister of Environment?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MR. MILLER: With respect to the wildlife inventory question, will the commission continue to try to assemble that information, or is that information now being assembled by someone else — either a line ministry or some other source?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's being assembled by my ministry.

MR. MILLER: So wildlife, which I presume is still the responsibility of Forests, is going to be done by the Ministry of Environment. Could the minister tell me how the two ministries are going to link? How do they work together on the topic of integrated resource management? Normally, as it's practised in British Columbia, there's a referral process. Again, we had some problems with that, because the government essentially handed over the referral to the applicants, the forest companies. They became the lead agency rather than the Ministry of Forests.

How are the two going to interact in terms of making sure there is linkage between the ministries? Is that going to be done at the committee level? I think I asked yesterday whether there is going to be staff-level communication with regard to this fund. Or is the fund simply, as I referred to it yesterday, a shell game, where the money comes in to the committee and they say: "Okay, let's spend it." How is it going to be linked together?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It should be fairly obvious, I would hope, that our deputies will be working together with staff to make sure that integrated resource management is working at that level. Those recommendations are then put through their ministries, and they come to the cabinet committee, where the decisions are made. But there would be great integration at the working level. It's not unusual to have the deputies meet. That will be all set up through all departments meeting with each other and making recommendations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Columbia River seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the House to welcome the grade 7 class from J. Alfred Laird Elementary School in Invermere. The class left Invermere on Monday afternoon and made a long journey. I would appreciate it if the House would make the students, their teachers and their parents welcome.

MR. MILLER: I'm pleased to hear it's not unusual for deputies to work together, Mr. Minister; we sometimes get stories to the contrary. There has been a bit of a revolving door when it comes to those deputies as well.

Has the minister, in looking at this question of integrated resource management, given any consideration to the secretariat approach — in other words, formalizing some structure? Deputies working together doesn't mean anything; I would hope they work together. But a formalized staff-level structure that tries to start to integrate these issues and put them into practice, so that we look at the whole.... We're not looking at who's the toughest guy on the block.

I can tell you — and you probably are well aware of this — that although there may have been some changes, the Ministry of Forests was the big guy on the block when it came to a lot of these things. When I look back on a lot of decisions that have been nude in this province, sometimes you could get six or seven ministries saying, "No, we think this should be done." But along came the Ministry of Forests, which said, "This shall be done," and it was done. So to there some attempt not to subjugate anybody but to bring about that kind of interministerial approach with a formalized staff structure to deal with the questions of integrated resource management?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I have no concerns about what the member is talking about, because I know my deputy could beat up on the deputy from Forests anytime.

Interjection,

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Just look at his past record; I don't think you'd say that.

I can assure you that each deputy under him has an integrated resource management system reporting to him or her. They meet, then they come to the cabinet level, and that's where it's decided. In this government we're all equals in cabinet and have equal say. It has always been that way; it always will be.

MR. MILLER: It reminds me of an ultraconservative book I read, First Among Equals.

I know my colleague from the Cariboo wants to canvass the issue, and I just have two very quick questions about the FRDA II. I take it from yesterday's discussion.... This also falls under this, Mr. Chairman. The minister's response was that the Minister of Forests is responsible for negotiating a new FRDA program. That's ongoing. The funds — whatever — are achieved through that negotiated process. They come under the sustainable environment fund, but the decisions on spending will be made solely by the Minister of Forests. Perhaps the minister could confirm that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is yes.

[ Page 10292 ]

MR. MILLER: I think I've got an idea of how much has been allocated in this fund for FRDA II but perhaps the minister could advise me precisely how much has been allocated in the fund for a second FRDA program.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There's $7,230,000.

MR. MILLER: I don't think that's correct, Mr. Chairman. The $7 million is a carry-over from FRDA. What I asked was: how much has been allocated for a renewed FRDA program?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If the member would just go on with his other questions, I'll. get that answer for him. They're just looking for it now.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question that comes out of what the minister told me just a short while ago. You said that the amount that comes in for the provincial wildlife inventory will be brand-new money. I would be pleased if the minister would refresh my memory as to exactly how much that is. What you did say was that there would be 21 additional staff hired to do that inventory. You can often track it. For example, to go back to my favourite, the habitat conservation fund, the spending is estimated to be the same this year, so it was simply a matter of putting the $2 million over and putting it back. I had originally thought it was more, but it doesn't look that way.

However, here I can't track it, and I'm curious. There is no increase in the amount for the ministry. My question: if there are 21 additional staff hired for a project directed under the sustainable environment fund, do they become permanent staff of the ministry, or are they hired on contract? I don't know the extent of the funding money.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: They are permanent staff.

MS. EDWARDS: They are permanent staff within the Ministry of Environment, hired with the allocation of money out of this fund by the committee from year to year? They are permanent, then, as long as the ministry can find funding. The fund itself is of limited duration, but they are hired as permanent staff without limitation? That's the question. Is that correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We would assume that if $5 million went into the program, next year that would be in our base budget.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a number of specific questions relating to the integrated resource management provisions of the bill. Mr. Minister, you and I have had some correspondence on the issue of regional planning, mainly on resource planning on the Chilcotin Plateau. It's interesting that there have been some changes out there in light of the fact that some of the people who represent the economic interests based on areas within your mandate — guides, trappers, fishing lodge owners and so on — have done a certain amount of technical work on their own in their own self-interest. But they have pushed the debate to something like where the Forests ministry comes into a provincial forest and says: "You show us" — that is, all the other resources — "where your high values are." Then they have turned around and said to the Forest ministry, "You show us where your high values are," and they can't do it, because they are areas of admitted low timber values.

My question is: would the fund set up under this act provide some funding to deal with the hot spots where we have environmental conflicts, like the one in the Chilcotin between the obviously high other resource values and timber values? Would funding be provided for studies of that sort?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it could.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I take it that the details of whether or not it will be is a matter for estimates. Fine. But as a matter of principle, I think that's good to know. Also, I realize that I've been dealing with specific studies that are necessary there.

[3:45]

The other thing is that your colleague the Minister of Forests has established a local advisory council in the Cariboo which is coterminous with the timber supply area, and it has suspended the timber supply area planning process there to allow for sustainable development options to be developed with local input, with people representing different interest groups In that area. That's certainly a step in the direction that many people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin have been calling for. A year isn't very much time In which to develop sustainable development options, but they are suspending the normal timber supply planning process.

With respect to integrated resource management, do you see the full integration of the different planning initiatives being done by your ministry under its integrated resource management and the initiatives taken by the Forest Service on an ongoing basis? I heard your remarks. I was listening to them all afternoon about integration at the highest level of cabinet, but there are a lot of things which can't be resolved except at the local level.

So do you see your resource managers working together at the regional level, and if you do, in what form would it be — under the timber supply planning process or some kind of broader integrated resource management planning process?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer to the question is yes, and the details obviously are being worked on. The sooner we get this bill passed, the quicker we can do some of the things.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm sure a few more minutes won't hold up the process seriously. I just wanted to get the minister's comments on how it relates again. I know this is a general thing but I couldn't think of anywhere else to focus on this question.

[ Page 10293 ]

Relating to the Chilcotin, there was considerable money spent by your ministry studying for five years the movement of three caribou herds along the Blackwater and in the Tweedsmuir area and the Rainbow, Itcha and Ilgachuz ranges. It was well known among the local people that these reindeer would use certain areas in severe winters. But during the five years of study, I don't believe there was a severe winter, so it was concluded that they didn't use some of this habitat.

I use this to illustrate the fact that sometimes broad consultation among the people in the area can give pretty good inventory information. I'm thinking in particular about some of the native people who have observed for hundreds of years the movements in that area. In fact, the results of the study were partially overturned by the findings of your own ministry when they followed some of the caribou in the area. I am asking here if you will provide under this section of the act the public involvement process for your ministry.

I think it's fair to say that it's even a little weaker than the Forest Service and needs to be enhanced. I'm talking about local knowledge — where people have hunted, guided, trapped or lived in an area for centuries, or generations in the case of non-native families. They have a wealth of inventory information that needs to be drawn on, and doesn't always require technical studies. In other words, if you have $100,000, it might be better spent on public consultation to get the existing inventory knowledge to be able to make land use decisions, rather than waiting for what might be extensive, long and expensive technical studies.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is yes. We do that now, but we can always do a better job of having public input. I think we've been doing that around the province; I have been going around having public meetings. But with regard to the issues you're talking about, public meetings never hurt any process.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm speaking, of course, about extensive public consultation, not just public meetings. Sometimes these people have to come some distance at some expense, and I'm suggesting that it could be cost-effective.

My other question has to do with pulpwood agreements. It's somewhat related to the questions I had before.

Some areas that have been marginal areas for timber production we have seen covered by pulpwood agreements — with minimal planning, I think it's fair to say. These are in what have been considered poor timber stands but which possibly and probably have high other values. Can you tell us what you see for planning of pulpwood harvesting areas, and how that fits into your ministry's planning for habitat preservation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: That's all part of this integrated management program that we're working on. Hopefully, as I say, when we get this legislation through and we get a little further down the road, we'll have some major announcements in those areas.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the minister's in a position yet to respond to my question about how much has been allocated to the anticipated second FRDA program.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, the numbers under this sustainable environment fund, from the budget documents.... On page 238 in the estimates they have a listing of expenditures that the fund will make. Under forest renewal, they've got the forest resource development subsidiary agreement. As I pointed out earlier, the minister erred in saying $7 million. That's a carryover from the existing FRDA program. As I say, I can understand that one.

Basic silviculture programs: I would assume that those are the statutory obligations I referred to yesterday that the Ministry of Forests is obliged to undertake. I would only observe that there's a decline from the amount of money allocated in last year's Ministry of Forests budget; it's down from $132.8 million to $125.4 million.

Under a heading "New Forest Renewal Initiatives" is some $89 million. I'll just say what I'm going to say while I'm on my feet, and then I'll wait for the minister's response. Eighty-nine million dollars. The province has identified, through their own planning process, the need to have a FRDA II in the magnitude of $700 million. Under the normal cost-sharing arrangements, that would require a contribution from the province of some $70 million annually for five years. The Minister of Forests has already indicated publicly that we will not get a $700 million FRDA II program, although I have some difficulty — in fact, I have a great deal of difficulty — deciphering the public utterances of various ministers on this topic.

In addition to that, both the Minister of Forests and the Premier have indicated that British Columbia, faced with a possibility of not achieving this $700 million program, would have to reconsider their contribution to a forest renewal program. Despite the fact that we were perfectly willing to spend $70 million a year, because the federal government might not be forthcoming with matching funds we might pull back on ours.

So of the $89 million listed under the sustainable environment fund, what is the breakdown, and specifically what is earmarked for a second FRDA program?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer to your question is that $89.37 million has been earmarked for FRDA II and/or new programs intended to protect the investments and further the aims of the original FRDA agreement.

As the member knows, it's not clear specifically how much we'll be getting from the federal government, so it's not specifically dedicated for FRDA II, because this depends on the negotiations with the

[ Page 10294 ]

federal government. But there's $89.37 million earmarked either for FRDA II or new programs. If there was no money to come from the federal government at all, at least that is the minimal guarantee.

MR. MILLER: Fine. I would just confirm that the Minister of Environment is not involved in negotiations with the federal government on this program.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No. As the member knows, the Minister of Forests is there. When his estimates come up, I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions for him on that topic.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, under the initiatives to reduce solid, liquid, hazardous and atmospheric wastes, I would like to ask the minister what, if any, initiatives are in place to deal with the question of liquid waste sewage treatment for municipalities throughout the province — such things as cost-shared programs to deal with the upgrading of infrastructure, or dealing with the fact that there's a great deal of concern and consternation over the situation that has raw sewage going out into Georgia basin, the Fraser River.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for his question. Under the plan there is $1.5 million for innovative waste management programs, implementation of new technologies and processing for collection, treatment and disposal of municipal liquid and solid waste.

Also, the member may want to be here when the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) has his estimates, because there's over $30 million added to the budget this year from that ministry for sewage treatment in the province.

MR. CASHORE: If the minister will forgive me, I had to be out of the chamber during some of the questions from my colleague with regard to the 21 staff for wildlife inventory. I won't have a chance to read it in the Blues and then come back, so I may be asking questions that he's already answered.

My understanding, from what I've heard, is that there's $5 million in the sustainable environment fund which will be used to hire 21 staff to work on the issue of wildlife inventory. The question is: are these staff seen as being ongoing staff as part of the ongoing infrastructure of the Ministry of Environment? And does that mean, then, that that $5 million comes out of the sustainable environment fund and into the Ministry of Environment to be administered through its regular line ministry?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't mind answering the question, but I think if we're going to have this.... I have to sit here all day; I don't even get a chance to go the washroom. That question has been answered, and the answer is yes and yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

MR. CASHORE: On section 6, 1 wanted to ask the minister if he could expand on that. Are there any particular aspects of this where he sees the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council being required to make regulations in the foreseeable future?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's no different than any other bill or piece of legislation that goes through the House. This is put in there so that if a regulation comes up that is required for one reason or another, the cabinet has the power to do it, and it's done in a proper manner and made public.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. CASHORE: I notice in this bill — and I might as well raise this question at this point — that hazardous products are being referred to as "hazardous." There seems to be a tendency to interchange words that mean the same thing. I have for quite some time raised a concern over calling hazardous wastes "special wastes," and I was hoping that the nomenclature of the government would return to calling a spade a spade, calling it "hazardous" waste. I would take it from the use of the term "hazardous" and not "special" in this bill that the ministry is now calling a spade a spade.

I would like to go on to another item here in section 11, but I'll just wait for a moment and hear what the minister has to say about the use of the term "hazardous" describing that category of waste.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I could go on for hours, but I think it should be very plain. In the Hazardous Waste Corporation that's what it's called — that is the word: "hazardous" waste. Some people prefer "special" waste, but we're using "hazardous" in our corporation.

[4:00]

MR. CASHORE: I hope that means that things are moving in that direction and that we'll continue to use the word "hazardous" when we're dealing with a hazardous substance.

I think that in this section of the bill, unless there's something that I'm missing, we see another example of the hasty and somewhat sloppy drafting of the bill. It can be seen by the fact that there's an amendment on the order paper that the....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, that hon. member knows how to hit below the belt. I thought we weren't mixing religion and politics.

I'd like to raise the point that nowhere in this act that I can see, and nowhere in the Interpretation Act,

[ Page 10295 ]

is the term "vehicle" defined in a manner that deals with some of the questions we have to deal with in looking at this section. With it not being defined, then, we have to ask what the minister really intends with regard to a tax on pneumatic tires. Is it the intention of the government to tax bicycle owners or elderly people who are operating wheelchairs that require pneumatic tires? There's nothing in this bill that defines that. It leaves the interpretation open to a very wide — and, I think, mischievous — meaning. I think that's most unfortunate.

In view of that, I have prepared an amendment I would like to move. I have some extra copies of it here. I move that section 11 be amended by adding the following:

"'Vehicle' means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include (a) a device designed to be moved by human power, or (b) a mechanically propelled invalid's chair."

I have another amendment, as you can see on that sheet.

"(4) A purchaser of one or more new pneumatic tires shall pay to Her Majesty in right of the Province at the time of making the purchase a levy of $3 for each new pneumatic tire purchased, multiplied by an adjustment factor to be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall develop a schedule of adjustment factors to apply to tires with a wheel diameter greater than 16.5 inches."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can appreciate why the critic for the opposition would want to move his amendment, because when you read the bill and you are not a lawyer — as he isn't, and I'm not either — you might say: "Why is it that way?" I, like him, asked the question and was advised by our legal people who draft the bills that they weren't so silly after all. "Vehicle" is defined in the Motor Vehicle Act. The Social Service Tax Act in this province also uses the Motor Vehicle Act. A moving vehicle is defined as something run by a motor. It doesn't include bicycles, wheelchairs and others.

If you will remember, when we brought this down, we stated that those items would not be subject to the tax. The reason it's not spelled out in the bill is because we follow the Social Service Tax Act, and it's not necessary to be in the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. CASHORE: The very last clause in this section says: "A regulation under subsection (2)(g) shall not prescribe a levy for any hazardous product, other than an ozone-depleting one, at a rate that exceeds a rate of $20 per tonne." I would like to ask the minister to expand on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: All that does is give an upper limit, with the exception of products that deplete the ozone layer.

MR. CASHORE: I'll leave it at that. It's still of interest as to why the rate of $20 per tonne. I'm just trying to relate it to something so I can get a better sense of exactly what that means.

With reference to the power to prescribe hazardous products, I wonder if the minister would just clarify which hazardous products that refers to.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As the member will remember, in the budget it was stated that a list of hazardous chemicals would be out around July. We're working with our ministry, industry and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to define those products.

MR. CASHORE: With reference to the power to exempt persons, uses, hazardous products or byproducts, who does the government envision exempting? Would it be pulp mills, for example? Would the government use this exemption power to skirt obligations regarding the enforcement of pollution regulations, as has been the case in the past and to date? What does this exemption apply to?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I might give you an example. If, for instance, we were to put the tax on chlorine, we may want to exempt municipalities using it in their water system. It gives us the power to do that.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 16, Sustainable Environment Fund Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 16, Sustainable Environment Fund Act, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 10296 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 38, Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION ACT

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: This legislation will establish the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. This bill will help the government achieve the environmental policy mandate we set out in the Speech from the Throne. We will put in place an organization to develop a comprehensive system to manage hazardous wastes throughout British Columbia. With this legislation the government is demonstrating its commitment to the reduction of hazardous waste.

Each year approximately 100,000 tonnes of hazardous waste are generated in British Columbia. This figure is based on the regulatory statistics which measure materials subject to the special waste regulation of the Waste Management Act. This figure does not include the hazardous waste generated in smaller quantities, primarily in households, where the volumes are so small that they are not counted.

However, all hazardous waste is a problem which must be dealt with. The special waste regulation enables conscientious waste generators only three management options: (a) ship the waste at great cost to treatment outside British Columbia; (b) store it; and (c) for a very small amount, treat it at the very few small, permitted recycling plants in British Columbia.

While storage sites are strictly regulated, storage is not a long-term solution. Each day we run a growing risk of an accident at the storage sites. We also know that households dispose of hazardous materials in their garbage, and while individual dumpings may be tiny, the cumulative effect of this material in landfills or incinerators is hurting the environment.

We also know that individuals are knowingly or unwittingly dumping hazardous materials down sewer drains, into rivers and into landfills. There is also a backlog of about 400,000 tonnes of hazardous material in storage, and there are contaminated soils, such as the Concord Pacific site and others throughout the province, which must also be dealt with in an environmentally acceptable way.

Environmental stewardship is an important responsibility for this government and our firm commitment. We cannot turn our backs to the problem of hazardous waste any longer. Two previous attempts to site a hazardous waste treatment facility in British Columbia have failed. We must learn from the mistakes made and create a plan that will not fail.

We will create a management system. The policy behind it will be to reduce hazardous waste generation at source by encouraging industry to use nontoxic substitutes where practical, and reuse or recycle hazardous wastes. The remainder will be treated, but we are optimistic that the scale of treatment facility necessary will be smaller and more publicly acceptable. The polluter-pay principle will mean that costs of treatment will be high, which will create the incentive for industry to reduce waste generation.

Industry is not the only source of hazardous waste. Each of us is also a part of the problem. Our hazardous waste management system will include a household hazardous waste program, supported by public information and education and developed cooperatively with municipalities and regional districts. As people become more aware of the household component of the problem, they will also become more aware of and accepting of the solution, which may involve the siting of treatment facilities in their community.

In our careful analysis of solutions to the problem, we have concluded that we must create an entity which can act as a facilitator, quite separate from the strict regulatory responsibilities of the ministry. This facilitator will work with the private sector to get the system underway — reduction at source, reuse and recycling — and to help get treatment facilities established to deal with the hazardous wastes that remain. The corporation will be the facilitator, while the ministry remains the regulator and the strict enforcer of the regulations.

Specifically, the legislation spells out the objectives of the corporation. The purpose of the corporation is to ensure the development, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive hazardous waste management system in British Columbia. As an agent of the Crown, the corporation may enter joint ventures to establish or manage the operation of facilities; make or guarantee loans to, or invest in, a hazardous waste management enterprise; and negotiate waste exchanges with neighbouring jurisdictions.

The corporation will have a board of directors appointed by cabinet. I intend to recommend to the cabinet a diverse list of potential directors who represent municipalities, industry, community groups, academia and government.

The corporation will have a sunset clause: September 1, 1995. Once the management system is put into place, the ministry will continue to regulate its performance, but the facilitator's job will have to be completed.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[4:15]

MS. CULL: I might just mention at the start that I am the designated speaker for my party on this bill.

I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to see the Minister of Environment finally begin to address the issue of hazardous waste. Since this is an issue that I have taken considerable interest in in my short — so far — term as a politician, it's nice to know that an opposition member can indeed have some impact on government actions.

In his opening remarks the minister made some reference to the seriousness of this problem in British Columbia, and there is no doubt that chemical pollution and hazardous waste is a very serious problem.

[ Page 10297 ]

It is in our landfills and in our sewage. It's ending up on our beaches, it's polluting our soil, and it's having an impact on both human and animal life in the province.

The minister's press release says it all, though: there are very few options for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in British Columbia. We've talked about some of those options in the debate in this session. There are eight hazardous waste depots at this time in the province, but they're not open. They're not open very often, anyway; they're open once a month for a couple of hours, and they're certainly not advertised. I guess that's part of what the minister means when he says that there are few options for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in British Columbia.

There's also very little public information on the whole issue of hazardous waste. As I have discussed this matter over the months with various individuals inside government in this province and in other provinces, with community groups and with municipalities, it seems that most of the information in the publications we have on hazardous waste comes from other communities in North America. I think that is another lack that the minister alluded to in his opening remarks that certainly needs addressing. The problem we have in British Columbia is that we have limited facilities, and to get the information about those limited facilities in the first place you actually have to find them.

The minister mentioned the size of the problem: there are 400,000 tonnes of hazardous waste in storage throughout the province, much of it in schools, in hospitals and in places that are clearly inappropriate. Some of it is even under the Eaton Centre here in Victoria. It is just too close to high concentrations of people. We just don't see those kinds of substances being stored in those kinds of facilities. We know that we're also increasing the amount of hazardous waste that is collected every year in this province to the tune of a 100,000 tonnes per year.

It's not just a problem in industrialized communities, although certainly industry is one of the major contributors to it. I'd like to add, on a local note, that the level of PCB contamination in Victoria and Esquimalt harbours — a community we don't think of as highly industrialized — has been tested over the years, and between 1976 and 1983 was found to be equal to the levels in False Creek, near Woodfibre and in the Alberni inlet.

So there's no question that something has to be done, and that it has to be done now, about the issue of hazardous waste in this province. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is the wrong answer; it is philosophically wrong. The bill is just another example of Socred ideology triumphing over logic. It entrusts the health of our children and of our environment to companies who are for the most part beyond the purview of the public.

The urgency of the problem is not an excuse for a justification that we fast-track the solution by giving it over to private interests to resolve. I think that the basic principle of the bill, which is to turn the whole matter of hazardous waste over to private corporations, is unacceptable. It's a fundamental abrogation of public responsibility and is directly counter to the kind of public accountability and participation the citizens of this province want.

I want to go over four principles that are inherent in the bill which I believe cause it to be seriously flawed. The first is that the corporation will be incapable of carrying out its mandate, because it's going to die in five years. There's a sunset clause, as the minister mentioned, and the corporation will cease to exist on September 1, 1995.

If we look closely at the bill, we see that the bill authorizes the creation of a Crown corporation to manage hazardous waste. In section 3 of the bill the power is given to ensure the development, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive hazardous waste system in British Columbia. It goes on in section 4 to say that the corporation will "authorize or execute the planning for, the construction of, the modification of and the management and operation of a hazardous waste management facility."

But the corporation ceases to exist in five years. How can it maintain a comprehensive hazardous waste management system if it is no longer in existence? How can it manage or operate a hazardous waste management facility if it is no longer in existence? These are powers which are granted to the corporation in the bill. But quite frankly, I can't see how it's going to do it if in fact it only has five years of existence and will no longer be around after that period of time.

I don't see how the corporation can do all of the objects that have been set out in the five years, in any case. We're talking about 400,000 tonnes of hazardous waste in storage growing at the rate of 100,000 new tonnes per year. I expect that in five years little will be accomplished except for providing a few grants to companies to help set up hazardous waste incinerators. That's certainly not a comprehensive strategy to manage hazardous waste, and if the corporation ceases to exist in five years, who will be responsible for the waste that will still be here in the province? Will it be the private companies, the companies that manage the storage or disposal facilities or the government? What will happen to hazardous waste after the corporation has gone? I don't think private companies are going to be accepting liability for the hazardous waste that will continue to be in this province, as it is growing at 100,000 tonnes per year.

The second major principle I want to address has to do with how we got to where we are today with this bill creating a hazardous waste corporation. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an answer without a question. I don't believe the question has been asked in the province as to what is needed in terms of a hazardous waste strategy, and whether this answer — which is to create a corporation that will die within five years - is the correct answer.

If we go back into history we'll see that in 1984 the B.C. Medical Association called for an independent public inquiry into hazardous waste management in

[ Page 10298 ]

B.C. They also called for funding to concerned interest groups to ensure that we have meaningful participation. To the best of my knowledge that hasn't occurred.

In 1987 the ministry's own Special Waste Advisory Committee developed a hazardous waste management strategy. I talked to some of the people who were involved in developing that and asked about the public consultation process. Their answer to me was: "Well, it wasn't a public consultation process in the way that you or I might think about the words 'public consultation'." In other words, a few people were asked and consulted, but it was not a public discussion in the province about how we should go about managing hazardous waste.

This advisory committee in 1987 did recommend a Crown corporation. That's interesting, because when you look at the reasons why it recommended a Crown corporation approach, you realize that it had a very different idea in mind than what we have before us in this bill. It recommended a Crown corporation because it didn't support a private enterprise solution to the management of hazardous waste. Their major concern in this respect was the liability in case of accidents and the liability — the long-term responsibility — for hazardous waste and hazardous waste facilities.

The Special Waste Advisory Committee rightly believed that the responsibility must rest with the provincial government because that is certainly where the liability is going to rest in any case.

Late last year, in December, the minister announced that the cabinet had approved the implementation of a comprehensive strategy for hazardous waste management. I found that interesting. We've moved from the call for an inquiry to the creation of a strategy, and now we're into the implementation of the strategy. But what strategy, Mr. Speaker? Where is the strategy that is being implemented?

It seems that when we read the bill, the implementation is actually to create strategy. We seem to be in a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation here. Is the corporation to implement a strategy that has been well thought out by the government — the Ministry of Environment — in consultation with people in the province? That's certainly what the minister's December 5, 1989, press release would lead any reader to believe. Again I ask: where is the public discussion or input into the strategy that was announced?

If we move along a little bit further, we come to recent events. On May 25, 1990, the minister announced the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, again to implement the strategy. I ask: what strategy? Where is the public discussion? Where is the public debate? Where is the discussion on the kinds of technology that we might want to use to address these problems?

The announcement goes on to say that there's going to be full public involvement. We've got the answer, so now we'll go out and ask the question What should the answer have been? It should have been that there will be consultation in terms of the location of treatment facilities, etc. But nowhere in the bill is there any guarantee about public consultation. Are we counting on the yet untested major projects review process perhaps? Is that the public consultation that's intended in the bill? There certainly isn't anything outlined in the legislation that gives us any comfort about what the public consultation process will involve.

It seems that public consultation in the terms of the bill means consultation about sites. That simply isn't good enough, because I think the people in this province want consultation about the whole question of the strategy — how we are going to deal with hazardous waste and what the priorities are — not just about the sites for the incinerators. I think people want to be involved in whether incinerators are the answer. What is the technology?

In Manitoba they opted for a Crown corporation as well, but they did so after a full public consultation, and the consultation included the kinds of items that I'm talking about. They talked about what the strategy should be. They talked about what the organizational structure should be. In the end, they agreed that a Crown corporation was the way to do it. But that was a situation with the province having a full discussion on a very serious matter — which has very serious environmental and health concerns to everyone — and coming to an agreement as to what the solution should be in the end.

In the Yukon they're doing that at this present time. They're going around the province talking to people about what the solutions would be. You know, Mr. Speaker, the nice thing about consultation before the answer is that it works. In the Yukon, for example, at the beginning of the process, the Association of Yukon Communities said: "No way are you siting any kind of facility anywhere within our boundaries." Now, nine months into the process, the Yukon municipalities are working with the territorial government to come up with solutions. They are now part of the solution because they have been part of drafting and answering the question.

What we get in B.C. is what we seem to get in response to all environmental issues: a solution tossed out, and then we'll consult. That sets up a conflict, because people are naturally going to look at the solution that has been tossed out, and then they have to raise their objections and try to get it changed or amended in some way that truly represents their needs. It seems like such a backward way of going about doing it, particularly when we're not even asking all the questions.

[4:30]

I think a government that was very serious about hazardous waste management would have done its public homework first, instead of just inviting another environmental battle. I don't think the minister could have said it any better when he talked about the fact that we've already had two previous attempts to locate a hazardous waste facility in the province, and failed. He said: "We have to learn from past mistakes." I wish that the government had learned from the past mistake and decided that this

[ Page 10299 ]

time they would consult and ask the question before they posed the answer.

The third principle that I think causes this bill to fall far short of the needs that we have in the province is that it sidesteps — and I believe deliberately sidesteps — the whole issue of public accountability. Who is going to be responsible for regulating? When they struck the Crown corporation in Manitoba, they recognized that the corporation must assume in perpetuity the environmental stewardship for wastes and residues.

The minister again used the word "stewardship" in his opening remarks, but this bill sidesteps the whole question of stewardship. The Ministry of Environment is'not going to be the steward; it is going to turn this matter over to private corporations. We're going to have to trust the Ministry of Environment to be able to regulate and enforce.

The local Healthy Saanich 2000 committee — one of the very active healthy-community committees that I'm pleased to have within my riding — has recommended the same kind of approach that has been followed in Manitoba: an integrated public utility. The main reason they recommend this is that they can see no other way that there will be public accountability for hazardous wastes.

You have to ask the question about who is going to be responsible for these highly hazardous substances when they're stored or being treated. It's certainly not going to be the operators if we have a problem. We only have to look to the United States to find examples where private companies have declared bankruptcy rather than clean up the very expensive mistakes and accidents that have occurred. It's easier to walk away from a clean-up bill — as we've seen in the case of the Expo lands — than it is to try to clean up. They will walk away from this, and the Crown will be responsible for it.

But who is going to be responsible for it? This Crown corporation isn't going to exist in five years, so I guess we have to look to the ministry. I wonder if the ministry is going to be responsible for regulating these industries and for picking up the problems that may be left behind if there are accidents, in the same fashion that it has with the environmental lab.

The auditor-general concluded that the ministry didn't have an adequate system to assume standards were being met, when we were talking about the environmental lab, and I think it's cold comfort to the people of British Columbia to be told that we have to trust the Ministry of Environment to regulate private sector companies. We'll let them have this control over hazardous wastes, we'll have five years of management and then it will be gone. Then everything will be fine; we won't have to worry about it.

What it does is move the issue from the realm of public accountability into private corporations. I don't think we have to look any further than section 16 of the bill, which effectively muzzles employees of the corporation who want to blow the whistle on environmental wrongdoing by private corporations There's a very clear message in that section, and it runs throughout the bill. The idea of the bill is to move the issue of hazardous waste from public responsibility to private responsibility.

The fourth and final principle that seems to be inherent in the bill is inherent in much of the environmental legislation we've seen from this government: that is, to continue to take a segmented, crisis approach to the environment. It separates out hazardous wastes from other forms of waste, as if they're created separately and disposed of separately. But for the most part, these wastes are mixed in with other forms of waste. Hazardous wastes are in the waste stream right now. They're in the landfills; they're in the sewage system. We have to deal with them together, because that's where they are, that's where they're found, and that's where the solutions are going to be.

I just want to quote from a local publication. I quote Frank Leonard, who is the chairman of the Capital Regional District's environment committee.

"It's time the provincial government sees environment as a single entity, instead of pieces. Surprisingly, we still operate according to separate liquid waste and solid waste management plans, as this is a requirement of our permits from the provincial government.

"Now, in addition, we're required to adopt a medical waste management plan, and soon, I expect, special or hazardous waste management plans. Surely the time has come for the province to review these segmented mandates, and at the very least, require regional districts to prepare overall environmental protection plans."

This comes from the Capital Regional District's newsletter, the June 1990 issue, which deals with a number of environmental issues. I commend it to the minister as interesting reading. I think he would learn something from it.

I would also take this opportunity to point out to him that if he's reading that article, he should look at the next page, where, along with the issue of recycling and reduction of the solid waste stream by recycling, the CRD's goals are listed. I mention this because the minister and I were discussing this matter earlier last week in the House — what the CRD's goals were. The minister said I was misinformed about this. The objectives are a 10 percent reduction by 1993, and 15 percent by 1998; not 50 percent by the year 2000, as the minister said.

So here we have, again, the local communities calling for an integrated approach. They recognize what's happening. They see how wastes are arising in their community, and how they have to be handled. But the ministry, as usual, persists in doing it in a segmented fashion.

Again, we don't have to look very far. We can look to the Yukon; we can look to Manitoba; we can look to other provinces to see where they have recognized this fact and embarked on integrated approaches which will have far greater success.

Mr. Speaker, what then is the purpose of this bill? If it's not to address the issues that I've said are greatly lacking in it, what is its purpose? I think the major purpose of the bill is to give the appearance of action on the environment. It's just like the last bill

[ Page 10300 ]

we dealt with — the sustainable environment fund. You create a piece of legislation so that you can say something is happening, so you can issue press releases, so you can make TV advertisements, so you can go on and on indicating that you're doing something about a very serious issue without really having to do very much about it. It's a great way of taking the issue and moving it from the Ministry of Environment, putting it into a Crown corporation, so that the next time someone says to the Minister of Environment, "What are you doing about hazardous waste?" he can say: "Don't ask me. The Crown corporation's looking after it. If you get there with your question within five years, you can get an answer to it."

It's also a great way of keeping the public from having any real say in what's going on in terms of hazardous waste management in the province, because once we've been through whatever kind of process the minister has in mind for the siting of the hazardous waste facilities, the operation of those facilities is not going to be in the public purview any longer. They will be privately operated, and the public is not going to have any say about what goes on there, what technology is used, whether they are expanded, or what happens.

It's a great way of deflecting criticism of the minister for failing to deal with the facilities that he has right now, for failing to open up the toxic waste depots, for not providing public information.

I went to the environmental fair in the Memorial Arena in Victoria last week, and had a look at some of the displays. The most informative public education displays on hazardous wastes were from out of province. Even the Capital Regional District, which did have a few of the Ministry of Environment's pamphlets on its table, gave prominent display to one from the state of Virginia because it was a much better document. That kind of public education is so desperately needed. But it's not being addressed through this bill, and it allows the minister to continue to deflect criticism.

Finally, the bill is a convenient way, as was the last bill we discussed, for this government to continue to funnel public money into private sector companies well beyond public scrutiny and accountability.

It's a bad bill, Mr. Speaker. It's going to cause immense public controversy. It is quite clearly an abrogation of the government's responsibility to the people of the province, and it's a betrayal of the trust that the people in B.C. have that hazardous waste will be dealt with seriously, openly and in the best interests of the environment, not in the best interests of public operators.

I think this bill should go back to the drawing board and should come back after there's been a full consultation process in the province with a publicly supported approach to hazardous waste. Unfortunately, looking at the record of the government on environment, looking at the record of the government on consulting the public and asking the question before they come up with the answer, I doubt very much that this will happen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am pleased to take my place and respond to this because, as you will recall, I've had some interest in this issue for some years. As a matter of fact, a lot of us have. As I recall, going back to the work that's been done and the development that has taken place over the years by the Ministry of Environment, I would say the issue began with the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who was Minister of Environment In 1983, and then with the current Deputy Speaker who is just joining us now, then the Speaker, and then yours truly.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We thought we had some success at one point in terms of Cache Creek with a contractor after some excellent consultation by Dr. David Boyes and a committee that he had put in place. That was a decision we had to reverse, though, after some considerable concern by the agricultural community in the Cache Creek area, and a concern that I had to listen to. They were the cattle community, the Cattlemen's Association and the hay growers' expressing concern about the reputation of their product. On the basis of that, we reversed the decision in 1987 to continue with the development of a site at Cache Creek.

But as we looked around for a remedy, this problem was growing, as all members know, and as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has pointed out. There is a continuing increase of hazardous wastes being found and, of course, being produced by industry and by others in our province. We knew that we had to develop a solution.

The Crown corporation model is one that, in spite of the member's objection, is working very well in Alberta. It is the first province to site a successful special waste facility. It's at Swan Hills, Alberta. I have been there and so has the current minister. It's very successful, and it demonstrates to all that you can run a special waste treatment facility that's clean and safe and has absolutely no environmental impact on the community except to assist you in cleaning up your problems.

As the member has indicated, we do have storage of PCBs and other wastes that require special treatment. PCBs, normally from electrical ballasts and capacitors and old fluorescent lights, are being stored safely in community areas where they were used in schools and hospitals. You must remember that PCBs are safe to the human system unless they are ingested. They can be ingested in two ways: one would drink them, which I doubt anyone would do; and the other problem in ingesting PCBs would be a low-temperature fire, in which case they can be extremely toxic. So as long as one keeps them under control, keeps them under lock and key, and ensures that there is no risk of low-temperature burning, then in fact they are quite safe. They are, after all, an oil additive. They are designed not to break down, which is where their danger comes, because if they are ingested into the system they don't break down

[ Page 10301 ]

and it's concluded that they can be carcinogenic. But outside of that they are simply an oil with a special treatment to it.

We do have a sense of urgency to get on with it and to take our proper place in Canada as a province that has the agency and the opportunity and the facilities to treat our special wastes, and we are doing that with this bill.

As I said, the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation has been successful. It is the only successful one in the country in terms of treating special waste, and it was seen as a model that B.C. should consider when we had to turn away from the Cache Creek situation. We looked very carefully at that and saw that it would be the appropriate way to go.

[4:45]

Questions have been raised already as to how this Crown corporation will operate and why it will sunset itself within five years. We want the Crown corporation as it's constituted in this bill to develop processes for us, to develop the methodology of putting such a facility or facilities in place in our province. But once that's done, and once it is in place, there are very good provisions for the Ministry of Environment to continue regulating and operating facilities that are put in place.

The member spoke about legislation and regulations. The member is new, so I'll point out to the member that in fact the Waste Management Act, amended in 1987 and again in 1988, covers special waste in terms of legislative language and also in terms of the regulations that are in place. I will also point out to the member that the NDP voted against those amendments in 1987, so your record on that one isn't very good. That legislation and those regulations are in place and are included in the Waste Management Act. You will notice, Madam Member, that that's also mentioned in this bill.

The legislation is in place. When the ministry does sunset the Crown corporation, the Ministry of Environment will then and will always have the ability to deal with, control and regulate all aspects of the transportation, handling and destruction of hazardous waste.

With respect to the technology, the common technology has been, essentially, cement-kiln technology, where if you reach a temperature of 1,800 degrees Celsius, you will have total burn. You will have burns to six nines: that's 99.9999 percent destruction of all materials. That's the common treatment for PCB.

That's not to say that there aren't better chemical methods being developed. In terms of low contamination, you can use metallic chlorides to chemically eliminate PCB or reduce PCB-contaminated oil to a safe level. There are many chemical remedies available, but I would suspect that with the very good burner technology available to us now, incineration will still be considered the safest method of looking after these special wastes. But that certainly doesn't preclude chemical treatment — phys-chem treatment — which can happen and no doubt will.

I think it's a bit premature and probably a bit amateurish of any of us in this House to anticipate what technical advances are being made in this field and to say, as laymen, that we don't think there's the technical capacity out there to handle these wastes. That would be, as I said, immature and premature and really doesn't recognize the fact that science has advanced quite quickly in dealing with these issues.

I also want to point out that considerable consultation has gone on. The member should know that even Murray Coell, the chairman of the Capital Regional District, has corresponded with the Minister of Environment on the issue of toxic wastes, and indicates that perhaps the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is not totally up to speed in understanding the community position on this issue. Mr. Coell's response is, I believe, in our press release and certainly can be dealt with by the member at some later time.

I'm going to take my place, but I want to sum up by saying that this is good legislation. It really does put in place an appropriate authority for handling this serious issue. It's backgrounded and backed up by a very good Ministry of Environment staff. As a matter of fact, Earle Anthony, who was an assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of Environment and who is now with the federal Department of the Environment, did some of the major dioxin work and PCB work with the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers some years ago and brought tremendous strength and knowledge of this issue to the Ministry of Environment. The staff has been expanded since Earle's days. They know very well how to handle this.

There have also been some excellent resources put in place by B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro, of course, being in the electrical business, has had many storage capacitors and other electrical equipment containing PCB-contaminated oil. They have been very supportive in terms of acting as storage agencies and assisting the Ministry of Environment and others, such as hospitals and schools, with the proper handling of some of these hazardous materials. In many cases, B.C. Hydro has taken on a storage responsibility.

A lot of credit has to go out there to a lot of very good people, and I wanted to put that on the record now: the Ministry of Environment, B.C. Hydro, hospitals, schools and those who know how to deal with some of these contaminants.

This bill is backed up by some very responsible regulations and legislation contained in the Waste Management Act. I don't think there should be any fears that the ministry or government doesn't have the authority to continue to deal with this concern.

With that said, I would urge all members to support the legislation, Mr. Speaker. It's solid. It really is the appropriate mechanism, in my way of thinking, for dealing with this concern. It will answer our problems. It will give the community a chance to respond. It will give government a chance to be responsible in terms of dealing with the issue. It's first-class legislation that should see fast and expedient passage by this House.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to reflect on what was just said by the Minister of Advanced Education about

[ Page 10302 ]

the reason we should pass this and feel quite solid about it being backed up by a magnificent Waste Management Act. He then makes a comment that he has made before about why this side of the House did not support the amendments to the Waste Management Act when they were last introduced. Of course, that comes from the fact that this government has a very bad habit of bringing in legislation that doesn't go far enough and is not quite adequate. That's one of the reasons why this problem is here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a bit of a case study in discussing this bill and what it proposes. I want to present the story of the community of Cranbrook, which originally participated in a number of the hearings the community and other communities in the East Kootenays had indicated some interest in when the proposal was put forward and the Dr. Boyes commission came around and talked about putting together a hazardous waste plant to destroy hazardous waste.

At that time it became extremely clear that one of the problems that would make it very difficult for a community in our area to be the site of a hazardous waste plant was the whole business of bringing in the volume of hazardous waste which does not at the moment exist in our community. It would come in probably on highways — although not likely; it could come by rail — which are very narrow and which follow the very narrow valleys within the mountains. These same valleys contain the streams, rivers and creeks that are essential to our existence, our economy and our enjoyment of life in the area. That was a huge risk to deal with.

So we had looked at the issue of hazardous waste and the whole problem that was becoming very clear. Our community does not want to remain in the early nineteenth century or anything like that. We recognize the problem of hazardous waste. We recognize that as a larger community, the province would have to address the issue of getting rid of our hazardous waste. However, at that time we looked at it and saw there was no particular economic benefit for us if we were raising the risk of what was happening as far as transporting waste. At that time there was no indication of any recognition that one of the major problems is in regulating and controlling the transportation of those wastes.

I bring that up because it ensured that most of the community was aware of the problem, was interested in talking about it and thinking about the consequences of our society which produces these kinds of wastes, and our consumers who tend to consume them, and then there they are.

A provincewide firm, Kelly Douglas, having pulled out of the warehouse in Cranbrook and having injured the economy there, decided to add insult to injury by using the empty warehouse to store their PCB wastes from stores that they operated in the lower mainland. They didn't carry out their applications to do so correctly with the waste management branch, and because of that we were able to ensure that those wastes were not stored in Cranbrook for more than a few days. I believe it was approximately 14 international containers of PCB wastes and PCB contaminated waste.

That created a major issue in the community. Several of us appealed the application by Kelly Douglas to store those PCB wastes in Cranbrook. They wanted to store them right in a warehouse very close to the centre of Cranbrook. A lot of residences were very close to it, and they were right on a railway track. There were a number of safety issues perceived, and what came out of it very clearly was the fact that the people in Cranbrook were not willing to have the waste come in from somewhere else and sit in the centre of our city.

Now that is how you sensitize a problem. You allow that kind of thing to happen; there it is, and everyone is sensitive to it. We had a hearing on it. It was appealed again, and meanwhile, as the previous speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education, mentioned, B.C. Hydro had come through and very generously agreed to store these PCB wastes outside the city of Cranbrook until such time as there was some resolution.

The community was very aware that we had to do something about PCB storage, The regional district got together with and talked to the various industries within its boundaries, and made a proposal. There are, of course, five coal-mines. There was the Cominco hard-metal mine. There are a number of mills. There's Crestbrook Forest Industries. There's B.C. Hydro. There are schools and cities which had PCB wastes. They generally would otherwise be stored throughout the regional district. The regional district made a proposal to set up a central storage site. We were saying "not in my back yard" to downtown Vancouver and the lower mainland. "But if we say that, we are going to have to deal with our own waste." And that's exactly what the community said. It was not an easy thing to do, because not everybody in the community thought it was that good an idea, and there were a lot of people with a lot of worries about this waste.

The proposal to the people in the regional district was that we would take care of the storage of our own PCB wastes. But we had to be assured that we would not have a recurrence of the Kelly Douglas affair. We could not have somebody else with numerous sources of old PCBs and PCB-contaminated waste who could bring it into the community because all of a sudden we had a storage site that had been approved under the regulations of the Waste Management Act.

[5:00]

Mr. Speaker, both the minister now and the previous minister considered this issue and said to our community: "No, we will not assure you that you can't have any other wastes in your area. We can't allow you to deal with your waste in your region" — which is a very big region.... It would have taken care of all that area. The idea among many of the people trying to get that storage site established and have it work was that if the region found they had a safe storage site, perhaps it would do what it had to do for our region and, if it became reasonable and

[ Page 10303 ]

people decided it was a reasonable thing and we wanted to work with another regional district, that might happen - people weren't afraid of it; they weren't going to invoke the NIMBY syndrome.

But the minister would not, on two grounds, support us on that. The first was that he would not say they could have the storage site and exclude wastes from other regions in the province. Also, he would not approve the funding. Quite frankly, I think that funding can always be negotiated. I don't think that was the issue. I think the issue was that the ministry, and the minister in particular, would not work with the region to try and solve its hazardous waste problem — a very clear problem and a problem in which people were very involved and on which they had very strong ideas.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker — and what comes out of this — is that if the ministry is no more interested in working with the community on trying to solve these problems than it showed itself to be as far as the storage in Cranbrook and then the further proposal of the Regional District of East Kootenay are concerned, then I don't think we see very much in this act that's going to be much better. I think the PR proposed has got to be huge. With the number of tasks this bill lays out to be done with the number of employees to be hired, a whole lot of something other than straight work is going to have to be done under this bill, if it becomes an act.

What we see here, again, is the fact that a private company will be getting all the public funds and the Crown corporation will be borrowing money to put into a private corporation. The people in our area wanted the public group, the regional district group, to handle the waste — and it was only PCB waste being talking about, Mr. Speaker. It could have been expanded. If the minister had a vision and wanted something more to happen than just the storage of PCBs, we could have talked about that and it could have gone on. But what the people in our area said after the experience of very clearly contemplating the problem was that we wanted the whole business to be handled by a public body.

The whole bill would allow action to be taken in a very secretive way. There's no requirement within the bill that information be disclosed. I suggest that that will not work in any other community, any more than it worked in our community.

Our community was extremely upset. I can't state too strongly how people reacted, how they said that if there were PCBs being stored within one kilometre of where they lived, right beside a railway track, where you cannot be sure that it will not be subject to an explosion, a derailment and a fire — that kind of thing — they would leave the city; they were not going to stay. I cannot say too strongly how much the alarm bells were there and how real that was.

The minister has chosen again to go with a bill that says that we're all one community in this province. The previous minister talked about the problems that were already there. People are worried, and they are going to have to deal with the problem. When we try to take a step to do that, the minister has not been able to help.

I have some serious concerns that this will not fare any better, because it doesn't indicate any sensitivity to the communities and to their real fears and real sense of responsibility that something has to be done that doesn't make their situation worse than it already is. For those reasons I believe that there are some extreme problems with the bill. I don't think they can be solved in five years.

The shortcomings that my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head pointed out are all particularly clear aspects of problems that are not solved by this bill. Therefore I would suggest that unless the minister is.... Well, he can't change the bill. I guess all I can say is that as the bill stands, I don't feel that I can support it.

MR. PERRY: I was able to hear part of what the minister said in introducing the bill from my office, although I couldn't be here to listen to him in person. I've been able to listen to two colleagues. I'd like to particularly compliment the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull). As I sat listening to her exceptionally thoughtful speech, I couldn't help but understand why she succeeded in a feat that no one in her party has ever done before: being elected in that riding. I think it's a tribute not only to her but to the voters of that riding that they've got such an intelligent representative and one who has such a thoughtful, analytical capacity. It's daunting to try to follow her or my colleague from Kootenay, who has also outlined very clearly why this bill is not good public policy.

For me the issue can be summarized very succinctly by this question: is it a good idea to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop? I don't think it is.

I think the government would often like to construe this opposition, the New Democratic Party, as somehow being opposed to all private initiative. Nothing could be further from the truth. Private initiative has an extremely important role in our society and in the development of our economy, and I think that there's no question that the public, including our party, recognizes that.

The question that arises as I read this bill is whether the management of hazardous waste is one of those areas in which private initiative is likely to satisfy the needs of the public. I see only trouble ahead when I look at this bill, Mr. Minister — Mr. Speaker. I made a slip of the tongue because I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have served as Environment minister for the province and have had to face some of the difficulties that the present minister now faces and that his successors will face in dealing with a public that is alarmed and aroused about hazardous wastes.

Let us not kid ourselves. The present minister has a difficult job in dealing with a public which is seriously frightened and which has many legitimate concerns and some concerns which are perhaps exaggerated in comparison to the relative risks they face. Let me give an example. I am sure the minister and I

[ Page 10304 ]

will agree that the hazardous waste of tobacco smoke, be it direct or secondhand, is a more serious threat to the health of the province than many, if not all, of the toxic wastes — about which this bill is concerned — are known to be. Let me emphasize that we don't often know the true risks from hazardous wastes in the environment, whereas we do know more about some of the more proximal hazardous wastes like tobacco smoke.

The minister and I discussed this in the past when he sat in your chair, and I know that he has some astute understanding of the concept of relative risk. Therefore he must often be burdened by the responsibility and complexity of dealing with the public on an issue like this. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker — I see the minister smiling — I sometimes sympathize with him in his difficulties.

I return to the question: is this bill good public policy, and will it help the minister, his successors, and this and future governments to deal honestly, openly and objectively with the issue of hazardous waste management? I think not, Mr. Speaker. The reason I think so is my observation of the public mood in this province in the 21 or 22 years that I have been interested in environmental issues. I've watched it in the handling of the nuclear energy debate back in the early 1970s, when there was an intense debate on that subject in this province. I've looked at it on the national level in the handling of the debate over radioactive and other wastes from nuclear reactors I've looked at it in terms of the PCB question, where I've often felt that the drift of media attention and public discussion has been to alarm the public — sometimes disproportionately — about risks such as that from stored PCBs per se, at a time when the public was exposing itself to a much more lethal risk, such as cigarette-smoking or accidents from impaired drivers. One of the best possible examples I can think of in that vein is the fire in Saint-Basile-le-Grand, Quebec, where we know from experience that much of the population surrounding that fire were and continue to be cigarette-smokers. Their health risk from cigarette-smoking far exceeds by order of magnitude any presently imaginable risk from the fire itself.

I see the minister nodding. I think most people, including my colleagues, have considered this subject and will agree that government faces a difficult challenge in responding rationally to the need to manage hazardous waste and in convincing the public that a particular course of action is wise. Heaven knows that this minister should understand that as well as anyone from some of the experiences he has been through recently.

Can we address the issue successfully through the context of private industry? It's not the Crown corporation per se that concerns me; it's the emphasis in the bill.... I'll have more to say on this during committee debate, but the emphasis in section 5 under the duties of the corporation, for example, is on the role of the private sector in managing hazardous waste disposal and destruction and simply longterm management. I ask myself: what trust will the public have that a private for-profit agency will manage or dispose of or destroy hazardous wastes in the public interest? Am I impugning the motives of those people in the public sector, or condemning them for their attempt to address the problem? No, I'm not. Let me be very clear about that.

I think that well-motivated people might see this as a genuine opportunity, both to make a success in business and to serve a public need. There were elements of that spirit displayed at the recent environmental exposition in Vancouver. But is this the best way to resolve the problem in the public interest, and will the public believe it? That is the question I ask myself. I don't think they will.

I suppose that if this bill is passed — despite our objections — time will tell. We'll find out whether the present minister perhaps has more highly developed political prowess than I give him credit for. I certainly admire his skills, but I think he will be sorely tested in the development of private for-profit hazardous waste facilities.

[5:15]

Let's look at the record. I claim no particular expertise in this field, but what I know of the record in other countries — notably, the United States — does not reassure me. The record recently of a private contractor who set up a portable disposal facility for PCBs at Goose Bay is not reassuring. I remember reading with delight the initial press reports of the establishment of that portable facility issued by the federal government and thinking how nice it would be that for once a remote area of the country would receive government priority for disposing of a potentially hazardous waste. Then I read only a few weeks later that the facility had broken down within the first days or weeks of its operation. As I understand it, it was a privately contracted facility.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The question must arise: will it be the primary interest of the private operator to protect the public health and surrounding community? I think the answer to that is very simple. The primary interest of the private operator will be to show a profit for the company's stockholders. That is the basic motivation for private companies in our society. It's one for which they don't apologize. That is their raison d'être, Mr. Speaker, and it is incompatible with the primary focus on protecting public health and protecting the community. Again, let me be perfectly clear. I don't mean to impugn the motives of people who would seek to develop such facilities. I don't impugn the motives of the minister who thinks this is a rational way to resolve this problem. I simply question whether it makes sense as good public policy, and whether it will work in the political climate of British Columbia.

I predict, based on my experience in observing the public of British Columbia for a couple of decades or so, that there will be — as other members of the

[ Page 10305 ]

Legislature have pointed out — storms of protest over the attempts to site private facilities.

I ask the minister, on behalf of the government, to put himself for a moment in the position of the mother with a young child, living close to a private hazardous waste disposal facility; or in the position of the high-school student, newly interested in environmental issues; or in the position of the war veteran who served the country and has retired to a district thinking he will live in peace in a greenbelt, and sees a new hazardous waste facility proposed for his district; or in the position of a back-to-the-lander who has sought nature in an area like Ashcroft. Imagine how such people will interpret this bill and proposals for private for-profit hazardous waste management and disposal facilities.

Imagine it yourself, Mr. Speaker. Would you rest equally comfortably at night knowing that the primary motivation for the operation is the profit of the shareholders, or knowing that the primary motivation of the operation is the protection of the public through the successful and appropriate management of the hazardous wastes? I think the answer to that question is obvious, just as it would be in any vital matter. You and I and every thinking British Columbian will have more confidence when the service is provided as a public service under the direct control and supervision of the people of British Columbia through their government. One could cite many examples in public policy where we have public institutions established specifically for that purpose.

What problems could arise through the application of this bill? I see storms of protest which may genuinely paralyze government, and which will make it very difficult for even the most well-intentioned minister, acting as the responsible minister for the Crown corporation under this bill, to achieve any legitimate goals that he or she seeks.

The public will argue that point. There's no doubt about it in my mind. The public will ask: "If it's so safe and so easy to do, why are we turning it over to a private company to make profit? If it's not so easy and not so safe, how do we know we can have confidence in that private company when the record of so many corporations in dealing with hazardous waste is so abysmal?"

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You don't trust corporations?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If a member wishes to speak, he may stand in his place.

MR. PERRY: I ask him in return if he trusts government.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Implicitly.

MR. PERRY: I don't trust corporations implicitly to look after the public interest. I don't think that's their raison d'ètre. Their raison d'ètre is to make profit for their shareholders. That's not a condemnation of corporations. Where would we be in British Columbia without our successful corporations. We need them; we welcome them. Members on this side of the House welcome them as well.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will take his turn in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey on Bill 38. Would you please address the Chair and not the members on the other side.

MR. PERRY: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister will rise and take his turn in the debate, because some points that he made extemporaneously were interesting.

I remain concerned about this issue. I guess I've made my point.

Let me return to one other concern that I have, based on the lesson that we can draw from the public liability for the contamination of the Expo lands. I feel very great concern that the public may ultimately become liable for problems created during, or as a long-term result of, the processing of hazardous waste by private corporations; and that in the end, any savings to the public — which presumably would be the putative motive of the government in designing this bill — may be obviated by long-term liability.

I again pretend no legal expertise, but the record of the last two decades suggests that the public frequently becomes liable for cleaning up environmental contamination caused by private corporations. I will return to this in detail, but at this stage of the debate I would like to simply mention that in section 4, a number of the subsections raise my concerns about public liability resulting in the long run from operations of private corporations in hazardous waste management.

Therefore, as little as the taxpayer might like the idea of having to finance yet another government operation, as unappealing as it may strike us at first glance to retain in public hands the responsibility for cleaning up the messes created by private hands, I think that good public policy ultimately suggests that that is more likely to be the successful approach and one which the public of British Columbia — and of other provinces, for that matter — will ultimately feel comfortable with; one which will minimize our costs in the long run and maximize the benefits and the public confidence that government is seriously and genuinely addressing long-term environmental problems.

I think I will end my comments there. I look forward to listening to other members taking part in the debate and revisiting some of these questions during the committee stage.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would like to address my comments on the bill to whether or not a public corporation set up in the way this one seems to be set

[ Page 10306 ]

up will accomplish the objectives that it seems to be attempting to achieve.

First of all, this is, in effect, enabling legislation. It's quite broad; a lot of issues could be dealt with under it. But while it's broad, it doesn't provide the public with the guarantees that I think the public would like to have.

It starts with the presumption that we can privatize the reduction or recycling of hazardous waste. That's a presumption that is yet to be proven. It's at the theoretical stage in the development of strategies, and the public must be assured that we are retaining tight control over the quality of any procedures to deal with hazardous wastes, until such time as we can assure the public that they're going to be safe in the process.

I feel that this bill is particularly weak in that respect. We've heard from the minister that there would be regulations under the Ministry of Environment and other pieces of legislation. I think it is remiss for the government not to incorporate into the principles of this bill matters of ensuring public confidence. And here I speak of the legacy of the private disposal of hazardous wastes.

Right or wrong, the public has the impression, and this Is brought about by television and movies...to deal with the criminal elements that have been disposing of hazardous wastes. Ultimately there is going to be a public cost. There certainly is going to be a cost to the environment, and if we're going to clean it up, the public is going to have to absorb that.

It's dangerous to funnel public funds one way or another into private waste disposal without thorough public review of the system that is being set up. So we have a corporation set up in advance of a system. No comprehensive strategy has been developed, so we don't know where this corporation fits into the strategy. That's a major weakness here.

The public will not accept a creaming of public funds that might be invested in recycling hazardous goods, when it may leave the public with higher-cost items and look bad and reflect upon the public sector.

I would like to refer to and quote from a document put out by the Canadian Union of Public Employees of British Columbia called Our Last Resource, and it's on community waste. It says in here that many of the multinational waste conglomerates have moved into the area of recycled materials and are vigorously lobbying to take over the collection and marketing of these materials. These private companies are offering bargain-basement prices — or in some cases nothing at all — to municipalities who do not have the expertise to market the recyclables themselves. In other words, the public investment in recycling and citizen participation in separating waste is being creamed off by conglomerates who have a clear strategy of reaping profits from public investment and public effort.

As has been said by my colleagues, we are not opposed to people making profit. The concern we have is that the guarantees are not in place. We do not want the public sector to be left with subsidizing private profit by being part of a collection system or being left with those things that are not "profitable" to recycle. There is a real danger that we will privatize only those sectors that will make money.

[5:30]

The other aspect to this legislation is the ability of the public sector — that is, the government — to respond if we have contracted out the disposal, some new information comes to light not covered by regulation, and the public wants to shut down a disposal procedure. Under this legislation, I can't see that the government has the power to shut down an operation until the public can be assured that the method is safe.

I would reiterate that that is a major weakness here. My colleague for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) has suggested that the public consultation part of the bill is extremely weak and needs to be addressed before we could support this.

So in summary, Mr. Speaker, I think the five-year sunsetting of this corporation is far too short a time. I have lots of confidence in science and technology and that we can make major headway in this business, but I think we are a long way from incorporating all the costs of hazardous waste disposal into the production. There is a long lead-time here, and I think that is a weakness of the bill as well.

Given the legacy of private disposal of hazardous wastes in North America and the insecurity the public feels, I think the public would best be served by retaining the majority of hazardous waste disposals in the public sector. I think this bill gives no guarantee of that at all.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I very much appreciate the comments of my colleagues. The speech of my colleague from Oak Bay very carefully outlined the issue from our perspective. There are a few points that I'd like to make.

To use a phrase that my friend the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) sometimes uses: "Isn't that special?" I just make the point in this section of our comments, as I did before, that the government has now seen the light, given the lucid speeches that we've given on this side of the House in pointing out that they shouldn't be called special wastes. We see encompassed within this bill that they are hazardous wastes.

MR. PERRY: Fantastic wastes.

MR. CASHORE: No, not "fantastic wastes" — hazardous wastes, dangerous wastes.

This bill could be hazardous to the environment, Mr. Speaker. It talks about a Crown corporation to set up a hazardous waste management system, and it gives the impression that this Crown corporation is going to be dealing with the issue, when in actual fact it doesn't at all. It's simply a conduit through which money is funnelled from the public purse into the coffers of large corporations, which are already very often in a position to cream the profits off the waste management sector or to mine those profits without the issue having been addressed from the beginning.

[ Page 10307 ]

Certainly nobody is opposed to the private sector, and nobody is opposed to the private sector receiving appropriate loans. But you have to start at the beginning, and the beginning is to be consistent with the Brundtland commission principles. One of the very important principles from the Brundtland commission is that you start with the people. The people are involved In the consultation process that leads to the planning that's going to resolve our environment problems. Yet when the government puts its eggs in the basket of leaving all the solutions up to the corporate sector, the old boys' network and the tradition in which we have allowed those who are in the ivory tower of engineering to go ahead and do their thing without meaningful and significant reference to the public, we have learned time and time again that that path leads to greater problems.

When it comes to dealing with the environment, everything about this government and this bill flies in the face of an appropriate approach, to waste management. The fact is that we wouldn't need the extent of waste management that is required if we had measures opposed to creating waste in the first place. Everybody knows that waste is created when you mix substances together that create a problem for the environment. One of the ways to avoid that is to avoid creating that waste in the first place. Certainly when we think of that, we realize there has to be a cradle-to-grave approach that is visited upon the people who produce the waste. That cradle-to-grave approach means that our society wants the corporations that produce toxic waste to come forward with the solution to how to deal with that waste before it is produced. We have to move in that direction.

This type of approach, which provides a magical solution to a problem for the wider community, tends to create the impression that if you throw your problems into that magic hole — be it an incinerator or whatever it is — the problems will go away. But we know all too well, and it's all too well documented, that the problem doesn't go away. The problem really becomes a Pandora's box, and we end up creating more difficult problems. For instance, when we're talking about incineration, the problem still hasn't been solved. The particulate that comes out of the stack, for instance, is more dangerous when the molecules of certain substances like paper and plastic are burned and attach themselves to the ash. In that situation they're much more carcinogenic.

The former Minister of Environment referred to Dr. David Boyes and the work he did in trying to locate a toxic waste incinerator at Cache Creek. He was somewhat generous to himself and to his government when he stated the reasons for that having been abandoned. The real reason was that the government went about it with hobnailed boots and was very insensitive to the community. Those people finally created enough of a message that the government realized it was not politically expedient to proceed on that path. In so doing they've left a legacy that makes it very difficult to deal with the problem of hazardous wastes anywhere in the province. There is a body of people who, through that experience with this government, has become committed to not allowing that type of facility in any community in the province. It means that wherever the government tries to locate it, those people will be on site organizing their protest.

It also means that when we look at this legislation, it's organized in such a way that it will be an arm's-length situation. We talked about arm's-length in the last bill. Arm's-length there was that there wouldn't be arm's-length in apportioning the sustainable environment fund; members of the cabinet would have a hands-on approach and they would be able to dole out that money through a cabinet committee. Under this hazardous waste act, this government now wants to set up an arm's-length process through this corporation. Why do they want to do this arm's-length and not do it arm's-length when it comes to appropriating taxpayers' dollars? The reason is that arm's-length in this case will enable the government to avoid the embarrassment that it has endured in the past by trying to deal with these situations directly.

This government has been extremely embarrassed over its failure to deal with the matter of toxic waste. Just look at the situations that have been referred to by the member for Oak Bay with regard to the inaccessibility of depots. Look at the situation pointed out by the member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley (Ms. Smallwood): the waste management office in Surrey was actually operating without a pollution permit while it was a depot for receiving toxic waste. But look at the difficulty that people have in this province in finding a place to take it.

We find that the minister, with great PR and pizazz, sends out brochures in conjunction with others saying that for two days people can bring their toxic wastes to such and such a location. But it's a PR thing; it's not an ongoing thing. The point is that if we're going to address this issue, it has to be done starting at the beginning and in a way that is ongoing so that it becomes effective.

It's a bit of an irony that on the toxic waste collection day they had in Vancouver, which the minister was so proud of and which he bragged about.... And there was so much publicity; we saw it on TV, we saw it in the newspapers. It was a great success, I grant you that; the number of people who came to that was incredible. But wasn't it an irony, with the number of people going through the process of going to that collection day in traffic that stretched for blocks and blocks, with hydrocarbons coming out of their idling cars, that an equivalent amount of toxic substance was probably let out into the atmosphere as a result of those cars that were idling that day trying to get into the lineup to get in and drop off their materials.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that there has to be a much more comprehensive plan so that those people don't have to do that and so that any day of the week they can go to a depot and get rid of those substances. If we don't do that, if we don't deal with that kind of a grass-roots, publicly developed approach, then we're going to continue this situation of illicit

[ Page 10308 ]

dumping. People will be going out in the middle of the night and dumping off a wharf in the Fraser River or wherever it may be.

The fact is that this is brought about by the fact the Socreds are trying to catch up on environmental issues. They are starting to pay attention to the polls. They ignored the public concern about the environment in the 1980s, when they really neglected the environment. They've sown the wind with their inappropriate policies. Now they are reaping the whirlwind, and they are going to try and come up with a magical solution. That magical solution, I'm afraid, is not going to provide the kinds of solutions this government wants.

Just look for a moment at the incinerator in Burnaby. I hope you won't rule me out of order for talking about the incinerator in Burnaby, because it might be inferred that that's not a hazardous waste incinerator.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the moment, Mr. Member, I can't hear you with the other noise that's going on, so I wouldn't know if you were out of order. Possibly the members will tone down their other conversations. Carry on.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do note that the Minister of Environment is listening to what I am saying, but I appreciate your bringing order into the House.

The fact is that toxic waste goes into the Burnaby incinerator. We know that because that incinerator is out of compliance with its permit. The Minister of Environment has had to give special permission to the Burnaby incinerator to continue to function.

The point is that the magical solution is a good example of that Pandora's box that creates new problems. For instance, it is slated to receive 240,000 tons of solid waste per year. One third of that by weight comes out in the form of ash. Of that 80,000 odd metric tons of ash, approximately 12,000 tons of it is fly ash, and the remainder is grate ash.

It's a good thing that in British Columbia we don't allow what happens in the United States, where they take those two types of ash, mix them and then say that it meets their permit because the solution to pollution is dilution. That doesn't happen in British Columbia, and I'm pleased that it doesn't happen.

The toxic ash that comes out of the scrubbers on the stack comes to my constituency of Coquitlam, where they place it in clay liners in a landfill site That's an earthquake zone, it's at the confluence of two rivers, and there are really no guarantees that we aren't creating serious future problems in terms of what we do with that toxic ash that comes out of that incinerator. The fact is that we really haven't solved the problem. We've created a new problem, when we could have done so much more towards solving that problem by having started in the first place with a public process that would develop the solutions.

[5:45]

We hear terms like "state of the art" about scrubbers that are going into the stacks, and this sort of thing, and then we find out just a little bit later that it didn't quite work that well, that there were problems. As Paul Connett says, if people downwind of a toxic incinerator.... If we find a mother is up in the middle of the night looking after her child who has a respiratory illness, and we're finding that that pattern exists in other homes of the area, and then we consult with the engineers who put the toxic incinerator in place and they say: "Well, that shouldn't happen. That doesn't happen. We can prove that our incinerator doesn't cause that .... 11 But if those people know that they weren't having those problems before that incinerator was sited and they're now having them after, I would defy anybody in this chamber to say to that mother who is up night after night with that child: "What you're experiencing isn't theoretically possible, so it's not happening." We cannot allow ourselves to let theory overtake common sense and experience and practice when we are developing public policy. That's why it's not that there cannot be a technological approach, but that technological approach has to be in the context of a public process of the type that is described in the Brundtland report.

I have several other points, but I know I'll have a chance during committee stage, so I'll just make this one last point. Confidentiality is built into this bill, which means that the public will only have access to the most perfunctory of information, when the public very much needs to know all the information about this type of process. That means that employees will be muzzled in terms of telling it the way it is. People who have information that the public needs to know will have that information curtailed. It means that what we're going to have provided with this bill is a process of burying the evidence prior to the crime being committed.

Finally, the sunset clause means that this is really a conduit whereby friends and insiders can receive the benefit of the public purse through the kinds of loans that are outlined here. It leaves it open to that type of abuse, and therefore this is a bad bill.

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

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There are many things I could say right now, but I think the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam said it correctly - that there are many things we can discuss in committee. I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 38, Hazardous Waste Management Corporation 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.