[ Page 10309 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act (Bill 38). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 10309

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Cull

Mr. Zirnhelt

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Perry

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 38.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, this is the interpretation section. I'll go to the definition, where it says: "'hazardous waste' means special wastes as defined in the special waste regulation...." I'd like to ask the minister if he has decided to amend the special waste regulation to conform with what is now being made government policy: "hazardous waste," instead of "special wastes."

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We're using the term "hazardous waste." This is just an explanation of what "hazardous waste" means.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the interpretation of the term "hazardous waste" refers to the special waste regulation and includes dangerous goods designated in the regulation under this act. Will the name of the "special" waste regulation be changed to a "hazardous" waste regulation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We'll look at that. I'm not sure that we need to spend a lot of time with staff going through and changing every word. We know what hazardous waste is. But we'll look at it.

MR. CASHORE: It's good to have that on the record. I don't have any further questions on this section.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. CASHORE: Section 3 starts to make very clear the difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House with regard to this issue. It starts off with the objectives of the corporation, stating that the purpose is the development, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive hazardous waste management system in British Columbia. Clearly that is referring to the kinds of facilities the minister has in mind that would be put in place by the public sector. Obviously that is where the priority is. This is what this act is all about. That is the feeling of the minister with regard to what the solution is going to be to this problem.

Then it goes on to say in subsection (2) of this section, "...it is also the purpose...," and it gets into such things as: "...recovery at source...to thereby minimize the number of new hazardous waste management facilities that might be otherwise required." If this bill were to have been worded so that the priorities were the other way around, it would make an awful lot more sense. But this is where the priority is. It starts in the wrong place. It gives a secondary purpose, if any purpose at all, to the really basic method that needs to be made use of in order to reduce waste and therefore alter the basic problem that is being attempted.

Under "Objectives of the Corporation" we have quite an ambitious number of objectives. We know that it's an issue that won't really be addressed prior to some kind of an initiative being put in place, and the minister has announced that less than 20 employees will be given the job of carrying out these objectives. It would appear that the minister has given these employees a rather impossible task— if more than lip service is going to be given to the issues of recycling at source, enabling municipalities and rural areas to get their recycling plans in place, doing the work to establish the markets, and establishing a cradle-to-grave approach so that there's an end to the production of dangerous waste, which ends up being a problem because of the need for disposal.

The real object of this bill is to give the appearance of action, but in so doing, to actually reduce the government's accountability to the public on these issues by setting up this arm's-length process and thus enabling the Minister of the Environment to deflect the kind of criticism that was forthcoming during the government's attempts to locate a facility at Cache Creek a couple of years ago. The government really got burnt on that because of the bad politics — among other things — in the way they went about that.

Therefore it would appear, except for the objective that is outlined in 3(l), that this section is really a paper tiger.

I would like to hear from the minister what kinds of measures he sees the staff of this corporation undertaking that are going to fulfil, for instance, the kinds of objectives that are stated in 3(2) (b), and by that I mean a substantial comprehensive approach and not the lip-service that we have been seeing.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The reason for taking the course we have with this legislation can best be explained with a few relevant examples.

Over six years ago the government of Ontario established the Ontario Waste Management Corp., with a mandate to establish purely public sector hazardous waste treatment facilities. As of today, and after some $60 million of public funds, no public sector facility exists.

Eight years ago, in 1982, the government of Manitoba began a series of public consultations on hazard-

[ Page 10310 ]

ous waste management. Five years later, in 1987, a purely public sector hazardous waste corporation was established. As of today, no public sector hazardous waste treatment facility exists.

Our neighbour to the east, Alberta, took a different approach, a joint venture with public sector and private sector partners. Alberta now has the only state-of-the-art, high-technology hazardous waste treatment facility in Canada — a public sector–private sector partnership.

With this legislation we will harness the creativity, energy and innovative capability of British Columbia business and link it with the stability, security and accountability of the public sector. This will give us the ability to assume the long liability that is necessary for public confidence and safety. The partnership with the private sector will allow us to tackle — and tackle quickly — hazardous waste problems in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we have studied the experience of other jurisdictions, both in Canada and in the United States, and learned important lessons. These lessons are reflected in the bill before us today. With its unique emphasis on reduction, reuse and recycling as top priorities, we have the best piece of environmental legislation in Canada.

MS. CULL: Is the minister implying in that answer that public sector corporations are unable and private sector corporations are able to get on with the job? Is it something inherent in the fact that one is public sector and the other is private sector? Or is it not the case, in the examples you've cited, that it was the public consultation that took place in those jurisdictions, which took up some time? I'm not sure, given the example that we have in British Columbia of the failed Cache Creek facility, that the private sector is going to be able to do it any faster if we don't have the appropriate public consultation in advance.

I want to look at section 3(1) and go back to some remarks I made yesterday. The first section says: "The purpose of the corporation is to ensure the development, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive hazardous waste management system in British Columbia."

Just to remind the minister of some of the points I raised yesterday, there was the press released issued by the Minister of Environment on December 5 which talked about the implementation of a comprehensive strategy for the management of hazardous wastes. Further on it says that a special hazardous waste team will be appointed shortly to implement it. Then on May 25 there was the press release that deals with the announcement of this corporation, again making reference to the comprehensive waste management system that will be implemented.

It seems to me, particularly when I put the two of them together, that there is a strategy that the corporation is to implement. Could the minister tell us what the strategy is? Is there a document that sets out the strategy? What is the corporation charged with in terms of actually implementing a hazardous waste management strategy? Or is the purpose of the corporation also to develop this strategy?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure the hon. member agrees with me that the objectives that we have are in the best interests of all British Columbians. It would be inappropriate for the ministry itself to undertake achievement of the corporation's objectives, because the ministry's job is to set tough standards and to make sure they're enforced.

The corporation will be out in the marketplace actively contributing to the solution of our hazardous waste problem and will be carefully monitored by the ministry. If the ministry undertook these activities, it would be placed in the position of regulating itself. I'm sure the member agrees that strong regulation is very important.

[10:15]

I'm sure the member is aware that a similar corporation was established in Manitoba under the New Democratic Party. I'm sure the member would not want to criticize her colleagues in Manitoba when they were in government.

MS. CULL: I wasn't talking about the question of who would carry it out versus who would regulate, although I would like to deal with that later. I understand the corporation to be an instrument of the government, if you like, that has been established to carry out certain activities with respect to hazardous wastes. While the types of activities are set out in the bill — dealing with facilities, dealing with encouraging action in households, businesses, etc., encouraging economic development and so forth — I'd like to know the game plan that the corporation is implementing on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. I assume that there is such a game plan for the ministry to regulate, direct and control what its corporation is doing. It must have an idea what the overall plan is. I'd like to hear the minister say some things about the hazardous waste management strategy for the province that the corporation will be formed to implement.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can assure the member of a number of things. The facility itself and the corporation are going to be run by a board of directors. Mr. Alan Carr here will be on the board. His experience as Deputy Minister of Environment in Saskatchewan is well known, and he's very capable. We will appoint a board of directors who will come from not only business but municipalities — a broad spectrum of British Columbians who set down their guidelines as to what they should be doing and how they should be doing it. Certainly those guidelines will fit within our goal of getting rid of hazardous waste in the province of British Columbia.

I can assure you that public consultation is at the centre of their mandate, and that public consultation will be there. The member will have ample opportunity to meet with Mr. Carr or his staff at any time and to attend public meetings around the province. This

[ Page 10311 ]

corporation will not be imposing its will or the government's will without public consultation.

MS. CULL: The minister's press release of December 3, 1989, starts off by saying: "Cabinet has approved implementation of a comprehensive strategy for the management of hazardous waste." Could the minister tell us what that strategy is?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: That's what we're here debating right now.

MS. CULL: So the strategy does not exist at this point; the corporation will develop the strategy — is that the answer?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The strategy is reflected right in the legislation.

MS. CULL: The legislation only sets up a vehicle; it doesn't outline a strategy of how hazardous waste will be managed in the province. It doesn't deal with the question of the number of facilities, where they would be, the kinds of technology that would be used. It doesn't deal with any of the issues that have been discussed concerning this bill. Just to name one: should waste exchange be part of the strategy? Should regions be responsible for handling their own waste within their jurisdictions, or should they be transported to central places to be disposed of?

A number of issues that I think the public is interested in debating when it comes to hazardous waste are certainly not spelled out in the bill, and in fact, the entire question of public consultation isn't contained within the bill. There is nothing in the bill itself which says that there will be a process of consultation even on the matter of sites, let alone on the broader question that I'm asking about, which is: how are we going to deal with hazardous waste? There is nothing in here that reflects the responsibility for hazardous waste, whether it is a provincial responsibility, a local government responsibility, something that should be shared; whether it is vested at the regional district level or the municipal level; whether municipalities or regional districts should be required to have hazardous waste management plans in addition to their solid, liquid and biomedical waste plans. Those are the kinds of strategy issues I'm asking about.

If the minister does not have a strategy that has come out of the work done over the last number of years by his ministry and the Special Waste Advisory Committee, I'm trying to clarify who will prepare that strategy and whether it will be a subject of public consultation and discussion.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Your last point first. As I mentioned earlier, there will be full public discussion. The strategy will be put out by the corporation. Yes, the ministry has many ideas and thoughts, but I would suggest the member go back and read the legislation that your own party put in in Manitoba. Legislation doesn't spell out details. This sets up the corporation, and the corporation will do that work. You have the assurance of the ministry and the government that there will be public hearings and consultation. That's why we're setting up this process and the corporation.

There are many ideas, as you know. Some I've stated in the House, such as dealing with PCBs right now, and dealing with the government of Alberta. That's going to be the job of the corporation. Mr. Carr was with me when we did that negotiation. That public consultation will be paramount in the objectives of the corporation. In fact, all the notes I received when we were preparing this legislation were to make sure that the corporation and the board were set up in a way that there would be a maximum public input all around the province, not just in the lower mainland or Victoria.

MS. CULL: I think my colleague the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) wants to make some comments on this matter, but I want to make a few comments on that answer.

My understanding of what happened in Manitoba is that they had the consultation prior to bringing in the bill, and that the public consultation process suggested that the solution was a corporation. The parameters of that corporation — including the very important fact that the corporation would have stewardship over hazardous waste in perpetuity — came out of public consultation.

Many things have been said on approaches to hazardous waste, in this House and outside the House by the minister. What the public is looking for are some assurances that the approach finally implemented by the corporation will be one that they have had an opportunity to have a full discussion of.

Learning from experience, we have to recognize that it is only those solutions that the public has played a full, meaningful part in — in areas such as hazardous waste — that end up being supported. Otherwise, we do end up in this very unfortunate, typical B.C. syndrome of conflict, because the solution has been put out before the question has been asked.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I do not go along with that point. This corporation and the process have been talked about in this province for years. We've had public meetings around the province. This legislation is at the request of many people in the environmental movement and of many British Columbians.

I know the member and her party see a lot of the same polls that we see. The public is demanding this type of corporation. The corporation is open; it's accountable. We'll have a top-notch board of directors. Before any solutions are done, we'll have the full public process. I can't agree with the member's comments.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I was interested in the minister mentioning that they evaluated — or at least had a good look at — Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta and

[ Page 10312 ]

came up with the Alberta model as being a successful one.

Would you be prepared to make available to us some of the evaluations or studies that you have done? I say that because I'm new to this business and I feel a little bit hampered by the fact that we don't have the advantage of research staff; nor do we have the advantage of calling witnesses to committees where we might get into some depth on this kind of thing. I'm prepared to take your word that that's your judgment based on the empirical information that you have. But I would like to see that information, and I think it would go a long way to building our confidence in your statement.

Are there reports? Are there evaluations? If so, would you make them available to us?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest to the member that all of the studies that we would look at.... And we didn't just look at Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta; we looked at all provinces; we looked at the United States; we looked around the world. But if he were to go to our parliamentary library, which is one of the finest in any provincial legislature in the world.... I don't say that because of the government. It's not run by the government; it's run by very qualified people. They could provide you with all these studies. They're there, and you could have a look at them.

We based our decision on looking at those studies, looking at what's happening around the world. We also are saying we have to have a public and private sector working together, but we haven't said we're going to build a big facility like they're building in Alberta. That will be part of the public process that will take place once the corporation is formed.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I take it, then, that the studies are all a matter of public record. I thought that you had said that there were evaluations by your ministry of these studies. So that doesn't exist.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The documents that would exist from my ministry to me are confidential documents that come to cabinet and result in this legislation. If the member is ever fortunate enough to be in the government, you'll have those documents available to you.

You do have a research department. In fact, you're funded very well; we would maybe all like it to be more. But they could do that kind of work.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have another question for the minister, and it really alludes to the line of questioning that we had earlier on public involvement.

I came across a fairly disturbing situation with respect to the Koster siding. When Cache Creek was seen as not being a viable site for hazardous waste, an initiative was taken by some private sector.... I think it was a corporation based in Chilliwack or somewhere that posted a notice on a tree near Koster siding. It was purely by accident that the rancher who grazed in the area would discover that there was an initiative being taken.

I would assume, rightly or wrongly, that if it was a public sector initiative, the consultation about siting and even reserving land by way of application — as this was — would be done a little more openly. One of the fears that we have is that unless you are going to regulate that.... I don't see anything in here that would regulate the initiatives of private corporations in this respect. Can you direct me to a part of this legislation — covered by the objectives, because that's what we're going to come back to — that would ensure that this sort of thing wouldn't happen?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: That will not happen in this corporation. The ministry is still in charge of regulations and enforcement. In my estimates we can probably get into the number of people who are around the province doing that kind of work.

I appreciate your comments about something being tacked on a tree. We've just issued a charge against a person in Langley. He could pay a fine of up to $1 million. He has been dumping some things in a hole in the ground — hazardous-type wastes. I am very serious about those types of things. They should not happen. There should be a process to make sure that somebody just doesn't have to tack something on a tree. They should be gazetted, and people should have a chance to look at where this material is going and how it's being handled.

[10:30]

MS. EDWARDS: I want to ask the minister about a broad political question which I believe is encapsulated in this section.

If the objectives of the corporation involve all the things that are mentioned here and include encouraging people in the province to reduce, recycle and reuse their toxic waste, that is a laudable goal and is obviously at the heart of the matter. I think it's the heart of the issue, the thing that we have to do.

There is another probably laudable goal here — we argue sometimes about how much of this goal should be adopted by the government — and that is to encourage the economic development of British Columbia through this system and to assist the private sector in developing knowledge and technology; in other words, to assist the private sector to be involved and to maintain enough profit to keep going.

These two goals sit at loggerheads, and this comes into every discussion that one has of this whole business. How do you in fact ask a private corporation, which depends on continuing profit and probably has an expanding amount of waste to deal with... ? How do you do that while at the same time you are, in fact, trying to encourage companies and individuals in their homes and so on to reduce, recycle and reuse? If the government is successful at encouraging reduction, reuse and recycling of hazardous waste, presumably the load will not expand.

One hopes that it would reduce, but presumably the economy may expand for various reasons. But if

[ Page 10313 ]

you are successful at doing what you want to do, you do not want the stream of toxic waste to increase. Therefore you are not there to hope that some industry using this particular stream of goods as the commodity for their business is going to find more of it. In fact, if the program is successful and the stream reduces, the companies have said.... The company that was involved in public meetings surrounding the Boyes group said very clearly that it would like to expand and that it anticipated importing waste from other jurisdictions, such as other provinces in Canada plus the northwestern United States.

That, at present, is not what has been happening. We all know that even Alberta got to the point where it decided not to import waste. The people of British Columbia are seriously concerned about the possibility of importing waste. I'm going to ask the minister to please give me, first of all, a response to that built-in contradiction of the tasks of this corporation.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't think there's any contradiction at all to the corporation. Companies have to make a profit. If they don't, they won't go.

I think a good example of this corporation is the one I mentioned just a while ago when Mr. Carr and I traveled to Alberta to meet with the Minister of Environment and talk to him about the possibility We have PCBs in this province that are not being manufactured anymore, but they're here. We've got to get rid of them. They have a facility that will handle that product. It makes sense to me that we have a facility here that will take used paint and recycle it — not burn it and destroy it. Parts of it are used again. We have a facility in North Vancouver. That first facility is in Delta and Richmond. The second one, in North Vancouver, is a facility that re-refines oil.

My suggestion to Alberta was that we would take their oil and their paint and bring it to British Columbia, and they solve our problem for PCBs. That eliminates one type of facility that we won't need. I see this corporation working with industry to try and facilitate what we can do in this area.

I would agree with the member that nobody in British Columbia wants to bring in waste, and if we can make equal exchanges in certain areas to solve problems, I think that's much more beneficial to the people of British Columbia than us building a facility just to get rid of the PCBs and then closing it down.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, I know there is a facility. I don't know how many there are, but there is a facility in southern Alberta which takes paints and automobile paint solvents and recycles them. It services an area in the lower mainland right across the northern United States, through our area and into southern Alberta. It isn't something they don't have in Alberta.

I don't know about the numbers and about the rationalization of how many and so on. But I do know that this is a difficult province for transportation. There are three entries into British Columbia from the east, and they all go through very narrow valleys and long routes that are essential. That's where the population gathers. They are crucial to our existence. What happens in those valleys affects us much more crucially than if you are spread out on a plains area.

If you are talking about increased transportation of waste across the highways of this province, I think we should address that issue right now, and I think you should have some idea of what you are talking about as far as volume is concerned and as far as regulation and strategies for dealing with that. That issue is of great importance to the people in my area, as is the whole business of the facility itself.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Trying to scare people about using the term waste, or PCBs traveling on the highway, or saying that your constituents are concerned.... There is concern that we've got PCBs stored in schools, hospitals and storage depots, and they want to get rid of them. PCBs, used paint and used oil traveling down the highway are nowhere near as bad as the gasoline tanks that are going up and down the highway and downtown into your community every day. They are volatile. They can explode. You've got propane tanks also.

We have conditions and safeguards. The wastes we are talking about are far less dangerous to transport than those products. They will be transported in containers and trucks that are approved by government and regulatory bodies. They are safe.

I just don't think it's our place to try and scare the public because we're going to move some goods that we should be getting rid of anyway. We have to get them out of the schools, out of the hospitals and out of the storage depots, and we've got to destroy them.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to clarify, right from the beginning, that it is my goal to try and solve this problem, as it is yours. You needn't accuse me of trying to fearmonger.

The fears are very clearly there. When you go to meetings where we talk about the transportation of these special wastes, and people make clear that a truck with some of these special hazardous wastes could be traveling across the southern trans-provincial highway here.... It could be 50 miles between points, and nobody knows where that truck is and nobody is checking it. Had it gone off the highway between Salmo and Creston, for example, there is no requirement that anybody be notified that it is coming and that it gets there. It could go off the highway; it could contaminate an important watercourse. That could happen very easily, and the odds of it happening will be greatly increased if we are transporting a whole lot more waste.

I understand the danger of having waste in a community, but I also understand the dangers of transporting far higher volumes of it around. My question is: how does the minister expect to address this very legitimate concern on the part of many citizens so that people will be willing to take that into account when we talk about how we're going to solve the problem?

[ Page 10314 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As I mentioned earlier, the quality of the transportation is second to none. The trucks are monitored. The trucks have radios. There is nothing in that area that the public should be concerned about. I would hope that all members, when they're in their communities, would.... If you want to put the argument out in front of people, talk about the fact that we do have things traveling up and down our highways. I mentioned earlier the big tanker trucks full of gasoline; we all know how explosive it is. We all drive cars, and if they didn't get to the gas stations we'd have a problem. But the people who do this are well trained; the trucks meet certain conditions. I can assure you that the same conditions will prevail for all these other wastes that are far less dangerous traveling down the highway than gasoline is. And I can assure you that the corporation will be looking into those things when it decides what it's going to be doing.

I say to the member: if you have another suggestion that you want to give us on how we could be doing it, we'd be more than pleased to listen to it. It's not a political issue; it's an issue everybody wants to solve. They don't want the PCBs, as I've mentioned before, in schools and hospitals; they want to get rid of them. We're trying the best way we know how. If you've got suggestions, we'll listen to them.

MS. EDWARDS: It's very clear that although we talk about the great safety and so on, and we say that the trucks are radio-equipped, there's no monitoring system. If the truck goes off the highway and rolls down the bank, there is nobody wondering — for two days possibly, in some circumstances — where that truck is. That's one of the problems.

There are certainly enough examples of semi-trailer trucks and trucks carrying waste going off the roads and contaminating streams, as you can see if you travel the highway any number of times. In my area I see it quite regularly.

I know that the railways have had this problem. They've had some concern about hazardous wastes and the dangerous substances that they track on their rails. But more and more these things are going onto the highway, where you have more people. The railway has addressed the issue more or less satisfactorily — I don't know. But I don't hear what is going to happen on the highways, where we're getting to have long convoys of semi-trailer trucks where we didn't used to have that sort of thing, Mr. Minister The highways are more and more becoming the railway, where a little passenger car... I mean, they're still all there, with the campers and so on. They're all on the same highway. It's making the highways terribly crowded. When the people in our area who travel these roads where you go for miles and miles within mountains....

We have concerns. We want to know what your strategy is. We would like you to go public and hear these concerns, and to lay out some strategy, before you start suggesting that we're going to go ahead with the corporation and with some proposals to work with private industry before the public has even been heard.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for those statements, and I agree. But the corporation will be formed and will do the public hearings, and they will listen and they will have input.

I just had sent over to me a little note that I think is quite relevant. It says: "This spring all MLAs must pursue this issue until a site is picked and a safe facility is built. We don't want toxic waste next to homes in Warfield or anywhere else in British Columbia. As with all things environmental, action on toxic waste disposal is too important to be delayed by partisan politics."

That's from the member for Rossland-Trail's (Mr. D'Arcy's) constituency news letter, and I agree with him. I think he is stating what his constituents feel, and I know what mine feel: we must have a solution on toxic waste. That's what this corporation is going to do. We invite all the input you want to give to us and to that corporation.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak for a few minutes on this very important subject. It is readily apparent that there are different degrees of risk exposure and hazard with hazardous wastes and special wastes. Obviously different regulations must be drafted with respect to the transportation of those.

I want to say that for those that are exceedingly hazardous, containers have been developed in the United States. As a matter of fact, the containers are very strong and they were tested. A truck with this container was parked at a level crossing, and a train traveling at some 60 miles an hour was directed into it and sent this special container — this trailer — tumbling. There was no damage whatsoever to the container.

So transportation is necessary, of course, to special waste disposal sites. But if indeed there is a high degree of risk exposure to health and a danger of contamination of the environment, the technology is already there. These special trailers and containers have been developed, and I'm confident that the ministry will demand that they be utilized in the case of high-risk exposure.

[10:45]

MS. CULL: I have to agree that various organizations and members of the public have called for an agency to handle the matter of hazardous waste. But they haven't called for this particular form of agency, and that's the problem we have here. They have called for a public agency that will have continuing responsibility for the management of hazardous waste. They've also called for a publicly discussed strategy for the management of hazardous waste.

I don't doubt that there's some technology that can address some of the problems we've been discussing here this morning. I don't doubt that in the future technology may be developed to handle some of the problems. But the public has to be involved in that discussion, because for too long on environmental

[ Page 10315 ]

issues the public has been told: "The scientists and technologists have the answer. Trust us; this will be safe. You don't have to worry."

Then we find out somewhere down the line that that simply hasn't been the case, and that there has been public risk. I think that the major issue we have here is how this corporation is structured, how the strategy is developed and what the consultation will be. When you ask what the suggestions are from this side of the House, I think the suggestions are, for any specific problem that we're addressing, that we need to have those kinds of discussions in the community They haven't happened yet.

I'd like to ask the minister two final questions on this. You said that there were a number of organizations that support this corporation. I'd like to know what environmental organizations support the corporation as it's set out in Bill 38, because the ones that I have talked to are certainly not in support of the corporation in this form.

If we go back and look at some of the evidence from the ministry's own Special Waste Advisory Committee, it recommended a Crown corporation be formed to provide the overall leadership and planning of hazardous waste because it didn't want a private enterprise solution to toxic waste. We have organizations such as Healthy Saanich 2000 which have made representations, I believe, to the minister. I hope you've seen their recommendation on a public waste management authority. They're making it very clear that what they want is a public authority that will have continuing public responsibility for hazardous waste — not an organization that's going to appear for five years, set up a bunch of private corporations and then disappear.

I'd like to know what organization the minister has been talking to that supports this proposal. I'd also like to clarify for the record what I understand to be a commitment that he seems to be making in his remarks, that the public consultation undertaken by the corporation will be on the full range of the strategy. It will be on the matters of technology and on the matter of whether we have regional approaches versus one big provincial approach. It will be on the issues of who will be responsible — whether it's local government, local communities, regional districts or the province — and how the sharing will be worked out, as well as just where we're going to site the facilities.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: With regard to public consultation, I assure the member that it will take place. I also assure her that when this bill is passed, Mr. Carr will come to their caucus, if they want, and sit down with either a group of your people or your whole caucus and take suggestions as to what you think they should be doing in the form of public consultation. That's what it's all about. We're not going to get the problem solved without the fullest of public cooperation.

With regard to the names of the groups, I don't know the names of the groups. I know that at the public meetings I've been at, people have said: "We need to do something." The only public group I know of is the New Democratic Party, where some of their members have said that this corporation has to be done — including the member from Rossland-Trail — and the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, who support that legislation. You obviously have a lot of these environmentalists in your party. So if the member is saying it, he must have support from his constituents or he wouldn't say it.

People support this kind of legislation. Certain people will not, for whatever their own ends may be.

MS. CULL: People support a public agency; they don't support the corporation that's being set out in Bill 38.

MR. CASHORE: Under the objectives of the corporation, I just wanted to ask the minister if, under this bill, the efforts would be made to put in a resource recovery plant. Would he see that as coming under the purview of this bill?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No.

MR. CASHORE: Given the objectives as stated, they seem to be quite wide-reaching. A liberal interpretation of those objectives would seem to include that, in that it relates to a strategy that the government has talked about of reduce, reuse and recycle and encouraging action in households. The information that I've seen coming out of the government is being seen as all these types of facilities relating to that kind of process. If the minister doesn't envision a resource recovery plant as fitting into this process, could he outline the types of hazardous waste facilities that would come under the objectives of this bill?

We know that there are a number of types of hazardous waste facilities; one or two of them have been referred to. But I was wondering if he would list the kinds that would be on a list of facilities that would be considered by this corporation.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the member said liberal; I don't think either one of us will ever be accused of being Liberals. The corporation will be involved in the recycling of hazardous wastes. For instance, there would be an involvement with the refuse-derived plant if there was hazardous waste delivered or found at that plant. Then the corporation would be involved.

But they will be strictly involved in the recycling of hazardous waste, the technology and working with people on the technology of how to solve the problem. Those are the areas they're involved in.

MR. CASHORE: I was trying to understand that as I heard it. Did the minister say that where RDF is involved, that would relate to, at least, the scope of section 3(b)? It wouldn't. In no way would the plans for our resource recovery plant or refuse-derived fuel have anything to do with this.

Well, that's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because there certainly is a body of opinion that looks

[ Page 10316 ]

upon the waste that comes out of the burning of RDF — which is really the delayed burning of garbage, whether it be in a cement plant in British Columbia or in some other jurisdiction — as giving the possibility for trading these materials across borders.

It seems to me it's generally agreed that this would result in hazardous substances being collected in the form of grate ash or the ash that is in the stack which is scrubbed out by the state-of-the-art scrubbers. Of course, if those scrubbers aren't working very well, then it increases the amount of toxic substances going out into the atmosphere, because it's got to go somewhere. The process of RDF leads to the potential for hazardous waste being produced in the form of ash in a cement plant. Insofar as RDF is concerned in the delayed burning of that material, would that not constitute a hazardous waste?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If there was a by-product that was hazardous waste, yes, the corporation would look after that.

MR. CASHORE: That raises a question with regard to how this corporation would deal with the handling of the ash that comes from the Burnaby incinerator. I referred to that yesterday. That ash rests in the Coquitlam landfill and might result from RDF that leaves the province. It seems to me that once it is produced, the potential for producing toxic ash should be considered prior to being burnt, rather than after the problem is created. It would seem to me that if this corporation is dealing with hazardous waste, it should also be dealing with that material which could potentially create hazardous waste. It simply isn't good enough to say that we'll deal with it once it becomes hazardous waste. It raises the whole question on how you implement cradle-to-grave responsibility on the part of the producer of that kind of a substance. Otherwise, we end up with the government being responsible for the hazardous material that is created through that process.

When the members for Oak Bay and Kootenay talk about strategy, we're talking about the strategy that deals with preventing these kinds of problems before they are created, by moving towards a philosophy of cradle-to-grave responsibility for what is produced by corporations, municipalities or whoever it may be.

We hear you say there will be public hearings, but we're talking about a process that is over in five years as though somehow in five years it's going to be all over and looked after. It might take a good part of the next several years to work up the kind of procedure that's going to ultimately deal with this problem. It appears, given the sequence of the objectives listed in this section, that the mind-set is to start with some sort of a technological solution and then move into consultation, if that can be part of it later on. Again, I submit to the minister that the priorities are wrong here.

The idea of an agency is a much more appropriate concept because it is not grandfathered. It is able to address the entire range of waste management options, whether it's a resource recovery plant at its stage of dealing with waste or producing RDF, whether it's an incinerator that has to be dealt with in terms of the technology not fulfilling the job that it was said it would do, whether it has to do with the cataloging of various locations of PCBs and other kinds of toxic wastes throughout the province, whether it has to do with setting the standards for the containment of areas where hazardous material is collected, or whether it has to do with integrating the recycling systems. All of those things are part of an entire continuum, which also relates to liquid waste. As we know, hazardous materials are dumped down storm drains when the government doesn't have daily opportunities for people to take their hazardous waste to a drop-off site where there's appropriate storage that comes up to appropriate standards.

This bill, in its very name, starts with one aspect of the problem as though that is the problem that is going to be dealt with. This kind of approach means that it has made a decision as to where to begin to deal with this problem. It's an ideological decision that means that it's going to look at the profitability for the private sector in an area of waste management that, while it may be appropriate, is put in place with other aspects being looked at first. For instance, when the minister says that there will be public hearings and that this is a five-year period, is he saying there will be, say, three years of public consultation and then a move after that towards establishing the kinds of procedures that will be put in place?

[11:00]

I wanted to raise another question. Subsection (d) says that it will assist the private sector in developing and marketing hazardous waste management knowledge and technology developed in British Columbia. Something that is quite noticeably missing in this bill is the public sector. The public sector has a long history in this province of being involved in waste management and all aspects of it. Why would the public sector not be recognized in this bill, if the bill is going to recognize the private sector? The public sector has something to say about this process, given the people who work in this field. Somehow it would appear that there's an attempt here to eliminate them from even being considered in this process.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I agree with the member that it's an ideological decision. I think we probably just disagree on certain things. If we were to put all the things that you want into the bill, with words about the GVRD and who's this and who's that, there wouldn't be a bill or table big enough to carry it. The legislation is there. The cooperation will be there.

Our system is being set up for reuse and recycling. You know, we do have the facts of life: we've got batteries, chemicals, pesticides, PCBs, used oil; I could go on and on. It's not going to disappear tomorrow. So we have to have this corporation set up.

Public sector cooperation right now is at a tremendously high level between people like the GVRD, the Capital Regional District, the municipalities, the cities, the villages. To suggest that that would not take

[ Page 10317 ]

place is just not correct. It's part of the mandate of the corporation.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to participate a little bit more in this very interesting debate. I heard the minister state that it was an ideological debate. I believe — and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — that it's not simply an ideological debate.

I know where the members opposite are coming from, and why their statements are there. But there is no evidence anywhere in the world that centralist planning and socialist government have any care about the matters concerning the environment. That's not ideological at all. The environment is a people concern, and there is no one more concerned and no greater opportunity than in a private enterprise, capitalist environment. The record shows very clearly the horrendous pollution stories in East Germany, in Russia, in the Ukraine and in Poland, not only with the carelessness which attended the generation of nuclear power in Chernobyl, but also with industrial pollution. There is absolutely no notice of that. There is no care taken. The rivers of eastern Europe are terribly polluted as a cost-effective measure. The members opposite continue to refer to public involvement, public caring, centralist planning and good socialist government. It doesn't work anywhere in the world. It hasn't worked, and it will not work. It's only in a free enterprise, capitalist market that environmental concerns have been well attended to. We have a proud history, and I think the measures that we're discussing today are a very positive step in hazardous and special waste management.

Perhaps the minister would like to advise the House of his perspective and his views of what has transpired over the world.

MR. CASHORE: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think there's a bit of confusion on the part of the members as to who asks and who answers the questions.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

It's interesting how the members of the government keep coming up with their guns-and-tanks scenarios whenever they get a chance. In doing that, they continue to dig a hole for themselves with their teeth, and they're already in a pretty deep hole.

If the member wants to cite Chernobyl, what happened in Chernobyl is deplorable, there's no question about that, apart from political ideology, whosoever ideology it may be. But why would the member want to be selective? What about Union Carbide in Bhopal? Surely you deplore what happened there.

MR. SERWA: Would you tell me what kind of government is in India?

MR. CASHORE: Oh, so the member wants to blame the government of India for what Union Carbide did there, for the action of the multinational Union Carbide. He's blaming India; he's blaming the victim. This is the ideological mind-set of this member. I don't hear this mind-set coming from the minister, but since this member has decided to try to make that point, I think we have to point out that he's being ridiculous in referring to ideology in that way.

What we're talking about when we talk about ideology is a very valid debate about the ideology of assuming that you start off with technological solutions by the private sector rather than with public consultation. Even though the minister has said that he believes in public consultation, you have to admit, if you read the way in which section 3 is written, hon. member, that it's very clear what basket the minister's putting his eggs into. At the very start he talks about setting up hazardous waste management systems, and then in the last section he talks about promoting public understanding. This is reversed.

The public participation in this process, if it's going to work and if it's going to be consistent with the declaration of this government that it supports the Brundtland commission.... There's an ideology — it has been paid lip-service to — which starts with public consultation. The minister has said that; it's on the record that he will consult the public; I commend him for that. But I still point out that, from an ideological perspective, it's clear within any literal interpretation of this bill that he doesn't place the high priority on that public process that he places on looking to the private sector as being able to start off with a solution. Too often we see these procedures where major projects are put in place and ideologically the public is consulted to the extent that they have to consult it for political reasons but not to the extent that is good for the environment.

I recognize that the minister's being very careful in his answers around this subject, because it is a difficult issue for all of us: how do you find creative ways to involve the public in coming up with the solutions that we need?

It is the way of the future, and it is a way that tends to get hindered by the ideological considerations that assume the private sector can do it all for us. We have to have a more holistic approach if we are going to involve everybody: the private sector and people in households, small businesses and industry — no matter who they may be. If we are going to involve all of those people in working out the solutions, we must recognize that they have to be a part of the solution and that we have to promote understanding in the sense that really puts financial resources into getting people from the various communities sitting down together and addressing these issues — not in the sense of Social Credit propaganda — and the kind of understanding which points out that the government is serious about enabling recycling to work in this province.

Recycling is where it begins: reduce, reuse and recycle. It begins with that. But when we start with a technological solution, we have an impact on the effort that goes into the recycling solution. That's where we have to begin.

I don't have anything more on section 3.

[ Page 10318 ]

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. CULL: A couple of questions for the minister on this section. I note in a number of places in subsection (3) that the corporation is given the power to, among other things, manage and operate facilities both in cooperation with other organizations and, I assume, on its own. It also has the power to enter into agreements that provide for joint hazardous waste management over some period of time. I'm puzzled as to how the corporation will manage and operate after September 1, 1995.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There's no puzzle. It won't operate.

MS. CULL: Then am I incorrect in saying that those powers are given to the corporation in this part of the act under subsections (3)(a) and (b)?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No, you are right. The powers are there. But the corporation, when it is working with people or getting involved, will be doing it all on the basis of being out of business as a corporation.

MS. CULL: I'm still puzzled. Why would the corporation have the power to do something which it clearly will not be able to do, because it will not be in existence long enough to do it?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I think maybe an example.... The Alberta government is a 40 percent partner in the facility at Swan Hills. I would think that eventually they would want to sell that 40 percent and have it 100 percent owned by the private sector. Maybe the corporation here will feel it wants to be part of something to get it started, with the idea of getting out by the sunset clause.

MS. CULL: So the intent of having these powers in this section of the act is to allow the corporation to start an enterprise and subsequently privatize it. I guess I will then ask the minister: who has the liability for the hazardous waste operation facility if it is privatized after 1995?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There are two answers The first one would.... When we get to section 18, we can answer that question. It's in section 18.

MS. EDWARDS: What I observed when I first noticed this part of the bill was the whole business under the previous section, which I'm not going to.... I'm only using my remarks as preface. The final goal or objective of the corporation is to promote public understanding of and participation in the management of hazardous waste in general, but when you come down to section 4, which is the powers and capacity of the corporation, there is practically nothing that indicates the corporation shall do that.

Where do we find that the corporation is going to conduct public hearings, public consultation or whatever it is the minister has promised? Where is it that we see the corporation shall promote the reuse, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste material? Where is it that we see the corporation will see that there is appropriate and adequate legislation to deal with the transportation of these hazardous wastes under the resulting activities that will occur if the ministry decides, through the corporation with its private sector, to develop a facility. These things are simply not there at all, let alone not there after 1995.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I really have to go back to section 3, which we've already passed. If you read the bill, section 3(2)(e) says: "...promote public understanding of and participation in the management of hazardous wastes in general." Again, if you want us to put out three booklets and a couple of hundred pages as to who all those people should be, I guess we could do that with every bill; and we would waste a lot of paper, which would affect the environment.

You not only have that section in the bill, but you have my commitment that this corporation will have public input and that your caucus will have public input with the hazardous waste corporation.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 3(2)(e) states an objective. It's section 4 that talks about the powers and the capacity. It's in section 4 that the corporation is told what it can do. It's in section 4, presumably, where it says I can spend money on doing this, that and the other; not that this is my objective, but that this is where I can spend money. It's not in section 4, Mr. Minister. Why isn't it in section 4?

[11:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know why it's not in section 4. I assume it doesn't have to be. It's already in another section. It's in the act. This section gives the corporation the powers and the capacity to do what it has to do. But the public understanding... I'll read it again. It's in the bill, and when the bill passes this becomes the law. It says: "...promote public understanding of and participation in the management of hazardous wastes in general." I would assume that will be enough. It certainly is for the legal people, and even I, not being a lawyer, understand that section.

MS. EDWARDS: We're dealing in this bill with policy, and that, Mr. Minister, is what you're dealing with. You say, and the bill says, that we have an objective, and then you say what the policy will be, but you can't tell me what the policy is that we shall spend money on.

I get back to the very classic contradiction that is in this bill. If you are promoting reuse, reduction and recycling, you can't at the same time be the corporation that is responsible to try and get as much

[ Page 10319 ]

business as possible and be profitable at using toxic wastes. It is a contradiction; to put it in the same body is crazy. What happens is that we see the bill here and all the spending that is covered under the clauses of section 4(3) involving the whole business of making the facility, the private sector, whatever the facility and the operator of that facility will be — into making them successful and profitable. But the other objective, stated last of all in a long list in the previous section, is not dealt with in section 4. When it comes to saying what this corporation can spend money on, it doesn't say anything about promoting reduction, reuse or recycling.

To me, Mr. Minister, that is a question of the policy which should be stated in the legislation, and it's not here. In philosophical terms in the previous section we've said we like it. In practical terms in this section the spending authority is not named.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Again I go back to the fact that it is in the bill. It doesn't have to be in this section. I'll repeat it again: "...promote public under standing of and participation in the management of hazardous wastes in general." It doesn't have to be in every section. It's in the bill. You have the commitment for public input, and it will be there.

MS. EDWARDS: Does it have to be in the bill, then, to invest in a hazardous waste management enterprise or facility as the corporation considers necessary to achieve its objectives? And the whole business of spending money to promote the three Rs doesn't have to be? Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Not in quite the way you are putting it, but this is the way the bill is drafted. This gives them the powers and capacity to do what they have to do.

MS. EDWARDS: What the minister keeps telling me is: this is what we want to do and this is all it is, but the bill is written this way so we'll accept it this way. This debate is over how the bill is written. What I'm saying is that the bill is not adequate to reflect what the minister is saying.

Why do we not have a section in here which allows the corporation to spend money, as it sees fit, to promote and encourage understanding and participation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If the member doesn't like the way the bill is drafted that's one thing, but the corporation has the power to do what it needs to do.

I spend many hours with legal counsel in the drafting of these bills. If the member would like to go and have a chat with them after, I'll certainly set it up. It won't be an exciting time, but I'll set it up for her at any time.

MS. EDWARDS: I understand a bit about drafting legislation too, Mr. Minister — at a distance, of course — and we all understand how difficult legal people are. But the problem here is very much that that function is not named in this practical section of the bill. When you get down to it, it says that you can do all these things that allow you to set up a facility and get a loan or arrange money for a private corporation or entity and so on, but there is nothing here saying that you can spend money on the promotion and encouragement of participation, on the public process that we both seem to agree needs to be done.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I guess we can get technical, but as I have said to the member, I think section 3 handles everything she's concerned about. Section 4(3)(b) talks about establishing a hazardous waste management business. Any business that is going to operate successfully will have all the things we've talked about — promoting public understanding and participation in the management — and that's what would make the business successful. So you don't need it in every section.

MS. EDWARDS: I would simply say to the members of the House and put it on the record that I see no reason in the world to be so specific about every aspect of what's going to happen with spending money, except for the very essence of the bill — as we seem to agree, but not totally, obviously. The essence is to work toward getting the public to participate in the three R's — and it's not here.

MR. PERRY: I promised in debate on second reading yesterday to come back in more detail to a couple of matters that concern me. Under section 4(3) — (c), (d) and (e) in particular — the bill provides for the Crown corporation to lend money "on terms and conditions as to repayment that the corporation considers advisable." That's from part (c), for example. I wonder what control we're relinquishing as the Legislature, on behalf of the people of B.C., to a Crown corporation, because the loan from the Crown corporation will, of course, be public money. I made the point yesterday that hazardous waste disposal operations in the private sector are often highly profitable.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), I think, or the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt), made the point that there is good reason to be concerned that private operations will cream the profits to be made in this area. Therefore I'm concerned at the possibility that we might see the Crown corporation loaning start-up moneys at interest rates far below the prime rate or far below the rate that's available to other private citizens, corporations, or even to the government and the taxpayers through bond issues.

Can the minister explain what control there is, if any? I know his initial answer will be to say this is up to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I wonder if he can offer me some pre-assurance that five years or ten years hence we'll not be looking back at unreasonably low interest rates that were offered to such companies.

[ Page 10320 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member is correct. The first item would be that all of these loans or grants — whatever was asked for by the corporation — would have to be approved by order-in-council, so they would be debated by the cabinet. You can be assured that that august body doesn't just rubber-stamp everything that comes before it. The safeguards are also there in the fact that this is a Crown corporation, to be called before Public Accounts. They will publish an annual statement, like every other Crown corporation. It can be called before Public Accounts for detailed explanations of what they're doing and how they're doing it. And, of course, the final safeguard is the auditor-general, who has the opportunity at any time to walk in and audit, have a look at the corporation.

MR. PERRY: Can the minister offer us any assurance, Mr. Chairman, that there will be some public scrutiny of such loans or grants at a time when the process is not irreversible. Far be it from me to imply anything less than total confidence in the provincial cabinet, but experience tells us that cabinets do make such errors, and it might be useful to have public scrutiny of the proposed financing arrangements when a project goes to public review — if there is to be one — before the commitment is final. Failing that, can we at least be reassured by the minister that the Crown corporation will publish details of such transactions in a timely fashion and not exclusively in its annual report or in matters that may be dug up by the Public Accounts Committee?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, I think the member can be assured that the corporation, as he knows, will have a board of directors, who will be public and who will have the same responsibilities that boards of directors of any corporation would have. I'm sure they will take those very seriously.

With regard to grants and loans, when they have been approved by order-in-council, obviously, the details that can be made public are made public.

I think the member would also have to know that the corporation has been.... We have said quite openly that there will be public hearings and discussions. If facilities are going to be built in one area, there is going to be a lot of debate taking place. If the corporation is looking at a certain type of system, certainly the public will have ample opportunity to know which company it is dealing with and what its process is.

MR. PERRY: Looking at sections 4(3)(d) and (e) — again I'll quote: "...subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," the corporation may "guarantee the payment of a loan or part of it, or all or part of the interest on it, or both, made by another lender to a hazardous waste management enterprise." Or: "...subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," the corporation may "invest in a hazardous waste management enterprise or facility" — directly — "as the corporation considers necessary...." What measures does the minister envisage to protect the public from ultimately, through these two clauses, holding a stake in a corporation which goes belly up in a situation where the public is not poised to share in any profits — in other words, a one-way risk?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I think the greatest safeguard is a board of directors of a corporation who will be of top quality. When they make recommendations to the government, I'm sure they'll be well researched and well presented.

MR. PERRY: I wish I could be as sanguine as the minister about that reassurance. The memory of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation's ability to deal with the Expo lands case is too fresh in my mind. If I had felt that that was an example to engender public confidence in the responsible disposition of public assets, maybe I'd be more reassured by that answer.

[11:30]

Let me move to another point which concerns me even more. What is peculiar about the subject we're discussing today is the immense public concern about hazardous wastes and the potential that some of the hazardous wastes — for example, toxic ash from incinerators — may remain dangerous for long periods of time, and therefore the potential is there that the public will incur new liabilities. One thing which concerns me in clauses (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (3) of section 4 is the potential that through loans of public money to help finance the operations of private companies, or guarantees of loans for other agencies, the public may acquire new long-term liability for the risks and cleanup costs of toxic wastes — liability that now may rest primarily with the producer of the waste. I wonder if the minister could explain how this was dealt with in the drafting of this bill. Are there other sections of the bill that I've failed to notice which protect and guarantee the right of the public not to become so liable?

Just to make my point clear — because I am most interested in the minister's response to this question — aggrieved persons frequently sue the Crown. Once in a while they get away with it and actually succeed. It is always the taxpayer — usually the innocent party — who ends up paying the proceeds of a successful suit.

What really concerns me is that long-term liability, perhaps 50 or 100 years from now, may be transferred through this mechanism to taxpayers not yet alive in British Columbia, who will look back on us and ask. "Why did you not protect us at the time you passed this bill?" I am most interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: You can't have it both ways. You can't leave it the way it is now, and we must get involved in this process. If somewhere along the line somebody wants to sue, they're going to do that for whatever reason. But we have to get involved. That's why the government of Manitoba, when it was an NDP government, brought in legisla-

[ Page 10321 ]

tion like this — to get involved and to solve the problem.

Things do change in the world. The Expo lands are a good example of soil that no government created. Maybe I shouldn't be that loose in saying that, because Crown corporations may have been involved in using that property and doing some of the damage. Now the taxpayer has a big bill.

As you know, we are bringing in legislation. The federal government has legislation on orphaned sites now where they assist in the cleanup of some of these properties when they can't find the original polluter. It's wide open for people to go to the courts when they know who the original polluter is. I don't really see how that's going to affected by this legislation.

MR. PERRY: Maybe the minister can clarify for me, if I have not been sufficiently studious in reading the bill: is there some other section that could provide some protection to the public on this issue? The one that I see as a potential protection is paragraph (g) of section 4 (3), where the corporation may "do such other things related to hazardous waste management as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may require or authorize." For example, could this section be used by the corporation to require sufficiently large performance bonds from private special waste management corporations to offer some measure of protection to the public for long-term liability? Failing that, is there some other part of the bill which provides that sort of protection that I've failed to identify?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the member brings up a good point, but I would suggest to him that that's part of the regulatory process, which stays within the ministry. This corporation's like any other corporation. But if the ministry wanted to do that, it could.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, there are just a few points I'd like to get on the record. The minister may wish to comment.

When you look at section 4, it really is an enabling process to set up these kinds of facilities, whatever they are. Okay, they get set up. Under subsections (a), (b) and (c), money can be lent; the corporation has a role in authorizing the construction, executing construction of — it can be a partnership kind of arrangement.... The implication is that this is done in conjunction with the private sector. Again, it seems to be the kind of privatization ideology that this government is wedded to.

Here we have this five-year process in which this Crown corporation isn't really going to be the instrument that deals with the toxic waste. It's going to be something that it helps to set up. It's a conduit; it's an instrument that the minister's putting in place in order to bring this about. But it looks for all the world, given that public participation is not really entrenched in the bill in a really meaningful way, in comparison to the other high-tech privatization processes that are entrenched within the bill.... Okay, the Crown corporation, using the taxpayers' money, is going to have a major role in getting this set up, getting it running, getting the bugs out of it — in other words, doing all the expensive stuff up front — and then it leaves the private company after that to be able to carry on scot-free, with the benefit of having the guaranteed business that it has. Again, it just seems to be a triumph of the privatization ideology over public process. I would like the minister to comment on that.

While he's commenting on that, I notice (e) says, "...invest in a hazardous waste management enterprise." What does that mean? Does that mean that one of these private corporations, for instance, would have a public investment in it, and would that be an ongoing process after the five years?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The very short answer is yes, I believe in privatization. Yes, at the end of the five years, if we had an investment in a private corporation that was a good investment, that was making good business sense, it may be continued without the corporation; the government would just have a percentage of it — the taxpayers would.

MR. CASHORE: Would that mean that there would be a dividend paid to the taxpayers on the profitability of that enterprise?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The shareholders are the people of British Columbia. If there are profits they will receive the profits.

MR. CASHORE: In subsection (3)(f) we have the concept of hazardous waste exchanges, and it seems to fly in the face of a stated philosophy of dealing with wastes in the jurisdiction in which they are produced. It seems to open up a potential Pandora's box. It might appear to be innocent when we talk about exchanging paint for PCBs, or what have you. In what way is the public going to be able to control this section to ensure that there is protection? I don't see the controls within the bill. I'm sure the minister would agree that if we get into a holus-bolus, cross-border exchange in marketing of hazardous goods, it's something that certainly goes beyond what a lot of people had understood in the rhetoric about the free trade agreement, for instance. I assume we're talking about neighbouring jurisdictions being other provinces, states — who knows, maybe even other countries. We have the very recent experience of a boat that was on the way over to, I believe, Liverpool with PCBs from Canada and it was turned back. This section is really a potential nightmare section without some kind of controls on it; and I don't see those controls.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The controls are there. The federal government regulates the transportation of hazardous waste. I am sure the member is aware — maybe he's not — that there's already biomedical waste going back and forth across the border. It's being regulated; it has been happening for years.

[ Page 10322 ]

This allows us to do what we did last week. Mr. Carr and I went to Alberta to discuss with another province.... This is Canada, and yes, we should look after our own waste. Ideally, wouldn't it be perfect if Victoria could be a self-contained unit and nothing have to leave here? But the expense of that is probably unrealistic for the taxpayer, so we look, through this corporation, at somebody who's going to coordinate this throughout the province. If that requires agreements with somebody across the border, whether it be the Alberta border or the U.S. border, it will be done for the benefit of all British Columbians.

MR. CASHORE: Given the possibility that this bill could include the location of a toxic waste incinerator in the province at some point, would the minister comment on some of the problems that have not been resolved with regard to incineration, such as what are referred to as PICs, or products of incomplete combustion. As Paul Connett states, wherever these state-of-the-art facilities are put up, there is an almost inevitable body of information that comes forward with regard to respiratory problems of people living downwind from such facilities. Would the minister comment on that?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: In the past, when technology wasn't as great as it is today, the member's statements may have been true. But those problems are not taking place, for instance, around Swan Hills.

MR. CASHORE: There's quite a body of opinion that disagrees with the concept that there isn't a potential danger there. What I hear is that there's a tendency for this state-of-the-art equipment to cease to function adequately.

We do know that with the wastes that are going into the Burnaby incinerator, which is not considered a hazardous waste incinerator but which does produce hazardous waste in the form of its ash, there are a lot of problems for the people who live adjacent to it and in the area, even though at the time that it went through it was put forward as state-of-the-art and something that was going to be just fine. Anybody driving through the Big Bend area of Burnaby certainly is aware of the odour that is impacting the people there, and the people are really up in arms about it. So that is a concern.

It would be good if there was something in here that would reassure us that there was a process, a policy, a strategy in place that at least meant that it would start at the beginning. To give an example, I understand that B.C. Hydro has a process that is successful in separating and neutralizing PCBs. It's not an incineration process. I also realize that the problem with that is that it has to deal with one thing at a time: while it deals with PCB9, it can't deal with the whole schmear of things that might be thrown into the magic hole of an incinerator.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, it's the mixing of those substances that would create the problems. That's where the toxic-cocktail syndrome comes in to play and where we seem to be getting into an area that our technology is not really capable of dealing with at this time. If we saw the kind of ideology going into research and development that's needed for that type of B.C. Hydro process to be moved forward....

[11:45]

We understand there's some good research and development going on in the area of biological and chemical procedures. It would really be a shame if we ended up supporting a potentially dangerous technology, when in four or five years something had become available that would be much more benign and appropriate. This potentially dangerous technology might come into production at a time when we had virtually eliminated the waste stream by having developed a truly holistic cradle-to-grave approach.

That's all I have on section 4.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Just a brief note, Mr. Chairman. I want to just stress that nowhere in this legislation do we say we're going to set up a hazardous waste incinerator. I agree with the member that technology which is changing daily can give us better ideas. You mention the PCBs at Hydro.... But it's one that can take only very small quantities.

We're looking and we can get into more detail during my estimates on the Expo site about the bugs that go in and eat this stuff up. The technology that's available is phenomenal, and I'll make sure that we have some of that information for you.

But we don't have any preconceived idea about how fast we can build an incinerator somewhere. If there are better solutions to the problem, we want to know them. We'll have the public hearings and allow those companies to come to the public, say how they would do it, tell us how we're going to recycle paint, oil and all these other things, and make sure the public has good input.

MR. BLENCOE: I have more to say on section 4, but I have a question for the minister in terms of the powers and capacity and some of the concerns that my colleagues have been making about public accountability. We don't have a Crown corporations committee in the province of British Columbia to review such Crown corporations. Does the minister see any problem in that area?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: None whatsoever.

MR. BLENCOE: A Crown corporations committee used to exist in this Legislature before both he and I arrived here. It was a way for this legislative body, on behalf of the public, to hold Crown corporations accountable and to ask questions.

I see relevant, clear questions and concerns being expressed by my colleagues, particularly the critic, about public accountability and scrutiny of this corporation. I see it even more in terms of the environmental issue — the number one issue on the public mind. We don't even have a Crown corporations committee in this Legislature to deal with the number one issue in the province of British Columbia that the citizens want dealt with, so that we at the

[ Page 10323 ]

Legislature can hold it accountable and can ask questions about what it's doing.

Heaven forbid, Mr. Chairman; it's going to be run by the private sector. It's going to be the foxes in charge of chickens. We don't have a committee in this Legislature to ask this corporation what it's doing. Where's the public accountability?

This is flying in the face of what's happening in the rest of the country and other jurisdictions across the world in terms of public action, public accountability, public scrutiny and public demand that legislatures be active, not siphoning such an important task off to another Crown corporation or another variation on a theme of privatization. We don't even have a Crown corporations committee to ask questions of this corporation. What's it doing?

I will ask the minister: how is the public to find out what this group is going to do? We have all the things laid out here. It looks great. It's more smoke and mirrors, which we've come to expect from this government. How is the public going to know? We're elected to represent our community and our constituents. How do we hold it accountable? Can you answer that question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister, I would just like to read standing order 61: "The standing orders of the House shall be observed in the Committees of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except standing orders limiting the number of times a member may speak. Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: You saved us, Mr. Chairman, from a speech. All of a sudden we were going to get political, and I was going to tell the member across the floor that the public understands what this government does and likes it, and that's why we've been government for 37 out of 40 years. But I won't say that, now that you've asked us to be relevant.

I can assure the member that this corporation can be called before Public Accounts. Its statements will come out annually. The auditor-general is there. There will be questions in this House and public input.

I don't think the member was here earlier when I mentioned that his caucus would be invited by the chairman of the corporation, once it's passed, to sit down with them and give suggestions as to what they would like to see in the way of public hearings and input, because that's what this corporation is all about. It's about public input and how we solve a problem that isn't a political, socialist or free enterprise problem. It's a people problem, we're going to solve it with this corporation, and it will have a lot of public input.

MR. CASHORE: My final statement on section 4. I want to make it very clear that we've made the point that public consultation is not addressed in this bill in any adequate way. We do not feel it is entrenched in legislation in any adequate way. However, we have the minister on the record, having said in his penultimate comment that before any such facility goes ahead, there will be appropriate procedures of public consultation taking place.

The minister is nodding his head. He is making that commitment in the House today. I think that's a very important commitment. I would rather see it in legislation, but I am glad that the minister is making that commitment. We will hold the minister to that. I would expect that in fulfilling the commitment, it would be to the full extent of the standards that would be expected in the federal EAR process, so that we avoid the problems we've seen in some of these situations getting into the courts.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Chairman, I am going to propose an amendment, and I'll speak to it first. I think this particular section is really the guts of the bill, and it really says that the corporation will, wherever practical, turn over the management of hazardous wastes to the private sector.

Earlier on, when we were talking about the philosophy of the bill, I did mention — and it has been mentioned by other speakers — that there is a danger here that we turn over the profitable operations and keep the unprofitable operations in the public sector. It seems to me that one can subsidize the other, or we can use the profits from hazardous waste disposal to offset the costs of those things that remain in the public sector.

I think there are not only financial reasons that we might want to retain some of these activities, but it may be because we can't determine that there is, in fact, a public interest protected. My amendment would be to add after "wherever practicable" the following words: "and where it is deemed to be in the public interest."

I realize that it's broad, and the interpretation section might be involved in "the public interest." But I think that if those words were in there, and somebody who chose to challenge the action of the corporation based on whether it is in the financial interest of the public or in the environmental interest of the public — safety or otherwise — then there would be a right to challenge what the corporation has done. I would move that amendment, Mr. Chairman. Do you have the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I can maybe have some sympathy with what the hon. member is saying, but the public interest is in this bill to start with. We would not vote in favour of this amendment if it was approved.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 10324 ]

On section 5.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, this section on the duties of the corporation really does . . . . I think this is the core of the bill right here. This says what the government's real intent is here. The minister has said that he does believe in the ideology of privatization, of handing over our destiny to the private sector, of assuming that the private sector is all-knowing, all-wise and in a very paternalistic way will do what's good for us, and therefore all we have to do is lie back and trust the private sector.

Yet we have example after example.... It doesn't matter what type of government it comes from — we had the example of Chernobyl. It could be argued that that process is inappropriate. We could say that what happened in Bhopal is inappropriate. The fact is that the checks and balances were not in place that would ensure that these procedures were functioning in a way that was protecting the health and safety of the public.

When you take the total scope of this bill, what this implies is that we're willing to leave the health of our children and our children's future to a process that is essentially beyond the purview of the public. It's beyond the ability of the public to have any meaningful control over what goes on. It's a case of ideology taking precedence over logic. That's why this bill is a friends-and-insiders bill, as we have called it. The bill is simply inappropriate for the well-being of the environment. It's not consistent with the principles that we saw in the Brundtland commission report. It also ensures that cost-effective methods will take precedence over environmentally effective methods when it comes to the treatment of hazardous waste.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Parker moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.rn.