1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 3, Number 20
[ Page 1925 ]
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
Prayers.
J. Doyle: Marcia Braundy from Vallican in the Slocan Valley is here today in the gallery. Marcia is the national coordinator of the WITT National Network. She advocates for women in trades, technology, operations and blue-collar workers. On behalf of the member for Nelson-Creston, I'd like to ask you to join me in making her welcome.
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Hon. A. Hagen: I have a ministerial statement in the nature of a proclamation that I would like to make at this time. This is the Premier's proclamation for Environment Week, 1992. As most of you know, the week ahead is Environment Week. Although this is by no means the only week that British Columbians are working for environmental improvement, this is the week when we are joining our fellow Canadians and concerned people around the world in focusing thought and action on the environment.
To this end I would like to add our official proclamation to those chorusing around the world this week:
"Whereas the maintenance of environmental quality is vital to the economic, social and physical well-being of British Columbians; and whereas the wise stewardship of British Columbia's environmental resources is a responsibility shared by all citizens...and whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased to direct by order-in-council...that a proclamation be issued designating the week of June 1 to 7, 1992, inclusive, as Environment Week in British Columbia; now...we do...proclaim and declare that the week of June 1 to 7, 1992, inclusive, shall be known as Environment Week in British Columbia."
And June 5 will be observed as World Environment Day, as designated by the United Nations.
British Columbians are some of the most environmentally aware, active and concerned residents of the world. People across the province have dedicated their lives to protecting the environment and do not reserve their activities for just one week of a year. However, Environment Week does provide people, especially young people, with special opportunities to work together on behalf of the air, land, wildlife and water. The week-long celebration is also a vehicle for increased environmental education.
The level of activity that traditionally goes on during Environment Week makes clear that we in British Columbia share a strong concern with the rest of the international community for the future of our planet. It is this concern that is leading us to Brazil to participate in the United Nations Earth Summit. Our Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks will be representing the government of British Columbia there. Fittingly, he leaves on June 5, Environment Day. This summit is an historic meeting of world leaders and world experts that in itself recognizes the urgency of care our environment requires. The goals are many and the outcomes unknown. However, it is sincerely hoped by all of us that solid foundations will be set and committed to for the comprehensive care of our planet.
In light of the potential good that can come from this summit, Environment Week and the opportunities it presents become even more important. I'm sure that each member of this House endorses the proclamation I have just read. I urge all of us to take every opportunity to recognize and encourage Environment Week activities that will be taking place in all of our constituencies.
A. Cowie: On behalf of the Liberal caucus, it gives me great pleasure to support the government in endorsing this proclamation. British Columbia's citizens and government can and should take a lead role in ensuring that the natural environment is maintained in a healthy state for those who come after us on what has become a very fragile globe. We can set an example in the manner in which we manage our forests and our other resources. We must ensure we do not pollute our air and water.
Hon. Speaker, 50 percent of the booming world population now lives in cities. We can take a lead in solving some of the urban problems. Through our universities, technical institutes and professional organizations, we have the skills and knowledge to help others. It's most important at this stage to apply our knowledge in our own cities, to ensure non-polluting transportation systems, adequate housing and working areas within a sound economy. By example, we will send a message worldwide. We wish the Minister of Environment well while representing the province at the United Nations Earth Summit in Brazil.
J. Weisgerber: The Social Credit caucus also endorses the proclamation by the government. It's an important issue. It's certainly one that we shouldn't consider for only one week of the year but must focus on for 52 weeks of the year.
When we think about protecting the environment, we often look to industry and suggest that somehow that is the sector of our economy, in the communities of our province, that should bear a greater responsibility and that industries, which create jobs, aren't doing enough. That is often the case, and there is room for improvement. But there is also room for improvements in the activities of government, and I think of sewage discharges. We have huge problems in this province that governments at all levels have been reluctant to deal with. It is much easier to say to someone else: "You have a problem; you fix it and you find the money to fix it."
We as government must recognize that when we're asking others to clean up their problems, we have to take the initiative and deal with problems that are our responsibility. I believe that the provincial and municipal governments have huge responsibilities, particularly in the area of sewage discharge. In that respect some of the smaller communities have done a much better job than the larger communities. There has been a reluctance to get tough with large municipalities on this
[ Page 1926 ]
issue. Transportation issues -- such as automobiles, etc. -- create a tremendous amount of pollution in this province.
When we think about protecting our environment -- and we should -- let's not simply focus on some third party that we can pass regulations onto without accepting some financial responsibility that goes with it. I would encourage the government to look at those problems at the same time as it looks at industrial problems.
REGIONAL POWER RATES
J. Weisgerber: One of the challenges for governments, provincial and federal, has been regional economic diversification. Governments have looked for ways to move industrial activity from concentrations in the large urban centres to rural parts of British Columbia and Canada, and this undertaking has been met with very limited success. There aren't many ways in which you can legitimately encourage industry and industrial activity to move out of the centre into the regions without some artificial incentive. Those have not been successful over time.
One of the real opportunities in British Columbia is to offer hydroelectric rates to industry at the cost of production and transmission, rather than at the postage-stamp rates we have now in British Columbia. For some reason, in this province we've adopted the notion that we will charge transportation rates at their actual cost. For example, if it costs more to haul an item from Dawson Creek than it does from Williams Lake, B.C. Rail charges the real cost of transportation. But when we deliver hydroelectricity to industry and consumers in the lower mainland, we've decided that it's more efficient or simpler to do it on a postage-stamp basis. So we have power delivered in parts of British Columbia where it's not generated and sold at the same rate as in areas where hydroelectricity is generated. There is a strong argument to be made for a reduction in power rates in those areas where electricity is generated.
[10:15]
Two particular areas are the Peace and the Kootenay regions. These happen to be the two regions in British Columbia with very little population, low industrial activity, high unemployment and relatively low average incomes. So there are strong arguments to be made for wanting to see more industrial activity in the Kootenay and the Peace regions.
There are several costs of transmitting electricity from the source of generation to the point of consumption. The first cost, and the easiest to measure, is transmission line loss. The further you transmit electricity, the more energy you lose through line loss. There are easy ways to calculate those losses and to adjust for them when electricity is transmitted and sold at a location close to the generating source, as opposed to one perhaps 700 or 800 miles away.
So there are line losses, there are capital costs associated with constructing large hydro lines, and there are social costs. We are becoming more and more aware of the cost of public concern about living close to major hydro lines. People are worried about the effects of living close to hydro lines. People are also concerned about the effect on the environment of cutting large, wide strips across this province in order to facilitate transmission lines. So it would seem to me that there are financial and social arguments to be made for encouraging industry to locate in the vicinity of hydroelectric generation -- the Peace River and the Kootenay regions.
I believe that industries today, located in those areas, should be offered a hydro discount commensurate with the line loss that is avoided by their location close to the generating facilities. Furthermore, as new generating facilities are created, whether it be by Site C, by new generators installed at Keenleyside or by any of the other opportunities there are for hydro generation, industries should be offered a discount that would recognize the savings that Hydro would enjoy by building smaller transmission lines, in view of their ability to sell a portion of the electricity close to the generating site.
I have made presentations to the ministry, when I was minister, and to the Utilities Commission. It is my intention to make presentations to the soon-to-be-created Energy Council because, while British Columbians generally appear to be satisfied with the notion of postage-stamp rates, they are patently unfair to industries in the rural parts of British Columbia where electricity is generated. If industry were to locate in the Peace region and we were to offer postage-stamp rates for transportation, and if we were to allow you to ship your goods to port at the same cost as we allow for someone close to Vancouver, then I would accept the notion that we would provide electricity created in the Peace at the same rate to everyone, regardless of where they are located. It seems to me that there is a patent lack of fairness in the notion that you charge transportation costs on a cost basis and ship hydroelectricity on a flat rate because it's simpler to administer or meets the needs of the majority, to the disadvantage of the minority who happen to live in the areas where the electricity is generated. The regions have not perhaps always been keen about seeing large parts of their region flooded in order to create generation facilities. I think there are strong reasons, and I hope to have a couple of minutes afterwards to sum up.
E. Conroy: As a member who also represents a constituency with a number of hydroelectric facilities, I know the concern that the hon. member on the other side feels. However, British Columbians want to be fair. We built this province on treating each other equitably. I know the difficulty and the frustration that many of us in the outlying areas that generate hydroelectricity feel when it comes to this issue. But I think we have to look at it in broader terms. We have a number of situations within our society that are based on this notion of fairness. Medicare is one example.
The hon. member opposite mentioned the notion of transmission costs, transmission lines. I think that's something we're all concerned about. Nobody I know
[ Page 1927 ]
wants to live underneath a powerline. Regardless of that, we still have to move power from the sources -- even if a certain amount of it is being used locally -- to the population centres, and transmission lines are going to be necessary to facilitate that. I think we've missed the boat on this one, and now we're trying to get it back. It has drifted out there into some of those reservoirs somewhere, which all of us don't like to see go up and down. We have to realize that the regions were treated unfairly right from the very beginning.
Our government is taking steps to try to get some equity back into the various areas where these facilities are located. The ministry is working to implement changes to the electricity rate structures by trying to flatten the rates. In other words, the more power we use in British Columbia the less it costs us. I think that contributes to waste. A rate-flattening to bring industrial rate use up maybe more level with small business rate use, or residential rate use, would be beneficial in that matter. The ministry is reviewing options for power exchange, which will provide the domestic market with short-term electricity sales and related services.
We missed the boat in this whole thing when these facilities were constructed. Compensation was not looked at for the various areas; hydro taxation wasn't looked at for the various areas. Local input wasn't taken into consideration. As an example, I can remember that in the construction of the Keenleyside project and the subsequent destruction of the various communities behind the reservoir, people had absolutely no alternative. They were told one day to be out of their houses, and the next day people were in there flattening them with cats and burning them. We had no local control over this; we've had no fair compensation for this resource and no fair taxation.
I know that it's a difficult problem that we're going to have to wrestle with, and I know that this government is looking at it. Somewhere out there there's a solution to this problem. We need pricing that reflects real costs. There's no doubt about that. It's a matter of how we're going to equitably distribute the power throughout the province. We don't want to sound as though we're being greedy in the areas where power is generated. We understand the need to share with the rest of the province, and I think that the people in my constituency certainly understand that. We're working at it, and we're hopeful that we're going to find a way.
J. Weisgerber: I think that the member for Rossland-Trail agreed with me, but I'm not absolutely certain. It seems to me that he asked for equity, and clearly that was what I was asking for. He asked for compensation, and I suggested that one of the ways to compensate would be to provide electricity at its real cost. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we shouldn't transmit power or electricity to those people who need it; I'm suggesting we should encourage large consumers of electricity to locate in the region where the energy is generated and contribute to diversification in those regions, to shorten the necessary transmission lines and losses to those particular facilities.
It's interesting. The member talks about equity, and the amazing thing about this is that while B.C. Hydro and the Utilities Commission have maintained that postage-stamp rates -- equal rates across the province -- are fair, when Hydro go to purchase electricity from independent power producers, they discount energy that's generated away from the source of consumption. So Hydro like to buy on the basis that it costs money to ship power to them, but they like to sell at a postage-stamp rate.
I suggest to you that it would be in the interest of all British Columbians to support the notion of regional power rates. I'm disappointed that the minister's not here, because obviously, along with the member for Rossland-Trail, the member for Kootenay and the members for, at least, Peace River North and Peace River South have a direct stake in this. But there are advantages for other British Columbians. This is not a win-lose situation; there are benefits to British Columbia through regional diversification. There are benefits to British Columbia from taking energy-intensive industries away from the population mass and moving them to the regions of British Columbia where electricity is generated, where job opportunities are needed. So there are more people than simply those in the regions who have a stake here. As I said, British Columbians are becoming more and more concerned about the network of high-voltage transmission lines that run from one end of this province to the other and from side to the other. What we're asking for is a reasonably modest reduction in hydro rates, which can make a tremendous difference to an energy-intensive industry in order to balance out the disadvantage of extra transportation costs that exists in those regions. These are totally defensible arguments, and they are economically sound. If it costs less to provide energy in one area than another, recognize that in the rates. It's very simple.
[10:30]
EAST KOOTENAY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
J. Doyle: This morning, in my first private member's statement in this House, I would like to speak about the East Kootenay Community College. This is a college system that we helped to establish when we were in government in the early seventies. The community I am from is Golden. For many years when I was mayor there, one thing I always wanted to do was to get a permanent facility for this college in Golden.
It was my pleasure to represent the Minister of Advanced Education on May 13, when we opened the new facility in Golden. That facility, over the past 17 years, has moved from about 1,000 square feet to 11,000 square feet. It is something that I am very proud of, and we as government and the people of this province should be -- especially people in the interior.
This college serves an area of approximately 8,000 people. For those of us who live out beyond Hope, let's call it, where there are no city buses or anything like that, it is hard to get to the universities. For instance, in Golden many people go to Calgary or other areas in our province; Calgary in some respects is the city closest to us. By having a college system like we now have in
[ Page 1928 ]
Golden, it makes education affordable and reachable for those of us who live in Golden.
This new college is a $1 million centre with several large classrooms for general computer programming and office administration classrooms, a learning resource area, a large shop area and a student lounge. The new classrooms, shop space and staff areas will accommodate approximately 150 students. There are eight full-time teaching staff and 60 part-time staff. This is so the many people who are around their work or away from their families in the evening, or whatever time suits them best, can take courses. This is a double benefit for people. It gives a chance to those people who wish to advance their education -- the facilities are there -- and it's also a chance for people to make some money, by making these courses available to the people who require them.
The centre will continue to respond to the growing needs of the community. It will look at new ways to deliver more community-based and community-oriented education and training. The added capacity of the campus allows for more programs and greater choices for the people of Golden and area. It will meet an ever-increasing demand by students for opportunities for employment in the ever-changing world, with forestry and many other areas changing to more high-tech industries. It will be a real economic benefit for Golden and will make a great contribution to the region. The programs offered will assist in the diversification of the local economy away from the traditional primary resource-based economy toward one with an expanded value-added and skilled workforce. The spirit of cooperation that exists between the college and the community will make it a viable, accessible and vibrant part of the community.
In the riding that I represent, there are also college facilities in Invermere, and we're hoping to expand those facilities. One area in my riding that doesn't at the present time have any college facilities available at the local level is Kimberley. I will work as the MLA to make sure we can get something so that the people in Kimberley have the same opportunity as we have in Golden. The Revelstoke area, another part of my riding, is served by Okanagan College. It is a very important part of that community because of the distances. Many people in Revelstoke do shift work in the railroad and other industries. So I will work with the college in my riding as best I can to serve the people of that area, to make college education and courses that they would like to take available to them.
J. Dalton: I'm pleased to give a response to the member's statement, having come from the college system in my other life -- as other members say from time to time in this House.
We are fortunate in this province to have an excellent system of community colleges. I don't think there is any question that that is so. It's not a system that serves just the large population bases. As the member mentioned, and I am happy to hear, the facility in Golden has now been opened. It's very important that students of whatever age have access within their own communities, wherever feasible, to go on with their job training and post-secondary education. I would liken facilities such as the one that's now been opened in Golden to community centres. In some sense, college facilities and also the schools themselves are community centres that many people can access, not just for education purposes but for ongoing events -- cultural events and things of that nature.
For many years, in my other life, I was an instructor at Langara. Langara is not quite the same as East Kootenay Community College. Langara is the largest college in the provincial system, even though it is part of the Vancouver Community College system itself. It has over 6,000 students, both part-and full-time. That's an interesting comparison with what the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke has referred to. Obviously we don't have that same population up in the Kootenays, but whether it be a large centre such as Langara or the smaller facilities which are now fortunately being provided throughout the province, it is very important that accessibility to the colleges be available on as wide a basis as possible.
I have spoken many times with instructors from Golden and from communities in the Kootenays at various college meetings, and I know of the time that they spend not in the classroom instructing, but actually travelling between one community and another trying to provide post-secondary education and other services for the students. So it is very pleasing to hear that facilities, such as in Golden and many other communities, are now being provided.
I would encourage the government to wherever possible provide other facilities of this nature. Certainly there's a cost involved, but I think it's very important that accessibility be expanded wherever it is feasible economically and otherwise.
The degree-granting process that colleges are now going through, and connecting with the universities, should be encouraged. I think we might make comment also on the new University of Northern British Columbia, which will be opened in 1994. It's another excellent opportunity for people in the north -- the people beyond Hope, as the member mentioned -- to be able to stay in their communities and gain access to post-secondary instruction.
So I welcome the opportunity to respond. I'm happy to hear that this facility has been opened, and I'm hopeful that others, as the member said, will be in the future.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke.
J. Doyle: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I do feel sometimes that the name should be changed around to Revelstoke-Columbia River. It's a little bit of a tongue-twister sometimes.
I think the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano is in agreement with what I said. I know he has friends in Golden and has been there and is quite aware of what a benefit this expanded facility will be. I think one thing we are all in agreement with, the hon. member and myself -- and I think there have been concerns in the past -- is that British Columbia histori-
[ Page 1929 ]
cally has had very poor representation at the post-secondary education level as to availability of facilities. At this present time, B.C. is the fourth-lowest in Canada as to access to post-secondary education. I know that we -- I myself, and the hon. member is in agreement -- will do our best in this House to represent the people in British Columbia, regardless of what party we're from. All 75 of us, without a doubt, are here to expand facilities and chances for people, especially in the smaller communities where they haven't been as available to them as to people in the lower mainland or in Victoria. Without a doubt, we are in agreement that we as government, and all of us, should work to make it as available as possible.
With the ever-changing world, and people having to change trades or change jobs with the economy, and the world getting smaller in many respects, people sometimes do once or twice or three times in their lives change and go into a different area in the workforce. I feel that we as government should do our best to retrain these people. They will be better because they will have a job. Also, I think having facilities available is a satisfaction for them in that they can better their standing and hopefully, through that, better their chance for income and a secure job in British Columbia.
ELECTION EXPENSES
C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of all members, both the 75 who enjoy sitting in their places today and those who will follow them, what I contend is a very serious lack in the way in which we got elected. I wish to draw the attention of members to the need to address the lack of regulation concerning election expenses, the restrictions that are required on donations, the unfair balloting form that is presently used and some of the implications of the financial management act.
The Fisher commission's recommendations for electoral boundary adjustments and the expansion to 75 electoral districts represented by single members was implemented by the previous government, which deserves recognition and praise for what it did. It is now time to take the next step and put in place limits on spending and a declaration of donors, as well as a couple of other minor improvements that I would suggest. The public rightly demands this safeguard of their elected representatives, and this reform is long overdue. Presently in Canada there are only three jurisdictions without limitations: Newfoundland, P.E.I. and British Columbia. This province has done half a job, Madam Speaker. It's now time to complete the process.
May I persuade the government that they need not necessarily suffer the same fate as the third party in that by bringing in reformed electoral legislation they will immediately experience defeat. In fact, there is hope for the NDP, but there is more than hope for the NDP if they would put in place an all-party committee to implement the needed changes, and to initiate them very soon, before we all start talking about elections again, which I can assure all members will be happening within six or eight months. The New Democratic Party has laboured under the current embarrassing spendthrift and corrupting election apparatus for forty years. Now is the time to change, not ten minutes before the next election. I earnestly plead with the government to implement a committee of this House before we rise this summer.
We, the elected members, must not be open to the accusation of buying elections or of being in the pay of one group or any large company. The public has a right to know who financially supports what party. It wishes to see a limited investment in the process of elections. Increasingly the electorate is feeling frustrated by the perception that they are not represented or that their point of view is lost in the shuffle of the major parties. Restrictions on election expenses would at least offer some assurance to the smaller parties. We would not have the objectionable situation that occurred in 1989 in the Oak Bay by-election, when the Social Credit Party spent $144,000, the NDP spent $88,000 and the Liberals spent $37,000. I might, as an aside, tell the members that $37,000 for the Liberal Party in '89 was a very heavy burden.
I would suggest, as a starting point, that we look at the legislation and experiences in neighbouring provinces and also at what the federal circumstances were. A suggestion to the committee, composed of members of all three parties, is that they might consider the following:
(a) Expenses of $1 per constituent would be sufficient to run an election. In the '91 election the Social Credit Party spent, as an average, $41,000, the NDP spent $35,600 and the Liberals spent $7,800 per electoral district. With approximately 40,000 population per constituency, $1 per constituent appears to be about the right amount, with some adjustments for the large geographical constituencies.
(b) Any donation over $100 should be reported and gazetted for public scrutiny. I would point out that in 1991 our present Premier, with his Bill M208, the Election Contributions Disclosure Act, made the same recommendation and spoke very eloquently in its support.
(c) The election ballot in British Columbia, unlike the federal and municipal ballots that come to British Columbia, lists the government candidate first, the opposition candidate second and all other candidates in alphabetical order by party. We think we should change this to coincide with the municipal and federal ballots and also to an alphabetical selection, as it is in every other province. Fellow members, I must confess that it was a Liberal government in the early forties that brought this perversion into being. I am pleased to think that the Liberal opposition will help to take it out again.
[10:45]
(d) As candidates in the last election and in '86, we had to fill in a statement under the Financial Disclosure Act -- a complicated statement, I might say -- as to our eligibility to run. That form is not required, in my view. It's required of an elected member; it isn't necessarily required of a candidate.
I recommend that members of all parties impress on their leaders the need to act now, appoint a committee and proceed with this much-needed reform.
[ Page 1930 ]
W. Hartley: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Saanich North and the Islands on the subject of election spending and electoral reform in general. New Democrats have a longstanding commitment to electoral reform in British Columbia. Our party policy and task force on electoral reform dates back many years. Our annual and bi-annual provincial conventions deal specifically with electoral reform, and we update our policy at each convention.
In the recent provincial election campaign I'm sure all members identified that open and honest government was essential for British Columbia, and that it was the public's number one issue. Voting at the polls, the people of British Columbia said that it was time for a change, time for honour and integrity. New Democrats promised to open up government to public scrutiny, to introduce laws that guarantee fair and open government for British Columbians. We have begun that process. Our freedom-of-information legislation, which will be in effect next year, will provide the public with access to information regarding public policy, and our government will be bringing forward more legislation to begin to restore the public's confidence in government.
The New Democratic Party has long held the view that election spending should be open to public scrutiny. The public is entitled to know how much money is spent, what the money is spent on, who is donating what and how much. When you look at it closely, political donations are not necessarily one's private business. While they're voluntary, they are tax-deductible. They lower one's taxable income, and that is a cost to society. As members of society, each one of us pays that cost to society in one way or another. So as taxpayers we have a right to know who is benefiting from the tax breaks that are part of political donations.
I have really no question with the member's statement. I'm pleased that he brought it forward today. He mentioned that, while we were in opposition, members of the New Democratic Party put private members' bills forward in the House on more than one occasion dealing specifically with requirements for disclosure and election spending. The member mentioned the bill that the Premier put forward last year, the Election Contributions Disclosure Act, which required the source of a contribution over $100 to be disclosed. New Democrats have developed policy to deal with spending limits on elections and for disclosure on where the dollars come from. I think each one of us, as MLAs, has the responsibility to openly declare where contributions come from and to also declare that there are no strings attached.
Election expenses is one aspect of our political system that we will be dealing with in the near future in regard to a fair elections act in British Columbia. The right of eligible voters to swear in on election day and be counted is another part. I would say to the member that I look forward to the debates that will ensue when we bring forward the required legislation. The changes are long overdue. We've waited for at least 16 years in British Columbia for reform to the Election Act, and I can assure the member that by the next election, whenever he might want to have it, those plans will be in place for that election.
C. Tanner: It is very reassuring to everybody on this side to hear the government member confirm that we are going to have change before the next election. I believe it is essential. What the Premier said when he introduced his bill in 1991 warrants being said again for new members. I'm quoting Mr. Harcourt -- quite frankly, I never thought I would see the day when I would do this, but I think it is worthy of every member's attention:
"The most fundamental goal of any government is to earn and keep the trust of the electorate. For that to happen, a government must be both open and honest. Increasingly, however, the public is losing trust in politicians. Their experience with the current government has led them to believe that all politicians act in the interests of their special friends. To help restore open government and voter faith in their government, it is necessary that the public be told who the financial supporters of their elected representatives are. This bill requires that the source of contributions to election campaigns over the amount of $100 be disclosed. Almost all other North American jurisdictions have this type of legislation, and this bill would bring our province into line."
The proof is in what the Premier says. We have had a commitment from a private member on the government side. I recommend to all members that we get on with the legislation and bring it in well before the election. In the meantime, I look for a commitment from the government side to appoint an all-party committee to immediately get to the job.
NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
M. Lord: This year, June 1 to June 7 marks the fifth anniversary of National Access Awareness Week. All across Canada, concerned individuals and groups will be gathering to discuss disability-related issues. Two slogans are often mentioned about National Access Awareness Week. One is: access is a right. The other is: creating access for people with disabilities is everyone's responsibility. I'm sure that all members on both sides of this House will support these statements.
People with disabilities have always been a part of the fabric of life in British Columbia. But because many disabilities are invisible, we often don't realize just how many British Columbians with disabilities there are in our midst. One out of seven people in this province has some sort of disability. Obviously the proportion of individuals with disabilities increases with age; in fact, one of every two senior citizens in this province has a disability. There are other distressing statistics concurrent with these facts. More people with disabilities live in poverty than do people in the general population, and the unemployment rate for people with disabilities in the labour force is more than twice than that of the general population.
But there has been some very important movement by individuals, groups and government, particularly in the areas of transportation, housing, employment opportunities and education. The British Columbia Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities,
[ Page 1931 ]
established by legislation in 1989, has been an important motivating factor in promoting greater participation by persons with disabilities in every aspect of life. The council also advises government on concerns related to achieving goals for people with disabilities. It has been very busy addressing many issues that cross all ministry borders. A task team established by the council recommended changes to strengthen the enforcement of the B.C. Building Code. These recommendations have been distributed to all the appropriate parties, both inside and outside government, and we can expect changes sometime this year.
Historically British Columbia first became involved in accessibility legislation in the early seventies. The development of this legislation was due in a great part to a very active lobby of people and groups who represent the interests of people with disabilities.
The Premier's advisory council has established a subcommittee to review transportation issues, and has approached B.C. Transit, which has approved a program to prepare plans for full accessibility of the province's conventional transit system. They also approached the Minister of Finance with a request to amend the Motor Fuel Act to expand eligibility for gas tax rebates to people with disabilities who do not drive. These amendments were introduced.
Work is also proceeding in areas of vocational rehabilitation, employment equity, access to information and support services for children. Housing has always been a concern for people with disabilities. One source of help that they may access is the wheelchair housing registry, established by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This service, offered by the British Columbia Housing Management Commission, provides a computerized central information and referral service for people who require wheelchair-accessible housing.
This year this government's provincial budget includes an additional $52 million to implement the first stages of the strategic mental health plan for British Columbia. A goal of this plan will be to ensure that people with mental illnesses have access to decent housing and a wide range of clinical and community support services. An example of this province's commitment in this area was the recent opening of Alexandra Court, a new project for people with mental illnesses. Located in Richmond, the 24 one-bedroom apartments that Alexandria Court provides give a support network for people with mental illnesses, in conjunction with supplying housing. Support services from the Canadian Mental Health Association are also available to people who live in that residence.
There's one other area I would like to touch on this morning, and that is special-needs children. The infant development program, funded by government and sponsored by non-profit societies in a number of communities across British Columbia, is available to those parents who are concerned about their child's development. Children with severe disabilities can receive assistance through the at-home program. This program provides another option to those families who want to keep a severely disabled child at home.
Our government fully supports the goals of National Access Awareness Week. But what we have to work toward is the elimination of National Access Awareness Week, and that will happen only when people with disabilities are fully and rightfully integrated into every aspect of life in this province. I know that all members will join me in trying to ensure that this happens soon in British Columbia.
[11:00]
V. Anderson: It is a privilege to stand and respond to the presentation by hon. member for Comox Valley on our recognition of National Access Awareness Week. This is a very important awareness, and I would be interested in seeing it become part of environment awareness week. It seems to me that we are talking about the environment in which persons with disabilities are living, and for many of them, that has been a handicap. We need to change the environment in which people live, in a variety of ways. As has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Comox Valley, one of the first things we need to change is our understanding and attitudes.
A few years ago, in the activities of the United Nations, there was a reminder that not one in seven of us have a disability, but ten out of ten do, and at one time or another in our life, one of our disabilities will become more prominent. We will then be aware of it in a way in which we are not ordinarily aware of it. That awareness helps to remind us that we're not talking about "them and us"; we are talking about "us."
If we think of it in terms of a family, every person within a family has different abilities. One might be very bright and one might be musical. We look at the positive attributes in their lives; we don't always look at the negative parts, such as one is not musical, not very bright or not very good with their hands. The persons we're thinking about with disabilities all have many abilities, and these abilities need to be recognized, affirmed and given an opportunity to develop.
Persons with disabilities in our environment, in our communities, have been handicapped not because of their handicaps per se, but because of the handicaps that we put in their way. We build buildings with stairs, and they cannot enter. We provide doors that are so heavy that they cannot open them when in a wheelchair. We provide public transportation for all citizens, but it is only for some citizens, not for all citizens. First of all, I think we need to change our attitudes as we respond to those who have disabilities because of our communities.
As the hon. member has mentioned, the emphasis this week is on transportation, housing, employment, recreation and education. One other, which she also mentioned in passing, is the question of income. Many of the opportunities that would be available to people are not available because of poverty due to their income. We have many opportunities this day to be responsive to the needs of persons. I commend the government on moving in this direction of developing legislation that will be supportive -- and perhaps even being so pointed as to suggest that here within the Legislature, within this building, this needs to be more accessible to people with disabilities. We need to have a system so that the hard of hearing can come here to the
[ Page 1932 ]
Legislature and hear what is going on -- just as a simple illustration -- so that even seniors with T-phones in their hearing systems will be able to sit in the gallery and listen. There are many things we in this House can do to share with people to show that we're not only asking that other people do things, but we're willing to do things ourselves.
M. Lord: As always, I was heartened to hear the remarks from the member for Vancouver-Langara. I know that even though he and I are in different political parties, we certainly share common interests in a number of areas. Indeed, he is correct in talking about healthy communities and healthy environments, not just to provide those healthy communities and healthy environments for people with visible or well-defined disabilities, but to provide a healthy and accessible environment for all.
Healthy communities, in my view, include dealing with the challenges of reducing the inequities that people face, of helping people deal with their own circumstances. It means fostering public participation in that project, through community groups, education and government involvement. It means strengthening community health services and coordinating healthy public policy, and that certainly is within our purview as members of this assembly. Moreover, it means creating environments and conditions that are conducive to a broad definition of health, in which people are better able to take care of themselves in their own circumstances and are able to offer each other help and support in dealing with and managing our collective health problems.
Every day British Columbians face their own difficulties and their own disabilities. Every day we see unhappy, pregnant teenagers. We see abused children. We see seniors who may be depressed or lonely. We see men in midlife incapacitated with heart disease. We see people with incurable ailments such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis and a whole host of others. But there is another side to this story. More and more across this province we are also beginning to see transition houses, family counselling, alcohol and drug treatment centres, self-help groups, efforts in the workplace to hire the disabled, and people moving voluntarily to help themselves and to help others. This is the direction that our government would like to see being taken, and this is the direction that we will continue to encourage.
H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, I'm seeking leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. De Jong: The Abbotsford Christian School is starting its fortieth year of operation this coming term. It started with about 30 students back in 1953. Today the school operates three campuses with nearly 1,000 students and will exceed the 1,000 number in the coming year. This morning we have with us 45 students of the Abbotsford Christian High School together with their instructors. I would like to ask the House to give these students and their teachers a hearty welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, just before I move to orders of the day, I'd like to inform the House that next week the House will be sitting Monday evening from 6 till 10, Tuesday evening from 6 till 10 and Wednesday evening from 6 till 10. In addition, the House will be sitting regular hours on Wednesday. This is a normal course of events as we hit June, and we do have a heavy legislative calendar. I'd just like, for the courtesy of all -- people who work here and members opposite -- to make that announcement.
With that I call Committee of Supply B.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
On vote 32: minister's office, $347,279.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a great privilege to stand before you today and discuss the very important matters facing the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks over the next year.
Before starting, I would like to express my thanks to the official opposition and the third party for agreeing to sequence our discussions beginning with Environment and moving through Lands and Parks. I believe this process will make for a much more focused and productive discussion.
By way of introduction, I propose to say a few words about the context in which we find ourselves today. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has a very broad mandate. Our mission is to manage, protect and enhance the environment; to manage and allocate Crown land; to protect and manage provincial parks, recreation areas and ecological reserves; and to manage information relating to the land base of the province. To achieve this enormous challenge, the ministry has been allocated in 1992-93 an operating budget of $241.6 million and 2,337 full-time employees. In addition, the ministry is accountable for $18.3 million of expenditures in the sustainable environment fund. In rough terms, the B.C Environment program area has approximately $108.5 million and 1,150 full-time employees. The B.C. Lands area has $33.1 million and 466 full-time employees. The Parks area of this ministry has $35.5 million and 377 full-time employees.
Fiscally, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has found what can be politely termed a financial nightmare. I certainly don't need to go into detail, except to point out that in spite of the seriousness of this problem this government has recognized the urgent priority of environment and land use issues that face us right now. Globally we are reaching the limits of sustainability. We can no longer extract resources or foul the environment with impunity. We now know that stewardship, not exploitation, is the key to sharing our wealth and quality of life with future generations. This means that we must make the right decisions and trade-offs now; tomorrow is too late.
In that light, the government is not standing still. We have made very significant progress since our election
[ Page 1933 ]
last fall. For example, the Commission on Resources and Environment will launch a new and progressive way of dealing with resource-use issues and conflicts that will ensure a sustainable environment and a prosperous, healthy economy for our province. Also, we have introduced new regulations that ensure an environment free of AOX, or absorbable organic halogenated compounds, in the next century. We have commenced the Green Shopper program and Partners in Recycling, which will improve recycling practices. We have concluded a new agreement designed to clean up British Columbia's most significant waterway, the Fraser River, and its basin. We have implemented the protected areas strategy designed to integrate the many recreation, conservation and heritage objectives that are important to our province.
[11:15]
We have made some very difficult decisions concerning log-around strategies in various parts of the province. We have initiated extensive public consultation regarding the upgrading of the ministry's legislation. This process will allow citizens to advise the government on proposed changes to strengthen our ability to control pollution; manage fish, wildlife and endangered species and their habitat; assess the environmental, social and economic impact of major development proposals; and manage the province's abundant freshwater resources.
While we have made a very important start, we continue to feel the pressure of growing resource demands, population increases and land use conflicts. It is my view that the people of B.C. elected us to resolve these problems and to shift the balance toward a more sustainable level of activity that protects both the environmental and economic quality of life in our beautiful province.
All members of this House will recall that in the recent election, almost a third of the 48 commitments we made to the people of British Columbia related to improvements in our environment, land use and parks practices. This budget is part of the first stage of delivery that is essential if we are to achieve these commitments.
Before we move to the specifics of the budget, I would like to spend a moment outlining the approach necessary to link our actions to the commitments I have just mentioned. The initial step occurred before the Premier announced the structure of his new cabinet. After considerable thought and reflection, the Premier determined that one of the best ways to deliver on our stated commitments to British Columbians was to create a new Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The synergy in mandates, combined with the very professional and committed staff of these agencies, meant that government now had in our ministry a powerful mix of regulatory and protection expertise coupled with a team of inventory and land use specialists, many of whom are situated in communities and regions throughout the province. I am pleased to report that this approach is working even better than we had hoped, and we're just getting started.
The next step in our process was to assess the state of affairs, particularly in environment policy areas. We have done this through internal assessments, as well as through extensive consultation with the people of British Columbia. The Commission on Resources and Environment is a clear outcome that will have valuable, tangible and long-term results. It is a significant departure from the way the previous administration faced its responsibilities in this important area. What we have found in our consultations is that the public demands tougher environmental laws, including strong support for the user-pay philosophy and greater cooperation in the resolution of land use issues. We have also found that the people of British Columbia demand assurances that their quality of life will not be further compromised by unplanned and unmanaged development. They know that it is time for tough decisions arrived at in an honest, fair and socially equitable fashion.
Our guiding principle in this task is to embrace the concept of sustainable communities. This includes the commitment to protect and defend the biological diversity of ecosystems, while using creative and proactive solutions to ensure continued economic viability. The notion of a sustainable community also means that all people in our province have access to the process of decision-making. This is why I'm very pleased to be part of an administration that has introduced freedom-of-information legislation for the first time in British Columbia. I am very proud to say that my ministry already practises this principle and is well advanced in its efforts to provide the public with important, concise and accurate information about all our activities.
This is a ministry that has now become proactive rather than reactive. We believe in planning for the future with the help of all British Columbians, and we are doing that, for example, in our recently announced environmental action plan. I believe that it is the most progressive legislative agenda in the country. And we are augmenting our environmental regulations by moving to market-based incentives. We also believe in cooperation through shared decision-making, joint stewardship of resources and finally action, which while it may not make everyone happy, discharges the duty that the public expects of us over the next four years. Integrated resource management is definitely the way of the future, and we plan to ensure that the people of British Columbia benefit from this new approach. Accordingly, for this fiscal year we have established a number of priorities designed to begin the process of achieving the public's goals for this ministry.
If I may, I would like to outline some of the highlights of this year's budget for the B.C. environment program. The B.C. environment programs consist of environmental protection, water management, pesticide management, environmental assessment, fisheries, wildlife, integrated management, environmental emergency services, enforcement, and six regional offices located throughout the province.
I am very pleased with our budget but should also point out that we have had to make some tough choices, as all ministries have had to do. All members should know that in difficult times, choosing priorities means that trade-offs will occur. I accept full responsibility for
[ Page 1934 ]
the reductions we have made in some areas, because I believe that redirecting these funds at this critical time will result in the right long-term payoffs for the province.
To properly serve the public, government, for the first time since anyone can remember, has seriously turned its attention to listening to the citizens of the province. One of the examples of this is to implement much closer and more productive interagency cooperation within the provincial government. This has resulted in a new corporate inventory initiative of $10 million and 40 full-time employees, which will, in accordance with our commitment before the election, provide for expanded resource inventory activities in support of a provincial land use strategy.
This integrated management approach will include many provincial government agencies and will assist the Commission on Resources and Environment in its work concerning land use recommendations to this House. The corporate inventory initiative will begin to bring all major resources up to a common inventory baseline level and will begin the development of a more detailed resource inventory for selected areas of the most contentious land use issues.
Another example of cooperation among our ministries is the $3.75 million and 35 full-time employees dedicated to improve our coordination of forest planning activities. The new package will result in 25 habitat biologists working in Forests district offices but reporting to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on matters relating to habitat protection and other environmental issues. I think this is a very innovative initiative which will see employees of the Ministry of Environment working in Forests offices. It means an important return of an ability to review logging plans, for instance, which was lost during some of the staff cuts of the early eighties.
This approach to the integrated management of our resources is a very significant change in the process of government from the confrontational relationships fostered by the previous administration. I am confident that you will hear more of this trend in the coming years as this administration continues to develop the process of consultation and cooperation rather than confrontation.
For years this party, while in opposition, has been very concerned about enforcement. Again, we have acted decisively by assigning $2 million and 20 full-time employees to enforcement activities. This includes a new special investigation unit to identify those pollution offenders who secretly dump hazardous waste into our waters and onto our land with impunity. Similarly, it will address highly organized commercial poaching of fish and wildlife in B.C. These parties had better beware, because the bell will now toll for them.
As I noted earlier, the public has demanded that our whole structure of environmental legislation be updated and restructured to reflect values of the 1990s and beyond, to ensure sustainability for future generations. Once again, we have started that process and have allocated $550,000 and four full-time employees to implement the introduction of new environmental assessment legislation. I would like to point out that the member for Nanaimo, who is the parliamentary secretary to this ministry, has gone through a very thorough process of consulting with many groups throughout the province on our environmental assessment initiatives, and he will be reporting to me on his findings imminently.
I am very pleased that this ministry received $2.5 million and 24 full-time employees for new pollution prevention initiatives. One of our strong commitments to the public was to get tough with polluters. This package will help us to achieve that through the development of new discharge performance standards for a wide range of pollutants. This package will also allow us to expand inspection and monitoring, as well as toxic waste reduction activities. We are also pursuing a clean-air strategy that will begin the long process of improving air quality by preventing smog, ozone layer depletion and smoke problems experienced by many interior communities.
Last week the climate change conference in Vancouver involved about 200 stakeholders in discussions on greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. This very serious matter was recognized in the recent Speech from the Throne and has resulted in the release of the discussion paper entitled "Ensuring Clean Air" and another paper entitled "Smoke Management for the '90s." This consultative process will enlist the talents and resources of many stakeholders to help establish the broad principle, the framework, the tools and the priorities for dealing with B.C.'s complex air-quality issues. The resulting clean-air strategy will link such issues as smog, smoke management, acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. This integrated air-management approach will help to assure all British Columbians of a safer and cleaner quality of air as the 1990s unfold.
As you also know by now, this government has eliminated the failed B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation and returned these activities to my ministry, where they more properly belong. Included in the budget allotment for the ministry for this purpose is an office for a new toxic reduction commissioner. This position will be responsible for demonstrating to the business community the economic and environmental benefits of toxic waste reduction techniques. It will also provide advice about a permanent disposal facility. In addition, the commissioner will make recommendations on a system to handle household hazardous wastes with local governments, the collection and storage of PCBs, biomedical waste disposal and contaminated soil cleanup standards.
In accordance with our commitment to be a proactive agency, we have received $450,000 and two full-time employees to begin a project that should have started years ago. The state of the environment report for British Columbia will provide a comprehensive, integrated profile of provincial environmental conditions and trends. The report will become an important tool for us to use in public consultations and will serve to further our environmental education goals. It will also be an important tool in the government decision-making process, as we work to fulfil our mandate to enhance the environment.
[ Page 1935 ]
[11:30]
The habitat conservation fund supports the enhancement, preservation and acquisition of fish and wildlife and their habitats throughout the province. In turn, these activities encourage use of the fish, wildlife and habitat resources in a knowledgeable and responsible fashion. The habitat conservation fund is a special account and, in keeping with the philosophy of user-pay, revenue is levied from a $5 surcharge on each angling, hunting, guiding and trapping licence sold in the province. I am pleased to advise this House that $2.77 million will be spent from the fund in 1992-93 to undertake projects under the habitat conservation fund mandate.
My ministry is also responsible for the administration of a sustainable environment fund. The mandate of SEF is to provide for the protection, renewal and enhancement of the environment in a sustainable manner. I should point out that until now this fund has not been sustainable. It has required infusions from both the Lottery Fund and from voted appropriations. This fiscal year, this administration has initiated the process of making SEF a sustainable account in accordance with the principles set out by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations in his budget. Revenue to SEF is received from environmental levies, fees for vehicle inspections, fines from environmental prosecutions, transfers from appropriations, discharge fees under the Waste Management Act and contributions for projects from other levels of government and the private sector. I am pleased to note that SEF received permission to expend $22.95 million on projects in 1992-93.
I believe I have provided sufficient information to get us started in our discussion today. With your permission, I would like to reserve the opportunity to discuss some matters relating specifically to the Lands and Parks areas once we have completed our discussion on the Environment area of my ministry. I now welcome comments and questions from members on the other side of the House.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the official opposition to respond to the minister's budget estimates. I know, as do members of this House, that environmental concern is probably one of the issues of paramount concern to our constituents, our riding associations, our parties and the public at large. We certainly are acutely aware that this set of estimates in the House may be one of the most important that we have to deal with.
The opposition, in analyzing the budget of the minister, is certainly somewhat impressed by the fact that despite the economic times we're in this government has made a strong commitment to environmental expenditures. We note that overall the voted increase is in the range of 7 percent, which we think is an impressive beginning in light of the limited budget allocations some ministries have found themselves with.
But there are some issues that the Liberal opposition is somewhat concerned about when it comes to environmental protection in British Columbia. We're particularly concerned over the duplication of service, and the duplication of government regulation between the federal and provincial areas. Certainly we would have liked to have seen an indication in these estimates of a closer cooperation between the two levels of government -- the federal government, which of course has a much larger environment ministry, and the B.C. Ministry of Environment -- where there are areas that efficiencies and research opportunities could be identified.
In our view, there really needs to be a critical move by the ministry towards achieving that type of dialogue with the federal government, because as we all know, the costs of environmental and pollution cleanup and environmental fees most often fall on industry. Certainly they have expressed a concern in the past about the levels of duplication, and about the myriad of government agencies, federal and provincial, that they have to deal with, which, I might add, often results in differing levels of pollution requirements between provinces in Canada, and which as a result impacts on our competitive ability in the corporate area.
We also feel strongly that consultation is badly needed. It should be a hallmark of any move by the government towards toughening up pollution guidelines and increasing inspection fees. We're somewhat concerned that even in the last six months, the consultation that we feel should be, or could have been, undertaken by the ministry has not in fact been there.
Also we were initially very supportive, and continue to be supportive, of the Commission on Resources and Environment as a means of resolving some of the serious land use disputes in the province, although lately the opposition has been, I might add, flooded with a number of concerns expressed by environmental groups in the province about exactly what mandate the commission is proceeding under and why numerous decisions with regard to land use and the environment in the province seem to be bypassing the commission and the areas of responsibility that it appeared to have when it was set up.
In listening to the outline of the minister's environmental initiatives, we certainly accept the fact that many are badly needed. We accept the fact that we've been deficient in the past in bringing these initiatives forward, when years of planning were going to be necessary. We unfortunately find ourselves in a situation where we're dealing with a very short-term planning cycle. The opposition believes that that's all the more reason why consultation should be an urgent priority of the ministry.
Above all else, the opposition is convinced that what is badly needed is a major commitment to environmental research. It's absolutely essential that government, as the guardians and protector of the environment, has the information it needs to assess pollution and environmental risks. We're somewhat concerned that in terms of the overall budget there appears to be only a minimal commitment to the idea that responsible environmental protection requires above all else a knowledge of the risks involved. That is something that the opposition will certainly be exploring in the upcoming estimates debate on the environment.
[ Page 1936 ]
Finally, we're also pleased to see that the ministry has identified a critical need for enhanced waste management programs. We have a number of sites in the province where hazardous materials are currently being stored with what appears to be lax guidelines for the maintenance of those sites. I can say that identifying those sites and dealing with the toxic materials they contain should be an immediate priority of this government, the opposition and the third party. We should certainly support initiatives in that area.
With that brief summary, and respecting the fact that the hon. member for Okanagan East, who is the environment critic for the Liberal Party, is unable to be in the House today and will certainly want to speak at length next week when she is back in the House, perhaps I could start off the estimates debate by questioning the minister on the new pulp mill regulations and guidelines which were announced early in the fiscal year, but which I'm sure will result in some expenditures by his ministry.
The opposition understands that the deadline is shortly approaching for pulp mills in the province to put forth their plans as to how they intend to meet the new chlorinated organic levels they're going to be required to meet by 1995. Can the minister identify the appropriate body in his ministry which will be reviewing these plans as they come forward and meeting with the 27 pulp and paper companies in the province as to where they are in the planning process and whether they will be able to meet the 1995 guidelines?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the member opposite for those remarks. I look forward to a constructive dialogue and debate during these estimates.
I'd like to state that present to assist me are our deputy minister, Mr. Gerry Armstrong, and our assistant deputy minister, management services division, Mr. Greg Koyl. I'd also like to point out that present to assist me is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, the hon. member for Nanaimo, who will also be assisting me during the time we are debating these estimates.
With that, I would like to make a few comments on some of the points that have been raised. First, with regard to the question the hon. member raised about duplication of services, he specifically referred to services vis-�-vis provincial and federal governments. The hon. member raises an important issue. It's an issue that we have been working on and that indeed was being worked on prior to this government taking office. One of the really significant areas of federal-provincial work that has to be addressed is that of environmental impact assessment planning. As you know, at the present time in the province we have the major project review process, which is a non-legislated process and means that there's a political dimension to decisions with regard to key stages of the implementing of a major project review. We are in the process of preparing to bring forward legislation that will be British Columbia's own legislated environmental impact assessment act. That is coming about as a result of a great deal of consultation that has been very capably carried out by the parliamentary secretary, the member for Nanaimo. We will be reporting on that shortly.
Couched within that consultation and that discussion is the issue of the federal and the provincial role. It is the position of this government that when it comes to environment and resource issues in our province, we need a made-in-B.C. strategy. But to have that ability and responsibility and indeed to exercise that right, it behooves us to have the best possible legislation in place. This is one of the initiatives we are working on and are committed to; it is addressing that very issue. I know that's not the only issue of federal-provincial importance, but we are going to look forward to the continued input from members of the opposition parties with regard to that process. As I'm sure you agree, that is extremely important.
Also you should know that with regard to the issue of the environmental laboratory, which was privatized during the previous administration -- very sadly -- we lost a resource that was actually a gem. It was an excellent team that was able to work on behalf of government and interact very creatively with private industry, in terms of providing the appropriate laboratory services for the province. As was stated in the throne speech, we are working very hard on the issue of addressing how we can bring forward for the province a new lab that serves the purposes of the 1990s and beyond. We know that the exercise can never be to put the toothpaste back into the tube, but we know that we need to assess effectively the needs for lab services and the niche that must be occupied by the province. Pursuant to those discussions, we're in close consultation with the federal government, because we believe this is an area where there can be possible economies of scale and cooperation. We'll be saying more about that later.
[11:45]
I would be very pleased to hear from hon. members with regard to other areas of concern regarding cooperation with the federal government. As you know, I will be attending the UNSED meeting in Brazil. I did appreciate the warm greetings this morning from all three parties represented in the House and the joint recognition by our elected MLAs that the Brazil conference is extremely important in terms of the future of the planet. It's a good context in which to recognize the role of British Columbia in working together with other provinces, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, to come up with the strongest possible standards that we can take forward as a nation, and then working with the global community to try to ensure that the strongest possible standards emerge out of that process. It's an onerous and difficult task, but it's a good example of the point that the Hon. member was making.
With regard to consultation, the hon. member, while stating that the government has made good progress in six months, said that we could do a better job on consultation. Certainly that's something I always hear from my family: that I could do a better job on consultation. It's one of those things that's always with us. We can always improve in our ability to be consultative. But I would have to say that I'm very
[ Page 1937 ]
proud of this government and of this ministry and its staff in terms of facilitating consultation during this past six months.
We have launched a consultative process with regard to our air-care initiative, which includes the papers "Ensuring Clean Air" and "Smoke Management." We've ensured consultation in our environmental impact assessment legislative process. With regard to the plan that we have during this term in office to revamp all the major environmental legislation, that will be done pursuant to a consultation process with the public. We will have discussions taking place throughout the province to enable people to respond with their views on how we should see our environmental protection act emerge and on how our water legislation should emerge. As you know, water legislation in the province is presently property legislation and does not even address issues relating to groundwater. There's also the issue of fish, wildlife and endangered habitats. British Columbians want to participate in that consultative process, and we're going to facilitate that.
I recognize that when a government is as committed to the environment as this government is and is putting so many initiatives forward which have been so long in coming and are much-needed, there's a potential for some confusion within the public because of the plethora of consultations. In terms of being consultative, it's almost that we have a need to do a very good job of informing the public as to what the priorities are in that consultative process, so that we're getting our feedback, firstly, on the environmental impact assessment. We need to be getting more information out about how we want to sequence that type of public input.
Also with regard to the consultation and initiatives that this government has been involved in, the hon. member mentioned the Commission on Resources and Environment and suggested that the government might be bypassing CORE. Not at all. CORE is integrated into the overall management plan of this government. The fact that an instrument such as CORE exists does not mean that the work of government comes to a crashing halt and suddenly this new instrument takes over; it means that is a tool that is available to government. As the staff get up and running and carry out their very excellent work, government will benefit from the kind of recommendations they bring forward, as will all the people of British Columbia.
Also the point was raised about major research. I agree with the hon. member. I think that the opposition parties can do a great deal to help us in improving not only the public will but also the political will that enables us to improve our ability to address research issues. As I have just stated, let's recognize that in this budget there is $10 million and 40 full-time employees to bring the inventory up to date in this province, not just with regard to wood-fibre but with regard to fish, wildlife and all those aspects of our hinterland where we desperately need an inventory. Let's recognize that in good research, the fundamental baseline has to be inventory. We need the data to know what we're working with. That's already well underway in the short time that this government has been in office.
Also state-of-the-environment reporting: we're putting resources into enabling full-time employees to address that issue and come forward with the kind of information that shows it's not good enough just to know what the leading economic indicators are. We need to know what the state of the environment is, because that is economically important.
The member also mentioned the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. I wish to assure the hon. member that there will be further announcements on that coming forward shortly.
The last question was with regard to our announcement on the pulp regulation. As the member points out, that is going to be coming forward fairly soon. I can tell you that there's both good news and not quite as good news. We're referring to 17 mills that use chlorine in the bleaching process, not the number of mills that the member stated. Of those mills, all but three are showing marvellous progress in achieving the 1.5 level for 1995. We're very optimistic about that. We're having some concerns about the consultative process over such things as a definition of what it is to achieve virtual zero, but the consultation process is something that we feel is very important. We are continuing to do everything we can to enable that process to succeed.
W. Hurd: Just a question with respect to the made-in-B.C. strategy and the issue of environmental research. In light of the fact that the federal government has much greater resources and, I believe, four staff members to every one that is possessed by the Environment ministry in British Columbia, what plans does the minister have to access the results from federal labs on a regular basis? Is there any suggestion or initiative by the minister to work more closely with the federal labs that are available? Because there is going to be this made-in-B.C. strategy for environmental protection, does he see the need for the ministry to try and go out and duplicate its own research and laboratory facilities to try and produce the kind of research results that the government will need to bring in these tougher standards than may exist elsewhere in the country? Can he assure the committee that he is going to have the salient information and the scientific data that he's going to need to take a leadership role, and in essence, say to the federal government that their regulations are not as good as ours, because we have better research to back them up?
Hon. J. Cashore: The member makes an excellent point, and we are undertaking initiatives in all of those areas. With regard to the area of research, for instance, I think it will be very important, in the initiatives the government is already taking with regard to inventory and state-of-the-environment reporting, that we share that research with the federal government so that they are not having to duplicate that. In that spirit we are actively in consultation with the federal government to have access to research that they are involved in.
I would point out too that the private sector and universities are involved in research. For example, I believe there is a $60 million study taking place that has the involvement of the forest industry, the pulp sector
[ Page 1938 ]
and the federal government, reviewing methods in pulp technology with a view to reducing pollutants. We believe that we should have access to the information that is coming out of that kind of process. The federal government is participating in our state-of-the-environment project, so the planning for that project has not been a unilateral type of plan, but one that has been integrated with the federal government in bringing that forward.
The area of laboratories -- dealing with monitoring, enforcement and going out to review particular industries -- is one where we can also cooperate. The most recent example of federal-provincial cooperation which I think is very important is the Fraser basin agreement announced this week. Some people, hearing that the federal government is putting $100 million dollars from the Green Plan into the Fraser basin agreement, would say: "Where is the meat? Where is the province's role in that?" We can make a very strong case that over the next five years British Columbia will be putting at least half a billion dollars into that plan, in view of the kinds of activities that we have already been involved in and which are coming on stream that have to do with water management, air strategy enhancement and dealing with upgrading sewage systems on a cost-sharing basis with municipalities. All of those things have impact on the Fraser watershed, and the provincial government is obviously a major shareholder in ensuring that the plan is successful.
Of course, the other major component is the municipalities, which were also signatories to the agreement. Let's not forget that we have a responsibility at all three levels -- municipal, provincial and federal -- to ensure that the native Indian people are provided with real opportunity to participate in that process.
J. Beattie: It's a pleasure to rise and take part in this discussion about the Ministry of Environment. I for one am very pleased that the minister and his staff are taking an aggressive role in becoming actively involved in all aspects of the province's well-being. That is essential as we proceed down the road of this century and into the next. I'm glad that the minister is going to Rio. It's important that all of the leaders in the environmental movement discuss the issues in the context of the well-being of the environment of the world.
I have a specific area that I wonder if the minister would comment on. Some of the ministries, from the debates that have been going on for the last number of weeks, have the role of facilitating action in other ministries. For example, Aboriginal Affairs serves as a kind of stimulant for other ministries whose programs serve native peoples, like the Ministry of Highways. Protocol is established, and they work closely. It would seem to me that the Ministry of Environment should somehow be inextricably linked to other ministries, particularly Economic Development, Small Business and Trade on the issue of how Third World countries treat the environment and deal with protecting people from unsafe working conditions and the pollution that may exist on job sites. That's just one example. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The efficiency of the taxpayers' dollars could be greatly enhanced if we nip the issues close to the bud and set policies in those ministries that start off by being environmentally friendly. I'm wondering if the minister could just engage the House in some discussion about that and his perceptions.
[12:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the question correctly, it is: how do we integrate the environmental agenda and values that undergird that agenda in terms of other ministries that are obviously representing a variety of concerns in their particular area? First of all, I don't only assume this; I really believe it: the minister and the ministry in each of those areas shares a fundamental ethic with regard to the importance of the environment not being impacted in a way that is not sustainable. Therefore we're starting off on a value base that gives us a point of connection.
There are different ways that we integrate with different ministries. The best ways are proactive. This means that when we see an issue coming before us, we consult those ministers and others to ensure that we address it before a problem is created. It's something like working together to ensure that we've prevented an oil spill, rather than having to work together at the crisis-intervention level. I'm sure there are lots of other examples that come to mind.
We have formal ways in which that happens. One is the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development. It's a weekly meeting that involves the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, who co-chair that committee. Again that expresses how the government values balance. The Premier, in his wisdom, recognized the importance of forestry-environment issues in this province and put those two individuals in the chair.
Equally important, we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Highways, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister of Labour -- I've probably missed somebody in that list. All of us, whenever we have a major initiative coming forward, expect that consultation at the staff level has already taken place prior to those issues coming there. Sometimes not all consultation happens to the extent we would like it to happen because of the frenetic pace of activities as we try to carry forward our mandate. But there are checks and balances that do ensure that happens.
There are also initiatives that we work together on in various other ways, and there's one example I'll give you that gets into the parks area. I know we'll be discussing that later, but I recently had the privilege of going to the Nass Valley to participate in a co-management process with the Nisga'a Tribal Council in dedicating the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park, which is a joint process of equals between two governments. This came about as a result of considerable negotiation. The native affairs minister was very much involved in this process and very helpful in enabling this process to come to fulfilment. That was one area
[ Page 1939 ]
where cooperation among the Nisga'a, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and indeed other ministries was able to bring that about. I think there are a great many other examples.
It's possible that I haven't quite got the sense of all the points you were raising. You did mention in the context of trade -- world trade I believe. The Hon. Minister of Economic Development and Trade I think he exemplifies an environmental ethic, and I think it's second nature of that minister to be consulting with me with regard to areas where there are potential environmental impacts.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask the minister a series of specific questions regarding the licensing of water dugouts, particularly in the Peace River country, and the application of annual fees for the use of water. The minister is probably aware that for many years -- as a matter of fact as long as the Peace River country has been settled -- farmers particularly have depended on runoff water collected in scoopouts or dugouts for domestic use, livestock use and other farm uses. Until very recently there has never been any requirement to license these dugouts, nor did the government ever make any attempt to charge a fee for the use of that water.
This initiative, which quite frankly started with the previous administration, is causing a huge amount of concern in the agriculture community in the Peace country. Farmers believe, and I agree with them wholeheartedly, that they should be allowed to collect water on their property and use it for their domestic purposes without any interference from the government. Unfortunately government, particularly the Ministry of Environment, has become more and more aggressive about requiring licences and proposing to collect annual fees from farmers for the use of their rainwater. I suppose if you have members of your staff whom you don't particularly like, I would give them that assignment and send them up to the Peace, because it's going to be at best a very difficult assignment when you start visiting these ranchers and telling them that you're going to be charging them $75 for a licence for their dugout and an annual fee. So if any members of your staff perhaps need a little disciplinary action, a visit to the Peace probably will set them straight fairly quickly.
Nonetheless, this is a serious matter as far as the farm community is concerned. For example, ranchers in the Peace country have large acreages and run large herds of cattle. They have numerous small scoopouts and dugouts around their properties. To expect those people to license those scoopouts is patent nonsense. It doesn't serve anybody's purpose -- except a bureaucratic purpose. It's the only logical explanation you can give for someone really wanting to go out and find a description of where it's located and then impose a fee on the farmer for a licence to have the dugout and collect rent from him.
What I'm hoping to hear from the minister is that the ministry is prepared to go back and reconsider an interim proposal that I had successfully encouraged the previous minister to implement: to limit the licensing of water dugouts in the Peace to where water is diverted from a stream, where a dugout or dam is constructed in a stream, or where a dugout is created with a berm, the failure of which would endanger life or other property. That seemed to me to be a reasonable set of criteria on which it made some sense to require a licence for a dugout.
Beyond that, to suggest that if somebody, out in the middle of his 640-acre farm, collects a bit of water that falls on the property and lets his cows drink it, the government should charge a fee for a licence for that dugout and then charge him an annual rate.... I don't know if you'd put a meter on the cows, or how you'd figure out exactly how much water they were drinking. In any event, the whole thing seems so preposterous asto cause one to wonder whether the ministry is serious about this or whether this is some kind of bad joke that someone is thinking of playing simply to cause people to react to it. I hope that's not the case. I hope the minister can confirm that they've had an opportunity to think this policy through a bit more clearly, and perhaps they'll go back to the interim guidelines.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge several students who are in the gallery. I think it's really great that they're here during the Environment estimates, because we know that a lot of the wisdom we hear regarding the environment is from young people.
With regard to the point the hon. member has just made.... I want him to hear me say this, because I think he makes a good point. It's our view that under the present way in which our administration is carrying this out, there should be leeway to do this appropriately; that there is discretion on the part of the regional manager to make a judgment call. The member makes a good point that there are areas where it just doesn't make sense to require licensing. We want the law to be administered in a way that is useful. It is true that there are times when there is a multiplicity of demands on a particular aquifer or water source. Obviously in those cases that judgment call has to be to recognize where licensing is necessary.
With regard to the initiative the member referred to, we're certainly willing to review that and to sit down and discuss this with you in detail. We want to do the right thing, in both the short term and the long term, in terms of revamping our water legislation.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: Clearly the discretion has always existed in the Prince George office. For many years Prince George simply didn't enforce the act as it existed. I have no difficulty if what you intend to do is amend the legislation to exempt or to give the regional manager the authority to exempt. Unfortunately, one of the things that added to this issue was the introduction of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to British Columbia, which was a considerable breakthrough and was well received in the region.
When they started to fund the engineering for scoop-outs, there was a question on their form: "Do you
[ Page 1940 ]
require licences or permits?" Unfortunately, it seems to me that the bureaucracy then got caught up in its own set of regulations -- or in our laws or regulations -- and now have required it. A farmer, if he's going to get support from PFRA, has to comply with the law, and the law is an ass, as has been often said. In this case, the literal interpretation of it isn't responsible.
I don't know whether I'm totally comfortable with the initiative that the government has taken as far as regional managers are concerned. I believe that the ministry itself, the minister and the deputy minister have responsibilities to establish policy. If you have a number of regions and regional managers in a ministry and the authority stops with those regional managers, I think that you tend to have a whole range of interpretations and levels of enforcement or support, based to some degree on the interpretation and approach of the individual regional manager. I think that you would see a lack of continuity around the province, unless you could send out nine or ten clones that would each approach matters in an identical way. I don't think that's possible.
[12:15]
I don't have any difficulty with the ministry, the minister or the deputy minister delegating to the regional manager the authority to make decisions. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable with the regional manager being the legislative authority. As I see material coming from this ministry, I think that seems to be the direction the ministry would like to go. I think there is a real danger of inconsistency as regional managers change and as various regional managers approach issues differently. To be quite blunt, if you get a difficult or antagonistic manager in your region -- and managers are managers, people are people and personalities are personalities -- chances are you're going to have a more difficult time dealing with the minister. You wouldn't, as I understand it, have any opportunity to go beyond the regional manager or the person with the legislative authority.
I think I've probably gotten off the specific topic here a bit, but I am concerned when we look at regional managers having the ultimate authority. I think it's right and proper that regional managers should be able to apply discretion. They should be permitted and delegated to do that. In this case I'd like to see more permissiveness in the legislation for the regional manager to exempt dugouts and other things from the implications of this.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'm just trying to understand part of the point that the hon. member was making. If I understand it correctly, the member is saying that he wants more consistency in the use of the discretionary powers of the regional managers. I'm not sure if I heard you say that you wanted more guidelines or more direction to ensure that there was a consistency, given the human factor with the regional managers. Perhaps you can clarify that for me.
I guess this is always a concern for government when you try to deploy your human resources. One of the values of that is that you have somebody out there who is much closer to the people of the area and is more exposed to hearing their concerns about how the law -- which is sometimes not applied well -- is being applied. At least there's feedback on that. Our regional managers -- and I think by and large they're a very dedicated, professional group of people -- are very capable and are recruited on the basis of their knowledge and ability. They meet four times a year to discuss standards and how they're being applied, so there are some checks and balances in order to ensure that's being done appropriately.
With regard to the basic issue here, I think the member makes a good point. If there's an area where nobody else is being impacted, then one would assume that the discretion of the regional manager would be to not create a problem for the person who is out there trying to do a job where a licence isn't required. That could differ where it's in a ravine, for instance, and there's some possibility that a scoopout in that area might impact on the availability of water to people within that watershed or whatever it may be.
The other thing I'd like to say to the hon. member is that I think he's making some excellent points which he has a lot of knowledge about. Our staff would certainly be open to sitting down with you and getting more direct input on some of the specifics, because I am sure that what you're saying is based on having been on site in some of these situations. Obviously you've come to the conclusion that we haven't been applying this in the most appropriate way. We'd like to hear more about that and to find out how we can improve under our present law and also in terms of our future policy.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to prolong this. The point that I was trying to make.... I think that regional managers should make discretionary decisions. Quite honestly, I think district managers and the person closest to the issue with the skills to make the decision should be the one to do that. But I think the danger in legislating the authority at a level below the minister is that there then becomes no appeal from the decision made in the field. I think that's an important sort of check that you want to make sure exists.
With these specific regulations it seems to me that a series of regional managers in Prince George made a discretionary decision not to apply the regulations of the Water Act to scoopouts in the region. Now somebody has decided that they should apply. What we're hoping is that the message can be sent back through the minister to apply some reasonable and rational judgments in deciding which of these will be licensed and which won't. If we can do that, I'll be happy. But I would certainly be happy to sit down with staff in the field or whoever to discuss the issue, as I have on two occasions already with the previous administration, and been successful in getting some modifications.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to acknowledge the presence of Dr. Jon O'Riordan, assistant deputy minister.
On the point about appeals, just a slight correction, hon. member. The fact is that all decisions are appealable, no matter who renders that decision. The process is that that appeal goes to Victoria and decision is made
[ Page 1941 ]
with regard to the Environmental Appeal Board handling that appeal. All decisions made in this area are appealable. With that, I think I've covered most of the points that you have already commented on.
W. Hurd: Just referring again briefly to this made-in-B.C. strategy for environmental protection, and in particular the pulp mill guidelines that were announced in the province, given the level of research that exists at the federal level and the many more millions of dollars -- and even hundreds of millions of dollars -- that are available to the federal government, to federal laboratories regarding pollution research and the dangers to the environment of chlorinated organics, can the minister share with the committee what information or research data he might have had to make the decision that the province needed much tougher guidelines for chlorinated organics than what is available or required in the rest of the country?
Hon. J. Cashore: Our staff met with federal officials with regard to their research under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and there was consultation with the federal government prior to us announcing that. But I would also point out that when you ask -- if I understand the question -- what scientific information is available to support a decision such as the one we made, that information is available from the federal government. There is also information that is part of ongoing research. Officials in our ministry, being professionals, are constantly keeping in touch with the literature and research in those areas. Sometimes the argument is made that there is not incontrovertible proof with regard to the harmfulness of AOX to humans, even though you do have a certain body of proof with regard to effects on other organisms that has been achieved through experimentation.
You also have other scientific bodies, such as the federal Minister of Health, issuing advisories which in some cases would shut down the livelihood of a person fishing for crabs and other crustaceans, for instance, in the area of one of those mills. So there are times when it behooves decision-makers in government to follow the precautionary option, where you say: "We see smoke coming out of that house; we think it's on fire. We haven't seen any flames, but we'd better get in there and do something about it, because it looks pretty serious."
W. Hurd: My question was in relation to the differing guidelines or pollution standards between the federal and provincial governments, and in particular the federal research which at this point in time, as the minister is aware, supports an AOX standard of 2.5 kilograms per tonne of pulp and the new provincial regulations that will require a reduction to 1.5 and eventually to zero discharge.
Has the federal government shared any research data with the provincial government that would support the need for 2.5 levels, 1.5 levels or zero discharge? If the federal government has shared that information, have they also shared the information as to why they don't intend at this point to reach those lower levels of chlorinated organics per tonne of pulp produced?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think that part of the question would have to be answered on the floor of the House of Commons. The House of Commons will have to answer for the fact that they haven't endorsed some of the standards that we've endorsed.
With regard to the sharing of data dealing with either 1.5 AOX or 2.5 AOX, the fact is that the reference the hon. member made was not correct. The feds have not issued that with regard to AOX, but just with regard to dioxins and furans. Obviously we have taken the position that the whole family of organic compounds, which is vast, needs to be addressed. We also are aware of the concern that's expressed that AOX may not be the best possible way that could emerge for addressing the harmful effects of the chlorine bleaching process. But it's the one that we're using right now.
I want to remind the hon. member that after announcing our standards, I received a phone call from the Hon. Jean Charest, federal Minister of the Environment, congratulating me for having taken such a stand. The other thing is that our officials, as part of the ongoing process of meeting with federal officials on this very issue, will be meeting again on June 8. They will be discussing dioxins, furans and AOX, among other things, at that time.
W. Hurd: Exploring that question of AOX guidelines, in the consultations that would have occurred with the 17 pulp mills that are currently using chlorine in the bleaching process, can the minister advise us as to what figure he was given for the costs and types of equipment that would be necessary and the types of process changes that would be necessary in these mills to meet the revised AOX standards that his ministry announced earlier this year?
[12:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: That is the purpose of the consultation process that we have designed to enable the evaluating of the procedures that would be needed for each of those 17 mills and to factor in the costs. That's why we have designed a process involving stakeholders, including environmentalists, so that that very issue can be addressed.
W. Hurd: Am I correct in assuming then that no figure was given to the ministry in terms of the costs of meeting the new guidelines?
Hon. J. Cashore: The ballpark that we've been able to get from discussions with the industry is that to achieve the 1.5, it's about $1.2 billion. Much of that work, of course, as I understand it, is already underway. With regard to achieving zero by the year 2002, again we're looking at a fairly long time-line where a lot of work will have to be done in order to be able to come forward with the cost factors. What we have to ask ourselves, hon. members, is: is it the role of government to be putting forward the kind of standards that are going to ensure a viable future for our children?
[ Page 1942 ]
W. Hurd: With respect to the $1.2 billion figure, was that communicated to the minister that it would have to be spent by 1995? Is that a figure that his ministry accepts as being accurate for process improvements and changes in British Columbia's pulp mills? I note that, if I'm correct, under the terms of the original announcement these companies were to bring forward detailed plans for how they were going to reach these AOX levels by 1995. In those plans, which I assume are coming forward even as we speak, are we safe in assuming that the $1.2 billion that will have to be spent is an accurate figure?
Hon. J. Cashore: That figure of $1.2 billion is as accurate as we can establish right now in consultation with the industry, which has been extremely cooperative and forthcoming with their information. It deals with work that started in 1988 and is reflective of the standards announced at that time reaching for 2.5. We're looking at that figure. It is a bit of a ballpark figure, because a lot of fine-tuning has to be done. Much of this work is currently underway. In the case of Port Mellon, we've reached a stage that has shown tremendous improvement. But really we're looking at the costs between 1988 and 1995 in order to achieve that goal of 1.5 by the year 1995.
W. Hurd: Just again on the issue of pulp mill pollution. I'm sure the minister in his many meetings around the province has met with concerned environmental groups in pulp mill communities. I'm sure that he would have heard a number of environmental concerns expressed about the operation of pulp mills. Specifically the issues of odour and air quality seem to come up very frequently in the course of discussions, particularly for people in pulp mill communities experiencing respiratory problems and other problems that they are concerned might be caused by some air emissions. Is the minister at all concerned that by requiring this industry to spend $1.2 billion by 1995 on one pulp mill process, we might be robbing the companies and the communities of the ability to address the air and odour emission problems that they have certainly communicated to the opposition are serious environmental concerns? Given the state of the pulp and paper industry at the moment, where does the minister feel these additional revenues beyond the $1.2 billion are going to come from to address these air and odor problems?
Hon. J. Cashore: Let's just remember, as a very basic item, that the pulp industry, which I think is doing a good job of coming on board with a cooperative sustainable development approach, has done very well over the years through its access to the forest resource of British Columbia. I believe that has produced a very healthy and viable industry which has created many jobs. I think that the shareholders in that industry, if you take it over the long term and recognize that there is a cyclical nature to it, have done very well.
That industry has been very cooperative in recent years in the area of dealing with odours, and they have committed $800 million over and above the $1.2 billion to addressing this issue. Indeed, work is ongoing on that issue, and those mills that are good corporate citizens recognize the importance of resolving that issue, because they're concerned about the quality of life in those communities. They're concerned about the impacts on people who are in Howe Sound for recreation and other reasons and downwind of other pulp mills in the province. So that issue is very important alongside other issues that we've identified.
W. Hurd: A question to the minister again on the pulp mill guidelines: has the minister received any information from the industry that would lead him to be concerned that in view of this $1.2 billion expenditure that is being mandated by legislation...? Is he concerned, given the economy and the state of the industry, that mills may be put in a situation of choosing to meet the legislated requirements of AOX and having to sacrifice capital programs in the odour and air emission area which they are not required by legislation to spend money on? Is he concerned that a trade-off might have to occur in which AOX diverts resources from the areas of emission and odour control, which at this point I believe are not the subject of new legislation by this government?
Hon. J. Cashore: I would point out that I'd be willing to take the hon. member to lunch if he can prove that any major retrofit that's taken place in the forest industry mills and pulp mills in the last 20 years has not had a concomitant benefit to that industry -- with regard to improved environmental procedures, but more importantly from their point of view, with regard to greater efficiency and, in many instances, reduction of jobs because of those efficiencies, and also increased capacity.
Let's remember, when the business people who are doing their job in the boardrooms are going about making decisions that would result in the paying of further costs, they are also doing so with a view to increasing efficiency and profitability. I would predict that you will see that as a result of these measures.
W. Hurd: The hon. minister makes a compelling case for improving the level of research even further with a free lunch as a possible payoff.
Returning to this issue of air and odour emissions from pulp mills, can the minister describe whether in his current year of estimates he intends to devote further resources to identifying some of the issues in pulp mill communities with respect to air and odour emissions? Does he agree that this is an area that needs further research and study by his ministry? Is he going to pressure the federal government to possibly step up its role in assessing odour and air quality matters?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we are planning to put in more independent monitors so we can get more data from the mills. We're also planning, through the laboratory process, to have more data made available in that way.
I'd also like to point out, with regard to the cost factors that the member is concerned about, that the
[ Page 1943 ]
initiative of this government is that the corporation capital tax amendment to the budget legislation this year exempted capital purchases for pollution prevention purposes for two years, so let's remember that that's part of the mix.
With that, I'd like to move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:42 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada